Slashdot Mirror
RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of its 'ex parte' cases seeking the names and addresses of 'John Does,' this one targeting students at the University of Southern California, the RIAA obtained an order granting discovery — but with a wrinkle. The judge's order (PDF) specified that the information obtained could not be used for any purpose other than obtaining injunctions against the students. Apparently the RIAA lawyers have ignored, or failed to understand, that limitation, as an LA lawyer has reported that the RIAA is busy calling up the USC students and their families and demanding monetary settlements."
So, how many countersuits would it take to wipe RIAA off the face of the planet?
I'm Sparticus!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here... Couldn't the RIAA use the information, once granted, to call the students and offer to "leave them alone" (as opposed to settle since they now can't sue them for anything other than injunctive relief) for a fee?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The article's title should read: "RIAA Violating a Court Order in California".
**insert favorite profound quotation here**
This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
How come I'm dying of not surprise?
/. articles for more references) They also like to apply US law to Canada. Guess what RIAA and MPAA, US law is not Canadian law.
Might be because the RIAA keeps functioning illegally, slanders and purposely lies.
When is the US Department of Justice going to do something about this criminal organization? They are a monopoly that for decades has abused the artists they are supposed to protect and villainized their customers.
To support my accusation, look at the article this it attached to.
Also look at the many claims they make about Canada and Piracy. Just pull up the studies they done that "support" their position. Problem is you will find their own data does not support their claim.(See previous
Suing people with out computers for distributing files.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
"Last week, Warner Music Group proposed a voluntary blanket licensing scheme for universities. The proposal would add a fee to student tuition to permit music file sharing in schools."
And then, via another link;
"The rest of the details are still to be determined, including whether it would be a mandatory fee for all students, or an opt-in fee (complete with continued lawsuits for those who fail to pay?). It's also not clear what the fee would be, although those familiar with the talks suggest less than $5 per student per month... "
Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.
May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department?
Free?
I'm Canadian. I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.
I've paid for the content, and I am damn well going to get my money's worth. It is NOT my responsibility to make sure that the money I paid is going to the right hands. I've paid; it's done.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Racketeering
n : engaging in a racket
Racket Rack"et, n.
1. A scheme, dodge, trick, or the like; something taking
place considered as exciting, trying, unusual, or the
like; also, such occurrence considered as an ordeal; as,
to work a racket; to stand upon the racket. [Slang]
[Webster 1913 Suppl.]
2. an organized illegal activity, such as illegal gambling,
bootlegging, or extortion.
So the RIAA/MPAA are engaged in racketeering. Clearly they don't mind violating the orders of the judge. The point is: if you were contacted by these clowns, or went to school where these clowns are shaking people down, would you ever ever buy from anyone, anything related to their clients? Its a simple way to lose 10000-45000 potential customers at one go. Are they really surprised the recorded music business is dying?
I hohohope they get nailed for this real hard. Merry Christmas.
But aren't those the RIAA execs' kids?
What if you never buy any blank media?
Blank media includes hard drives. You have to put those files somewhere.
This isn't really a protection racket. It's more like a civil version of what police and prosecutors have done for years: "We have no real evidence, but if you confess to the crime, you'll spend less time in prison than if it goes to a trial by jury."
May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department?
Jeez, that amounted to 'Nya-nya, we're in Sweden and you can't get us.' Are they trying to make the --AAs look good with that page?
Given the RIAA's history of suing people who don't even have computer and/or an internet connection, I doubt the efficacy of your suggestion.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Possibly.
Alternatively, this business of suing people has become so lucrative... do you honestly think that will stop them?
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Priceless! "Yes, I saw you waving me over, Officer, it's just that this is the only way I know how to drive."
There are serious pitfalls ahead of people who respond in set patterns to everything.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Really? What about the people who either don't have a computer or no internet access that were sued by the RIAA? Why were they sued/threatened/extorted? What's happening is the bully in the schoolyard has gotten very greedy, and now all the kid's he's been stealing lunch money from have decided to beat his ass. I welcome our new ASSBEATING Overlords.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
...the RIAA will keep on ripping off artists and producing bland, over-compressed, payola-driven crap instead of music.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
http://www.beforethemusicdies.com/
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
No sig today...
As a fellow Canadian, I couldn't agree more. I have been paying this "tax" for years on every media purchase I've made. My business requires me to purchase recordable media and I know I would save thousands every year if this "tax" did not exist.
I'm almost tempted to "get my monies worth" but I feel I have too much to lose, if I were dragged through court.
I suppose this is how the RIAA/CRIA operate. Preying on those they feel are vulnerable. I'm not even a very big music fan, in fact most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon.
I do believe that if given enough time and political conditioning, they will craft laws for themselves in favour of their business model to the point of absurdity, if they haven't gotten there yet.
Its only a matter of time before they begin to investigate and sue "suspicious purchasers" of recordable media. Read "big purchasers".
In their effort to limit copyright infringement and maximize profits, they have created a generation of would be criminals. Simply because they refuse to adapt their revenue stream and the only outcome is aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved, given enough time.
Couldn't somebody get state engineering licensing board to go after some of the so called RIAA investigators? After all, these are technical matters and if the cases were about bridges falling then one would be required to have a PE license to testify as to the technical matters.
Protip for those of us a bit south of canada
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut. Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
this business of suing people has become so lucrative...
