Copyright Scholar Challenges RIAA/DOJ Position

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Leading copyright law scholar Prof. Pamela Samuelson, of the University of California law school, and research fellow Tara Wheatland, have published a 'working paper' which directly refutes the position taken by the US Department of Justice in RIAA cases on the constitutionality of the RIAA's statutory damages theories. The Department of Justice had argued in its briefs that the Court should follow a 1919 United States Supreme Court case which upheld the constitutionality of a statutory damages award that was 116 times the actual damages sustained, under a statute which gave consumers a right of action against railway companies. The Free Software Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the view that the more modern, State Farm/Gore test applied by the United States Supreme Court to punitive damages awards is applicable. The new paper is consistent with the FSF brief and contradicts the DOJ briefs, arguing that the Gore test should be applied. A full copy of the paper is available for viewing online (PDF)."

Comments

hmm

[nomadic]

University of California law school

That narrows it down...

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

She's at Boalt Hall.

Re:hmm

[phantomfive]

A quick Google search puts her at Berkeley. Which isn't surprising.

Re:hmm

[adamchou]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Prof.+Pamela+Samuelson

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

The Berkeley Campus is referred to as the "University of California", a specific campus is only required if you're referring to another campus. See: "Cal", "California" or the seals of the schools, Berkeley's just says "University of California."

Re:hmm

[gringofrijolero]

I'm sorry. Is there some implication there I don't know about? Why don't you spell it out for us? You know...just so we're all clear on the matter.

Re:hmm

[Midnight Thunder]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Prof.+Pamela+Samuelson [lmgtfy.com]

Ah see this is why the original poster didn't bother, since you were nice enough to do it for him. Well there is that and /. tradition of only reading the article summary - tradition is sacred, well that's what they tell me.

[/sarcasm]

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

There's quite a few University of California schools (e.g. UCLA, UC Irvine, UC Davis) many of which have law schools. I grew up in LA and have family ties to UCLA and we always used the city names to identify the schools. Outside of California, many people refer to UC Berkeley as "Cal". UC Berkeley was the first school in the UC system so it's not entirely wrong to call it the "University of California" but it's not common usage.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Unnecessarily Snide

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the time when some one says University of California they are talking about Berkeley. The same goes for University of Texas they are talking about U.T. at Austin.

Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[al0ha]

The DOJ is basing their arguments on an action from 1919 where the small guy was able to be awarded appropriate damages from the BIG guy.

How can the media companies been seen as akin to the small guy and the individual consumer the BIG guy?

By Benjamin goggles of course!

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The DOJ is basing their arguments on an action from 1919 where the small guy was able to be awarded appropriate damages from the BIG guy. How can the media companies be[..] seen as akin to the small guy and the individual consumer the BIG guy?

They can't. The DOJ's brief was nonsense. For that and a number of other reasons.

Maybe their math isn't too good. 116 times their actual damages would be around $40; they're looking for $750 to $150,000 per mp3.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[macraig]

Isn't that demand based on some theory of "collateral" and cumulative damage caused by someone sharing a media file? In other words, you share the file, which thousands of other people receive for free and thus don't pay to own, so YOU are responsible for the (theoretical/estimated) cumulative loss of profit?

(Yes, I know there are other interpretations how that scenario actually plays out; I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid, merely pointing it out.)

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Jurily]

116 times their actual damages would be around $40

That's still an imaginary damage. Most of the people I know who download music either 1. would never buy it in store, so that's not money they lost, or 2. buy it precisely because they downloaded it, liked it, and decided to buy it. No lost profit there either, quite the opposite in fact.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[davolfman]

If they want those damages they can sue the person making them. Otherwise it's using pyramid-scheme logic to justify things.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[artor3]

Most of the people I know who download music either 1. would never buy it in store, so that's not money they lost

According to who? The person who pirated the music? I've got news for you. People rationalize their actions. All the time.

If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.

The damages the RIAA sues for are obscenely inflated, but to claim that piracy does zero damage to them is simply dishonest. Maybe your friends aren't willing to be honest about it, but I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise. And I am 100% certain that I'm not alone.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares, its all gonna go up the nose of the rock stars anyways.

that's how I rationalize my half TB of free data, besides, when you get down to it, those files are just 1's and 0's anyways, they should be free.

also, I heard the musicians don't get a penny from record sales. And the companies are evil, who take the lively hood of innocent children everywhere....WOW FREE STUFF IS FUN TO RATIONALIZE

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[W. Justice Black]

I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise.

I guess I'm not. I will NOT buy CDs or anything on iTunes, but as soon as Amazon started selling MP3s that:

• Will play on pretty much anything.
• Are unrestricted, and
• Don't absolutely require the use of a funky downloader to get

I started purchasing every song in my download folder and that was available through them (I tend to keep my collection pretty clean and delete anything I don't like after a play or two). Yes, that meant a few hundred dollars over the last several months. Yes, that also means there are some songs in there that still aren't legit (they're not available through Amazon).

Amazon, in short, has what I want the way I want it, and I'm quite willing to pay for that. I suspect that, once this silly DRM thing goes away, people will be plenty honest enough to keep the music business from dying. The days of obscene margins on an artificially-scarce product are over, but the death of the industry is not at hand.

IF the labels keep a cool head about it and don't do anything (else) stupid.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

116 times their actual damages would be around $40

That's still an imaginary damage. Most of the people I know who download music either 1. would never buy it in store, so that's not money they lost, or 2. buy it precisely because they downloaded it, liked it, and decided to buy it. No lost profit there either, quite the opposite in fact.

That's a very good point.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Starayo]

I refute the claim that what the RIAA labels produce is 'music'. They make noise. Lots and lots of irritating noise.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[pugugly]

No actually. it's just you - You sick sociopathic bastard.

Pug

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Jurily]

If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.

If by "physically impossible" you mean all the talented and independent artists who put their stuff on the net for free would be banned: maybe.

If you mean you can't listen to RIAA protected music without paying: the internet is much more powerful than that. Their stranglehold on content is broken. My favorite example: FankaDeli.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

No, fuck you, I would never buy your american pop crap.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[artor3]

I also started buying more music when Amazon launched their service, and encouraged a lot of my friends to use them over iTunes. But the fact is, people DO pirate music they would have paid for. Even now, with Amazon, that's still true. And that IS a damage.

However much we want to pretend that the pirates are blameless and the RIAA is the only one at fault, it's simply untrue.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[conlaw]

I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise

I applaud your honesty, artor3, and agree that many, if not most, of the downloaders are just rationalizing their copyright infringement. On the other hand, it seems that today's record company setup requires you to buy a whole album at $10-$20 in order to have the 2 or 3 songs you really want.

It might be helpful for both sides of the issue for someone to research whether people are downloading entire albums or only single cuts from the albums. If my suspicions are correct, the RIAA member companies could eliminate a lot of this P2P activity by simply going back to the practice of selling singles. In fact isn't that what places like iTunes are doing -- essentially selling singles? If they're making money by doing so, then the RIAA might want to change their methods of issuing music, thus making life simpler and cheaper for everyone.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Doctor_Jest]

If it's actual damages, let them write them off on their taxes. If they truly are losses, they can claim them. If not, (which I wholeheartedly side with the "imaginary" argument), then they need just shut the hell up. It'd be subject to GAAP rules, of course. But I think they could manage that, considering how much they pay for these moronic experts and other pondscum lawyer-types.

I don't care if "piracy" (infringement is the word, not piracy) causes anything. Copyright doesn't guarantee profit. It never has. That's what the heck's been missing from this argument for quite some time. Simply making something, copyrighting it and offering it for sale doesn't guarantee a dime, but the RIAA seems to think so, and they are doing their damn level best to be sure they pay or coerce as many people as possible to believe that horseshit too. The RIAA (and other asshole AA's) want you to believe that money is it. It's not that. It's about control. You have the control on where and when you can listen to the music you own (or traded), and it bugs the shit out of them. If they had their way, you would pay for a CD, then if you wanted it on your portable device, you'd pay again. And if you wanted to listen to it in your car, you'd need another CD purchase. But that would require licensing, and it would subject them to liability they don't want (hint, the "cake and eat it too" argument fits here). So, they sell it as a commodity, don't get too up in arms about used sales, and try to squeeze the collective nuts of their customer base who shares their music. Bah. I don't see how the hell people don't just tell them to take a flying leap and let them rot. I really don't. I am as guilty of aiding these dipshits as the next guy (surprise, I buy music), but come on... this is getting ri-goddamned-diculous. I try to limit my purchases to non-RIAA member companies, but it's increasingly a lose-lose situation with recruitment (or indoctrination as the case may be) at an all-time high. It's nauseating as much as it is depressing to think about.

