Slashdot Mirror
University Bows to RIAAs Demands for Student Names
jcgam69 writes "Hours after a federal court judge ordered Oklahoma State University to show cause why it shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to respond to an RIAA subpoena, attorneys for the school e-mailed a list of students' names to the RIAA's attorneys. But now that the RIAA has what it wanted, the group is unsure about how to go about sending out its pre-litigation settlement letters. Some of the students are represented by an attorney, meaning that the RIAA is barred from contacting them directly."
A person who isn't all alone and easy to scare. Whatever should they do if someone has a defense and won't give up thier lunch money so easily?
Sue the future consumers into oblivion.
every time we have a story like this it is assumed that the University should help protect students from the consequences of their (potentially) illegal actions.. err.. why?
I see no reason why universities should fight to protect the privacy of it's students in circumstances like this where a judge has pretty much given the approval for the plaintiffs actions. I would not want a uni to cave just because the MAFIAA contact them, but if a judge has reviewed their requests and then tells the uni to cough up the details, I tend to feel more comfortable with it.
Interestingly, this is the same attorney who back in 2006 won a case for Debbie Foster vs. the RIAA. A good choice.
I don't understand why universities dont just 'loose' these records. Is there a legal reason why records of student's online activity must be recorded? My university had a massive drive where all students could temporarily store their data. the drives were wiped clean every Friday. why not just wipe the students internet usage records every week or so?
I can't see what use that information is to the University, aside from handing it over to RIAA lawyers to screw over the very students who pay to go to that university.
you can't hand over evidence you don't have.
-I only code in BASIC.-
The last gasps of a dying industry. Anyone who wants to make it in the music industry these days knows that there is no music industry anymore. It's myspace and youtube. Frankly, such guerrilla marketing is what it takes these days for the writer of fiction or for the painter or any type of artistic pursuit. You have to make a name for yourself before you can expect any help from the so-called music industry. Really the central change of the internet era is allowing any Joe Sixpack to publish their content to a world wide audience.
They might have mailed a list of names, but the important thing here is, are they the right names and were these the people actually sitting at the terminals requested at the time?
liqbase
...would be a headline which boils it down correct.
Wheter the judges order was ok in the first place is a diffrent story.
Sig? Where I go, I don't need
Funny how the RIAA got what it wanted, only to them find themselves facing something they did not expect, a prepared defense with direct experience against their tactics. One could almost say that they've fallen into a classic military maneuver, put a small token defense up first to bring the enemys offense to the front, to have it fall back, leading the enemy onto terrain of ones choosing, where you then spring the trap. Classic Sun Tzu.
I see Xerxes vs 300 Spartans in a legal sense here, so long as the defense does not leave the goat path to open up their backs they will do well.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Some of the students are represented by an attorney, meaning that the RIAA is barred from contacting them directly.
Not by a long shot. Only an attorney is barred from contacting another party represented by an attorney. The RIAA itself can contact them all they want, as long as the letter comes from an individual in the RIAA who is not an attorney.
In suits I bring, contact defendants in civil litigation all the time despite the fact they are represented by an attorney. Pisses off the attorney, who wants to "filter" all information her client gets from me, but there is nothing they can do about it.
Somewhat offtopic, but it would seem that universities are bowing to pressure from a lot more than the RIAA these days.
Earlier in the week, The College of William & Mary fired its president on ideological grounds, after he removed a religious symbol from a public building, and chose to uphold students' 1st Amendment rights in light of a controversial event. The ensuing conservative smear campaign was too much for The College to handle, and he was dismissed.
How is it that Universities, which have historically been strongholds for civil rights and liberties are now ceding so easily to external demands?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
My reaction is that why are the Universities expected to be the collection agency for record companies and movie companies?
There are perfectly legal avenues to pursue for the record companies. It's just that these are more complicated and expensive. I realize that doing the right thing is usually harder, but there are usually good reasons for following process.
Surely there are large numbers of DoD employees and Federal employees generally who are illegally sharing too. The Federal government's networks are famous for a lack of policing. It will be interesting to see what happens when the RIAA goes after millions of attorneys who are paid to be a lot more ruthless than the RIAA.
Where is the bully?
