Slashdot Mirror
Variety Says Class Action May Stop RIAA Suits
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Variety reports that Andersen v. Atlantic, the class action which has been brought against the RIAA in Oregon may 'ultimately force the organization to drop or dramatically change the way it uses its principal weapon in the fight against online piracy"'. The RIAA responded to Variety saying that 'We are confident that (Andersen's) claims have no merit....We look forward to presenting our arguments in the next few weeks to the court about why this case should be dismissed. In all our cases, we seek to follow the facts and be fair and reasonable in resolving pending claims.' p2pnet opines that Hollywood's interest in the suit bodes ill for the RIAA."
A $15 CD is 3 hours of minimum wage work. Most of the people who do that work are high school and college students, an audience that spends nearly $200B of disposable cash according to marketing estimates thrown out in some of the magazines I've seen. Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money? It's not like we're hurting for options on how to get it cheaper than a typical overpriced local store.
When it comes down to other IP rights, why should those be sacred? It doesn't bother me at all when the latest GPL violation is posted on Slashdot. In fact, I say that the rights of developers working under the GPL should be totally ignored as long as we're going to cheer on people who are getting sued for downloading music they didn't buy. Both are copyright violations, and neither is more sacred than the other.
With the RIAA in the back pocket of judges (campaign contributions, anyone?), Anderson v. Atlantic is unlikely to make any changes in the way things are done. Sadly, the soapbox and ballot box are no longer effective, and it just might take nothing short of an all-out revolution to change the sad state of affairs in the world. Either that or the Apocalypse, one of the two...
The issue is not that guilty people get sued. The issue is that the way the RIAA gets evidence is immoral and probably illegal (invading people#s computers, entrapment etc.) then of course the fact that many people get sued for copyright breach that never happened. And finally, the fact that they aren't sueing someone who stole one mp3 for $1, they're suing for hundreds of times the value of the mp3. There are more reasons than that, but the fact is we side against the RIAA not because of what it does, but rather how and to some extend why, they do it.
Walk with Music;
Think about it -- because many of these suits have a high number of defendants based on digitally obtained lists that may or may not be accurate based on the tool used to auto-generate the list. I can just about guarantee that another program took their lists and auto-generated many of the filings. [because I don't see the RIAA hiring masses of para-legal qualified folks to type up their legal filings....]. So at the minimum there is a
- software list "maker" generating a list connected to
- a software file-creator for that fills up the postal or other mail services for
- the purposes of ostensibly extorting legal settlements,
- and yet another set of programs filling up the legal system with cases based on program talking to program talking to program.
Anybody else have a problem with corporate law being conducted like that? To my way of thinking every filing should have to be done without the intervention of a software list generator, wouldn't you think? That way a corporation must risk the cost of the data entry and hand operations to generate their filings, just like the rest of us would. Seems fair enough, doesn't it?...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
No you do not! You demand outrageously overinflated damages and target people with all the accuracy of a drunk stumbling out of a bar. Most importantly, you are extorting money from people who have never used p2p file sharing and violated NONE of your copyrights. You then proceed to rely on scare tactics realizing most of these lawsuits will be settled out of court because the prospect of going toe to toe with a major corporation in the court room is downright terrifying and can financially ruin an individual of far lesser means than you.
You have every right to protect your member organizations' copyrights via the court system. You *do not* have the right to pick people at random, bring financial ruin down on them, and harras them and their families.
I don't have a huge amount of faith in the court systems these days, but you really need to lose. And badly. I'm not talking about $5.00 coupon-for-a-CD settlements. I'd really like to see a judgement so harsh that some of your member organizations are driven to bankruptcy. After all, it's what you've been using the courts to do to people these past few years. Turnabout's fair play.
When it comes down to other IP rights, why should those be sacred? It doesn't bother me at all when the latest GPL violation is posted on Slashdot. In fact, I say that the rights of developers working under the GPL should be totally ignored as long as we're going to cheer on people who are getting sued for downloading music they didn't buy. Both are copyright violations, and neither is more sacred than the other. The issue isn't the actual right of authors to control distribution of their work. The problem is the shady practices and dodgy logic that the RIAA uses to press their suits. I fully support the right of a artist/author/creator to control the distribution of their work and profit directly or indirectly for their efforts. However we protest that IP = undeniably unique identifier, That use of any means to gather information is fair, that intimidation and harassment or misrepresentation to obtain information are legitimate tactics. They simply are not. The RIAA have bought the courts, they aught not be allowed to behave in such a manner.
We also do not agree that simply making a copy of works we own physical media to are in fact copy right infringements. Even more organizations like the Sound Exchange or acts like the Canadian media levy where a agencies is granted rights to collect monies for artists but in turn do not turn it over to the artists is unethical. If my unsigned band allows Digital imports to distribute our works via streaming radio the SoundExchange has no rights to charge any fee for this.
We protest these not the right to steal music, but the ethics and actions of the various agencies representing DISTRIBUTORS. As the members of the RIAA are not artists themselves but the distributing agent (Sony, EMI, Virgin etc..).