I'd rather see Roseanne Barr naked than have to deal with the RIAA ever again.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

The DOJ is basing their arguments on an action from 1919 where the small guy was able to be awarded appropriate damages from the BIG guy. How can the media companies been seen as akin to the small guy and the individual consumer the BIG guy?

Why should it matter to the law who is the "small guy" and who is the "BIG guy"? The law is supposed to be blind to such things.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The damages the RIAA sues for are obscenely inflated, but to claim that piracy does zero damage to them is simply dishonest.

Of course there is damage, but the courts have rejected the RIAA's theory that each unauthorized download represents a lost sale, in this recent criminal copyright infringement case.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to jump the thread here, but is there a reason they can say you're responsible instead of having to individually go after everyone who downloaded? Does everyone not have free will? Did you make them download? Or is that their whole making available theory?

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[digitalunity]

I download albums off TPB and if I like them, I buy them off iTunes. I will not support any type of physical distribution of music - that era is dead and gone and I don't want any music publishers to think otherwise.

Interestingly, digg did an interview with Trent Reznor of NIN recently and it was really intriguing. He had a lot of really insightful and balanced comments regarding the music industry and the direction of online content distribution.

I wish the music publishers would watch it, they might learn a thing or two.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe their math isn't too good. 116 times their actual damages would be around $40; they're looking for $750 to $150,000 per mp3.

If I recall correctly, the FSF amicus was filed to try to help out Joel Tenenbaum in his defense against Sony UMG Music Entertainment's infringement suit against him. Does it strike anyone else as odd that statutory damages are being treated as the big issue in his case?

Based on exhibit B to the complaint against Joel Tenenbaum (1:07-cv-11446), he appeared to have been sharing over 1,200 songs through KaZaA under the username sublimeguy14@KaZaA. The Complainants identified seven songs that they claimed he was illegally distributing.

At $750 to $150,000 per work, Joel faced a potential liability of $5,250 to $1,050,000 based on the songs identified. Although if all of the works he appeared to be sharing were under copyright and were being distributed illegally, his potential liability was actually $900,000 to $180,000,000. If he were an innocent infringer, his statutory liability (assuming every copyright owner sued on every work) would have been as low as $240,000.

These potential liabilities at stake make good fodder for lobbying Congress, but they don't seem all that relevant to Joel Tenenbaum's particular case.

Why? Because Joel Tenenbaum had a good opportunity to get out of this whole mess when he was asked to settle for $4,000. That's $571 for each work specifically identified, and about $3.33 for each work that he was actually sharing (of course a settlement would not have excluded other copyright owners from independently filing suit).

Instead of agreeing to the settlement, Joel Tenenbaum countered with an offer of $3,000. When the complainants didn't accept the $3,000, he filed for Rule 11(b) sanctions.

This just doesn't seem like the right case to press the judiciary to strike out statutory damages for copyright infringement. Sure, the potential liabilities are astronomical, but those aren't what Joel Tenenbaum seems to be facing in reality. Moreover, actual damages (plus attorneys' fees) for the seven songs identified seems to be inadequate as a deterrent. At a potential return of $1-3 per song, the complainants couldn't even afford to pay someone to identify that those seven songs appeared to be infringed.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[erroneus]

The answer is more simple than you have imagined!

Everyone is JESUS CHRIST. They must ALL die for all of our sins. They know they won't get us all and they know they won't get all of our money, so now they are crucifying the few for the greater good.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[ushering05401]

The mods haven't hit yet, so...

*Pre-emptive wooshing noise*

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[artor3]

So let's say that 1 in 100 downloads is a lost sale. Should the RIAA be forbidden from recouping those losses simply because they can't prove any particular download resulted in a lost sale?

If I fire a hundred bullets down a crowded street, not every one is going to harm someone. And I certainly shouldn't face 100 counts of murder, the way the RIAA seems to think I should. But that doesn't mean I should be free and clear either.

I don't understand what the end game is for slashdotters. Do you really believe that people shouldn't have to pay for music, movies, video games, software, etc...?

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Dun Malg]

Isn't that demand based on some theory of "collateral" and cumulative damage caused by someone sharing a media file? In other words, you share the file, which thousands of other people receive for free and thus don't pay to own, so YOU are responsible for the (theoretical/estimated) cumulative loss of profit?

Yes, but that's part of why it's bullshit. You can't make one person pay for the transgressions of 100 others. That's the canonical definition of "scapegoating", and it has no place in law.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Repossessed]

What are you using to estimate the damages?

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Idiomatick]

Online radio. If i lost my collection I'd listen to online radio, regular radio and never buy a cd. I've only bought 1 cd in my life, there is no point.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Imaginary damage for imaginary property. Sounds about right.

You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

Well give me a MOTHERFUCKING COUNTDOWN, you dick jockeys!

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Idiomatick]

Uhhh they'd go look for the bodies so your analogy just confuses me.

Endgame is this. I pay 10$/mnth for all music this will bring in around the same the whole music industry gets today.
Movies will be offered streaming with ads either embedded or on the side. There should be an option like with music to remove the ads for 5~10$ a month. This again will not effect revenue for movie companies.
Games will have rich downloadable demos like those on xbox. Full versions will cost more.
Software will be mostly as in 90% free to consumers. Which it is as we speak. Schools and industry should move away from setting expensive standards but thats it. OS is free with windows or linux assuming you buy a computer. OpenOffice is free, pretty much all media players are free, there are vast numbers of free web aps. I can't remember needing to pay for software. Photoshop and 3dsmax are the only things I am stealing atm. IF I ever make anything profitable with them I will pay for them. Part of the demo system could work for those programs (3dsmax pro edition is as much as a car so you cant bitch at me for stealing it).

Result? Pretty much no change, the industry will continue as it has without any issues.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

The DOJ is basing their arguments on an action from 1919 where the small guy was able to be awarded appropriate damages from the BIG guy.

How can the media companies be[..] seen as akin to the small guy and the individual consumer the BIG guy?

They can't. The DOJ's brief was nonsense. For that and a number

They only have any damages if the person would have paid them for the track otherwise - and since recording off the air etc could be fair use, and since kids have been recording music that way since tapes became possible, surely the argument for any multiplier is moot if they were multiplying by zero for the damages.

Record companies are assuming their sales are down due to downloads - but it could e they're just distributing unpopular product, are trying to charge more than the market will stand or any number of other reasons, any of which would mean the 'damage' to them of someone sharing a track could be zero. It could even me offset as marketing expense being done on their behalf-I know if consumers got hooked on an artist, they're more likely to buy the posters, see the shows, eat the endorsed food stuffs etc. How would they proove their damage/loss to have anything to multiply? They've lost an imaginary opportunity for an imaginary person to give them imaginary money - multiplier by anything and all they have is a guess. Let them proove a real financial loss.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[gringofrijolero]

How 'bout the MSRP of the work plus about 13 pesos? ...just figuring that it's a bit more stable than the dollar right now.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see... they were tagged and lost to price fixing... so they've marginally lowered their prices...

Even if you count CD's at $20 per CD, that's around $2300 at 116 times in damages... and going by that math, figuring approximately 15 songs per album (seems like a resonable average) that puts each song at ~ $150... not 750 or more...

the original charge of hyper inflated damages still stand...

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that statutory damages are being treated as the big issue in his case?

It was actually the judge who moved the issue to the front burner by saying that she saw it as something that needed to be raised early in the case by means of a motion to dismiss complaint.

IMHO she was wrong about that; I think it cannot be determined until after a trial and then only if the RIAA recovers a statutory damages award, because there are a number of factual issues -- necessary to the question's resolution -- which simply cannot be adjudicated at this point.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[rdnetto]

If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.

Guess again. There are now enough internet radio stations and independent artists who are willing to provide music for free that it would be quite feasible to go without buying any music.

But this serves only to demonstrate that your premise of it being impossible to listen to music without paying for it is flawed, since there is no way to regulate the actions of people who want to give their works away. If there were, I doubt that Linux would cease to exist.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[shadowbearer]

If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.

  They wouldn't have any choice, would they? That's exactly what the people who are trying to control music distribution want. They don't want anyone to produce and distribute any music that they can't play middleman to.

  When I see people arguing this stuff, I have to think that either you are very young and haven't read your history, or you are a paid schill.

  I'm sitting here tonite with some friends; listening to, and we're singing loudly enough for the neighbors to hear it - good music from the 60s and 70s.

  Should we pay these assholes money for our "performance"?

  Consensus here is those who think we should can fuck off. Oh, and two out of the six people here are artists who produce their own music and sell it under their own labels. And they say you can take your piracy arguments and shove them up your ass.

SB

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Narpak]

It's pretty much an established fact that piracy in general drops drastically among people in their late twenties compared to people in their teens or early twenties. Basically when people start making money they tend to spend more of it.

