RIAA Hearing Next Week Will Be Televised

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "One commentator labels it 'another fly in the RIAA's ointment.' In SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the Boston, Massachusetts, RIAA case in which the defendant is represented by Harvard law professor Charles Nesson and a group of his students, the Judge has ruled that the hearing scheduled for January 22nd will be televised over the Internet. The hearing will relate to Mr. Tenenbaum's counterclaims against the record companies and against the RIAA. In her 11-page opinion (PDF), District Judge Nancy Gertner labeled as 'curious' the record companies' opposition to televising the proceedings, since their professed reason for bringing the cases is deterrence, 'a strategy [which] effectively relies on the publicity arising from this litigation'."

Comments

Haa haa!

[Wandering Wombat]

Justice on dowels.

Sweet Jesus!

[pak9rabid]

This outta be more entertaining then all seasons of Heroes combined!

Re:Sweet Jesus!

[pak9rabid]

Whoops...allow me to grammar-nazi myself: then = than.

Re:Sweet Jesus!

[oodaloop]

You can not verbify grammar-Nazi (notice the capitalization). It is grammar-Nazicate.

Re:Sweet Jesus!

[Q-Hack!]

Eh... Its all just smurfy.

Re:Sweet Jesus!

[Herr Brush]

I'm afraid the correct term is "verbing".
Link

Re:Sweet Jesus!

[jslater25]

I thought that was his current gig already...

Re:Sweet Jesus!

[Abstrackt]

This outta be more entertaining then all seasons of Heroes combined!

Given the last two seasons, they haven't set the bar too high.

Re:Sweet Jesus!

[Morth]

You would actually get that effect by running just slower than the speed of light. For them, only a short while would go by, while it will be years for the rest of the world. There's still the question of in what location they were while running though, and why nobody noticed them.

Of course, you can't really go back in time by running faster than light. It's simply not possible to move FTL, since it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate.

Disclaimer: this is all based on what I remember of high school physics

Re:Sweet Jesus!

[severoon]

If you're going to grammar-nazi yourself, do it all the way. It's "oughtta", short for "ought to," not "outta", short for "out of".

Now allow me to troll-bait-label myself. By making two mistakes and calling yourself only on the lesser one, it's obviously a brilliant troll for a pedant like me. I lose.

Terminology

[corywingerter]

televised over the internet??

Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.

Re:Terminology

[zarthrag]

Using my media-center, the internet is my television! ...Insensitive clod.

Re:Terminology

[Ogive17]

Be nice to NYCL - he's fighting the good fight :)

Re:Terminology

[tsalmark]

Televised means remote vision: that can happen over the internet as well as a TV. Actually the article uses televised in a general sense and uses the term narrowcast when going into details. which works for me.

Re:Terminology

[Krinsath]

Television (from Merriam-Webster) - an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound (emphasis mine)

televised over the internet - means that the television is going out over the Internet to computer endpoints. That the television SET is often abbreviated as television is simply laziness and a bastardization of the language, not that the usage in the summary is incorrect.

Re:Terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

Re:Terminology

[SBrach]

Hey, you got your TVs in my Internets.

Re:Terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr? it was barely a couple of paragraphs, you must have a short attenti

Re:Terminology

[DanTheStone]

Not theft, unauthorized copying. There's a difference; the cost to the owner is by decreased scarcity or potentially lost revenue, not by the loss of possession of an item with value. You can't steal thoughts and ideas, you can only copy them.

Re:Terminology

[wealthychef]

Good thing you are here to set those great legal minds straight as to the error of their ways. :-)
I wonder, honestly, why does the RIAA oppose this being televised? People here assume there is something sinister about it, and the fear of the light does remind one of certain nasties that live under rocks, but maybe they have a good reason. I'd be curious to hear SERIOUS ideas as to why they might be wanting to hide it. I actually can't come up with one, even assuming sinister motives. Aren't they trying to intimidate people? I assume they think they might lose? I don't get it.

Re:Terminology

[sbeckstead]

Wow, an industry shill this early in the morning. And one who STILL doesn't understand the meaning of THEFT. Somebody mod this crap as trolling.

Re:Terminology

[nine-times]

Well first, even if you take the RIAA's side fully, a reasonable person would admit that it's copyright infringement, and not "theft". You can argue that copyright infringement is as bad as theft, but it's not theft.

Second, the complaint isn't that they're trying to fight copyright infringement, but rather their methods of fighting copyright infringement. Surely methods and means can matter. I can fight against injustice using methods that are themselves unjust.

Can we agree to that much, at least? At least as a starting point to discuss exactly how immoral copyright infringement is, and whether the RIAA's methods are just or unjust?

Re:Terminology

[Zader]

...one would think, RIAA is trying to abolish the Constitution or something...

Nah, Obama is going to get rid of that pesky Constitution thing for them.

Re:Terminology

[orkysoft]

Can I speel in, or do I have to drag my old Farspark out of the shed to see it?

Re:Terminology

[poopdeville]

Candlejack, is that y

Re:Terminology

[Dark Kenshin]

It might be just my crack-pot theory, so take it with a grain of salt...

I would thing the main reason to want the hearings televised goes to how there scare tactics work. Sinister motives or not, reading articles and watching video have very different impacts on how people perceive the information. I can write a ton of articles saying pirates are thieves, copying music makes baby Jesus cry, you'll get a life sentence for not paying every time you listen to a song, etc; but the actual court preceding will be very different. Even if they make those exact claims, it will not be in the same tone as attack media will be.

Real court proceedings are very dry, and will not support the fear image that they want. Plus it will be clear that they are suing for copyright violation and not theft. I'm sure there are various other concerns too.

Re:Terminology

[Cheapy]

The RIAA is the Enclave? My god it's all so clear now.

Re:Terminology

[dmsuperman]

You got your internets in my TV!

Re:Terminology

[ChromaticDragon]

I dunno... I'll hazard a guess.

The "scare tactics" of the RIAA are about more than just fear. It's about FUD: Fear; Uncertainty; Doubt.

By televised court proceedings, you may increase the Fear aspect (assuming they actually have a strong case), but you may significantly reduce your portion of Uncertainty and Doubt.

I imagine the industry wants very much to perpetuate the concept that Copyright Infringement equals theft. One doesn't even need to get into the debate of whether it is "as bad as" theft. All the RIAA/MPAA publicity efforts seem simply to hinge on the equivalence (I mean.. you wouldn't steal a car would you? huh WOULD YOU?)

The trouble is the Industry seems scared too. Although they seem to have been easily able to purchase legislation to their hearts content, they probably realize laws on the books won't matter a bit if the larger society as a whole shifts in their view of said laws. First, they won't get enforced. Second, eventually even if the laws don't get overturned, sooner or later Jury Nullification will take over. Or we might start seeing damages scaled way, WAY back to realistic levels.

Public perception of these folk may be souring greatly. These things can shift rather quickly. I believe this is what they fear.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

You can steal somebody's else's labor.

They work planting cotton in the fields.... ooops, I mean creating music on a recording. And you take the product of their work. It's a human rights violation.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

Summary:

The video will reveal RIAA to be the cold-hearted extortionist bastards they truly are.

Re:Terminology

[edittard]

I wonder, honestly, why does the RIAA oppose this being televised?

They've got a plan to sell it on DVD?

Re:Terminology

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I wonder, honestly, why does the RIAA oppose this being televised?

That's easy.

Exposure of these proceedings gives information to those who must defend future cases, thus reducing their defense costs.

Re:Terminology

[mpeskett]

No. Stealing the product of their labour would involve nicking the master copy they made, or possibly shoplifting a CD (although then you're stealing from the shop rather than the artist). An infringing copy removes nothing from their possession except the money that you might or might not have spent on a legal copy.

Both are illegal, but they aren't the same thing, and really the only reason to persist in not splitting that hair is if you have some motive for "copyright infringement" to be considered exactly equal to "theft". The most obvious motive being that theft sounds more serious and so people are less likely to choose to do it if they think of it in those terms.

Thankfully we are not undergoing a transition to Newspeak, so there is no need to eliminate terms from our vocabulary. There is a distinction between the 2 things and no reason to lump them together under one word, so please stop trying to do so.

Re:Terminology

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Summary: The video will reveal RIAA to be the cold-hearted extortionist bastards they truly are.

Maybe their reason for secrecy is much more benign. Maybe they're just upset that they can't have the exclusive distribution rights to the Court's feed.

Re:Terminology

[sorak]

televised over the internet??

Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.

If televised is television, then what is it when your psychic gives you advice telepathically? As in, Miss Cleo televised me not to make this joke?

Re:Terminology

[IndustrialComplex]

televised over the internet??

Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.

Well if you go to the roots of the word television and televised, if the goal is to allow you to view it from a distance, televised seems more appropriate than streamed (which could refer to audio, water, video, tickertape)

Re:Terminology

[aynoknman]

It's a human rights violation.

But not theft.

Re:Terminology

[nine-times]

Consider if you had spent a year creating a great program, perhaps something to make web browsing impervious to spybots. Then at the end of the year your employer shows you the door, and never pays you, but instead distributes your program for free over the net... It's called theft of labor.

It's called "theft of labor" because, in your example, we're assuming that the employer and the developer had some form of agreement that the employer later violated. Theft of labor, as far as I know, is used to describe situations where a person is deceived (or possibly forced) into doing work.

Therefore, if a musician records a work of his own accord, and without having entered into any agreement with that musician or deceiving him in any way, I copy his songs, then it's not called "theft of labor". It's called "copyright infringement".

Or, at least, it's called "copyright infringement" if the work has been copyrighted, I don't have any license to copy it, I am not exercising fair use, and the work has not been released to public domain. Otherwise, it's just legal copying.

I'm not saying that copyright infringement is right. I don't infringe on others' copyrights, and I don't condone others doing so. It just happens that the crime of copyright infringement is a different crime than theft.

Re:Terminology

[skroops]

Televised means remote vision: that can happen over the internet as well as a TV. Actually the article uses televised in a general sense and uses the term narrowcast when going into details. which works for me.

actually

televise 1927 back-formation from television, on model of other verbs from nouns ending in -(v)ision (e.g. revise).

So etymologically, it pertains only to the television set. The justification for using the word here is semantic change

Re:Terminology

[AtomicJake]

Actually, you can steal an idea. At least everybody understands what is meant if you steal my idea about my next startup that I just told you (under NDA).

Now, I completely agree with you that copying copyrighted material is not stealing.

Re:Terminology

[Valdrax]

Well first, even if you take the RIAA's side fully, a reasonable person would admit that it's copyright infringement, and not "theft". You can argue that copyright infringement is as bad as theft, but it's not theft.

Actually, if you take the RIAA's side fully, then you'd be using the word "theft" like they do, because you'd believe that property is property and that we should be using the most damning words possible to describe those who do not pay the RIAA for it.

Re:Terminology

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

But when the Princess took the plans to Death_Star v1.0, the Empire didn't chase them down for copyright infringement now did they?

