The RIAA's Rocky Road Ahead

The RIAA's new plan to enlist ISPs in its war on file sharing, once it announced it was calling a halt to new consumer lawsuits, is running into rough sledding. Wired reports on the continuing legal murkiness of the RIAA's interpretation of copyright law. And one small ISP in Louisiana asks the recording organization, "You want me to police your intellectual property? What's your billing address?"

Comments

Multiple interpretations

[BadAnalogyGuy]

"What's your billing address?"

That's not exactly an unequivocal rejection.

Where would all you music sharers be if the RIAA responds with a valid billing address? It is just a matter of money before those ISPs start cooperating.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Thanshin]

It's worse than that; it's a new justification for the RIAA to ask for money.

RIAA: "Pirates are generating losses of millions of dollars. They force us to pay large amounts to every ISP so they enforce our demands."

"Now when we catch a pirate we'll of course ask for compensation of all those millions."

Soon sending a song through the web will bring larger fines than experimenting with nuclear weapons at home.

I can see the prison conversations.
"What are you here for?"
"Eating babies. And you?"
"Whistling a song in public."
"Friking depraved garbage! I hope you rot in hell."

Re:Multiple interpretations

[johndmartiniii]

Of course this is how the statement should be interpreted. It does, however, indicate that the ISP in question might be pretty realistic about the reality of the RIAA interpretation of copyright law: that it is not tenable in the long run and that everyone cannot simply be expected to jump on board. While it is not an unequivocal "no," it does indicate a reluctance to simply comply: though, that reluctance might indeed be assuaged by a little cash (probably a lot of cash.

Maybe the ISP's will charge RIAA so exorbitantly that they it will be a deterrent to their seeking compliance in the first place.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Thanshin]

If it was only one gun, rather than 99.999/100 of the weapon production on the world, I would see your point. As a sword fight practicioner, I really hate all the gun buying going on. I'd bet that's the reason we don't see another grand master sword forge is due to gunfights.

i.e.: Your personal feelings and/or situation don't make reality right or wrong.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[drsmithy]

As a legal user of P2P, and as a PC gamer (linux only, though), I really hate all the copyright infringements going on.

If copyright law were a more reasonable reflection of reality, there wouldn't be anywhere near as much copyright infringement going on.

I'd bet that the reason we don't see another monkey island or similar is due to piracy.

And you'd be wrong.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[OneSmartFellow]

Your personal feelings and/or situation don't make reality right or wrong

Oh, contrair, his/her personal feelings and/or situation is reality as he/she is experiencing it.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[troll8901]

I cannot understand why his post is rated "Score:0, Troll". He is merely stating his personal opinion.

Isn't Slashdot all about reading the articles and discussing them in a civilised manner?

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Kjella]

Soon sending a song through the web will bring larger fines than experimenting with nuclear weapons at home.

The fines are already at the level where it doesn't matter. The median household income in the US is about 50k$, and at 150k$/song you're being sued for your life earnings for sharing a CD with 15 songs. If you're sharing your music collection with your friends, say 200 CDs * 15 songs then even at a 750$ statutory minimum you're also looking at the same. It's the point where it just doesn't matter - if I owed 2 milion dollars or 200 million dollars or 200 trillion dollars it wouldn't matter. It's a "life" sentence for sharing music files...

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Bert64]

Piracy was already rampant when monkey island came out. It came on floppies which were easily copied.
But the fact is, making good playable games is less profitable than making lousy games with pretty graphics.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Drakkenmensch]

"What's your billing address?" That's not exactly an unequivocal rejection. Where would all you music sharers be if the RIAA responds with a valid billing address? It is just a matter of money before those ISPs start cooperating.

He's not saying that all the RIAA needs to do is open their checkbooks. What he really meant was that the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats shouldn't be expecting a free lunch from the ISPs for the dubious honor of being their loyal army of thuggish lapdogs. And that any legal threat letters to do so for free will be redirected to the nearest convenient trashbin.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Ephemeriis]

I'd bet that the reason we don't see another monkey island or similar is due to piracy.

That is not true. Adventure games, like Monkey Island, have been deemed not popular/profitable enough to make. The big publishers only want to turn out shooters, war sims, and the occasional fantasy/RPG title. It isn't just adventure games either...when is the last time you saw a decent flight sim? Or, more specifically my personal favorite - space flight sims.

