FSF Reaches Out to RIAA Victims

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what has been termed the ''RIAA's worst nightmare', the Free Software Foundation has announced that it is coming to the aid of the victims of RIAA lawsuits, by establishing an Expert Witness Defense Fund to assist defendants in RIAA cases. The purpose of the fund is 'to help provide computer expert witnesses to combat RIAA's ongoing lawsuits, and to defend against the RIAA's attempt to redefine copyright law.' The funds will be used to pay fees and/or expenses of technical expert witnesses, forensic examiners, and other technical consultants assisting individuals named as defendants in non-commercial, peer-to-peer file sharing cases brought by the RIAA, EMI, SONY BMG, Vivendi Universal, and Warner Bros. Records, and their affiliated companies, such as Interscope, Arista, UMG, Fonovisa, Motown, Atlantic, Priority, and others."

Comments

Too late

[cthulu_mt]

I like the FSF but where were they with this a few months ago.

Re:Too late

[PhxBlue]

I'll bet they were waiting for enough money from contributors to make this happen.

Re:Too late

[DeepZenPill]

Yeah, a year ago would've been nice.

Re:Too late

[Kingrames]

Who cares? we win! now let's round em up and sue the crap out of them, guilty or not!

(joke)

Re:Too late

[Kgosi Makwati]

Better late than never!!!

Re:Too late

[Xman73x]

Amen To FSF..The R.I.A.A is Accult Satanic group I wouldn't doubt lol

Re:Too late

[orasio]

Better latte than ever??
Umm I need to taste that...

Re:Too late

[stry_cat]

Exactly. This is a day late and a dollar short. :(

And what about?

[jackharrer]

Lawyers. Who's going to pay for them? Cost of technical examiners is nothing comparing to what they charge.
Do it as in Europe - losing side pays for everything, and they will stop pretty quick.

Re:And what about?

[psychicsword]

Do it as in Europe - losing side pays for everything, and they will stop pretty quick. I agree that is what they should do but only if they defendant only pays the original asking amount and the lawyer fees for the RIAA comes from the winnings. Because they are being back by corporations and the average Joe is not. I know it isn't perfectly fair for the RIAA but hacking most of their practices aren't fair.

Re:And what about?

[swb311]

The losing parties liability for court costs is one idea we could definitely learn from here in the US.

Re:And what about?

[ricebowl]

Hmm, that sounds great in theory. The problem comes when the better-represented party, rather than the party in the right, wins. Not that I disagree that an organisation pursuing frivolous lawsuits should foot the cost of those lawsuits when they're found wanting for whatever reason, but neither system is perfect.

On the other hand the only trial of multinational-vs-regular folks I could think of, outside the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI etc sphere, was the 'McLibel' case. In which the defendants won. Despite the litigious might of McDonalds. So I might've shot myself in the foot...oops.

Re:And what about?

[jedidiah]

You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

Expert witnesses bill out at a kilobuck per hour.

Your own experts are not cheap by any metric.

Even if you get your lawyers to work for free, your experts won't.

Re:And what about?

[hedwards]

I agree with the sentiment, but what happens in Europe when the losing side was the side that was correct? Does it actually cut down on bad law suits, or does it encourage a larger spending in the hopes of winning the case anyway?

How would one of those being sued in this case come up with the money if they lost? Being innocent of the charges isn't always enough to ensure that one wins the case. All that would do in these cases would be to encourage the RIAA to pay more and represent a larger incentive to settle out of court.

When it comes to the cost of lawyers, often times people with a strong case can gain an attorney on a contingency basis, meaning that they lawyer takes a larger slice of the award in exchange for potentially working for free if they lose the case.

Other times an attorney will do the work pro bono publico, although the practice can at times be shady, as sometimes the attorney will seek an award in addition to what the complainant is asking for anyways.

What I would like to see is for the court expenses be limited to what the less wealthy side can afford, and if the wealthier side wants to spend more, require them to cover the difference whether they win or lose. With the Judge in the case ruling whether the sums of money involved are reasonable.

Re:And what about?

[UbuntuDupe]

Hm, how much does it cost to get someone to say:

"Yes, the evidence establishes that the defendant's IP address was used to download a Britney Spears album on a P2P network. However, it still allows for the possibility that the *person* who downloaded it was a catburglar who snuck in at night without the defendant knowing, downloaded the files, and left. Therefore, IP logs should have no probative value in computer crime cases."

Re:And what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers. Who's going to pay for them? Cost of technical examiners is nothing comparing to what they charge.
Do it as in Europe - losing side pays for everything, and they will stop pretty quick.

And to prevent/penalize the David versus Goliath syndrome (big money against little person) I would also add the you are liable up to what you spend in the suit. So if the RIAA spends $1,000,000 dogging you and you spend $40,000 defending yourself. Then if they loose they pay $1,000,000. If you lose fighting them, you pay an additional $40,000. Yep, lets raise the stakes.

Re:And what about?

[SterlingSylver]

Ah, the "a mysterious stranger snuck in and did what you say I did that that the evidence said was done as I would do it but you can't prove it was me what did it." It worked so well for OJ in civil court...

Re:And what about?

[Unlikely_Hero]

I'd like to take this a step further.
Losing side pays for everything and owes the defendant the amount initially requested by plaintiff.
You want to sue for excessive and crazy amounts? You lose you pay the same.

Re:And what about?

[Splab]

Frivolous lawsuits are not happening here. There was a brief time where we had (in Denmark) something like RIAA trying to extort people, but quickly people decided to fight back and I haven't heard of any new tries at this (one case made it all the way to court and the defendant won that afair).

Re:And what about?

[garett_spencley]

What I would like to see is for the court expenses be limited to what the less wealthy side can afford, and if the wealthier side wants to spend more, require them to cover the difference whether they win or lose.

So when a single mother of 4 who works double shifts at walmart and can barely make ends meet gets sued by the RIAA the court costs become $0 ?

Sounds like a great way to screw the lawyers (and the RIAA).

Where do I sign up ?

Re:And what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DNS don't fit you must acquit!

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

The losing parties liability for court costs is one idea we could definitely learn from here in the US.

Yes, because when Grandma needs to seek justice against some large corporation that wronged her, she should definitely have to worry about paying their legal fees if she loses.

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

Sounds like a great way to screw the lawyers

Ya know, my karma will probably get beat all to hell for this, but not all lawyers are bad.

Get charged with a crime you didn't commit and then tell me how you feel about defense attorneys. Get injured by someone whose insurance company refuses to pay for your treatment and tell me how you feel about them.

Do you have a negative opinion of the lawyers working for the FSF? How about the ACLU lawyers fighting for your civil liberties? How about this guy or this guy, both of whom were lawyers.

Lawyers represent their clients. You'd be doing better to direct your anger at the RIAA for the lawsuits and not their lawyers.

Re:And what about?

[TheRaven64]

Easy to fix. The loser pays the winner the loser's legal fees. If you only spend a small amount then your risk is small. If Grandma sues MegaCorp with a single lawyer and looses then it only costs her twice whatever her lawyer charges. If MegaCorp loses then Grandma gets all of her fees paid as well as whatever damages are awarded.

Re:And what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhhh...... clue pill: in a copyright civil suit, the prevailing party *does* recover his/her attorney fees and other costs of litigation from the loser.

And many lawyers will take the case on contingency, thus taking a risk that they won't win. Experts can't do that... it is considered illegal fee-splitting because they are not attorneys. So even if you have an attorney who takes the case risking he may not get paid if you lose, an expert can't do that. You have to pay experts up front, hence the need for the project.

Re:And what about?

[TheRaven64]

Getting someone to say it costs very little. Getting someone with the right credentials, who is capable of withstanding cross-examination, to say it costs a fair bit more. You need someone assertive enough not to be bullied by either barrister who not only knows the material well (and has qualifications to back that up), but can present it in a way that is understandable by a dozen idiots (or ignorant but intelligent members of the general public if you are incredibly lucky).

Re:And what about?

[Toonol]

That's pretty much what I've been advocating. "Loser Pays", with the variant that the loser must pay the winner's legal fees up to the amount equal to the minimum of the two side's spending.

Rich corp spends $50,000 suing poor single mom, who spends $1,000 defending herself. They win, she pays $1,000 of their expenses. They lose, they pay $1,000 of the mom's expenses.

Two Rich cops sue each other: They each spend $1,000,000. Loser pays full amount.

I think this would have the effect of making penalties fairer, and provide incentive to both sides to keep legal costs in check. I like loser pays, but if unchecked, it could serve as a tool of intimidation for wealthy companies and individuals.

Re:And what about?

[ehrichweiss]

"Get charged with a crime you didn't commit and then tell me how you feel about defense attorneys."

I can, easily. They stink. Mine rolled over and started pandering to the prosecution until I finally was tired of hearing his whiny ass tell me that my defense would do no good; after 2 months *MY* motions to dismiss, etc. had caused the prosecution to approach me with a plea bargain that was less than 1% of what I had been charged with initially. I imagine I'd still be in prison if I'd bothered to listen to the little yellow-bellied fucker who couldn't get it down to 10% of the original charge. And to beat all, I was innocent.

Re:And what about?

[evanbd]

That's done to an extent already. Legal fee awards in cases are normally capped to "reasonable" levels. When trying to determine what is reasonable, the opposing side's legal fees are considered directly relevant. If I'm asking for 50k in legal fees, you're going to have trouble complaining that my legal fees are unreasonable when you spent 100k on the same case. This was the direct cause of the interesting legal wrangling over whether or not the RIAA's legal billings would be revealed as part of the Foster case -- she was seeking legal fees, and the RIAA was contesting her fees as too high.

I'd much prefer to see it codified in a loser-pays system as you and the GP are suggesting, though.

Re:And what about?

[ultranova]

How would one of those being sued in this case come up with the money if they lost? Being innocent of the charges isn't always enough to ensure that one wins the case. All that would do in these cases would be to encourage the RIAA to pay more and represent a larger incentive to settle out of court.

Have the state pay for everything - every last penny spent on the case. Anything else means that the citizens are not equal before law, which only serves to bring all law into contempt.

Not that that'll ever happen, because no one wants to pay for common good until it's their own head on the execution block and then it's too late.

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

I can, easily. They stink. Mine rolled over and started pandering to the prosecution until I finally was tired of hearing his whiny ass tell me that my defense would do no good

Your basing your entire opinion of a profession on your experiences with one person?

My defense attorney went to bat for me, did exactly what I said (including rejecting a plea offer that he had recommended I take) and stood by me throughout the whole process. Had I not have sought out effective consul it's anybodies guess as to what would have happened.

With his help and my own stubbornness I was able to head it off at the Grand Jury -- once they refused to indict me, the DA folded like a cheap suit and even dropped the misdemeanour charges. Guess he figured if he couldn't get 13 out of 24 to vote for true bill that he'd never be able to get 12 out of 12 to find me guilty.

Re:And what about?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The problem comes when megacorp has an army of well-paid lawyers and expert witnesses who are able to convince a judge that they are right because granny can't afford an attorney at all. Now granny gets stuck with the judgement, plus megacorp's mega-bill.

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

If Grandma sues MegaCorp with a single lawyer and looses then it only costs her twice whatever her lawyer charges.

Which is still more then many people can afford. I'm somewhat leery of doing anything that makes it harder to use the legal system. And how would your idea account for people whose lawyers take the cases on contingecy?

Perhaps what we need is some sort of public defender type system for people without the resources to defend themselves in civil court. Your idea of 'loser pays' does nothing to help the person facing the RIAA lawsuit if they don't already have the money they need to defend themselves.

Re:And what about?

[aeschenkarnos]

I agree with the sentiment, but what happens in Europe when the losing side was the side that was correct?

In theory, this isn't supposed to happen in the law. Which side "was correct" is the side the highest court declared the winner. At each level of courts, below the highest, the loser has the right to ask for appeal to a higher court, and if it reaches the highest court, what they say, goes. However, the higher court may decide that the decision of the lower court was correct and refuse the appeal, in which case, what the highest court that declared a decision says, goes.

Does it actually cut down on bad law suits

Yes, in that lawsuits which will obviously fail can only be engaged in as a time delay tactic at the expense of the delaying party, rather than as a tactic to bankrupt and therefore silence opposition as in the USA.

or does it encourage a larger spending in the hopes of winning the case anyway?

Yes, and no. Parties are well aware that, even though the loser is forced to pay the costs of the winner, the limit to this is the loser's financial capabilities. Therefore money spent beyond the other party's ability to pay may well be expected to be lost. The commonest reason to engage in such a tactic is sheer bloodymindedness; the rational reason is to prevent the establishment of a more costly precedent. If A did X to B, and B sued A for it and won, then everyone else A has done X to will be lining up to file suit. This is the case under the US system too of course, and is very much in the forefront of the RIAA's minds. This is a major reason why, despite their apparent litigousness, they are actually very reluctant to set foot in a courtroom and have a case heard to a conclusion.

On that point, this is a problem with all adversarial legal systems. A party desperate to avoid an adverse precedent can and will attempt to coerce the other party to take the case out of the system with very tempting settlements and offers of costs and cookies and ponies and whores and threats (and bullets, in a few instances). The court under adversarial systems is a neutral referee, so if the parties 'choose' to withdraw the case, the court will not (except under very rare conditions) prevent them from doing so. This leads to another interesting fact about European courts and the RIAA's sock puppets in those jurisdictions: many European nations use the "Civil Law" or inquisitorial court system, derived from Roman rather than English law, in which the court is an active participant, and the case is not ended until the court is satisfied that justice has been done. Under such a system the court is free to declare settlement offers etc invalid, force parties to continue their case until the court has sufficient information to make a decision, and can declare both sides "winners" and "losers" to the extent that the court considers just. This of course can include reimbursement of costs, professional censure of egregiously misbehaving lawyers, declarations, fines and punishments, etc etc. Don't get too excited though, while European courts are not strictly bound by precedent, they are very strictly bound by legislation (look up "separation of powers" for more on this issue). As such, the copyright lobby's tactics in Europe are based more heavily around lobbying for legislation, attempting to bribe legislators, etc, almost refraining from suing individuals.

Re:And what about?

[devjj]

Bingo. The reason the RIAA's campaign hasn't stopped in the states is that they get what they want most of the time. People cough up the money for the "settlement offer." If everyone served with such offers stood up to fight them, I doubt even the RIAA could afford the attorney's fees. You could also argue the increased burden on our courts would have resulted in the formal and permanent quashing of the use of ex parte subpoenas for this purpose.

Re:And what about?

[ZachPruckowski]

Per your own link, the judge ruled that the pair had libeled McDonalds, and they were ordered to pay a non-trivial sum. In a loser-pays system, they would be responsible for paying for legal fees.

Re:And what about?

[harvey the nerd]

The average schmoe on the street has not the time, money, guts, intelligence or interest to risk their pitiful existence on such a risky fight that they could prevail on perhaps 90% of their points and still financially sink on dropping even one point at the first court trial as in McLibel. Which might be closer to describing any RIAA victims that have a zombie machine or a neighbor's smart kid "helping" them or their kid, against an organized extortion by gigabuck corporate goons who seek to usurp, again and again, the legal system itself.

Re:And what about?

[tietokone-olmi]

This only works if both sides have similar amounts of money. You cannot hire the best lawyers unless you can afford it.

Still, it's much better in the "equals" case at cutting down on frivolous lawsuits than the US model... but would change nothing with regard to RIAA's legal attack dogs.

Re:And what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

What were the charges, if I may inquire?

Re:And what about?

[Kingrames]

"Get charged with a crime you didn't commit and then tell me how you feel about defense attorneys."

Considering that the very first thing they do is try to set up a plea bargain, you're not going to generate much sympathy here.

You forget that you're not in the portion of the population hit the hardest by the disparity of wealth. It's not fair for most people, lawyers can only help the upper middle class on up. Other scenarios are so rare they might as well be nonexistent.

Re:And what about?

[Score Whore]

The reason the RIAA's campaign hasn't stopped in the states is that they get what they want most of the time. People cough up the money for the "settlement offer." If everyone served with such offers stood up to fight them, I doubt even the RIAA could afford the attorney's fees.

I like the scare quotes on settlement offer. I mean, the vast majority of people are flat out guilty and the settlement is giving them an out relatively cheaply. If everybody they have served were to go out and hire an attorney to represent them, they'd just cut down on the rate of suits brought. And once they had developed some inertia from winning suit after suit (because they are right pretty much every time and the level of evidence is not reasonable doubt) the number of people fighting them would go way down.

Re:And what about?

[lar3ry]

I mean, the vast majority of people are flat out guilty and the settlement is giving them an out relatively cheaply.

Please cite the studies that show that this is indeed the case. I could look at the people that settled and make an assertion that is equally valid that the settlements were simply extortion fees paid by people that didn't have the money to pursue a legal case, and not necessarily an admission of guilt.

I have seen claims made by the RIAA in reports of cases that they have made that were simply untenable—that an IP address uniquely identifies an individual, that a person that sent a laptop to be repaired and had the hard drive replaced was intentionally destroying evidence, and that a computer screenshot that shows an IP address is conclusive proof that a person was sharing files (I can construct a screenshot that shows any IP address and make any claim I want by those rules of evidence).

What I have NOT seen is any evidence offered that sharing files in any way hurts the RIAA, its member companies, or even the artists, performers, or composers. How much do radio stations pay to play a single recording and make it available to millions of potential listeners? And how much per song is the RIAA demanding for people that they claim are sharing files? How long will the courts allow the RIAA and its companies to claim damages anywhere near the amounts they are currently claiming? If the damages they claim are intentionally misleading, then isn't this perjury?

The RIAA can make up any "facts" it wants to support their cases and then pull damage amounts from their asses and present them to the courts with a straight face. This is simply ridiculous, and it is my earnest hope that they finally get called on it and be made to pay the piper.

Re:And what about?

[aproposofwhat]

I think you're wrong about the 'flat out guilty', for two reasons.

Firstly, it's a civil case, so 'guilty' should really be replaced with 'liable'.

Secondly, if the recent ruling in the George Washington University case that the RIAA have to show probable cause has any merit, then it is debatable whether any real copyright infringement has actually taken place. (read the motion submitted by John Doe #3 in that case for details.)

Yeah, possibly people have been sharing for free what the RIAA members believe they have a right to be remunerated for, but whether such sharing is actually illegal is a moot point at this time.

Re:And what about?

[aproposofwhat]

OK - you have just delivered the recipe for legal hell.

Under your system, it would be effectively free for anyone to bring a case against anyone else, no matter how baseless the accusations or how flimsy the evidence.

I don't know about you, but I do know several people who (mostly because of social maladjustment) would happily spend every waking moment suing the ass of anyone who irritated them in any way, shape or form.

It'll never happen, because it's a bad idea.

Re:And what about?

[jtgd]

Do it as in Europe - losing side pays for everything, and they will stop pretty quick.

If we did that then all of the defendents would immediately settle for the $3500 and not go to court. Could you afford to pay for the RIAA's lawyers if you lost?

Re:And what about?

[totally bogus dude]

My defense attorney went to bat for me

So... you're basing your entire opinion of a profession on your experiences with one person?

Re:And what about?

[Hemogoblin]

Many common law countries have a mechanism for the losing party to pay full legal costs. It's called "costs as between solicitor and client".

Reference: Smith, Murray. "Costs of international commercial arbitration." Dispute Resolution Journal, Feb-Apr 2001.

In the United States, there is no concept of party and party costs as distinguished from solicitor and client costs. ...

In many common law countries, authority to order costs in court cases is confined to a tariff of costs absent exceptional circumstances. In litigation cases, an increase in costs is often tied to misconduct of a party. Where fraud or corruption has been alleged but not proven, an award of solicitor and client costs is common. In litigation, the usual order is for party and party costs as fixed by a tariff or scale in rules of court or in a statute. Solicitor and client costs, on the other hand, are intended to indemnify the party for reasonable legal costs incurred.

In British Columbia, a successful litigant will recover party and party costs which generally represent an indemnity of between 30% and 50% of actual fees expended. The courts will now award increased costs of approximately 50% of actual costs where there is a significant discrepancy between party and party costs and actual costs and an even higher percentage where there is misconduct.

It is still only for cases involving serious misconduct that the courts will grant solicitor and client costs, i.e., a full indemnity for actual and reasonable legal costs incurred.

In England, an award of costs in litigation is intended to more fully indemnify the successful party and approaches 70% to 80% of actual legal fees expended. The fees of the barrister may be claimed as a disbursement in the solicitor's account for legal costs, thus generating a higher rate of recovery than in Canada where counsel fees are caught by a tariff."

Re:And what about?

[Score Whore]

Firstly, it's a civil case, so 'guilty' should really be replaced with 'liable'.

Sure. If you want to be exact and pedantic and user a term of art, then I'll go with liable.

Secondly, if the recent ruling in the George Washington University case that the RIAA have to show probable cause has any merit, then it is debatable whether any real copyright infringement has actually taken place. (read the motion submitted by John Doe #3 in that case for details.)

Since you are being exact and pedantic then I must point out that there has been no ruling in the GWU case. There has been a court order which is completely different that a ruling. The motion itself is primarily about procedural issues with the RIAA attorneys filing and not about whether any copyright infringement has occurred.

Yeah, possibly people have been sharing for free what the RIAA members believe they have a right to be remunerated for, but whether such sharing is actually illegal is a moot point at this time.

First, why would you question what is undeniably illegal? Second, why would this be a moot point? The legal moves in the GWU case suggest that multiple federal laws are having unexpected interactions and not at all suggesting that copyright infringement isn't illegal.

Re:And what about?

[xant]

Two Rich cops sue each other: They each spend $1,000,000. Loser pays full amount.

Man, if you find two cops who can afford a mil each to duke it out, they're BOTH guilty of something.

Re:And what about?

[Curunir_wolf]

Ya know, my karma will probably get beat all to hell for this, but not all lawyers are bad.

How about we give your karma a boost and go find a lawyer to beat all to hell instead.

Re:And what about?

[vuffi_raa]

better would be a defendant's clause- if the defendant cannot afford to pay in equal to what the litigator is spending on counsel, discovery and review, it must be paid for by the litigator- hence if big bad company decides to bully people with false legal notices- and joe blow is broke, joe blow gets a free lawyer- if joe blow decides to sue a company, he does it on his own and the company uses it's own counsel as normal.
loser pays the winner discourages the second scenario and only hurts defendants that can be scared by having to not only pay what they are ruled, but also fees that a corporation can pay, but an individual can't. Also allows an even playing field in the courtroom where you don't end up (like I did once in a landlord dispute with a management corp) having to settle with cutting corners and not retaining a lawyer full time when you can't afford it.

Re:And what about?

[ultranova]

Under your system, it would be effectively free for anyone to bring a case against anyone else, no matter how baseless the accusations or how flimsy the evidence.

Defending yourself would also be free. Besdies, the current system doesn't prevent this; just watch the RIAA's little terror campaign.

I don't know about you, but I do know several people who (mostly because of social maladjustment) would happily spend every waking moment suing the ass of anyone who irritated them in any way, shape or form.