Yes piracy probably siphons away some profit from the artists. However there are lots of music I would NEVER have heard or encountered if I didn't get it from a mate, who got it from some other dude. Hell I have found music on YouTube that I have ended up buying because I like it. The only thing limiting my purchase of music, or for that matter books and computer games, is my budget.

I have friends who are serious musicians who actually checked piratebay regularly when they released their last CD, seeing people actually downloading it made them very happy. Because for them, as unestablished musicians, exposure is king.

The only way to reduce piracy further is from services like Amazon to make it easy, practical, affordable and most of all quick to get it. Personally I wouldn't mind having an online database where I could buy and register the music I have purchased so I can download it again whenever, wherever, I need or want to hear it.

One thing is absolutely certain though, whatever else happens; people like music. People will pay for something they like. And people, despite any piracy statistic, still show up to concerts and festivals and spend immense amounts of money each year purchasing Band branded posters, shirts, skirts, pins and whatever else you stick a cool logo onto. So I definitely agree "the death of the industry is not at hand"; however, as you say, the current incarnation of the industrial part of the music industry will have to change or die; probably a bit of both anyway.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[shawb]

The rationale behind using the MSRP of the whole album does indeed make sense: copyright infringement is on a "per work" basis not on a "per snippet" basis. I assume the "work" here is being defined as the entire album. If you were illegally distributing a single chapter of a book, the value used would likely be for the entire book. An album is traditionally the basic unit of sale, and therefore is reasonable to use the album's MSRP as the base value. The album as base unit of sale is indeed changing with online sales of single songs, but the copyright holder would be the one to define what constitutes a work, and it would take a fair bit of legal savvy to prove otherwise.

Note that I am not arguing that 116 times retail value is reasonable, and I am far from convinced that it is indeed reasonable. My current suspicion is that pushing for such large damages will actually hurt the record companies in the long run, but the settlement value of $4000 (according to this post) offered does seem justifiable to me (I'm not claiming it is RIGHT, simply justifiable.) However, it would require a very strong argument to convince me that using the album retail price as the base rate is unreasonable.

All this aside, I do feel that if the RIAA is claiming damage values based on the entire album, then sharing multiple songs from the same album should indeed be counted as one infringement. Not that I have any reason to suspect that the RIAA is attempting to seek damages based on the full album price for multiple infringements off the same album, just speaking my mind. And I also feel that copyright terms are currently indefensibly long in duration, but that is a whole different topic and I am probably just preaching to the choir with that thought.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[dcmoebius]

The damages the RIAA sues for are obscenely inflated, but to claim that piracy does zero damage to them is simply dishonest. Maybe your friends aren't willing to be honest about it, but I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise. And I am 100% certain that I'm not alone.

Amen to that. I still find it incredible that people try to legitimately claim that piracy actually HELPS these industries.

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad for the RIAA, in fact I find them pretty reprehensible. But to claim that downloading content for free doesn't adversely affect these companies under their current business model is just foolish.

The RIAA is technically entitled to SOME sort of remuneration, but the argument being used for these inflated damages is absurd.

The fact of the matter is that the people making this kind of decision are finding it easier/more productive to turn to litigation to protect their bottom line as opposed to developing a more reasonable business model.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Culture20]

If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.

If the options for poor folk are "listen to the same tracks over and over" or "listen to no music" I think "listen to no music" wins out. "Listen to the same tracks over and over" is insanity-producing.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Tubal-Cain]

If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music.

You foresee an end to radio in the near future?

As for myself, most of the music I am exposed to these days is theme songs.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Tubal-Cain]

See: Ford Pinto
Small people simply aren't capable of such far-reaching negligence.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd rather see Roseanne Barr naked than have to deal with the RIAA ever again." Ahhhhh! I never knew that text could do that much damage to my eyes! Thank you sir for sharing the pain.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[EdIII]

I'd rather see Roseanne Barr naked than have to deal with the RIAA ever again.

Man, that poor woman. To have her body continually used in such comparisons. Must do wonders for her self-esteem.

Sympathy aside, I think if the RIAA actually started threatening a "Roseanne Barr" attack if I did not buy into their business model, I just might... start paying them again. That is much like torture, in that every man "eventually talks".

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[AlamedaStone]

For some reason I thought the making-available theory had been successfully challenged in open court, and was no longer being used.

I haven't been watching that carefully though, and I may well have misunderstood (or be mis-remembering).

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[photomonkey]

If the tap were turned off tomorrow, yes, people would go back to buying music. Who's to say they're not buying it now? They could be buying an album every few weeks/months in addition to everything else they're downloading for free.

If the tap were turned off, they would continue to buy that same limited number of CDs.

While I don't condone copyright infringement in the least, I accept that a download does not in any way equate to a lost sale.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Failed Physicist]

Not to mention that people sharing upwards of 2:1 ratio are very rare... Assumming an (approximate) zero sum system such as bittorent, the average user shares exactly 1 copy of the content he downloaded, not 100.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.

I disagree with you sir!

I am so incredibly stubborn that I would spend the rest of my life not listening to music if it was physically impossible to do so without paying for it. I would stand in a room full of people grooving out to the music for which they paid, while standing at the chips 'n dip just snacking and chatting and wondering what the heck is wrong with the rest of them.

Yes, you are not alone, many people will take more for free when they would otherwise be limited.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Noooo, it really doesn't work like that.

Although you might be perfectly willing to buy the shit you pirate, I either pirate it with the intention of buying it later (portal, etc.) which equals no lost profit, or I set out with no intention of buying it (such as music).

I don't have money to pay for that shit, especially when it can be put to more worthwhile things, like college, and food. I suppose you might be able to persuade me to use (legal) napster or the like if I absolutely wanted to be legal, but more likely than not, I'll just switch over to internet/fm radio rather than actually pay for it.

I have enough self control to keep myself from wasting money on stuff I don't really need. Hell, my entire child hood was spent with a Genisis, an NES, and about 20 games between the two (most of them terrible) over a good 10-12 years.

Although I'm sure there are some people out there who really might pay for the stuff they pirate, that's not necessarily the case for everyone.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[soren202]

The argument is that the free exposure to people who have nothing to lose besides time for listening to your music will help replace the lost sales.

People are more willing to buy things they know are good, due either to a friend's recommendation, or a free trial via bittorrent.

To be honest, I can't help but see how it doesn't make sense. This is why the radio, and other legal forms of free media exist - to help spread the word about artists and their songs to people who wouldn't otherwise buy them.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[dcmoebius]

To be honest, I can't help but see how it doesn't make sense. This is why the radio, and other legal forms of free media exist - to help spread the word about artists and their songs to people who wouldn't otherwise buy them.

Yes free exposure is a great thing. However, I think there is a fundamental difference between hearing a song on the radio and actually owning a copy of that song. For one, you have control over when/where you listen to it.

Honestly, I think that the RIAA/MPAA need to recognize that piracy is not going to be stopped. It's fast, it's easy, and it can deliver the exact same product that these companies are asking you to pay for. It's just going to be a cost of doing business.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[jonaskoelker]

You can't make one person pay for the transgressions of 100 others.

That would be the case if the RIAA/MPAA argued that you are responsible for them downloading.

I think the MPAA/RIAA argument is that you are responsible for 100 counts of uploading (for n=100).

I think that's a reasonable argument: if you do something wrong a hundred times, you should pay for all hundred.

It's just that they don't provide any good evidence. ... And their legal maneuvers are dubious. Go to Ray Beckerman's site for a lawyer's argument as to why.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[bzipitidoo]

Do you really believe that people shouldn't have to pay for music, movies, video games, software, etc...?

Who is saying that? It's the mechanisms we don't like. Face it, copyright is broken. There is no technically feasible way to stop copying. DRM does not work. And there isn't any social way to stop the sharing either. It's hard enough just trying to figure out whether a particular act of copying is legal or not. I think a good comparison is with so-called morality legislation, where some group attempts to have whatever sort of sex they don't like outlawed. Those sorts of laws plain do not work. Consenting adults can engage in whatever sex they like and no outsider will easily find them out. So it is with copying.

I support compensating artists for their work. I don't support the concept of "copyright" as a means to that end, because copyright has no teeth. It no longer works. It only worked in the past because copying used not to be so easy, requiring much expensive and bulky equipment that could be monitored. Today, sharing files is much, much easier than sex. It's like virtual sex.

But until we get the law caught up with reality, these MAFIAA organizations are cynically using a very favorably puffed up, monopolistic, warped version of copyright that isn't (or wasn't) supported by the actual law, to threaten and extort a very small fraction of the technically guilty public, which is pretty much everyone. Canada put a levy on blank media to settle the grievances of the entertainment industry, but for some reason which is probably the mindless pursuit of every last dollar real or apparent, the industry is still trying to sue individuals, game the legal system, or just outright renege on the deal by bribing legislators to pass more legislation doing just that.