Piracy is being used as a digital bogeyman to explain anything and everything that publishers dislike.

Music/Game sales slipping? Must be piracy, there's no way people don't like what we're selling or how we're selling it. Find new talent? Embrace on-line distribution? Why do that when we can just prosecute?!

Producing games is expensive. Nobody wants to just break-even these days, they all want the next ginormous hit. So everyone is trying to copy the leader... That's why you get eleventy-billion Halo clones and GTA-alikes. MMORPGs, similarly, were seen as a cash cow. For a while there we had new MMORPGs being announced weekly.

My hope is that someday it will be feasible to simply host the game on some server and deliver all the content over the net

It already is, and in such a way that it's actually a boon to both the producers and the players.

Steam is good for producers because you've got centralized tracking of game registration/authorization. And people are hesitant to mess around too much with a game on Steam because it can get their entire Steam Account (and all their Steam games) banned. Sure, it can be cracked/bypassed... But it works at least as well as SecuROM does, and it's less invasive to the player. Plus you can distribute your game digitally, so you save on packaging.

Steam is good for players because all you need is your username and password to re-install anything you've ever purchased on Steam. Lose the CD? No problem! Reformat your entire computer? No problem! Just log in to Steam, kick off the download, and wait. You also get all your game updates distributed automatically, built-in profile/achievement/friends/community support, and a very simple and easy-to-use on-line store.

But distribution methods like Steam don't fix the problem. It doesn't matter how you distribute your games/music or how you protect them - if people don't feel that they're worth the price you're asking, they won't buy.

Some people are going to pirate no matter what. There's no way they'll ever pay a cent. It might be the thrill of doing something "illegal"... It might be some kind of weird political statement... But they're just never going to pay.

But then you also have folks who are just unwilling to pay $60 for yet-another-scifi-shooter that is a crappy imitation of Halo with only 5 hours of gameplay. They may be willing to pirate a copy of it just to see what everyone is talking about. They may be bored enough to play around with it for a few hours. But they aren't willing to shell out $60 for a piece of crap.

You aren't the only person who likes adventure games. If EA was willing to put the time and resources into turning out a decent adventure title it would sell. But you (and the other adventure fans out there) can't buy what they aren't making.

Similarly I would buy a decent space flight sim, if they'd make it.

Hopefully recent titles like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge mean that EA is finally willing to try something new... But I'll believe it when I see more than one or two interesting titles.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[easyTree]

In this way you could possibly make it look like 76.74.24.143 was distributing music (riaa.com).

Lol. Never gonna happen. It hasn't occurred to the RIAA that they might want to try competing with the pirates in offering a product that is easily found, downloaded and consumed.

Noone tell them; the last thing we want is an RIAA that has a source of income other than the life savings of innocent dead goldfish.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[mcgrew]

There used to be a thing called "metamoderation". The way it worked was, you would get mod points and use them. Then later your moderations were moderated - fair or unfair (or for a funny mod, funny and unfunny). If you were metamoderated badly and given unfairs, you didn't get any more mod points.

Now the so-called "metamoderation" is + and -; is this a good post? Rather then metamoderation it is a secondary moderation.

Since they destroyed metamoderation, the quality of mods has sunk to abysmal levels. I responded to an unmoderated racist troll yesterday (I know, DNFTT) and rather than the GNAA-type post I was responding to, MY comment was modded "troll".

It's sad what they're doing to slashdot.

That said, the moderator in this case probably was right. The modded opinion was ignorant, and there's no "-1, stupid" mod. I've seen no proof whatever that copyright infringement has cost anyone a nickle, and in many cases (e.g., Photoshop) has cause programs to become insanely popular and made tons of cash.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[BAKup]

As a result I feel it's necessary to "test drive" media before purchase. With CDs I can get legal samples online, but with TV shows on DVD there is no method except to download it and see if it's any good. It's illegal, but I do it because I don't want to get stuck wasting thousands of dollars on trash.

Other options.

1. Netflix. They even happen to have Galactica 1980 on watch it now.
2. Reading reviews online.
3. Reading reviews in magazines.
4. Netflix.
5. Asking friends about shows.
6. Hulu.
7. Youtube (Ok, this one isn't fully legal)
8. Blockbuster.
9. All the other video rental stores.
10. Did I mention Netflix?