So make bringing completely baseless cases to the court a crime in itself.

Re:And what about?

[clickety6]

Lawyers represent their clients. You'd be doing better to direct your anger at the RIAA for the lawsuits and not their lawyers.

Isn't that the infamous "Ve vere only obeying orders" defence?

Your honour, I invoke Godwin here!

Ooops - Case closed!

Re:And what about?

[aproposofwhat]

The legal moves in the GWU case suggest that multiple federal laws are having unexpected interactions and not at all suggesting that copyright infringement isn't illegal.

It's a strange interpretation of John Doe #3's motion that reads 'none of the federal laws being invoked are applicable in the case of sharing' (which is the essence of his final claim) as 'multiple federal laws are having unexpected interactions'.

Copyright infringement for commercial gain is certainly established as illegal, but whether sharing files counts as illegal copyright infringement has not yet been firmly established.

Re:And what about?

[lena_10326]

Do it as in Europe - losing side pays for everything, and they will stop pretty quick.

Scary. That pretty much locks out "regular" people of the court system for fear of losing.

The real problem is allowing junk cases to get filed. There ought to be a higher expectation of evidence with more cases thrown out immediately on filing. Then find lawyers in contempt if later they're found to have exaggerated the evidence.

Re:And what about?

[thomasdn]

Frivolous lawsuits are not happening here. There was a brief time where we had (in Denmark) something like RIAA trying to extort people, but quickly people decided to fight back and I haven't heard of any new tries at this (one case made it all the way to court and the defendant won that afair). I also live in Denmark, and I have not noticed this fighting back that you mention. Could you please provide some references? I have also never heard of anyone who actually took APG (Danish version of RIAA/IFPI) to court and won.

Re:And what about?

[Chrisje]

> losing side was the side that was correct?

Are you implying you have no faith in the functionality of the justice system?

Re:And what about?

[fuliginous]

A great idea I saw once was to make what you have to pay if you lose a multiple of the amount you spend on your case. So when the big lot chuck $10 million at a law suit they end up paying out a minimum of say 10 times that.

I suppose you could actually get the multiple based off of the ratio between claimant and respondent's spending, plus the actually proven damages.

Re:And what about?

[tsstahl]

Mod parent up, frame it and post on the front page for eternity. Trying to codify the legal fees is a losing proposition. Why? because once codified, you can start bending the code. They even coined a term for it: loopholes. A high ethical canon, oversight, and leniency for the disadvantaged in the court room is much a better system as a whole. You can always pick individuals to stress pros and cons of any system. Bright light, not black ink is the way to ensure fairness.

Re:And what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is the case why couldn't some one mock up that the RIAA was sharing the files by showing an ip with the address of one of the RIAA members? Then use that as a defense to the accusations?

Re:And what about?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Lawyers represent their clients. You'd be doing better to direct your anger at the RIAA for the lawsuits and not their lawyers. Isn't that the infamous "Ve vere only obeying orders" defence? Actually that defense wouldn't work for lawyers, any more than it does for people on trial for crimes against humanity.

Lawyers live under a set of rules and practices which requires them to stand up to their clients when their clients' notions are wrong. The RIAA lawyers are liars. They daily sign court documents representing to the Court that their investigator "detected an individual", when their witnesses have been forced to admit under oath that he did NOT "detect an individual". Some day the lawyers themselves will be brought to task for having 'obeyed their clients' orders'.

Re:And what about?

[ehrichweiss]

Yes I am because one doesn't have to look further than the courthouse to watch minorities get fed this line:"I know you're innocent but they're going to keep you in jail until you go to trial and if you plea now they'll have you out in a week". Attorneys have a built-in need to negotiate with one another while at the same time ignoring their clients. An attorney who is defending me doesn't need to run to the prosecutor for a plea agreement before even hearing my side of the case.

Besides, since that episode I've taken to DEMANDING the right to defend myself and I haven't lost a case for so much as a speeding ticket. Amazing what you can do when you refuse to negotiate and simply tell the prosecutor that if they don't drop the charges themselves that you'll have it dismissed by the judge, which will then count against their win/loss ratio. Telling the judge that you demand a jury trial helps as well.

If attorneys were paid according to whether they successfully defended you, I might not have a problem but attorneys(and everyone else in the world) prefer to make the big bucks AND make them as fast as possible. Which do you think is faster: a plea bargain made over coffee with the prosecutor, or a jury trial lasting 2 days? So which do you think the attorney is going to lean toward? They want a high ROI(where the "return" is $$$ and the "investment" is time of course) so why would they want to do more work for you when they could pressure and lie to you for 2 minutes and make the equivalent of $6000/hr? There's no motivation for them to actually defend you.

Re:And what about?

[mpe]

The reason the RIAA's campaign hasn't stopped in the states is that they get what they want most of the time. People cough up the money for the "settlement offer."

Another factor might well be the cost of lawyers and people's reluctance/inability to defend themselves as LIPs.

Re:And what about?

[mpe]

I like the scare quotes on settlement offer. I mean, the vast majority of people are flat out guilty and the settlement is giving them an out relatively cheaply

If these cases came to court it would be up to the plaintiff to prove guilt to the court's satisfaction.

Re:And what about?

[mpe]

I have seen claims made by the RIAA in reports of cases that they have made that were simply untenable--that an IP address uniquely identifies an individual, that a person that sent a laptop to be repaired and had the hard drive replaced was intentionally destroying evidence, and that a computer screenshot that shows an IP address is conclusive proof that a person was sharing files (I can construct a screenshot that shows any IP address and make any claim I want by those rules of evidence).

Also untenable in the opinion of several judges. Effectivly they have been told "you have no case, go away".

Re:And what about?

[mpe]

There has been a court order which is completely different that a ruling. The motion itself is primarily about procedural issues with the RIAA attorneys filing and not about whether any copyright infringement has occurred.

If you (as plaintiff) can't file suit correctly then whatever you allege the defendent has done is irrelevent.
Note also that it is generally necessary to establish both that a law has been broken and that the defendent has done this. It is perfectly acceptable for a defendent to claim "no law has actually been broken"/"that law does not apply here". They are not limited to "I/We didn't do that" arguments.

Re:And what about?

[doombob]

How about the loser pays the same amount they paid their represetation to the winner's side? That seems fair without hurting small guys too much. And it would definately be a reason for bigger organizations to be aware of how much money they throw at a problem.

Re:And what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

These people that are being extorted by the media giants like the RIAA and MPAA are convinced that they are, infact, breaking the law. With all of the propaganda these companies have spread, and with many of us so used to our corrupt copyright system (not knowing of anything better), we are coaxed into feeling like criminals whenever we engague in culture without the big guys making a profit.

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

Yes I am because one doesn't have to look further than the courthouse to watch minorities get fed this line:"I know you're innocent but they're going to keep you in jail until you go to trial and if you plea now they'll have you out in a week". Attorneys have a built-in need to negotiate with one another while at the same time ignoring their clients. An attorney who is defending me doesn't need to run to the prosecutor for a plea agreement before even hearing my side of the case.

*shrug*, I've seen just as many lawyers at the courthouse reject plea agreements. Sucks that you had a bad experience, but I still wouldn't be brave enough to face criminal charges without some sort of legal representation.

Lawyers are like Doctors. If one is giving you advice that you don't agree with, then seek out a second opinion. In the end they have to do what you tell them to do -- even if that means rejecting a plea offer that they think you should take. If you don't think you are being represented the way you want then that's the fault of that one person -- not the whole profession.

Which do you think is faster: a plea bargain made over coffee with the prosecutor, or a jury trial lasting 2 days?

What's your point? The lawyer makes less money on the plea bargain then he would have with a jury trial. One of the reasons that I'm glad I was able to beat my charges at the Grand Jury was because it saved me the expense of a felony jury trial. All told my legal fees for the various court appearances, grand jury appearance, meetings and conferences came to $4,600. Had it gone to a jury trial it would have cost me over $15,000.

A plea bargain is going to generate less billable hours then a trial. If you have a decent lawyer and a shot at winning he isn't going to try and talk you into a plea bargain if you are willing to pay for his services at a trial.

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

What were the charges, if I may inquire?

Two counts each of Computer Trespass (Section 156.10 of the NYS Penal Law) and "Unauthorized Use of a Computer" (Section 156.05). The first charge is a Class E Felony, the second a Class A misdemeanor.

I won't go into the whole story, but suffice it to say I was young and stupid and got involved in a pissing contest between my employer and someone else when I shouldn't have. The charges were from two different counties.

The first county didn't even have a full time DA and really didn't want to deal with it. They made a plea offer for an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, basically be good for six months and we dismiss the charges, no admission of guilt) with various strings attached (I was supposed to make "restitution" to my "victim") which I rejected. After this, the DA kept asking for continuances, which my lawyer didn't object to (in NYS they only have six months to proceed with a felony charge) and eventually agreed to an ACD without conditions.

The second county had a full time DA and nothing better to do. They offered to drop the felony if I would plead guilty to the misdemeanor. I refused to accept this offer. Eventually it went to Grand Jury. My lawyer recommended that I testify. This is a rare occurrence in New York State, because if you testify before the Grand Jury you waive your 5th amendment right and have to answer any question that they ask. Obviously not a recommended course of action if you are actually guilty of something. I testified before the Grand Jury and they returned "no true bill", i.e: they refused to indict me. The DA could have still proceeded with the misdemeanor charge, but he decided to drop it. I guess he figured that if he couldn't get 13 out of 24 Grand Jurors to find it probable that I had committed the crimes, that he'd never get 12 out of 12 Petit Jurors to find me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyway, I came away from the experience with a newfound respect for the legal system. And I learned that I will never talk to the cops about ANYTHING (not even speeding ticket) ever again. Had they listened to a single word that I had said none of this ever would have happened. They had made up their minds before they even talked to me and attempted to twist everything that I said into an admission of guilt. I eventually invoked my right to consul and refused to speak to them. After this I was charged.

Re:And what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

One key difference between Canadian and American Judicial systems is that the winner is often awarded "costs" by the court. Typically, these do not reflect the actual costs incurred, rather an amount based on a predetermined scale. Thus if your lawyer charges $500/hour, you might get $50/hour.

However, the practice of awarding "costs" does encourage arbitration and settlement outside the courts. It also tends to reduce the number of frivoulous claims we endure.

Re:And what about?

[Splab]

Google, apg søgsmål, first hit... wouw that was hard huh? Perhaps you are representing APG and want my post modded down?

Re:And what about?

[gr8scot]

A more straightforward solution to the problem of excessive & frivolous litigation would be statutory requirements that the amount of damages awarded correspond to direct & proven damages. This would also prevent a repeat of the $12,000,000 coffee spill, and the resulting tendency to discourage new competitors to compete, which in turn permits existing retailers to elevate their prices above what they would in a more competitive market, etc.

"Pain & suffering" happen in life, sometimes even when no crimes are committed. Tough luck. If they're caused by a crime, damages should be payable as punishment for that crime, not for amorphous, indefinite, subjective "pain & suffering," which in theory could plausibly be defined as "infinite," by many groups of 12 randomly selected people having approximately average or near-average mathematical aptitude. In practice, "pain & suffering" has been estimated in the Millions of dollars, for such temporary discomfort as a coffee spill. I'm sure it hurt, but I'm equally sure it didn't hurt for as long as it would take the same person to earn $12,000,000 working the job they had at that time, nor did they lose anywhere near that amount while being treated.

Back to the RIAA: the "lost sales" argument is absurd. The documentable damages are for the retail value of the tracks downloaded -- and as downloaded files, not as if they were shrink-wrapped CDs. Good grief.

Re:And what about?

[ehrichweiss]

"What's your point? The lawyer makes less money on the plea bargain then he would have with a jury trial."

I guess you missed this but $1500 in 10 minutes = $6000/hr(actually more but I'm being conservative) that he can make if he uses that coffee break for other clients as well, whereas $15,000 over 2 days(16 hours) is $937/hr. Now, what was *your* point again?

Not good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF needs to remain focused on developing free as in libre software. There's no reason
for them to get involved in intellectual property disputes of this nature (I specify because
I could see reason to become involved in software patent IP issues). The last thing the free
software community needs is to be identified with people downloading illegally from the pirate's
bay, *nova, etc.

Re:Not good.

[morgan_greywolf]

There's no reason for them to get involved in intellectual property disputes of this nature (I specify because
I could see reason to become involved in software patent IP issues). If the RIAA succeeds in redefining copyright law, there might not be any free as in libre software.

Re:Not good.

[sm62704]

You assume P2P's only use is "illegal downloads"*. BitTorrent is the perfect way to distribute free software, but its very existance is threatened by the record companies' war againsg ANY file sharing. Share a perfectly legal song that its writer/performer WANTS shared (and there are likely more legal than illegal) with the same name as an RIAA song, and you risk a lawsuit. Even naming your software "master of puppets" or "Penny Lane" may get you sued. So the FSF is indeed in the middle of this already.

-mcgrew

*Why do they keep talking about "illegal downloads" when it's UPLOADING that is illegal?

Re:Not good.

[KTheorem]

The FSF doesn't develop any software. They are an advocacy organization. Their big stake in this is not wether or not piracy is wrong or wether the defendants are guilty. What they are concerned with is the effect these cases might have on copyright law.

Re:Not good.

[TheRaven64]

The FSF doesn't develop any software. The Free Software Foundation develops the GNU operating system. Anyone who contributes to these project (including myself) signs a copyright assignment form granting the FSF the rights to their code and occasionally the Foundation employs people to work on some of the important parts that no one is doing voluntarily.

Re:Not good.

[HTH NE1]

*Why do they keep talking about "illegal downloads" when it's UPLOADING that is illegal? Maybe because no one uploads in P2P. There is no push (upload); there is only pull (download). Serving and uploading are not the same thing.

The person making the copy is the one doing something illegal. Someone who downloads from a server is making the copy. If someone else was uploading to a server, that would be making a copy.

Something which is legal to possess isn't made illegal by making its location accessible to the public. It's a pie cooling on a windowsill.

Having something on a server makes no copies absent the actions of another, yet they claim this is "making available" (absent any proof that anything actually was available[*]) and call it a violation of exclusive distribution (copy)rights, and also manage to get it established in a judge's instructions to a jury rather than a matter for the jury to decide for itself.

[*] In civil court, to paraphrase "A Few Good Men": it doesn't matter what you can prove; it only matters what you can convincingly allege.

I are not a lawyer.
This be not legal advice.

Re:Not good.

[johnsonav]

The FSF needs to remain focused on developing free as in libre software. There's no reason
for them to get involved in intellectual property disputes of this nature

The FSF needs copyright law in order to defend the GPL. If the defendants won the case,
and, by the nature of the argument, weaken copyright law, the FSF loses ground when trying
to enforce the GPL.

Re:Not good.

[TapeCutter]

The GP has a valid point, although I think the legal terminology is "making available".

Up/Downloading describe file movement relative to the machine you are talking about, push and pull describe distribution strategies.

Re:Not good.

[jambarama]

Downloading is more clearly illegal than uploading. Downloading is illegal because it is making a copy without authorization. Prosecuting uploaders has been in the name of "broadcasting" a copyrighted work without authorization.

You're right though in saying that only uploaders have been caught and prosecuted. That is simply because in a traditional P2P app, it is impossible for a 3rd party to see what you are downloading, but very easy for them to see what you've made available. If the RIAA/MPAA could catch downloaders, they would.

Re:Not good.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There is no legal terminology "making available". That is something the RIAA lawyers made up. They can cite no part of the Copyright Act that refers to it, and they have themselves stopped using it in their complaints, realizing it was indefensible.

Re:Not good.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There is in fact no law against 'downloading' or 'uploading'. There is a law against making copies without authorization. And there is a law against distributing copies to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending without authorization. The RIAA is trying to rewrite the copyright law. Don't help them.

Re:Not good.

[totally bogus dude]

BitTorrent is the perfect way to distribute free software

I actually have to disagree with this. I don't think I've ever used BitTorrent to download free software, for the simple reason that most of the large (and even some of the small) ISPs here (.au) mirror popular content locally. Whether it's Linux distributions, popular free applications, game demos and patches... if it's wanted by a lot of people and it's legal for them to mirror it, they will.

They also provide incentives to their users to use their local mirror: my ISP doesn't count downloads from their mirror in your monthly quota, making it essentially "free" for their customers to access. They can do this partly because they control the amount of content available on the mirror, and because it's cheaper for them to deliver it from their own network than from overseas.

Even for stuff they don't mirror, it's likely another ISP has a mirror of it. Optus run a SourceForge mirror in Australia, so even though it isn't "free" traffic for me it's still faster than downloading from overseas.

BitTorrent doesn't select peers based on network topology, so if I was to torrent the Debian ISOs I would be creating traffic all over the internet in order to saturate my ~18 mbit pipe. If I download them from my ISP, I'm creating traffic across their network and nowhere else. It's much more efficient and scalable than torrents.

Torrents are useful when the content cannot be legally distributed by others; or when large amounts of data are wanted by lots of people in disparate locations, but not by a large enough number to make it worthwhile for others to mirror.

BT would be great if it automatically selected the closest peers (based on network topology and bandwidth availability), so that transfers would tend to be clustered around POPs and internet exchanges. As it is now, it ends up with data being sent from all over the world across expensive trans-oceanic links.

Re:Not good.

[TapeCutter]

I recognise you as one of the most informative posters on this subject and bow to your legal knowledge. It's also good news, IMHO "making available" was a weasle word phrase.

I did not intend to present an opinion on the legalities, I was attempting to clear up the use of the terms upload/download/push/pull from a technical perspective.

Re:Not good.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I understand. I'm just trying to clear up some of the misinformation spread by the RIAA's professional disinformation squad.

Re:Not good.

[HTH NE1]

I was attempting to clear up the use of the terms upload/download/push/pull from a technical perspective.

And you're wrong. Upload and download do not describe two perspectives on a single transfer. They are two different transfers, describing the direction of the transfer only relative to the place that initiated it--the client--and the place that fulfilled it--the server. They are used to describe transfers between a client and a server.

To upload is to push a file to a server, like FTP's command "put" or Z-modem's send. To download is to pull a file from a server, like FTP's "get" or Z-modem's receive. There is always a passive machine involved (a server) that transfers no information until directed by a client. ("Push" and "pull" have also been used as terms of delivery methods, but still they correspond to downloading and uploading.)

Usage of these terms has become sloppy over time. It started when people thought that the stature of the machines involved (mainframe high vs. desktop low) determined it, or the relative distance between the machines (mainframes being distant vs. desktops being local), or even to communications between a desktop and its perhiperals (desktop high vs. peripheral device low) and that transfers were like flowing water, generally going down unless made to go up. All of those misconceptions were due to that generally a desktop could not be a server, always assuming the greater machine was always the server. It also ignored that one could control a remote client to communicate with a local server. (They even continue to be cited as sole definitions in dictionaries.)

To talk about perception of direction for a transfer, you can say you have incoming and outgoing data on a particular machine. Those terms talk about the motion of the data without speaking of the client-server relationship, even on a machine that is not an end point of the transfer. The terms upload and download always convey where the action originated, and it can't originate from two places at once. Upload and download always refer to communications between a client and server.

Now, the exception is space communication where the direction is always relative to gravity: communication to space is "up" and to ground is "down" regardless of where the command is issued (though it is more appropriate to use the suffix -link than -load).

The sci-fi usage of transfer of consciousness into a computer also gets it exactly wrong: unless you're telepathic, the brain has no facility to push its data into a computer, so it can't be uploaded(*); consciousness has to be downloaded, even if the source brain has to control the outside device to initiate the transfer. Like using a remote client to pull (download) data from a server running on your desktop, the telepresence allows you to operate a client to pull from a server.

Those that seek to legislate avoid the terms upload and download altogether and go with more verbose terminology that clearly outlines who is performing the (usually infringing) act. They know P2P users that share their local libraries aren't actively causing transfers to occur, so they don't call it uploading. They call it "making available", and only in the Jammie case did they manage to make it stick, dropping it from all other arguments. "Making available" is operating a server; it isn't uploading.

When talking instead about streaming radio, it gets more iffy. Technically the stream is already being emitted; you're only tuning into the continuous stream. You aren't controlling what you receive, only whether you receive or don't. Though you're equivalently FTP-"get"ting from /dev/microphone and receiving it at /dev/speaker, I would hesitate calling it either an download or upload. I guess it depends on whether you think an usurpation of control occurs when receiving a stream vs. a real file. I still wouldn't grant upload/download as ever being both applicable to the same transfer.

(*) At

Re:Not good.

[TapeCutter]

"And you're wrong."

Them's fighting words, my first commercial encouter with z-modem was implementing it on a radio network back in 1992, it was for an operating system called penpoint that ran on a chip called the hobbit using a watcom cross compiler from Dos.

"Usage of these terms has become sloppy over time."

I agree and I appreciate the history lesson, but if you read back through the thread and think in the current vanacular then I stand by what I said.

Re:Not good.

[sm62704]

As always, YMMV.

Torrents are useful when... large amounts of data are wanted by lots of people in disparate locations

Like for instance a Linux distro. Torrents aren't very useful for a small file like an MP3. Yes, BT doesn't benefit an obscure program or a small program but a CD sized file that's wanted by thousands of people is exactly what BT is for. MP3s are usually small files; eDonkey would not be as good as Morpheus for them. OTOH with a zip of FLAC files eDonkey would work well.

Note that most FLACs and SHNs you'll find are authorized by the people who created them, as is open source software. Of course, if your ISP is mirroring you all bets are off.

Re:Not good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus you're such a pedant. Of course you're right, but only because you made a strawman of the parent post. Parent was trying to clarify how the RIAA goes after "uploaders" (those who make a copyrighted work available for copying w/o permission) and why they don't go after those actually making the copy (the one downloading the copyrighted work w/o permission). Parent was not suggesting blanket "downloading" or "uploading" is illegal.

Rather than dismissing everyone else's opinion because they aren't a lawyer like you, why don't you try to see what they're actually saying and respond to that. Is the copyright holders exclusive right to "broadcasting" the way they prosecute those uploading copyrighted content without permission? I don't know - sounds right, but maybe not. Is it true that the RIAA doesn't go after those downloading (hence copying) copyrighted works without permission, because they can't get IP addresses for these people? Maybe, again I don't know. If you wanted to respond, thats what you should have clarified.

Re:Not good.

[jambarama]

I wouldn't say he was being a pedant, just clarifying my point. It is good to get some accuracy around here with regard to legal stuff. I was trying to make the point you did about how the RIAA goes after uploaders and why they don't go after downloaders, but I guess my statements were not accurate.

Besides, isn't law a profession of pedants? :)

Re:Not good.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You do not understand what I was saying. Let me make it clearer.

There is in fact no law against 'downloading' copyrighted songs without authorization.

Neither is there any law against 'uploading' copyrighted songs without authorization.

There is a law against making copies of copyrighted songs without authorization.

And there is a law against distributing copies of copyrighted songs to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending without authorization.

