"Probable Cause" Hearing Against MediaSentry

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "RIAA sidekick MediaSentry's 'illegal investigation' problem, which surfaced the other day when it got caught in a lie in Michigan (or got caught telling the truth after having told 2 years worth of lies in Brooklyn), has taken another turn for the worse. We learned today from court papers filed in North Carolina, in one of the cases targeting NC State students in Raleigh, that the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board has scheduled a Grievance Committee hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to investigate an alleged violation of the law by SafeNet (formerly known as MediaSentry). Fortunately for MediaSentry, they won't have to testify under oath, according to the notice (PDF)."

Comments

Illegal investigation

[ksd1337]

'illegal investigation' problem

Now if we can fix/scrap the PATRIOT Act, which also supports "illegal investigations".

Re:Illegal investigation

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether parent is offtopic is debatable.

Discovery made under PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in cases unrelated to terrorism.

Lincoln must be spinning....

[Anonymous Coward]

"...government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I guess it's perishing. It's now becoming:

"government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation"

Re:Lincoln must be spinning....

[The FNP]

Corporations are legal entities too!

There, fixed that for you.

--The FNP

Re:Lincoln must be spinning....

[kdemetter]

People are legal entities too !

Therefore , corporations are people , or at least run by people ( the term people here defines the actual being , and does not refer to the set of morals required to be considered a human being)

Re:Lincoln must be spinning....

[cthulu_mt]

"...Corporations are made out of people!...People!...."

Re:Lincoln must be spinning....

[McGuirk]

"Corporations are people too!"

Corporations:

They destroy like an angry mob, taking innocent people and property down with their fits.
They have the intelligence and moral values of an angry mob, lynching and burning anyone or anything in the way of their goal.
...and think like a few very greedy and self-centered individuals with a lot of power.

I know you're joking, but I'm getting rather annoyed with the government seeming like they're doing something smart, then turning around and taking a big crap all over their reputation.

Re:Lincoln must be spinning....

[mrmeval]

The government is the people. If the people let it happen then they want it to happen and deserver to be raped without fancy lubricants.

Re:Lincoln must be spinning....

[Khyber]

Only for the purposes of taxation. With the 16th amendment Lincoln paved the way for a corporation as a whole to be known as a single person instead of as individuals, which sadly creates a whole legal mess of who's to blame?

Re:Lincoln must be spinning....

[mark0978]

This is exactly what Lincoln fought for. People want to remember him because he "freed" the slaves when he only did that hoping to swell the ranks of the union army. Lincoln is the only president (so far) to use the country's military to squash some of its citizens. Something I am sure W. is envious of to this date.

Re:Lincoln must be spinning....

[sm62704]

Corporations are Soylent Green!

Money Machine

[grolaw]

It appears that, finally, the tables are turning against the RIAA and their counsel. Now, if the counsel are disciplined I'll believe that the system might just work.

Re:Money Machine

[thermian]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

I'm not saying all downloaders should be criminalised, that's a batshit insane approach.

I'm thinking a parking ticket type system, so if you get caught, you pay a small fine, and move on without your life being poured down the crapper.

A parking ticket type system would acknowledge that not everyone plays nice, but there is a possible consequence if you choose to grab something of TPB rather than buy it. I'd say a ten, or even 100 buck fine every time your caught (not per file or anything like that) would be suitable. It would be enough to discourage some people, and if you did get caught? Pay up and move along, no big deal.

Re:Money Machine

[The FNP]

This is also the kind of signs us wags here on /. have been prophesizing (and wishing for) since this campaign of terror started. It has taken a while for the momentum to be slowed, such as we have seen with the small gains made monthly, but if the courts and the accompanying PI licensing boards go after the methodology of the RIAA, then it becomes much easier to finally stop the cases on multiple grounds. We have already seen the multiple cases summarily decided(or abandoned) in the People's favor, including with awarded attorney's fees. Now, we get to see every link in the chain as vulnerable, and a good lawyer(i.e. one on the People's side) should be able to attack every aspect of their pre-litigation discovery including their methods for discovering the IPs, the Does, the ISP's Customer, the ISP's Customer's friends and family, etc.

Thanks, NYCL, let's keep the ball rolling and see if the court system can finally stop these suits completely. Maybe the day will come when the RIAA will drop the case automatically if you refuse to pay their Settlement center.

--The FNP

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

The media companies make most of the profits from anything created these days. Maybe we should start by cutting out the unnecessary middlemen (like the RIAA) and get the media companies to reward their artists & creators accordingly.

Re:Money Machine

[Darkness404]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

Such as concerts? Today the RIAA basically gets most of the profits from CDs/iTunes downloads for any signed band. Now when you buy those burnt CDs from a local indie band, most, if not all of it goes to the band, but as for signed bands, they make money from concerts. If we take out the RIAA, we have a nice stream of income from CDs and because it is the bands and not some media overlord, downloading will be tolerated, if not legal.

Re:Money Machine

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This is also the kind of signs us wags here on /. have been prophesizing (and wishing for) since this campaign of terror started. It has taken a while for the momentum to be slowed, such as we have seen with the small gains made monthly, but if the courts and the accompanying PI licensing boards go after the methodology of the RIAA, then it becomes much easier to finally stop the cases on multiple grounds. We have already seen the multiple cases summarily decided(or abandoned) in the People's favor, including with awarded attorney's fees. Now, we get to see every link in the chain as vulnerable, and a good lawyer(i.e. one on the People's side) should be able to attack every aspect of their pre-litigation discovery including their methods for discovering the IPs, the Does, the ISP's Customer, the ISP's Customer's friends and family, etc. Thanks, NYCL, let's keep the ball rolling and see if the court system can finally stop these suits completely. Maybe the day will come when the RIAA will drop the case automatically if you refuse to pay their Settlement center.

To quote Longfellow:
"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."

Re:Money Machine

[ruin20]

I like the idea, as it shows a valid and reasonable effort to push reform, however I think you miss a critical point. The investigation tactics used by the RIAA are extremely expensive and in some states illegal.

In order to get caught, someone has to violate the law and snoop, which is what the first link in the post is about. The v. doe cases in these situations are just tools to extract information to be used in the civil suit.

what you're discussing would involve an internet police, which would have to snoop on all sorts of file sharing in order to be effective, because the fiscal incentive of catching people without a big fine is simply not worth it for the media companies. And I don't see this being done without massive amounts of civil violations.

Re:Money Machine

[wild_quinine]

It appears that, finally, the tables are turning against the RIAA and their counsel. Now, if the counsel are disciplined I'll believe that the system might just work.

The system almost always works, it just works incredibly slowly. If your life happens to get caught in the mill wheels of the legal system in between, tough tofu.

Unfortunately whilst the sensible course of action might be to refrain from downloading music illegally until everything sorts itself out in a decade or two, that's generally impractical, the RIAA might sue you anyway, and lets not forget the big one: pushing at the boundaries of a bad law is what helps to get that law changed.

Re:Money Machine

[TheGratefulNet]

"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."

I'm hungry for dinner and you're talking to me about grinding cornmeal??

Re:Money Machine

[Confused]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

So how was it before copyright was invented? There the artists did for a good part commission work and had no claims to any further pay after delivering the work. And, surprise over surprise they could also make a living.

I gotta rolls royce, cause its good for my voice, [...]

-- T. Rex

So what will happen in case that whole media business collapses and artists can't get any money at all from that evil internet for their hard work?