I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Not according to this: "The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs."
Were these (potentially infringing) calls recorded? And did the defendants in question respond as I hope I would with a short but firm "Fsck you. And your mother."?
> I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Yeah, but what does the RIAA math say? Because I know their movies never make a profit (so they never have to pay out gross OR net points they specify in the movie contracts, even when sued over it), so I can't imagine that their math here would be any less crazy.
Perhaps they see themselves reducing losses from piracy by eleventy billion dollars for every million dollars they spend suing people?
Just a couple of corrections:
In their effort to ... maximize profits, they have created a generations of would be criminals. Simply because they refuse to adapt their revenue stream and the only outcome is aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved, given enough time.
I'm writing to Mr Obama about this, with the intent of ensuring that the people who run the **AAs, their legal teams, and anyone closely associated with them are on the aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved end of this equation.
Personally, I think that Canadians should get their money worth of music. Oddly, the CRIA forgot to tell you how many songs and/or movies that is.... grab what you can while you can. The tax law does not say how much you can download, only that you have to pay a tax in case you do... hmmmmm Need any help setting up a Petabyte RAID server?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Yeah but don't the "music" CD-Rs have a flag bit set on them that tells standalone consumer grade CD recorders that "yes, this is a music CD" ? When they were new (and popular) I remember reading the manuals from some of these units and every single one said to use "music" CD-Rs instead of data CD-Rs for "compatibility" reasons. My first brush with DRM. Bleh.
P.S. the magic word? "seeding" - the best way to share music :)
I'm a little tired of hearing about the mafiaa is trampling on people, and violating laws, and court orders, etc. It's not new or newswothy, the only thing new is the method they're using to do it. Until someone actually does something about it, they'll just keep going in the name of protecting their dying industry.
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut.
True.
Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
Partly False. They have a header on them so that standalone CD recorders, like the Pioneer PDR-609 can recognize them, those recorders will not record on regular DATA CD-Rs.
Otherwise though, they are pretty much the same.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Forgive me if this has been asked previously: Where does the distinction lie? Can I, as an Alaskan, drive through Canada, purchase said blank media for the purpose of holding copyrighted materials? Am I allowed to transport it outside of Canada, assuming I keep it and don't resell it, or am I obligated to leave it at the border?
---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
Never buy music CDs.
That's a good principle to go by in general these days (indie artists excluded, of course :)
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I have the internet wired directly to my brain...
Personally, I'd love to see each of those law breaking, judge ignoring lawyers arrested, put in cute little pink jumpsuits, and thrown in jail.
Of course, that's the *nice* side of me speaking. I think my *honest* side would rather see them horse-whipped...in public...on TV...in prime time.
If you are still reading, NYCL, could the RIAA's actions be considered contempt of court? Judges don't seem to appreciate that a whole lot...
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
How can it be a CD if it doesn't conform to the CD standard published by Phillips?
Demanding Money,
making unsolicited phone calls for unproven debt,
making threats to property and freedom,
preventing a citizen from doing his duty,
deliberate ignorance of court orders,
The injured party can pursue a civil case ex-parte, get a default judgement in Court for compensation, wait until the time limit passes for RIAA to pay (of course the court will send a letter to the RIAA local collection office and it will be ignored), approach the court again for redressal.
The judge will ask what i want the court to do: I request the judge declare RIAA insolvent for failing to pay its debt.
I go to RIAA, alone, paste the notice on RIAA's front door and ask the sheriff to seal the gates.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Ah but according to this, in Canada we do indeed pay extra for hard drives.
I am surprised to see that it's as small a fee as it is, given the proposed rates in the middle column.
Oh, the EU is far ahead on this one. You pay the "music tax" for everything that could technically reproduce copyrighted content. Hard drives, USB sticks, fax machines, scanners, printers... if you can somehow, in theory, maybe, possibly copy something with it, you pay the leeches.
And we're not talking about pennies here either. The price for 4GB USB sticks doubled when they were recently included in the fold.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I remember reading that Apple's optical drives don't conform...
So they simply don't stamp the official logo on them.
This is why we have Linux and CD/DVD recorders in our PCs. We have all the software necessary to rip any media to any format desired.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Defense attornies should have this violation at their fingertips and cite when motioning to limit discovery. Since it is substantially the same plaintiff (and may be the same attornies), the judge will have to consider the malfeasance, and probably is adequate justification for granting the motion to limit discovery rather than add conditions.
Of course, the RIAA can go to appeal, but for that to be successful, they will have to thoroughly purge themselves of their contempt cited. Judges (even appellate) do not tolerate being ignored.
Actually, such cases are very few. And when they do happen, under the bombastic headline there is a simple explanation — the sued computer-illiterate is the parent/guardian of a tech-savvy minor, who did engage in stealing...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Forgive me if this has been asked previously: Where does the distinction lie? Can I, as an Alaskan, drive through Canada, purchase said blank media for the purpose of holding copyrighted materials? Am I allowed to transport it outside of Canada, assuming I keep it and don't resell it, or am I obligated to leave it at the border?
