Slashdot Mirror
Lessig, Zittrain, Barlow To Square Off Against RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's case in Boston against a 24-year-old grad student, SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, in which Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School, along with members of his CyberLaw class, are representing the defendant, may shape up as a showdown between the Electronic Frontier and Big Music. The defendant's witness list includes names such as those of Prof. Lawrence Lessig (Author of 'Free Culture'), John Perry Barlow (former songwriter of The Grateful Dead and cofounder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation), Prof. Johan Pouwelse (Scientific Director of P2P-Next), Prof. Jonathan Zittrain (Author of 'The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It'), Professors Wendy Seltzer, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey, and others. The RIAA requested, and was granted, an adjournment of the trial, from its previously scheduled December 1st date, to March 30, 2009. (The RIAA lawyers have been asking for adjournments a lot lately, asking for an adjournment in UMG v. Lindor the other day because they were so busy preparing for the Tenenbaum December 1st trial ... I guess when you're running on hot air, you sometimes run out of steam)."
but simply restore short terms
The problems with the copyright system aren't just about getting sumthin' for nuthin'. It's about the inevitable abuses of the copyright owners.
A hyperbolic example: having to pay royalties to the RIAA because you sang "Happy Birthday to you" at your friend's party. Some may even say that the RIAA's asking settlements constitute "cruel and unusual punishment".
Stallman created the GPL to use copyright against itself. He probably would be happy in a world that didn't know copyright or other forms of "intellectual property". Even if people weren't compelled to keep their changes open, a lack of NDAs and the legality of reverse engineering with help would ensure changes got leaked anyway.
I stand corrected, but I will continue to download out of principle because I know that the eventual goal of the *AAs is to charge on a per-listen, per-song basis and they will continue to fight for their revenue stream at the expense of the consumer just as I will continue to fight for the freedom to experience my media with no strings attached. The vast majority of the stuff I download are songs from CD's I bought years ago, or older movies which I see on paid-for cable TV.
I will pay for the media when the content providers develop reasonable business models. I want to enjoy what I pay for on any device that I own without having to satisfy pointless software and hardware DRM requirements and other annoyances such as being forced to sit through previews.
Wierd Al Yankovic, among others, have complained that they make less off digital downloads than regular sales. The problem is that the record companies haven't changed their royalty system to accommodate digital sales and probably won't. For physical media, record companies would deduct from sales for things like manufacturing and distribution out of the artists' royalties. With digital sales, there are not any real manufacturing costs and retailers like iTunes Store absorb the distribution costs. But the record company would still deduct these costs from royalties.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"I guess when congress sells you a few new laws every year, delaying is a pretty smart business tactic."
I'm not so sure the Obama administration is going to be rubber stamping MAFIAA legislation.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'll bet if Weird Al were to sell his digital downloads directly on his own webpage without RIAA support he'd have a different opinion on the profitability of digital music sales. Especially if Steve Albini's numbers are correct.
Al is probably earning about 2% of each sale. I'd be pissed too.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.