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Slimy reason: The software copyright thefts Slashdoters attack are done by larger corporations (i.e. "the bad guys"). The Music copyright thefts are done by individuals.
Honorable reason: Creators of Software art tend to actually get reasonable contracts. They are designed to pay a fair percentage, based on the value of their work. As a result there is a clear bellcurve effect with a a huge number of people making a living wage, and a small number of hobbyists making almost nothing, along witha small number of superstars making way too much.
But creators of Musical/video art are NOT given reasonable contracts. Instead they get sucked into a system designed to leach off their genius, and only pay them a fair price if they become a HUGE mass market success. This means that musicians, actors, etc. either "make it" and earn millions, or "fail" and can not earn a living doing what they love.
In other words, when you steal software, you are actually affecting the artists yearly pay by a measureable amount.
When you steal music/video, you are NOT affecting his yearly pay by a measureable amount (he/she is either way over payed or way underpaid), instead you are affecting the giant LEACH on him sucking out most of his pay that is also stifling the non-star talent, preventing them from earning a reasonable middle class salary making music and other art.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Wow, your comments show a huge lack of understanding of this issue. Just to clarify, the issue here is not copyright violations, it is about how the RIAA has been conducting itself for years now. This class action has nothing to do with cheering on copyright violation, it's about putting an end to the RIAA's illegal and borderline illegal abuse of the American courts. Copyright abuse is a two-way street and by all accounts the RIAA has acted as improperly as any copyright violator.
- If people decide to just stop buying the good, than the market completely collapses. No demand and no buyers means that all of the providers go out of business.
- However, if people decide that they need the good, then a second market will appear, providing lower prices and filling demand. The first market's providers get choked out from the undercuts, and die unless they stop fixing prices.
So, what we have in this case is a second market. It is a black market, a market that is not legally sanctioned. The cost of goods on this market is effectively zero, making it a free good. The RIAA can't possibly undercut or fairly compete with a free good like pirated music, so instead they resort to these lawsuits to try and scare people away from the black market. Does it work? Not really.So, what should the RIAA do? They should stop fixing prices and let the market sort itself out. There are two types of participants in the black market: People who want the good, but don't want to pay for it; and people who would pay for the good if it were a bit less expensive. The former will never leave the black market, but the RIAA could court the latter if they would only stop fixing their goddamn prices.
That's the economics of it, anyway.
~ C.
The Bush admin is considering a $15 tax on orgasms. Why is it too much to ask if you enjoyed the experience, you pay the money?
The reason why I support the abolishment of copyright, support and actively participate in filesharing, but I am against gpl violations is because I couldn't give a fuck about copyrights, all I care about is having an open information age, with the most freedoms guaranteed for creativity and for doing what drives our society forward: incremental progress.
Therefor, violating copyright when it restricts freedom == GOOD.
violating copyright when it is a tool to forbid restriction of freedoms == BAD.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
you'll understand this issue when you realize that music is not an "Entertainment Option" it's a "Cultural/Spiritual Nescessity" and that most folks around here that want to stick it to the man aren't actually sooo desperate to get their hands on the latest crap; they are merely (merely?! maybe very!!) excited that, unexpectedly, joyously, there is now a way that future generations of americans (think of the children!) have a way to enjoy their cultural norms without fat business fucks acting like they are the priesthood of a new information age chapel.
In other words, most people are far more excited to see the monopoly/monoculture fall then we ever were with what is actually being shared/downloaded. We came *this* close to being sucker punched for *generations* by DRM. And it still might happen if you don't do your part.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
Funny thing is, back in the day's of the original Napster, I purchased a lot more music. Someone could tell me about a group, and instead of saying "they might be good, but it's not worth $15 to find out," I could check them out before buying.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
This is just Collateral damage. It sucks, but in the real world people only respond to severe efforts.
So, in other words, the ends justify the means?
I disagree. One of the central principles behind our system of justice is that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden is on the RIAA to collect sufficient evidence in a legal fashion to show that I was sharing copyrighted material. It is not my responsibility to show that my computer is free of unauthorized content.
I don't agree with or like their methods, but they are working.
If their methods are working so well, then why has file sharing traffic, as a proportion of total internet traffic gone up consistently since the shutdown of the original Napster?
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
me too, but the sad fact is that honor systems never work. The vast majority of people got everything they could possible download and gave away copies to anyone who wanted it.
I even saw a guy post on a previous article that it was alright to copy (and listen to) an album because he would never buy it, so the artist/company didn't lose any money on it. The fact is that if buying were the only option, he might well have bought it. He has no way of knowing if he would have bought it, because he can rationalize to himself that it is ok to get a free copy.
Well, here's a very simple argument pro-file sharing. It creates wealth.
