Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's Oppenheim Tries To Protect MediaSentry
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim of The Oppenheim Group, who controls and supervises all of the RIAA litigations against ordinary folks, has requested permission to intervene in the 'probable cause' hearing scheduled next week in Raleigh, North Carolina, against MediaSentry. The hearing was convened by North Carolina's Private Protective Services Board, after complaints were filed by a law firm representing a number of North Carolina State University students who had been targeted by the RIAA based on the unlicensed 'investigation' conducted by SafeNet (the new name for MediaSentry). I guess the RIAA is worried. They should be."
Fuck them and what the stand for. Legally sanctioned oppression. Fuck em.
"The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim..."
How lang has he been Prince of Darkness? I bet not since 1979!
-- Cheers!
Could someone please introduce Ray Beckerman to a decent CMS and donate some design work so his site doesn't hurt the eyes?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I am become death destroyer of digital rights
Oh wait, I thought you said Oppenheimer.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I am become death destroyer of digital rights.
As the internet matures more and more, questionable legal methods are only going to get more and more defined. Remember in the bad old days (7-8 years ago) when there were legal threats being brought for things like "deep linking"? Back when the technology was new (compared to the legal system's understanding of it) I can see where the RIAA might have been able to strongarm people just by saying "we know you're doing it" but that's getting harder and harder to do. Thank heavens for progress.
this has been a logical flaw in the 'the artists must get paid' argument.
I just bought some used cd's from amazon. some are sold from stores, some from net-only businesses and some from regular old individuals.
in NO case (that I'm aware of) is anyone required to pay any additional amount to any artist or association. yet used cd (and book) sales on amazon are 100% legal.
how come downloading bits on the net (which causes no revenue to return to riaa or artists) is 'illegal' yet used media sales are legal?
I'll even go further than that - lets talk about libraries and how they loan out (for free) books and also cd's.
with all this non-money media stuff changing hands, how come riaa isn't bothering the used sellers and libraries?
answer: their arguments about 'stealing' are less than paper thin...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I use PeerGuardian to help protect MediaSentry from accidentally downloading any potentially copyrighted works from me. I'd feel awful if they inadvertently came into possession of illegal data on account of my negligence. Suppose I mis-named something that I copyrighted? I'd cry if I were forced to sue the fuck out of them for casual infringement.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
The only thing that he's asked for is the (entirely reasonable, IMHO) chance to give specific testimony because he believes that the complaint is factually incorrect. Given his history of prevarication, I don't believe his claims but I cannot fathom why anyone would deny him the right to go in front of the board and say his piece. It's not like the board will somehow be in a worse position to sanction MediaSentry/SafeNet for whatever violations they have committed.
To me this is basically a non-story. Aside from the involvement of the RIAA, you could reduce it to:
Corporation asks to give testimony in regulatory hearing that directly impacts its business. Truly shocking.
They can use the same method that hundreds of thousands of renters use when their landlords illegally keep $50 or $100 of their cleaning deposit. They either take a legal route that costs more to prosecute than it is worth, or they write it off as the inevitable screwing that you get when you are dealing with values too low to warrant a lawyer.
The unfortunate reality is that in the real world, there are billions of illegal things that are a financial loss every year that the victims have no recourse on because the cost of the legal system is more than the value of what they lost. I see no reason that the RIAA should have any extra privileges above what the population has.
And this is only if you even think that copyright as it now stands is valid (morally), which is certainly a debatable subject.
The fact is that wanton copyright infringement is occurring. As copyright holders, the RIAA does in fact have the right to go after the infringers.
Yes, they do. I don't think that we'd have had a problem with them if they followed the rules of the game. The problem is that they keep changing the rules in their favor to make money.
The U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to enact copyright laws, and in 1790 they did. The original copyright term was 14 years with the right to renew for an additional 14 year term. So, at most, 28 years.
But in the last 200 years, the copyright has been extended 5 or 6 times to a point where it's flat-out ridiculous. Most artists who create a song (under the current terms) will be dead before their works enter the public domain.