I know not everything would be on all the options listed, so there's up to 8 other options, unless you don't have any friends, then there's only up to 7 options.

So don't say the only option you have is to download.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Garwulf]

"If copyright law were a more reasonable reflection of reality, there wouldn't be anywhere near as much copyright infringement going on."

The thing of it is that copyright law IS a reasonable reflection of reality. And as a creative artist and distributor myself, that's what annoyed me so much about the RIAA lawsuits - it made something that was realistic and reasonable look in the public eye like some sort of club for extorting money from dead grandmothers.

The area of copyright law that deals with the general public is the smallest tip of the iceberg. Most of copyright law has nothing to do with the general public, but everything to do with contract negotiations and relations between creative artists and distributors, and between different distributors. Most of it is an internal legal framework. And frankly, it works extremely well.

There is, however, a lot of piracy - the stuff artists and distributors generally have to worry about is people uploading material, as the downloaders are just getting free swag. And let's face it - people have always liked to get their hands on free swag...that's just part of human nature. But since the RIAA began their lawsuit campaign, they've taken their interpretation of copyright law, which was against both the letter and spirit of the law, and shoved it down the public's throat. This caused a massive backlash, and the free swag ideal has started to become an ideology at a grassroots level - and that is very, very dangerous in the long run.

Back around 17 years ago, when I was in my mid-teens, I was a fairly accomplished computer game pirate. But I always knew I was getting away with something whenever I pirated a game - I never felt as though I had the entitlement to do it. And, I grew out of it by the age of 17. These days, there is a strong sense that piracy is an entitlement, and that extends to campaigning to get rid of anything standing in the way of that entitlement.

Considering what most of copyright actually does, imagine what would happen to the creative arts if its legal framework suddenly disappeared. A creative artist trying to get his or her material to market would be caught trying to navigate a minefield, similar for anybody trying to be a distributor. Everybody would be having to protect their work however they could, which could translate into contracts being required before a submission even could be made, and for the end user, extremely restrictive DRM - after all, there would be nothing but DRM to protect a distributor's work from other distributors. It would be a crippling blow to the creative industry.

That's not an unjustified doom and gloom prediction - that's just a recognition that copyright is essentially the grease on the gears of the creative industry, a grease that just about nobody outside of the industry is ever aware of. Remove that grease, and things do not run smoothly.

The worst part of it is, to a degree, that the public has been made aware of copyright at all. This may sound odd, but considering what copyright is, the best place for it is some notice at the end of a TV show or on the copyright page of a book - some internal thing the public doesn't generally need to worry about. Now, the public is very aware of copyright, and they've got the wrong idea of what it is and what it does. Re-educating people is going to be a long road.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Hatta]

Doom and Quake were gorgeous compared to the standards of the day.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[IndustrialComplex]

I agree with you in principle, but I have to disagree with you on your analysis.

While you say that copyright was fine, until the public became aware of it, I would argue that copyright was not fine. It has morphed from the original concept of protecting works for a long enough time so that the creator could gather compensation to something that exists for such a long duration that copyrights today are effectively granted in perpetuity.

The life of the author plus 50/70 years is a damned long time. And it has now placed copyrights beyond the lives of human beings. That has made them the currency of corporations, and are no longer within the means of trade for us mere mortals.

I disagree entirely with how copyrights have become the currency for corporations.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Kjella]

But the fact is, making good playable games is less profitable than making lousy games with pretty graphics.

It's a lot simpler than that - games with crappy graphics don't sell. Period. That doesn't mean it has to be state of the art, but people don't want games that look bad. If you bought say a board game then maybe the gameplay is good but if it was flimsy, tacky and of generally poor quality you wouldn't like it either right? People expect more as a base minimum and that means fewer and bigger games, I don't think the crap to good ratio has gotten any worse, there was plenty crap and there is plenty crap. And the good games have gotten bigger and longer when you find them.

I used to play Civilization, but it doesn't hold a candle to Civilization 4 in so incredbly many ways. I used to play Dune 2, but it doesn't hold a candle to modern RTS games with lousy queue management, no formations and whatnot. I used to play Test Drive, but it doesn't hold a candle to any modern driving game when it comes to realism and immersion. When you take off the rose-colored glasses a lot of the old games lack features you'd expect today. A lot of the time the AI is quite pathetic. A lot of the genres liks MMORPGs or Sims-style games didn't exist. A lot is that you're not 15 anymore and demand different things from games.