First, it'll affect only the very few acts that make it into the charts of any kind. Most musicians across the world don't live off their royalties, they live from playing music. Some famous acts like the Grateful Dead have proven it works.

Well, Britney-darling and Christina will have a harder time to get that Roll Royce for their voices, but do you really think this would be a global cataclysm?

Re:Money Machine

[TheGratefulNet]

this poster has it right.

think back to a few hundred years ago. the king had a court jester. he was there to entertain the king. when the jester performed, he got to eat dinner with the rest. if he 'called in sick' he would not get paid.

if you perform, you get paid.

do you think the king would continue to bankroll a jester whose last performance was a few years ago?

so why does the concept of 'perform once; get paid many' work? THAT seems highly unfair. I don't get paid again and again when I wrote code. why should 'entertainers' have a different standard?

do football players get paid each time someone watches their past performance?

here's a hint: performing artists (note the magic word there) should get paid when they PERFORM.

kids today see thru this; that's one reason why they are rebelling. the system is unfair and so 'we' fight back to holding onto our cash and not giving it time and time again to the same old non-performing sitting-on-your-laurels artists.

if the entertainment industry wants to 'fix' the payment model, lets REALLY revamp it. small tweaks are bullshit; it needs a total re-do if its going to be at all acceptable to the kids (buying public) today.

Re:Money Machine

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."

I'm hungry for dinner and you're talking to me about grinding cornmeal??

It's 10:03 AM and you're hungry for dinner?
When did you have breakfast? Last night?

Re:Money Machine

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Although the RIAA likes to tell judges and the press that these cases are about downloading, in all the cases I've seen I've yet to see one where the case was about downloading.

Re:Money Machine

[Naughty Bob]

Although the RIAA likes to tell judges and the press that these cases are about downloading, in all the cases I've seen I've yet to see one where the case was about downloading.

But surely we're talking about p2p technologies whereby downloading comes hand-in-hand with uploading?

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't get paid again and again when I wrote code.

Really? I thought that was called selling software? Maybe everyone should just code until a project is done then give it away! Surely the big gains from giving years of effort away will cover the expense of paying for an engineering team. Otherwise, what are we supposed to do? Code nights & weekends for free while working at a gas station during the day?

Record companies essentially do the same thing everyone else does. They produce a product (music) that has demand. Nobody is obligated to buy music. Nobody needs music to live. People do buy it because they want to listen to it (because they like it). So, just stealing it and later saying "the system is broken" is some pretty strange logic. Ford makes cars. Should we just steal those too?

And don't say that record companies have no overhead (compared to Ford). Obviously they employ people (people like you & me, that have families, etc). They have studios. They have to buy hardware, etc. These things need to be paid for. So is there some reason why they can't charge for a product + take a profit off the top like every other business in the history of mankind has done?

And... last but not least, nobody is stopping indie bands from releasing their content online to everyone. They can do that if they want. Many do, many don't. Probably because record company promotions and distribution are still a better way for indie bands to make money than "posting stuff online for free".

Re:Money Machine

[TheGratefulNet]

When did you have breakfast? Last night?

I guess I gotta come clean, now.

while I was patching my kernel (trying a new method that seemingly allows division by zero) - something happened to space-time that I could not explain. the more watchpoints I set in my code, the faster things ran! at some point, I must have added too many and my machine melted down.

after that, well, things got REALLY weird.

fortunately, I was able to find a block of RET instructions still on a shred of disk drive, and that saved me.

Re:Money Machine

[grolaw]

Artists who make a living from their work are few and far between. When an artist does manage to find an audience the income is siphoned off by (now, entirely ancillary) distributors.

I buy all of my music - either as CD / DVD and I still have 5000 vinyl records.

I also use an iPod in the car - radio being in the terrible state that it is.

True fidelity only comes from uncompressed files or original sources and a fairly expensive home reproduction system. I have over $15k invested in my preamp/amp & speakers- and I bought them well over 20 years ago (kind of amusing that my computers and stereo have the same name).

At root, this is a market issue and the RIAA isn't doing anything to help the market. The people who are concerned about the sound of their music and the artists who create it will always pay. Those who don't care about the music aren't part of the market in the first place so there really is no "lost sale" - if anything it is possible that a "pirate" may come into the fold with the sample and the artist gains a new customer.

Moreover, where the media changes (for the better) the music lover will repurchase the same music - to hear more and to enjoy more.

Me? Oh, I've bought quite a few things from iTunes - albeit that I don't like the sound quality of AAC files. I have at least five copies of Dark Side of the Moon - two vinyl copies (one MFSL edition) two CD copies (again, one the MFSL) and it was the first thing I bought on iTunes. I well remember the Hirsch-Houck Labs tests of the first CDs - the "curves" were flat! The first DDD recordings were phenomenal - I have a copy of Jay Leonhart's Salamander Pie that I bought in the early 1980s on the DMP label - it was fantastic. Four years ago a remastered SACD was issued by DMP and it was even more nuanced and incredible.

I don't think that I'm unusual - the majority of my friends and associates have extensive music collections and many are professional musicians - albeit that they have day jobs.

The artist and the quality of the sound are what make me buy music. It is the same as it ever was and when lossless digital files start becoming the primary material "pirated" I'll be shocked and appalled - but, you see - those of us who love music won't steal from our artists.

Re:Money Machine

[grolaw]

The "system" is as flawed as everything is. I can name hundreds of wrong decisions.

My lie is caught in the mill wheels of the legal system - I'm an attorney.

Re:Money Machine

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

When did you have breakfast? Last night?

I guess I gotta come clean, now. while I was patching my kernel (trying a new method that seemingly allows division by zero) - something happened to space-time that I could not explain. the more watchpoints I set in my code, the faster things ran! at some point, I must have added too many and my machine melted down. after that, well, things got REALLY weird. fortunately, I was able to find a block of RET instructions still on a shred of disk drive, and that saved me.

Well go get yourself some breakfast. It'll make you feel better.
Then come back tomorrow and we can talk about God making cornmeal out of the RIAA and its lackeys.

Re:Money Machine

[Just Some Guy]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

Why? They chose to invest in a market with no intrinsic value that depended on an artificial scarcity.

I wish someone would find a (fair) way of helping me to make a living from sleeping all day, but that's not a reasonable expectation - and neither is yours.

Re:Money Machine

[TheGratefulNet]

Then come back tomorrow and we can talk about God making cornmeal out of the RIAA and its lackeys.

you mean yest-

ah, right. sorry. still having sync issues.

(btw, I have a recipe for cornmeal lackeys. the secret is to use cold water.)

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

If downloads were $.10 per song, people would not even know what TPB stood for.

RIAA, your greed is showing. And it is UGLY.

They were fools. We all pay the cable guy $50.00 per month, but they started us at $14.50 per month and then Nickle and Dimed the rest.

If they had started out cheap, they could have quashed the competition and then raised by Pennies.

Later at the mall, arcade,library, park bench, hundreds are asking,"Wonder what is on this DVD labeled 'Music--Index0001234'"?

Re:Money Machine

[hairyfeet]

The problem is that we,the people,and the *.*.A.A had a contract,which they have broken through bribery and manipulation of our laws. The whole point of copyrights was the granting of a LIMITED monopoly,for a LIMITED amount of time,in return for sharing it with the world at the end of this time through a richer Public Domain. We should have all the great music of the '50s and '60s for free right now. But they are still charging a buck a song on iTunes,why? Because through bribery and manipulation of our laws they have rigged the game in favor of themselves.