/. but to pass them up as a evil "bully" oppressing the poor users is insane. I prefer to call them a monopolistic, parasitic group screwing the creators of the music on one side and the listeners on the other, whilst using a powerful lobby to change the law in their favor to further their ambitions.
do you mean the group that is backed by national and international law, has legal precedence and is largely backed (albeit reluctantly) by the makers of the music being traded?
a better analogy would be school teacher who is about to punish the kid that nicked a mars bar from the tuck shop without paying.
we may not like the **AA here on
roll on the day when the radiohead model is accepted as a way to get rid of them once and for all.
We already know that we can make infinite copies of data for free. Everyone with broadband access can hypothetically have absolutely everything. There is no longer a distribution cost. So what we have here are artificial constraints set by the government to prevent distribution, allowing the content creators to retain control of copying, so that they can charge you for this costless task.
Instead of having the government spend all of its resources enforcing a law that constrains *a very good thing* such as free duplication, why doesn't the government create new laws to help reinvent the industry in a way that keeps up with advances in paradigms in ways that will benefit its citizens?
For example, what if the government decided that all music labels would sell their music THROUGH the government, with the government providing a universal, flat rate subscription service for ALL music. The record labels would then get paid a percentage of the governments music revenue based on what percentage of music distributed was theirs. The fee could even be based on income levels, and could be as low as 10 dollars a month average. This is the equivalent of 10 album purchases per person per year, which is surely far above the current average. Fine, privatize this if the government can't be trusted, but even with privatization, such a system implemented with laws far surpasses the benefits of the current system implemented with the current laws.
Something like this could never happen because as it is the government is a system that is incapable of innovation, but wouldn't it be great if it could. There are so many problems the government could solve, if only the government could innovate... They can use the Law to code society intelligently, and build social applications with that code to serve its people. Only the government has control over the Law.
...at the RIAA's prowess in terrorizing the average person. I'm sure they couldn't do a better job if they tried. And make no mistake, the intent of these lawsuits is to terrorize. What the fuck sort of monetary settlement does the RIAA think they're going to get out of Uni students? At best they can hope for some beer bongs and Doritos.
Except for the very obvious and very real fact that all you closet RIAA supporters seem to miss in your trolling... THERE IS NO CRIMINAL LAW BEING BROKE.
Stop acting like these people are killing your frigging puppy and get a frigging clue.
Here, while most of the "online" activities are still fairly safe, camming movies in a theatre is now a crime and can net you jailtime. Interestingly, that law was pushed forward by one of our ministers who was fired for sleeping with a US Corp lobbiest, yet nobody ever reviewed the bills that she had pushed forth on their behalf...
IMHO movie cammers are idiots anyhow, but I think that our prison and justice system could be put to better use, and I'd rather not be arrested myself because somebody decided to nab me because my digital camera (which I tend to keep with me at most times) can do (crappy) video and some theatre thug decided it's close enough...
The law of the jungle kicks in before this takes place, you don't mess with things that can eat you alive. So this scenario won't ever take place.
And no - this is not a cheap attempt at starting a flame war. I really do think the treatment of *most* individuals by the *IAA is pretty shabby, and in some case questionably legal. *IAA just has the financial backing to try, and the publicity mostly helps them, does not hurt them in a meaningful way. Since they *want* to be perceived as relatively evil group that you as the 'average joe/jane' are powerless against.
Now - the opinion part. I do hope they persist in this tactic. I recently have been turning to indie music in various forms and ya know what - found some *really* good material! Stuff I am happy to throw out a few $ to the artist, especially if they are getting a large cut of the money. And when I say really good - I mean excellent. Outstanding. Prime stuff. I haven't turned on my radio in vehicle or home since I started.
So - RIAA - keep it up. Indie music is my new crack - and their tactics are only ensuring a greater supply chain to me!
Since the RIAA has begged to reduce the fees they pay to artists yet AGAIN, ANY standing they have as being the "protectors of artist's interests" has gone by the wayside!
Artists and composers alike need to remember that the initials stand for the "RECORDING INDUSTRY of America," not the "Recording ARTISTS of America!"
Ask any artist who has been bilked out of millions that were made on their FIRST recording... especially when their SECOND one didn't do so well... notice how well the RIAA "protects" those artists from getting their backsides kicked to the curb instead of being given another chance by the label they had just made mega-bucks for, while they got zilch for their efforts!