I don't understand what the end game is for slashdotters.

For me, the eventual withering away of copyright is the goal. When we have other means of compensation in place and working, and working so well that copyright is merely a useless impediment, then we can let it die. Until then, artists will have a choice of means. Copyright will be only one of those means. There would have to be some exclusivity-- no one should be allowed to have it both ways, that is, collecting money under whatever alternative compensation scheme arises and then turning around and denying people so they can make (or think they can make) yet more money with copyright. The law can keep copyright enshrined forever, it just won't be used, not with other, superior methods in place.

Can you imagine what things would be like if people no longer had to fear the hammer of copyright violation? Want to do Star Wars or Lord of the Rings your way? Think someone else could sing and play the Beatles' songs better than the Beatles did? Think the dialog in Star Wars could stand some serious improvement? "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy", etc. Go for it, and Lucas, the Beatles, or the Tolkien estate won't have any say about it. The current situation is absurd. Save for parody, they get to dictate the value of and uses to which their "property" is put because not being in total control could somehow harm that value. I recall a boy did just that with Star Wars, and, incredibly, they considered suing the child! We might see a real flowering of the art of mashups. We might see genuine improvements of stories-- not bowdlerization but actual refinements, and the preferred version of a story could easily be something many authors worked on. Sort of like a certain work known as The Bible. As for the rest of us, we'll have the freedom to openly use our computers and networks to their fullest powers.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Then why do so many people want to download it?

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about you, but I *already* buy music, and my budget's not gonna increase magically unless I get a raise or so. I don't pirate, mind you (although I download CC music from archive.org sometimes), but I imagine it's similar for others.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[hitmark]

whats the saying, "teen" is mental state, not a age?

i have seen ladies in their 40's walk around in clothes that would make me wonder about her mental state if she was 18, much less 40...

basically, people are going for "groupthink". the radio, tv, magazine/newspaper is telling them that XYZ is in this year, and so to be in they have to be listening to it, viewing it, wearing it, eating it and most importantly of all, have it on their playlist, body, coffee table when their "friends" drop by...

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[TheRaven64]

I download albums off TPB and if I like them, I buy them off iTunes

Even when it costs more? The last few albums I bought were cheaper, including delivery, from Amazon than they were from iTunes. As soon as I got them, I ripped them, but I got a convenient backup copy in case my hard disk dies (again). Since you've already got a copy, then the immediacy argument doesn't hold. I'd rather support physical distribution than overpriced electronic distribution.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[DarkOx]

I am not sure that you can argue an album is a basic unit, at least not anymore. I would argue that anytime the stuff has been marketed separately the publisher has acknowledged the album version is a compilation of works.

Songs on sold on Amazon,ITMS,ETC,ETC as parts of albums they are sold as tracks. Do they indicate the tracks are part of the large compilation; usually but I think most people view them as "entire songs" as apposed to clips. They don't usually play the full album end to end on radio either; another example of the song being marketed not the album.

The marketing lines are "love this song; get it at X..."

This is different from when book publishers make a chapter available. The marketing meme remains "Like the book read more at..." It is up to the plantif to show harm in most civil actions. If they expect to hold a defendant liable for multiples of an entire album when only one song was shared, they should have to show that the album was being represented as the "complete work" and marketed that way.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[blackest_k]

Interestingly most torrents you struggle to get people to upload to 1. Doesn't that mean you uploaded 1 copy if your ratio is 1 and your responsible for 1 Copy.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

but the RIAA seems to think so
The RIAA (and other asshole AA's) want you to believe
than have to deal with the RIAA ever again.

Just making sure you realize the RIAA are only the lapdogs to the culture controllers/destroyers, whatever you like to call them, that are the big media companies. It seems that too many people believe the RIAA are solely to blame for all of this, when instead it's the likes of Warner Bros., Universal Pictures, Disney, Fox, etc., who are paying their salaries. The government also backs the media companies. There are now former RIAA lawyers in the DOJ and a strong supporter in the seat of Vice President.

If you're hoping to win this one, at least know who's to blame.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Landak]

If tomorrow you had to pay for all the music you listened to, I'd go straight to my piano and wonder when the truck of gold would arrive at my door ;-).

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[gnasher719]

Why? Because Joel Tenenbaum had a good opportunity to get out of this whole mess when he was asked to settle for $4,000. That's $571 for each work specifically identified, and about $3.33 for each work that he was actually sharing (of course a settlement would not have excluded other copyright owners from independently filing suit).

And that, my friend, is exactly the problem. If the law threatens Mr. Tenenbaum with liability up to 180 million dollars, then he cannot afford the risk to defend his position in court. If I damage your car, and you claim that I caused $4000 damage and want me to pay, I have the choice of paying or going to court. But if I ask a lawyer and he tells me "you better pay the $4000, because losing a court case might cost you $180 million", then I have to pay, and can't afford losing everything over this. And that is what makes the excessive statutory damages unconstitutional: They take away people's right to have a case seen in court.

I _once_ in my life used the services of a lawyer, and what he told me was: When you go to court, you never know what happens. I have lost cases where I thought I should have won, and I won cases where I thought I should have lost. You just never know what happens. So if people are giving the choice of paying $4000 and losing everything, they have no choice.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[toriver]

Yes they should be forbidden in the same way that if I walk into a store and choose between buying a CD and a DVD and go for the DVD, the music publisher does not get to ask the movie company for money for the "lost sale". You see, it does not MATTER what is the reason someone chooses not to buy something.

But the people downloading could be charged with unlicensed copying of the ONE copy they make. That is their crime. "Not buying" is not a crime, the world does not owe anyone success in business.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

well sure , certainly Rosanne rather than John Goodman

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[gnasher719]

You foresee an end to radio in the near future?

For a short while, i listened to the radio on my way to work in the UK. Found a station which had some really nice music. The next day, they also had nice music. The third day, really nice music, but it was the same as on the first two days. After a week, I had enough. I swear they have one record "40 Greatest Hits of the 70's" and "40 Greatest Hits of the 80's" and that's it.

So yes, I could easily foresee an end to radio soon.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[pmarini]

people do download music from unauthorised distribution sources (what you and others insist on calling piracy or theft) when the price it too high and doesn't make it worth buying... much like fake Rolex watches from Singapore
now the various stores are finally being more reasonable in both prices and restrictions so the industry will start to notice a big increase in online sales and finally stop muttering about the issue...
consider that:
- it's crazy to think that virtual (intangible) goods should cost the same as physical ones as when they started the online music business;
- it's crazy to think that what you purchase one day (the license to listen a specific song), should be purchased again with each format-shift;
- it's crazy that you can't insure your "digital" music collection (unlike the physical one)... has anyone tried ?
- it's virtually impossible to resell all or part of that "digital" collection without getting into all sorts of troubles, like trying to remember each single place where it was backed-up too (in order to remove it from there)
- this list can go on... the judicial system is simply not yet ready to deal with all these innovations, so let's give it a hand to do it the right (consumer) way...

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

For some reason I thought the making-available theory had been successfully challenged in open court, and was no longer being used.

Your reason for thinking that it has been successfully challenged in open court, and was rejected in every case in which the matter was fully briefed.

As to whether it is being used, the RIAA would never let a little problem like the LAW stop them.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

if people are giving the choice of paying $4000 and losing everything, they have no choice

Financially, of course, you are right.

But if you are sued for something you didn't do, which is true in the majority of cases, it's not so easy to just pay extortion money. A handful of people who could have "settled" chose not to, and at great personal sacrifice fought back.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[scientus]

In not one of these cases have the shown any evidence of such things, nor have they even spoken of any actual damages. If this took place then they could make that case, show proof, and provide a reasoned estimate of damages. This has not occured because no, negligble, or at least much less damages have taken place than the RIAA/MPAA would like people to presume. It is upon burden of the plaintiff to show damages, and in not a single court case have they done so.

Mere speculation of possible future events has no place in these preceding, merely because something may happen does not mean it has. And if something has not taken place then there is no grounds.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[macraig]

Like I said, I'm not promoting the argument, rather merely restating it for the purpose of the discussion. It's not a defensible argument in my opinion, either.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

In the majority of these cases the RIAA has absolutely no proof of infringement. They do not download anything from the defendants, do not verify that the files at issue actually contain the content which their party holds copyright in, and make that the presumption that having a copyrighted work in a "shared folder" is a crime in and of itsself.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In not one of these cases have the shown any evidence of such things, nor have they even spoken of any actual damages. If this took place then they could make that case, show proof, and provide a reasoned estimate of damages. This has not occur[r]ed because no, negligble, or at least much less damages have taken place than the RIAA/MPAA would like people to presume. It is upon burden of the plaintiff to show damages, and in not a single court case have they done so. Mere speculation of possible future events has no place in these preceding, merely because something may happen does not mean it has. And if something has not taken place then there is no grounds.