Yes, my understanding is that you're allowed to transport it across the border. It's a pretty rare commodity, though, made exclusively in Canada, so when asked "anything to declare", you're under a legal obligation to declare all firearms, produce, and pre-formatted copyright-enabled electronic media. I drive up to Canada for ALL my media. The extra tiny cost is worth that warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that even if I were to *accidentally* put some unlicensed media on those disks, I don't have to worry at all about cheating those RIAA executives out of their second summer home.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
"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" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8) - US Copyright Office
A musical or video recording is neither a writing nor a discovery. It was never the intent of the framers to extend copyright to these things and the practice should be abolished by law.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Ray, I've always been curious about something and was wondering if you could comment...
When you post comments (and blog, for that matter) you generally seem to post your opinion, as well as humor and even attacks on "the bad guy" without holding too much back. You appear to be somewhat more restrained when discussing cases which you are personally involved in - and appear to be most restrained in cases in which you are being directly attacked (ie the RIAA lawsuit). This is all as I would expect from a professional -- if anything, you appear more open than I would have expected.
So: Are you ever concerned that comments made here will come back to bite you? Where do you draw the line? Are you ever concerned that, for example, a judge may read your comments here (or on your blog) and that may influence their decisions?
I have always enjoyed your sense of humor (sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes biting sarcasm, etc) and would not like to see that stop - I was just curious if you ever write something and think "No, I better not post that - that'll come back to haunt me."
Such cases are very few and all (or most) of them are explained by computer-illiterate parent/guardian getting sued for the theft done by a tech-savvy minor in their care...
What you are opposing is holding the elderly, who can't throw a rock any more, responsible for windows broken by their grandchildren.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So you would view any out of court settlement as legally sanctioned racketeering? Because most potential civil suits are settled out of court.
A judge reading NYCL's comments on /.?
That would be one informed judge, the kind that the RIAA would hate.
(Hey, maybe that judge would know the difference between a MAC address and a IP address)
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Printers and faxes? Either they're complete enough in their thinking to include written works, or they're afraid people are going to share mp3 files by faxing hundreds of pages of ones and zeroes.
Still, it would be faster than some torrents I've seen.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
All blank CD media in Canada are taxed, not just music CD-R's.
but they don't fix them when they are clearly brought up in court. Then the lawyers play to process and fine print to go after the settlement anyway, simply because they can. They are taking the "collateral damage" approach rather than being fair. If they make legal mistakes, throw the book at them.. hard.
Ray, I've always been curious about something and was wondering if you could comment... When you post comments (and blog, for that matter) you generally seem to post your opinion, as well as humor and even attacks on "the bad guy" without holding too much back. You appear to be somewhat more restrained when discussing cases which you are personally involved in - and appear to be most restrained in cases in which you are being directly attacked (ie the RIAA lawsuit). This is all as I would expect from a professional -- if anything, you appear more open than I would have expected. So: Are you ever concerned that comments made here will come back to bite you? Where do you draw the line? Are you ever concerned that, for example, a judge may read your comments here (or on your blog) and that may influence their decisions? I have always enjoyed your sense of humor (sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes biting sarcasm, etc) and would not like to see that stop - I was just curious if you ever write something and think "No, I better not post that - that'll come back to haunt me."
Yes I've had to think about those types of questions. I think about them before I write them. The area that's required the most restraint is that I can't talk about my litigation ideas until they have been memorialized in publicly filed litigation documents. No I don't worry about judges reading my arguments, because my arguments here are the same as the arguments I make in my litigation documents. And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Actually the levy is supposed to offset government expenditures in processing copyright claims, not reimbursement of copyright violations.
And I have no sympathy for Canadians who are "losing thousands" to the levy when they can just order blanks in bulk from the US.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Jamendo ... blech.
Magnatune
Amazon
Napster
iTunes Store
Put identity in the browser.
I was just reading NYCL's article on this whole situation
http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRecordingCompaniesVsTheDefenselessHTMLVERSION.htm
and it seems to me that the RIAA lawyes have come up with a scheme that brazenly uses the legal system to threaten people (nothing new there) but ALSO that the legal system has tacitly gone along with it. The "old boys club" of judges has decided that it's OK for these dirty pirating scum to be hammered through their courts, because they are so sneaky that there is no other way.
To the older generation, copyright infringement like this seems very wrong and the fact that the internet allows it to be done anonymously, with no easy trackdown, also seems wrong and perverted.
So basically they have allowed the RIAA to jam some wedges into the court system and use it to get those naughty infringers.
If they were not at least partially comfortable with the RIAA doing this, surely, they would have close it down long ago, because the whole process is surpremely dodgy.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Duluth, Minnesota - After just four hours of deliberation and two days of testimony, a jury found that Jammie Thomas was liable for infringing the record labels' copyrights on all 24 the 24 recordings at issue in the case of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas. The jury awarded $9,250 in statutory damages per song, after finding that the infringement was "willful," out of a possible total of $150,000 per song. The grand total? $222,000 in damages.
The judge has since figured out that something was fishy about certain legal arguments RIAA used, however. RIAA hasn't appealed yet, AFAIK.
Bingo. You could just store everything on hard drives, which are not taxed as CD-Rs and cassette tapes are.
While we're at it, what if you pay for the music you download?
What if you use your blank media to store you own "intellectual property?"
What if you like to make backup copies of the CDs you purchase,and don't think you should have to pay an additional tax for the privilege of doing something that should be considered fair dealing?
What if you are an artist who produces mash-ups of popular culture (like Andy Warhol liked to do) and also consider that fair dealing?