Surely there are large numbers of DoD employees and Federal employees generally who are illegally sharing too. The Federal government's networks are famous for a lack of policing. It will be interesting to see what happens when the RIAA goes after millions of attorneys who are paid to be a lot more ruthless than the RIAA.
It might be rather harder for the RIAA to get sympathetic legislation passed if they make a habit of that kind of thing.
Yeah, like that will *ever* happen.
Like terrorists, they prefer "soft targets".
There is a war going on for your mind.
No. It's actually one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
I hurts me deep inside to think that part of my music-tax would go to "artists" such as britney spears.
Besides, what makes you think that just because you CAN copy something for free, it should be made legal? I'm pretty sure I can beat you up for free, so should I be allowed to? I'm also pretty sure I can steal a car, should it therefore be legal?
Information doesn't want to be free. Information isn't a living creature; it doesn't WANT anything. PEOPLE want information to be free. As long as it isn't their information, that is.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Simple.
D'oh!
Cowed to court order, We'll curse your name;
Oklahoma State, We hold you to blame.
RIAA will find us-and we'll be sued.
Thanks to our Alma Mater, O...S...U.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
"Judge, your recent decision to threaten to hold OSU in contempt of court for attempting to stop the RIAA from extorting money from college students suggests that you may be being illegally bribed and/or in collusion with the RIAA's organized crime tactics. We the people therefore find sufficient cause for a search and seizure of any and all bank accounts, personal property, and any other assets you may own."
"What's that, you say? There isn't sufficient evidence for such an action? Funny, that didn't seem to stop you..."
Why don't the universities play the game in reverse?
Oh no, you cant view my logs because you would be violating my copyright... are you a THIEF?
My logs are sold for $400,000USD per record.
And no one told them that MAC addresses can be faked? What the know is that their equipment is getting ethernet frames with the expected MAC address once the student has logged in.
I've done such faking several times. I even have a couple computers that regularly run with a faked MAC address (for development testing purposes at work, using Intel ethernet chips). All someone needs to do is figure out a working MAC address of some other student that regularly turns off their computer, ping it every now and then to see when it goes off, and when it does, start using it along with the IP address it had acquired.
They will need to go the extra step of requiring students operate through encrypted tunnels to prevent MAC spoofing (such tunnels running through a private IP network layer that cannot reach to internet ... to a central set of tunnel servers). If the MAC address is the only continuing authentication after the student logs in, and the traffic is not encrypted, then students that know what they are doing (and willing to do it) can take over in place of many others.
And then there is the whole issue of planted proxies.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
It wouldn't go to Britney if you did't download Britney. Computers can keep track of everything automatically (with software of course), and so your tax will be split up and given to EXACTLY who you downloaded. You download 1 artist, they get 100%. You download 2, they get 50% each.
There is a reason why theft and violence should be made illegal, and so they have. It isn't like everything we can do is illegal by default. There is no reason for copying to be made ILLEGAL other than to support the distribution business model that would otherwise be out of date. It was legal before they made it illegal.
Information is free. Did you pay for everything you know? Only for what you've been charged, and not the other way around.
More bricks to anonymity? http://www.it.okstate.edu/students/restech/ or plugin several open wireless connections per building?
Hey Clueless AC - In the United States, copyright infringement IS a crime. Don't make statements regarding the law unless you know what you are talking about.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
s=summary...
"failing to respond to an RIAA subpoena"
see that last word in the quote above?
that is a court order, of a type that can be challenged
see the summary
"Hours after a federal court judge ordered Oklahoma State University to show cause"
see, 'cause' would be the challenge. The judge demanded a challenge or submission to the request.
the university submitted a response to a cort order, so the entire second half of your comment is moot.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The University did not "Bow to RIAAs Demands", they obeyed a court order.
That's a World of difference, my friend.
I'm gonna try to reason why the parents argument is flawed.
If I read it correctly, v(*_*)vvvv is frustrated by the lack of innovation and is encouraging legislation to "fix" what he sees as a problem. He has to "pay" to make a digital copy which is a task which has a variable cost of zero.