Well spoken, scientus.

I.e., RIAA formula for arguing that the statutory damages are appropriate:

1. Bring a lawsuit making unsupported accusations.
2. Ask for outlandish statutory damages.
3. Defend the outlandish statutory damages request by saying (a) maybe this caused us damage and (b) it's necessary to give us outlandish statutory damages to deter other people and (c) don't look at the law, judge, that will only confuse you.
4. ???????
5. Profit!

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

You could punish the creator of a technology or system that KNOWINGLY and PURPOSEFULLY designed it to permit such illegal activity, however, If I let 20 people into a jewelry store and each of them take something, I'm not personally liable for all their damages. Either I'm charged individually for breaking and entering, plus damages for anything I personally took, or I'm charged as an accessory as part of the group, but they are each equally charged with the crime.

Purportedly, the RIAA can identify each of the people who illegally acquired a copy, so they should in fact be individually charging each of them (plus legal fees). Or actually, and more correctly, they should be reporting each crime to the local authorities in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred and have them picked up on a misdemeanor offense of theft. (saving us taxpayers the court fees of these ridiculous trials).

File sharers are not hackers, they're not terrorists, they're not computer criminals. Copyright infringement may be a crime, but its a minor crime, unless you plan on arresting every high school student and college student who plagiarizes, or who simply by using a computer download a copy of a book they haven't paid to have access to for similar multi-thousand dollar per incident offenses...

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Purportedly, the RIAA can identify each of the people who illegally acquired a copy

No, actually they've admitted they can't.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you can buy through iTunes now.... No DRM and AAC files can be batch converted with no more fidelity loss than would be in the MP3 to begin with if you don't own an iPod and explicitly require MP3 files to play on your device.

Of course, AAC files actually play on most devices including the Zune, Zen, PSP, PS3, WalkMan, DSi, as well as many many mobile phones including blackberries, not to mention hundreds of different palm and other PDA devices. AAC always did play on these, it was just that Fair-Play Encrypted AAC files didn't...

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I don;t buy ANY music. I LEGALLY record it for personal use from a variety of LEGAL BROADCASTS. Currently, it's not yet illegal (nor do I expect it ever would be without also turning the DVR business upside down) to use a computer device to automatically record specific programs, specific time slots, nor is it illegal for that computing device to automatically add filenames to those files. It's also within my legal rights to update the tags and headers of those files with data from the CDDB, including published a;bum art when available.

I have about 26,000 MP3s (and actually a lot of AACs since I started using that superior format), all in 256k format or better (some lucky ones in 512k). I have not paid for a single one. I have not illegally acquired a single one.

Streamripper, for which I have a valid license key, allows me to rip dozens of stations concurrently on the PC. I also have a similar device connected via my satellite system that screen scrapes for song data on the broadcast music stations (powered by XM).

No I don;t get every song from every album, not even close. I actually prefer that as most of this broadcast music is usually the top 25% or less of any artist's fare, which is all I typically care to listen to anyways.

I get about 50-100 new identified tracks per day. It takes me about an hour or so to cull them on a weekly basis and add them to my library in iTunes.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see Roseanne Barr naked ...

I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[digitalunity]

I actually find ITMS prices to be reasonable. Sure, I might find something cheaper if I searched around, but since ITMS has what I'm looking for normally and works conveniently with my iPod shuffle, I use it.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[jonaskoelker]

I don't know of any case law. I don't think the law written in the books take bittorrent into account.

So, my (uneducated: IANAL) guess is that it'll come down to the arguments presented in some case by the two opposing lawyers.

One could argue that the user is guilty of distribtion for each sent chunk; or for each IP address that one or more chunks are sent to; or for each unique (IP address, user-agent string), or (IP, TCP port), or per floor(chunks sent / chunk count of full file), or...

Check what the courts say on this.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[blackest_k]

A really enterprising lawyer might be able to argue fair use. seriously.

After all if i give you a 0.001% of any file its hardly enough to be a substantial part of the original work and by itself meaningless noise. The only thing is by the nature of bit torrent each "fair use" extract tends to be of a different part of the work.

Common sense says is a ludicrous argument, but the law doesn't deal in common sense.
And if you cannot be punished for the actions of others (and this seems rather shaky to me since If I get you to shoot someone then that would probably be enough to find me guilty). Then you cannot be guilty of X amount of damage since that was other people and not you. At which point perhaps the Judge should ask why these other people are not in court. There is a pretty good chance that a good proportion of possible defendants are outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Would Google books be guilty of copyright infringement if gave you and your friend a 1000 snippits from the title that you and your friend pieced back together to recreate the original work.

With the old style Kazaar type p2p you would indeed upload multiple copies and it was easy enough to say joe user probably uploaded 10 or more complete copies of a particular work. torrents just don't work the same way.

Actually for music there is a good chance you can download it legally from google china, without legal repercussion since your not entering into any kind of contract just downloading the legally offered files. You don't even have to register. An enterprising individual in china could probably translate the titles for you and provide links.

The chinese symbol for down load looks a bit like a mirrored R with the top taken of and the bar in the middle extended outwards. Does that now make me guilty of breaking copyright if there is a law against clicking links.

Kind of like a scene out of pulp fiction its legal for them to have it and legal for you to possess it (but you broke the terms of the licensing agreement) which you never saw, never read, and never agreed to it's not even shrink wrap and therefore with no contract in place there is no license agreement.

Obviously I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Doctor_Jest]

I do. The RIAA consists of member companies, who most of the time are in lock-step with the RIAA, but as of late, the media companies are seeing the RIAA wasting their membership dollars and are beginning to question the motives (not so much as to stop treating customers like criminals, but hey, it's a start.) Still, since it is a funding entity and consists of people who may or may not be CEO's of the media companies (and others), it's just simpler to write "RIAA" or "MPAA". :)

The RIAA, or *AA's is also easier to write than the "media conglomerates." I get tired of typing more than 4 letters, and "assholes" just doesn't narrow it down. Obama's DOJ is by far worse than Shrub's ever was... and this is what we like to call "change"? I'm out... Count me out of this "change"....

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[dpastern]

Just because you make it available, doesn't *make* others download it. It is *their* choice to download the available content. That's the crux of the issue, and a very simple and logical resolution. The RIAA and MPAA don't want this solution because it means taking action against lots of people, with small payouts in each instance. The current solution allows them to abuse the system and get huge payouts from each individual (i.e. more profit).

This is just further proof that government ONLY cares about business, not the people. It's another reason why modern governments do not work and should be torn down, forcibly if need be. It's about time we had vast numbers of people simply start saying "no" to these governments. Are they going to throw us all in jail? Imagine what it'd do to their precious economy if we all went to jail. One day and it would screw things beyond recovery. Are they going to start taking our belongings away? Sure, stop going to work.

I guarantee that if 80% of the working population said fuck you to business and governments, and went on "strike", within 2 weeks, governments would bow. The problem is that most people these days are:

1) stupid

2) apathetic

3) both 1) & 2)

They don't realise how much they're getting fucked over, and worse, they don't care. They don't want to think, they don't want to have to think, they don't want to have to self govern. They don't care if they elect someone to do it on their behalf, who doesn't actually end up doing it on their behalf, who does what *their* political party's desires are (at the behest of big business).

Sorry, but I will always be anti government, and anti business, call me an anarchist, anti social bastard. The day approaches when society will crumble, and I for one eagerly await that day. I will be cheering my lungs out on that day.

Dave

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Shagg]

That's exactly what the people who are trying to control music distribution want. They don't want anyone to produce and distribute any music that they can't play middleman to.

That's the real reason they're fighting P2P. They're terrified of it, not because of some lost sales, but because it is a competitor. What they fear is that artists will start realizing that P2P is popular enough that they don't need the RIAA companies anymore. Their main goal isn't to win any of these legal cases, but to make people afraid of downloading from P2P networks. The RIAA is more worried about people downloading Indie music from P2P than they are their own music.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

That's exactly what the people who are trying to control music distribution want. They don't want anyone to produce and distribute any music that they can't play middleman to.

That's the real reason they're fighting P2P. They're terrified of it, not because of some lost sales, but because it is a competitor. What they fear is that artists will start realizing that P2P is popular enough that they don't need the RIAA companies anymore. Their main goal isn't to win any of these legal cases, but to make people afraid of downloading from P2P networks. The RIAA is more worried about people downloading Indie music from P2P than they are their own music.