What if you are in a band who's music is traded a lot online, but you don't get commercial airplay and you sell your CDs at gigs, so the sales aren't recorded by Soundscan?
What if you are an archivist, a student or a journalist, and are trying to research or preserve our shared culture?
The only "right" the Canadian blank media tax grants is the right to make copies of the media you already own, and only for personal use. Most Canadians would be surprised to learn they can't just do this without paying extra for it.
I don't care why you're posting AC
The Canadian blank media tax does not apply to hard drives, just to the following:
I don't care why you're posting AC
Simple. It's not.
I don't care why you're posting AC
That article is from 2003, and no longer accurate. The Interim Private Copying Tariff rates for 2008 are here. No hard drives, just cassette tapes and CD-Rs.
I don't care why you're posting AC
The tax doesn't pay "for the content," it simply gives you the right to make copies of the media you already own, and the Canadian Recording Industry Association tried to sue to take that away from you a couple of years ago. Read the Copyright Act. It doesn't say what you think it does.
A judge refused to give Canadian record companies the names of 29 people accused of file sharing a few years ago, and agreed with the Copyright Board that file sharing "appeared to be legal". Maybe that's what you were thinking of. I'm not sure that decision still stands.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Should we export our jobs to India, buy our cars from Japan and give a bunch of unemployed people mortgages while we're at it?
I don't care why you're posting AC
I dunno, sounds like that would fall under tax evasion or some other related charge.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
Normally Slashdot headlines are overly sensational and overstate matters when actually no firm conclusion can be drawn from the article, which is bad. (Still with you here.) In this case a firm conclusion can be drawn from the article but the headline suggests there is room for doubt, which is good because it compensates for the former. (You lost me.)
What's to fix? The legal guardian is still responsible for the misdeeds of the minor in their care — even if the guardian themselves aren't capable of doing the misdeed.
The unauthorized copying is no different in this respect from breaking windows — even the grandmother can't throw a rock herself, she still has to pay for the glass broken by her grandchild.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why stop there? My dream is: "RIAA jailed for contempt of court".
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
No, keep buying your Canadian-brand cars.
But apparently, they have yet to run out of cash.
Nope. It's just bullshit on the packaging. It's the same disc, priced much higher for "audiophiles" and other uninformed newbies. The stuff in the CD-R manual is similar to the "only use genuine EPSON ink cartridges, or you may damage your printer" etc.
... and then they built the supercollider.
May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department?
Jeez, that amounted to 'Nya-nya, we're in Sweden and you can't get us.' Are they trying to make the --AAs look good with that page?
Never hurts to point out that just because they can buy laws like the DMCA in most countries, they don't have that control everywhere yet. Copyright law is so ridiculously out of whack, only countries with very corrupt governments or very ignorant governments (or both), could possibly still believe that it is in the public's best interest to award practically perpetual monopolies on information.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
check your law again. here, in latvia it states that you can copy only content which you have acquired legally. i am pretty sure, that you have something similar.
...because they can't read.
OK, that was the funniest thing I've read on /. possibly ever.
most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon
Not if Disney has anything to say about it. ;)
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
Jeez, that amounted to 'Nya-nya, we're in Sweden and you can't get us.
That, sir, is a succint description of international law.
Not one of the strong points of the US legal system, but perhaps you will learn.
There were CDR drives packaged as stereo components that would only use "music" CDRs. Not sure if they're still made, I don't imagine they sold well.
According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Hey Ray, could you please share those calculations with us? Not that I don't believe you; I just want to indulge in my glee a bit more :o)
However, I must admit I was under the (false, now I see) impression that the RIAA was making a profit from the out-of-court settlements.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Only on Slashdot can something so easily refuted be modded up to 'informative'.
I live in The Netherlands and know this to be wrong. Wikipedia gives numbers on differences between EU member states. There is no 'one scheme' for the whole of the EU. This is something that falls under the say of sovereign countries themselves. I for one would like to keep it that way.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Also at the time it was introduced these technologies were new, Retailers worried a price hike might scare off their customers and drive down sales.
So the sellers ate the cost, we the average citizen do not actually pay the tax, even indirectly.
No, keep buying your Canadian-brand cars.
Actually, there are at least 30 brand-name car models made in Canada, which are also sold in the US, though some may be made there too. To name a few, the Dodge Charger, Ford Crown Victoria, Edge, and Flex, Chevy Impala and Monte Carlo, GMC Sierra, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla and Matrix. Guess you haven't heard about Canada's automotive bailout debate. If no cars were made in Canada, why would they be talking about giving automotive companies $2.8B.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
And where do you get this info from?
In the UK prices of USB keys have been in freefall. I see no sign of any music tax.
I dunno, sounds like that would fall under tax evasion or some other related charge.
If it's a business that is clearly not violating copyright nor reselling blank media, there is no way the levy was intended to incur them undue costs. I'd be amazed if there wasn't a tax write-off for paying the levy anyway. Similarily, most musicians don't know that they can just fill out a form and pay no provincial tax on CD's they have replicated. Most just order out-of-province unnecessarily.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Your second sentence was simply BRILLIANT! (really, how can someone be so stupid not to think that you have to put the files somewhere in order to do anything with them?)
Although it's still (c) you, you can't persue infringement cases from it.
So what's the difference between that and losing the copyrights?
Nil.
And since patents and copyrights are given by government, they can be taken away by government. Or not enforced by government (see Chuck Dickens for an example of the latter).