To actually feel sorry for the greedy pigs to me is just the height of insanity. It is like feeling sorry for the dealer at a blackjack table who is dealing off the bottom so the house always wins. Personally I haven't seen any of their garbage that I want,but if anyone wants to rob them blind,I say more power to them. Until a new contract is written,one in which BOTH sides get something out of it, the copyright laws are as corrupt and evil as anything passed in your average banana republic. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Money Machine

[pfleming]

So, just stealing it and later saying "the system is broken" is some pretty strange logic. Ford makes cars. Should we just steal those too?

No. But if someone burned me a copy of their Mustang I would probably take it.

Re:Money Machine

[pfleming]

The artist and the quality of the sound are what make me buy music. It is the same as it ever was and when lossless digital files start becoming the primary material "pirated" I'll be shocked and appalled - but, you see - those of us who love music won't steal from our artists.

The labels take care of that for you.
Really, unless you are walking into Steven Tyler's house and lifting a twenty from his wallet you aren't stealing either - no matter what the labels want to call it. The law does not call it theft, it's copyright infringement.

Re:Money Machine

[Kierthos]

Not all of us follow the standard diurnal schedule. I work nights (and have for most of the last eight years), and I eat my dinner around noon. Speaking of which....

Re:Money Machine

[pfleming]

It might go hand in hand, but downloading isn't the same as "making available" which is the angle they seem to be going for.

Re:Money Machine

[Lloyd_Bryant]

But surely we're talking about p2p technologies whereby downloading comes hand-in-hand with uploading?

Not all p2p technologies work like BitTorrent. Gnutella (LimeWire, Bearshare, etc) has no inherent "to download you must upload" requirement. Having a large amount of shared material may improve you connectivity (some Gnutella "ultras" will disconnect those with little or no shared stuff as they near capacity), but it's easy enough to load up a shared directory with stuff you won't get sued over, but download infringing content.

Re:Money Machine

[ScrewMaster]

That would only work if there were an infallible (or near infallible) method of determining when copyright infringement occurred. There isn't, and the only way to make that happen would require technological infringement upon so many other rights that it would be unacceptable. Furthermore, who would you like to have in charge of issuing said "tickets"? The RIAA? Ha.

Even cops, who have the luxury of actually seeing a citizen commit a crime, often get it wrong. Worse yet, what you're proposing would be wide open to abuse and would, in effect, become a tax, not a penalty. Presumably there would be no court time involved, so we would end up with an automated MediaSentry-like system spitting out demands for cash. No thanks.

Copyright law is supposed to be a balance of the needs of society and those of content creators. Keep in mind that society is supposed to determine that balance, not megacorps who have acquired ownership (through often dubious means) to works they did not even create. Regardless, they've resorted to bribery of high government officials to maintain their hegemony. That eliminates any claims to moral high ground to which they might otherwise have been entitled.

Keep firmly in mind that this is not about We the People vs. The Artists. This is about We the People vs. a corrupt government colluding with an equally corrupt entertainment industry that does not, and has not ever, represented the creative members of our culture.

Re:Money Machine

[ScrewMaster]

But surely we're talking about p2p technologies whereby downloading comes hand-in-hand with uploading?

You can't make such a sweeping statement. If you're using something like the Gnutella protocol, you don't have to upload at all. You can simply leech. Consequently you are performing no distribution at all.

Protocols like Bit Torrent, on the other hand, generally don't permit leeching ... you have to upload at least some percentage of what you download. With a typical asymmetric home broadband connection, if you terminate the torrent as soon as you have a complete copy of the file odds are you'll only have shared a fraction of the total.

I don't know how the law treats partial distribution. If I make copies of the first chapter of a book and hand them out, am I in the same amount of legal hot water as copying and distributing the entire work?

Re:Money Machine

[wikid_one]

...

do football players get paid each time someone watches their past performance?

...

No, they don't. But the body that owns their work does... does this sound familiar: "Any rebroadcast, retransmission or other use of this telecast without the written consent of the National Football League is prohibited"

Re:Money Machine

[ScrewMaster]

in all the cases I've seen I've yet to see one where the case was about downloading.

From a technical perspective, that's because proving distribution is much more easily done than proving receipt. From the legal standpoint, though, if they could easily show that someone downloaded a copyrighted work, what would be the significance of it?

Re:Money Machine

[DrSkwid]

sure, we coming to town to perform our film for you next week, see you there!

Re:Money Machine

[UncleTogie]

Presumably there would be no court time involved, so we would end up with an automated MediaSentry-like system spitting out demands for cash. No thanks.

Just wait for it:

"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the RIAA's morality statute."

Re:Money Machine

[Paradise Pete]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

And it has to start by having a reasonable copyright law. Things have to come into the public domain *much* more quickly. If holding a copyright became increasingly costly as it ages, most items would naturally fall into the public domain, and yet Disney could still keep Mickey. But a free, nearly perpetual monopoly is absurd.

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

that would make all home use video recorders in any format illegal.

Re:Money Machine

[corbettw]

I don't get paid again and again when I wrote code. why should 'entertainers' have a different standard?

Um, yes, you do. Or at least you can. There's a couple of ways to do this:

1: If you work as a freelancer, you can re-use old code with client after client, and bill for the full time it took to create the code originally with each successive client. Not the most ethical action, but it is physically possible to do it.

2: If you own and sell the code yourself as your own publisher, you get paid every time someone buys it.

3: If your employer pays their star developers royalties. I don't know of any who do, but again, it's at least possible for it to happen.

Re:Money Machine

[grolaw]

SOME companies care about the quality of the sound. DMP is a fine company. Sony-Bertelsmann put rootkits on their CDs.

Fuck Steven Tyler with a chainsaw. What he produces, along with the idiots at Metallica is not music. BUT, they have found an audience.

As for you mentioning infringement - it is a term of art and it is not necessary to convey the information that I posted. I know Title XVII of the US Code and I'm licensed to use it against you.

Re:Money Machine

[corbettw]

That would only work if there were an infallible (or near infallible) method of determining when copyright infringement occurred.

A law doesn't have to be infallible to work. If that were the case, our prisons wouldn't be full of so many innocent people.

Oh, wait...

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be all fine and dandy, except they want you to pay once for the CD, once for your iPod, once for your cellphone, once for your car stereo, once for your home computer, once for your work computer, once for... you get the drift.

If they could they'd make us pay once everytime we hear it, whether intentionally or not, even if it's just in the radio of our mind.

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is your problem with the parking ticket idea:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"[1]

If the rights are exclusive you cant legally alter that. The duration or "limited times" is where the discussion needs to move.

-----
Article 1, Section 8. The United States Constitution
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0801))

Re:Money Machine

[Khyber]

"I wish someone would find a (fair) way of helping me to make a living from sleeping all day, but that's not a reasonable expectation - and neither is yours."

Guess you haven't been to many art expos, have you? Everything from living people in a glass cage asleep to people engaged in sex are featured in art museums, and they get paid for it.

Your assumption is not reasonable.

Re:Money Machine

[honkycat]

Fuck Steven Tyler with a chainsaw. What he produces, along with the idiots at Metallica is not music. BUT, they have found an audience.

Sorry, didn't realize we had to run things by you to figure out if it's music or not. Thanks for clarifying!