Exactly. The musician doesn't need them any more. And the fans can find better music elsewhere.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Thinboy00]

IANAL, but AFAIK judges don't like arguments that aren't based in common sense.

Re:Deep pocket lobbyists will get you everything

[Thinboy00]

IANAL, but AFAIK judges don't like arguments that aren't based in common sense.

OTOH, the DOJ & *AAs have been winning for quite some time now, so YMMV... again, IANAL.

I also agree with the State Farm / Gore test

[Anonymous Coward]

Because after all, Al Gore invented the internet.

Re:I also agree with the State Farm / Gore test

[Anonymous Coward]

We had this argument last week. If you want to trace the problem down to its roots, we have to sue Charles goddamn Babbage, as his inventions facilitated ALL filesharing that has ever taken place.

Excellent

[maz2331]

This is very much a positive development, though really the whole issue is eventually going to have to go before the Supreme Court. At least they seem to have been generally pretty decent in their handling of Constitutional and "IP Law" issues the past few terms.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, because "working papers" are important agents of legal authority and change (hint: they mean jack shit to the law, which is decided inside courtrooms, not on internet blogs and uploaded PDFs).

Re:Excellent

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This is very much a positive development, though really the whole issue is eventually going to have to go before the Supreme Court. At least they seem to have been generally pretty decent in their handling of Constitutional and "IP Law" issues the past few terms.

In practical terms, it doesn't have to go to the Supreme Court. A few well reasoned decisions in district courts, or courts of appeals, will have sweeping effect.

The DOJ's position -- if litigated -- doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell of being upheld. The RIAA's statutory damages theory is flagrantly unconstitutional, under the Williams test or under the Gore test.

Re:Excellent

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

yes, because "working papers" are important agents of legal authority and change (hint: they mean jack shit to the law, which is decided inside courtrooms, not on internet blogs and uploaded PDFs).

The 'working paper' is merely an earlier stage of a law review article. This working paper will almost certainly become a law review article.

If you think law review articles are not read by the courts and considered carefully you are wrong.

In UMG v. Lindor, the only one of these RIAA cases to litigate the constitutionality-of-statutory-damages issue, the Judge referred to 2 law review articles in ruling against the RIAA.

Throughout legal history, many important decisions have been guided and informed by legal scholarship in law reviews.

Yes cases are decided in "courtrooms" but scholarship is an integral part of each practicing lawyer's work, and of each Judge's work.

Re:Excellent

[mailman-zero]

This is very much a positive development, though really the whole issue is eventually going to have to go before the Supreme Court. At least they seem to have been generally pretty decent in their handling of Constitutional and "IP Law" issues the past few terms.

Except for that whole Eldred v. Ashcroft fiasco described in Lessig's Free Culture.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA's statutory damages theory is flagrantly unconstitutional, under the Williams test or under the Gore test.

Wow, first he invents the Internet, then he blows the lid off of the governments' Global Warming cover-up (winning a Nobel Peace Prize in doing so), and now he has set the gold standard for determining constitutionality with his very own "test." Al Gore, is there anything he can't do?!

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

not on internet blogs

As opposed to all those non-internet blogs I suppose...

Re:Excellent

[maz2331]

Looking at the tactics of the *AA crowd, it will have to get to that level. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you on this one, but these people are relentless and have enough of an agenda + litigation budget to try circuit-hopping until they get favorable rulings.

Unless they really screw up and catch massive sanctions and some of their pit bulls face the neutering of disbarrment, that is.

Re:Excellent

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

these people are relentless and have enough of an agenda + litigation budget to try circuit-hopping until they get favorable rulings

You don't know them like I do. There is no way they will let this issue get fully litigated. Whenever they run up against a lawyer like me they will fold up their tent before letting this issue get decided. When they lose on this issue, the game is over for them. Without their ridiculous, draconian statutory damages threat, they are finished.

They might go to the mat in the Tenenbaum case, only because they look upon Prof. Nesson's unconventional legal arguments as easy prey. But I think they would be making a mistake in going to the mat even there, because Judge Gertner is not going to let Prof. Nesson control the legal parameters. She will determine them.

Most likely you will never see these issues fully litigated in the RIAA v. end user cases at all.

Re:Excellent

[actionbastard]

In this case, I have to agree with Ray. In many 'cutting edge' areas of law many judges cannot be 'up-to-speed' without input from reasonably respected sources of legal scholarship to draw upon.

Re:Excellent

[JohnRoss1968]

You mean besides claim the win to an election he actually won.

Re:Excellent

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In many 'cutting edge' areas of law many judges cannot be 'up-to-speed' without input from reasonably respected sources of legal scholarship to draw upon.

Nor can any lawyer prepare a proper brief without him or her self engaging in scholarship. When I went to law school I was working in a law firm at the same time, and found it impressive how intimately related legal scholarship and legal work were. Any lawyer who is not also a scholar is not a top notch lawyer.

Re:Excellent

[Andy_R]

Could a couple of concerned US citizens set up a a test case and 'fully litigate' it in order to set a legal precedent?

I'm sure we could find a slashdotter who can write a song (quality unimportant), copyright it, and then have it pirated by another slashdotter and then press for RIAA style damages (which would be given back in the unlikely event of a win).

Re:Excellent

[actionbastard]

The RIAA's tactic is to intimidate the unknowing into capitulating without a fight. All it costs them is a a few bucks for a secretary to mail out the letter. Once they get into 'real' lawyering with judges and opposing counsel, then it starts to cost real money. That's why they either get a quick settlement or they cut and run.

Re:Excellent

[shadowbearer]

FWIW, the lawyer* whose offices I'm going to be painting tomorrow agrees with you. He laments that the same sort of precedent doesn't often apply to the DUI and non violent drug cases he works and hopes you don't have too many Pyrrhic victories.

  Cheers from *MK(said lawyer) and me and whole crazy bloody crowd of good people here at my 42nd birthday party bash where we are violating a whole helluva lot of stupid laws, reading slashdot, streaming music, arguing, and having an absolutely incredible good time debating all this; and I wish they'd quit showing up because I'm running out of food, booze and media blanks :)

  NYCL is a hero of modern times. So Say We All! (so say we all)

SB

Re:Excellent

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks shadowbearer.

And many happy returns of the day.

Re:Excellent

[AlamedaStone]

Someone taze this guy, he's sayin' stuff!

Re:Excellent

[TheRaven64]

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter who is involved in the suit for setting a precedent, just what points of law are discussed. there is nothing stopping two people outside the RIAA colluding such that one sues the other, using the same arguments as the RIAA, and intentionally loses. This then sets the precedent. If the RIAA were acting in good faith, rather than settling as soon as it looks like they may lose, then this would not be required.

Re:Excellent

[Shagg]

there is nothing stopping two people outside the RIAA colluding such that one sues the other, using the same arguments as the RIAA, and intentionally loses. This then sets the precedent.

I'm pretty sure that would seriously piss off any judge that caught you doing that. I assume there are some serious penalties for trying to "game" the system like that.

What the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the RIAA get's away with dicking around in court with a grevious waste of public funds in persuit of a private interest? I thought the rule of law was equal for all. I know i wouldn't get away with wasting the courts time, why does the RIAA get away with it? Has the power of the people really been usurped by the power of the dollar?

Re:What the hell?

[shentino]

I blame politics.

Considering what AIG just pulled, the RIAA following suit probably isn't too far behind.

Also, remember that aide that effectively ordered the DOJ not to investigate him?

Support Roll Your Own Artists!

[I_Can't_Fly]

Come on guys...

Whatever happened to improvisational near real time performances in the public domain.. rotfl.

Well anyway if someone wants a recording of the bad storms that rolled through here about 3 hours ago with some guitar recorded live.. here it is.

Tennessee Storms of April 10, 2009 and guitar

Like the universe..the net has a lot of alternatives, and not just mine. Stop being force-fed what you like.

Re:Support Roll Your Own Artists!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice little ditty. Do you do the background music for History Channel specials?

Now I'll whore my free music. Sounds like shit, but it's free shit!

Re:Support Roll Your Own Artists!

[earlymon]

Nice!

That actually made my day, Stranger.

Many thanks....

Re:Support Roll Your Own Artists!

[rts008]

Well Done!
Not my normal type of music, but that was an interesting piece of work, having the storm in the background. Calm and soothing, yet with a dynamic tension that keeps it from going stale halfway through. (it reminded me of something I could have expected from Carlos Santana)

This is a good example of why all of the "Oh No! The music is dying!" crap from the RIAA and their shills runs in one ear and immediately out the other with me.

There are just too many people out there like you, who will make music for the enjoyment of the music...and don't mind sharing.
Thanks for both the attitude and the music. You made my day with that!