Re:Terminology

[Chris Mattern]

I bet you also complain when people talk about telephoning each other when they use VOIP. Sheesh.

Re:Terminology

[Chris Mattern]

That's the point--we're *not* taking the product of their work. They still have it!

Re:Terminology

[Drugmath]

Actually, you can't steal an idea. If I were to take your idea about your next startup that you just told me (under NDA) and use it, you still have the exact same idea in your head. I haven't removed it, I haven't altered it in any way. All I've done is copy it.

Re:Terminology

[Chabil Ha']

Yeah, but under their deal, they'd make sure that there was a scarcity of the distribution, meaning, none at all. But that is at the heart of this whole mess, isn't it? IP owners have completely lost control, and to add insult to injury, the ruling to make this a public affair only reaffirms it.

God's Debris, a thought experiment written by Scott Adams [SPOILER ALERT] tries out the idea that as humanity progresses in technology, its omniscience increases. Things eventually come to a point where humanity knows everything that occurs, when it happens, who is involved, et all. Following that line of thought, the whole concept of 'intellectual property' and distribution control kind of dissolve, not because they aren't important, but because of the ubiquity of access to it. The content is absorbed and consumed just as soon as it is exposed or even created.

Remember the line from Sneakers: "No more secrets, Marty."

Re:Terminology

[nine-times]

Well ok, maybe not "fully". What I really meant by the idea of "taking the RIAA's side fully" was believing that the RIAA is completely right to protect their copyrights by suing people who download/share MP3s online. Even if you believe that without a doubt in your mind, I still think it's a bit unreasonable to admit no distinction between "copyright infringement" and "theft".

Legally, they're distinct. In most people's minds, they're distinct. In the effect they have both for the victim and perpetrator of the crime, they're distinct.

As far as I can tell, people who refuse to acknowledge any kind of distinction between the two are being disingenuous.

Re:Terminology

[rezalas]

Going off the pricing model we use for physical media (since we obviously consider it equal to physical theft for some ignorant reason) the actual product is worthless. Think about it. The value of any item is determined by supply and demand. The closer the supply is to infinite, the lower the price will be when dealing with a finite demand. Since the supply for any song, movie, program, or thought is infinite (limited only by time and bandwidth, neither of which the original supplier is providing) the value becomes nothing. In that sense the markup for these lawsuits is (in reality) pure extortion and profit considering their product is worthless in digital form.

Re:Terminology

[neomunk]

Well, then we'd have political kabuki on C-SPAN and political bukkake on your channel. :-)

Re:Terminology

[NoobixCube]

Although I haven't read 1984 yet, isn't Newspeak about eliminating terms with no distinction between them? Sick and ill would be merged, along with unwell and any other synonyms, but in this case, theft and copyright infringement are two very different things. I think Newspeak is about eliminating ambiguity in language, and it just so happens that English is so full of cruft that even when you expand slightly different meanings for the same word into two or more words, you still take out more than you add.

Re:Terminology

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The ruling is not about copyright law. The ruling is about the people's right to know what goes on in government, including the courts.

Re:Terminology

[Golddess]

Starting off your post talking about banana splits.... oops, I mean working hard in the noon-day sun, does not magically make the later equal to the former.

Neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just saying...

Re:Terminology

[Valdrax]

In most people's minds, they're distinct.

Well, no, I'd disagree there. After all, that's the real battleground here, isn't it?

I'll bet if you asked most people on the street if downloading MP3s off the internet without paying for them was "stealing music," most of them would say, "Yeah." The average layman is probably not aware of the legal distinction between theft and infringement, probably sees little moral distinction between the two acts of getting something without paying the people who have the legal right to demand payment, and I almost guarantee you has not thought of the economics of scarcity that makes the real distinction in effect.

"Infringement is not stealing" is pretty much only a mantra for those few of us who have bothered to get worked up about the issue or who have the appropriate educational background. This group is not the public at large.

Re:Terminology

[imtheguru]

But, what is a television set? This can be built on two questions, at what point does a device become a television and how much can one remove before the device stops being a television.

The average television set on the market today can receive analog signals, digital broadcasts from over the air transmitters and from external sources such as cable, DVD players, Bluray players, camcorders and gaming devices.

With a relatively small amount of added equipment, namely a tuner card and opensource software, my computer screen can do all of the above. To muddle the lines even further, my tele is a Panasonic, and is built off GNU software. Further still, my girlfriend worked out that YouTube videos could be watched on the television set using the Nintendo Wii's wireless connection.

Etymologically, the word television hasn't evolved in decades to cover any of the above scenarios. It still represents a device with a tuner, though the tuner is quickly becoming the least important part of the modern tele.

Cheers.

Re:Terminology

[zeropointburn]

That would be an altruistic view.
In reality, language shapes and guides thought. If there is no word to express displeasure, rebelliousness or unhappiness, then the population will never realize they experience those things. Instead, only a dull, misunderstood and misperceived dissatisfaction with existence will be present. With the appropriate guidance, this feeling can be transformed into anger and directed at a target in order to motivate and control the population.
To bring this back on point: if there is no word or phrase for copyright infringement but only theft, then copyright infringement becomes the same as theft. Theft is serious and actually hurts someone. Copyright infringement may or may not hurt someone some of the time, but never one or the other all of the time. By it's very nature, copyright is a willful temporary harm on the people for the future benefit of more creative works. Since the 'temporary' clause no longer applies, the balance is shifted and the law must shift in response.

Re:Terminology

[Maxo-Texas]

No.. reading the wiki entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words

It's clearly Newspeak, a key sentence being...

In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional language Newspeak attempts to influence thought by influencing the expressiveness of the English language.

The linked Newspeak entry says the purpose of the language is to make it impossible to express certain concepts..

SO for example, we eliminate "copyright infringment" and combine it with "theft" and only use "theft". So now infringing (a minor crime except in the most extreme cases where someone is selling your work as theirs) can only be expressed as "theft" a more serious crime.

---

On a side note, there is *very* little difference between a library that has purchased a sufficient number of copies and internet p2p. In this case, many people purchase the materia and share it with many more people. In particular, when things go out of print, p2p is a godsend.

Our copyright system which was intended to promote works for the commmon good now results in the suppression of many works for decades. For many of these items, the only place to find them is on P2P.

They can't be purchased for any price, yet it is not judged profitable enough to reprint them.

And of course we have situations like Happy Birthday and A Wonderful Life where something was popularized and then was locked down (and will be for most of my life- despite the fact they were both created long before I was born).

Re:Terminology

[nine-times]

Well, no, I'd disagree there. After all, that's the real battleground here, isn't it?

I suppose it's the battleground, in that some people are specifically trying to tie the two together. There's a specific PR campaign to change terminology so that it will change people's perception.

However, when they began this campaign, they were basically starting from zero. I don't think most people started out thinking of copying files as a crime, but certain powers have really fought to have it labelled as "piracy" and "theft".

Even though they've made some headway, ask most people, "Is downloading a song from the internet the same thing as breaking into someone's house and stealing a CD?" I don't think many people will say "yes" unless they have some sort of political stake in pushing that PR.

Re:Terminology

[NoobixCube]

Ah, I see. I knew the basic concept of 1984, and now you mention it, my English teacher did explain this to me years ago. I'd just forgotten the whole "language as control" thing... Kind of the whole point of Newspeak... It's times like these my sig turns back against it's creator :P

Re:Terminology

[rohan972]

You can steal somebody's else's labor.

If the product of that labor is an idea then it raises different issues than physical items as property. Once you share that idea with me (gratis or for money) it becomes a part of my thought process. Copying is inherent to our existence and viability as a life form. We grow copying DNA. We learn to walk/talk by copying. Skills we acquire are most usually acquired by taking and using ideas from someone else, building on them ourselves on the way. Our entire education system is built on the concept.

So attributing property rights to ideas interferes with people's natural inclinations. It restricts the right to use the contents of your mind for your own purpose. Now I'm fully aware of the advantages of a social contract where we give up that right in return for something we see as more valuable. An increase in public domain works is so far as I can see the only thing worth temporarily giving up the right to copy for.

When a copyright work is produced now, it will not likely to enter the public domain during the lifetime of my children, let alone my lifetime. I don't see the argument that copyright as it currently stands is a valid social contract. It is the abuse of copyright law to act as a way for the rich to set up another perpetual flow of income from the rest of the people to themselves that is the human rights violation.

That said, I also pay for things I could just download or copy because I also believe in the rule of law and I don't think that the best way to fight this abuse is as a defendant in court.

Re:Terminology

[rohan972]

Although I haven't read 1984 yet, isn't Newspeak about eliminating terms with no distinction between them?

Newspeak was primarily for the control of thought and discussion. IIRC they would be unable to articulate the declaration of independence or some other revolutionary document because the concepts necessary would have been eliminated from the language. Reduction of vocabulary through the elimination of words reduces your ability to think.

Found a link http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yxv1LK5gyV4C&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=orwell+1984+declaration+of+independence&source=bl&ots=ol73x86YS7&sig=4e504XEf5pSj4PyPRICYpWH3SgE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

>An infringing copy removes nothing from their possession except the money

In that case, you shouldn't mind creating programs without pay. After all, even if your boss made a copy of it without payment, you still have possession of the original program. Right?

Of course you would object that the program was a product of your labor, and you should be paid for that labor. It's no different for people creating songs instead of programs.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

Theft of labor IS theft. It doesn't matter if the person you're stealing from is a man picking cotton in a field (without payment), or a man writing music notes on paper. People deserve to get paid for their labor.

Re:Terminology

[Xtifr]

A different crime from the legally-defined crime of theft, yes, but the common English word "theft" covers a wide variety of activities, including copyright infringement, some of which aren't even crimes in the first place. For example, lots of people steal from Shakespeare, but that theft is not a crime, nor a form of copyright infringement. It is, however, theft.

I mean, as long as we're picking nits here.... :)

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

(sigh)

I don't know why ye, the slashdotters, have such a difficult time understanding. Most of ye are ALSO writing ephemeral products known as "programs". Ye think it's okay to copy songs, but what if someone copied your programs and spread them via piratebay? How would you survive without that income?

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

That's because the People are the bosses of the government - a fact that many have seemingly forgotten.

Re:Terminology

[nine-times]

the common English word "theft" covers a wide variety of activities, including copyright infringement

Begging the question. I think people are trying to change the English word "theft" to include copyright infringement, even though that's not included in the common connotation nor denotation.

lots of people steal from Shakespeare

That's really a bit of a metaphorical/poetic use. You could also say "that girl stole my heart," but it doesn't mean the girl is literally a thief.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

I envision a future where all music is free, available over the internet, and that music is created by artists owned by plantation masters. (I am just joking, but this is the direction we are heading if people keep insisting music should be free & artists not paid.)

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

If you falsely label my post "troll" I will just keep posting it again & again. My mouth is my mouth, and you do NOT have a right to muzzle me. I am not a slave that you can control.
.

