Slashdot Mirror
Motley Fool Says RIAA Hitting a Brick Wall
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Motley Fool business site says that the RIAA's litigation campaign is in the end game. Monday it reported that 'the music industry's lawsuit crusade against defenseless college students and housewives appears to have hit the skids,' predicting that the RIAA's tactics are 'all about to change.' Today the Fool confirms that 'the change is happening in Internet time, which is somewhere between "instantly" and "yesterday,"' noting that the RIAA's abandonment of its 'making available' theory shows that the end is near. And this is before the RIAA faces its first jury trial, set to begin Oct. 2 in Duluth."
Why did the RIAA target people who could defend themselves? i.e. the inocent.
Couldn't they have found a few people who were guilty, guilty, guilty and taken them all the way, and nailed them to a tree? Wouldn't it have been a better strategy to just drop any suit if the defendent was in the least bit sympathetic?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Scare tactic.
The idea is "If they will sue a grandmother without a computer AND is blind... what the hell would they do to ME??"
While the change (or absence) of the RIAA's boilerplate argument is certainly notable, I'd suggest that a far more weighty indication of their losing position is Amazon's new DRM-free music service. The pace of the publishers' relatively tentative movement into DRM-free distribution (i.e. one in which the customer is shown a reasonable amount of trust and respect) seems to stem from a strange combination of lingering distrust and a desire to save face on the part of the record execs. Hopefully we'll see a rather more enthusiastic embracing of DRM-free digital distribution as time goes on.
That said, many thanks to the folks who have been fighting the good fight against the RIAA and their attack dogs. There's no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't been seeing Amazonmp3 or iTunes Plus without their efforts.
cheers.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
the RIAA still has some wind left in it's sails, but it's certainly winding down.
The Jury trial next week is going to be another of those fun trips through surreal litigation land, I bet. I expect a lot of time spent on who actually owns the copyrights to the songs (which, Although I haven't read any reference to it yet, means the RIAA lawyers will have to identify the the song, AND but the actual copyright holder for the specific recording or performance itself. That should layer a new level of complexity.. Imagine the RIAA identifying some tune that is covered by a few bands:
first; prove it was an audio file and was copyrighted material.
Next; Identify the specific performance, because copyright extends to the artist performing, not just the composer/writer.
Then; you get to establish chain of copyright ownership through the various library transfers and company mergers through the years.
Finally; convince a jury that all the things you assert along those items are true.
I point this out, because I see a lot of evidence concerning screen shots, and such, but don't actually see where actuall files are used as evidence, only lists of files and logs. I'm sure, since forensics on Hard drives have occured, that there have been instances of found files that are identified... But that seems pretty rare.
I'm still trying to decide if I am hoping that the chain of ownership is broken or not. If it's broken, there is a precedent for dismissal of a lot of cases, and additional reasons to demand a jury trial that it seems unlikely the RIAA can win (whether the defendant is actually guilty or not). On the other hand, if they can establish copyright ownership, then there is a case for misuse of copyright. My understanding is that "misuse or copyright" voids the copyright. This is all pure speculation, of course, but it doesn't seem like it would take more than one case where copyrights were removed to halt virtually every case out there, since such a judgment would quite literally turn the industry on it's ear overnight.
I believe that the industry is going to (has, though some companys don't seem to understand that yet) change. I supposed, in a twisted way, we should thank the RIAA, ultimately, their actions have changed the landscape faster than it would have otherwise, I think.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's a really interesting point. I wonder if we'll be talking about this era of record company business in fifty years the same way people say that the alcohol prohibition era in the U.S. gave organized crime its first big growth.
I'm one of them. Politically, I lean to the right on most issues. On copyright-related issues, my views have become left-wing, even though my views have not essentially changed in the last fifteen years. But certain corporations, backed by pro-business and pro-IP Republicans and Democrats, have decided that they own you once you buy one of their products. Oh yes, and they own what they own forever. How else can you respond to this but by opposition?