Copyright is, in modern times, basically meant to protect content creators' works so they can exclusively make money from those works. This would ostensibly allow people in creative industries like writing, composing, etc. can have a livelihood since they do not produce tangible goods like machinists, farmers, etc. It's supposed to encourage content creators to create new works for the greater public good.
But they don't. Sure, people write new books and make new songs, but the incentive isn't really there anymore. Most copyrights nowadays are held by corporations, not people. I personally believe that this is one of the factors that contributed to the emerging anti-copyright movement (copyleft, creative commons, etc.)
For copyright to reform, changes need to be made. One day the system may be functionally obsolete if people continue to give up their copyrights as it, and its enforcers, is being viewed as a less palatable scheme more and more over time. A good start, in my opinion, would be:
1) Bring down copyright back to reasonable terms - something like 5-10 years. How often do books/music/etc. make money after the first few years? Certainly not enough to justify such a long copyright.
2) Make it so only people - not corporations - can hold copyrights. Copyright cartels literally sit on their duffs getting fat off of royalties and trying to protect that money. It's the very definition of protection money and most of the time it doesn't even go to the artists themselves anyway.
3) Make fines in the case of restitution more reasonable. A fine of hundreds of dollars for a song that can be bought for $0.99 is patently ridiculous. Restitution on fair market value with a 200%-300% penalty would be more than fair enough to make up any money lost.
Ultimately, reforms like these will help unclog the courts and make it much more likely that money actually gets into the artist's hands - where it's intended. The RIAA is necessary in some ways - like a union for artists. But rather than working for the artists, the artists work for them. Put the power back in the hands of the creators.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Just because you really like a guy (and I like NewYorkCountryLawyer too -- his work is invaluable) does not mean that "Why thank you" is Insightful in any way.
You are of course 100% right about that. I wasn't being 'insightful' or 'informative', I was just expressing my gratitude. But the thing is, sometimes when I do that I get modded down as 'redundant', so this just kind of evens things out.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.)
Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center.
For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win."
If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves.
The answer is the same for the RIAA.
Look, this is Slashdot, not a courtroom. Just relax, contribute to the conversation, and don't worry about mods (unfair or otherwise) to other posters. Besides, this is a new thread and odds are his post will be taken down a notch or two anyway. Personally, I'd have given it a Funny mod.
I would have liked that. "Funny" mods are hard for me to come by; my sense of humor has never been one of my strong points.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This is one of the most sane statements I've read/heard regarding copyright in the USA for a very long time.
On the matter of restitution, the claim that making available is tantamount to multiple infringements is one of the most ridiculous tactics of the **AA. If they are allowed to carry on with such behavior and definitions, it will be dangerous to all users of the internet.
Content is not a commodity under copyright, it is a property. The **AA have been treating it as a commodity and that violates the principles and intent of copyright law. Congress was given the ability to establish protections for content CREATORS, not commodity brokers.
In addition to what you have said, I suggest that one of the tests applied to any legal action against copyright infringement is that the plaintiff show just cause AND that they are indeed directly protecting the content creator and not just some revenue stream. If the copyright holder is not a citizen, there can be no case without extreme evidence of egregious infringement. Yes, that would make it difficult for corporations to defend their copyrights.... damn right it would.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Most artists who create a song (under the current terms) will be dead before their works enter the public domain.
That's a given. It's life of the author + 75 years, IIRC. The irony is that Disney, one of the prime backers of each new extension, wouldn't have been able to make a lot of their classic movies if current copyright terms had been in effect at the time, like Jungle Book. And the neat factoid that every content industry, with the exception of software, was itself founded on piracy. For example, Hollywood didn't just settle in California for the nice weather - studios set up shop on the west coast to avoid having to make patent payments on cameras to Thomas Edison.
Content industries don't have a problem with violations of the law - they have a problem when the violations of the law don't make them money.