Consider if you had spent a year creating a great program, perhaps something to make web browsing impervious to spybots. Then at the end of the year your employer shows you the door, and never pays you, but instead distributes your program for free over the net.

How would you feel about creating a year-long "work of art" and not getting paid for that program? Well that's how musicians feel. It's called theft of labor.

Re:Terminology

[Arancaytar]

I thought "television" meant "seeing something from afar"?

Re:Terminology

[trewornan]

I don't agree that the 'common English word "theft"' includes copyright infringement but even if it did then it's irrelevant to a court. '

Re:Terminology

[rohan972]

I don't know why ye, the slashdotters, have such a difficult time understanding.

You make the assumption that the people who disagree with you don't understand. That's a big assumption. The possibility that it is you who don't understand is logically possible.

Most of ye are ALSO writing ephemeral products known as "programs". Ye think it's okay to copy songs, but what if someone copied your programs and spread them via piratebay? How would you survive without that income?

Whether something is personally beneficial to me does not determine if it is theft or not, nor if it is right or wrong. Perhaps owning slaves would be beneficial to me, that doesn't mean I support the practice.

I'm in favor of copyright, but I'm convinced that it is rightly viewed as a social contract rather than an inherent right of people to restrict the actions of those with whom they have shared ideas. Copying, as I tried to explain to you, is a fundamental human right, being the basis of our physical existence, learning and progress. A contract has to benefit both parties to be valid. A contract that includes giving up such an important right must confer substantial benefit on the party giving up such right. The entry of the work into the public domain is the intended equivalent benefit. Since a work produced now will for practical purposes never enter the public domain (Most current works will be useless for anything but historical study by the time the copyright expires) and so there cannot be said to be a valid contract by which society agrees to be bound by copyright law. Deliver to us our benefit and validate the contract.

My ability or otherwise to abuse unjust laws for my own profit is not a reasoned argument in favor of unjust laws.

Re:Terminology

[chuckwilson]

Wow. Do synonyms really have the same semantic meaning for you? If that's the case, that's crazy! I'd say it's pretty much accepted that similar words have distinctly different meanings for individuals, based on the context in which they've heard these words, etc.. Like how the same word can have a slightly different meaning for different people.

Re:Terminology

[I_want_information]

Consider if you had spent a year creating a great program, perhaps something to make web browsing impervious to spybots. Then at the end of the year your employer shows you the door, and never pays you, but instead distributes your program for free over the net.

How would you feel about creating a year-long "work of art" and not getting paid for that program? Well that's how musicians feel. It's called theft of labor.

Well, okay, let's grant that your last statement is true (although I disagree that it is theft). The question being debated here is whether the end justifies the means. Apparently you think that any evil end (such as prosecuting people who didn't even own a computer, using questionable investigation firms that aren't licensed for the purpose, insisting that individual persons can be accurately identified by IP addresses) is okay to protect a musician from what you call theft?

Do you really believe that?? Because I am having a difficult time believing that any /.er with two functioning brain cells to rub together can possibly believe such a thing.

Re:Terminology

[Paradise Pete]

Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.

Yeah well, your phone doesn't have a dial on it anymore either, but you can still dial a number.

Re:Terminology

[WNight]

It's a troll if you refuse to consider the other sides and simply post, "but it is theft". Have you considered that your view might be a bit rigid?

Consider if you had spent a year ... employer shows you the door, and never pays you

Then you had a bad contract.

distributes your program for free over the net.

So you're upset that people get to use the program?

Copyright is an attempt to increase the public good, enriching anyone specifically is just the current means to accomplish this. I see a societal good in enforcing copyright against counterfeit publishers who sell what appears to be an authentic copy of the actual official run, thus deceiving consumers. In other words, like a trademark. But I don't see how restricting dispersion of that work/idea helps society.

But I don't see why your music deserves more protection than my catchy phrase, the idea of putting cheese on pizza, Einstein's discoveries, or anything else. We're all a product of our world and nothing was discovered/invented in a vacuum. You can collect your cut when you cough up a cut for the people who invented math, language, modern music, etc.

And the final nail in my respect of copyright's coffin - its ability to be used to control access to the work. The idea that you should be able to withdraw your words from public scrutiny is abhorrent.

I see no reason why your song deserves more respect than someone's paper on a mathematical problem, or is more worthy of taxpayer-subsidized welfare-through-government-monopoly.

Think how Newton's family feels whenever you calculate a derivative without paying them. It's called theft of science!

Re:Terminology

[AtomicJake]

But my copy is now worthless.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

>>>Copying is a fundamental human right, being the basis of our physical existence, learning and progress.

So you don't mind if I take your latest program and copy it, without ever paying you for your effort. Thanks for clarifying your position.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

>>>if a musician records a work of his own accord, and without having entered into any agreement with that musician or deceiving him in any way, I copy his songs, then it's not called "theft of labor".

By that reasoning, slavery pre-1861 did not violate anybody's rights.

I strongly disagree.

I also strongly disagree that your taking a musician's music is fine and dandy. You're taking of his labor, without pay, is no different than the plantation owners taking black labor without pay. It's a violation of *inalienable* rights, regardless of absence of contract.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

Strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy to insert words into my mouth that I never said.

I think RIAA's actions are reprehensible, but I also think the same about people downloading songs without paying the employee who made the music. If you think something is good enough to burn to a CD-R and keep, then you OWE that employee some kind of payment for his labor. Otherwise you're no different from a boss who refuses to pay his workers.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

>>>if a musician records a work of his own accord, and without having entered into any agreement with that musician or deceiving him in any way, I copy his songs, then it's not called "theft of labor".

By that reasoning, slavery pre-1861 did not violate anybody's rights, because no contract existed saying blacks should be paid.

I strongly disagree.

I also strongly disagree that your taking a musician's music is fine and dandy. You're taking of his labor, without pay, is no different than the plantation owners taking black labor without pay. It's a violation of *inalienable* rights, regardless of absence of contract.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

>>>if a musician records a work of his own accord, and without having entered into any agreement with that musician or deceiving him in any way, I copy his songs, then it's not called "theft of labor".

By that reasoning, U.S. slavery pre-1861 did not violate anybody's rights, because no contract existed saying blacks should be paid.

I strongly disagree.

I also strongly disagree that your taking a musician's music is fine and dandy. You're taking of his labor, without pay, is no different than the plantation owners taking black labor without pay. It's a violation of *inalienable* rights, regardless of absence of contract.

Re:Terminology

[commodore64_love]

And the programmers fall silent.

It's funny how people are so happy to steal musicians' work without pay, but when the idea of taking programmers' work without pay arrives, suddenly the crowd falls silent. It's quite easy to imagine a future where programmers get paid, not wages, but royalties on software sold. Therefore every unpaid download is loss of programmer income.

Re:Terminology

[Golddess]

Ah, thank you for clarifying that.

Re:Terminology

[mpeskett]

You misunderstand me, and misquote me.

I'm not making any claim about the ethics of the thing, what the law ought to be or how people should go about the business of making music and being compensated for it, I'm only talking about the terminology of it

Copyright infringement means a different thing from theft. Simple as that. The reason it means a different thing is that theft involves taking something away from someone else illegally whereas copyright infringement is making a copy of a thing that you aren't allowed to. There may be superficial similarities in that both involve obtaining something that you shouldn't, but the effect on the original owner (losing their thing, or not getting payment from you) is a distinction to be made.

There is precisely no reason to conflate the two things, they are separate terms with different meanings and should be used accurately, even if that means the emotional impact of your statement is reduced. So once again, please stop using "theft" and "copyright infringement" interchangeably, because they are NOT interchangeable terms.

Re:Terminology

[Damarkus13]

But in a court of law, in combination with that NDA, it could be worth millions.

Re:Terminology

[Damarkus13]

This is the third time I have read this exact post and I'm tired of it!

if a musician records a work of his own accord , and without having entered into any agreement with that musician or deceiving him in any way, I copy his songs, then it's not called "theft of labor".

Note the emphasis. Slaves did not do work of their own accord. Your silly little analagy is even more inaccurate that a car metaphor.

Second copying a song is not "theft of labor." Theft of labor would be someone hiring you for a job and not paying you (as the post you quoted was trying to point out.) Legally copying a song is unauthorized copying, not theft. Neither is ethical, but there are very distinct differences.

Third, copyright is not an inalienable right. It was initially a temporary monopoly granted to an idea's creator. It has since been perverted by corporations (such as Disney) so that it is granted virtually in perpetuity.

Do you get it yet?

Re:Terminology

[WNight]

Why does the amount of work you put into something matter? Maybe some other guy composes a better song off the cuff. I'd "copy" either that I found catchy, either by singing it to myself or making an MP3. I don't consider either theft because both are just an idea.

Perhaps the first guy to put cheese on pizza was going against the grain, doing something amazing and innovative, but I'd copy him too.

It's a huge jump from voluntary though unpaid labor to forced slavery. Perhaps a bit specious...

Re:Terminology

[nine-times]

That's a hilarious troll. I actually laughed out loud.

Now I think the only question is whether you can find a way to accuse me of supporting Hitler.

Re:Terminology

[I_want_information]

Sorry to have misunderstood you. I am certainly not defending piracy and I do not engage in piracy. It sounded to me as if you were defending the RIAAs actions.

Re:Terminology

[NoobixCube]

With English as it is, I love the multitude of subtly different words. Sick and ill mean slightly different things to me, but since they both refer to some health ailment, they'd be merged if someone trimmed the fat from English. I've always been one for trying to fit exactly the right word for a situation - problem is, people often don't get the meaning I intend, since they don't see the same distinctions I do.

Re:Terminology

[eat here_get gas]

"Legally copying a song is unauthorized copying, not theft."

if you're legally copying a song, then your entire argument is pointless...

Re:Terminology

[Tuoqui]

About bloody time then I'd say.

Re:Terminology

[Tuoqui]

And linking to Slashdot or your blog doesnt already do that?

Re:Terminology

[Aetrus]

Wow, wouldn't it suck to be caught for shoplifing, and then get sued for the copyright infingement...

Re:Terminology

[sbeckstead]

I'm not sure that enjoying the fruits of someone's labor without compensating them is theft, but it is certainly treating them as a slave.

RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Smidge207]

One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court? Can you imagine if I stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11? Do you think the court would even hear a case where they wanted a million for my crime?

This is the new business model of the recording industry, which is exactly like the old model. Overcharge your customers and when that doesn't work, overcharge and extort from your customers to make up for shortfalls you generated because you have a crappy product.

There's only so much "drug money", oops CD purchases, the listening public will bestow on ungrateful addicts, oops recording artists...

(Yes I'm bitter this morning; still need my meth, oops coffee.)

=Smidge=

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Anonymous Coward]

One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court? Can you imagine if I stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11? Do you think the court would even hear a case where they wanted a million for my crime?

"Your Honor, the defendant could have cloned cattle by extracting DNA from the stolen beef jerky..."