With modern technology copying and distribution are essentially free, and the cost of piracy is a nebulous 'lost sales' figure. Obviously there is some number of lost sales when things are pirated. Equally obvious, not every pirated copy is a lost sale. Everyone who pirates benefits, either by not paying or by getting something they otherwise wouldn't. If the piracy benefit is greater than the piracy cost, it's a net benefit to society. I'd argue that there are many, many times more pirated copies than lost sales and thus wealth is being created out of thin air.
Person A spends $100, gets a few games/cds/books
Person B spends $100, gets hundreds of games/cds/books
Anti file sharing arguments tend to assert that person B is destroying wealth by pirating when in fact he is creating wealth. Contrary to anti piracy arguments, he would not have spent tens of thousands of dollars in the absence of piracy, he would have consumed a greatly lesser amount of media at no benefit to anyone. Even if you argue he may have spent $200 in the absence of piracy, this comes at the cost of 95% of his media consumption.
Sharing information creates wealth, it always has, and with modern technology media is just information. The artificial concept of IP needs to be reinvented in light of the modern world - there's just no way to monetize things with are freely reproducible and that's a great thing because it creates wealth.
You would honestly equate a company stealing a programmers work to make a profit and grandma letting her grandkids use her computer and then getting the shit sued out of her when they download music?
1. Company KNOWS it is illegal and is intentionally violating the law. Frequently does any number of actions to hide the fact they are stealing code, which further acknowledges that they are breaking the law. When legal issues do come out of this it usually boils down to "you hafta give the code away!"
2. Dumb kid with kazaa more often than not doesn't even know the files are being shared, he went to a website that said "download music!" and assumed it was legal. When legal action comes here its you must pay us thousands of dollars for tens of dollars in "stolen" music and thousands more in legal fees.
Sure there are asshats that just assume they won't get caught, but look at who they are sueing and what they are doing. This is not even REMOTELY the same thing. If you notice most people don't cheer on the downloaders, in fact, most that I have seen agree they should be busted and fined A FAIR AMMOUNT. The RIAA nonsense is not about fairness, it is not about justice, it is about fear, intimidation, price fixing, racketeering, AND THEFT. Because we can go all day back and forth about the "theft" of IP, but I will tell you point fucking blank that when that organization collects royalties on music that they don't own the copyright for...THAT IS THEFT.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
The black market actually offers a superior product right now, ignoring price.
I could probably think of a few more, but the DRM is a big one. Basically, I might buy or rent DVDs, but I pirate HD stuff, because there's nothing to rent that has the DRM sufficiently cracked.
I also think that surely Hollywood and the RIAA have enough money to provide an even better experience than pirated stuff, but so far, they refuse to do it. Instead, they'd rather sue people.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"Yes, and before you give him the copy, it's also impossible to know if he would ever have bought it."
:) I fix computers, networks, etc., for people, and I get paid fairly well to do so.
:)
:)
:)
Sure, but the point is moot afterward.
"The numbers they quote are based on the assumption that every single download corresponds to a lost sale"
But, they are correct: Every single illegal download corresponds directly to lost revenue for the copyright holder, whoever that may be - whether or not the person that did so *would* have purchased it beforehand doesn't matter any longer, since they now have the benefit of it after having done so without having paid the copyright holder for it, thus depriving the copyright holder of the remuneration to which they are entitled.
The fact that the person might never have bought it anyway doesn't enter into it at all, so far as I can see, not after the fact.
Now, lest I get modbombed into the nether regions for having said all of the previous, let me state my personal stance on this:
I don't believe in copyright infringement for my own personal gain/entertainment: If I want something, I buy it under the terms offered. If I can't afford it, then I wait until I can, or, if I don't think that it is worth it, I give up on it, and look elsewhere for something else - there's no shortage of "stuff" by which to be entertained, after all.
Now, *why* I do this: I'm a competent computer technician, more or less
However, I have next to *no* artistic talent, in general. I enjoy music, movies, books, etc., and appreciate and admire the skill, knowledge, talent, intelligence and effort that must go into their creation, all the more because I cannot do so myself.
If I were to obtain that illegally, I'd be cheating those that can, and I equate it to someone refusing to pay me for a service call on their computer, after I fixed it, when they themselves could not do so: It's unfair, and wrong.
But, that's just me
The 'net has made many things possible which were not before. With regards to copyrighted works, it has created much conflict, and that conflict is all about money, as most things are when dealing with things of value, because money is the way (for better or worse), that such is measured.
I'd say that it will all work out in time, and it *will*, only I understand something that hampers that, being someone that "grew up" (as much as I ever did so) with the growth of the Internet, and the technology that it encompasses: Time is different on the Internet. Internet time is fast-paced, almost frenetic, while "real life" passes at almost glacial speeds by comparison, especially to those that have grown up with access to it, and are used to its pace.
Those that are not, for whatever reason, resist it: It's a natural reaction, I think, though it frustrates and angers those that don't understand it.
I was going to go on and finish this, tie up the loose ends, etc., but, I don't have the time *grin* - I want to go, play my favorite MMORPG for awhile, as *my* time is what matters most to me, always, both here and in the real world
Maybe later
Regards,
dj