There is not any law against "mak[ing] a copyrighted work available for copying w/o permission".

Re:Not good.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I wouldn't say he was being a pedant, just clarifying my point. It is good to get some accuracy around here with regard to legal stuff. I was trying to make the point you did about how the RIAA goes after uploaders and why they don't go after downloaders, but I guess my statements were not accurate. Besides, isn't law a profession of pedants? :) I want it to be clear what the law is, because the RIAA has been doing everything in its power to obfuscate the law.

I 4 1

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our generous overlords!

and good strategy, first let riaa do some damage and then counter!

Can you imagine...

[morgan_greywolf]

Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of NewYorkCountryLawyers?

Re:Can you imagine...

[gEvil (beta)]

Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of NewYorkCountryLawyers?

That'd be like a coupla NewYorkCityLawyers, right?

Re:Can you imagine...

[sm62704]

And can you imagine fifty lawyers a day, I said fifty lawyers a day, defending against infringement of Alice's Reataurant? They'd think it was a movement! The Alice's Restaraunt Massacree Lawyer movement, and all you have to do is walk in to the judge's chamber, hum a few bars of Alice's Restaraunt and walk out...

-mcgrew

(apologies to Arlo. The RIAA should be apologizing to Arlo's late father Woodie, whose guitar sported the motto "this machine kills facists").

Re:Can you imagine...

[TheRaven64]

No.

Re:Can you imagine...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of NewYorkCountryLawyers? At the risk of getting modded down.....

:)

Re:Can you imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never use a politcal sig on /. because it makes people assume things about you that are untrue. It's obvious that you're only saying that because you hate squirrels.

Re:Can you imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of NewYorkCountryLawyers in 3D?

Bad idea

[BlowHole666]

Will people now associate free software with illegal activities or supporting illegal activities? I know that is not what they are doing they are helping innocent (sometimes) people from getting corn holed by the RIAA. But could the RIAA, Microsoft or other non free software people put a spin on this and say this foundation supports law breaking and if you support this foundation you also support breaking the law? I just say this because sometimes people do not get the full story before making up their mind about software, an organization, business etc.

Re:Bad idea

[jedidiah]

The FSF has ALWAYS been the software equivalent of the ACLU. This is nothing
new. This is nothing that companies like Microsoft haven't already created
FUD about. This is pretty much business as normal.

Who "supports the FSF" anyways?

Companies buy support contracts from Novell or Redhat.

They may not even be aware of the whole "GNU/Linux" thing.

Re:Bad idea

[Virgil Tibbs]

I support the fsf

Re:Bad idea

[Tibor the Hun]

"supporting illegal activities?"
If people were concerned about who's doing illegal activities they may wonder about RIAA's activities against college students.
For example, a student at a local college got a nice letter from RIAA to settle with them for $3000 for the 87 songs she "illegally" downloaded, or go to court.
Now, if it hurts them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per each song, why are they willing to settle for a measly $3000?
How is that form of extortion legal?

People of the US. don't give a rat's ass about who's supporting illegal activities. As the song goes... I'm proud to be an American, well at least I know I'm free!

Re:Bad idea

[Just Some Guy]

if you support this foundation you also support breaking the law?

That needs to read "changing the law". FSF needs to get the message out loudly and clearly that they support sane laws and are working to get them.

I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?

Interestingly on-topic. See, laws are only enforceable when the governed allow them to be. People are coming around to the idea that they don't want pot smoking to be a felony, even if they don't want to do it themselves. You yourself are coming out pro-sanity without being pro-lawbreaking. Well, the FSF needs to do the same.

Re:Bad idea

[mrchaotica]

I support the FSF (member #4474).

Re:Bad idea

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Will people now associate free software with illegal activities or supporting illegal activities? No, I think they will associate it with helping the Courts get it right about technology, instead of being subjected to a snow job of unrebutted 'junk science' by the RIAA's fake experts.

Re:Bad idea

[autophile]

The FSF has ALWAYS been the software equivalent of the ACLU.

I thought the EFF was the software equivalent of the ACLU?

--Rob

Re:Bad idea

[bhmit1]

My first thought was "why not the EFF?" I'd prefer the FSF to work on things like patent issues that prevent software from being free and let the EFF worry about the abuse of rights over the data.

Re:Bad idea

[dido]

The EFF may more properly be the Internet equivalent of the ACLU, with the FSF being the equivalent for the world of software in particular.

Re:Bad idea

[Curunir_wolf]

No, no. The EFF is the ACLU of the Internet, the FSF is the NAACP of the software developer, and the Richard Stallman is the William Wallace of the software world, and Linus Torvalds is the Thomas Edison of the software revolution.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting, so you seem to admit there that the student in question was guilty of hell. Sorry, but the moment she knowingly downloaded copyrighted music without paying, I lost any sympathy you might hope I would have for her. The FSF is apparently just a defence fund for thieves. Sums them up really.

Re:Bad idea

[Ginger Unicorn]

and bill gates is the adolf hitler.... oh dammit i godwinned myself...

Re:Bad idea

[iminplaya]

...and bill gates is the adolf hitler...

No, he would be the Prescott Bush.

Re:Bad idea

[iminplaya]

The FSF is apparently just a defence fund for thieves.

I think you're confused. They're fighting against the RIAA, not for them.

Re:God

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the title of the article. I know RTFA is your worst nightmare, but sheesh.

Copyright

[geggam]

I am still waiting for someone to point out that everything digital is really nothing but a 0 or a 1.

Everyone is copying everything.

Re:Copyright

[achilles777033]

I am still waiting for someone to point out that everything digital is really nothing but a 0 or a 1.

Everyone is copying everything.

That's kinda silly. Arrangement is important. Otherwise, everything is just protons, neutrons, and electrons, and it just gets ludicrous where you can go with that.
(unless that was your point, in which case I'll just shut up now)

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

but everything *is* a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons. as far as arrangement, think about encryption. there are presumably nearly an infinite number of ways to encrypt something and each way produces a different set of 0's and 1's so arrangement its self doesn't really determine the worth of software, it's the usefulness of that software and work put into making it that is costly. althoguh even that isn't the case with FOSS software, open-source cola, music etc... it's produced to fulfill a need and released for the common good without a price on the information its self and yet money is still made indirectly off of support and the function of the software/music etc. can be used to support things that do make money directly and none of it requires an explicit attack on people who copy material arranged or not.

Re:Copyright

[Splab]

Uhh that just gave me an idea.

If I remember correctly it has been determined that _ANY_ small part of a composed music number used in another number constitutes infringement. Even resampled at different speeds.

So if music is digital the smallest part of a number would be a 0 or a 1 - just get hold of whoever made the first binary program and get him/her to sue everybody in the music industry.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

/me rushes off to patent office Haha!

Re:Copyright

[Mode_Locrian]

That's true, but that's like saying that every car is really nothing but four wheels, an engine and a chassis. Hence, everyone has the "same" car. It's true that everything digital can be encoded using a string binary digits, but it's not the case that this is the *only* relevant information (at a bare minimum, the order of that encoding makes a big difference too, and there's usually a lot more information "supervening" on the binary structure as well).

Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

While I believe the RIAA is doing the right thing defending their IP, I must say I applaud the FSF for helping keep the judicial process fair and even. It's high time for this kind of intervention. I respect that the RIAA can't exactly fight full, drawn out battles against everyone, but this kind of abuse of the court system simply isn't justified. Sorry.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is claiming to own culture.

I was born with the right to participate in my culture.

There is no right to profit from culture.

Re:Go FSF!

[sm62704]

While I believe the RIAA is doing the right thing defending their IP

Thank you for using the acronym for "imaginary property" rather than pretending that anything that's only in your head bears any resemblance to actual, real, concrete property.

-mcgrew

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Thank you for using the acronym for "imaginary property" rather than pretending that anything that's only in your head bears any resemblance to actual, real, concrete property.

How exactly doesn't intellectual property resemble "real" property? Certainly not legally, certainly not in terms of value and how it's traded, certainly not in terms of how it's earned (i.e. through working for it). So, how do they not resemble? Is it some reincarnation of the outdated "If I ain't able teh feel it, it don't exist" argument? Would you still hold the same belief about ownership of information after I distribute your credit card information, plus your home address, your social security number, etc, etc?

Re:Go FSF!

[Reality Master 101]

Thank you for using the acronym for "imaginary property" rather than pretending that anything that's only in your head bears any resemblance to actual, real, concrete property.

The whole concept of property is imaginary. What's your point? The only reason the idea of property exists at all is because society set up a system of rules to decide what belongs to whom. By the same token, society can decide exactly what can be owned as well.

Re:Go FSF!

[mrchaotica]

How exactly doesn't intellectual property resemble "real" property?

• If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.
• If you give me your real property, the total value remains constant (because you don't have it anymore). If you give me your "IP," total value doubles because we both have it, and are thus twice as likely to create derivative works. Sharing is synergistic.
• Real property is owned in perpetuity. Most types of "IP" expire, or in other words, revert back to their true "owner:" the Public Domain.
• "IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing. There are copyrights and patents and trademarks, but they are not similar enough to be spoken about under one umbrella term with any semblence of accuracy!

Any other questions?

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.

Yes, but it's devalued. You have it for free, I worked hard to create it. You can also steal from my bank account. I still have my bank account, it's just been devalued.

If you give me your "IP," total value doubles because we both have it, and are thus twice as likely to create derivative works. Sharing is synergistic.

No, the value is shared. Look it up. In economics, you simply can't create value. It has to come from some resource. The IP's value comes from the hard work that someone put into creating it. If everyone could make an alternative, then it would normally be worthless. Without copyright, that's exactly what would happen. In that case, the value would be shared overwhelmingly in favour of the pirated copies, because charging for the original would always be the inferior option for the consumer.

Real property is owned in perpetuity. Most types of "IP" expire, or in other words, revert back to their true "owner:" the Public Domain.

Public domain lends artists the building blocks to create artworks, and the artists eventually have to pay the public domain back so it can profit from it. Sure the public domain are the owners of what helps create artworks, but they don't have any ownership rights over it until the artist has had his share.

"IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing. There are copyrights and patents and trademarks, but they are not similar enough to be spoken about under one umbrella term with any semblence of accuracy!

It's never been a legal term, but more a category or a concept. The main members of the category are all legally sanctioned. Just because it's not legally defined, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Any other ridiculous assertions to make?

Re:Go FSF!

[mollymoo]

The difference is that there is real scarcity of tangible objects; I cannot take your car without depriving you of it. The scarcity of copyright works is wholly artificial.

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.

Bzzzt. For starters, you can't "steal" real property. You can forge title, you can adversely possess, and you can trespass, but a parcel of land can't be taken from someone as personalty.

If you steal IP, the owner of those property rights no longer has them. Property is at its most fundamental the right to exclude. If you assert property rights to my property, I no longer have the full enjoyment of those rights.

What you're referring to is the object protected by property laws. Legal property is a set of rights. There is no physicality in any property. You certainly can't "own" land--no one has the authority to grant that ownership. You have possession and occupancy, which coupled with title becomes your property. You own a set of rights to the land, which is all we can enforce.

If you give me your real property, the total value remains constant (because you don't have it anymore). If you give me your "IP," total value doubles because we both have it

No, if you give me your IP I have it and you don't. Two people can't simultaneously have ownership in toto of Intellectual Property. The overall value remains the same, just as with anything else. Just like all other kinds of property (real property, among others), you can transfer parts of your rights. You can rent, lease, grant easements, grant shares, and have a lien imposed. With IP you can grant a license, grant an interest in ownership, or a number of other mechanisms.

Real property is owned in perpetuity. Most types of "IP" expire, or in other words, revert back to their true "owner:" the Public Domain

Well on top of not understanding the word property or having ever completed any legal coursework, apparently you've taken to rewriting the rules of testacy and land use, too. You own your property as long as the law prescribes. There are different periods depending on the different types of title, and upon how come into possession of that property. In no case can a person own property in perpetuity.

IP, like all other property, passes with the estate as long as it is still in existence at time of death.

As for the "true owner" issue, you're wrong as with every other point you've made. The true owner of an intellectual work is its creator. Were it retained without the grant or protection of copyright or other relevant IP, it would remain the property of the creator through his existence, and pass to his estate. Copyrights and patents draw works into a public domain--that is their ultimate expression. Without them, there is no public domain except those works granted voluntarily into it. It is a bargained-for exchange. The government protects your work and grants certain exclusive rights with the full force of law in exchange for ultimately assuming ownership of those works on behalf of society. Unless collective consciousness created them (and to my knowledge, humans do not have telepathic powers), Lockean ownership is vested in the creator, not the public domain.

"IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing.

This is perhaps my favorite. Legally speaking, there's also no such thing as "Family Law" or any of the other loose practical areas so named and accepted. There is no "Securities Law" or any other field. It's called a term of convenience and it covers the field just as aptly as most others. Most legal fields contain elements that touch on diverse and utterly unrelated matters of law. The theories of relief and the elements of protection are not central to the categorization.

Coming from someone who doesn't understand what property is, it's rich that you have the gall to take a page from the RMS playbook, which is as universally derided as one w

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA has no IP... Which is why people hate the RIAA in the first place.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh no, in the physical world multiple people cannot inhabit the same space at the same time. Physical property is limited and scarce. In the realm of ideas, an infinite number of people can inhabit the same idea at the same time without diminishing anyone's use of the idea. Imaginary ideas are unlimited and not scarce. And at this point, all artistic and scientific works are copying the ideas of others on many fundamental foundational levels. Possession of an idea can be multiplied many times very quickly on the internet. Scarce physical goods cannot be similarly multiplied many time very quickly on the internet.

You can't download and copy a house, land, food, medicine, and a car now can you? But if you theoretically could download and copy a house, land, food, medicine, and a car, preventing that would be CAUSING POVERTY. Copying is legitimate natural economic human behavior. It's why we have a common language, copy the use of the wheel, copy the use of fire, copy the use of doors and windows, etc. IP is infringing the USE of physical property of others, violently preventing others from shaping their own physical property in any manner they would so choose, such as preventing others by declaration of copyright or patent from building houses with doors and windows, or preventing others from burning their physical cds to play the same sounds as other physical cds. This is absurd in the age of the internet as everything which is seen or heard on the internet is only seen or heard precisely because it is copied.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Bzzzt. For starters, you can't "steal" real property...

Wow. You're completely right. I hadn't really thought about it before, but you're right: property is intangible. It really takes a lot of the sting out of the "IP infringement is not theft" argument. Thank you, I'll remember that one.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the value is shared. Look it up. In economics, you simply can't create value. It has to come from some resource. That statement is ignorant of economics. All value is extrinsically subjective. All value is created by the human mind. You can subjectively value a verbal story just as much as you can subjectively value a diamond.

The IP's value comes from the hard work that someone put into creating it. Completely FALSE. Value comes the valuer. There is no inherent value of "work". That's why the USSR couldn't work hiring day shift workers to dig ditches and night shift workers to fill in those ditches.

If everyone could make an alternative, then it would normally be worthless. In reality, everyone CAN make an alternative, unlike scarce physical property. But nobody would make an alternative unless they VALUED that alternative, by definition.

Without copyright, that's exactly what would happen. In that case, the value would be shared overwhelmingly in favour of the pirated copies, because charging for the original would always be the inferior option for the consumer. And yet everyone would and could, and already does, copy far more for free then they themselves produce. Everyone is far richer because of copying.

Public domain lends artists the building blocks to create artworks, and the artists eventually have to pay the public domain back so it can profit from it. Sure the public domain are the owners of what helps create artworks, but they don't have any ownership rights over it until the artist has had his share. So you are AGREEING that artists are fraudulently claiming copyright upon elements that are clearly public domain? They are infringing public domain property and they are infringing the use of physical private property of others (copyright and patent prevents shaping of that property in similar manner to the way others have shaped their property even though those claiming copyright don't own the physical property of others). Such as lyrics; every word was invented by another and can be infinitely possessed by all. So IP is arbitrary, redundant, violent, and leaves the world net poorer than it otherwise would be.

Any other ridiculous assertions to make? Don't stop now. You are doing so well. Continue being a hypocrite and give us some more FREE entertaining for morons content by spending effort writing posts.

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

Well now, "IP infringement" is not theft. But that is simply because theft is not the same as stealing, something that someone spent all of their mod points burying last time I brought it up. Slashdot wants to make the semantic argument that "the owner is not deprived of anything" (which is not true, but more importantly, totally beside the point), but they don't ever want to hear people actually apply the science of semantics to those statements.

Infringement is not theft (just like it's not larceny, robbery, or [usually] conversion). It is, however, stealing (which is not by itself a crime, misdemeanor, or even a tort and moreover is not even universally a moral wrong).

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Ah, I failed to make the distinction between theft and stealing. I meant the latter, and as it seems, so do many other Slashdotters when they say copyright (or any other IP) infringement is not theft.

Re:Go FSF!

[Maudib]

No, the value is shared. Look it up. In economics, you simply can't create value.

Sure you can, in fact thats one of the ways economic growth is created. Bank lends me $1000. I deposit that into a checking account, a large percentage of which is lent to someone else, who deposits it in a bank account, etc, etc, etc. This is fundamental to banking, and tot that different from creating derivative works really.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzt. For starters, you can't "steal" real property. You can forge title, you can adversely possess, and you can trespass, but a parcel of land can't be taken from someone as personalty. Adversely possessing is called "stealing". You can't use it when someone else possesses physical property. You can use your idea when someone else simultaneously possesses your idea.

If you steal IP, the owner of those property rights no longer has them. Property is at its most fundamental the right to exclude. If you assert property rights to my property, I no longer have the full enjoyment of those rights. IP *infringes* on the real physical property of others. It prevents others from peacefully transforming their physical property. IP is violating the rights of physical property holders. You are *intruding* on the right of physical property holders to exclude your violent imaginary property claims.

No, if you give me your IP I have it and you don't. Total false crap lie. Two people can have the idea of a wheel. If you give someone else the idea of a wheel, do you forget the idea of a wheel? Of course not!

Two people can't simultaneously have ownership in toto of Intellectual Property. The overall value remains the same, just as with anything else. Hogwash. For every person which marginally copies the idea of a wheel, the world is net WEALTHIER. People save energy, and are more efficient the more people which use the idea of the wheel. Preventing people from using the idea of the wheel by using violence would only make the world net POORER.

Well on top of not understanding the word property or having ever completed any legal coursework, apparently you've taken to rewriting the rules of testacy and land use, too. You own your property as long as the law prescribes. Socrates addressed Thrasymicus' notion that "might is right" equates to justice.

IP, like all other property, passes with the estate as long as it is still in existence at time of death. Arbitrarily, and only by the use of violent physical force.

The true owner of an intellectual work is its creator. Wrong. All who think of an idea possess that idea. We can all simultaneously possess the idea of the wheel.

Unless collective consciousness created them (and to my knowledge, humans do not have telepathic powers), Lockean ownership is vested in the creator, not the public domain. Wrong again. There are many ideas that are dependent upon the prior existence of many other ideas each created by many other different creators. See words in language.

Re:Go FSF!

[holomorph]

First off, the parent post may not have been specifically talking about economic value; if you have a useful object and I take it from you, now I have a useful object and you do not. If you have a useful idea, and you tell me about it (or even if I copy it without your permission), now we both have a useful idea.

Now, even considering economic value, sharing can still increase value. Say you have a skill no one else has and many people are willing to pay you use it on their behalf, the value to them (which dictates how much they will be willing to pay) will have some upper bound. Now if you teach me the skill, as long as we still are both unable to fulfill the demand, the value has just been doubled. It only becomes devalued (in the economic sense) once it's widespread enough that people can go somewhere else if they don't like your price.

Re:Go FSF!

[Mr2001]

Yes, but it's devalued. You have it for free, I worked hard to create it. So what? That doesn't mean it's "devalued". The copy of the book, movie, software program, etc. in your possession doesn't become any less useful just because someone else has a copy of it. It's not like there's some total amount of "value" in every intellectual work that's spread out evenly among all the copies - Linux doesn't become worth less and less as more people install it.

You can also steal from my bank account. I still have my bank account, it's just been devalued. Yes, you still have the account, but you don't have the money that was in it. That's why people talk about stealing money, not stealing bank accounts.

No, the value is shared. Look it up. In economics, you simply can't create value. It has to come from some resource. The IP's value comes from the hard work that someone put into creating it. Nope, you're way off. The value comes from how useful or desirable it is to the people who want it. A song that was made in a week that people actually want to listen to is more "valuable" than a song that took a year to make but still sounds like crap.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Completely FALSE. Value comes the valuer.

You're partially right (which is more grace than you're giving me), but there still needs to be some resource involved, be it tangible or intangible. My point was that the work and time put in by artists were the resource making the work valuable. Of course, after that, the valuer modifies the value, based on what they want. If it indeed took no resources and anyone with or without their own resources could produce their own alternative product, then why would anyone pay anything for it?

In reality, everyone CAN make an alternative, unlike scarce physical property.

In reality, everyone can in theory make an alternative. Whether or not you have the skill, or the time, or the money to make that alternative is another matter. Oh, you were talking about straight copying, right? Well, then almost everyone can make an "alternative", thus there is a lack of scarcity of art, thus no-one should be willing to pay for it, thus art should shrivel and die. Happy?

And yet everyone would and could, and already does, copy far more for free then they themselves produce. Everyone is far richer because of copying.

"Everyone" (obviously excluding the artists who put work into their art) is only very slightly richer from copying, since what they hold, everyone else holds as well. Sooner or later, without copyright, market demand will start to reflect that fact, and there will be no incentive to supply art (which would be a shame).

So you are AGREEING that artists are fraudulently claiming copyright upon elements that are clearly public domain?

Not any more so than I agree that you fraudulently take money that clearly belongs to the bank whenever you take out a loan. We lend artists the rights to use inspiration from the public domain, or works that have been created indirectly from the public domain, as long as they, after a certain amount of time, give back their works, so that both the public domain and the artist can profit from the exchange. Your solution is as extreme as unlimited copyright. Your view completely deprives the artist, and theirs completely deprives the public domain.

Don't stop now. You are doing so well. Continue being a hypocrite and give us some more FREE entertaining for morons content by spending effort writing posts.

I guess I'll just have to take it upon your word that I'm a hypocrite, since you've provided absolutely no examples or justification for that statement. But sure, I'll continue being a "hypocrite" (do we even define "hypocrite" the same way?) for anyone else who wants to produce cherry-picked, out-of-context economic principles, and prove that art shouldn't exist. After all it's only fair after you've provided me with such a riotous laugh.

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

You can use your idea when someone else simultaneously possesses your idea. An idea is not property, intellectual or otherwise. The rest of your misguided rant stems from that one fatal flaw and therefore does not stand.

Re:Go FSF!

[Artifakt]

"IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing. There are copyrights and patents and trademarks, but they are not similar enough to be spoken about under one umbrella term with any semblance of accuracy!