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Animaether]

Although I absolutely agree with you on the ludicrous claim of $1M for 7 songs, I do think I should point this out...

'The Slashdot Crowd' is always quick to point out that copyright infringement is -not- stealing. So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.

I don't think this case is about distributing, just downloading, but in the typical cases it is about distributing.. so your analogy would have to be akin to going into a 7-11 store, copying their beef jerky, then distributing that for zilch to anybody who asks you for another copy of the 7-11 beef jerky. 7-11 still have their copy of the beef jerky to sell, so there's no harm done to them directly. Just because nobody's actually buying it anymore because they can get it from you for free doesn't magically make it stealing.

Of course.. you can't copy a beef jerky.. the only way for you to be handing out beef jerky is to acquire it yourself - and I very highly doubt you'd be able to give it away for free with no money exhanged somewhere somehow.

So 7x$2.49 or whatever those songs went for back in the day (this is a Napster case, right?) plus a monetary slap on the wrist, and call it a day. Though if I googled it right, it seems that Tenenbaum tried exactly that ($500) and the RIAA didn't take? *shrug*

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[cbiltcliffe]

(Yes I'm bitter this morning; still need my .... coffee.)

Just don't drink too much of it, or you might start seeing good in the RIAA.....

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Steauengeglase]

CD purchases, the listening public will bestow on ungrateful addicts, oops record execs...

Fixed. The real problems are/were record companies who were addicted to printing their own money and a market that thinks/thought that making 200%+ profit is/was piss poor performance. Fortunately, the recording industry is finally coming around to the notion that lawyers are only good for collecting sort-term, high-gain revenue, not suing grandma for her Dale Jr. poster.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[jellomizer]

The RIAA POV is like you stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11, somehow scanned it with affordable technology then was able to produce millions of tones of beef jerky, and give it to everyone, with the same flavor as the bags you got, heck you even copied and gave away bags that looked identical.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[MozeeToby]

Strictly playing the devil's advocate here, but I propose a thought experiment:

Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot. About 40% of the cost of a new vehicle is materials and labor, with another 10% paying for pensions and whatnot for employees, and about 2.5% profit (so they double their profit). The other 50% is engineering, transportation to the dealer, paying the dealer, etc, etc. So the car company doesn't lose out on anything, except the part that I pay for; in fact, they actually just doubled their profit. I suspect that they'd still be pretty pissed off.

A lot of people on slashdot argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't theft, because you aren't denying the record companies the use of what you are accused of stealing. I understand the difference, the car company is selling a physical product, whereas music is much more intangible. But what happens if, in 100 years, we all have nono-assemblers in our garages? Should it be acceptible for me to download the plans to any car I want without paying for the engineering, advertising, and saftey testing?

Again, I'm not saying that I'm on the record companies side, just posing a little thought experiment. I'm not trying to troll of flamebait, just looking for honest insight. If you feel the need to down-mod me, so be it.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[TheSpoom]

The real problem is that the RIAA don't have a product anymore.

They used to control the means of recording. No longer, since the equipment necessary can be got for much, much cheaper than years ago.

They used to control the means of reproduction, in that they could actually mass produce your tapes / CDs for you. No longer, since stamping a CD is incredibly cheap now.

Just about the only thing they still control is radio, and even then that's being eaten into by the internet and things like Pandora and last.fm, which their lobbyists are desperately trying to kill.

Without a real business model, they're scraping for ways to maintain the position of control they used to have, and litigation is a very good way of doing just that, since most people don't have the means to actually fight them.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Of course.. you can't copy a beef jerky.. the only way for you to be handing out beef jerky is to acquire it yourself - and I very highly doubt you'd be able to give it away for free with no money exhanged somewhere somehow.

If I could download beef jerky from the internet, I would definitely give it away to anyone who asked for some.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[harl]

Because that's what the laws says the punishment is.

Contact your members of Congress. They're the ones who made it a million for 7 songs.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[geobeck]

One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court?

The court is easily amused, and the RIAA use their Dr. Evil voice when they state the amount.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[xouumalperxe]

The Slashdot Crowd' is always quick to point out that copyright infringement is -not- stealing. So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.

"Theft" bears a much larger moral implication in the minds of people than "copyright infringement" does, which is why people here get riled up at the comparison.

Either way, once again I think that it's more or less agreed that copyright infringement isn't quite as bad as outright theft, so it works like so: you assume a bigger crime than was (supposedly) commited, posit that punishment is proportional to crime, and conclude that, if the proposed punishment seems disproportionate for the greater crime, it must follow that it's also disproportionate for the lesser one. (Yes, copyright infringement isn't necessarily a criminal matter, but it simplifies language)

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[TheKidWho]

This is where you are all wrong, it's more like you BOUGHT $6.99 of beef jerky, reverse engineered it and figured out how to make your own and started giving it away for free.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[fishbowl]

>A lot of people on slashdot argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't theft

That's because it isn't. For one thing, "legal and illegal" music downloading are both described by "downloading copyrighted material" so you need to be much more specific. For another thing, copyright protection is aimed at very different goals from laws concerning theft.

Copyright law does a poor job at "punishing people who consume your work without paying you."

What copyright law is good at, is punishing someone who has taken your work, claimed it as his own, and profiting. But in the situation the RIAA finds itself, this is rarely the case.

You might want to argue that copyright law doesn't go far enough, but that's between you and your representatives.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[garett_spencley]

They never controlled reproduction, and to this day it's still WAY cheaper for the Big 5 to print CDs (massive bulk discounts) than the home musician. That's not to say that it's expensive, though. I printed 1,000 copies of my album in '06 and I'm far from rich.

What the big 5 provided was distribution and promotion. THAT's where they're being hit today thanks to the Internet. I did my album as a fun project. A way to get songs that I had written over the last 5 years "out there", just for fun. Not expecting huge gains or anything. I spend absolutely ZERO time and money promoting it and yet I'm still selling copies from people who find me on last.fm or cdbaby etc. Not anywhere near enough to support myself on, but it's awesome that I'm slowly recouping my investment and not having to work at it.

That's the real issue that I take with the RIAA. As someone who has a passive interest in economics, the RIAA's business model is the same fallacy that you see all over the place where people think that they can get something for nothing. Money is credit, credit is debt and debt is the promise of labour. If you don't produce something of value (labour when you come down to it) then people simply aren't willing to give you their labour in exchange for it. It's extremely simple but people are so caught up in our monetary system that they forget this. And thus they buy into the pipe dream that you can collect more labour for something than you put into it. There may be the odd case where people succeed at those schemes but in the long run the exchange of labour has to balance out or you have slavery.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[rootofevil]

of course theyd be pissed off - you just broke their window, jerk!

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[LoyalOpposition]

So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.

He's not. He's contrasting it.

-Loyal

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[schon]

alternately you could use a better damages analogy and say "can you imagine if I stole 7 pieces of jerky, broke it into bits and sold all those bits to several million people at a price of $1.00 per person"

Considering she never *sold* anything, how is that a better analogy?

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Lord Pillage]

What I'm wondering is why no one here has yet suggested that the person buys 7 pieces of beef jerky and then just eats them. I know that's what I'd do.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Animaether]

screw that, I'd keep it and eat it myself! :D

but, see, you can already download beef jerky from the internet - just that you have to pay the $7.99 or whatever that number was for the privilege of downloading it. Just like you had to pay $2.49 for a song (nowadays $0.99 or whatever?) to do so legally. Just because you can now illegally download jerky for free doesn't quite make it 'right'.

( and yes, I know, downloading music is actually legal in some nations - I'm in one of them - but then distributing often still isn't )

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[pipatron]

Should it be acceptible for me to download the plans to any car I want without paying for the engineering, advertising, and saftey testing?

Of course. The cost for advertising is completely pointless and a waste of money, so no one should have to pay for that. It's just necessary if a company have an inferior product that they want to sell for a higher price than what it's worth. The cost for safety testing is pretty much not necessary unless you plan to sell the car and take responsibility for eventual accidents, and the cost for engineering can be zero, as is evident with the huge amount of real quality free (libre) software out there made by software engineers.

In this theoretical world the car company have it much easier than the record companies though - I bet that a lot of people and companies would like to buy a car that is *not* likely to kill them. A car company in this world can manufacture cars for free with your device, but add a high sum for the safety testing and engineering, and the buyer can rest assure that the car is tested by professionals. Hobby users can still download schematics, check it for basic validity, modify it if they want to, and "print" the car at home.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[srleffler]

The money=labour equation, while valuable, misses how investment works. There are two ways to make money: by labour or by taking on risk. If you buy something and resell it elsewhere at a higher price, some of that final price reflects the labour that went into producing the thing and in moving it from the seller to the subsequent buyer. Some of the price reflects the risk you took in the deal. By buying the thing, you took a risk that you would not be able to sell it for more than you paid. The profit you made on the deal compensates you for the risk you took. If there were no risk, someone would be willing to sell the item for less. Someone starting a business invests labour in producing their product, but also takes a risk: they may lose the money they put into starting the business. Outside investors (eg. in the stock market) take some or all of that risk away from the founders of the company. They make money not because they add labour but because they take risk.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Muad'Dave]

..produce millions of tones of beef jerky...

What do beef jerky 'tones' sound like? ~

Probably, "Moo. Moo. Oh No, not the bolt to the head! Not the ... [ THUMP ]."

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Shagg]

I don't think this case is about distributing, just downloading, but in the typical cases it is about distributing..

All of their cases are about distributing.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[commodore64_love]

>>>One million for 7 songs?!

For most people one million is equivalent to a life sentence, because that's how long it takes to earn the money to pay that huge fine. I'd be willing to serve that life sentence, but not until after I handed-out some judgment of my own - namely a life sentence to the RIAA CEO.

Steady.
Aim.
Fire.

What are they going to do? Sentence me to prison? I've already been sentenced to life paying-off that million-dollar fine, so it makes no difference to me. I have nothing to lose.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Shagg]

Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot.

That would be theft, but has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. Your analogy isn't even close.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Shagg]

If you do write a letter to your member of Congress, you'd better include a check that is larger than the one the RIAA gave them in order to get the law set that way in the first place.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[harl]

Welcome to giving corporations the same rights as people.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[garett_spencley]

It ignores investment because the only way that investment can pay off is through labour. The risk taker fronts his labour (since money is the promise of labour) with the expectation that he will be payed back with interest (interest being one of two ways that investment can ever enrich anyone - the other being the collection of collateral). The reality is that thanks to the addition of interest all debt can never be repayed because there isn't enough money in circulation (which is why we view investment as being risk). It's also why we have perpetual inflation.

When you consider that there simply is not enough money in circulation to repay all debt it becomes clear that investment is a scheme to exploit labour. It pays off for some people but it is not viable long term. The only reason that investment banks create the illusion of viability is thanks to the fractional reserve system and the safety net of the central bank (which both lead to perpetual inflation). The reality is that investment banks don't actually risk anything. They create money out of thin air (inflation) when they lend and they seize property when the loans are defaulted on. When the economy goes sour and banks stop lending the central banks cut interest rates, increasing their lending to commercial banks and more people end up in debt. Those people then seek employment/labour to repay it.