I've moved to downloading from Magnatune and recently Amazon's DRM-free mp3's because I do not enjoy breaking the law (sad as it may be at time) and because I want the artists to receive royalties. But every so often the temptation rises to download a movie that's not even for sale. I'd love to hear a cogent explanation as to why this ought to be a crime -- I want to hear the moral basis for the argument that I am causing a loss of revenue when no revenue stream exists.
The Motley Fool ought to help reach the business people who actually want to make a profit rather than attack their customer base. It's time for a world where, with just a few mouse clicks, you download a movie from Tri-Star, a commentary from Roger Ebert, and cover art by some guy named 2Cool who lives in northern Finland, mix them together, and voila... a custom, legal, remixed DVD.
I don't see any evidence that people inherently understand and want to respect copyrights. To a certain extent, copyright law is generally out of step with what most people feel is right, i.e. most people feel they have the right, or at least should have the right, to copy their music and share it with their friends. This has only become an issue when technology gave people the power to share their music with millions of online friends. Copyright laws have only been tolerated in the past because the routine petty infringements were ignored.
A funny thing. When napster first came out, I downloaded a bunch of songs, which got me excited about music in general and several bands in particular. In the year before napster got shut down, I probably bought a dozen CDs. Then for quite a while I lost interest in music, or just played the music I had. Then I got broadband and an iPod and discovered eMule, and ended up buying another dozen or so CDs after a few years of not setting foot in a record store. The the RIAA started cracking down, and well, I just sort of lost interest in music again.
What a bunch of morons.
I always thought the "making available" claim was dubious at best. If I'm reading a book in a restaurant and I leave it there by mistake I can be sued by it's author because I've made the content available for someone to copy? That's absurd. That example is a vast oversimplification of the issue at hand but that's essentially what the RIAA was arguing and it's laughable.
Copyright is exactly that, your right (or lake thereof) to make a copy of something. Making something available to be copied is not the same thing as actually making a copy. There's a very important and practical line there. If you were guilty of copyright infringement every time you made something available to be copied you'd better carry every book or copyrighted piece of paper with you at all times or you'd be infringing copyright by making that document available for someone else to copy when it's not in your immediate possession. You better not go to sleep either. You're evil college aged brother or sister might steal said book or document it and copy it while you sleep.
You can argue all day long about the person's intent when they have music files on a P2P network but the intent to make something available for copying doesn't (yet) factor into the laws governing copyright infringement as many courts are interpreting them. The real question is how long will our laws stay that way? It's only a matter of time before intent becomes a crime. I bet the RIAA lawyer goons have already written the text of laws that factor in intent and are just waiting for a Senator and Congressman who owe them and have the ability to sneak it into the next copyright or patent "reform" act intended to "update" our laws so they "keep pace with the rapidly changing technological landscape" while "protecting" the rights of artists. That's always the kind of language used when politicians (corporations) want to further erode consumer rights.
Your first point is also your strongest: The copy offers higher value than the original. That's actually the cardinal sin they make.
Usually, when you buy an original product instead of the fake, you have some benefits. You have bought higher quality. Well, at least it's likely that you did. You get support, you get the option for replacements if it breaks, the manufacturer might even throw a few more service goodies at you, you get access to further options for free or little money, in general, there's an additional value in it for you, the valued customer of the original part instead of some knockoff.
With content it's exactly reversed. You do not get "more" for buying the original, you get less. You get limitations due to DRM, you get mandatory previews and FBI warnings on movies, you have to keep the CD in the drive with games and with some software it gets really bizarre with dongles (which invariably will break something else), or copy protection drivers that cripple your machine in a way or another.
The actual problem with any kind of copy protection is that it devaluates the product, compared to the illegal copy. The value of the copy is higher. I know people who do buy the game, then get the rip to play it.
I wonder how long they will keep up buying it. That step does not give them anything tangible, actually...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Am I the only one who ever thought that maybe Han did mean it as a unit of length. If the Falcon travels at relativistic speeds, then the length contraction might squeeze the distance down to less than 12 parsecs.
And that doesn't even take into account the 'official' explanation of the Kessel Run cutting through a black hole field, thus necessitating a powerfully fast ship to cut as many gravitational "corners" as possible ...