It's never been a legal term, but more a category or a concept. The main members of the category are all legally sanctioned. Just because it's not legally defined, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'll make an assertion here, the ridiculousness of which is up to you to judge. IP, as some prominent advocates are using the term, really doesn't exist, because all those main members you mention have different conditions, limitations and requirements for use, and the way many an IP lawyer typically uses the blanket term, those conditions, etc. are being ignored. Look at SCO's flip-flopping over whether the real issues in their suits were based on copyrights or patents. Look at Microsoft claiming failure to disclose on a patent didn't invalidate it, it just made it another form of IP (a trade secret). Look at the firm which recently claimed quoting their cease and desist letter violated their IP.
          IP all to often seems to mean a 'Special-Top-secret EULAcopypatmark'. The owner doesn't really have to defend it like a trademark, but can claim he has no choice but to enforce it when he prefers without the claim tainting his case. It never expires, it costs the minimum of all types to register (usually Zero), the owner can get damages at which ever rate is highest, and it doesn't have any separate standing in the EU unless that's somehow to the owner's advantage. There's no requirement to disclose, the GPL doesn't apply if the company simply forgets about it, and violations can be prosecuted as though they were criminal acts, at the tax-payer's expense, while still resulting in money going to the IP owner as penalties instead of the state as fines. Doctrines such as Laches and laws against Submarine Patents don't apply. It will increase the stock value of your corporation over a shorter term than any real property acquisition, but is non-volatile and neigh-invulnerable to downward market trends.
        And yes, I find the idea that something with those properties exists to be both ridiculous and reprehensible.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Linux doesn't become worth less and less as more people install it.

Point taken. So, how much do you spend per Linux copy?

Seriously though, I do see your point. There still is value in Linux, even if it has no scarcity. Nevertheless, it does mean that you can't make a solid business out of selling straight linux copies. It almost falls into the realms of charity since there's no money involved. Art, however, is not always like that. Some people just want to be financially reimbursed for their art creation.

Yes, you still have the account, but you don't have the money that was in it. That's why people talk about stealing money, not stealing bank accounts.

Fair enough. Perhaps we should talk about copyright infringement in terms of stealing value rather than stealing IP? Either way it works for me, because it exposes copyright infringement as stealing.

The value comes from how useful or desirable it is to the people who want it. A song that was made in a week that people actually want to listen to is more "valuable" than a song that took a year to make but still sounds like crap.

Think about it. If there was a desirable song worth some non-trivial amount of money, and a pirated version for free, is there any added value? No. The demand is split between the two products. You really don't need both of the products, since they are both essentially the same. With the split demand, the value is similarly split. And split again. And split again. And continues to split as more and more people copy the same product with little resources necessary. The comment about resources, and the relation to value, still applies, since there is a relation between resources required and demand (and thus price). As I've said already in this thread, if it required no resources to make (no time, no effort, no skill, no money, no endurance, etc, etc) then it would be worthless, because anyone could have it if they wanted it. If anyone could create significant value out of thin air, then what's the point in working?

Re:Go FSF!

[Mr2001]

There still is value in Linux, even if it has no scarcity. Nevertheless, it does mean that you can't make a solid business out of selling straight linux copies. It almost falls into the realms of charity since there's no money involved. Sure... and I contend there's nothing wrong with that. Selling copies is a stupid business model in a world where anyone can make all the copies they need for free. I pay people to do things that I can't do on my own, or don't want to do. If you ask me to pay you for something that I can easily do myself, you're basically asking for charity.

Art, however, is not always like that. Some people just want to be financially reimbursed for their art creation. Indeed, and that's fine too. I absolutely agree that creating art is a valuable talent and people deserve to be paid for it. Those people, however, need to grow the balls to request payment for what they actually do, instead of playing coy by asking to get reimbursed for making copies.

That is: you want to get paid for creating a song? Fine, tell me (or a few thousand other people like me) what your idea is like and how much it's going to cost us. Collect the money, record the song, and then the transaction is over. Once you've been paid for making that song, it's no longer any of your business where we listen to it, how many copies we make, or who we share those copies with.

Fair enough. Perhaps we should talk about copyright infringement in terms of stealing value rather than stealing IP? Either way it works for me, because it exposes copyright infringement as stealing. But again, the value isn't "stolen", because the work doesn't become any less valuable as more people obtain copies of it. It's as true of music, books, and movies as it is of software - just like Linux doesn't lose value as more people install it, The Matrix doesn't lose value as more people watch, buy, or download it.

If there was a desirable song worth some non-trivial amount of money, and a pirated version for free, is there any added value? No. The demand is split between the two products. You really don't need both of the products, since they are both essentially the same. They are the same, and thinking about one song as two "products" is a mistake. It's the same song either way.

If anyone could create significant value out of thin air, then what's the point in working? Well, exactly. People can't create songs out of thin air. But once a song has been recorded, they can create copies out of thin air -- so what's the point in buying copies? Or selling them? The only hard part is recording the song in the first place, so charge for that instead.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

IP *infringes* on the real physical property of others.

Not exactly. (I'm going to assume you refer to copyright as IP, since it's the only form of IP that would make any semblance of sense in this context.) When you buy a copyrighted work, you are not just buying the media, but the concept as well. Ever wondered why people are prepared to pay for more than the media by itself? Basically, it's a free market. If you don't want your "real" physical property rights to be infringed, perhaps you should stop buying copyrighted works.

No, if you give me your IP I have it and you don't.

Total false crap lie. Two people can have the idea of a wheel. If you give someone else the idea of a wheel, do you forget the idea of a wheel? Of course not!

We're talking about IP, not ideas. You don't seem to grasp the fact that property is an abstract assignment of ownership, not just whoever has it. I can stand in the middle of the mall if I want to, but it doesn't mean I own the tile I'm standing on. It does not give me the right to spray-paint graffiti on it. The mall owns it, and they could quite rightly take action against me for it. Similarly, just because you happen to have heard a CD that you've sold, doesn't mean you own it.

Hogwash. For every person which marginally copies the idea of a wheel, the world is net WEALTHIER. People save energy, and are more efficient the more people which use the idea of the wheel. Preventing people from using the idea of the wheel by using violence would only make the world net POORER.

Sure. The same could be said about any property. If everyone had access to a piece of property, everyone would be richer for it. However, communism hasn't exactly gathered a lot of respect, and although it sounds pretty good, we've found that society (and indeed culture) can become richer still if people are allowed to retain private ownership. But ideas, as you say, are often best when spread, making the value of the patent system the most controversial aspect of IP. I certainly wouldn't call it hogwash though.

Socrates addressed Thrasymicus' notion that "might is right" equates to justice.

The democratic government, as an extension of the people, are the one's providing the might here. If you can't live by our laws that we've tailored over time to benefit us a society, then you might as well leave.

Arbitrarily, and only by the use of violent physical force.

What is it with you and violence? You call IP "imaginary" in the face of "real" property, yet these laws somewhat dubiously constitute "real" violence. You don't seem to have too much moral integrity.

Wrong again. There are many ideas that are dependent upon the prior existence of many other ideas each created by many other different creators.

Ya, which is why IP expires, so that both the artist and the public domain can profit from IP. They're essentially borrowing from the public domain, but that doesn't mean they don't have rights to what they create with it.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I pay people to do things that I can't do on my own, or don't want to do. If you ask me to pay you for something that I can easily do myself, you're basically asking for charity.

Precisely. So if you can create music more cheaply than an artist sells it, then you are invited to do so. You would be legitimately competing against the artist, and providing a similar contribution to our culture. If, however, you mean to say you don't need the artist to make a copy for you, then that's false. You still need the artist to make the original for you. No amount of copying will provide you with that. Your copied version is not a fair competitor to the artist's version, since he happens to be your supplier. All piracy does is make sure the art industry collapses under itself.

Those people, however, need to grow the balls to request payment for what they actually do, instead of playing coy by asking to get reimbursed for making copies.

So it's your contention that the artist should ask for a lump sum payment up front for the original work? Who exactly do you expect to pay for that? I am under the impression that making copies is a fine way of "requesting payment for what they actually do", since it means that almost everyone can afford to reap the benefits of what would otherwise be a costly affair.

That is: you want to get paid for creating a song? Fine, tell me (or a few thousand other people like me) what your idea is like and how much it's going to cost us. Collect the money, record the song, and then the transaction is over. Once you've been paid for making that song, it's no longer any of your business where we listen to it, how many copies we make, or who we share those copies with.

Ah, so I see. It's a fine business model, probably not as efficient as the current one, since people know that they'll be able to get the art for free (and legally) once everyone else pays. It also wouldn't always truly reflect demand, since larger sums would be much harder to orchestrate, so artists would be forced to either take a lower entry price and get money immediately, or try for market price, and have to wait a long time, or possibly have it fail.

Tell you what. If you create some art, feel free to sell it like that. Other artists who feel that the other method is better will sell it their way. We'll let the two business models compete it out on the free market, and we'll see who gets more out of it. Since you can't reasonably expect a copyrighted work to be created without copyright, your art will be sold exactly as if there were no copyright at all. I guess we'll see who's business model is superior.

But again, the value isn't "stolen", because the work doesn't become any less valuable as more people obtain copies of it.

Look, let me break it down. Many artists just want to be paid as much as they can for creating their work. Creating unlimited copies discourages people from paying the artist. Lack of payment discourages the artist from creating art. Lack of art is not good. If everyone copies artists' works instead of paying for them, then sooner or later, the pool of available artists will dry up, and there will be nothing new to copy. The works that are currently under copyright will eventually expire (if a little later than they should), and you will have all the rights you could want to whatever work you have your eyes on. By allowing the premature raiding of the cultural piggy bank, you exchange very temporary gains for long-term cultural wealth.

They are the same, and thinking about one song as two "products" is a mistake. It's the same song either way.

The difference is that one song is paid for, the other isn't. It is a difference. One supports our culture, the other drains it. Think about what you're neglecting to pay for when you next illegally download a copyrighted work.

But once a song has been recorded, they can c

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're partially right (which is more grace than you're giving me), but there still needs to be some resource involved, be it tangible or intangible. My point was that the work and time put in by artists were the resource making the work valuable. Of course, after that, the valuer modifies the value, based on what they want. If it indeed took no resources and anyone with or without their own resources could produce their own alternative product, then why would anyone pay anything for it?

I tend to find that more insight comes from hammering the ideas of others and having your own ideas hammered in return (when they can be). People would pay for things for many reasons. Oxygen in a tank is good for scuba diving. Creators can be paid in fame; fame is valuable. People pay big money to eat dinners or attend conference talks with stars. Nobody is prevented from paying anyone what they want to pay in a world with no IP. People still talk and post for free even though they aren't being paid to. Take a look at all the posts made by all the posters; this DEMONSTRATES (and I slang that word with mathematical and epistemological precision) the creation of free content.

Well, then almost everyone can make an "alternative", thus there is a lack of scarcity of art, thus no-one should be willing to pay for it, thus art should shrivel and die. Happy?

But it doesn't, hasn't, and wouldn't shrivel and die. There's a finite number of people that can attend a concert in person. There's a finite number of photographs a superstar photographer can take pictures of commissioned pictures. We still to this day recall not just the works of great artists like Michelangelo, but who commissioned those works. Academia already funds professors whose areas of study aren't in big ticket areas of future wealth like medicine, law, or business. So what if Picasso's giant statue in down town Chicago was copied by others? The original would still be there. And that's why original paintings by the likes of Picasso still sell for millions of dollars even though copies abound.

"Everyone" (obviously excluding the artists who put work into their art) is only very slightly richer from copying, since what they hold, everyone else holds as well. Sooner or later, without copyright, market demand will start to reflect that fact, and there will be no incentive to supply art (which would be a shame).

No, everyone is *FAR* richer from copying. You aren't contemplating all the ideas which are public domain. Everything you take for granted from modern technology was created by copying, either the end ideas themselves or the elements which went into those end ideas. People go to school to LEARN precisely by COPYING. Every great artist or scientist, every mediocre artist or scientist, is far richer because they have copied others in innumerable ways. This is why every new generation does not start anew from the Stone Age. There will always be an incentive to supply art, to entertain. Rock stars get sex from being rock stars. And they'd *still* get far better pay than working menial minimum wage jobs even in the absence of copyright. With copyright, the incentive is to box others out from creating derivative art with violent restrictions on the real property of others from imaginary property claims.

We lend artists the rights to use inspiration from the public domain, or works that have been created indirectly from the public domain, as long as they, after a certain amount of time, give back their works, so that both the public domain and the artist can profit from the exchange. Your solution is as extreme as unlimited copyright. Your view completely deprives the artist, and theirs completely deprives the public domain.

There's no necessity for imaginary intellectual property when incentives for the production of imaginary intellectual property exist naturally. Here you are writing FREE content merely because you *want* to prove a point (that you're losing doesn't preven

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. (I'm going to assume you refer to copyright as IP, since it's the only form of IP that would make any semblance of sense in this context.)

No, if you claim and enforce a patent on doors and windows, you use violence to prevent others from creating doors and windows on their houses. You are intruding on real property; you are infringing property exclusion.

Basically, it's a free market. If you don't want your "real" physical property rights to be infringed, perhaps you should stop buying copyrighted works.

No, your physical property rights are a priori infringed by the restrictions on shaping your physical material property in similar or exact manners as the physical property of others has been shaped. It doesn't matter if you buy copyrighted works or not. IP claims are intrusions, are limitations, on the manner in which you may shape your physical property.

We're talking about IP, not ideas. You don't seem to grasp the fact that property is an abstract assignment of ownership, not just whoever has it. I can stand in the middle of the mall if I want to, but it doesn't mean I own the tile I'm standing on. It does not give me the right to spray-paint graffiti on it. The mall owns it, and they could quite rightly take action against me for it. Similarly, just because you happen to have heard a CD that you've sold, doesn't mean you own it.

Persons are not abstract concepts. It is a physical impossibility for two bodies to simultaneously inhabit the exact same physical space. Right, the mall owns the tile. But you would be infringing the malls ownership of the tile if you were to declare the mall could not spray-paint graffiti on that tile because you own the "method for spray-painting graffiti". If you are humming or singing a tune, you are humming or singing a tune, no matter who created that tune. Everyone owns their own ears, eyes, noses, hands, and minds. As long as you are humming or singing a tune, you are possessing that tune. And more than one person can simultaneously hum or sing that tune.

If everyone had access to a piece of property, everyone would be richer for it.

Not true. Persons are property of themselves. Exchange only occurs when that which is voluntarily received is valued more than that which is voluntarily given away in exchange. That includes sex. That includes "secrets". Everyone cannot simultaneously inhabit and possess limited scarce physical property.

However, communism hasn't exactly gathered a lot of respect, and although it sounds pretty good, we've found that society (and indeed culture) can become richer still if people are allowed to retain private ownership.

IP is the "communism". IP is making claims and placing restrictions on the physical material persons and property of others. If you patent "clothing" and force others to remain naked (unless they pay what you demand), you are imposing violent restrictions on how others may or may not peacefully live. People retain private ownership when they are free to transform their persons and property in any peaceful manner they may so wish. You infringe private ownership when you prohibit certain uses of the property of others.

The democratic government, as an extension of the people, are the one's providing the might here. If you can't live by our laws that we've tailored over time to benefit us a society, then you might as well leave.

*OR*, I can demonstrate that the alleged Constitutional basis for imaginary property, "to promote and advance the sciences and the arts", is actually *hindered* by IP, and that society would *benefit* tremendously, if not exponentially, from the removal of imaginary property protection. IP is causing present poverty, and IP is slowing the rate of artistic and scientific advancement. And who knows how many resources are haphazardly squandered on second and third rate pursuits because of the "reward" of violent short term monopoly protection.

Re:Go FSF!

[totally bogus dude]

If everyone copies artists' works instead of paying for them, then sooner or later, the pool of available artists will dry up, and there will be nothing new to copy.

That is absolutely false, and I'm fairly sure you know it. Or do you actually believe that nobody has ever, or will ever again, create any form of art unless they're compensated monetarily for it?

There may be less people willing to create art, and the art may be different due to the different motivation for creating it. Then again, it might not; a lot of people participate in free software for the recognition, so it seems likely a lot of people will try to create popular art for the sole purpose of achieving recognition (fame).

This may be a nett gain or loss, but we won't suddenly end up deprived of any form of art and culture if we stop paying people to make copies of it. Mr2001 is right on a fundamental level: charging for something which has no cost is a nonsensical (but obviously highly desirable) business model. Getting money via the distribution of creative content made sense when distribution actually had a cost; that cost is rapidly approaching zero. Change is inevitable, and almost always unpleasant. At least for a while. Eventually a new stable model will emerge.

Mr2001 suggests a possible model. Here's another one: if art is so important to us as a society, why not just use tax money to pay artists to create new art? The size of the slice you get from it could be determined by how popular your creation is. Whether or not you can make a living out of it depends on how popular your work is; which isn't actually a major change to how things are now. Then, all art will be "free" and artists will still get paid for creating it.

Just because we do things in a particular way now, doesn't mean that's the only or best way to do it.

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

How exactly doesn't intellectual property resemble "real" property?

"He who receives ideas from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me"

--- Thomas Jefferson

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

Look, let me break it down. Many artists just want to be paid as much as they can for creating their work. Creating unlimited copies discourages people from paying the artist. Lack of payment discourages the artist from creating art. Lack of art is not good. If everyone copies artists' works instead of paying for them, then sooner or later, the pool of available artists will dry up, and there will be nothing new to copy.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, here, but it's not art. Maybe it's widgets. Widgets are not art - they are products designed to sell to some perceived or existing market.

Artists don't have to be paid to produce art, they produce it because the want to. Indeed, often because they have to. They have done it since the first cave man chiseled a bear on a cave wall, and they will continue to do it forever.

There have for a long time been people that valued art enough to ensure that the artist were paid for their work, and thus had more time for art instead of having to also perform other work to make a living. This is a good thing. Recently there have been whole corporations that hired artists to produce art works, then made money selling copies. Often huge amounts of money. Many artists got very rich.

Unfortunately, that kind of system also attracts the widget makers. Teams of widget makers often get together and produce something they call "art" (it's not) and make huge sums of money selling copies.

And what's the point in making them? Pretty much no point at all if you want money for them.

Good. If all you're doing it for is money, it's probably not very good anyway. Without all those widgety things crowding the ether, the truly insightful and inspiring art will flourish, enriching us and encouraging other would-be artists.

One supports our culture, the other drains it.

I'd say it's more like "one supports our culture, the other corrupts it."

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

The true owner of an intellectual work is its creator.

No. Most musical performers with record contracts produce records under a "work for hire" arrangement. The corporation is the owner, even though the creator is really the song writer(s) and performer(s)

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I think we've discussed before. Your comment about people not being paid for posting seems identical to one from another anonymous coward post, one who was similarly willing to argue similar beliefs. I also suspect you're the same person who's posting all over the thread, and who I've already responded to recently. Basically, I've got nothing to say that I haven't already said.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That is absolutely false, and I'm fairly sure you know it. Or do you actually believe that nobody has ever, or will ever again, create any form of art unless they're compensated monetarily for it?

Naturally not. Not everyone expects to be paid for their art. There will always be people who produce art for free. Just don't expect the same volume, the same time put in, the same attention to detail, the same instruments to be used, the same collaboration opportunities, the same talent pool, the same variety of different genres, the same widespread market penetration, etc, etc. Pouring money in and letting consumers decide is the best way in this capitalist society to improve any potential industry.

it seems likely a lot of people will try to create popular art for the sole purpose of achieving recognition (fame).

Which will skew the art produced. It will skew heavily against subtle, non-vocalised music, or against unbranded software, or behind-the-camera documentary making. Certainly it'll skew against anything that costs any significant amount of money.

This may be a nett gain or loss, but we won't suddenly end up deprived of any form of art and culture if we stop paying people to make copies of it.

Oh yes we will. As an experiment, why don't you see if you can get funding for a big blockbuster movie, with the stipulation that it'll be released into the public domain? Or perhaps a blockbuster game for the PS3, making good use of its raw power? Or even just music album that isn't one of those sells-for-sure pop albums (i.e. anything with any degree of financial risk)? It's not possible. It's not really because the publishing companies (who are necessary for tying the who project together) are greedy so much as they literally can't afford it. And even excluding those, there will be a significant drop in music production. How would you feel if there were only two or so movies/albums produced per year that were worth watching, and even then they are amateurishly produced, and suffer from picture/sound quality issues? That may well be the future without copyright that we're looking at.

Mr2001 is right on a fundamental level

People like Mr2001 are always right on the fundamental level, but abstract principles give way to the interests of the people, and as far as I can tell, the people want a healthy culture.

Change is inevitable, and almost always unpleasant. At least for a while. Eventually a new stable model will emerge.

So you're meaning to tell me that you think we should ditch copyright and hope a new business model will materialise soon after, and that we shouldn't wait, find a new business model, try against the current business model, and decide which is superior, because it's unpleasant but inevitable? WTF?

Mr2001 suggests a possible model.

The beauty of copyright is that Mr2001 is free to release his art under his suggested model. Better still, if it works, it may well become the model-of-choice for everyone! Mr2001, however, has no right to force his model on everyone else, as abolishing copyrights would do.

Here's another one: if art is so important to us as a society, why not just use tax money to pay artists to create new art?

I, for one, actually like that suggestion. Art, ideally, belongs to the people, and if the government pays for it, then indeed the artist would get reimbursed, and the people get his art. This has been often implemented partially through government grants, so we have some idea that it works. However, the downside is that everyone will end up paying for a copy of every artwork. If you thought it was a drain paying for a few albums, a few movies, and a few pieces of software, imagine having to pay for thousands through taxes! It would also lower the number artworks produced, decrease the amount of money paid to the artist per artwo

Re:Go FSF!

[Creepy Crawler]

Sure. Give me 10 pieces of gold and you can have the Mojave desert.

So, what pocket will you put it in?

This idea of property goes back to the Indians and that trade of wampum for Manhattan.

The Euro viewpoint was " Wampum is a kill for this land" while the Indian thought "The land will last longer than you. You just traded money for nothing. The land owns itself"

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

Read the original assertion in the post I was replying to in order to get the correct context.

The true owner and the current, legally in possession owner are not always one and the same.

Re:Go FSF!

[totally bogus dude]

Which will skew the art produced.

The current system doesn't skew the way art is produced? Of course it does. Different systems will skew it in different ways. The question is: which is better? That's infinitely debatable, of course.

You speak of blockbuster movies, but is that really the particular expression of film-making artistry which is most beneficial to society? Blockbuster movies are by definition popular, but do they really enrich our culture, or are they largely the same ideas recycled over and over? Would we as a society be better off without such things, in the long term?

At the moment things are skewed towards producing whatever is likely to sell in the largest quantities. Or in other words, appealing to the lowest common denominator. Is this the path towards progress? Big media (record labels, studios) act as gatekeepers; without their marketing muscle, you can't shift enough units to make it all pay off. The real profits here belong to those who can distribute the material, and maximising profits requires giving the artists creating the material as little as possible. If you consider the music industry at the moment, artists are effectively competing against each other to offer the labels the best possible deal.