This isn't to say that banks never collapse due to poor investment practices. It happened as recently as 2008. It just means that in order for investment to pay off someone, somewhere has to loose.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[east coast]

I'll be sure to go tell this to the likes of Ian MacKaye, Jeff Nelson and Greg Ginn that they have no hope of mass reproduction because the RIAA controls it.

Oh, wait...

The fact is that affordable recording technology has been there for years. No one is stopping anyone from getting studio time or using a home studio. Hell, we can go back the whole way to Buddy Holly and Loretta Lynn if you want to discuss people who did their own self promotion back in their early years. Dischord and SST are prime examples of people with ambition and little money being able to get their works mass produced and out to their fan base.

No, these kinds of excuses simply don't wash with me. There are far too many success stories out there for me to buy into the idea that cheap home recording and the rumored ability to finally (finally!) get your stuff stamped is the reason for the failures of the recording industry as a whole. Sure, it's cheaper and easier so more tunes get pushed to more people but to act like the RIAA had the market on music publication and sales cornered simply isn't true and any serious music collector (and I'm not talking about a bunch of files on a hard drive) knows that the indy market has been alive and well for decades and they offer high quality wares just like anyone else.

The only time the RIAA has gotten away with "ripping bands off" is when the bands were unwilling to do for themselves. The means have been open to anyone who wanted to play the game, some just took the easy way out and it's fostered a whole generation of cry babies like Trent Reznor who thumbs his nose at his old label after they worked to make him rich and promote him to the point where he had his own market, crying that they took advantage of him. By the time Trend, er, I mean Trent got around to doing his music the trail had already been blazed by early industrial artists who did it on their own terms without a need for the RIAA.

As long as you had some ambition and a bit of talent there has always been a way to capitalize on it. The RIAA hasn't stopped anyone.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[CodeBuster]

in order for investment to pay off someone, somewhere has to loose.

Not necessarily. If the growth in the money supply (inflation) is balanced by growth in the quantity of goods and services produced in the economy per person (i.e. economic growth) then everyone enjoys the benefits of more goods and services while being compensated for both their labor or their risk. The reason for fractional reserve banking is to encourage more rapid economic growth through extension of timely credit (since availability of money and the ability to start new projects or produce new goods and services do not always coincide). The current world monetary system has its flaws to be sure and I myself have been a frequent critic of those flaws over the years on here on Slashdot, but it is better than the alternatives which generally include a relatively fixed quantity of hard money leading to frequent liquidity problems (people want to work and produce things now, but they have to wait until enough money enters into circulation to either save or get a loan) or more bartering of goods and services which, as history shows, can be inefficient (hence the reason for money in the first place).

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Thaelon]

One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court? Can you imagine if I stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11? Do you think the court would even hear a case where they wanted a million for my crime?

Except it's not even that bad!

It's more like your friend bought a magazine from 7-11, and took it home, scanned it into his computer and sent you the pictures. 7-11 was never actually deprived of any assets.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Erie Ed]

I'll be sure to go tell this to the likes of Ian MacKaye, Jeff Nelson and Greg Ginn that they have no hope of mass reproduction because the RIAA controls it. Oh, wait... The fact is that affordable recording technology has been there for years. No one is stopping anyone from getting studio time or using a home studio. Hell, we can go back the whole way to Buddy Holly and Loretta Lynn if you want to discuss people who did their own self promotion back in their early years. Dischord and SST are prime examples of people with ambition and little money being able to get their works mass produced and out to their fan base. No, these kinds of excuses simply don't wash with me. There are far too many success stories out there for me to buy into the idea that cheap home recording and the rumored ability to finally (finally!) get your stuff stamped is the reason for the failures of the recording industry as a whole. Sure, it's cheaper and easier so more tunes get pushed to more people but to act like the RIAA had the market on music publication and sales cornered simply isn't true and any serious music collector (and I'm not talking about a bunch of files on a hard drive) knows that the indy market has been alive and well for decades and they offer high quality wares just like anyone else. The only time the RIAA has gotten away with "ripping bands off" is when the bands were unwilling to do for themselves. The means have been open to anyone who wanted to play the game, some just took the easy way out and it's fostered a whole generation of cry babies like Trent Reznor who thumbs his nose at his old label after they worked to make him rich and promote him to the point where he had his own market, crying that they took advantage of him. By the time Trend, er, I mean Trent got around to doing his music the trail had already been blazed by early industrial artists who did it on their own terms without a need for the RIAA. As long as you had some ambition and a bit of talent there has always been a way to capitalize on it. The RIAA hasn't stopped anyone.

I fully agree with this. I support bands who put the time and effort into their music, who actually care about their music. I can honestly say %90 of the music I listen to is put out by indie lables. People don't want to pay for a cd that is garbage. Not to mention I don't see why bands that make millions of dollars whine each year about people downloading their songs. I agree that the money they make should come from tours, and merch that they sell (of course if you've heard of 25 ta life/rick ta life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_ta_Life then you know that merch can be pirated).

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[cptdondo]

The risk thing.... That might have been true 20 - 30 years ago when agents actually scoured the bars to find talent. These days you are more than likely to have manufactured pop divas and even entire groups. All cut from the same mold, great looks, skimpy clothes, lots of scandal, mediocre talent and singing ability, and music that's written for them and over produced and corrected in the studio.

Does anyone really think that Janis Joplin would make it today?

The music business these days is all about "creating a product", not about making music. They reduce their risk by creating a star. Hannah Montana is a classic example of this. Nothing to do with music; it's all about avarice.

So they can go choke. They produce nothing of lasting value; their business model is exploitation and greed. The music put out by the major labels mostly sucks - it's so devoid of any real emotions that I can't stand it. Give me Root Boy Slim, Janis Joplin, Cake, Miranda Louise.... Heck the music industry won't even sell Root Boy anymore, eventhough vinyl albums are going for $100+ on ebay....

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[CaptCovert]

'coffee' not koolaid.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[KingAlanI]

Sheesh, if food could be BitTorrented, and you can live for free somewhere, then you don't have to pay for anything. :P

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[calmofthestorm]

Tube connection. Unless you can download that too, in which case all you need is a bit of cash to bootstrap,

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[cp.tar]

I do wish more people would actually do something useful when they get to the point where they have nothing to lose.

Recently, one man was pronounced dead because a man with an identical name had died. When he wanted to rectify that error, he was told "get out, you're dead" by an official. I know that in that situation I'd go on a killing spree, starting with that official. After all, I'd be dead; you cannot try a dead man.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[rohan972]

Just because you can now illegally download jerky for free doesn't quite make it 'right'.

I disagree. If you were capable of distributing food to everyone at zero or near zero cost and effort, it would be pretty hard to make a case that you were doing the wrong thing. You would have the good that many people desire of a social safety net without the problem of taxing productive people to pay for unproductive. The collapse of the beef jerky market is irrelevant. Find something else to do, we're not going to give up abundant free food to protect your business.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[east coast]

I don't see why bands that make millions of dollars whine each year about people downloading their songs

Ok, here's where I'm starting to have a problem. How is it that Slashdotters rave on that artists tied to RIAA labels make between 5 and 10 cents on an album sale yet, here we are again, talking about artists who supposedly make millions. These two things can not logically exist except for such a small slice of artists, most of which no longer produce. At 10 cents a pop I could probably count the number of artists who could actually break the million dollar barrier without getting into the double digits.

I agree that the money they make should come from tours, and merch that they sell

Actually, I disagree and I hope nothing in my post makes it seem otherwise. If you're listening to a song the artist deserves some kickback. This idea that they should roll over like a dog to make cash is nonsense. Should an author come over your house and read you his book to make money? Should a painter have to paint your portrait to make money from his art?

Now, I'm not saying that every single note an artist makes should be sold to the highest bidder for 50 years after the artist is dead. But to think that an artist should fork out the money and time to record, release and hope to make some money touring is absurd. Under no circumstances is it Ok in my mind to pass around the wares of an artist thinking that they make enough money on tour. If a buck a song is outrageous to you than don't but it. If it's really not worth a dollar a song than the artist will take the hint and lower the price as much as possible.

I know if I were an artist and I couldn't sell my product I wouldn't bother touring. How can I afford to spend more on touring costs when I can't even break even in the cheap world of home recording?

And what about the artist who's music doesn't lend itself to touring. Some great musicians simply can't reproduce their sound on stage. It would be like they getting on stage and playing their CD. It doesn't mean that they don't have talent, it means that they create in a different way, a way that is allowing more artists to come to the table with offerings. It's worth supporting. Trust me.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[lawpoop]

I've frequently argued that currency is like a big, distributed accounting ledger for the society. Imagine we recorded all our transactions on rocks like those mythical islanders do. Only, instead of rocks, we used big accounting books, which had records of *all* economic activity. Now imagine we cut those ledger entries up and divvied them around to peopled. That's ideally what currency should be -- an accurate accounting of the real economy.

Send me a copy

[jep77]

I was wondering if someone could send me a recorded copy of the stream since I won't be able to watch it live.

Re:Send me a copy

[eth1]

I was wondering if someone could send me a recorded copy of the stream since I won't be able to watch it live.

You're modded funny, but if they were to use BitTorrent to distribute the recorded proceedings after the fact it would provide an example of an unambiguously legitimate use for such things that judges would be able to identify with. :)

Re:Send me a copy

[Geminii]

You'll be able to download a copy from the RIAA for 99 cents...

Re:Send me a copy

[gknoy]

Thank you for beating me to it, with a more-insightful message to boot.

If this were available on a DVD, I'd order it. If it were on a torrent, I'd download it (assuming I knew about it). I doubt I will be able to watch this live, so being able to timeshift it would be very nice.

Re:Send me a copy

[calmofthestorm]

Just tube it off bittorrent, I'm sure someone will put it up. After all, it'll be in the public domain!

Re:Send me a copy

[jep77]

Your sig makes me laugh, considering the thread.

Re:Send me a copy

[I_want_information]

You'll be able to download a copy from the RIAA for 99 cents...

Except that everybody would rather download it from iTunes for 99 cents, thus screwing RIAA out of... whatever. Still, they'd get screwed out of something.

Not on BitTorrent...

[ThisIsAnonymous]

In related news, the RIAA asked that the hearing not be made available over BitTorrent...since, well, BitTorrent is evil, no matter what it is being used for...

Re:Not on BitTorrent...

[Hordeking]

In related news, the RIAA asked that the hearing not be made available over BitTorrent...since, well, BitTorrent is evil, no matter what it is being used for...

Since you can use it to download both Linux AND cracked versions of Windows, Microsoft also concurs!

I thought the revolution...

[AKAImBatman]

...was not going to be televised? So much for common wisdom. :-P

Re:I thought the revolution...

[Bathroom Samurai]

Damn it. I came here to say this.