First problem... Business 101. Cost of Goods Sold = Fixed Cost + Variable Cost. Saying that it is free to make digital copies of songs ignores the efforts to create (a) the song and (b) the network that copies the song. With a variable cost of $0, the unit cost approaches $0... but it will never get there.
Second problem... Ethics 101. A songwriter needs to earn money to live. As much as you'd like to believe that they do it for the love of doing it, they would do it better if they didn't have to wait tables or drive buses to pay the bills. Thus, by making N copies of a songwriters work, you are denying the songwriter 1/N chance of quitting their day job and concentrating on their art.
Third problem... Politics 101. The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules. You can buy what they are selling, or not. As far as content creators, the government should stick to legislating on important things like social welfare, education, national defense, and public infrastructure. If you really want to listen to the songs they are singing, turn on C-SPAN to get a taste for what government created content sounds like.
Fourth problem... Economics 101. The parent seems to have a problem with capitalism. He should come out and say "Communism is the innovation that this country needs to solve these problems." And it would. For business, the fixed costs would be paid for by the state and spread equally throughout the citizens. For ethics, the state would then pay each of the songwriters (and each of the listeners, it turns out). For politics, well, the problem is that capitalism isn't working because it is inherently greedy.
But having said all that... Communism vs Capitalism is an "All-or-Nothing" compromise and Americans have been educated that Communism is bad and doomed to fail because it supposedly leads to a lack of innovation. Also, the argument is that people are lazy and they won't "pull their weight" and that is supposed to lead to the eventual downfall of nations.
Thus, it boils down to a proposition of (a) do you trust your Capitalist leaders to innovate, or (b) do you trust your fellow countrymen to pull their weight.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
and they are violating multiple laws. We shall see how this comes out for the 11 students, and society will make even better laws to stop this kind of harassment. The recording industry is simply wrong and people know it.
has got the message by now: if you are involved in distributing or downloading pirated music, video or other data you run a serious risk of legal action against you.
Music has always required some marketing. That's what the RIAA was for.
Now, people are deciding to change marketing strategies. The marketing organization is upset.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I think it has been pretty obvious for a long time now that the RIAA members part of the music industry has been acting as a price fixing cartel, or to be legally fair, it gives an appearance of it, enough to question if it has occurred and remains ongoing. The cost of duplication onto plastic disk or downloaded bits is way lower than what they charge at retail, to a huge degree, and there doesn't seem to be normal price differences like one might expect in a truly competitive market that was being regulated adequately according to existing law. Now, I don't think it has been applied to them yet, but in a few other cases-precedent- private individuals through their lawyers have used RICO and sued the offending party (it was in reaction to businesses undercutting local competition via use of illegal immigrant labor), although normally that is a governmentally used tactic. That's another way to approach to the problem I haven't seen yet, but would certainly shake things up a little if it was. It would be a very expensive case to start obviously, but potential plaintiffs would be anyone who purchased a disk or a downloaded tune from any of the association's members through any service or outlet..and that's a lot of people and the total sums involved are pretty high.
Technology has changed radically within the last generation, new ways of content delivery have *dramatically* lowered the cost of making copies of digital bits and delivering them. The official "legal" prices don't seem to reflect what copies should or could cost in the marketplace, it looks artificially skewed to keep per unit pricing up to the same (relative) levels as when a few tunes had to be pressed into a large vinyl disk and physically trucked around, and that manufacturing process was a lot more expensive. In short, where are the one dollar CDs and 10-15 cent downloadable songs? Those prices would still result in tons of profit for the distributors, using the volume sales model, yet those level prices don't exist in the legal marketplace. It certainly gives the appearance of long term collusion and price fixing.
So all those thousands upon thousands of IPODs the Mom's of American sent to their sons and daughters in the military, who is the RIAA gonna sue next, the Mom's or the Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine fighting in IRAQ.
I'd like to see then serve someone toting a M16. I know it can be done, but what kind of backlash would it have on the RIAA's PR?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
What I'm curious about, is how does an RIAA lawsuit affect a student's ability to pursue their education ? Is the cartel destroying someone's future career over a few hundred overplayed pop songs ? What does that say about the future of the nation ? We all agree that piracy is a crime, but does the punishment fit ?