Re:Money Machine

[noidentity]

How about a scheme that funds creation of works based on the labor/materials cost to make the work, rather than the number of times it's distributed? Then downloading and distribution is encouraged and beneficial, and never something that needs to be policed. I'm thinking of something like the way a road is built: workers do the work and get paid, then anything can be done with the work afterwards. The only place laywers would become involved is if the worker isn't paid (once) after doing the work.

Re:Money Machine

[Renraku]

That's what I want to do. Pay a fine because I shared my own file, or prove to some minimum-wage clerk of the court that the file was created by me and freely shared by me.

Re:Money Machine

[gnasher719]

It might go hand in hand, but downloading isn't the same as "making available" which is the angle they seem to be going for.

You are leaving out some words that are important. Copyright law makes it illegal to make a copyrighted work "available for distribution". But "making available for distribution" and "making available for download" are two completely different things: "Making available for distribution" means offering the work to a _distributor_ (like a wholesaler, a chain of record stores, Apple's iTunes Music Store etc. ) It is very, very unlikely that any file sharer is making anything "available for distribution".

Re:Money Machine

[BryanL]

So what if they are not "performing" artists, but purely "recording" artists such as the Beatles (after, I think, Revolver they stopped performing live until the Get Back session)? Many good artists don't perform much live. I hear the "pay to perform" meme repeated over and over, but it seems a little short-sighted to me.

Re:Money Machine

[yndrd1984]

If the rights are exclusive you cant legally alter that. The duration or "limited times" is where the discussion needs to move.

Altering the punishment for violating those rights is also possible. And it is possible to alter the Constitution, even if it is difficult.

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's consider taste, please. This is /.

Re:Money Machine

[Strix Varia]

That's a common view from a non-musician. If musicians made money solely from performances, it wouldn't be long before there were no more professional musicians left. None would be able to afford it. Touring and putting on shows and concerts costs money. It's that simple. Whether the costs are for gas, plane tickets, food, music equipment, or roadies, not to mention the cuts of ticket sales that go to the venues. Every band/artist has to start out at the bottom, and many bands that haven't yet "made it big" often come back from a tour with not that much more than they left with. Expecting people to live on just that income would mean the eventual death of your PERFORMING artist.

Re:Money Machine

[SETIGuy]

So what if they are not "performing" artists, but purely "recording" artists such as the Beatles (after, I think, Revolver they stopped performing live until the Get Back session)?

Half the Beatles are dead. What have their heirs done to deserve an income stream from a recording session that took place nearly half a century ago?

I bought the White Album on cassette in 1984. Then I bought the White Album on CD in 1987. After my CD collection was stolen in 1991, I bought it again. (I didn't have a CD burner at the time, so I didn't have a backup.) I can only listen to one copy of it at a time, so why should I buy it again when I want to listen to it on my computer, or my MP3 player? I've already paid for it three times. Enough already.

Many good artists don't perform much live.

Maybe the would if they needed to in order to make a living. That's their choice.

Re:Money Machine

[KDR_11k]

I'd say a ten, or even 100 buck fine every time your caught (not per file or anything like that) would be suitable.

Some things, especially software, tend to cost more at retail than those fines, add the fact that you just won't be caught every time you download something and it becomes cheaper than buying. Getting caught using a tram without a ticket is a 40 Euro fine here IIRC, a regular ticket is on the order of 3-5 Euros. A fine has to cost several times what buying legally would and should be high enough that on average it costs more to pay fines when caught than to buy a ticket for every ride.

Re:Money Machine

[KDR_11k]

There are more media than just music. Looking at the fools of the music industry and using that to conclude all copyrights are bogus is silly. Do you look at people who go bankrupt to determine if loans are a good thing?

Re:Money Machine

[mpe]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

No we don't. If people want to earn a living from being a "media creator" then that's their problem, so long as they obey the law, only then does it become a problem for everyone else.

Re:Money Machine

[mpe]

That's a common view from a non-musician. If musicians made money solely from performances, it wouldn't be long before there were no more professional musicians left.

This would be bad because?

Touring and putting on shows and concerts costs money. It's that simple. Whether the costs are for gas, plane tickets, food, music equipment, or roadies, not to mention the cuts of ticket sales that go to the venues.

It's not unknown for venues to pay bands (and PA companies) to play there.

Every band/artist has to start out at the bottom, and many bands that haven't yet "made it big" often come back from a tour with not that much more than they left with. Expecting people to live on just that income would mean the eventual death of your PERFORMING artist.

You are missing that plenty of people want to see live music and they are prepared to pay to do so. They might not always be prepared to pay what "artists" think they are worth and be fickle when it comes to tastes, but that's just human nature.

Re:Money Machine

[mpe]

The problem is that we,the people,and the *.*.A.A had a contract,which they have broken through bribery and manipulation of our laws. The whole point of copyrights was the granting of a LIMITED monopoly,for a LIMITED amount of time,in return for sharing it with the world at the end of this time through a richer Public Domain. We should have all the great music of the '50s and '60s for free right now.

Actually that should be all of the music from the '50s and '60s. Including the great, the not so great and the utter trash. All neatly archived in the Library of Congress. The point of a rich Public Domain isn't to just preserve the "hits". Even the "misses" can be valuable, even if only along the lines of "it isn't worth writing music like this."

Re:Money Machine

[hairyfeet]

I didn't mean great as in the hits,I meant great as in those were such a seminal time in the history of music. We had the birth of so many genres in such a short period of time. Rockabilly,Rock 'n Roll,Heavy Metal,The Nashville Sound,etc. All of that music should not only be free for all of us to enjoy,but it should be free to be used by artists as the basis of new works,which was the whole point of copyrights. Instead the greedy pigs have taken over and destroyed the contract.

To use a slashdot car analogy,it would be like I gave you the only car dealership in town in return for every used car that is traded in. But instead of holding up your end of the bargin you pay off the local judge to have me arrested as a thief when I come to collect. A contract is worthless if both sides don't benefit. As it is now the *.*.A.As get all the benefits of the contract while we get absolutely NOTHING in return. So as I said,we need to stress the fact that the contract has been broken and until a new one is written that benefits BOTH sides We,The People, shall treat ALL copyrights as null and void. And as always this is my 02c(and Public Domain),YMMV

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay up and move along, no big deal.

Do you think everyone downloading has the money in the first place to pay for some of these overpriced products(M$)? Why should the poor take the heat for those that can afford to pay and don't?

Re:Money Machine

[Warhawke]

Such as concerts? Today the RIAA basically gets most of the profits from CDs/iTunes downloads for any signed band. Now when you buy those burnt CDs from a local indie band, most, if not all of it goes to the band, but as for signed bands, they make money from concerts.

Having been heavily exposed to the music business, I can speak from experience. ASCAP and BMI do not receive most of the profits from CDs/iTunes downloads for signed bands. They receive a modicum percentage that adds up quite significantly. When you buy a burned CD from an Indie band, much of the money does go directly to the band... and right back to paying for the CDs burned. Working for a label, I've seen how much decent CD burning costs -- roughly 85% of the cost of the CD once you include printing and distribution. While printing out of your mom's computer's LightScribe may be cheaper, Indie bands aren't going to have nearly the publicity that signed bands will. They won't get played on the radio. They won't get sponsored in ads. Word of mouth promotion just isn't profitable. That's why the necessary evils of labels and publishers exist.