Re:Support Roll Your Own Artists!

[terminalhype]

Your Tennesee Thunderstorm and Guitar music was a treat! I've just sent it to a friend who's learning to play the guitar, she loves it. (OMG, does that make me a pirate???...nah, probably not ;) Anyway, just wanted to say thank you.

Re:Support Roll Your Own Artists!

[ktappe]

Well done!

Re:Support Roll Your Own Artists!

[pHus10n]

Very relaxing. As a musician myself, it boggles my mind that someone would want to stop another from listening to music! I perform on stage to entertain --- that's my reward. I make a healthy enough living from it, but my primary reason for playing music is to get that adrenaline rush from pleasing a crowd.
It simply doesn't get any better.

Re:Support Roll Your Own Artists!

[Reziac]

Nice. I like the almost symphonic-percussion effect of the thunder, juxtaposed to the quiet guitar. Easy to visualize as very small man, very large thunderstorm. Could be the start of a new genre! :)

Obama Justice Department

[Nom du Keyboard]

So the Obama Justice Department has its head up its collective RIA-A$$. And their justification for this is that the Bush Justice Department had their own heads up in the same warm dark spot so it must be right.

So how's all the Hope and Change working out for you?

Re:Obama Justice Department

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

So the Obama Justice Department has its head up its collective RIA-A$$. And their justification for this is that the Bush Justice Department had their own heads up in the same warm dark spot so it must be right. So how's all the Hope and Change working out for you?

I was disappointed in the low grade, obsequious briefs the Justice Department filed in SONY v. Tenenbaum and SONY v. Cloud. I was hoping for "change" but found none in this area. Nevertheless we are early in the game, and the Justice Department RIAA lawyers are all legally recused from dealing with these cases.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[Anonymous Coward]

Meet the new boss....the same as the old boss.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the already substantial improvements in the labor movement, environmental protection, science education and policy, and the handling of the economic crisis, the Hope and Change is working out damn well, thank you. There's a few policies that I really don't like, and this is one, but overall the new administration has been tops.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sir, you are the first person who has ever mistaken me for a Republican. Have you been drinking?

Re:Obama Justice Department

[belmolis]

Well, to be fair, Obama has a few other items on his plate. The economic mess and the war in Iraq, for example, are no doubt far more important right now. I'm hoping that this is just inertia in the DOJ on an issue to which the new administration hasn't had time to attend. That may be wrong, in which case I'll be disappointed, but I'm willing to give them a little while to fix things.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[db32]

Yeah, what kind of fool assumes lawyers have any kind of allegiances... GOP, EFF, or otherwise!

Sorry...cheap lawyer jokes are just too tempting. This applies to doctors and lawyers, but why is it that their work is called a practice? You would think that given the importance of the issue you are going for you would rather be going to their expertise rather than their practice. :)

On a serious note....do you think it is a potentially good thing that some of those big name RIAA attack dogs are now going to be prevented from working these cases due to their new DoJ jobs? Do you think these guys that deep in RIAA pockets and/or ideologically friendly to the RIAA tactics/arguments or were they just doing the job they were being paid to do?

Re:Obama Justice Department

[rts008]

Nevertheless we are early in the game,...

Yes, this is what I am watching. The momentum this has been building will not turn nor stop on a dime. I've noticed Obama getting a lot of flack here becuase he has not chaanged everything overnight.
Some good stuff has came out of the White House since January, and a few not so good.(wiretapping specifically)

I will have a clearer picture after, oh, say a year has elapsed.(Jan. 2010), than now at less than 4 months.
*toast*Here's to hoping!

Back on topic, there seems to be increasing resistance to the RIAA's tactics lately, or it is more visible/heard about. It is a good thing, IMO.

I'm not anti-copyright/pro-piracy per se, but not only copyright law, but the businesses that utilize it need to catch up to the rest of the world.
The media cartels need to wake up to reality in this digital, internet-enabled society. Old distribution channels cannot be restricted and controlled as conveniently as they would like.

What comes to my mind is an incident that occurred in S.America? Brazil? Where researchers were doing a 'native tribes census' or something similar(it was mentioned here on /.), when the airplanes and helicoptors overflew the villages to get a count, all of the village's 'warriors' would assemble and attack the aircraft with bows and arrows!!

"Net/airborne Demons are ATTACKING!!! Call to Arms!...Call to Arms!"

I wonder how much of this relates to the USA going from a physical products industry/economy to an IP[1] related industry/economy?

{1]: I still do not equate 'Imaginary Property' with real world physical products/inventions/devices. I believe this is the root of the problem. Software patents need abolished, copyright needs drastic reform back to it's roots...Ghaghhh! I hope we can learn and move forward to take full advantage of the brave new world we have been introduced to online....and make it work!..For us!!111!!11!!

Re:Obama Justice Department

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

do you think it is a potentially good thing that some of those big name RIAA attack dogs are now going to be prevented from working these cases due to their new DoJ jobs? Do you think these guys that deep in RIAA pockets and/or ideologically friendly to the RIAA tactics/arguments or were they just doing the job they were being paid to do?

I don't know any of the lawyers who went to the DOJ personally. I haven't personally litigated with any of them, so I really can't say anything about the way they comport themselves. I.e. I don't know if they are "attack dogs" or not; I only know that they were working in one way or another with some attack dogs. As to whether it is good or bad that they are in the DOJ I can't say. If they are honorable people their presence there shouldn't present a problem.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well, to be fair, Obama has a few other items on his plate. The economic mess and the war in Iraq, for example, are no doubt far more important right now. I'm hoping that this is just inertia in the DOJ on an issue to which the new administration hasn't had time to attend. That may be wrong, in which case I'll be disappointed, but I'm willing to give them a little while to fix things.

I agree. The briefs the Obama DOJ filed were cut and paste jobs from the one the Bush DOJ filed so "inertia" is a very possible explanation. It wasn't "change" but it wasn't a downward departure either. It was the same low level, not carefully thought through, trash.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually have a longshot theory on this and the various states secrets cases that the Obama administration has been pushing. Admittedly it's out there, but I think it fits the facts.

Not only has the DOJ supported these positions, but in a number of cases they've taken them to the point of being untenable- they've pushed past the Bush doctrine into shakier logic and further reaching. In one recent case they even went so far as to tell the Supreme Court that the US government could ban books.

I think that one explanation for this is basically the opposite of what we had for the last eight years: the Bush administration avoided getting anything in front of a judge, while Congress passed laws to avoid seeming soft on terrorism or crime, with the expectation that judges would strike it down- thus allowing Congress to remain politically safe. The two issues together meant few cases were ever resolved, and instead things just drug out or were dropped.

Congress isn't going to get any braver, so how do you fix this situation? You make sure it ends up in front of judges, you argue your case in a way that makes your position untenable, and you hope like hell that the judge finds against you, establishing judicial precedent and basically undoing all the crap we've been wading through. Appeal it and you can extend the reach while making sure even if it continues past your watch the appeal can only be argued based on your original justifications, effectively handicapping any future administrations. Those cases you think you might win, you drop.

Again, I don't know that this is true and it may well be just searching for some way to make it all smell like roses. But it's consistent with some of the recent activity and filings.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[ElectricTurtle]

Typical knee-jerk ad hominem from the mainstream. 'I don't like your opinion, so you're a tool!' Makes me glad I'm a libertarian.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering about that too....

That being said, I've never actually talked to you. Thanks for everything you do, I especially appreciate that somebody else cares enough about these thugs to do something about it. You give the rest of the lawyers of the world a good image.

Re:Obama Justice Department

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks for everything you do, I especially appreciate that somebody else cares enough about these thugs to do something about it. You give the rest of the lawyers of the world a good image.

Thank you but I am not alone in thus. A number of fine lawyers all across the country have joined me in this fight, at great personal sacrifice, just to stand up for a principle.

Won't the Supremes intervene again?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The DOJ's position -- if litigated -- doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell of being upheld. The RIAA's statutory damages theory is flagrantly unconstitutional, under the Williams test or under the Gore test.

Are the current Supremes really like that? So far, they've shown nothing but willingness to let Congress ignore the Constitutional boundaries of copyright law based on a theory that it would make too big a mess if they overturned the bad laws.

I guess you're a bit more optimistic than I am, and I certainly hope you're right. But when everyone was looking at the big victory the other day in stopping the restoration of expired foreign copyrights, I couldn't help but think, "If the Supremes didn't like Eldred, why would they uphold this decision? Can't they just keep ignoring the Constitution with exactly the same reasoning?"

Re:Won't the Supremes intervene again?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I doubt there's a judge in the land who would rule that statutory damages of 2100 times the actual damages is constitutional.