The least inconvenience is give up your life savings. That leaves students with two bad options, go into debt or quit school. Students who fight risk losses that would sap anyone's desire to work. Unless the university or some other party comes to your legal defense, the lawsuit is going to cost more than you have and suck all of your time. Then you might just lose. In other casts they didn't prove more than the victim "made available" some songs, and their evidence for that was as flimsy at best. What would you do if you were hung with $250,000 of debt to be taken from every pay check?
No punishment should be forthcoming. Sharing is not a crime. Everything that can be coppied without cost should be. Companies that can't make it in a world like that need to go away. These 11 students are not black market hucksters or "pirates", they are music's biggest fans and they wanted to share a few songs and hear music that does not get to them by radio. If the RIAA can't convert that desire into money, they don't deserve to exist.
These lawsuits are self defeating. By now everyone knows how rotten the big lables are. The decline in sales is not wholly due to on line music trading. A lot of it is due to people not wanting to give their money to people who are screwing artists, fans and all but a select few in between. The boycot is large and growing.
University caves to illegal demands is a better headline.
...same conference, different state, different university.
A lot of people are defending the actions described. But nothing good can come of this, regardless of how legal it is.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Have hopefully shot themselves in the foot this time, they'll get no further in this suit. Especially given the judge's outrageous behavior on this case of claiming that the actually sued Doe defendants HAD NO STANDING to oppose the subpoena seeking their identities because that was directed to OSU, and not them personally. I can only hope that this judge himself is someday on the receiving end of an RIAA lawsuit to understand how patiently unfair they are.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The real issue is not RIAA bullying. The real issue is the pain and difficulty involved in 'moving on' past the RIAA. The real issue is to what extent that what you consider to be your cultural heritage is owned by the RIAA.
This is not easy. From birth we are exposed by media that is owned by the RIAA. We absorb these recordings and come to have a deep inherent cultural identification with these recordings. But if you listen to these recordings by downloading them, then you are breaking 'the law'
Basically you have been addicted from birth to these recordings. Then when the technical means arrives to freely and easily copy and distribute these recordings, and you do this, because they are your cultural identity, then you are a criminal. Under their law. They set you up from birth to be a criminal, and by extension, a slave as a result of the lawful punishment imposed on you for 'breaking the law'.
This is the situation. The only way out is to accept as adults that we have been lied to and tricked. What we believed to be our cultural birthright is being used by corporations as a legal means to enslave us.
We have to break the RIAA addiction. That means that we must, to a certain extent, reject what we have been given from birth as a cultural heritage. We have to accept that the 'artists' or 'stars' are part of the problem, however unwillingly that they entered into this condition, and reject their star status.
We also have rebuild our own culture. and we must do it secretly We must hide and protect our new culture from the RIAA.
All this is very difficult, but it is the only realistic way to defeat the RIAA. It can't be done legally or through technology.
When I went to school, back in the Vinyl Age, we did quite well with a cassette deck (HOME TAPING KILLS MUSIC) and some sneakers. Now, you can just swap hard drives instead of lovingly recording each bit as we did, but anyone with a whit of sense and ability, like most college kids, can take the hard drive down the hall, and plug it in. OK, not as easy as a d/l, but give you something to do while drinking beer. (although I hear that has to be hidden nowadays too)
and just listen to indie music.
The only way around this problem is to go around the problem.
You don't have to stop listening to music.
You just have to stop listening to ANY music of the RIAA's client list.
If you start petitions and demonstrations for this, so what?
But if you hold onto your money, it really won't take very long.
After they go completely without any new revenues for a couple of weeks, they'll come around.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Ok Mr. Big Bad "I play a lawyer on the internet", please cite where ANY of these cases are being brought into a court of *criminal* law. Oh whats that you say?? You can't provide even one teeny little example? Oh how very interesting for such a dastardly crime against the great United States.
Silly little abusive civil cases in jurisdictions that are *cough* friendly to the RIAA cause are not what I would view as criminal cases due to violations of criminal law.
They'd get laughed out of criminal court in about 0.3 seconds flat. You know it, I know it, and the RIAA sure as hell knows it, which is why they are staying as far away from that as possible.
Preach on though Mr. Internet Lawyer. You're insightful comments sure added a ton to the discussion. I know that ranting like a tard against Anon's for mod points is a favorite past time around here, but next time spare me your brand of enlightenment.