I'm all for tearing down the system and sticking it to the bloodsucking leeches of the RIAA, but the methodology you've proposed here is not a feasible or profitable option for bands. Concerts are notorious for lining the coffers of the big dogs. A significant portion of the money does go to the venue in the majority of cases. Still more goes to the stage equipment, the room and board, the travel costs of moving and setting up that equipment at each venue. Even more goes to agents who book the gigs. By the end, despite the fact that you shelled out $80 for that ticket, the band's only going to get a few red cents out of that ticket at the end of the day. Band tours aren't profitable - they're publicity. They're designed to get the band out there among the fans to draw up interest so that people will go to iTunes and buy money.

AC has it right. Also, the NFL has no rights over what happens to anything transmitted over the airwaves once it reaches my property, it is mine to do with as I please, including recording it, encrypting/decrypting it.

That is completely and totally incorrect. The NFL does have rights over what is transmitted to your property. They have intellectual property right, and whether you like it or not, it's a complete necessity in a capitolistic world. Do you support warrantless wiretapping of your phones? I imagine not, because you have a right (to privacy) that protects the content of your calls. The government requires a court order to suspend those rights. Intellectual property right means that even though you are watching the program, it is inherently theirs. Copyright law says that despite your watching a program they own, you have a limited set of rights regarding fair-use copying of their material. You own certain rights to copies of what they own. While they do not own the airwave over which their program is broadcast (which is mandated by the FCC), they still have significant rights over the material you are watching. While you may have a limited right to copy the data, DRM (Digital Rights Management) is trying to close that gap by saying you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to encrypt or decrypt or copy the data.

Why? They chose to invest in a market with no intrinsic value that depended on an artificial scarcity.

Ideas have no scarcity, but you still retain certain legal rights to your ideas so long as you apply for them. By creating an artificial scarcity, you drive up demand (obviously) and therefore increase output. It's a pedantic argument as to whether or not the world would be better off without rights to intellectual property, since we can't say for sure, but I imagine the result would be somewhat chaotic. While it's all good and well to imagine that inventors invent things out of pure selflessness to benefit society, I can't re

Re:Money Machine

[Just Some Guy]

Working for a label, I've seen how much decent CD burning costs -- roughly 85% of the cost of the CD once you include printing and distribution.

You will never, ever get me to believe that a $15.00 CD costs $12.75 to burn and ship, particularly not when its the soundtrack to a movie that only costs $10.00 on DVD (including printing and distribution). No way. Uh-uh.

Concerts, the NFL, etc.

You're replying to someone else.

Re:Money Machine

[sm62704]

Maybe everyone should just code until a project is done then give it away!

How can you be posting at slashdot and never have heard of FOSS? People DO give code away, and they make a lot of money doing so.

Ford makes cars. Should we just steal those too?

If I could make a copy of a Ford for free I would. Would I be stealing a Ford? If I make biodeisel out of used corn oil am I stealing from the oil companies?

If I steal a CD the store has lost somenthing. If I download a song the publisher has lost nothing, and if (as many do) I download a song, discover I like it, and buy that CD the publisher has profited from my copyright infringement.

If I get caught stealing music (shoplifting) I will pay a small misdemeanor fine. If I get caught infringing copyright I will pay a huge civil penalty.

What you don't understand is that people don't download instead of buying; they either download to determine if they want to buy or not, or they download because they can't afford the song. If I download a copy of Photoshop (I won't) because I can't afford it (I can't), Adobe has lost nothing, and in fact Adobe has become the powerhouse it is because of people pirating Photoshop.

There are bands out there with "please be kind, make a copy of this CD for a friend". These bands are far wiser than established dinasaur record companies.

Re:Money Machine

[sm62704]

I'd gladly have given you my burned Chevy.

Re:Money Machine

[Warhawke]

I was responding to a few comments in one, so that I could knock out three errors in the thread. I made a slight word error in my response, as no, it doesn't cost $12.75 to produce and ship a CD (costs closer to $5 if you're doing it professionally). Artists get payed on a royalty system called "Royalty Points" that are predetermined with the label before the album's production. Though these royalty points are negotiable, there's a pretty set pattern. Starting artists will bank on anywhere from 8 to 15 royalty points, range dependent upon which and what type of label they're signing with, midlevel (250,000-1 million record sales) artists will range from 15-17 points, and superstars (1 mill.+) will receive 18-20 points, on average. Since these points are a 1% of the profit, meaning that the artists don't receive one single penny until the label has made back all of their money, at best an artist will only receive on average around 15% of the profit made. That is assuming that the label even sells enough to pay off their investment in the artist. Many, many aspiring musicians won't see a penny come from CD sales if their stuff isn't moving in quantity.

Re:Money Machine

[secondbase]

I used to perform locally (not enough to make a living, but we did get paid), we didn't spend heavy money on transportation, and we were our own roadies. I ran across people who made some kind of living with semi-local performing and direct-sales CDs.

But whether you could or not isn't the point: the work is done once, why get paid forever? A band might do a much better performance some night than the tracks in a studio, but when the lights go dark, money stops flowing. Why does making a permanent record of it create something that someone can sell over and over again, and legally prevent me from sharing?

Re:Money Machine

[SillySlashdotName]

I had one of those 'radio of the mime' things, and that guy trapped in a box routine was HISTERICAL!

I also liked that I could listen at full volume in church and in a library, 'cause there was not sound. Of course, that made it hard to know what was going on 'cause it was radio, ya know.

I always wanted to have them do those 'guy walking into a strong wind' and 'guy pulling a rope' things, but never ...

What's that?

Radio of the MIND?

Oh.

Nevermind.

Bitch.

Re:"Probable Cause" Hearing Against MediaSentry

[One Childish N00b]

Hello Jack, no game news today?

I propose...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that we tag anything to do with the RIAA/MPAA with the keyword "bastards".

Re:I propose...

[ScrewMaster]

I propose the term "bloodsucking leech" which is equally pejorative and definitely more representative.

And let me say a resounding

[esocid]

What?! Only in a country where a democratically controlled congress passes a bill giving a free pass, sorry for using pass so much, to the telecoms for violating the law would the courts allow a company that illegally collects data to testify in a case without being under oath. Now how about the defendants, they get this free pass too, right?

Re:And let me say a resounding

[Anonymous Coward]

The US isn't a Democracy; it's a Republic.

Re:And let me say a resounding

[Attila Dimedici]

What?! Only in a country where a democratically controlled congress passes a bill giving a free pass, sorry for using pass so much, to the telecoms for violating the law would the courts allow a company that illegally collects data to testify in a case without being under oath. Now how about the defendants, they get this free pass too, right?

If you had actually read the summary, you would see that it is not the courts that are asking MediaSentry to testify, it is the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board. This is no more the "courts" than the FCC is on the federal level.

Re:And let me say a resounding

[esocid]

I read the summary, too quickly, and too early I might add. It still would be nice for a board to require anything said by an "expert," or are they still claiming they aren't, to be entered under oath of some sort.
It is however reassuring that the courts may have remained sane, with respect to the branches of government, at this point in time.

Lairs take no oath?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were lying, and they don't have to take an oath?

Re:"Probable Cause" Hearing Against MediaSentry

[Anonymous Coward]

nah it's probably one of those media defender fags. Hey arseholes your turn is next, don't drop the soap.

Don't sue Media Sentry!

[Lunarsight]

Media Sentry is just a disposable name. Follow the money and sue who owns them.

Re:Don't sue Media Sentry!