Re:I thought the revolution...

[Anonymous Coward]

The revolution will not be televised. This will be televised. Ergo, this is not the revolution.

Capisce?

Well...

[Darundal]

...they bought the rope, measured the proper length of it, cut it, tied it to a tree, formed one end into a noose, gingerly placed their grinning heads in the noose and tightened it, and now we get to see the looks on their faces when someone who saw their preceding actions takes the logical steps and kicks the stool out from under them.

Re:Well...

[Aladrin]

It's not so much 'kicking the stool' as it is 'refusing to hold them up while they teeter on it'. Nobody has to do -anything- for them to hang themselves... They just have to refuse to get them out of their own mess.

Re:Well...

[city]

... and I don't even have to put on clothes or leave my parent's basement to watch it!

Re:Well...

[I_want_information]

... and I don't even have to put on clothes or leave my parent's basement to watch it!

And still not meet hot chicks. Yeah, that's an improvement.

Can I find it...

[internerdj]

on bittorrent?

Re:Can I find it...

[skyride]

Well as long as its nobody downloads using that particular client, we should be all good. :)

Pray for success

[troll8901]

Just read the last page of the PDF document.

Let's all pray that the recording and subsequent broadcastings will be a success.

Re:Pray for success

[sl0ppy]

Just read the last page of the PDF document.

the signature? what font is that in?

Re:Pray for success

[gEvil (beta)]

the signature? what font is that in?

That would appear to be Bitstream's English 111 Vivace.

Not all of it... yet

[Xelios]

The current order is only for the hearing on Jan 22, as NYCL pointed out, which only involves the legal arguments for motions entered by the Defendant's counsel. Further coverage of the rest of the case will be decided then. The judge made a lot of sense in her opinion though, I especially liked this bit:

"Public" today has a new resonance, especially in this case. The claims and issues at stake involve the internet, file-sharing practices, and digital copyright protections. The Defendants are primarily members of a generation that has grown up with the internet, who get their news from it, rather than from the traditional forms of public communication, such as newspapers or television. Indeed, these cases have generated widespread public attention, much of it on the internet. Under the circumstances, the particular relief requested -- "narrowcasting" this proceeding to a public website -- is uniquely appropriate.

Nice to see judges are starting to catch up to this generation.

Re:Not all of it... yet

[earlymon]

By the judge's logic, bloggers that were the scourge of the Bush admin, derated because of their medium, might now be classified as mainstream news broadcasters.

Re:Not all of it... yet

[Aladrin]

In the same way that CDs are now classed as 8-track tapes, yes. They serve the same purpose, but they are completely different animals.

The judge's logic is correct: Many people today get their news from the internet, instead of the TV or radio. So this should be allowed to be televised via the same mediums.

Re:Not all of it... yet

[earlymon]

Just to be clear - I was NOT faulting the judge's logic; quite the contrary.

One problem...

[Kabuthunk]

The problem is, if the RIAA wins by some convoluted twist of the law (of which they've gotten quite good at twisting by this point), no amount of losses will be able to wipe the smug look from their faces after winning the case on live TV. At which point, the industry is doomed.

Never think that the RIAA is doomed. They always come back.

Re:One problem...

[denis-The-menace]

If the RIAA wins, our culture will stagnate and be forever held hostage by profiteering bribers.

The new culture will come from "free-er" China, etc where no RIAA equivalent exists, yet.

Re:One problem...

[Opportunist]

Well, should they win, the "jury" box failed. Time for the next one.

Re:One problem...

[sbeckstead]

Yes the RIAA is the cockroach of professional associations. Or perhaps that's giving them too much cred.

Re:One problem...

[erroneus]

If they win, they will lose. If they lose, they will lose.

Most people just think that big media is a bunch of greedy assholes. Putting them out in the public serves to prove that big media is a bunch of greedy assholes.

And as to what I mean by "if they win, they will lose" I mean to say that seeing the RIAA win in a big case like that, people will know to steer clear of anything associated with the RIAA. An effective majority tapes, records or shares music once in a while. The practice is quite literally a part of our daily lives. If the public sees someone lose their lives through a lawsuit, you can bet it will not cause people to rush out and legitimize their collection by buying more stuff. No, they will look to alternatives. They lose.

And if they lose, they will lose. The results may not be as dramatic as if they were to win, but at least it gives further data for study and reference when building a defence for the next case they bring.

Re:One problem...

[Kabuthunk]

And as to what I mean by "if they win, they will lose" I mean to say that seeing the RIAA win in a big case like that, people will know to steer clear of anything associated with the RIAA. An effective majority tapes, records or shares music once in a while. The practice is quite literally a part of our daily lives. If the public sees someone lose their lives through a lawsuit, you can bet it will not cause people to rush out and legitimize their collection by buying more stuff. No, they will look to alternatives. They lose.

I wish I could believe that, but unfortunately I have absolutely no hope or belief that the top-40 will ever stop selling and being the top-40 to the vast, vast majority of people.

Dear god, please let me be proven wrong.

Re:One problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

But there are a 2 problems with this:

1) Nowhere near the amount of people affected by it will see this, because it isn't on a TV.
2) Most people don't care.
Sadly, people are heartless bastards and will just go "damn, that sucks, evil bastards", then forget all about it within a month, unless reminded by it.

If it was shown live on TV, then it might matter, but sadly it probably won't be...
Maybe it should be on TV because then most of the ignorant world will actually see the bullshit that companies like this get up to - and get away with - each and every year.

Re:One problem...

[CyberLord Seven]

I have proof that you are correct. I watched the first few minutes of American Idol earlier this week just to see what the fuss was all about. I was amazed to see so much poor talent (very superior to my own, but still poor) on display. Yet this show is one of the highest rated in U. S. television.

If this is where the future recording artists are going to cum from I am happy I grew up in the sixties and seventies when we had real music.

P. S. Please ask, no beg, them to stop re-making the music of my youth! It HURTS everytime I have to hear that shit! Maybe it sounds good coming through those tiny iPod ear-buds, but I am used to hearing real music from real speakers. Speakers that cost more than the iPod these kids are listening to.

When did we move from High-Fidelity (HiFi) to iPod?

Re:One problem...

[garett_spencley]

"When did we move from High-Fidelity (HiFi) to iPod?"

Apparently on October 23, 2001

Re:One problem...

[supernova_hq]

If this is where the future recording artists are going to cum from I am happy

Remind me never to look at your browser history...

Re:One problem...

[commodore64_love]

>>>If this is where the future recording artists are going to cum from

Actually most of the American Idols do NOT succeed in the Top 40 radio. Kelly Clarkson has had several hits which landed in the Billboard Top 100 for 2004, 2005, 2006, et cetera, but none of the others "idols" have made it. The television show is a lot of hype which scores big on television, but for some reason that popularity fails to translate to radio or sales.

I too watched AI, and the bad talent is what makes the show worthwhile. It's fun to laugh at people who delude themselves into believing they can sing.

Re:One problem...

[commodore64_love]

No the history goes back to the 1980s-era Sony Walkman, which demonstrated people were more interested in portability than sound quality. Later people learned they could download lossy-compressed music and put it on devices like "MPman" around 1998-99. Because these devices only stores 0.032 gigabytes of RAM, the music had to be heavily compressed, which made sound quality plummet even more.

The good news is that, as internet speeds increase, more and more people are wanting lossless music which preserves the "high fidelity" of the old CD while only taking 1/3rd as much space.

Re:One problem...

[CyberLord Seven]

I too watched AI, and the bad talent is what makes the show worthwhile. It's fun to laugh at people who delude themselves into believing they can sing.

you have somewhat confirmed my suspicions. After watching the first few minutes I was hoping that was the real reason people watched, but the fact that so many people pay to vote for their favorite made me doubt my own reasoning.

Re:One problem...

[JDHawg]

Kelly Clarkson has had several hits which landed in the Billboard Top 100 for 2004, 2005, 2006, et cetera, but none of the others "idols" have made it.

Wow, someone had better tell Kellie Pickler and Carrie Underwood that they haven't "made it" yet. Hmmm... I'll bet they think having #1 songs and headlining tours actually means something.

Re:One problem...

[rohan972]

Well, should they win, the "jury" box failed. Time for the next one.

If the juries decisions weren't being acted on it would be time for the ammo box. Juries giving bad decisions is a problem that needs a whole different solution. Armed revolution doesn't seem likely to work if you don't have the support of most of the population. If you consistently can't get the decisions you want from jurors then it would seem unlikely that you have enough support in the population to win your cause through revolution.

Re:One problem...

[commodore64_love]

Well first off, we were not discussing "making it". We were discussing Top40 Radio (see the great-grandparent post).

Top 40 radio is closely tied to the Billboard charts. That said, neither Carrie Underwood nor Kellie Pickler landed even one song in the Hot 100 for 2007 or 2008. Just like I previously stated.

Re:One problem...

[Opportunist]

That only applies as long as the decisions of a court are in sync with the wishes of the people. Ask anyone in former communist countries if that is the case. In the GDR, a lot people were imprisoned for "attempted republic escape". I doubt this was in sync with the wishes of most of the people living there.

Proof: The GDR doesn't exist anymore.

Re:One problem...

[rohan972]

That only applies as long as the decisions of a court are in sync with the wishes of the people.

Not with the jury system of juries being made up of the general public. If you have enough public support for your cause to win a civil war then you will on average have several people on the jury who support that cause and you can determine the outcome of any election, negating the need for the civil war.

I fully support the right to bear arms but right now a civil war would have far worse effect on the US than current copyright law. If they start having special forces hit squads doing summary executions of downloaders I'll change my mind on that, but court decisions you don't like in a system where you can be judged by a jury of your peers? Get real.

Re:One problem...

[WNight]

civil war would have far worse effect on the US than current copyright law

Civil war? The shooting of RIAA (or other SLAPP-happy) execs? You must think they've got a lot more power than they have.

special forces hit squads doing summary executions of downloaders

Hit squads doing life-destroying missions, simply sans the murder. Do you think a 1-million dollar judgment, even if the cost and stress of the trial before it, aren't going to ruin the life of someone who at worst is a shoplifter?

It's not the rightness of the issue, or if the jury will ultimately deliver a just verdict, but the fact that the trial is intended to destroy the life of the defendant, regardless of outcome. Where the outcome would be undesirable it will be delayed at the lifespan of a corporation, not its human victim.

Considering people have been driven to suicide by SLAPP suits, RIAA attacks, harassment by the CoS, etc, I wouldn't lose much sleep if someone went the other way in response to the fanatical attacks.

Re:One problem...

[Opportunist]

"Jury of peers"? You're kidding me now, right? You really think that 12 randomly (or not so randomly, we'll get to that) selected people care more about the whole thing than they did at election day? Usually it's also more like "12 people who couldn't think fast enough of a good excuse to weasel out of it, who don't know jack about it or they'd be most likely be rejected by either side and thus most likely don't care and just want to get over with it as fast as possible".