Just to be part of the game, can I pretend to be an astronaut on the intertubes while we argue? Maybe a fireman? Hrmm. Lets just go for crown prince of Dubai. I always wanted to be that guy. Maybe I should register as CompuPrinceofDubai. That would probably lend a ton of credibility to my statements, am I right?
Can somebody explain to me how this is possible in the US legal system? How can a university be obligated to provide information like this when it has nothing to do with the case, which is purely between the record company and the student? I can understand how a cowardly university board might cave to pressure, but this seems to be a judge ordering them to provide the information, without any evidence against the students other than a list of IP addresses, which is no evidence at all.
There is a way to get RIAA and other IP interest groups out of business.
RIAA's demands should not be fought, just the opposite.
Millions of people should report themselves for violating the law, totally flooding and force to halt the entire court system. This would make prosecution cost an unbearable burden for the state (tax-payers), not to mention the social, economical impact if suddenly millions of people would be proposed to go bankrupt and or to sent to jail for "illegally" listening to music and watching movies.
At this stage the state, politicians, legislators and of course the public would have to realize that prosecution, incarceration of the violators would cost much more to society than the financial value of the entire recording/movie industry.
This would force politicians and society as a whole to take a new hard look at Intellectual Property laws as they are now.
For a start it would be interesting to see if the students of Oklahoma State University would all report themselves to the university and to RIAA. If prosecution went ahead with current fine/jail terms, the university might risk to loose it's entire student body and they would be forced to be shut down their operation.
Students of other universities and colleges could join, possibly within a very short period of time across the USA - and possibly around the world.
Just imagine the results of such a massive "class action"...
The most interesting part of it is that it's totally possible to carry it out.
- Declare bankrupcy (no debt)
- Leave the country (debt not collectable)
- Live off social services my entire life (no income to collect from)
Pick any one, and that's ignoring the obvious 'go on a rampage with a shotgun'.FGD 135
Excellent job!!
Now I fully understand why we need a better way to enforce copyright law.
When the **AA catches your ass, I'd love to see you try to use that one in court.
Aside from the standard argument that you are so honest that were planning to pay GM for their idea, once you had a chance to test it out to determine, you know, whether you liked it or not - how is GM supposed to recoup it's R&D costs? Pulling a number from my ass, I'd say 99% of the population isn't as honest as YOU are. Isn't that what copyright is supposed to protect? Didn't you just circumvent that?
But you are correct - nothing was actually stolen from GM. But don't worry, GM wouldn't accuse you of stealing anything from them. What they would accuse you of is copyright infringement, and just in case you didn't know, it's illegal
Sure it will... isnt there a tax or levy on blank media in the US that goes straight to the MAFIAA?
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
otherwise, you'd be paying for something that you're not getting.
Your thinking of Canada.
And there's not such levy on hard-disks or on MP3 recorders or on internet traffic.
I'm saying screw screwing with the RIAA, go and deprive their client list of funds by spending elsewhere.
It would only take a few weeks for said clients to wake the fuck up and drop the RIAA like a hot potato.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Interesting how my submission of this got rejected, yet eventually it got submitted. Twice in one day...
Am I getting shafted for credit, or am I simply in a perpetual race condition with other submitters? Oh well. Credit schmedit, at least it got posted. That's really all I care about.
Anyway, here goes:
This is bad news for us all. I sincerely hope someone manages to appeal this. And what business does a federal judge have violating due process and catering to a civil subpoena like this without some sort of evidence?
Someone needs to step in with expert witnesses.
Where oh where, has my FSF gone? Where, oh where, could he be?
Bankruptcy doesn't work anymore. The senate fragged that one up BIG TIME!
Leave the country ? How patriotic. What a great double lesson to teach a young adult: "1. your home country will hound you to the death. 2. when shit happens, RUN!"
Living off social services ? What, is this the UK ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
They could have just gotten the list by harvesting names from the schools directory server.
Why isn't the **AA listed as terrorist organizations. After all that's what they are doing. Just list them and go after their parent companies and this shit will end real quick.
Liable should any student be sued and proven innocent or falsely accused.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
so we'll sue you unless you give us a list of names of people with a lot less money we can sue?
I agree with what you said - just felt the need to point that out.