[grolaw]

Secretaries of state have corporate registers. You can look it up yourself. You may find several layers of corporations and LLC entities, but eventually you will find the officers and directors or members or partners.

Re:Don't sue Media Sentry!

[Anonymous Coward]

I turns out that the company that owns them makes crypto cards with FIPS certification which they sign statements effectively saying they are computer experts.

Corporation: "they", not "it"

[lenski]

Legally speaking, corporations are considered to be individual entities. But this causes all sorts of problems with understanding what's really happening under the cover of darkness under which corporate management operates too frequently.

Every corporation is run by a group of ordinary people, making decisions for themselves, the stockholders and (on occasion) their employees and customers.

It is this impedance mismatch between the legal interpretation and reality that causes such difficulty: The people whose decisions determine the corporation's behavior in society are insulated from responsibility by the "corporate veil". This insulation of personal responsibility from corporate authority is the cause of great difficulty.

Someday, I hope our use of language will be altered to reflect reality. A corporation is run by a group of people which is best understood conceptually as they, not a singular entity which is incorrectly referred to as an it. And it stands to reason that they need to be held to account for their decisions.

Re:Corporation: "they", not "it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the recent innovation of personal criminal liability for things like corporate manslaughter (UK leads the way) or fraud (US is miles ahead).

Re:Corporation: "they", not "it"

[dbcad7]

Not all corporations have stock holders.. If I have a ton of money, and want to start a business, I would incorporate to protect my stash that is not invested in the business. Obviously as owner I could hire and fire and direct behind the scenes, but if my company say.. killed somebody, they can only go after my companies assets. that's why most businesses are incorporated in the first place.

Many owners (same with shareholders) have no (or very little) idea of the day to day operations of a company they own, and sometimes the people actually running it act like they are god, or that the company is theirs to do however they please. They should be held responsible for their decisions. And owners and stockholders should take a more active role to insure that the company is running a way that reflects their own ethics.. and if it isn't then as an owner you clean house, or as a shareholder reinvest in a company that does... problem is, it's all about the $$Green$$ and people will leave their money in an evil company as long as it's making them money.

Re:Corporation: "they", not "it"

[lenski]

Mostly agreed on essentially all points. If I had mod privileges for this, I would mod your comment up.

Obviously as owner I could hire and fire and direct behind the scenes, but if my company say.. killed somebody, they can only go after my companies assets. that's why most businesses are incorporated in the first place.

A nit to pick: When your company builds a product that despite making every reasonable effort to be reliable fails catastrophically, then only the company's financial assets are at stake. When someone makes a decision which can be proved (in court, etc.) to be willfully negligent, the decisionmaker(s) must be held to account for that decision.

Too often, a corporation is misperceived as an individual entity and reponsibility for its actions are hidden from view by the corporate veil. The reason I repeat this is that too many times, the limits of corporate liability are extended beyond the original intent into (in many cases) abrogation of the personal responsibility of the people who make those decisions.

Following up on the stockholders holding management responsible for their actions: I get proxy vote requests frequently, but there are two ways my ethics do not help:

1) I am a holder of mutual funds, rather than being a stock picker; my proxy votes are related only to fund management, not the companies themselves. (I work for a living and don't have time to research all the companies. That is exactly the service that I pay the fund managers too much to deliver.)

2) Even when a normal minor stockholder is the direct holder of a stock, the board and management have many techniques that prevent ethical questions from ever appearing in stockholder vote situations.

The result is that a person with money to invest must find the 1 company in 10000 that is willing to sacrifice its financial performance in favor of improved balance with ethical concerns.

This is why I favor broad enforcement of common standards of ethical performance by the individuals deciding the direction of corporate entities.

I claim that the broadly held misperception of corporate vs personal responsibility in public understanding is intentional. The corporate apologists understand that language is an important way to misdirect the thinking of people are too busy making their way in the world to get into questions of "psycho-linguistics".

Re:Corporation: "they", not "it"

[dbcad7]

A nit to pick: When your company builds a product that despite making every reasonable effort to be reliable fails catastrophically, then only the company's financial assets are at stake. When someone makes a decision which can be proved (in court, etc.) to be willfully negligent, the decisionmaker(s) must be held to account for that decision.

I don't disagree.. but it is very easy for the actual owner of a company to be insulated.. unless he personally makes a disastrous decision such as "make it out of pot metal instead of steel" then he is not personally liable. If he was behind the scenes saying.."cheaper, build it cheaper" I don't think that's enough, unless the people he instructed warned him when they reached a level that was unsafe..

Honesty

[SKPhoton]

It would be so much easier if we all decided to simply TELL THE TRUTH!

Not just here, but in every area of our lives... politically, economically, socially, personally, even to ourselves...

Re:Honesty

[ScrewMaster]

Not at all. The little white lie is lubricant which makes civilization possible. Most of us, in fact, don't even want to know the absolute truth about the people we know, love, and with whom we work.

Re:Honesty

[corbettw]

It would be so much easier if we all decided to simply TELL THE TRUTH!

You first. What's your full name, date of birth, and Social Security Number?

Re:Honesty

[Crazy_CorranH]

And it would be perfectly truthful to say I'm not going to give that info out to random people on the Internet. Being truthful doesn't mean you can't have secrets, just that you don't lie.

Re:Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a cop-out, and I disagree completely. The little white lie is what ruins civilisation, they build up after a while and we dig ourselves into progressively deeper holes, _so much_ so that it makes us not want to know the absolute truth about everyone as you say. I have seen many a situation go sour due to your "social lubricant".

Re:Honesty

[ShadowsHawk]

Perhaps a certain amount of ignorance is pleasant for you, but I would prefer to know and understand the truth around me. Events, the true intentions of the people around me, etc.

We could finally have prove that the sociopath in the cube across the hall is actively trying to screw us.

Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[Animaether]

"I wish someone would find a (fair) way of helping me to make a living from sleeping all day"
1. Get hunderds, thousands, perhaps millions to see value in your sleeping all day.
2. Let that value be enough to make a living
3. done

"but that's not a reasonable expectation"
I don't see why not.

Let's say I make a movie - let's say it costs me a mere $1,000 to make. That $1,000 has to come from somewhere.
Now a hundred thousand people watch that movie and are entertained, the value they found in it being said entertainment. Now comes the difficult part... turning that entertainment value into monetary value. Presume it was a regular movie ticket... $8 or so. That's $800,000 that would've been mine. But alright, I'm sure I'm not entitled to $800,000 when the thing only cost $1,000 to make... (and yes, I find $5,000,000 actors unreasonable - same as I find multi-million dollar baseball players unreasonable, but that's not stopping people getting baseball tickets to a single event that they can't even tape with their own HD cameras and ... I digress) so let's say I price the thing at $0.10. That's still $10,000 but what the hey, I can use that $9,000 to make 9 more movies, or maybe 3 more with better quality props.. or I'll donate the $9,000 to charity.. whatever.
I would say that $0.25 for a full length movie is not just *reasonable*, it's ludicrously cheap.. you won't even find scratched-up mangled rental-place DVDs for that price.

And yet... somehow... the mindset of the masses is that that's not reasonable at all - they feel that the only reasonable price for intangible goods is $0. And that is what I find unreasonable. Paying $50 at a restaurant for foodstuffs that will just come out as fecal matter... that's unreasonable. Paying $4/gallon gas to drive 5 miles back and forth every day... that's unreasonable.