So you have 12 people sitting there, 11 of which (at least) don't care about the case, do have to rely on the BS presented to them by the lawyers, and usually rely on "suggestions" by the judge (and trust me, no matter how "impartial" the judge is supposed to be, subtle hints do get picked up by the jury members).

Nonono, you got it wrong

[Opportunist]

Of course the RIAA wants the public to hear about this case to deter anyone downloading their stuff.

But they want people to hear it from them. Not directly from the court proceedings. Any idiot knows that your statements are only half as powerful if the other side can retort. And few people are interested in hearling both sides of the story, unless it is hassle free do hear it, they're perfectly happy when they just hear one side telling them "the truth". Do you have an idea how incredibly harder it gets to spin something when the other side can call you bluff and show that you're lying through your teeth?

Re:Nonono, you got it wrong

[geobeck]

Any idiot knows that your statements are only half as powerful if the other side can retort.

So the RIAA will hire someone to stand near the camera microphone during the hearing and sing "LA LA LA LA!" whenever someone else is speaking; problem solved.

Of course, then they'll have to sue their opposition obfuscator for an unauthorized narrowcast performance "Brown Eyed Girl".

Re:Nonono, you got it wrong

[Eil]

This case is the perfect example what happens when your predatory business model is threatened to be exposed.

The record companies want to deter people from sharing music, so they make all this fuss about how illegal it is, and how you'll go to jail if you download music for free off the Internet, all the while literally lying to consumers about how copyright really works.

But since they're the ones selling the music, they don't want to look like the bad guys. They want you to be afraid of the police and the court system, not them. That's why they hide behind the RIAA moniker. But the court documents, I've noticed, usually refer to the record companies by name instead of that of their trade association. and they know they'll come out looking really evil to the public and press when the caption on the video stream says, "Sony BMG suing random guy for $1 million over 7 songs".

They only reason that they haven't been heavily penalized yet for all this frivolous litigation is that it hasn't yet caught widespread public attention. And as long as there isn't much of that, they'll keep on doing it.

Re:Nonono, you got it wrong

[Hordeking]

It helps when both sides are present at the same time. Otherwise both will claim their version is the truth and leave you to sort out the bodies.

Re:Nonono, you got it wrong

[Opportunist]

So the RIAA will hire someone to stand near the camera microphone during the hearing and sing "LA LA LA LA!" whenever someone else is speaking

Oh, I'll sue! I have the copyright for that song!

Re:Nonono, you got it wrong

[Opportunist]

Actually they got away with it because they didn't have to actually ride it through a courtroom most of the time. Most people back down easily when offered the choice between taking on a corporation with more money than dear $deity himself to pour into the suit and draw it out 'til hell freezes over (or you go bankrupt, which is usually happening sooner), and if you lose you get to pay a bazillion or more, or the alternative of pleading guilty and paying them some thousand bucks.

Out of court settlement sounds nicer than extortion, but in this case, that's basically what it is.

The fools!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

All they had to do was keep quiet. Then after the trial was televised, they could sue everyone who carried the story and everyone who downloaded (watched) it!

It would have as much merit as their other suits; how could they possibly lose?

Re:The fools!

[Opportunist]

Somehow I doubt that the courts (who would, if anyone, be the legal owner of the copyright) are members of the RIAA. Talk about conflicting interests...

Re:Televised in the INTERNET

[sholsinger]

I might remove my routers' DNS override of thepiratebay and other torrent sites just to download it! ;p

(I'm not about to let my wife get me litigated because she can't resist downloading Sneakers ISOs. True story: She got a cease and desist letter from the cable company for downloading the Sneakers ISO. How ironic.)

Now we'll see if the rumors are true!

[thered2001]

I once heard that vampires don't show up on camera. Now we'll know one way or another!

Justice

[mlwmohawk]

Having read the order, I get the sense that the Judge really really understands what is going on and is not going to let them weasel out of their own lies.

The Judge is going to take their claims perfectly literally with no prejudice. They say that they want public knowledge of the suits, thus, she finds it "curious" that they don't want it televised. So, she takes them at their word (wanting public knowledge of the law suits) and "helps" them do what they say they claim to want to do.

Unlike judges before her, she knows they are lying. They know they are lying. Nesson knows they are lying. The case is a blackmail scam and everyone involved knows it, this time, even the judge.

They are stuck because these are counter claims, and while I'm not a lawyer, even if BMG/Sony drop the suit, I believe the counter claims live on. So, they can't drop it. They have to fight a Harvard Law Professor and his students, and it will all be public for display.

I'm going to buy some popcorn and watch.

Re:Justice

[Dan667]

Man this trial is going to be good. At least as entertaining as when there was an ice storm in Texas and I got a cooler full of beer, went down to the corner, and watched people try to get off the freeway off ramp.

Re:Justice

[hansamurai]

This is giving me goosebumps.

Re:Justice

[greg_barton]

So, she takes them at their word (wanting public knowledge of the law suits) and "helps" them do what they say they claim to want to do.

Aikido in action. :)

Re:Justice

[mlwmohawk]

It won;t escalate like most of us would like. When it's looking like things will go bad, they'll "settle" and not allow it to follow through making a precedent.

In a counter claim, the defendant has to "agree" to settle, and I don't think Nesson and his students are looking to do that.

Re:Justice

[PMuse]

I'm going to buy some popcorn and watch.

Watch for the judge to be extra courteous and helpful to whomever she is about to drop the HAMMER on.

(It helps to show the appeals court that every chance was given to a litigant and that there was still no alternative but to rule against them.)

Re:Justice

[jimicus]

Unlike judges before her, she knows they are lying. They know they are lying. Nesson knows they are lying. The case is a blackmail scam and everyone involved knows it, this time, even the judge.

Unless she's a pisspoor judge, she won't have any definite opinion on the matter in hand - or if she does, she'll keep it very much to herself.

She may, on the other hand, want to make absolutely certain that every "i" is dotted and every "t" crossed. Which I would think is a very good quality in a judge.

Re:Justice

[Arancaytar]

Depends on the terms of the settlement. "Bankrupt the fuckers" is a nice concept, but in practice a good lawyer (and it seems he's got the best) will probably advise him to accept a sufficiently good settlement offer.

And depending on how much the RIAA stands to lose from a verdict, their eventual settlement offer may become quite sweet.

Looks like a game of chicken.

Re:Justice

[mlwmohawk]

Looks like a game of chicken.

Perhaps, but in a fair court, the defendant has a whole lot less to lose.

DISCLAIMER:

[hendrix2k]

"Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this hearing without the express written consent of the Recording Industry Association of America is prohibited and will be subjected to a fine of no less than $1 million per infraction."

Really worried about "therevolution"

[Mathinker]

I think they are worried that a grass-roots campaign against using unreasonable statutory damages against the (non-commercial) "everyman" will be more effective than all the money they've invested / are investing in Congressional lobbying.

Of course, they are lucky that the defendent isn't a famous retired football player!

Re:Really worried about "therevolution"

[calmofthestorm]

As much as I support opposing the MAFIAA's lawsuits, I have to admit. If we beat them here, what will they try next? Will it be worse? They might put the time and money they were putting into lawsuits into censoring the internet instead of merely looking at it as a side project.

Could it be that

[O Blimey]

they have really ugly lawyers?

Re:Could it be that

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

they have really ugly lawyers?

No. Like most aliens who walk among us impersonating humans, they have modified their appearance.

Re:Could it be that

[rts008]

Okay, wise guy...I think I just swallowed my false teeth guffawing.

Now, are you gonna take my case against yourself, or what?!?!?

I do admire your ability to separate work from play, but at the same time being able to get your viewpoint across without compromising your clients, cases, or career in the whole process of upholding a cause by effective* means. Kudos, sir!

BTW, thanks for all your contributions here on /., and more importantly for your 'real world' efforts in court.

There is a reason I added you to my friends list...keep up the good fight. (your website is the only one I disable Adblock+, and NoScript extensions in Firefox 100%, as I also donate any income tax refunds to the EFF-I believe in the cause and am not afraid to support it)

*Slow, to be sure, but is not dramatic change being slow a good thing most times? (that can be small consolation to current 'victims', but long-term objectives are a consideration also-tough balancing act sometimes, but achievable if enough interested parties can arrive at a solution-another difficult hurdle)

My PoliSci professor summed up the best: "Politics is the art of the Possible."

Re:Could it be that

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Okay, wise guy...I think I just swallowed my false teeth guffawing.

Well being modded "Funny" is, for me, a rarity, so I feel good about that. Except of course about the teeth.

Now, are you gonna take my case against yourself, or what?!?!?

You'd lose.

I do admire your ability to separate work from play

Haven't been good at that lately, every since I got into this war with the RIAA. My idea of play lately has been to hang out on Slashdot, which is not so different than what I do for a living -- i.e. argue, defend myself from abuse, try to make it clear what the law is, etc.

but at the same time being able to get your viewpoint across without compromising your clients, cases, or career in the whole process of upholding a cause by effective* means.

See, my play is a lot like my work.

Kudos, sir! BTW, thanks for all your contributions here on /., and more importantly for your 'real world' efforts in court. There is a reason I added you to my friends list...keep up the good fight. (your website is the only one I disable Adblock+, and NoScript extensions in Firefox 100%

Thanks

as I also donate any income tax refunds to the EFF-I believe in the cause and am not afraid to support it)

They are a wonderful organization. The only thing I have against them is that they got me into this mess.

PS Red Orbit looks neat.

Last.FM - Stay Away

[hax0r_this]

While I generally agree with your post, its worth pointing out that CBS actually bought Last.FM. And haven't shut it down yet. Makes you wonder what they want out of the deal. Maybe its all that personal information they're collecting.

One way or another, I won't let Last.FM anywhere near my computer.

An Open Letter

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Dear sbeckstead,

I represent the ACAL (American Cockroach Advocacy League). Please take this as notice that you have been served with a lawsuit for ONE BILLION DOLLARS (please visualize me holding my pinky to my mouth), for defamation of character.

The ACAL resents any comparison of the RIAA to cockroaches, as it is insulting to cockroaches. See you in court.

Sincerely,

H.M. Dewey, for
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, Attys at Law.

Re:"verbing"

[eleuthero]

. and this is why I should not be so quick to press submit after hitting preview . but hey, if i effectively. communicated, I guess. it doesn't matter. where i put the period

They _wouldn't_ "abolish the Constitution"????

[Mathinker]

Seriously, if they thought that abolishing the Constitution would bring more money into their and their customers' (the record labels') pockets, you don't think they'd do it? Given how they behave now?

Re:"verbing"

[aynoknman]

. and this is why I should not be so quick to press submit after hitting preview . but hey, if i effectively. communicated, I guess. it doesn't matter. where i put the period

Correct punctuation increases the redundancy and reduces the effort needed to process (read) the information. Incorrect punctuation forces the reader to process word by word rather than chunking the text. This reduces the effectiveness of your communication.