Grammar Nazi
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Sure, a lot of people go into debt for an education but it's a well managed debt like a mortgage. They still have to pay bills. They also have a cash cushion that comes from jobs, family and the loan itself. In every case I've read about, the RIAA asks for all of the cash the victim has. When the victim is a student, it is very hard for them to keep going to school without help from family.
A whole other can of worms is opened when the load is federally backed, like most are. It is obviously unethical for the RIAA to demand federal money that was intended for education. I hope that it's also against the law for them to collect it. Society wants people to be educated and spends a lot of money making it happen.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression (mostly from reading here, which was probably my mistake) that in certain circumstances bankruptcy would clear a court judgment
There's nothing unpatriotic about leaving when your country has turned it's back on you (which is what allowing a judgment of that size over a few copied song is tantamount to). I was always taught not to fight bullies on their own ground but to walk away from them, if there's a path to walk down, take it, particularly if last time you tried to stand up to them, you lost, and lost big time.
Well, yes, I am from the UK, but in just about any country there is someone (government or not) that you can throw yourself on to.
So maybe it's bankruptcy if that will work or leave the country. Aren't we always saying 'you can obey the law, or leave'? This is exactly the situation where 'leave' is the rational option.
Just be glad that you're not in the EU where the local courts will enforce civil judgments from foreign courts without consideration of the effect, sanity, validity or jurisdiction of the judgment. (ref: British couple who bought land in northern (Turkish) cyprus, sued by original Greek Cypriot owners of land in southern Cypriot court, judgment clearly not enforceable since Greek Cypriot courts have no jurisdiction in northern Cyprus, original owners get British court to enforce against British couple's British assets.), but then Britain has been selling it's own people out to foreign authorities for years.
FGD 135
Here is someone for flat rates, with better writing skills and a higher profile:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/30/music_biz_should_shift/
I am for going further and having one official government-implemented "pipe" would be most beneficial to the consumer. free to make digital copies of songs ignores the efforts to create (a) the song and (b) the network that copies the song No. It is a unified subscribtion system established through law. The idea is to move fees from distribution, which is now out-of-date, closer to the creators. As it is, those who control the distribution control the creators. The distributors prefer the law keep the income with them, and let them stand between the artist and their audience. Every artist that doesn't get signed by a record label is a victim. A songwriter needs to earn money to live. Yes. This would give them a greater percentage of the profits. The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules. The law is an artificial constraint, because it is man-made, man-enforced, and man-modifiable. Copyright law is not something we find in nature. It is something the government created and backs because it "believes" it helps its people. I am saying that the current law does not keep up with the new paradigm of the internet where distribution is no longer a task. IT IS NOT A TASK. Why would anyone pay for someone to burn information onto a plastic platter, then have it wrapped and shipped to a store, just so you can pick it up, rip it, and throw it away? The record industry was established on the premise that you buy music by buying the physical record, and that by owning the record, you own the music. This was before copying technology. They now have to say "can own but not copy" which was awkward, and now we all know the physical record is redundant so we no longer see much value in it. Communism I am not even going there.
The law is like a scripting language. It can be used to create law-enabled systems and constraints. The ability to create these laws resides with the government, and so only the government can create these "applications". Be it Communism or any other "form" of government, the only difference is with the implementation of their social systems using laws. Capitalism can remain capitalism, but would we rather have the capitalists (businesses) create laws, or the people? Would we rather have businesses "program" our society?
If the people could choose, I am sure they would vote for:
A. Freedom to copy and share and own every piece of copyrighted material available for a "tax"
= ONE subscription for ALL content
Opposed to:
B. Told what they can and cannot copy and paying the distributors, not the artists, a price-fixed market price to own an hour of audio.
= ONE fee for EVERY copy
As for capitalism 101, the bigger the market, the more people would get paid, and would therefore be a "good" thing.
if market_size(A) > market_size(B) then
return A;
The real question though is what do we the people want? If there is something better to be had, and the government is preventing us from having it, then there is something that needs to change.
More on the topic:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/whats-the-future-of-the-music-industry-a-freakonomics-quorum/index.html
This pretty much summarizes the situation
I am going to do a little creative quoting to illustrate my point, then I am going to educate you on a couple of tenants of Communism (read: not a bad thing, just a form of economy different from Capitalism), then I am going to give you a (c) choice.