I'm all for reform and getting media creators to get with the program (some do - opening their own YouTube channels and sharing in ad revenue, for example)... I'm not for the mindset that media creators will just have to find a job making tangible goods which magically -are- worth actual cash, and do 'that media thing' in their spare time as a hobby for zilch. If enthusiasts do want to make free media - go for it, that's nothing new - but that doesn't mean that we should all be forcing others to do the same just because we're cheapskates.

So as for the grandparent... the technical solution is simple - offer the things in online stores for cheap. The mindset problem is another one altogether.. and the genie may be out of the bottle on that one.

Re:Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[Just Some Guy]

I would say that $0.25 for a full length movie is not just *reasonable*, it's ludicrously cheap..

But here's the thing: consumers decide how much goods are worth. Always. That's how markets work. It's incumbent upon those who want to cater to a market to decide how to deliver a product at a price that their potential customers are willing to pay.

If consumers have collectively decided that music and movies are worth $0.00, then producers have three options:

1. Convince consumers to pay. Include cool, tangible items with movie purchases like posters or gloves or whatever.
2. Get sponsors. Advertising pays to bring "Lost" to viewers; maybe Coca-Cola can pay to let them see "Hancock".
3. Find an easier way to make a buck. Maybe holding down a real job isn't as much fun as snorting coke off a hooker, but them's the breaks.

Seriously, it's out of their hands. Again, producers don't decide what a reasonable price is for their products - consumers do. The best producers can do is figure out how much people are willing to pay and try to make a profit at that level.

Re:Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[gnud]

Naaah. Now the consumers have two choises: one that they deem too expensive, inconvenient or what have you, and the other at $0, with a slim possibility of getting sued.
If a media company created a third choise, easy, quick, drm-free downloads at a reasonable price, don't you think that would be a hit?

Re:Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[Just Some Guy]

If a media company created a third choise, easy, quick, drm-free downloads at a reasonable price, don't you think that would be a hit?

Very possibly. Another possibility is that people are already spoiled on the idea of free downloads. Either way, the market gets to decide if your proposal is a fair trade, and it's impossible to dictate the answer.

Would I buy what you described? Probably! But you and I are just two people, and two people don't (usually) a market make.

Re:Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[Animaether]

Oh I'm not disagreeing with consumers deciding how much goods are worth (although they seem to be doing a shoddy job in everything else that they find 'expensive'. That whole 'tangible vs intangible' thing again.

I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is unreasonable to expect that entertainment is worth some actual cold hard cash - even at $0.25!

As for your specific points...
1. Except that most people don't care about that.
2. That's an idea, but then what was it again about adblock and the like? If I put out a movie and puts ads in front of it that you can't skip... can we say "ads hacked out in 3... 2... 1..."? Or do you suggest that the entire movie be product-placement'ed up the wazoo? And don't forget that Coca~Cola expects returns from their sponsoring Lost - returns in terms of selling their drinks. If they did market research and found that nobody's buying any additional drinks from them, and dropping the ads wouldn't result in a drop in sales of their drinks, they would pull the ads immediately.

3. Woo, I'll cover this in two parts.

3.1. Are you saying that singing, drumming, playing the violin, acting, being a cameraman, etc. are not 'real jobs'? If so, is that based on the idea that you are producing intangible goods - because then you should tell the plurality of coders on Slashdot to please go and be a mechanic for their code is worth $0.00 as well.

3.2. Nice. I make a $1,000 movie and automatically I'm snorting coke off of hookers. Are you just a tad biased? As I said before, I'm no fan of multi-million, or even multi-hundred-thousand actors; which tend to be a large part of the budget for a movie these days. How they spend those millions I couldn't care less about. But I am taking issue with your stating that every actor/etc. must just be spending their money, however much it might be, on unseemly things. Perhaps they're feeding a family. I know, feeding themselves while performing a job that isn't real - the audacity, eh?

That said... I'm all for it. Let all intangible goods be $0.00. Then we can live in the utopian Star Trek world where TV and the like have been abolished and we spend our lives doing other things that entertain us. Of course we can also get food on demand from a replicator and dabble in virtual worlds on the holodeck, chapters of which we'll pay for with our gold-laced latinum. Oh, shit, I forgot, intangible goods are supposed to be worth exactly zero gold-laced latinum bars as well. Oh well. You know what I meant.

Again, I'm sure the masses feel that music/videos/etc. are worth $0.00 - that does not, however, make it -reasonable-. That's the only problem I had with the original poster's stance :)

Re:Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[Just Some Guy]

I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is unreasonable to expect that entertainment is worth some actual cold hard cash - even at $0.25!

It is always unreasonable to expect that something has a certain value. You can hope it does, you can think that it probably does, you can run market studies to show that it likely does, but you can't say "it should be so" and expect it to happen.

My financing ideas weren't so much direct suggestions as examples of ideas the industry might use to pay for itself. Finding something that actually works is their job. :-).

And by coke-and-hookers, I definitely meant the MPAA-boss types. I really feel sorry for the little guys, the average workers, who busted their butt to learn a craft only to watch their employers waste it. It's not their fault that the studio owners refuse to look to new business models that might keep them afloat. At any rate, most of the craftsmen can work in other industries. Construction workers, electricians, etc. have obvious career paths, as do all computer folks. A caterer can cook for parties as well as they can cook for movie sets. Yes, adjustment will be necessary if the higher-ups don't straighten things out, but that's life. This is true for all industries, and I don't see anything about entertainment that deserves special consideration.

Re:Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[mpe]

Now the consumers have two choises: one that they deem too expensive, inconvenient or what have you, and the other at $0, with a slim possibility of getting sued.

The latter isn't free, time being money.

If a media company created a third choise, easy, quick, drm-free downloads at a reasonable price, don't you think that would be a hit?

Any "window of opportunity" is likely to be closing rapidly. In order to be sucessful such a system would have to be better than "pirate".

Re:Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[Dhalka226]

There are a few points that I think you're missing or intentionally glossing over, so let's get to them:

consumers decide how much goods are worth. Always. That's how markets work.

Yes, but they do so by choosing whether or not to patronize a particular business, on the assumption that the business will either go under or find an equilibrium point with its consumers. They don't do it by taking somebody's product, thumbing their nose and saying "neener neener! Thanks for your work, it's worth nothing to me!" Ignoring the idiocy of statements that imply that something you just took isn't worth anything to you (then why the hell did you take it?), most people in rational discourse call this stealing. Dress it up as "copyright infringement" in this specific case if you prefer, but most people just see THAT as a fancy term for stealing too, regardless of whether or not the producer is down one unit of product. I don't particularly care what verbiage people settle on, but it's simply dishonest.

If you want to make a case against the existence of IP, or draconian damages like the RIAA seek or laws designed to support then like the DMCA, so be it. I might even hop on board on some of those positions. But so long as this is the system we have, we should all be playing by the rules. You don't simply get to take things that people aren't giving away. To revise your point a little bit, the market itself decides how much goods are worth, and the market is composed of many consumers. Offering up what you're willing to pay and seeing if there's any bites is an auction. It's fine, but you don't get to take it anyway if they turn you down.

If consumers have collectively decided that music and movies are worth $0.00

I don't even know what this means. What is this collective you speak of? One person? The entirety of the group of people who do something, regardless of whether there are others doing the opposite? I just saw an article that iTunes sold its five billionth song recently. Clearly there is a pretty powerful consumer presence that is well on the positive side of the $0.00 you seem to claim has been collectively decided. You can't simply exclude significant portions of a market if you're making any honest assessment of what that market's position is.