Also 'Nya-nya, a torrent file is not copyrighted material'
c++;
Why don't just stop listening to their music and watch their movies? Its your free choice.
There are so many options for entertainment. If I were living in the USA, I would just not listen/watch the crap RIAA controls.
Now that would "help the artists" so they would stop cooperating with such organisations.
Oh, the EU is far ahead on this one. You pay the "music tax" for everything that could technically reproduce copyrighted content.
Bunch of CRAP. There are no such taxes in the UK or more generally EU wide. Other individual EU countries may or may not have such taxes.
In many EU countries this also includes mp3 players, cd/dvd/br drives, usb pendrives, any other flash media and mobile phones that can play a/v and in general anything that can store digital or analogue data (cassettes and video tapes for example). Also, photocopiers, printers and scanners. I probably forget a few anyway. Some lobbies are also pushing for taxing user's internet connections as well, for they might be used to *transfer* and *cache* copyrighted media.
Your head a splode
I must admit I was under the (false, now I see) impression that the RIAA was making a profit from the out-of-court settlements.
I believe you are correct that they are making money, or at least breaking even, on the settlements. But I believe they are losing money on the default judgment cases (which probably represent 75% of the cases), and losing tons of money on the contested cases. My guess is that their legal and investigative costs are 2 or 3 times what they're bringing in from the out-of-court settlements. And they're bringing in virtually nothing from litigation.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
But apparently, they have yet to run out of cash.
Yeah. Whenever they need cash, all they have to do is skim some more from the artists.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
First, the manufacturers in this country stripped the PE of most of its use by buy the law which exempts themselves from requiring their engineers be registered, even if it involves health and safety of the public. But it's better...
The California board (and many others, I suspect) can't lay a finger on a non-PE practicing professional engineering! Why? Because they are not PEs, and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the board. You may laugh, but I recall that was the result of one such complaint which was lodged against a non-PE practicing engineering (structural, iirc). The AG may prosecute such a case, but it has to be high enough profile for that office to take on, which it typically isn't.
Now, one might argue that their expert witnesses must be PEs if the scope of the content falls within the breadth of PE licensure, but I believe that there are some legislative details which must exist to press that condition. It is the case in some states, but I don't follow that too closely. (dis: I am a PE, and I do expert witness work for architectural/building related cases for less than 5% of my practice).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...of copyright law (or any law) in the collective possession of Slashdotters is truly impressive.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The only "right" the Canadian blank media tax grants is the right to make copies of the media you already own, and only for personal use. Most Canadians would be surprised to learn they can't just do this without paying extra for it.
Wouldn't you be amazed to know we had this right years before the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats demanded to be given a cut on all CD-Rs and hard drives sales?
Was that supposed to be an attempt at trolling?
I mean, not only is trolling itself boring, but you actually managed to totally botch it?
Congratulations. I am very happy indeed that I don't know you personally.
So the sellers ate the cost, we the average citizen do not actually pay the tax, even indirectly.
Wow!
I had know idea that there was a place in the world that I did not at LEAST indirectly pay for every cost associated with the production and distribution of an item.
Care to let the rest of us know how that works exactly?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
No. I never buy "music CDs", but I've transferred most of my cassettes and albums to CD and always just use data CDs. I play them in the car, the stereo at home, the DVD player, aven a cheap $20 boom box. I've yet to see a player they don't work on.
Free Martian Whores!
You make the RIAA look like the good guys.
Even I can't pull that one off.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Which supports the theory that many here have put forward that this isn't about money or even copyrights at all. It's about control. It used to be that the only way to become even a moderately successful musician was to get a contract from a Big Recording Label. Since the labels had their pick of artists, they could dictate the terms. On the consumer front, you had to buy the music that the big labels decided would be on the shelves. Indie bands were around, but were a tiny niche. And any time the label came up with a new format (vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD), you needed to buy your collection all over again.
Computers and the Internet have changed all that, though. Nowadays, an artist can upload their music to eMusic, Amie Street, or a whole bunch of other sites to sell it. They could even sell it on their own website. Indie labels (offering artists better terms) are becoming more popular. Portable music players and the MP3 format mean that your music will play on your music player for some time to come.
The big labels don't like this and are trying to stop it at all costs. They tried to get the courts to declare that MP3 players were illegal (the Diamond Lawsuit). When that failed, they tried to keep music offline (Napster). When that didn't work, they worked with Apple on iTunes with the requirement that DRM be built in. When iTunes got too powerful, they allowed DRM to be ditched to come up with iTunes competitors (e.g. Amazon MP3). In each case, reality forces them back a notch, but they're still fighting back. If they had their wildest dreams granted, all online music would be made illegal, ripping CDs would be illegal, used CDs would be illegal, and portable music players would be illegal. Unless the RIAA finds a magic genie, though, it's not going to happen.
In addition, the lawsuits are also a diversion of blame. Sales are down and the labels need someone to blame. Should they blame the poor economy or the increased competition for consumers' entertainment dollar from DVDs, video games, etc? Should they blame themselves for putting out garbage music and seeking out bands purely on the basis that they sound similar to a band that had a hit? Or should they blame Evil Internet Pirates? Obviously, they've chosen Door #3 and are attempting to pin all of their financial woes on Evil Internet Pirates. It's much easier than blaming yourself or recognizing that sales were up during a boom time and now it is a bust time.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The RIAA doesn't make movies, that would be the MPAA. I've heard an odd case here and there, but haven't noticed them rampaging from case to case the way the RIAA has. Seems the MPAA is more likely to go after you if you bring a video camera into a movie theater...