The distributor itself -- the one who gains most of the profits from selling copies of art -- is actively encouraged to devalue the work of the artist.

That may well be the future without copyright that we're looking at.

Ooh, scary. It may just as well not be the case. Production technologies are better and more affordable than ever; there's no shortage of people interesting in the creation and production of film and music and other forms of modern art. Artists strive to at least emulate, if not better, whatever it is they see as the current best art, and that will continue.

It's interesting that you use a "music album that isn't one of those sells-for-sure pop albums (i.e. anything with any degree of financial risk)" as an example of what wouldn't be possible without copyright. The current system doesn't support risky endeavours very well -- why would a label choose to produce and promote an album that might not sell if they could choose to produce and promote an album that's virtually guaranteed to sell well? The flood of "sells for sure" by-the-numbers plasti-pop is entirely due to the fact that they have to make a profit, and bigger profits are better. When was the last time a major label did anything truly experimental, that they didn't have a lot of confidence in their ability to sell?

Consider Mr2001's original suggestion -- artists get money upfront from interested people before starting their project. Imagine this becomes widespread, i.e. the standard way of producing music. What dictates whether a project goes ahead or not? Simple: whether or not there's enough people willing to contribute enough cash to get it done. This actively encourages experimental things, because you don't need millions of dollars to make a decent album, and a relatively small number of people can easily raise enough to make a decent album. Many niches are ignored by the current system because there's more profitable alternatives to invest money in.

So you're meaning to tell me that you think we should ditch copyright and hope a new business model will materialise soon after, and that we shouldn't wait, find a new business model, try against the current business model, and decide which is superior, because it's unpleasant but inevitable? WTF?

That's not what I meant at all. I think we're currently within a period of change, and new models will emerge and take over. We don't need to do anything as dramatic as ditching copyright overnight. It will happen on its own.

In a free market, if a business model as dominant as the copyright business model is, it's usually a good indicator.

Sure; but the current model was developed during a time whe

Re:Go FSF!

[totally bogus dude]

Replying in a separate post because this piqued my curiosity / interest.

However, the downside is that everyone will end up paying for a copy of every artwork. If you thought it was a drain paying for a few albums, a few movies, and a few pieces of software, imagine having to pay for thousands through taxes! It would also lower the number artworks produced

I'm not sure if this is necessarily the case. A lot of money is made from distributing works of art currently, and that money comes from people buying the product. So in actual fact, we are already paying all of that money. Not only that, but the fact that various people along the way are making a profit implies that we are collectively overpaying for the creation of art.

Granted, this ignores advertising; but there's no particular reason advertising couldn't also be used to support a public arts fund. It also ignores the fact that potential profit is a powerful incentive, but that doesn't necessarily mean that without profit as a motive we'd get less or lower quality art.

decrease the amount of money paid to the artist per artwork

I'm also not convinced on this one. Most artists don't do especially well, because it's not in their distributor's interest to give the artist too much money. I covered this in my other reply, but it's important to keep in mind that not only is "getting rich by writing music" a dream that very few actually achieve, it's also not really beneficial to society. I won't pretend I don't want to be rich myself, but the fact is that "rich" is an inherently selfish proposition -- you can't be rich unless the majority of those around you are (comparatively) poor.

You could certainly find examples of artists who would be worse off in a publically-funded art system, but you could also find plenty of examples of artists who would be better off, and of wanna-be artists who currently don't have the means to get into the industry.

and snip out the most expensive forms of art

Almost certainly true, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It's certainly very inefficient to produce very expensive art, so you'd have to be doing a cost/benefit analysis on artist's proposals. A few hundred-million dollar movies probably are worthwhile and could be catered for by the system, but you'd have to prove you can make something pretty damn good before you'd get to spend that much of taxpayer's money on it.

On my way home from work I started thinking about way back before mass-distribution of art was practical. In those times, if you wanted to be a full-time artist, you had two choices: travel around getting people to pay you for performing; or get yourself a patron. The problem with this is that few people can afford to sponsor an artist, and constantly performing has its own share of problems.

When it became possible to mass-produce and distribute recorded works of art, the larger audiences made it possible for individuals to collectively sponsor artists. Of course, production and distribution cost a lot up front, so this role was filled by already-wealthy people in the pursuit of more wealth.

Now we're at a time where distribution costs almost nothing, and production costs are falling, so perhaps the next logical step is in fact patronage by the masses.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The current system doesn't skew the way art is produced?

Only in terms of popularity. Thus the more demanded art will be produced more. But that isn't really a problem since there is plenty of art production for all art forms, just some will be produced more than others, but still enough to satisfy anyone. Not so with no copyright. With an anaemic, underfunded culture, expensive artwork production will be slim to non-existent.
Besides, with copyright, artists have a choice of distribution method. There's nothing stopping the people who'd produce in a copyright-free society from producing their art. Without copyright, the artists have absolutely no choice. You are unavoidably cutting down options by taking down copyright.

You speak of blockbuster movies, but is that really the particular expression of film-making artistry which is most beneficial to society? Blockbuster movies are by definition popular, but do they really enrich our culture, or are they largely the same ideas recycled over and over? Would we as a society be better off without such things, in the long term?

What are you, a member of some kind of cultural elite? On one hand, we have people like you, telling others what's good and bad art. Your authority is that you really, really like certain artworks, and not others. Then we have the entire population, voting with their wallets. Their authority is the fact that they are everyone who will enjoy the art. I would have to say the most popular art, if anything, would trump your suggestions. I'm not really for having a cultural dictatorship, especially one that seems so divorced from the wants of the people.

The real profits here belong to those who can distribute the material, and maximising profits requires giving the artists creating the material as little as possible. If you consider the music industry at the moment, artists are effectively competing against each other to offer the labels the best possible deal.

So now we're back on topic. The art industry happens to be very profitable, and also happens to satisfy a lot of people. They help lower the barrier of entry for artists even lower, thus encouraging art production even more. They DON'T just produce "lowest common denominator" art. They produce many varieties of art, with differing popularities. There are only two reasons why they would avoid a market is either no-one wants it, or the market is already being dominated by an independent publisher (i.e. the market's needs are already satisfied). Think about it. If there is solid demand, why wouldn't they explore the market? Either way, it's not a blemish against copyright.

The distributor itself -- the one who gains most of the profits from selling copies of art -- is actively encouraged to devalue the work of the artist.

And those mean consumers! They are actively encouraged to devalue the work of whom they're buying from! It's the nature of any free market exchange. If you don't want to be screwed over, don't devalue yourself! Next you'll be guilt-tripping me because I sometimes shop at a discount store, one that could be charging market prices. I wonder how I live with myself?

Ooh, scary. It may just as well not be the case.

Ooh, reassuring. I suppose we shouldn't worry about firing off nuclear weaponry against Iraq, because we might not cause nuclear holocaust.

Production technologies are better and more affordable than ever; there's no shortage of people interesting in the creation and production of film and music and other forms of modern art.

But obviously not affordable enough, based on the number of artists who need to sign with publishers. I still haven't seen a viable alternative for financing those blockbusters that so many other people like.

It's interesting that you use a "music album that isn't one of those sells-for-sure pop albums (

Re:Go FSF!

[Ox0065]

So it would be reasonable to withhold any form of IP protection from DRM content. The right to get a return on your investment in creating a work is granted in exchange for it's eventual contribution to society at large...

Re:Go FSF!

[miasmic]

Yes, but it's devalued. You have it for free, I worked hard to create it. You can also steal from my bank account. I still have my bank account, it's just been devalued.

That's exactly like saying "You can steal the money and credit cards out of the wallet sitting on my desk, but I still have the wallet, it's just devalued" You sir, are an idiot, and a prize one for being so sure of yourself.

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

Read the original assertion in the post I was replying to in order to get the correct context.

Well your original assertion was specious anyway, because you were referring to ownership of some ephemeral work with monopoly rights attached to it as if it were tangible property.

Re:Go FSF!

[totally bogus dude]

They help lower the barrier of entry for artists even lower, thus encouraging art production even more. They DON'T just produce "lowest common denominator" art. They produce many varieties of art, with differing popularities.

Wow, that reads like a mission statement from $RANDOM_SOULLESS_BIG_CORP. I felt almost inspired by the end of it. Praise capitalism! Hooray for the RIAA! Hopefully you really do feel that positive about the direction we're headed in.

Unfortunately for me, today I'm feeling jaded and cynical, and I can't help but think we don't really have a pure free market driven entirely by consumer demand.

Labels advertise an artist because they want to maximise sales, and it's hard to deny that if a big label decides to really back someone, they can go from a nobody to a superstar almost overnight. It's rare to find a song so bad that continuous radio airplay can't turn it into a #1 hit. So while effective at increasing profits, it also creates a feedback loop for labels: they pick up and run with artist from genre X; it sells well; so they pick another artist from the same genre. Since they're advertising the hell out of that, it also sells well. It takes a very brave executive to suggest going against a cycle like that.

If there is solid demand, why wouldn't they explore the market?

Because there might not be enough demand to justify it. If you can make a 10-fold return on your investment by doing Thing A, and a 100-fold return on your investment by doing Thing B, then you're not going to do Thing A. Even if you can afford to do both, eventually you're going to decide it's not worth the effort. As a dull example, a lot of people won't stop to pick up 10 cents they see lying on the ground, even though it is effectively free money. Most people will stop to pick up $10 though, and almost everyone would stop to pick up $100. A label that's making millions of dollars from its artists isn't going to bother with an artist it might only make $100,000 from.

In theory, there's other record labels that don't make so much money that are willing to sign the artists. I have a very pessimistic view of our current implementation of capitalism, in that it appears the natural progression is toward monopoly. Large companies buy out smaller ones all the time, or simply use their financial advantage to bury the others who can't compete on advertising or loss leading.

So, the music industry is reasonably healthy at the moment, but smaller labels struggle to compete with larger ones. If a talented artist wants wide exposure, they have to go with a big label, which leaves fewer talented artists for the smaller labels. It will only get worse with time, as the big labels get bigger.

Now, someone else with deep pockets can come in and set up their own label big enough to compete with the big guys, and offer artists a better deal in order to gain market share. But they're only going to do that if they see massive profits for themselves, which mean they'll be playing the exact same game as the existing large labels. They'll just end up as part of the cartel, because once an industry is dominated by large players who aren't large enough to buy each other, they cooperate (or they merge with another company so they are large enough to buy someone out).

We do have laws regarding monopolies and collusion of course, but I don't have much faith in them either, given the amount of influence big business has on government policy.

The distributor itself -- the one who gains most of the profits from selling copies of art -- is actively encouraged to devalue the work of the artist.

And those mean consumers! They are actively encouraged to devalue the work of whom they're buying from! It's the nature of any free market exchange. If you don't want to be screwed over, don't devalue yourself! Next you'll be guilt-tripping me because I sometimes shop at a discount store, one that could b

Re:Go FSF!

[sm62704]

I hate having my intelligence insulted.

Yes, but it's devalued. You have it for free, I worked hard to create it.

If I steal your car by tricking you into signing it over, the blue book value is the same. But it's not yours any more, it's mine.

You can also steal from my bank account. I still have my bank account, it's just been devalued.

I can steal from a child, but that doesn't mean I've stolen a child. Either you're a fucking moron or you think I am. Either way, there's no point in continuing this stupid conversation, I believe others have succinctly argued my point for me. If you're too stupid or stubborn to understand, you're at the wrong web site.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.

Not exactly. If everyone had a copy of my IP, it would render my IP worthless effectively robbing me of it. Every copy of my IP that is made reduces the value of my IP.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. If everyone had a copy of my IP, it would render my IP worthless effectively robbing me of it. Every copy of my IP that is made reduces the value of my IP. If you were to believe that, you would also have to believe that every extra copy sold also reduced the value of all copies previously bought by people, thus reducing the value that would be paid by all future purchasers, until it was worthless, effectively robbing your past customers of their copies. See the absurdity yet? Dumbass.

Then why don't we see the sale price being paid constantly declining for every additional copy sold? If there's a long line of customers at a big box store purchasing the later hot new console game, how come each additional customer isn't paying $1.00 less than the person in front of them, or even paying $0.01 less than person in front of them?

--monxrtr

Re:Go FSF!

[ErikZ]

So does that mean the Indians don't own that reservation land? Sweet, I'm going to go pick that up.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah teh MAFIAA are greedy to so we can download any thing we want and its ok

Re:Go FSF!

[A L 1 E N]

On your second point, I agree with you that the "cultural value" of the IP approximately doubles each time IP is shared.

However, I'd also note that the monetary value of IP approaches zero as it is shared since it becomes more likely to be acquired freely or without effort.

I think that is a very important part of what makes IP distinct from "real" property.

D.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

So while effective at increasing profits, it also creates a feedback loop for labels: they pick up and run with artist from genre X; it sells well; so they pick another artist from the same genre. Since they're advertising the hell out of that, it also sells well. It takes a very brave executive to suggest going against a cycle like that.

These people aren't stupid. They may not know tech, but they sure as hell know business. They know that while they feedback loop on certain genres and really push an artist, they can also finance other albums. They have coffers to do it and they know that there's a good chance that many people will buy it (since the market they're aiming for is less saturated). The real expense is those massive marketing campaigns, and worldwide massive distribution. They can easily finance a more risky album, cut down on the marketing, and distribute less CDs to cut distribution costs. That way, if it flops, it flops softly. If it makes it, they can distribute more. It makes a tidy profit, and no self-respecting businessman would pass it up.

If you can make a 10-fold return on your investment by doing Thing A, and a 100-fold return on your investment by doing Thing B, then you're not going to do Thing A. Even if you can afford to do both, eventually you're going to decide it's not worth the effort.

Ah, but they have a lot of effort to spare! They have all the studios, the equipment, the producers, and even then most of the work (in terms of time) on an album is done by the musician separately. They're not short of resources, or the manpower. Besides, they know the more albums they release a product to a saturated market, the higher the risk and the lower the profits, so they can't just sign the pop princesses. I also think you exaggerate when you cite $10,000, since the albums would easily make more than that.

So, the music industry is reasonably healthy at the moment, but smaller labels struggle to compete with larger ones. If a talented artist wants wide exposure, they have to go with a big label, which leaves fewer talented artists for the smaller labels. It will only get worse with time, as the big labels get bigger.

Anyone can become a monopoly if they can become popular enough. I don't strike it against the RIAA for doing such a good job that they may become a monopoly. I know that here in Australia, at least, the ARIA (the Australian anagram for RIAA) awards publicly an award for "the best independent album" with the rest of the ARIA awards. I'd hardly consider that anti-competitive.

So, it's okay to devalue physical items if you can get it cheaper somewhere else, but it's not okay to devalue IP from an arbitrary price (the supply is infinite remember, so it can't possibly be set by the marketplace mechanism of supply and demand) by making a copy of it?

OK, you're trying to lynch me not just for word choice, but your word choice (the one I just took up and rolled with). The term you should have used, if you wanted to be correct, would be undervalued. Devalued implies that there is no choice in the matter, the market has just decided that whatever you've invested in is worth less than it was before. In the case of me using it, it was talking about conscious choice by consumers that devalues artist's music, and ultimately our culture as a whole. Undervalued means you could have gotten a better deal if you just looked somewhere else. You're screwing yourself over, essentially. Get it now? One is about one party striking a blow against another, the other is about a party striking a blow against itself.

My fear is that business lucrativeness and cultural rewards aren't necessarily linked. Indeed, cultural rewards to me implies a wide variety of art to cater to all tastes, and easy access by everyone to all of them. Businesses thrive on specialisation; it is more efficient and thus more profitable to sell one kind of widge

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Ah, I would have replied sooner, but I've been so busy with people with less absurd views. I'm ashamed to say I just dismissed you as so incredibly elitist about such a subjective subject as art, that I thought you weren't worth replying to. Now mods have made you 5 Insightful, and I once again overestimate the intelligence of the masses. Oh well, everyone has left the thread, and if you can't see why telling people what's art and what isn't based on what you and you alone like, and based on the number of people who disagree with you, is so utterly repugnant, then you'll never learn.

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

There is no such thing as "tangible" property. Property in a legal context is a set of legal rights, nothing more or less. Personalty deals with tangible objects but it is just one kind of property, and not the most legally significant, most complex or eventful, or most litigated kind.

Again, had you bothered to read, this would not be an element of confusion for you.

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

There is no such thing as "tangible" property. Property in a legal context is a set of legal rights, nothing more or less. Personalty deals with tangible objects but it is just one kind of property, and not the most legally significant, most complex or eventful, or most litigated kind.
I call bullshit. Look it up. Tangible. Here, I'll help you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible. Legally? What do you mean? Do you mean that the basis of American law, the Constitution, defines bullshit like monopoly rights like copyright, patent rights, and other - yes - intangibles to be property when they crafted the first amendment making it clear that the "right to life, liberty, and property" are basic inalienable rights? If that's your claim, it's complete bullshit. What are you, a fucking lawyer? Are you one of the bastards that have helped rape our Constitution by inventing new meanings for words. You don't seem to know what the fuck "intangible" means (check the definition, ass).

Here's a test. If you invade my property, can I blow your fucking head off with impunity? Yes - and double yes if I live in Texas. Try that with your fucking intangible intellectual so-called property.

Again, had you bothered to read, this would not be an element of confusion for you. I read it, you asshat. Try learning how to write.

I hope that's clear enough for you.

asshat.

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

Ah, I would have replied sooner, but I've been so busy with people with less absurd views. I'm ashamed to say I just dismissed you as so incredibly elitist about such a subjective subject as art, that I thought you weren't worth replying to. Now mods have made you 5 Insightful, and I once again overestimate the intelligence of the masses. Oh well, everyone has left the thread, and if you can't see why telling people what's art and what isn't based on what you and you alone like, and based on the number of people who disagree with you, is so utterly repugnant, then you'll never learn.

I *never* told anyone what's art and what's not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And there is plenty of much varied art out there for everyone to choose from. People are easily mislead, though. And if all they offer at the bar is 2-day-old corn mash, well, you can come to like 2-day-old corn mash. In fact you could convince lots of people that 2-day-old corn mash was the finest liquor around. But when offered a *choice* between 14-year-old scotch and 2-day-old corn mash, I think I know what most people would choose. If that's "elitist" in your view, so be it.

What I was trying to point out is that there are people that *care* about their art work, and want to produce something that they like. They are artists, and will do it regardless of how much they may or may not get paid. There are other people that only care about the money they can make from what they produce. Most people can tell the difference, when they are not force-fed by multi-billion-dollar marketing blitzes.

Re:Go FSF!

[Mr2001]

If, however, you mean to say you don't need the artist to make a copy for you, then that's false. You still need the artist to make the original for you.

So it's not false at all, then, is it?

Making the original != making copies. Making the original involves writing melodies and lyrics, playing instruments, singing, adjusting levels in a mixer, etc. I can't do that; I'm not a musician. Making copies, on the other hand, involves sending files over the internet or writing bits to a CD. I can do that myself, because I own a computer. I will gladly pay someone for making the original, but asking me to pay for copies is asking for charity.

So it's your contention that the artist should ask for a lump sum payment up front for the original work? Who exactly do you expect to pay for that?

Essentially the same people who pay for it now: music fans. If your favorite band came to you and said "we need money or we'll never be able to make another album again", wouldn't you open your wallet? I sure would.

Tell you what. If you create some art, feel free to sell it like that. Other artists who feel that the other method is better will sell it their way.

The problem is, allowing them to "sell it their way" means I have to give up some of my speech rights in order to support their nonsensical business model.

Why can't we just tell them to find a model that works without taking away anyone else's rights?

I mean, suppose I start a business of helping old ladies across the street in exchange for money, and then when I realize many old ladies can walk across the street by themselves and I'm not making as much money as I could, I ask you to vote for a law that would make it illegal for old ladies to cross the street unassisted. Wouldn't that be crazy? Wouldn't you tell me to find another business model that didn't rely on restricting everyone else to make them dependent on me?

Since you can't reasonably expect a copyrighted work to be created without copyright, your art will be sold exactly as if there were no copyright at all.

Art has been created for centuries, long before there was anything like copyright, and even today, people continue to create works that they release for free public consumption. It's a mistake to assume that this stuff would stop being created without copyright. Some producers who are primarily motivated by control or profit might stop, but on the other hand, other people would be able to produce more if copyright didn't prevent them from making derivative works.

Many artists just want to be paid as much as they can for creating their work. Creating unlimited copies discourages people from paying the artist.

Restricting speech and technological innovation in order to allow artists to make a few more bucks is unconscionable. We all want to be paid "as much as we can", but in real life, we have to settle for being paid as much as we can convince others to pay us. If you can't convince people to pay you as much as you'd like for writing music, then you have to think about whether writing music is the right career for you.

If everyone copies artists' works instead of paying for them, then sooner or later, the pool of available artists will dry up, and there will be nothing new to copy.

If such a scenario ever came to pass, the artists would find it very easy to sell their talent in a world where no one had heard anything new for years. "I'll write you a song right now for $500!" they'd say, and a public starved for anything new at all would throw cash at them. Eventually people would want to hear songs that took a little longer than 5 minutes to write, and the artists would be able to collect larger sums for larger projects.

Of course, it's unlikely that we'd ever reach that point, because profit is not the only motivation to create, and selling copies is not the only way to make a profit. If copyright were aboli

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

Keep reading. If your leaden skull and six working brain cells work together and light in the right sequence, you might just get it (hint: it's not that tangible isn't a word [it is], it's that you're clearly just a moron out of your element). We'll be patient; we all know words are hard.

Property in a legal context is a set of rights. Nothing more, nothing less. It's really not that hard to understand, at least for someone with a fully functional brain.

And no, you can't kill people for "invading your property." (Here again though, you're improperly conflating lay property and legal property.) Typically, once they've entered and are not directly threatening you, the law does not allow you to use lethal force for the mere protection of possessions. But you're clearly not competent, so I don't expect you to understand that one, either.

Re:Go FSF!

[mrchaotica]

However, I'd also note that the monetary value of IP approaches zero as it is shared since it becomes more likely to be acquired freely or without effort.

So what?

No, really. So what?

Remember, the express purpose of all this so-called "intellectual property" is, and I quote, "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Not to have monetary value!

The cultural value of "IP" is the only value of "IP" that matters!

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

Keep reading. No, sorry, but I'm done with that. You obviously are going to continue to demonstrate the slow, fossilized brain of the very old, and continually assert that your own viewpoint is the correct one, because you cannot see any other. You think your context is the only one that matters, and the rest of us simply cannot see why your fantasies must be real.

I'll give this to you one more time - then I'll let you have the last word. "Intellectual property" does not exist. It is not real (in the epistemological sense), while physical (go ahead and deconstruct that if you want) property is. You are improperly conflating property with a collection of federal rules that govern (re)production of intangible concepts. They are not the same, will never be the same, and should not be treated the same.