(I said) The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules. (You said) The real question though is what do we the people want? If there is something better to be had, and the government is preventing us from having it, then there is something that needs to change.The government isn't holding a gun to musical artists heads and censoring the ones that haven't been signed my record labels. I still say that capitalism is going to eventually win the day, and not because the record industry is going to change its ways. The joys of capitalism will herald huge victories to bands who can be successful in using P2P, word of mouth, and live performances to pay their bills. These bands won't need to sign record labels to be successful. They don't need a corrupt government committee to approve their content either. The real tragedy... the industry is dying and it is stronger than ever. The real tragedy... the musicians making the most money are going to be the ones giving away their songs FOR FREE (through merchandising, performance fees, guest appearances, and donations from adoring fans).
As far as Communism... it is a touchy subject whenever you want to talk about any broad-based economies where the government is given control of the commerce. To this day, I am still not sure if Communism is derived from Community or Commerce... but the fact remains that it is very, very anti-Capitalistic. And that being said, it is what you are suggesting by "having one official government-implemented "pipe" would be most beneficial to the consumer". To be fair, I don't think this is a bad idea except for three aspects. Aspect (a) under your plan, I pay a music tax. Aspect (b) under your plan, the government gets to serve a role as a censor. Aspect (c) under your plan, there seems to be *NO* copyright and thus I can quit my day job and start signing *YOUR* songs in my spare time and start collecting my Government Music Wage. No, I don't like that. Concentrating the power of a market into the control of the government would be a Very Bad Idea (TM).
And that leads me to (c), but lets review (a) and (b). =
Believe it or not, there are good sources which provide you with all the music you'd ever want for free. If you take a liking to a particular band, it is your CHOICE to support them. Maybe you want their tee-shirt. Maybe you want to see them live. By all means... if you find musicians who are any good and you want to share their music with your friends... DO IT! Don't hide it. This isn't Justin Timberland where the RIAA might sneak out from behind the corner and grab you by the nuts. There are plenty of artists who are currently embracing the "free music" paradigm. So please... embrace this as a fan. It is capitalism at its finest. Competition based on quality and merit.
QED
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
That analogy works well with slashdot anti-RIAA sentiment, but it's not completely accurate.. the RIAA isn't just some big stupid bully, it has the full support of United States law. It sees a multibillion dollar cash cow and it's milking it- this is not the RIAA's fault, it's the government's for allowing it to happen. Actually, the RIAA is a big stupid bully. The government too is a big stupid bully. The RIAA is a bunch of mafia type lawyers who have agreed to protect the parasitical recording labels against the free distribution of an artistic work that niether one of them created. The government has codified their racket into law most likely because these racketeers have agreed to grease the politicians with lots of money. The real question is is how should artists make money and how much money should they make? If a song is popular should an artist make more money from it. Do artists create to make money? If an artist's motivation is to make money is their creation art? Is a heavily promoted tune where many times its production costs are spent to make people believe that it is more important than it is objectively, make it art? Should we believe that the free market system is good for art? Should everything be commodified where all triangulation is on how much money can be made?
The RIAA and, in fact, the entire entertainment industry, controls congress and government. Let's face it, you don't have a chance against them, so:
1. Don't download music or films. If you really want the music or film pay the ridiculously high prices for them or don't watch them. The market will prevail.
2. What I have on my computer is my business. Since the RIAA and the Bush administration feel they own me or at least my computer, I don't make it easy for them. I use Linux for most of my stuff. If they want to see what I've got, they have to get a warrant, though I'm sure that will change by the time Bush gets done.
3. Vote! And to make sure your vote counts, avoid, at all costs, electronic voting machines. Vote absentee if you have to.
A few years ago, bankruptcy might have been an option. Today, it's complicated. There are more lopsided rules favoring the creditors, thanks to the anti-social government that's been running the show for so long.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
However, the fact that the RIAA file sharing cases have been dominating headlines does not mean that copyright cases are not prosecuted. The FBI investigates and the US Attorney prosecutes. Routinely.
Check Title 18 Section 506 of the United States Code to see the criminal provision. Any case that references that section and includes "United States" in the name (e.g., something like United States v. Smith) is likely a criminal prosecution.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.