This whole thing just goes to show that a:) the lawyers suing on behalf of the record companies don't give a flat fuck about anything the judges have to say; and 2:) in this case specifically, to have quite literally told this specific judge to fuck off and die. They'll do what they want.
You are now beginning to witness the folding of American law and justice. This is where someone in a movie once said that in the future, they abolished all lawyers. Hmmm; could there be some credence to that thinking..??!!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Hey, I'd much rather act 11 years old for my entire life then act 60 years old for my entire life. :)
Which supports the theory that many here have put forward that this isn't about money or even copyrights at all. It's about control. It used to be that the only way to become even a moderately successful musician was to get a contract from a Big Recording Label. Since the labels had their pick of artists, they could dictate the terms. On the consumer front, you had to buy the music that the big labels decided would be on the shelves. Indie bands were around, but were a tiny niche. And any time the label came up with a new format (vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD), you needed to buy your collection all over again. Computers and the Internet have changed all that, though. Nowadays, an artist can upload their music to eMusic, Amie Street, or a whole bunch of other sites to sell it. They could even sell it on their own website. Indie labels (offering artists better terms) are becoming more popular. Portable music players and the MP3 format mean that your music will play on your music player for some time to come. The big labels don't like this and are trying to stop it at all costs. They tried to get the courts to declare that MP3 players were illegal (the Diamond Lawsuit). When that failed, they tried to keep music offline (Napster). When that didn't work, they worked with Apple on iTunes with the requirement that DRM be built in. When iTunes got too powerful, they allowed DRM to be ditched to come up with iTunes competitors (e.g. Amazon MP3). In each case, reality forces them back a notch, but they're still fighting back. If they had their wildest dreams granted, all online music would be made illegal, ripping CDs would be illegal, used CDs would be illegal, and portable music players would be illegal. Unless the RIAA finds a magic genie, though, it's not going to happen. In addition, the lawsuits are also a diversion of blame. Sales are down and the labels need someone to blame. Should they blame the poor economy or the increased competition for consumers' entertainment dollar from DVDs, video games, etc? Should they blame themselves for putting out garbage music and seeking out bands purely on the basis that they sound similar to a band that had a hit? Or should they blame Evil Internet Pirates? Obviously, they've chosen Door #3 and are attempting to pin all of their financial woes on Evil Internet Pirates. It's much easier than blaming yourself or recognizing that sales were up during a boom time and now it is a bust time.
Yeah, but it's really about the money. Just because they're too stupid to figure out how to make money, even though they had the best head start of anybody, doesn't mean it's not about the money.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
George Bush MAY be an idiot;
Congress MAY be bought and paid for;
Your mother MAY have put out;
OJ MAY be a murderer;
BuggyWhip makers MAY be pissed;
Dick Cheney MAY be an asshole;
Slashdot MAY be entertaining.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
That's a good principle to go by in general these days (indie artists excluded, of course :)
I buy lots of CDs - but from the "used" rack. It's possible to legally listen to RIAA music without them ever seeing a penny of it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Same fag.
wow. what a grown up and mature attitude. judges must assume you are eleven years old.
Shouldn't you be off filing a lawsuit or something?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The extra tiny cost is worth that warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that even if I were to *accidentally* put some unlicensed media on those disks, I don't have to worry at all about cheating those RIAA executives out of their second summer home.
Do you think that you're immune to RIAA action in the United States just because the media on which you're using for "accidental" copyright infringement was purchased in Canada? While the Canadian tax on media may provide for safe harbor in that country (I don't know that to be the case, but I'll assume it's true for the purpose of this post), saying that having a copy of Britney Spears' latest album (which you had not already purchased) fresh off BitTorrent on a CD is OK because you paid a tax on that CD in Canada is not going to get you very far in an American courtroom. From the MPAA/RIAA's perpsective, copyright infringement is copyright infringement, regardless of whether it takes place on media purchased in the U.S. or in Canada.
From a purely moral standpoint, your argument is solid. The **AAs are in fact compensated when you buy that media in Canada. However, for those Americans with any legal worries, I would suggest that you discuss the implications of putting unlicensed content onto media purchased (and on which the "pircay" tax appropriately was paid) in Canada with an American lawyer before trying to use the Canadian flag to shield your infrignement activities in the USA.
Are you sure? The Copyright Act of 1997 introduced the blank media tax, and made allowances for citizens to make copies of sound recordings for personal use. As far as I know, no allowances were made for private copying in prior version of the Copyright Act.
I don't care why you're posting AC
No he's correct, a number of stand alone recorders will refuse to write to a blank data CD. Whether or not this is good design is irrelevant.
#1 Not withstanding our right to privacy
#2 Not withstanding our right to the rule-of-law
Some of the most agregious cases in this genre involve totally innocent and helpless americans attacked by ogre companies.
Simply refusing to do untoward acts is NOT enough to protect you from this systematic defilement of justice.
And that's a REALLY BIG AND BAD problem.
just my 2 cents worth, :)
Ah, but if they could turn back the clock to a time when they were the be all and end all of music, they would make tons of money again. At least, that's what they think. They see their control slipping away. They see a time coming when artists might not even need labels at all and it scares them.