Go.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

People are easily mislead, though. And if all they offer at the bar is 2-day-old corn mash, well, you can come to like 2-day-old corn mash. In fact you could convince lots of people that 2-day-old corn mash was the finest liquor around.

So you aren't telling us what's art, you're just "reminding" us that commercial music isn't?

What I was trying to point out is that there are people that *care* about their art work, and want to produce something that they like. They are artists, and will do it regardless of how much they may or may not get paid.

That's awfully simplistic. Artists are only artists if they are prepared not to get paid. I guess you can win any copyright debate if you define artist that way. Think about it. Why would we have to encourage artists with copyright, why would we need corporations like the members of the RIAA if true artists need no financial encouragement? Well, QED! I can't argue against that! But I think someone needs to think of all those "Widget" makers^H^H^H^H^H^H manufacturers who give the majority of people so much entertainment, and protect their rights, and lower their barrier of entry into the "Widget" making industry.

Most people can tell the difference, when they are not force-fed by multi-billion-dollar marketing blitzes.

I can just imagine it. One day a entrepreneurial young man thinks to himself "Hey, what if I create company made to brainwash people into believing terrible music is good! Wow, that'd be fun! All those saps who base their businesses on giving consumers what they want are about to become a thing of the past! My idea is so much cooler, because it has brainwashing and aliens and stuff..."

Has it occurred to you that people like the music the RIAA is producing? Has it occurred to you how self-centred it is to say that what they're producing is not art? They aren't force-feeding people crappy music. Why would they do that? Creating decent music isn't rocket science, and they're mostly responsible for the distribution and marketing anyhow. What they do is they tune into what people want to hear, and they deliver. They are not artists, but the people who sign with them are. Art is completely subjective, and I don't know who the hell you think you are when you group all the RIAA's music into one lump, and dismiss it as "Widgets".

Y'know what, fine. Your "insight" is really only pre-packaged predictable crap that's been recycled in some form or another over, and over, and over again. Corporation = evil, consumer = dumb, popular = sheeple, me = smart. Give me a break.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Whoops, forgot to log in. Any mods left on the scene who's rage is now overcoming their feeble commitment to moderator's guidelines can now flamebait me into oblivion.

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

I can just imagine it. One day a entrepreneurial young man thinks to himself "Hey, what if I create company made to brainwash people into believing terrible music is good! Wow, that'd be fun! All those saps who base their businesses on giving consumers what they want are about to become a thing of the past! My idea is so much cooler, because it has brainwashing and aliens and stuff..." I know. Seems fantastic, doesn't it?

Y'know what, fine. Your "insight" is really only pre-packaged predictable crap that's been recycled in some form or another over, and over, and over again. Corporation = evil, consumer = dumb, popular = sheeple, me = smart. Give me a break. Wow. Not sure what I said to offend you, here, but you are really stretching to paint what I said into a box like that. I never said that incentive for artists was *bad*. In fact I said it was good. What I said (or meant) was that the system was currently corrupt, and that we shouldn't be worrying about a dearth of artwork if we decide to reform the system - that won't happen. The system needs reform and exploits the artists unfairly. Some other system is needed, and if some corporations go bankrupt, that's less of a bad consequence than the draconian measures that are currently being implemented to prop up a failing business model.

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

I'll give this to you one more time - then I'll let you have the last word. "Intellectual property" does not exist. It is not real (in the epistemological sense), while physical (go ahead and deconstruct that if you want) property is. How is it not epistemologically real? It is a coherent, systematic, endemic set of rights codified by law, just like all other kinds of property. "Physical" property does not exist, either. You can change the adjective as many times as you want, but you're clearly flailing to establish a legal grounds for concepts unimportant to the law.

You're simply saying that IP doesn't concern itself with physical works, which is not entirely accurate, but more importantly, wholly irrelevant.

You are improperly conflating property with a collection of federal rules that govern (re)production of intangible concepts. That is not true, nor is your statement a logical possibility. You continually fail to apply a proper definition to property. It is simply not possible to conflate a superset of rules with a subset of those rules in the manner you suggest--conflation requires discrete elements. A and B cannot be conflated where B exists in A.

"Physical" property is a lay expression. There is no physicality at all in legal property. A copyright is no more or less "real" or "physical" or "tangible" than a real property right or a personalty right. This is something you consistently fail to comprehend in your Tourettic outbursts.

You are using a mistaken, incomplete, and wholly inaccurate understanding to argue a definition in a field with which you are not familiar, for reasons that escape comprehension. Words in the law do not carry the same meaning that they do in daily discourse, and legal terms of convenience do not have to make sense to the masses to be proper (e.g. your prior remarks are clearly an insane rant, yet you are not necessarily legally insane for any given purpose). If you would pause to absorb that simple fact, you might avoid making a fool of yourself.

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

Well, you are wrong that intellectual property is recognized by law. There are patents, copyrights, and trademarks, but those are limited entitlements, not property, and they are not recognized as property and hopefully never will be.

asshat

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking legal parasitic moron.

It is a coherent, systematic, endemic set of rights codified by law, just like all other kinds of property. You don't have the first fucking clue to what "rights" are. Rights don't violate other rights, dipshit. There's no property proper when outsider non-owners can intrude on your property. Copyright prohibits others from transforming their physical material property to similar manners as the property of others. But you just want to bury your head in the sand and retreat in circular legalese mumbo jumbo.

Here's a real simple example, that even someone as STUPID as you should be able to comprehend. But schmucks like you always run away because they fail to demonstrate their bullshit claims. If you claim a patent on doors and windows, you are preventing other people from creating doors and windows with their physical property. You are INTRUDING on their physical property. You are VIOLATING their physical property. This was spelled out for you earlier. So your alleged intellectual property is A.) NOT coherent B.) NOT systematic and C.) in violation of real property rights. Got it dumb fuck?

"Physical" property does not exist, either. Oh, that's just brilliant. What are you going to claim next? Torts aren't real either? Grow the fuck up.

You continually fail to apply a proper definition to property. It is simply not possible to conflate a superset of rules with a subset of those rules in the manner you suggest--conflation requires discrete elements. A and B cannot be conflated where B exists in A. No, you're just too stupid to see that alleged claims of IP are intruding upon the physical property of others. And there are BILLIONS and BILLIONS of examples of humans COPYING other humans with respect to their persons and property. Any and all claims of IP are exactly as arbitrary, stupid, and violent as declaring others can't wear clothing or build doors and windows in their homes without permission or payment to those claiming imaginary property. That is total and utter disrespect for the notion of property. So why don't you retake your law classes at whatever butt fuck nowhere school you think you learned what property is.

"Physical" property is a lay expression. You don't know the difference between physical and intellectual?

There is no physicality at all in legal property. Yeah whatever, and there's no violence in feeding you to the fishes.

A copyright is no more or less "real" or "physical" or "tangible" than a real property right or a personalty right. You're like one of those retarded dumb asses who think a "right to health care" can exist because they are too fucking stupid to comprehend that a right to health care would violate the rights of others by enslaving them to provide health care.

Words in the law do not carry the same meaning that they do in daily discourse, Because some bullshit lawyers codify violence and pretend it's not violence? Take some economics lessons dumb ass, and learn the difference between voluntary and non-consensual. Taxation isn't "theft" either right? If a majority of the population votes to take away all the property of another that's not "theft" right? And if society votes to put someone to death for whatever reason that's not "murder" right? And if two men vote to have sex with one woman on an island and that woman votes "no", that's not rape either? Nope, you're full of shit, full of contradictions.

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

There are patents, copyrights, and trademarks, but those are limited entitlements, not property Have you read nothing at all? You know nothing of which you speak. Crack open any Property I book. Par for the course, I suppose--still struggling with that pesky definition. I know, I know, words are hard.

Asshat, indeed.

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

Yawn. You again.

Rights don't violate other rights, dipshit. Hahahahaha... ...We'll just leave it there. If you actually believe that, there's no hope for you.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's right dummy. Because if another right violated that first right, that first right would no longer be a right. It's a fundamental epistemological impossibility for something to both exist and not exist at the same time. Take for instance, you have the right to remain silent (or in your case, to STFU dumb ass). Any scenario in which someone would be compelled to not remain silent would by definition violate the right to remain silent, and hence there wouldn't be a right to remain silent. It's always an EITHER/OR scenario. There' no in between pretend super set sub set bull shit.

Yup, what a pussy fool you are. Can't demonstrate his claims for squat.

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

Apart from being total hogwash, your lunacy isn't even internally consistent--you refer to property rights, which don't exist in the first place in the infantile binary state you've created. But you know that, or you'd log in.

I guess we live in a world with no rights whatsoever!

Troll.

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Wow. Not sure what I said to offend you, here

It's kinda odd. I'm not an artist and I'm not affiliated in any way with any publisher. I think it's something to do with elitism in art. In knowledge, I can forgive. In art, you're just being an asshole.

you are really stretching to paint what I said into a box like that.

Certainly no moreso than I perceived you were painting RIAA music into your own box. I'm pretty sure you were implying that corporations were evil (force-feeding and such), I'm also damn sure you were saying the consumer was dumb (they can be tricked, etc), popular = sheeple was a bit of a stretch, but with your characterisation of popular art as "Widgets" that could be "force-fed" (as opposed to marketed to fairly), I didn't think it was too unreasonable. Me = smart was just an insult thrown generically at people I think are being elitist. If I got it wrong, I'm sorry. However, I still can't see how you managed to get your argument so misleading, assuming you were indeed not making the point I thought you were making.

What I said (or meant) was that the system was currently corrupt, and that we shouldn't be worrying about a dearth of artwork if we decide to reform the system - that won't happen.

Well, that is less offensive, but I still think you're wrong.

The system needs reform and exploits the artists unfairly.

We can't protect the artists if they want to sign a contract. They are (mostly) adults, and they have to be able to decide these things for themselves. If they don't like it, there are alternatives to the RIAA. They don't need, and often don't want your help.

Some other system is needed, and if some corporations go bankrupt, that's less of a bad consequence than the draconian measures that are currently being implemented to prop up a failing business model.

This is what I find most problematic with the anti-copyright argument. People want to bring down the RIAA/MPAA, if not for enforcing copyright law, then for helping the passing laws like the DMCA and helping the making of certain P2P networks illegal, but they take it out on copyright instead. Here's a better idea: instead of going after copyright, how about going after the labels themselves. Here's an even better idea: instead of going after copyright or the labels, go after the holes in the political and legal systems that allow them to influence nationwide policy. Don't sabotage something as useful as copyright, or even the labels. Why not go straight for the source of the problem (and so many problems before it)?

Re:Go FSF!

[A L 1 E N]

So this:

The music, movie, book, TV, and video game industries are grounded on the princple that IP has intrinsic monetary value.

The fact that these multi-billion dollar industries are built upon an incorrect assumption about the nature of IP is not trivial or dismissable (regardless of how many exclamation points you use).

If you think that the cultural value of IP is the only value of IP that "matters", then I suggest you review the tens of thousands of slashdot posts about the DMCA, the RIAA, file-sharers getting sued, DRM, police raiding Pirate Bay servers, software patents, and so on.

The fact that IP, unlike actual property, has almost no intrinsic monetary value is extremely important and relevant because there are massive industries that are going to crumble because they have the misconception (or, more accurately, anachronism) that its worth $$$.

BTW, don't take that little snippit of your constitution too far out of context. Promoting science and arts necessitates making money from the results. The resources needed for useful research or creative production do not materialize from thin air. Hence the whole securing-exclusive-rights- for-limited-times thing.

D.

Re:Go FSF!

[Anonymous Coward]

The resources needed for useful research or creative production do not materialize from thin air. Wrong. Where does VALUE materialize from? Extrinsically subjectively out of thin air.

Re:Go FSF!

[Joe57]

Actually, what I stole was your prospect for me buying that song. However, that is a conditional theft because I would argue that I never would have bought it. That, though, is circular if the only reason I wouldn't have bought it is because it's available for free. Confusing, huh.

I wonder

[markov_chain]

if Stallman has been reading xkcd lately ;)

I can see the connection

[kcornia]

While on the surface it may seem odd for FSF to come to the aid of P2P defendants, I think what they're really trying to guard against are future frivolous claims that could be made against open source software and the like.

If the RIAA is able to effectively take advantage of non-tech savvy courts, it's not too much of a stretch for other IP related companies to start filing claims, infringement suits, etc. against open source applications that compete with theirs.

Maybe I'm off base, but that's a possible reason for the FSF to be taking this course. It's more of a message to the business community at large that you're not going to have it that easy strong arming the technology world.

What do I know though, I was a history major..

Re:I can see the connection

[kseise]

I think the FSF are actually attempting to preserve P2P as a viable technology. There are valid uses for the technology behind music pirating. Assisting now would help prevent the shutdown of P2P networks and bit torrent.

They are also attacking the redefining of IP licenses.

Re:I can see the connection

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, the FSF are just a bunch of political activists that want to do away with commercial software, copyright, and business in its current sense. in other words, they are delusional hippies. why else would they defend a bunch of thieves? They should go to north korea, they would love it there.

HARK!

[mpgalvin]

Stallman!

The continued victimization of America

[Chess_the_cat]

Now I'm just a simple hyper chicken from a backwoods asteroid but does it seem right to call people who are being tried under the justice system in a public court "victims"?

Re:The continued victimization of America

[nuzak]

They don't want to be in court and they're being bled dry regardless of their guilt or innocence, so yes, I'd say "victim" is about right.

But hey, I guess good old fashioned gumption, bootstrap-pulling, and moral fiber are all people need. Maybe there's a culture of victimhood because people are constantly getting fucked over with nothing they're legally allowed to do about it except whine.

I suppose we all get the system we deserve. Unfortunately, I also get the system we deserve. Add me to the victims.

Re:The continued victimization of America

[Bryansix]

People who are sued by the RIAA ARE VICTIMS of an organization that abuses the justice system for its own gain. Justice is never served in these cases. The RIAA NEVER PROVES WHO DOWNLOADED THE CONTENT!!! So unless you call accidental convictions of guilty people justice, then justice is never served. Besides, the RIAA is asking for obsurd amounts of money for the infringements.

Re:The continued victimization of America

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. In the same way you would call victims of a lynching victims. It is a disproportionate response, applied under duress, and executed without proper process.

(Lynching is of course much worse, but both are clearly disproportionate.)

Re:The continued victimization of America

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the woman who took her case to trial, and got her ass handed to her, or all the other guilty people? Which "victims" are being treated unfairly? The recording industry is the victim. You're just pissed off they're fighting back and shutting down your free for all theft of their property.

Re:The continued victimization of America

[Achromatic1978]

They don't want to be in court ... regardless of their guilt ... so yes, I'd say "victim" is about right.

Don't bitch about my ellipses, they don't change your quote.

Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river. "I'm guilty, but I don't want to be in court, I'm a victim." Bleh. Remind me to try that one when I'm in court for something. "I don't want to be here. I'm the victim, making me be here."

Re:The continued victimization of America

[nuzak]

> Don't bitch about my ellipses, they don't change your quote.

How about not fucking using them if you don't insert the word "innocence". It took more work to be basically dishonest than to cut and paste.

Re:The continued victimization of America

[Achromatic1978]

What's dishonest about it? Offered were multiple options as being equally valid. I pointed one of said options out and disagreed with it and now you're bitching that that somehow makes me dishonest?

Your leap in logic astounds, or amuses, me.

But for your edification, let's break it down into distinct phrases:

• "They don't want to be in court" - sounds like something I quoted
• "and they're being bled dry" - some may say, some may not, that they should be. I stand neither here nor there on the matter, at least in my post, ergo, irrelevant
• "regardless of their guilt or innocence" - If they're innocent, they shouldn't be being bled dry. If they're guilty, you know, you gotta expect some repercussion for your actions. Again, I stand neither here nor there on the matter of whether the damages sought are appropriate, at least in my post. Don't expect the sympathy to drip.
• "so yes, I'd say "victim" is about right" - the guilty are victims because they don't want to be in court and it's costing them? Wow. What kind of warped mentality brings you to this?

However, if I'm being a dishonest asshole, please, enlighten, because I'm really not seeing anything other than someone being called on what he wrote.

Hardly a nightmare...

[nweaver]

The problem is, by the standards of a civil suit (preponderence of the evidence), the RIAA is able to kick butt on the forensics.

Its sloppy, its crappy, but when you have "Identify user's ip, user name, and the same username used on a bunch of legitimate sites", it becomes hard to contest the evidence sufficiently to establish nonresponsibility.

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[kcornia]

You mean without equivalent experts on your side to appropriately and properly point out, to a non-technical jury, the giant holes in their evidence.

That's the way I interpret FSF's involvement. They're not arguing innocence or guilt, they're just making sure both sides have appropriate technical representation vs. the ridiculously one-sided "Grandma Jones and her AOL account vs. RIAA's team of electrical engineering PhDs".

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[nomadic]

You mean without equivalent experts on your side to appropriately and properly point out, to a non-technical jury, the giant holes in their evidence.

The problem is most of these people are guilty. And when they're put on the stand and asked, "did you download this music" they have two choices: tell the truth and admit liability, or lie and commit perjury.

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[vux984]

Yes, but there was never really much doubt in anyones eyes whether -that- woman convicted in -that- case was guilty in my eyes at least. And I doubt the FSF thinks she should have gotten off. (The only real dispute there is how high her damages should be - and $220,000 is stupid/absurd/injust no matter how you look at it.)

But expert testimony at the right stage about the right point might force the rest of the evidence to become inadmissible, or create justification for a solid countersuit against the RIAA for how they obtained evidence. That sort of stuff might force them to settle for less, on terms more favorable to you, or even back off entirely.

It also might help in -other- cases, where the RIAA is arguing that your open FTP server is illegal distributing music. But the user was just using it to access his files from work and/or let his friends listen to his music as well under fair use, and the fact that other people could make copies for themselves with it, was simply not something you were concerned with, and you could have experts that would testify that an open ftp server is really no different than leaving your front door unlocked with your computer on. If someone walks in, tells your computer to send them copies of your files, and then leaves, who in their right mind would convict YOU for the 'crime'.

I don't have a problem with the RIAA shutting down people running ftp servers to distribute music, but they should have to prove more than "it exists". They should have to prove that you are posting the ip to blogs or usenet, and genuinely 'making it available' to the public, for example...

Experts could also help provide legitimate defense to people who host torrents, etc. After all, if I tell someone where a music file is, and they go and make a copy of it, why should I be found guilty of anything? If I had said there is a copy at the library would that also be illegal? Because they might go to the library and make a copy of it, and I told them where it was?! Experts can provide these sorts of explanations to help the jury understand the technology, and how it works, so they can make better decisions.

If the RIAA tells them the defendant was stealing the movie and broadcasting it all over the internets! The jury might side with a 'broadcasting and distributing without a license'... but if a defense expert says no, the defendant simply left a copy sitting on a computer, and people from around the world may have tresspassed onto his network, told his computer what to do without authorisation, and then helped themselves to a copy. (Oh and its hypothetical, the RIAA didn't actually even show that anybody actually even did this...)

The Jury might see things entirely differently.

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[kcornia]

But this would be true whether the FSF were there or not. Like I said before, I don't think FSF is fighting for these people's innocence or guilt, I think they're fighting for fair representation on both sides with regard to technical issues. Letting the RIAA run rough shod over non-technical juries starts setting precedents that could seep out to other areas, namely open source programming vs. IP vultures.

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In my opinion, that case probably involved a zomby computer. If the defendant had been able to afford an expert, the outcome probably would have been the opposite of what it was.

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

But this would be true whether the FSF were there or not. Like I said before, I don't think FSF is fighting for these people's innocence or guilt, I think they're fighting for fair representation on both sides with regard to technical issues. Letting the RIAA run rough shod over non-technical juries starts setting precedents that could seep out to other areas, namely open source programming vs. IP vultures. Well said, kcornia. Thank you.

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[nomadic]

But this would be true whether the FSF were there or not. Like I said before, I don't think FSF is fighting for these people's innocence or guilt, I think they're fighting for fair representation on both sides with regard to technical issues. Letting the RIAA run rough shod over non-technical juries starts setting precedents that could seep out to other areas, namely open source programming vs. IP vultures.

What I'm saying is for the majority of cases, extra expert evidence wouldn't really help in the end. Because in the end you're stuck with the to perjur or not to perjur dilemma.

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[Ricecake426]

I do seem to recall a right to not incriminate yourself. pleading not guilty isn't perjury.

The problem isn't so much copyright law

[physicsboy500]

Yes, the RIAA is trying to modify copyright law a bit to squeeze more money out of music they "own" at the expense of the creator of the music, and while that is a problem, most of the time it is not the issue that comes to the front when individuals are confronted with copyright infringement lawsuits.

The big issue that has come into play is the RIAA's tactics in gathering evidence. Many times an IP address was proxied and the wrong person ends up on trial. The RIAA's biggest misstep comes into play when they search/seize without proof that the questionable internet activity came from the household they are searching.

There have been many trials which have gone very poorly for the individual even though the RIAA gathered evidence at an incorrect location and *happened* to stumble upon something questionable.

Don't get me wrong, it's still great that an individual has more resources when fighting an RIAA lawsuit, but many problems come up not because of the RIAA's loose definition of copyright, but because the individual defending them self doesn't know their rights.

Re:The problem isn't so much copyright law

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There have been many trials which have gone very poorly for the individual... this is simply not so. There has been only one trial.

Why?

[moderators_are_w*nke]

In all honesty, why? Admittedly, the FSF is more of a political organisation than a technical one, but why are they interested in defending file sharers? They should be promoting free software development with that money, not attempting to get people off (the admittedly ridiculous) fines imposed by the US courts the got because they were too lazy and / or tight to go down the record store and pay money for the (admittedly overpriced) music.

I quote "The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs.". Thats computer programs, not MP3z. FFS, people donate money to the FSF for their work, if I had and found out they were spending it on this I'm be pretty miffed.

Right, tin hat on...

Re:Why?

[Chandon Seldon]

I'm a card carrying FSF member, and I fully support this sort of behavior on their part. The issue of file sharing is already threatening software freedom - if they can help to make it clear that the RIAA are just jerks trying to abuse the legal system, the RIAA will have less power to try to outlaw software. That's what this is really about - whether software that allows people to share arbitrary data with each other should be considered to be evidence of criminal activity.

Re:Why?

[Tom]

Because the FSF is first and foremost about Freedom, and very much against any kind of DRM-like crap.

The RIAA, on the other hand, is one of the primary promoters of DRM.

Their lawsuit circus is mostly for show. One, they use it to create ammo for their lobbyists ("look how many evil people are out there, we're suing in the thousands but we simply can't get them all, we need new laws, give us new laws, btw. how's the wife? how about a nice holiday with her to fix things up again? or a nice willing young lady if it doesn't work?") and two they use it as intimidation towards Joe Public in order to stall the inevitable.

I think the FSF is pretty much in the right battle here, because if the RIAA gets their way, we won't end up with DRM'ed music, we will end up with DRM everywhere (if you really want to "protect" music from being copied, you need to have total control of every part of the soft- and hardware).