I also find it intellectually dishonest to try to compare whether consumers on average prefer to pay or get things for free. Of course they prefer getting it for free. Many are willing to do it outside the law, because the risks are so small. That doesn't mean the product is worthless. It doesn't even necessarily mean that it's overpriced at whatever its current price point is. But at best, it means the price should move lower--not disappear.

But let's cut the crap. It's useless to talk about how free markets should operate when you're talking about IP, where (1) there is both artificial scarcity and artificial and insurmountable barriers to entry, and (2) products are not perfect replacements for each other. Hell, most of the assumptions of a free market tend to be false to begin with, and even moreso with IP.

Re:Except that it's not at all unreasonable...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dress it up as "copyright infringement" in this specific case if you prefer, but most people just see THAT as a fancy term for stealing too, regardless of whether or not the producer is down one unit of product. I don't particularly care what verbiage people settle on, but it's simply dishonest.

I'm sorry, but copyright infringement is not stealing. Dishonest and morally reprehensible, maybe. But it is not stealing. The key difference is this: when you have been a victim of theft, you'll notice that something is gone (assuming you knew you had it in the first place). When you have been a victim of copyright infringement, you'll never notice that someone copied your work unless you see them with it. The two are different things. Stop trying to confuse the issue. Stealing is physically depriving you of a material object that you own. Copyright infringement is not. Copyright infringement is copying something that you have a legally granted right to (not an inherent right, a granted right). Stealing is not. You are being intellectually dishonest by confusing the two terms.

But so long as this is the system we have, we should all be playing by the rules.

Bullshit. It's called civil disobedience. The system is flawed. That means that its rules should not be followed. Are we going overboard? Probably. Should everyone be punished for it? No. The fact is, we need to find a middle ground before no one is willing to pay for music again.

Wait for it

[ThatsNotPudding]

Maybe Obama can remove all doubts about himself by proposing to make Media Sentry's law breaking retroactively legal too.

Re:RIAA not telling the truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, look - another idiot managed to figure out how to create an account on Slashdot.

Who'da thunk it?

Christ, don't kids have summer jobs anymore?

Re:RIAA not telling the truth?

[AceofSpades19]

not kids that go on slashdot

Why make it more expensive with time?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it really is still massively popular after 15 years, you've already made stacks of cash off it.

If copyright expires, it just means some other people get to make cash off it. That doesn't take away from your stash you've made in the meantime.

So 15 years later (or no more than 1 year after support is dropped) copyright expires. You've made millions off it. You could have made millions more, but then you've already made millions. Maybe its time to get off your butt and do another one?

Re:Why make it more expensive with time?

[Paradise Pete]

Make it more expensive over time so that things will more quickly pass into the public domain. Most things in much less than 15 years. And as for allowing it to be extended for higher and higher fees, well that's mostly pragmatic. if you want even a ghost of a chance of having it happen you've got to provide for the "franchise" copyrights.

Re:RIAA not telling the truth?

[Mathinker]

Donno about that, looked like a standard Slashdot post to me?
I would have thought a Redundant mod was more in line than a Troll, tho...
And to continue that thought, this post is Offtopic.

AC from beyond the dead?

[Mathinker]

Jack, Jack, is that you?

I didn't realize that there was an Internet connection down there!

Re:AC from beyond the dead?

[Khyber]

AC has it right. Also, the NFL has no rights over what happens to anything transmitted over the airwaves once it reaches my property, it is mine to do with as I please, including recording it, encrypting/decrypting it. I may not rebroadcast (but that's purely due to FCC rules and regulations) but the FCC ruled specifically about OTA broadcasting and things like the use of police scanners for citizens - once that signal hits your property, it's yours to do with as you please.

Of course, the media corporation's response is to try to force everyone to Digital *COUGHMODIFIEDANALOG* broadcasting and encrypting the media OTA so it would be a violation of the DMCA to record it successfully.

Greetings

[Anonymous Coward]

Permit me to introduce myself. I am Roger Yuhard, chief counsel for the Road Industry Association of America.

For too long, some Americans have been taking grave advantage of the parking system of our great country. They purchase temporary parking licenses, but continue to occupy valuable space far past the expiration time. Be aware, parking pirates, you do not own those spaces; they are made available on a temporary basis only. Your brazen attempt to steal from the road creators will not be tolerated!

The Road Industry Association of America is leading the charge against this brazen thievery! Under our plan, there will be no more abuse of the property rights of road artists. When parking, each individual will be required to deposit a DNA sample for positive identification. The the driver will be fitted with a shock collar, synchronized to the expiration of the parking license. Starting five minutes prior to license expiration, the collar will deliver sub-lethal shocks to the driver, to ensure that the license is respected. Removal of the collar immediately terminates the parking license. And there will be no more penny-ante parking tickets. Fines for remaining in a parking location past license expiration will be one hundred dollars per minute of license violation. Vehicles will be retained in the parking location until all fines are paid; if the fine exceeds the value of the vehicle, it will be seized.

By stern and prompt action, we can halt this plague of parking pirates, and the drain on our economy that they represent. By ensuring that parking licenses are respected, the overall quality of roads will improve, ensuring that all users have a quality road experience.

Thank you.

At $0.25 / movie, no one would bother to pirate it

[Mathinker]

At $0.25 / movie, no one would bother to pirate it --- or practically no one, anyway.

I can't talk for the mindset of the masses, not really being part of them, but as for myself, if a content provider would sell content for very low prices, I wouldn't bother to try to pirate it. $0 isn't a reasonable price for most content with value, but neither is the official price, either, in a lot of cases.

I would go out of my way to pirate content if I had the idea that otherwise I would finance imbalanced lawsuits against the public, or gaming the legislative system to arbitrarily extend copyright, or other bad stuff. But what I most often do in that case is just "skip it" --- there's just too much interesting free stuff out there now! And that's something which the content providers have no idea how to change. Let's just hope they don't get their hands on a time machine or something.

Re:At $0.25 / movie, no one would bother to pirate

[mpe]

At $0.25 / movie, no one would bother to pirate it --- or practically no one, anyway.

So long as that price was available to everyone who might want to watch it. One of the things driving "piracy" of both movies and TV is availability. We have the strange situation of multinational movie distributors and broadcasters taking literally years to show their products around the planet (if they ever do). If your 0.25 USD movie is only available in the USA then you have just excluded most of your potential audience. You'd also need to be able to accept 0.16 EUR, 0.13 GBP, 0.25 CAD, 0.26 AUD, 26.57 JPY, 10.70 INR, 0.33 NZD, 0.25 CHF, 1.92 ZAR, etc, etc. Which is likely to be a lot easier if you are a multinational company. Though 4,670,381,878.09 ZWD might be a struggle.

Excuse me if I feel pessimistic.

[FazzMunkle]

At this point, when it involves the RIAA I believe that the problems with them can't be solved by anything other than fire.

Which means I'll be pleasantly surprised when justice is done in a legal fashion. ;)

Re:At $0.25 / movie, no one would bother to pirate

[Mathinker]

Yeah, I understand that, there are two things I'd pirate if I had the opportunity because there is no other way to obtain them: the original version of the first Star Wars movie, and "Between Time and Timbuktu" (which Vonnegut refused to allow to be redistributed after 1973, I understand).