Personally, I think labels will always be needed, but their future is more like an ad agency or a book publisher than a cartel. An artist will sign up with a label and pay them a fee for the label to publish/promote some songs. If the artist isn't satisfied with the label's performance, the artist can leave for another label. The artist remains in control of the copyrights at all times.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
(Score:0, Troll) WTF??? ...
Evidently someone from MAFIAA got in here. The mod score should be (Score:5, Informative), or else my sig offended someone representing a certain "large group"
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
I'm not sure about Canadian law, but in US law there's the concept of fair use exemptions to copyright (which I think we got from UK law, but I can't say for sure without researching it). I would be somewhat surprised if Canadian law didn't already have a set of exemptions to its copyright laws prior to 1997 (such as for instance for educational purposes, reference, backup, etc.).
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
I have the internet wired directly to my brain...
...and is that media blank?
This [ ] left intentionally [ ]
And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
It's a good thing that the truth is as absolute defense . . .
Of course the courts agree with the RIAA. Moral judgment always comes before.. the police arrest, the DA prosecutes, the jury finds guilty... etc. The public believes that if you don't pay money you're stealing, and that companies owning and controlling culture is natural.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
He did say "a bit south of canada".
for fucks sake grow up.
go chase some fucking ambulances or something, because your immature jokes and pathetic whining on here make you seem like a six year old.
if this is the kind of retard who defends thieves in copyright cases, no wonder the little cunts always lose.
...is contempt of court a criminal offense?
Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer, just a concerned citizen and copyright holder.
I don't know about prior to 1997, but looking at the Exceptions to the Copyright Act, fair dealing seems to cover research or private study, criticism or review (if the source is mentioned), and news reporting (again, if the source is given). There are also exemptions for educational purposes, provided there is no "motive for gain." (I'm not sure how that could be accomplished, as using a copyrighted work for educational purpose would at least result in someone gaining knowledge). Also, I don't think the educational exemption applies if the work is commercially available.
This article states "unlike the fair use doctrine, fair dealing in Canada does not contain exceptions for parody and satire." Take that with whatever amount of salt you normally apply to Wikipedia entries; I see no specific mention of parody and satire in the Act. (An example of the chilling effect the lack of protection for satire and parody can have can be found here. In this example, the publication is invoking trademark law, and the defendants are citing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but if satire and parody were specifically sanctioned by the Copyright Act it would have helped to strengthen their defense).
Last summer, our federal government tabled a contentious bill to ammend the copyright act, granting us the right to record TV programmes, and copy music to our iPods, but it would also outlaw the circumvention of DRM technologies, effectively making the new rights useless.
That bill died when the Conservative government violated its own fixed election date legislation and called an election in October. They are currently struggling to maintain their minority government status (despite not having the confidence of our elected Parliament), and stated in their throne speech "Our Government will proceed with legislation to modernize Canada's copyright laws and ensure stronger protection for intellectual property."
That doesn't sound to me like they intend to strengthen the concept of fair dealing to protect the rights of Canadian citizens, but rather they intend to adopt policies closer to the US DMCA, to protect the interests of the "big four" media companies in the US, UK and Japan. I guess time will tell.
I don't care why you're posting AC
They use the law to suit them and ignore it when that suits them, hoping to get away with questionable tactics in both cases.
It's time to seize the whole outfit, and their "hired" investigation company (my money says it's a spin off, or has been bought in majority after the fact), determine how much of what they're doing illegally they knew was illegal, prosecute, dissolve, and distribute the sold assets among the victims.
And the 'subscriber' companies (ie. those who formed and own the RIAA) shouldn't get off free either. Corporation as artificial entities serve to protect its members from direct prosecution. Fine. Put the artificial entity in artificial jail (receivership), force the subscribers to maintain their relationship, and let them suffer the consequences proportionally to the extent they 'subscribe'.
When the law says "or caused to" second parties can be held responsible. When negligence can be counted, "we didn't know" doesn't fly. They've got so much money invested in so much technology and legal effort, they've either got no cause to pretend ignorance or they're too incompetent to continue operating.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
And since Disney's business revolves around stealing out-of-copyright works created by others and shitting "®" signs all over them before pass them off as their own, the pool of public domain works is also slowly shrinking.
This is twice you've said he deserves to die. So man up and do it or shut up about it.
For real. I've got the balls to take EA to court. Some Iraqi has the balls to toss his shoes at the President of the USA. Theaveng needs to get off his ass and do something instead of talking.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Bill C-61 explicitly outlawed the transferring of legally purchased mp3s from your computer to your iPod, despite what the press releases stated.
It also banned transfer to your car stereo, any type of DVD ripping, and recording TV to watch later.
The existing parody and educational exemptions were removed. That would put the Right Hounourable Paul Martin on the hot seat for making fun of those Canadian Tire ads where the guy talks to the camera. (Americans: just chuckle a little at the thought of a former Prime Minister appearing on national TV and discussing shrinking window film for winterizing the equivalent of the White House, all while doing it in a style satirizing a store's ad style.)