Re:Why?

[compro01]

yes but the RIAA trials are creating interesting/dangerous precidents/opinions on IP law, which the FSF does rely upon, as copyright is nessesary to use copyleft. suitable changes/interpretations could render the creation of Free software extremely difficult, if not impossible.

it is very much in their interest to get involved with this before it starts to have direct effect on them, as by then it has gathered inertia and will be that much harder to reverse.

Re:Why?

[jgoemat]

FFS, people donate money to the FSF for their work, if I had and found out they were spending it on this I'm be pretty miffed.

Well, it doesn't sound like you donate to the FSF, so you don't have any right to be miffed. We all benefit from their work. You wouldn't have any reason to be miffed anyway, this is a separate fund created by the FSF and you donate money to.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"to defend against the RIAA's attempt to redefine copyright law."

FSF is involved not only in supplying software, but in licensing issues. Changes to copyright, can make them have to spend lots of time updating their licenses. GPL3 took years.

It might be that they don't really care about music-sharing, but have a problem with RIAA.

Also, although it tends to really be worse in the legislature than in the courts, laws like DMCA threaten just about anyone who touches a computer. Imagine if more stuff like that happens, unopposed. I don't know how expect witnesses in court make a difference on that, though.

Re:Why?

[mungtor]

Because the FSF is first and foremost about Freedom, and very much against any kind of DRM-like crap.

While that's true, it's totally irrelevant to the central point. The RIAA has evidence of people engaged in an illegal activity. They are taking legal action against those people (or the people they identify). They are protecting their rights, whether you believe they should have those rights or not is not relevant. You can support independent music or buy things without DRM in an effort to drive the market, but all the posturing about freedom is just hand-waving by people who want to listen to music without paying the appropriate licensing fees (which we won't classify as stealing).

The FSF should stick to promoting open source software and explicitly avoid associating themselves with file sharing and the people who engage in it.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

I'm an FSF member too (although I don't want to scratch my mini-CD by carrying it around with me ;) ) I but I have to wonder if this sort of thing isn't more appropriate for the EFF instead (of which I'm also a member). Don't get me wrong: I'm glad this sort of thing is getting done. I'm just not sure if the division of labor is quite right.

Re:Why?

[Blakey Rat]

The issue of file sharing is already threatening software freedom - if they can help to make it clear that the RIAA are just jerks trying to abuse the legal system, the RIAA will have less power to try to outlaw software.

I'm sure I'll get modded down, but when it comes down to it, aren't these people actually breaking the law? I wouldn't consider any lawsuit against a person who's actually broken the law "abuse of the legal system." And if you truly think it is, then the correct strategy would be to change the law, not help lawbreakers get off. Right?

Re:Why?

[noidentity]

Mod parent -1 troll. Author has a bone to pick, nothing more.

Re:Why?

[Cajun Hell]

when it comes down to it, aren't these people actually breaking the law?

That isn't really clear. Haven't you been following the RIAA cases? It isn't unusual for innocent people (who didn't infringe any copyrights, e.g. didn't download someone's music) to get sued, and for the evidence against them to be pretty much "made up." Having experts look at the evidence, will help in these no-real-evidence cases. Sometimes, the defendant was even dead when they were alleged to commit the infringement, but I don't know if dead folk will have the sense to ask FSF for help.

Re:Why?

[gillbates]

Because they are promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs, that's why. They see the connection between the shoddy evidence gathering of the RIAA and the possibility that merely possessing certain software programs will be considered as evidence of infringement.

The FSF has a policy against using proprietary software; it's not as if they are defending the illegal downloading of copyrighted material. Rather, it seems they are concerned, and rightly so, that a judicial precedent may establish the mere possession of file sharing programs as a de facto evidence of guilt, regardless of whether or not any infringement actually occurred.

Think about that for a moment. The whole Web is just one large, distributed, filesharing program. Imagine the consequences if everything was outlawed because of what it could be used for, rather than outlawing the specific act it might be used for. Even though the RIAA cases deal with copyright, it is more of a war on technology than anything else, and it has far-reaching implications for even those who do not infringe copyright. The real problem that the RIAA is fighting is filesharing itself - it could completely supplant them as the arbiter of music; their very survival depends on keeping individuals from sharing music - copyrighted or not - amongst themselves. The RIAA knows very well that once musicians discover publishing via filesharing, their stranglehold on the industry is over.

So what does the RIAA want? That's right - to control your computer, and dictate which software you are allowed to run. That's the only way to protect their content monopoly, and you can bet their going to try any means possible to accomplish it, consumer rights notwithstanding.

Re:Why?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Because they are promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs, that's why. They see the connection between the shoddy evidence gathering of the RIAA and the possibility that merely possessing certain software programs will be considered as evidence of infringement. The FSF has a policy against using proprietary software; it's not as if they are defending the illegal downloading of copyrighted material. Rather, it seems they are concerned, and rightly so, that a judicial precedent may establish the mere possession of file sharing programs as a de facto evidence of guilt, regardless of whether or not any infringement actually occurred. Think about that for a moment. The whole Web is just one large, distributed, filesharing program. Imagine the consequences if everything was outlawed because of what it could be used for, rather than outlawing the specific act it might be used for. Even though the RIAA cases deal with copyright, it is more of a war on technology than anything else, and it has far-reaching implications for even those who do not infringe copyright. The real problem that the RIAA is fighting is filesharing itself - it could completely supplant them as the arbiter of music; their very survival depends on keeping individuals from sharing music - copyrighted or not - amongst themselves. The RIAA knows very well that once musicians discover publishing via filesharing, their stranglehold on the industry is over. So what does the RIAA want? That's right - to control your computer, and dictate which software you are allowed to run. That's the only way to protect their content monopoly, and you can bet their going to try any means possible to accomplish it, consumer rights notwithstanding. Superb analysis.

The amicus curiae brief submitted by the US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker made a similar point about the RIAA's legal theory.

Re:Why?

[siriuskase]

They came for the MP3s, but I did nothing, because I was software.....

Re:Why?

[Kryos]

Well, see, that's the problem. In cases where the defendant has been able to provide their own expert, it has been shown that the RIAA's evidence doesn't prove anything.

Re:Why?

[coolGuyZak]

Another thing to be wary of: Most definitions of property are defined through common law, not statutory law. Statutory law paints "broad strokes" and overrides judicial precedent, but the details are defined judicially.

Re:Why?

[m0nkyman]

I'll quote the most important part of the post you are replying to, and let you re-examine your response:
if you really want to "protect" music from being copied, you need to have total control of every part of the soft- and hardware

There won't be any free software if this plays out the way that the entertainment industry wants it to.

Re:Why?

[RobertM1968]

You make very valid points - I wish the rest of the computer illiterate world understood them.

I think that understanding is severely hampered because the RIAA is going all out to try to equate file sharing apps with illegal sharing - period (as in that is ALL they are for). Since most people have no idea what BitTorrent or other P2P apps are, and all they see in the press is that they are used for illegal file sharing, the general public (which includes many computer/technology illiterate judges, jurors and journalists) believe them.

I think until public perceptions on the matter are not driven by the RIAA, things wont change nearly as fast as they need to - which is why this battle is so important - because the only leash to prevent new laws outlawing P2P software and many other technologies are currently things like the FSF... so again, in total agreement with you...

I am on the production team for Star Trek New Voyages and we use BitTorrent to legally release virtually all of our episodes. We have had something approaching 50 million or 60 million downloads so far. I for one have no idea how, an entirely volunteer effort, relying on others to help us distribute the episodes, and our own money to fund production and our own site, could ever manage to afford to deliver our episodes to that many people without something like BitTorrent (or one of us to hit the jackpot - which hasnt happened).

(Thus we have) a perfectly legal, legitimate, large scale use of P2P software - that the RIAA demonizes and wants to make illegal. One of only many examples.

I'm all for this battle and the FSF's involvement... because if the RIAA gets their way, we (and many other legitimate companies) will have crippled, costly distribution methods.

If I had MOD points, I'd mod you up as high as it would let me... (which is I guess only +1 more) ;-)

Re:Why?

[Tom]

he RIAA has evidence of people engaged in an illegal activity. Actually, in most cases they don't. Whenever their "evidence" was examined closely, it turned out to be very flimsy.

Good to see

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm sure the RIAA and friends will try to spin this as the FSF supporting piracy, that is just not the case. This is providing knowledge to the cases. This way someone with a hacked/cracked machine, wireless router or one of the other brazillion different ways that something can happen and gets unfairly brought up on charges can fight back.

Re:Good to see

[webmaster404]

Well when the RIAA can spin it that sharing and downloading around 20 songs equals thousands of dollars to be given to them, they can spin anything. When the *IAA can mislead congress to passing the DMCA and similar acts they can spin it. What the FSF needs to do, is to have people running for congress, with some of the people who get elected they will probably have an easy time getting in and if they can stop the next DMCA from getting passed, its a win for freedom. Without some good senators and representatives in congress, we will be even more digitally shackled then we are now. When congress worries about US kids not getting high test scores and about importing things from foreign countries yet will pass laws allowing single mothers to be charged for thousands of dollars for 20 some songs. The *IAA is hurting innovation and if congress keeps on P2P networks will be illegal, no matter what you are using it for. So please FSF please send people to congress.

Donate

[rice_burners_suck]

Donate!

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[evanbd]

I would think the best way to help the average Joe is to give his average lawyer a set of clearly-defined, well-argued precedents and examples to base the defense on. Having the precedents and example arguments be stronger will help more people in the long run than trying to help everyone at once.

There's no way the fund can help everyone directly; I imagine it will help more people in the long run by carefully choosing its battles and winning them well than by diluting its resources and helping lots of people who, while individually deserving, won't have the same multiplicative effect on the resources spent.

20 years from now

[pwnies]

our children won't be watching cartoons like Captain Planet, which reflects the hippy nature of the 70's. Rather they'll be watching something subtly using themes of the goodness of sharing, and the evils of the RIAA. "Linus Torvalds with the power of Open Source!" *cut scene to Linus and a team of ninja penguins stopping a kid from cracking a program and giving him an open source alternative* "Mark Shuttleworth with the power of Benevolence!" *cut to Mark in a space shuttle signing a contract to pour money into a new open source development* "Bram Cohen with the power of File Sharing Protocols!" *Just show him solving one of his many rubiks cubes. It's awesome enough.* FSF with the power of Legal Aid! *Show a personified version of FSF smacking down a court order against an innocent mother* By their powers combined, they form internet's greatest hero! Captain 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0! Kickass.

Re:20 years from now

[5c11]

Don't forget Negroponte - "with the power of Heart!"

Re:20 years from now

[pcgabe]

I know you're joking, but I would totally watch that!

Re:20 years from now

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

20 years from now our children won't be watching cartoons like Captain Planet, which reflects the hippy nature of the 70's. Rather they'll be watching something subtly using themes of the goodness of sharing, and the evils of the RIAA. "Linus Torvalds with the power of Open Source!" *cut scene to Linus and a team of ninja penguins stopping a kid from cracking a program and giving him an open source alternative* "Mark Shuttleworth with the power of Benevolence!" *cut to Mark in a space shuttle signing a contract to pour money into a new open source development* "Bram Cohen with the power of File Sharing Protocols!" *Just show him solving one of his many rubiks cubes. It's awesome enough.* FSF with the power of Legal Aid! *Show a personified version of FSF smacking down a court order against an innocent mother* By their powers combined, they form internet's greatest hero! Captain 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0! Kickass. Why wait 20 years?

Re:God

[sm62704]

RTFA? Dude, this is slashdot! You must be new here!

I personally RTFA quite often, but I'm wierd even for a nerd. perhaps the AT (anonymous troll) couldn't RTFA; it's firewalled off at my workplace.

I would think that having their victims get a little ammo might be a nightmare for the RIAA, but I think an even worse nightmare is the fact that neither musicians nor fans need the major labels any more.

-mcgrew

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[Anonymous Coward]

who appointed Ray Beckerman the primary RIAA gestapo? As far as I know, Ray Beckerman volunteered to help the cause. And it is indeed volunteering: he goes well beyond the normal call of duty for his pay/occupation. He pursues his cases with a diligence and excellence that is remarkable.

What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser? I understand the need for transparency, but if Ray is willing to undertake the task (and it will no doubt involve some tedious paperwork and such), then that's great. He is in a position to make informed choices, and to use this money to greatest effect.

Moreover it's not like he is a rogue agent here. The FSF will of course have a say in what happens. So, to the extent you trust the FSF and Ray, this is a good choice. Since both of them have proven track records of protecting individual rights, I'd say that donating to this cause is a good idea. (And, in the unlikely event that either does something to undermine their reputation, we can all donate our money elsewhere.)

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[sm62704]

I think Beckerman is the perfect guy. I certainly wouldn't WANT a disinterested party fighting for me! If I'm in court, I want everyone on my side to be passionate about helping me win.

-mcgrew

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[kwandar]

"What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser?

I frankly don't understand your point (or why anyone modded you up), and if you RTFA you'd see that Ray Beckerman is not the "sole" advisor. "The Fund will be advised by Ray Beckerman, the author of Recording Industry vs. The People, along with a group of selected attorneys acting as advisors"

I also want a VERY interested party to decide where funds should go, and why wouldn't it go wherever it hits the RIAA the hardest? You do realize it is a common law system right? Court decisions are relied on by other courts, meaning that if you hit the RIAA hard, you might knock them out for all future lawsuits.

If the objective is to kill these RIAA lawsuits in the most efficient and effective manner, then why the hell wouldn't I want Ray Beckerman managing it?! Hell - I'm donating BECAUSE Ray is managing it, and being in Canada I don't even get a tax dedcution!

It's easy to complain

[Weaselmancer]

But hard to do anything about it. You have a complaint - do you have a solution? Who would you suggest if not Mr. Beckerman?

He's passionate about the topic, a lawyer, and has (IMHO) the correct views on the problem.

this money wont go to help the average Joe fighting the RIAA, it will go to whichever Ray thinks will hit the RIAA the hardest

That's called preventative medicine, and is further proof that his heart is in the right place on the issue. If all he wanted was to get paid, he could endlessly represent vanilla RIAA cases until retirement. He's actually trying to solve the problem.

Disclaimer: Not associated with Mr. Beckerman, just a fan. Go Ray!

Re:It's easy to complain

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks, Weaselmancer. I am really excited about what the FSF has done here. Ti makes me feel we're not so all alone.

Punitive damages

[16384]

I find it odd that punitive damages are paid to the person filling a suit. If there are actual damages they should be paid to them, however if there is a need for punitive damages that money should go to the government, not to whoever started the suit. In this way, the millions and millions companies have to pay would not go into the lawyers pockets, and lots of frivolous lawsuits would be avoided.

Re:Punitive damages

[Dachannien]

I agree. Punishment should be done in the interest of society as a whole, not in the interest of one person who was wronged. Correcting the ills that befall the victim is what actual damages are for. Why should a person (or their lawyers) get a windfall because they ran afoul of misfortune or malice?

Hay;.... RIAA....

[jskline]

The jig is up. Better get your ducks in order now as your pyramid scheme is about to crumble.

Place your bets

[NaCh0]

Which will happen first?

The end of digital restrictions or the dominance of GNU HURD?

Parent is trolling, but I'll answer anyway:

[Burz]

Why, indeed?

Why convict defendants in your posts when they haven't even been through trial?

It ought to be clear from RTFA that the FSF may not have much of a free software culture left to serve if a whole body of cases with twisted re-interpretations of copyright law become established precedent. That impacts redistribution of software ever so much, so they are rightfully against letting the technical misrepresentations themselves to stand irregardless of whether the defendants are innocent or guilty.

Right, tin hat on... How festive.

Re:Parent is trolling, but I'll answer anyway:

[moderators_are_w*nke]

Don't think I was trolling. If I was I would have been a lot more forthright (and you would have ignored me).

I'm not convicting them, but lets face it, most are guilty of file sharing, I don't know many people who've been using the internet for a while who haven't downloaded at least 1 MP3 illegally (this is not an invitation to reply with a lot of 'I haven't' posts).

The thing is, its really hard to prove, which is why the RIAA's cases are mostly rubbish. In the UK at least though if you copy a CD, even if its just on to your iPod to listen to, you are breaking the law, never mind downloading.

Still don't see what any of this has to do with the FSF though. IMHO, DRM is self defeating, it will die of its own accord (actually).

Re:Parent is trolling, but I'll answer anyway:

[Burz]

When you cough-out backhanded insults to readers then you're behaving as a troll. And don't think that your username escapes notice here either.

I'm not convicting them, but lets face it, most are guilty of file sharing... Even if most are breaking the law, they must be found guilty for reasons other than the demonic apparitions and supposed established custom that the RIAA experts are conjuring up. A pattern of crime must not be allowed to enable opportunists to codify repression.

OTOH, what you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter if lawbreakers are convicted by underhanded means, twisting the law and maiming the free software community in the process.

Still don't see what any of this has to do with the FSF though. And I don't see where you've addressed their concerns about copyright law, mentioned by the article and myself. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are glossing over the FSF's reasons while saying that their actions are unjustified -- that would be dishonest.

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[TheRaven64]

With him as the sole fund adviser, this money wont go to help the average Joe fighting the RIAA, it will go to whichever Ray thinks will hit the RIAA the hardest And once Ray's hurt the RIAA enough, the average Joe won't have to worry about them anymore. I fail to see a down side.

The right answer - starve them

[jays8088]

The right answer is to starve the beast. As much as I love music, I will not buy another CD as long as the music industry persists in these law suites. I will only buy music when I can buy it directly from the artist, without a music company in the middle and then only from artists that do not support suing their fans. Nor, will I go out and p2p music, I will simply go without. If artists with contracts with the record labels want to make money from me, they will have to do it the old fashion way. Come out and perform. I know it's a lot more work that spending time in a studio and expecting to royalty checks to roll it but I'll buy a ticket if your music is good. I will no longer purchase products from any record label that is a member of the RIAA until they change their ways. Let's stop complaining about the RIAA and do something by doing nothing. The loudest sound we can make is the sound of our wallets and pocket books snapping shut.

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Interesting to me that this post comes from a new member who has never commented before. Methinks I detect an RIAA troll. Any post that starts off "I hate the RIAA as much as the rest of you, but..." is usually highly suspect.

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I would think the best way to help the average Joe is to give his average lawyer a set of clearly-defined, well-argued precedents and examples to base the defense on. Having the precedents and example arguments be stronger will help more people in the long run than trying to help everyone at once. There's no way the fund can help everyone directly; I imagine it will help more people in the long run by carefully choosing its battles and winning them well than by diluting its resources and helping lots of people who, while individually deserving, won't have the same multiplicative effect on the resources spent. Well spoken, evanbd. Couldn't have said it better.

But what about...

[ClayJar]

Rich corp sues single mom. She spends $100k defending herself through a long, pitched legal battle. She finally wins.

Meanwhile, the corp has only spent $50k on the baseless accusations, as they get a bulk rate on their worthless experts and they used staff lawyers paid far less than partners (or some associates). After all, they didn't really care if they won *every* case, just some of them.

Anyway, the single mom is exonerated, but she is only paid $50k of her legal fees. The other $50k is her expense. That's only fair, eh?

The problem with "loser pays up to what loser spent" is that there exist entities that can afford to "file in bulk" and who don't really care to win, just to harass enough to force a settlement. The individual defendants don't get the benefit of the economies of scale, and as the defendants can't afford to lose, they have to pay for "higher quality" representation (or at least, they have to pay for a lawyer to handle their case, as opposed to paying a law firm to stamp out 500 cases with little intent to follow through on them all).

Re:But what about...

[SkelVA]

The individual defendants don't get the benefit of the economies of scale If that's the case, then defense attorneys come along and play the other side of the economy of scale. Many lawyers/firms make their name/bucks by doing the same thing over and over again. They become a chemical-company-suing specialist, or they're a whiplash specialist or they're a specialist on suing asbestos manufacturers or... defending RIAA claims. They do the research inside and out how to do what they need for these "stamped out" cases as you called them, and use prior knowledge to bring prices down.

If big company X really is suing people at the kind of rate where lawyers give them economies of scale (I don't particularly know of this happening, but it seems possible), then the other side has the same opportunity.

Civil suits are about money. In the case of the dirt-poor civil defendant, big company X really has nothing to gain. We don't throw people in debtors prison and in all likelihood the company isn't going to see that money anyway, even if they win. All the loser pays system does is give the frivolous suit-makers (who only need to win a small percentage of their cases) a real financial deterrent to going sue-crazy without a good case. This helps both joe schmoe versus evil big company X and Company Y against dirtbag lawyer jon doe. Do you think those patent trolling companies would be able to keep their litigation up if they were shelling out google-sized legal fees every time they took a shot in the dark and lost?

Re:But what about...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The individual defendants don't get the benefit of the economies of scale If that's the case, then defense attorneys come along and play the other side of the economy of scale. Many lawyers/firms make their name/bucks by doing the same thing over and over again. They become a chemical-company-suing specialist, or they're a whiplash specialist or they're a specialist on suing asbestos manufacturers or... defending RIAA claims. They do the research inside and out how to do what they need for these "stamped out" cases as you called them, and use prior knowledge to bring prices down. If big company X really is suing people at the kind of rate where lawyers give them economies of scale (I don't particularly know of this happening, but it seems possible), then the other side has the same opportunity. Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. There's no money to be made representing defendants with little or no money who are being sued by big companies. As you said, you "don't particularly know of this happening"... that's because it's never happened.

Re:But what about...

[SkelVA]

There's no money to be made representing defendants with little or no money who are being sued by big companies. There isn't much to be made on the defendants with no money, but it seems like there are other advantages to becoming known for defending against the big companies. This is kind of mixing hypothetical with the current, since I was specifically talking about what would happen if we had a "loser pays" system in the US, which we don't. Since we're talking about the RIAA suits though, lets use that.
1. You defend a few smalltime cases where someone is sued by the RIAA. You learn what you need to know about the specific law and you hopefully find something that works as a defense. If the loser pays, you can get paid well for your victories, if not, go to 2. 2. You win a few cases and become "the guy" for defending that kind of suit. There are bound to be people that actually have spare income who are being sued by the RIAA. You now have leverage and notoriety to get those clients.

Re:But what about...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Dream on.

But on behalf of those of us who live in the real world, I ask you to please stop beating your gums unless you can cite to a single specific real world example of that ever happening.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

Re:But what about...

[SkelVA]

I have no idea if it's actually happened or not. I'd like for someone more knowledgeable on the subject to let me know why the situation I proposed doesn't happen. What's keeping lawyers from making money defending the little guy against the corporations? It seems like somebody has to be defending the RIAA guys, as we keep seeing cases on slashdot where the RIAA is having a hard time.

Re:But what about...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

All the lawyers I know who are doing it are making huge financial sacrifices, either getting paid next to nothing, or a fraction of their normal rates.