There are a few gems that survive the test of time, but it's a bit like comparing the very, very best of the last 50 years of music against last years hits. They don't "compare" as 90% of that will be forgotten, but then we've already forgotten the crappy 90% of the past. To each his own, but every so often I find a game that makes me go "Wow, we're really made progress here". I think that if you can't see it, you're a bit too blinded by presumption to look.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[SoupGuru]

Slashdot is news for nerds and nerds are typically well educated. Education is correlated with the left side of the political spectrum. So here you have an internet discussion involving nerds and I don't think it would be any surprise that the majority opinions reflect most of those you listed. There aren't many righties on here unless you count the libertarians, of which there are quite a few.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[drsmithy]

The thing of it is that copyright law IS a reasonable reflection of reality.

If that were true, copyright infringement wouldn't be considered a significant problem because only a tiny minority of people would be doing it.

When lots of people are breaking law, or do not consider others breaking it to be particularly "wrong", that's nearly always a good indication that the law is bad. The most obvious problem with copyright is term lengths. That copyright lasts an instant past the death of the owner at all, is unjustifiable, but even the fixed multi-decade terms of yesteryear are still too long in today's world.

But since the RIAA began their lawsuit campaign, they've taken their interpretation of copyright law, which was against both the letter and spirit of the law, and shoved it down the public's throat.

I think the RIAA's "interpretation" to be quite in line with both the general principles behind copyright (control over a work by its "creator") and the letter of the law (term extensions, DMCA, etc).

Considering what most of copyright actually does, imagine what would happen to the creative arts if its legal framework suddenly disappeared. A creative artist trying to get his or her material to market would be caught trying to navigate a minefield, similar for anybody trying to be a distributor. Everybody would be having to protect their work however they could, which could translate into contracts being required before a submission even could be made, and for the end user, extremely restrictive DRM - after all, there would be nothing but DRM to protect a distributor's work from other distributors. It would be a crippling blow to the creative industry.

It would certainly be a major blow to the distribution industry, and several other hangers-on, but about the only creative industry I could see really suffering would be books (which are already in significant trouble due to several other factors).

Now, the public is very aware of copyright, and they've got the wrong idea of what it is and what it does. Re-educating people is going to be a long road.

I think people now have a much more accurate idea of what copyright does and why, and just how far away that is from the struggling inventor or artist that is offered up as a justification for it. Further, I think that is finally helping them realise that the extraordinary privileges (both in scope and generosity) society heaps upon "creative artists" is rarely provides a worthwhile ROI.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Garwulf]

Well, a lot of that argument depends on whether you feel that intellectual property can and should be left as a legacy for children and grandchildren. I'm of the opinion that it should, but then again, I also have a stake in that. Your mileage may vary, and certainly seems to.

However, I've noticed something in American copyright complaints that makes me suggest that up here in Canada we have something you're missing in the U.S., assuming that is where you're located. In Canada, if a copyrighted work is effectively orphaned, there is a mechanism to bring it into the public domain early. If that doesn't exist in the United States, I can see why so many Americans are concerned about the term resembling a perpetual term (although it really isn't, particularly in the United States where a number of works lost their copyright protection in the 20s and 30s during the short copyright terms).

Another thing I've noticed is that economics tends to be downplayed in copyright arguments, which is a serious issue if you know how the creative industry works. Whether a work survives the test of time has very little to do with copyright, and a lot to do with how well the work is selling. In fact, having the work in copyright longer can improve the work's chances of survival, as it increases the length of time that the work has a champion.

All in all, it is a pretty complicated issue. The RIAA has gone and shoved a lot of misinformation into it, and done everybody a disservice, I think.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Hatta]

DOOM had no better graphics than its predecessor Wolfenstien. The physics in 1995's Road Rash were a bit lacking, but the graphics were every bit as "pretty" as 1997's Quake II, which wasn't really any prettier than the original Quake.

That's hardly accurate. Doom had mouselook and angles other than 90 degrees. It also had varied lighting. That certainly contributes to Doom looking better than Wolf 3d. Road rash, I don't remember that being fully 3d modeled. They still used FMV captured sprites, so it looks worse than the original Quake, let alone Quake II.