Anyway, the crapola with mp3s has nothing on the horrifying consequences on industry. I've had to reverse engineer (as part of my job as an Electrical Engineer) protocols that various companies wanted to keep secret. That was legal then; it would be illegal to do so under C-61. I can't imagine that I'm the only one, and I've done it 3 times that I can think of off the top of my head. The products - which provide various upgrades that are not available from the manufacturers - are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, those upgrades are being used right now in life-critical situations.
Badly written bills like C-61 would cost Canada's industry millions of dollars and endanger lives. The only industries that Prentice could have possibly consulted with are the recording industries.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Didn't anyone else see that Motown Records, the company on the order, was ordered not to disclose any names that they got from USC, so RIAA isn't in breach but Motown Records.
You got moderated troll for basically posting a "no-fucking-duh" message.
Linux has nothing to do with ripping ability - in fact, linux can't rip blu-rays while Windows can.
As for burners, well all modern OS's can burn to any media, linux doesn't do a thing there.
And when you consider the previous post was about "component" cd recorders, your point is just moot.
You definitely don't deserve +5 informative for that post and for you to say so just shows you to be totally out of touch.
Do you think that you're immune to RIAA action in the United States just because the media on which you're using for "accidental" copyright infringement was purchased in Canada? While the Canadian tax on media may provide for safe harbor in that country (I don't know that to be the case, but I'll assume it's true for the purpose of this post), saying that having a copy of Britney Spears' latest album (which you had not already purchased) fresh off BitTorrent on a CD is OK because you paid a tax on that CD in Canada is not going to get you very far in an American courtroom. From the MPAA/RIAA's perpsective, copyright infringement is copyright infringement, regardless of whether it takes place on media purchased in the U.S. or in Canada.
From a purely moral standpoint, your argument is solid. The **AAs are in fact compensated when you buy that media in Canada. However, for those Americans with any legal worries, I would suggest that you discuss the implications of putting unlicensed content onto media purchased (and on which the "pircay" tax appropriately was paid) in Canada with an American lawyer before trying to use the Canadian flag to shield your infrignement activities in the USA.
Ok, I'm pretty worried now that someone actually modded that +Interesting instead of +Funny. To set the record straight, I was being facetious. One would normally expect the traffic to flow the other way, correct? My apologies. Next time I'll try to make use of sarcasm tags, perhaps. Sigh...
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Alright AC-NutlessFuckHead, ripping blu-rays was not part of the discussion, "so that standalone CD recorders, like the Pioneer PDR-609 ...", was! If your fucking Pioneer PDR-609 cannot burn a music track to a data CD, you use the one in your PC.
I've used winblows to master CDs before. I much prefer to do this in Linux, fuck you very much. What part about that can't your little pointed head grasp? Do you need an adult do explain it to you??
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
Good one. :-)
Ray, let me be among the many who say thanks for your work against the RIAA, and thanks for contributing so greatly to Slashdot. You're the best thing to happen to this site in five years.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The last time I saw one was in the late 90's. There might have been some sort of revenue sharing with the labels, but I'd imagine it was just your standard diamond-encrusted wires sold to credulous audiophiles.
I hate L's. Stupid touch of death. I always genocide them first thing when I get a blessed scroll of genocide.
You are mistaken. There are two types of "audio" blanks, those that are just the packaging, and those intended (and required) for standalone audio recorders, which do infact have a single bit set that those devices check for. I thought most people installed hacked firmware in those devices to circumvent this requirement, but from a bit of casual googling, this appears not to be the case.
Ray, let me be among the many who say thanks for your work against the RIAA, and thanks for contributing so greatly to Slashdot. You're the best thing to happen to this site in five years.
Thanks, sootman. Very much appreciated.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Copyright Act s.80
You mean they are not just charging the legal expenses back to the artists just like they do advertising and other costs?
1) File lawsuits charging expenses back to the artists
2) Send out extortion^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h settlement letters
3) Keep any money from settlements/judgments as PROFIT
no ?????? involved
I was wrong about the "copies of the media you already own" part. I was thinking about Sub-section 2, which states that you may not distribute the copies you make, but you're right - there is no restriction that the copies you make must be of your own media. Thanks for the correction.
I don't care why you're posting AC
I was hoping you had found a counter example because the Act feels very open to interpretation. What do you think of the following ideas?
(i.e. they physically trigger the making of their own private copy)
(i.e. they trigger the making of a copy by way of instruction to you: a private copy they have a right to make on their own but the labour of which they choose to delegate to you)
This is a little beyond my expertise, but you raise some interesting points that illustrate the ambiguity of the language in the Act. I am especially interested in the idea of a person acting on behalf of another person, say a person who is disabled or otherwise not capable of making a copy for personal use themself.
Another oddity I see is this idea that I can make a copy of the original CD but not of the copy you made for your personal use, yet the two are identical. I understand the intent - to prevent people from just copying copies and shutting out the rights holder - but your library example shows the naivety of that idea (what's to stop all of your friends from coming over and using your original to make personal copies. There's that whole "treating ideas like physical property" conundrum again).
Still, I think the act as written is a lot more balanced and mindful of the rights of the citizen than what has been proposed recently.
I don't care why you're posting AC
but they're not even fixing suits brought up against people that they got the wrong name or didn't own a computer at all... They hide behind "oops" the other guy forgot to file their appeal even when they know the person absolutely didn't download. The lawyers are fighting suits they aren't even taking 5 minutes to review the "sanity" of... That's not winning, that's abusing their position and as we have seen has turned everybody against them... even the courts.