If you insist on me explaining to you why your fantasy isn't reality, I'll do it just this once:

Poor and working class people can't afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves. That's what it costs to defend a federal copyright infringement case being brought by litigants like these who stonewall every discovery request served upon them, bury their opponents and third party witnesses in an endless stream of discovery notices, and make any frivolous legal argument they can think of making.

If you happen to represent 2 or even 3 of the defendants in that courthouse, which is unusual, there would be some slight economies of scale, but none which compare to those enjoyed by the plaintiffs' law firm, which is representing the plaintiff in 300 cases, and which has a lawyer crawling around the courthouse full time every day.

Re:But what about...

[mpe]

The problem with "loser pays up to what loser spent" is that there exist entities that can afford to "file in bulk" and who don't really care to win, just to harass enough to force a settlement. The individual defendants don't get the benefit of the economies of scale, and as the defendants can't afford to lose, they have to pay for "higher quality" representation (or at least, they have to pay for a lawyer to handle their case, as opposed to paying a law firm to stamp out 500 cases with little intent to follow through on them all).

AFAIK the RIAA (and similar) arn't actually filing in bulk. So much as sending threats in bulk. Since once a suit is actually filed the parties are on somewhat more equal footing. The defendant can countersue the plaintiff or place the plaintiff in a position they have to either make their case to a court or drop it. Whilst it might be possible to file in bulk it's more difficult to take cases to court in bulk. Even if all the defendents did was have the cases moved to their nearest court.

What about the EFF?

[autophile]

I would have thought the EFF ("Defending Freedom in the Digital Age") would be the more appropriate NGO to address this issue. I thought the FSF was just an organization promoting the GPL?

--Rob

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think Beckerman is the perfect guy. I certainly wouldn't WANT a disinterested party fighting for me! If I'm in court, I want everyone on my side to be passionate about helping me win. Thanks sm62704.

I'm not going to be doing it alone. The other attorneys working with me will also be folks who have demonstrated that they are "passionate" about beating the RIAA in its war against (a) people, (b) copyright law, and (c) science.

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

"What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser? I frankly don't understand your point (or why anyone modded you up), and if you RTFA you'd see that Ray Beckerman is not the "sole" advisor. "The Fund will be advised by Ray Beckerman, the author of Recording Industry vs. The People, along with a group of selected attorneys acting as advisors" I also want a VERY interested party to decide where funds should go, and why wouldn't it go wherever it hits the RIAA the hardest? You do realize it is a common law system right? Court decisions are relied on by other courts, meaning that if you hit the RIAA hard, you might knock them out for all future lawsuits. If the objective is to kill these RIAA lawsuits in the most efficient and effective manner, then why the hell wouldn't I want Ray Beckerman managing it?! Hell - I'm donating BECAUSE Ray is managing it, and being in Canada I don't even get a tax dedcution! Thank you very much, kwandar.

I know most of my fellow Slashdotters don't like it when I say this, but I'm sure the guy who posted the parent post is an RIAA troll. He just joined, this was his first comment, he started out "I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy" (which is always a dead giveaway), and his profile is silent. Plus he made an asinine suggestion which would play right into his employer's -- I mean the RIAA's -- hands.

Fuck the FSF

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want us to respect GPL, which is based on copyright, then they should respect other people's right to copyright.

or..

[msimm]

someone should setup a fake RIAA fund. You know, think of the lawyers.

Will this weaken the GPL?

[samuel4242]

After all, the strength of the GPL depends upon the strength of copyright law. If it's okay for some dude to "share" a song by putting it on a P2P network, wouldn't it be okay for some GPL-hater to distribute binary code on a P2P network without including the source?

Re:Will this weaken the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary". Some GPL supporters (like myself) support it only as a means to an end: the abolition of infofascist copyright law.

Re:Will this weaken the GPL?

[argent]

If it's okay for some dude to "share" a song by putting it on a P2P network, wouldn't it be okay for some GPL-hater to distribute binary code on a P2P network without including the source?

The issue isn't whether it's "OK" to share a song, it's the penalties, and the standard of evidence that the RIAA is using, and their contempt for due process.

Should the FSF decide to go after someone's private hack of Emacs and demand a hundred grand penalties from a dozen random users who just happened to have downloaded it, then I imagine this might weaken their case. I don't think this will keep them up nights.

Am I the only one...

[Jay L]

who thinks this may not be such a great idea?

I was thinking about this the other night (probably thanks to xkcd). On the one hand, I don't generally agree with Stallman about, well, much of anything. On the other, without him and the FSF, the world would be a much, much poorer place. So I don't mean to rag on the FSF. But:

They're pretty much out on the edge.

Not of geekdom, mind you, but of intellectual property and politics. And it's not a bad thing: Brave people taking a stand on the edge help move the middle. Free software (and its estranged brother open source) have gone from academic playthings to corporate data centers, and it would never have been possible without them.

Yet I'm not really sure I'd want anyone with the FSF to be my witness. They're a lot easier to discredit as "fringe" to a conservative judge than, say, the EFF or (dare I say) even the ACLU. They look and sound like wild-eyed ex-hippies because, well, they're wild-eyed ex-hippies. And having a key witness discredited is a really good way to lose an otherwise airtight case.

I think I'd rather them focus on pushing the boundaries of licensing and, maybe, on finally finishing that rewrite of emacs in C#.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Catbeller]

Think about it. The hippies alway got it right. That's why people hate them. They were right, and the straights were wrong. And still are. The "hippies" live their conscience. Straights compromise. The idealists, as you say, maintain the nonexistent middle... keep the sheep from stampeding over cliffs. The country has gone so far to the right in media coverage that the idea that people should control their own computers is somehow extremist. Wow, man.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Jay L]

Yep. And yet... they never got it right by providing expert witnesses in court, so far as I can remember. That one has not yet been tried.

Yes Excellent Idea My Friend

[ComputerMan123]

But It seems to me that the Court System as it is Setup Currently, Willnot make it Mandatory to Sanctions Unless they Request the Court for Sanctions. So make that the Goal to Stop the Harassment to Private Individuals who care to share their Goodies with Others :) No Commerce No Need for Court Intervention. Good Day

Lunch with Ray Beckerman

[viking80]

I would like to suggest that this fund auction off "Lunch with Ray Beckerman" once a month. Maybe other celebrities will donate their lunches to the fund as well. That could generate both revenue and keep the fund in the news.

How about it Ray?

Re:Lunch with Ray Beckerman

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I would like to suggest that this fund auction off "Lunch with Ray Beckerman" once a month. Maybe other celebrities will donate their lunches to the fund as well. That could generate both revenue and keep the fund in the news. How about it Ray? Great idea. Except you're forgetting one thing. There are very few people who would want to have lunch with me.

Re:Lunch with Ray Beckerman

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, but someone would have to pay my airfare. ;-)

Lunch with Ray Beckerman

[viking80]

I would like to suggest that this fund auction off "Lunch with Ray Beckerman" once a month. Maybe other celebrities will donate their lunches to the fund as well. That could generate both revenue and keep the fund in the news.

How about it Ray?

I have a better solution. . .

[kimvette]

1. Don't buy their crap - at least not new
2. Don't download their crap
3. Don't listen to their crap on the radio
4. Inform them of your decision to boycott them outright, and tell them WHY

They will learn to adjust to the market and agree that advertising via P2P networks works. Studies have already proven it.

Re:I have a better solution. . .

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

That doesn't provide much help to those who are being sued.

FSF vs RIAA: As a member I fully support FSF

[wikinerd]

I am a Contributing Member of FSF, donating them $500 a year, listed in their ThankGNUs 2007, and I fully support their focus on RIAA. And I'm saying this while I am not into filesharing and I don't even listen to much music at all (except for some Mozart, Wagner, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky etc which I have paid for, and rarely a few freely licensed music shared by independent musicians online in Ogg Vorbis format rather than MP3), and in fact I don't sympathise much with those using p2p for swapping copyrighted songs/movies illegally (not that what they do is inherently bad, but I think that their behaviour does not constitute proper citizenship, I mean if they dislike copyrighted music they should create their own free music or vote in the elections for parties that support copyright reform). I, however, know that the criminalisation and marginalisation of p2p can have negative consequences for all computer users (what would you say if your ISP slowed down or cut off BitTorrent traffic - which is of prime importance to every GNU/Linux user downloading new releases of their favourite OS - just because a bunch of kids use it for swapping mp3z?), and it's also a free speech issue. So, I say, full support to everyone being against RIAA et al, at least as long as RIAA continues its questionable practices. If you feel that a free software organisation should focus exclusively on software and not look into the wider free culture issues that affect our digitised society, you are free to found your own organisation.

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[slashqwerty]

Anonymous Coward writes:

who appointed Ray Beckerman the primary RIAA gestapo?

As far as I know, Ray Beckerman volunteered to help the cause. And it is indeed volunteering: he goes well beyond the normal call of duty for his pay/occupation. He pursues his cases with a diligence and excellence that is remarkable.

What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser?

I understand the need for transparency, but if Ray is willing to undertake the task (and it will no doubt involve some tedious paperwork and such), then that's great. He is in a position to make informed choices, and to use this money to greatest effect.

Moreover it's not like he is a rogue agent here. The FSF will of course have a say in what happens. So, to the extent you trust the FSF and Ray, this is a good choice. Since both of them have proven track records of protecting individual rights, I'd say that donating to this cause is a good idea. (And, in the unlikely event that either does something to undermine their reputation, we can all donate our money elsewhere.)

Ray, you're the only person on Slashdot to write so eloquently, and without any spelling errors.

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Not me. Sorry to disappoint you. I guess there are at least two of us who write more eloquently, and with less spelling errors, than you. Probably there are tens of thousands of us.

Re:Wow...

[Technician]

You really do have a sense of humor!

I was woried about that earlier. ;-)

RIAA has you by the

[__aaacoe2998]

Wow. Sure looks like the RIAA has you people bent over and taking whatever they are willing to give. I was shocked to see so many ambiguous posts on this one. I was expecting to see the majority of people standing up and saying "about time". I hope you people are happy when you wake up and find that the RIAA owns every sound you hear, and every word you sing.

Re:The right answer - starve them

[Technician]

I will not buy another CD as long as the music industry persists in these law suites. I will only buy music when I can buy it directly from the artist, without a music company in the middle and then only from artists that do not support suing their fans.

May I recommend;

http://www.riaaradar.com/

From there I learned which Christmas music to buy this year. As popular a Wizards in Winter was for annimated Christmas lights was last year, they are off the list.. TSO is on an RIAA label. On the other hand American Gramaphone is safe. I'll buy Mannheim Steamroller instead.

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[Technician]

Any post that starts off "I hate the RIAA as much as the rest of you, but..." is usually highly suspect.

I also happened to notice he is a foe of yours. This is a good sign that he is in dissagreement with what you are doing. Keep up the good work.

Merl Ledford III

[Darth Cider]

Remember this letter by the defense attorney (Merl Ledford, III) who got an RIAA case dropped? One of his key points was that the RIAA suit was instigated by someone not licensed to practice law, but that point hasn't received a lot of press. It appears that anyone can make a buck on behalf of the RIAA by suing filesharers, and it usually goes unnoticed because people generally pay the fine rather than contest the lawsuit. Imagine Danny DeVito in that movie based on a John Grisham novel, the one with Matt Damon. No license to practice law, but ambulance chasing nonetheless. That appears to be the way the RIAA works.

The people who should be worried about the RIAA are the ones who NEVER illegally share files. That's the point. You think it's easy to prove innocence, or inexpensive? No, it will cost you a lot, and if you have a computer and an internet connection, you could already be considered an infringer. Danny DeVito has his eye on you.

Re:Merl Ledford III

[Fizzl]

Wait, what?
You actually need a license to use your judiciary system? That sounds fucked up.
How on earth can someone get justice who cannot afford _any_ kind of lawyer?

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[dch24]

Dear Sir Beckerman,

I feel compelled to request that if your newsletter might be made available, I would be delighted to participate in its distribution. :-)

Flagrant violations of accepted manuals of style and loquacious repetitions of the gurgling heard by the three billy goats necessitate a strident defense of the common man's ability to correctly sequence glyphs into coherent statements without resorting to a corruption of the form established in the dictionary. In all likelihood a large majority of our noble race possesses the necessary skills to acquire letters in the proper use of writing, if only it might be persuading enough that a pursuit of these ends would net a fitting reward. In short, a noble self interest does not a Cambridge writer make.

You forgot a famous laywer...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one...

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[PHPfanboy]

Mike, your posting raises a very important issue. The RIAA claims to be protecting artists by recouping money from file sharers. I would be very interested to see schedules of payment by the labels to the "damaged" artists.

I think the group would also be interested to understand the science of royalty payments as discussed here http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/may/may4a_04.html

Looking forward to your continued participation on Slashdot until your vacation work placement is over.

Legal tradition

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Does it actually cut down on bad law suits, or does it encourage a larger spending in the
> hopes of winning the case anyway?

We have much fewer lawsuits, but it has probably more to do with tradition. We have many other institutions for conflict resolution. For example, if you buy a vacation and it doesn't live up to your expectation, you complain to "rejse-ankenævnet", which will come to a decision based on information from you and the travel agent. They are not a court, but it is all around cheaper for both parties to abide with the decision of these bodies, than go to court. So that is almost always what happens. "Rejse-ankenævnet" consist of representatives from both consumer organizations and the travel agents organization, and has some formal blessing of the minister for consumer affairs.

> What I would like to see is for the court expenses be limited to what the less wealthy
> side can afford, and if the wealthier side wants to spend more, require them to cover the
> difference whether they win or lose. With the Judge in the case ruling whether the sums of
> money involved are reasonable.

The judge always award what it considers "reasonable" spending, independently of what the actual spending is. "Reasonable spending" is much less the actual spending for those cases that do go to court.

McLibel

[dunstan]

Well, whether they won or lest depends on your viewpoint.

They were found guilty of libel, so in that sense they lost.

They were not found guilty on all counts, though, so some of what they had printed was deemed to be true, so in that sense the partially won.

And McDonalds has changed, at least in part because of this case, so in that sense they clearly won. I think the world is a better place for the case having taken place.

Does "Intellectual Property" exist

[dunstan]

Sigh,

If "Intellectual Property" were like physical property, then it could be governed by the same laws. The fact that we have patent/copyright laws shows that it quite clearly isn't. The monetary value associated with a copyright or patent absolutely depends on those laws being effective, and the copyright/patent holder being able to charge royalties *every* time a copy is made.

The widespread disregarding of copyright laws *may* result in loss to the copyright holder *if* an illegal copy substitutes for a royalty bearing copy. Alternatively, if an illegal copy is used where the viewer/listener would have gone elsewhere, the copyright holder is even. And if an illegal copy results in a royalty bearing copy being subsequently purchased, the copyright holder has benefited.

Public domain clarification.

[remmelt]

>Public domain lends artists the building blocks to create artworks, and the artists eventually have to pay the public domain back so it can profit from it. Sure the public domain are the owners of what helps create artworks, but they don't have any ownership rights over it until the artist has had his share.

"They"? "The owners"? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? The public domain is the default. It is not a person or group or lobby, it's the umbrella thing that all creative stuff falls under. Anything. All RIAA music, all Hollywood movies, anything.

There is an exception. The people (you, among others) have decided to grant the creators a temporary monopoly so they can create more of that fine creative stuff (whatever it is) by earning some money from it. There are two very important distinctions here; it's temporary so after a while the monopoly is over, and it's an incentive for the creator to create MORE stuff.

The RIAA/MPAA/etc are turning this around in multiple ways. They're trying to make us believe that the default is copyrighted and unfree instead of free with temp monopoly. They want longer monopolies, so they can make more money, which is pointless, certainly beyond the death of the original creator. And they represent companies who themselves are not the original creators but who do make money from their work. They're also obscuring the point that the monopoly is there for the creators to make MORE, instead making it look like they're getting paid for the work that they've already done.

And please, don't give me any crap about poor artists that aren't making any money with their creations. That's entirely the fault of the companies that the RIAA/etc represent.

Re:All good bro

[Ox0065]

The RIAA's re-definition of copyright is tied VERY closely to DRM issues. DRM is perhaps one of the most substantial blocks to an open source operating system claiming dominance (at least within the USA) during the transition to 64bit ubiquity, if you think ESR's commentary is valid.

If you wanted to develop a strong body of case law with regard to their interpretation of what constitutes fair use, illegal copying and abuse of your customers rights, could you think of a better way to be selected to defend your position in any and every case going? They are offering expert testimony, not a defence.

You raise software patent issues. An excellent example of something unassailable in areas easily understood by grey haired judges (you can't patent written work, that's what copyright is for, it would be a ridiculous, counter productive, dysfunctional abomination) that suddenly becomes special once it's digitised (programs are like gizmoes, & I can't read & understand Perl, therefore lets hand out patents for these gizmoes in a black box with no explanation of it's method of fabrication...)

That's oversimplified

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's not as black and white as that in most places where there is a so-called loser pays culture. It's simply that judges can award costs as well as whatever damages might be appropriate.

Moreover, in your entirely emotionally neutral example, if the large corporation really wronged your Grandma, why did she lose the court case? There's a lot of whining on Slashdot about armies of lawyers (unless they're Good Guys like the FSF, of course). Sure, a good, well-funded legal team may make a better case for their client than a poor and inadequately funded lawyer. However, no matter how good a lawyer is, they still can't actually change the law.

Meanwhile, why should a business have to bear the cost of defending themselves against any Tom, Dick or Harry who chooses to sue them without a decent case? Just because they're a business, their money doesn't grow on trees. If they have to spend a lot of money defending lawsuits, that is money that isn't going to their shareholders. And lest we forget, those shareholders aren't just filthy rich executive types. Typically, they also include your pension fund and perhaps your best friend's personal savings.

Re:The right answer - starve them

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely!! I have NOT purchased ONE SINGLE CD that is released from an artist or record label that is associated with the RIAA - not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent. I have bought albums from independent artists, many of whom record better music than the mainstream artists.

Lars and his ilk have started a trend that is killing the music industry (and, let's face it, so is the fact that an artist doesn't own his/her work), so the RIAA (the dinosaur that it is) is doing what it can to keep from becoming extinct.

Boycott any and all RIAA-related music, people. Sure, you're going to miss being able to hear any of the new mainstream music whenever you want to, you'll have to wait until the radio station plays it; but it's worth knowing that the RIAA is suffering as a result. Bully the bully!

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[sm62704]

I would certainly hope so. BTW, I appreciate what you're doing.

Today's Fortune Cookie

[Nom du Keyboard]

briefcase, n: A trial where the jury gets together and forms a lynching party.

This was Slashdot's fortune cookie while I was reading this thread. Seems appropriate.

But Think of the Children..

[Nom du Keyboard]

But think of the children -- er, artists -- that right, The Artists, The Starving Artists, The Starving Artists who are getting every penny due them in all the money the RIAA is recovering from the evil college students -- er, evil filesharers. Yes, it's all about The Artists. The record companies are laying people off right and left to save money to pay The Artists. It's all, and only, about The Artists!

Think of The Artists -- except Prince, whose an @$$hole!

What about defense attorneys?

[paladinwannabe2]

I was always under the impression that defense attorneys needed to defend their clients even if they believed their clients were guilty. This doesn't mean perjury is acceptable, of course, but they can point out that evidence is circumstantial and any other flaws they can find in the prosecution's argument.

Of course, this may not hold up in civil cases, even if attorneys are obligated to represent their client in criminal ones.

Re:What about defense attorneys?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

And?

The RIAA lawyers are representing civil plaintiffs, not criminal defendants, and they are making false representations to the Court about the evidence.

Re:What about defense attorneys?

[Shakrai]

and they are making false representations to the Court about the evidence.

If they are actually doing that (and I don't doubt you that they are) then it's obviously a different matter and they deserve to be punished harshly by the Court and the relevant Bar Associations.

Has anybody looked into this and sought sanctions against them?

Re:What about defense attorneys?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

See Warner v. Cassin transcript of June 29, 2007, proceedings.

Re:What about defense attorneys?

[nomadic]

See Warner v. Cassin transcript of June 29, 2007, proceedings.

I don't get it, you told the Court you may file Rule 11 sanctions and the Judge yelled at you for that. Have you actually filed them?

Re:What about defense attorneys?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't get it, you told the Court you may file Rule 11 sanctions and the Judge yelled at you for that. Have you actually filed them? Dear nomadic, I've pointed you to the public record. I can't comment on it further than that.

Re:What about defense attorneys?

[nomadic]

Dear nomadic, I've pointed you to the public record. I can't comment on it further than that.

Gotcha. According to pacer, no. Your case, up to you.

The FSF is engages in RIAA-like tactics itself

[Brett Glass]

Ironically, the FSF is engaging in RIAA-like tactics itself. It has just announced a new license, called the AGPL, which attempts to impose requirements upon companies which "play" GPLed applications over the Net. That's right: If you are an ASP, the FSF wants to require you to give away your software to the public if you're running GPLed code. This is not much different from the RIAA's demands. So, it seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black here.

Re:The FSF is engages in RIAA-like tactics itself

[coppro]

> Ironically, the FSF is engaging in RIAA-like tactics itself. It has just announced a new
> license, called the AGPL, which attempts to impose requirements upon companies
> which "play" GPLed applications over the Net. That's right: If you are an ASP,
> the FSF wants to require you to give away your software to the public if you're
> running GPLed code. This is not much different from the RIAA's demands. So, it
> seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black here.

No. The AGPL solves a flaw in the GPL that has existed for a long time. The intent of the GPL is that the users of a program always have access to the source code. If I may use phpBB (a GPL'd PHP forum) as an example, if I host a phpBB site, I am required to dsitribute a copy of the source code to everyone who is given a binary copy of the program. However, the users see the results of the binary's execution - not the binary - and thus are exempt from the requirement. This means that I can put all sorts of proprietary juice into my phpBB, and I have absolutely no commitment to my users to show the source - which is directly opposite what the GPL is meant for and intends.

Also, this does not apply to existing GPL code. Like the LGPL, it is an option to a developer. If I am making a library, I likely would not release it under GPL, but the LGPL. People can make the same choices about the GPL vs. the AGPL. If you want to make a program or library that a company can't include as a component of a web application without being under that license, you may do so. But I can't see most programs wanting it - it just gives and answer to the ones that need it.

The FSF also made the right decision by making it a separate license. They learned from the unpopularity of the GPLv3.

Re:The FSF is engages in RIAA-like tactics itself

[Brett Glass]

Saying that the users of a Web site have some right to its source code is the same thing as saying that if you are a customer of a store, you have a right to have a key to it. Actually, it's worse than that, because the FSF's license doesn't even require that you PURCHASE anything from the Web site or even visit it! As we all know, the FSF's goal -- the same goal as that of Richard Stallman -- is to do everything it can to ensure that no one who writes software can make any money by doing so. This is nasty and spiteful. Someone who codes a good or innovative Web site deserves to be rewarded for it -- especially since so many out there are so awful!

mmmm....

[Miska]

never felt so good about splurging for a long while...

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you really couldn't, could you.