IMO the PC gaming companies are insane. They write these games for rich kids, and rich kids only - you have to have thousands of dollars worth of equipment, then pay $60 and up for the game itself. It's madness. They should write for today's top end machines, not tomorrow's. They should write the games so that if you have a video card that costs twice what an Xbox costs you'll get the graphics, yet if you have a normal $50 video card the game will still play.

Today's top of the line card is tomorrows bargain bin card. The early adopters help subsidize the rest of us, you should be thanking them not cursing them. Just be patient and the prices come down.

I used to be an avid gamer, no more. The equipment hurdles are far, far too high and the price of the games themselves is insane. Drop your equipment requirements down to the average PC and cut the price by at least a third, and you'll sell ten times as many games.

You don't have to run the latest and greatest to have fun gaming. The average PC can play titles from 2-3 years ago which still look spectacular and will cost less than a brand new title. I'm certain there's a shit-ton of games from the 90s that are still excellent ways to spend your time too. If you really don't care about graphics, you'll have just as much fun playing Ultima Underworld as you will Fallout 3.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[yanos]

The parent said "making good playable games is less profitable than making lousy games with pretty graphics", I don't think he meant pitching old games from the 90s against what you find in the current generation.

World of Goo was an awesome game and its gameplay didn't seem dated, nor was there some feature you feel was missing. It still feels like a modern game, despite not being a polygon powerhouse.

Currently there is an obsession with triple A games in the industry that go way beyond my comprehension. Everything is hype with graphics, most of the time to the detriment of gameplay, scenario and (the biggest blunder of all) art direction. Because everything now as to be REALISTISTIC!

So back to the original point, no, I don't think it's piracy that prevent good game from seeing the light of the day. It just doesn't sell as much and therefore is too risky. And the gaming industry has severe allergy problem with risk.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[theaveng]

>>>The CEO of the RIAA is doing what he/she is legally obligated to do: maximize profits.

He's legally obligated to destroy, attack, and ruin citizens' lives? I'm sorry but that only makes the person evil in my book. "I'm just following orders" is not a valid defense.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam is good for players

Stop. Just stop. I disagree so strongly that I can't even continue reading beyond that assertion.

In my opinion, Steam is absolutely the worst thing for players that has ever happened in the history of gaming. Like other forms of online activation, it takes the control out of the hands of the player. Even if you play single player, you're only allowed to use the software that you legally purchased as long as (a) you don't have to reinstall and (b) their servers are still willing to authenticate you. In other words, they get to decide how long you're allowed to keep playing. That should be absolutely unacceptable to anyone, especially this crowd who is so adamant about their rights to do what they want with what they've purchased.

I don't want to redownload it if I have to reinstall. I don't want them to back up all my settings to transfer to a new computer. Let me burn it all to a CD or DVD and transfer everything manually. I'm willing to deal with the risk of losing everything because I can take steps to prevent it. If someone else has the control, I can do nothing.

The worst part about it is not that it's heavy-handed and draconian; the worst part is that it isn't. Because it's easy and unobtrusive, it's tricked millions of gamers into thinking it's okay to give up that control. I never thought I would see Slashdotters singing praises to a form of DRM that so completely and effectively eliminates their rights. I would think we would be so up in arms about it that we would be descending on the headquarters of Valve with torches and pitchforks. But all I hear is that Steam is the greatest thing ever. Was there some kind of subliminal message or brainwashing technique that somehow passed me by? Because I can't imagine any rational person accepting it.

So now gaming companies have a pattern to look to. Valve has discovered how to sell games while still not letting the players actually own anything. Look to more companies to do the same, because they see they can get away with it. And some of those companies will take down their authentication servers a week after going live because they didn't hit their target sales and therefore can't afford to keep running the servers. But the gamers have already paid, so at least they got their money, and that's all they care about.

I hate to be a prophet of doom and gloom, but the popularity of Steam is certainly pushing us toward a day when you can no longer play any games without someone else's permission, and you have no guarantee, even after giving them your money, that they will give you that permission.

And no, a vague promise of "If we ever stop the authentication servers, we'll put out a patch so that it doesn't need it" doesn't count. There's a well-known term for software that's promised but not yet written: Vaporware.

Sorry about the rant. I just had to get it off my chest.