The RIAA is your friend.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because the RIAA is a noble and beautiful organization that spends all of its time and resources doing good for the world. I don't know why so many people are anti RIAA when the RIAA is clearly the foremost steward of bringing world peace, ending hunger, bolstering the rights of individuals, and helping music artists to make their dreams come true. The RIAA is totally, completely, and in all other ways good. It is a perfect organization. There is no bad in the RIAA.

Re:I can't wait to download the video...

[ardle]

According to the ruling:

The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will act as a subscriber to the CVN narrowcast and will make the recording publicly available for all non-commercial uses via its website

So we don't need to torrent it. Yet.
And it seems that they care what happens to recordings.

Eats, shoots and leaves

[cheros]

Time to roll out that classic sentence..

timing

[Luke_22]

it will be televised on the 22, 14.00 ( Massachusetts time )
this is the list for the other timezones for those of you who want to see it :P

Re:So what happens....

[edsousa]

IANAL and IANAmerican, but this wouldn't be a case where the work is made by the federal government and is considered public domain?

For maximum irony...

[Xenographic]

> You're modded funny, but if they were to use BitTorrent to distribute the recorded proceedings after the fact it would provide an example of an unambiguously legitimate use for such things that judges would be able to identify with. :)

You're thinking too small. For the love of all that is holy, someone just has to put a torrent of this video on The Pirate Bay.

And be sure to document all hash fails you see so we can establish whether they're trying to poison it... :]

So, the revolution...

[BronsCon]

will be televised?

Reverse Haa haa!

[SpaceLifeForm]

RIAA appeals ruling.

My Karma Boomerang is out to get me!

[rts008]

*pictures Steven Segal in judicial robes, glaring ominously at RIAA lawyers, who are trembling as steaming wet urine soaks their trouser legs*

Judge: "My Judicial-fu is better than you!" *audio=out of sync dubbing, complete with bad Chinese accent, with much finger pointing and posturing*

RIAA Lawyer: "We're taking our marbles and going home, you bully!" *all throwing briefcases at the bailiffs for a diversion as they make their escape*

*Disclaimer: Yes, I know that Aikido is Japanese, and *-fu is Chinese...I'm just sharing the mental image that popped into my head when I read your comment! :-)
(I hold high rank belts in Aikido, Kendo, and Kenjitsu; medium [to low] rank belts in Judo and Jujitsu-I do know the difference {even though I'm only gaijin})

Thanks for the mental video...it was highly entertaining, and I actually giggled out loud!

On a less humorous note, you are entirely correct.

What a terrible straw man.

[Valdrax]

However, when they began this campaign, they were basically starting from zero. I don't think most people started out thinking of copying files as a crime, but certain powers have really fought to have it labelled as "piracy" and "theft".

Not really. The software industry had laid the groundwork for that for years. "Don't copy that floppy," anybody?

Even though they've made some headway, ask most people, "Is downloading a song from the internet the same thing as breaking into someone's house and stealing a CD?" I don't think many people will say "yes" unless they have some sort of political stake in pushing that PR.

Of course not! That's not even close to the analogy that any sane person would think of.

The analogy that the RIAA wants you to think of is shoplifting, not B&E and burglary -- stealing from the store, not stealing from another buyer! Gah, what a terrible straw man. That's not even close to what the RIAA is pushing for because it makes no damned sense.

Good Lord, where did you get that idea from?

Re:What a terrible straw man.

[nine-times]

The analogy that the RIAA wants you to think of is shoplifting, not B&E and burglary -- stealing from the store, not stealing from another buyer

What the hell do you think the difference is? Do you think that stealing from a person is much worse than stealing from a store? In both of those cases, it's theft, whereas copyright infringement is not theft.

I don't think you know what a "straw man" is.

Re:What a terrible straw man.

[Valdrax]

Do you think that stealing from a person is much worse than stealing from a store?

Well, you could make that argument from multiple angles, but again you're dealing with straw men.

The problem is not the relative moral culpability of the acts so much as the accuracy of the analogy. Stealing a CD from a record store is far more like not paying the RIAA for a download -- especially since downloaded music easily substitutes for a store purchase. Breaking into someone's home is totally inaccurate. When you download a song from someone else, you aren't stealing the song from them, you're just not paying the rights owner for it.

Re:What a terrible straw man.

[nine-times]

Usually the store has bought the CD whether they manage to sell it, it sits on a shelf, or is stolen. The "artist" gets paid either way.

Morally, I don't think stealing a CD from a store owned by a rich man is any worse than stealing the same CD from the home owned by the same rich man. Or at least, I don't see why one would be considered more immoral than the other.

Either way, copyright infringement is very different in that it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. When I steal a CD, someone has lost a CD. When I infringe on someone's copyright, the creative work gets copied without the copyright owner's permission.

Re:What a terrible straw man.

[Valdrax]

Morally, I don't think stealing a CD from a store owned by a rich man is any worse than stealing the same CD from the home owned by the same rich man. Or at least, I don't see why one would be considered more immoral than the other.

Interesting that they're both "rich men" suddenly, but I'd rather not beat a dead horse here.

Either way, copyright infringement is very different in that it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. When I steal a CD, someone has lost a CD. When I infringe on someone's copyright, the creative work gets copied without the copyright owner's permission.

On that end of the transaction, they are different.

However, in both cases, the rightful owner of the property doesn't get paid for your gain. You get something for nothing, and the rightful owner is deprived of the value of their labor (or investment). On that end of the transaction, they are the same.

That's the part that allows the RIAA to hang their analogy on. Easy to see for the layman, and hard to fight against without looking foolish if you're unwilling to admit that part. Again, the legal niceties of licensing and infringement are lost on most people; "stealing" is easier to understand because it's something every one knows from when they were small children.

Popping back up the discussion stack a bit, a "reasonable person" gets the RIAA's argument intuitively. You have to explain yours because it's not intuitive to the common person raised in modern, western, property-focused society to think that you can take the end product of someone else's labor for free without owing them something, especially when they made it in the expectation that they could make money from it (and not just to be given away). Saying, "It's not 'stealing,' it's 'infringement,'" is technically accurate but meaningless as a rebuttal to the real message behind what the RIAA is saying: "It's wrong to do."

Playing games with the message instead of attacking it head on does nothing to counter that essential moral undercurrent. Saying, "It's just infringement!" is no more relevant to the average person than explaining the difference between larceny and embezzlement -- it's still taking something you haven't earned. You can't win like that, especially if you keep falling back to disingenuous arguments about what other people have said and what they mean.

Re:What a terrible straw man.

[nine-times]

Interesting that they're both "rich men" suddenly, but I'd rather not beat a dead horse here.

Well we could just as easily make them both poor men, but then you might ask, "How poor is the guy really, if he owns a store?" The point was to get around another factor, which is that many people would probably make some kind of a bad argument that "Well, when you steal from the store, it's not really hurting anyone because the store has lots of money, but if I steal from my neighbor, he's just a guy who doesn't make lots of money."

The point is, it doesn't matter. Stealing from a store isn't any more moral than stealing from a person. When you steal from a store, you're taking the same amount of money out of *someone's* pocket, even though it might not seem like it.

Again, the legal niceties of licensing and infringement are lost on most people; "stealing" is easier to understand because it's something every one knows from when they were small children.

So you're agreeing that it's not theft, but saying that it's appropriate to use inaccurate language because most people are too stupid to understand that copyright infringement hurts people too. Is that right? So calling it "theft" is basically a "noble lie"?

Anyway, I never said, and I would not say, that there's nothing wrong with copyright infringement. Certainly the damages caused by copyright infringement vary from one situation to another (e.g. mass distribution of counterfeit copies for profit is worse than downloading something for personal use, and there are other levels in between), but with the exception of what people call "fair use", it's all morally wrong. However, being morally wrong doesn't make it "theft".

Re:What a terrible straw man.

[Valdrax]

So you're agreeing that [...yet another straw man].

*sigh* I'm getting tired of trying to explain myself to someone who can't or deliberately won't give any sign of understanding.

I just want to say this. Stop arguing this point. You make people who want to change the public's perception of copyright look bad. Let me give you an illustration.

I'm a liberal, and I have two conservative friends that I hang out with a lot. "T" is open to discussion of ideas, even if we disagree, and always thinks his positions out. "R" listens to Rush Limbaugh every day and is a knee-jerk conservative. Whenever the three of us talk politics, the T is often undermined and left in an embarrassing position by the R's "contributions" to the discussion because R can make any sensible position taken by T look stupid by aping talking points without good logical support for them, making lame partisan jokes, spouting half-truths, and quibbling minutiae that have little to do with the ultimate debate. It's gotten to the point where even thought T & R agree on almost all points politically, T has told R to "Shut up and let the grown-ups talk."

In the realm of copyright infringement, you're R. You and I probably agree on most points philosophically about copyright and property. But your debate technique stinks, and you're making our position look foolish. So stop it. This senseless quibbling over "it's not 'theft', it's 'infringement'" may look to you like you're trying to win some moral victory over some line that must not be crossed, but it's ignoring the larger debate over whether that the RIAA is doing is right or not. No, it's not "okay" for the RIAA to go around calling IP misappropriation "theft," but it works. It's effective strategy, and you're getting bogged down in tactics. Give this battle up and win the war elsewhere. If you're even interested in fighting it, which I don't see much evidence of. Maybe semantics is all you care about in this, but I think the stakes are higher.

But anyway, this post is probably just falling on deaf ears again.

Re:What a terrible straw man.

[nine-times]

I just want to say this. Stop arguing this point.

Thanks for sharing your super genius. I just want to say this: You're stupid.

See how that fails to be helpful? Telling people, "Shut up and let the grown-ups talk," unfortunately is often (as in this case) a tactic employed by people with childish temperaments.

Me? I like to talk about actual issues. I'm sure in many ways you're a very smart person who is stuck in some kind of an... angry state of mind. But maybe if you thought about things rather than using catch-phrases you don't really understand (i.e. "straw man"), you might understand the issues better.

Anyway, words do matter. How we talk about things matter. The terms we use often define the conversation, and if you study anything related to rhetoric, philosophy, politics, marketing, etc., you immediately come to realize that you can concede an entire argument by allowing the other side to control the words used.

Calling the copying of files "theft" already concedes a very important question which should not be conceded to the other side: that intellectual property is the same thing as physical property, and that the act of "copying" intellectual property therefore deprives others of enjoyment of the original in the same way that "taking" physical property does. If you concede that point, you lose the opportunity to talk about things like "fair use" or "public domain".

I understand if these topics are too subtle for you to grasp, but feel free to ask questions if you're struggling with an idea.

What's in the Strange Brew or is it Sears poncho

[warpuck]

Now they dont want the revolution to be televised. Do they also eat a Dodger Dog from both ends at same time?

The RIAA want to Litigate anonymously

[pebear]

If the proceedings the public at large might see the RIAA lawyers for what they really are. A bunch of money grubbing legal thugs hell bent on keeping there billing up and any real legal issues down.