Posting anonymously because I'm sure to get downmodded for being a troll, even though this is my honest opinion.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Anonymous Coward]

The limited monopoly called copyright worked well when it was limited to 14 years and treated nonprofit infringement as noncommercial. Current copyright law discourages creativity and production of new works because it is so skewed to trying to keep the monopolies of huge corporate interests going for over 150 years each and because it treats nonprofit infringement the same as commercial infringement based on an unproven and highly debatable allegation about cumulative impact on the market. The lawsuits not only make the RIAA and MPAA look bad, they expose the level of corruption that create such skewed and broken copyright laws out of a system that was much better 60 years ago. Your defense of IP law would work for the old system, not the current one.

It you truly think copyright is worth having, you should lobby to have true reform which brings back reasonable limits on the monopoly and expands fair use. If the law were following the original intent and actually tried to balance everyone's interests it would have more support. The way it is now it is broken, and every "reform" make it more obvious our politicians care more about their own campaign funds and relationship to big media than about fairness or the effect on society over time. If IP law were reasonable and balanced, I would support it.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Kjella]

But if you phrase the question a little differently, like "How can you appear to come from the customer's IP address?" then you get quite many obvious answers like open/hacked wifi, trojaned machine, misconfigured proxy and so on. Technically it wouldn't be a spoof, but it would be targetting someone innocent...

Re:Multiple interpretations

[cpt kangarooski]

here is a hypothetical: I am an artist. I spent most of my adult life poor, my family is also poor because of this. Right around the age of 50 I make a hit. It is going to sell and I am going to get paid like a rockstar. I tragically die. Should my family not get the money from my hardwork?

Sure. This is a good argument for flat copyright terms, instead of terms based on the life of an author. Let's have copyright terms that last for, say, 5 years, renewable in similarly short increments, for as long as, say, 25 years. (Most works make most of the money they'll ever be worth within no more than 15 years, and often very much less time) Then it doesn't matter when you die; the term lasts as long as it lasts. This is traditionally how copyright terms in the US have worked, and it's worked pretty well.

Or, what if I spent years working on something but it takes it a while to come to fruition. So I may not make a million bucks in a year, but it may take time - a slow trickle of funds. A few thousand dollars every year. Why should I not enjoy that money I worked for.

Are you saying that the work takes a long time to finish, but makes money upon publication, or that the work is published and takes a long time to make money after publication?

In the first case, who cares? Copyrights should last a long time for unpublished works, to deter people pirating manuscripts, but not so long that authors have an incentive to sit on a manuscript; copyright is interested in getting works published and ultimately in the public domain, not merely protecting them merely to make a do-nothing author happy.

In the second case, I have no problem with authors seeking long copyright terms, so long as it's not automatic; the author should have to seek a copyright in the first case, and deliberately renew it frequently, to indicate continuing interest. Ultimately, though, the term will need to expire. If the author couldn't turn a profit after a couple of decades, then the odds are that he never will. Exceptions are rare enough so as to not be worthwhile in setting policy, for the same reason that people who miraculously survive in a tornado out in the open are not extolled as reasons to not take shelter in a proper basement.

There is no monopoly on games, music and movies.

The monopoly is on a specific game, or piece of music, or movie. The reason piracy appeals, is because one copy is as good as another, at least so far as copyright goes. I could go to a bookstore and buy any of a dozen different copies of Shakespeare, from different publishers; they're interchangeable commodities. A copyright is a monopoly on a commodity, i.e. that specific work, identical copies of which could otherwise be made by anyone.

The content is theres not yours.

Nonsense. We have a right of free speech, and this encompasses the right to repeat the speech of others; that's why the state can't prevent me from reciting Shakespeare, though I didn't write it.

The government has no power not ultimately granted to it by the people. Copyright is the people willingly giving up a little bit of our free speech. No one would ever do this just because; we expect to get a greater benefit out of it than it costs us. In particular we want to encourage authors to create works, to publish those works, and for those works to be as unprotected as possible, and to enter the public domain as fast as possible. We want the greatest public benefit for the least cost to ourselves. It's great if authors benefit from it as well, but only to the minimal extent necessary to get them to create and publish. Why would it be in the public's interest to give them more?

But the current copyright laws are probably not providing the greatest possible public benefit. And increasing them probably wouldn't increase the public benefit. So it seems likely that the best way to serve the public interest -- the only interest that counts -- is to reduce the length and breadth of copyright.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[rohan972]

Well, a lot of that argument depends on whether you feel that intellectual property can and should be left as a legacy for children and grandchildren. I'm of the opinion that it should, but then again, I also have a stake in that. Your mileage may vary, and certainly seems to.

I'm curious to know if you apply that to patents as well as copyright. In some cases, talking about "intellectual property" can make the discussion easier but many time it obfuscates the issue. In my opinion if patents were granted for the length of you suggest the cost of technology would skyrocket and technological progress would slow to a crawl. Should we really have to pay for the use of ideas developed in the late 1800s/early 1900s? I don't think so. On the other hand I can see no real problem with trademarks being perpetual or for a very long time. I take it we are really talking about copyrights, not the more broad "intellectual property"

I think Thomas Jefferson put it well:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." --Thomas Jefferson

I do not think your descendants would have any valid cause for complaint it copyright terms were 14 years. I do think that copyright is a social contract and that the benefits of that contract belong to the people who agree to abide by its terms ie: the people living now. If the primary benefit of that contract (works entering the public domain) does not benefit the people entering into it then it's not really a valid contract. Most of the works protected by copyright now will have zero or almost zero value to my great-great-grandchildren. Software will be hopelessly out of date, movies and music produced now will mainly be useful for historical studies. Long copyright terms strip the public of benefit and therefore invalidate the contract, we can not reasonably be said to have agreed to it. Current rates of copyright violation indicate that we don't.

The US became grew in industrial power (and had well educated citizens) because of not enforcing copyrights and patents from other countries (among other reasons). Ultimately your descendants would benefit far more from free access to other peoples works than by exclusive access to yours.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Hordeking]

Also, if you look at today vs 100 years ago, we enjoy far less freedom than our grandparents. Have you ever been afraid to ask question for fear of being investigated for terrorism (This situation has a actually occurred to me, though it was pretty groundless.).

Modern technology allows a lot more fine detail to be saved. If you go check out a book from the library, the FBI can easily find out what you got. 50 years ago, that was far more difficult. I'm very careful about what books I check out now.

Re:Multiple interpretations

[Shakrai]

I think you've mistaken this site for another one where your whining would have received a more favorable audience. I quoted Jefferson and you responded with a completely unrelated rant about Jim Crow and the gay rights movement? WTF?

It's an outrage how our freedoms and liberties are being eroded by the liberals and the ACLU and George Soros and Michael Moore and Al Gore!

Where was the word 'liberal' used in my original post and why are you playing the victimization card? I don't limit my blame to the liberals when talking about the Government taking away my liberties. Conservatives are all too happy to erode my 4th and 5th amendment rights. Liberals are all too happy to erode my 2nd amendment rights.

As far as I'm concerned neither side can be trusted. Any illusions I had to the contrary evaporated when Obama reversed himself on FISA.

Good for Bayou Internet and Communications

[pwnies]

This small ISP is a perfect example of why the RIAA's new scheme for free money music protection simply won't work. Content filtering, detection and litigation on the ISP's part costs money and takes time. ISP's aren't NPO's, they don't do charity work.

Re:Viable business model?

[icsx]

Well apparently RIAA is not suing anymore. Instead they try to get ISP's into their bandwagon to cut off connections if people do illegal stuff. However, why any ISP which is doing commercial business would do this for free or why would they even consider going after their paying customers in the first place? ISP is not a police and people's privacy must be respected and law followed.

Forget sueing grandma . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . it looks to me like they are ramping up to sue ISPs. They are probably lobbying right now to get laws requiring ISP enforcement.

There is more money to squeeze out of them, compared to grandma.

Viable business model? More like a dieing business model. I would prefer to see a music industry in the future, that is comprised of artists and consumers, where the artists are payed fair prices for their work.

And no big record labels.

Re:Forget sueing grandma . . .

[Thanshin]

Every year is the year of the ratbastard!

Re:Viable business model?

[meringuoid]

I can't believe sueing people like the RIAA does is a viable business model. The costs must outweigh the benefits by far. Even if the RIAA manages to win a case against a poor grandmother who has never heard of P2P and the like, she won't be able to pay the fine because the costs of defending herself have bankrupted her for good.

It's a terror campaign. The idea is to intimidate the public so that they're afraid to pirate. It doesn't matter if they lose money suing one victim, if a thousand others are thereby frightened away from piracy.

Re:Viable business model?

[gzunk]

It isn't a viable business model, it doesn't need to be, because the RIAA isn't a business. It's a business association made up of record labels, such as Sony, Warner et al - see Link, and it does the bidding of the member companies.

http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members

It's funded through dues, which all the member companies pay. It doesn't need to make a profit because it's not a business.

Re:Legal?

[characterZer0]

Is there any legitimate technical reason whatsoever to even assemble all of the packets for a file at any router that is not the destination? Or even to look at the packets enough to know that there is a file?

Not perfect, but

[Dachannien]

The RIAA's new strategy isn't perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than trying to sue their customers into lifelong financial ruin.

When it comes right down to it, you're not supposed to share their music, and the content industry is well within their rights to tell you to stop if they see you doing it. And if ISPs agree to block you for repeat offenses, then you're pretty much out of luck if you don't heed those warnings.

There are two things still shady about this plan, though, and both have to do with reducing the RIAA's liability. One has to do with MediaSentry not being licensed as a private investigator. It's possible that the new plan will prevent them from having to get a license in each state where they operate or investigate. Most likely, MediaSentry will never get taken to task for their alleged illegal actions in most states, even though their activities won't change.

And two, the RIAA lawsuits have had a lot of missed targets, each carrying the possibility of backfiring in a big way. The RIAA reduces this liability once they're sending nastygrams to ISPs instead. Under the new plan, they can pretty much send letters complaining about Intartubes users at random, and they never have to worry about countersuits or heinously large legal expenses. Of course, this also means that there's little avenue for protest - if your ISP cuts you off, how are you going to convince them of your innocence (aside from paying a jacked-up reconnection fee, of course)?

Re:Not perfect, but

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Not to be overly optimistic, but I would guess that if/when they put this plan into action and start disconnecting innocent people, the ISPs will be the ones to start getting taken to court. I have a sneaking suspicion that if (hopefully before) that happens, ISPs will be very reluctant to go along with their plans.

Re:They wont win

[ferd_farkle]

"It's been going on pretty much since the mp3 was invented."

In fact, it (the grubby behaviour of Music Publishing) has been going on since the invention of the player piano.

Re:Viable business model?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Except that the lawsuits are launched by the individual labels anyway - the RIAA itself doesn't actually sue anyone, it's just there to take the bad PR while the labels keep screwing people.

Re:Viable business model?

[Ephemeriis]

I can't believe sueing people like the RIAA does is a viable business model. The costs must outweigh the benefits by far. Even if the RIAA manages to win a case against a poor grandmother who has never heard of P2P and the like, she won't be able to pay the fine because the costs of defending herself have bankrupted her for good. I have a very hard time understanding the people who work for the RIAA and sue people for a living.

It isn't. Suing people is not the RIAA's business model.

They're used to making money by being the gatekeepers of music. Traditionally, if you wanted to be a musician, it was expensive to get your music heard. You had to get it recorded onto a record/tape/CD... Get it packaged and distributed to retailers... Get it played on the radio... Get tours booked... This is what the RIAA did. They discovered people, provided the means for them to distribute their music, and profited from the whole thing.

These days it is easy to distribute music. Anyone with a microphone and a MySpace page can make their music available to anyone and everyone who wants to hear it. You can easily collect payments directly through something like PayPal. You can even use Cafe Press to turn out promotional materials yourself. The RIAA, in short, is no longer needed.

These lawsuits aren't intended to make money, they're intended to scare people. The RIAA wants to convince people that on-line distribution in general is bad. They want people to be terrified of downloading anything, regardless of where it comes from. Then they can go back to selling CD's and being the gatekeepers that they used to be.

Re:Viable business model?

[theaveng]

>>>It's a terror campaign

And what do we do with terrorists? Shoot 'em.

ISPs demanding money is a good idea -- Chris Rock

[mlwmohawk]

Chris Rock has a routine that bullets should cost $5000, because if a bullet cost $5000 there would be no death by random bullets.

Similarly, if RIAA and MPIAA has to pay a HUGE fee UPFRONT to remove a single user from an ISP, then they would target serious offenders, not just attempt to create an environment of fear.

I'm not unsympathetic with what RIAA and MPIAA claim they want to do, ensuring that artists get fair compensation for their work, what I find despicable are their actions and tactics and the fact that the artists get next to nothing (or actually nothing.)