Re:Won't the Supremes intervene again?

[russotto]

I doubt there's a judge in the land who would rule that statutory damages of 2100 times the actual damages is constitutional.

I can name 5: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter. (yeah, I'm a pessimist)

Re:Won't the Supremes intervene again?

[ktappe]

I doubt there's a judge in the land who would rule that statutory damages of 2100 times the actual damages is constitutional.

I can name 5: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter. (yeah, I'm a pessimist)

You'd have to be. The first four we (and most) can agree on, but I'd be surprised if Souter would side with the RIAA and DOJ on this one. While appointed by GHWB, he has tended towards the liberal side in most decisions. He's rather "common sense", using the Constitution as a general guideline not a strict rule--he'd likely side with the little guy in this case.

oh god...

[eXFeLoN]

al gore... he invented law.

according to me

[reiisi]

Most of the people I know who download music either 1. would never buy it in store, so that's not money they lost

According to who? The person who pirated the music? I've got news for you. People rationalize their actions. All the time.

True, but does rationalizing necessarily equate to sinning^H^H^H^H^H^H^H committing the crime?

If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No.

Hmm. You know, I quit buying music shortly after I quit listening to "free" music. (Broadcast radio. Various reasons I got turned off the radio stations.)

I've got a few albums I bought because I thought I liked the band. About half of those, I decided I no longer liked the band, even the the songs on the albums that made the charts were the ones I listened less to. I've got a few albums I bought on recommendation, but none of those (except the classical stuff my Mom recommended) ended up being albums I listened to. Most of the albums I've bought, I bought because I wanted the songs on them, because I had heard the songs on them. Taped the songs off the FM.

I suppose, maybe I wanted to support the band. More like I wanted to spend money on something I liked, and I recognized that buying tapes and recording off the FM did not really save me all that much money. Having both the tapes and the albums was much more flexible, if time-consuming. Made a lot of dance mixes, some that my friends liked and some that they didn't like. But my friends ended up buying the music I played at our church dances. (I'm not sure I think that's a great thing, but it demonstrates the principle.)

They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.

Lemme fixat for yah:

They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're buying now when they can listen for free if they want to, but some. Maybe.

The damages the RIAA sues for are obscenely inflated, but to claim that piracy does zero damage to them is simply dishonest.

Well, if by honest you mean recognizing and telling the whole truth, yeah.

But focusing only on the damage is even less honest.

Maybe your friends aren't willing to be honest about it, but I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise. And I am 100% certain that I'm not alone.

Uh huh.

I don't know about you, but, to be honest, I am just not interested in the "music" the big companies promote any more. The only way I could be persuaded to buy it would be to hook me on it. That means making^H^H^H^H^H^H letting me listen to it. Free.

And I know a lot of people who are like me. Normal people. Functioning members of society people. Not geeks, not particularly fans. The majority of the people I know.

And most of the geeks I know, the ones who do most of the freeloading, are precisely the ones who are introducing me and the majority of the people I know to music. (Like I used to introduce my friends to music.)

Sure, maybe free downloads do some damage.

Shutting off the free downloads does a lot more damage.

(I must admit, if the big "rights" management companies can just be convinced to keep their laws away from the indies, I'd just as soon they destroy themselves by closing off the loopholes and sinking into their legal black holes.)

Re:according to me

[artor3]

True, but does rationalizing necessarily equate to committing the crime?

If you say "I committed a crime, but it's ok because..." then yes, that does equate to committing a crime. It takes some amazing mental acrobatics to get around that.

As to the rest of your post, people always pretend like they buy more music because of piracy. I used to use that excuse myself. And that's precisely why I know it's untrue. The ability to get something for free decreases your willingness to pay for it. Simple as that.

If indie artists want you to experience their music for free, they'll let you. Taking it against their will, and then acting like they should thank you for it is just absurd.

If you want to *legally* expose yourself to music outside the mainstream, might I suggest listening to independent radio, on air or online? Try KEXP.

Re:according to me

[TheRaven64]

If indie artists want you to experience their music for free, they'll let you. Taking it against their will, and then acting like they should thank you for it is just absurd.

And, more importantly, it harms those very artists who do offer some of their music for free. If you restrict yourself to legal avenues for learning about new music then you'll only hear about the bands with a relevant business model and the ones that attempt to tightly control their products will simply not exist in your world and will never see any of your money, while the ones that embrace convenient distribution will end up seeing a much larger proportion of the money you spend on entertainment.

"Click to Unpause"? WTF?

[75th Trombone]

Whenever I try to click the header to go back to the homepage, I get some AJAXy crossfadey filth and a big white box with a small black link that says "Click to Unpause."

What is this garbage? I've supported all the upgrades Slashdot has made since Discussion2 was first tested, but this is some horrific love child between 2009's web techniques and 1995's web incompetence.

Anyone else out there with me on this?

Re:"Click to Unpause"? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's supposed to update itself constantly but after a while i guess it assumes you're idle and stops, showing that message to let you resume the automatic refresh.
hope you understand what i'm trying to say

Re:"Click to Unpause"? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am.

Been lurking on slashdot regularly since mid 2004, and I wish nothing more than for the drooling oafs running this site to bring back that "classic" design, under threat of physical harm if needed. It seems some time around 2006 or 2007 CmdrTaco and his corporate overseers decided this bloated shit we have now would be hip, or something. The present font is basically the only thing I believe to be better.

Re:"Click to Unpause"? WTF?

[Culture20]

Agreed. Totally unusable on iPhone safari.

Re:"Click to Unpause"? WTF?

[mountiealpha]

Yeh. Occasionally get same bs, too. WTF?

Re:"Click to Unpause"? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's my take on it... and both the refreshing and the pausing are very irritating...

Sweet

[bikehorn]

The RIAA sucks, but I still pay for my music, at least some of it...by buying vinyl. Mmm, delicious records and analogue sound.

news headline

[interkin3tic]

Legal experts say the RIAA is full of shit. In other news, scientists say creationist claims are innacurate. In still other news, fire is hot.

You're dodging the question I'm asking.

[reiisi]

I'm not saying it's okay to copy when the artists say they don't want that.

Yeah, others are saying that, but I'm not.

I'm pointing at a couple of big gaps in the argument. First, the "rights" organizations no longer really protect the rights of the artists. What they are doing is wrong. It may be legal, but, if it is legal, it is still based on bad, unconstitutional law.

They could have approached the copying issues in a much better way, if they had simply recognized the realities of the market.

Zeroeth: you can't sell music you don't let people listen to. On their own terms. (That's why I quit listening to radio. And it's why I quit listening to music, except what my kids play, except what the school band plays, except at church, that kind of stuff. Even the indies are mostly not putting out music I want to hear any more.)

Artists have the right to be prima-donnas. We don't need to think it's an insult to call them prima-donnas, but we don't have to think we owe them a market they aren't willing to get themselves into.

Getting into the market requires letting people listen. For free. On the individual listener's terms.

You cannot mechanically suppress the free downloads and keep the free market healthy. You can't shut off the bit-torrents and keep the free market healthy.

The solution was/is plain. The RIAA should be cooperating with Pirate Bay and the others, to use the free downloads as ways to expose potential customers to the artists products. That does mean that artists have to work to make a living, producing more, producing more of different kinds of things, maybe even doing things besides their art. That's always been the way it is with art.

Historically, art has been one of the hardest ways to make a decent living. That is why art is art. That is what separates art from craftsmanship, and, really, what separates craftsmanship from assembly-line manufacturing.

It's an unfortunate fact, but artists really have to starve and scrape by and be rejected and all that to produce real art (of a general nature). Or they have to be willing to produce less "perfect" art and live by some other means, which is a road to a different kind of perfection.

The fact that society has been traditionally way too hard on failed artists is a separate question, and that cannot be addressed by anything that the "rights" organizations are presently doing.

There are lots of things wrong with the economy, but shutting down the markets is not how to solve the problems.

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of money the RIAA/MPAA are charging, backed by the companies who are using the RIAA/MPAA as a front was never the issue. The issue is removing the FBI and the governments jursdiction and private guard dog of a business.

Art, Media, Music, Publishing should never be a criminal or federal case, it should be 100% civil. This is Big Businesses which is nothing but people, using the federal government to inforce civil issue under a criminal umbrella.

You want to solve all this, then go to the root, not the bud.

Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama could have indicated that he would no more of that Bush-derived "let's bend the laws until they squeak" approach to help companies instead of people. Leadership is not about being everywhere at the same time (which is impossible), it's about setting the tone, morals and attitude of those who work for you.

Until he does this (and makes it clear that anyone doing something questionable will have to answer to him when he becomes aware of it - whatever time it takes) this sort of BS and legal abuse will continue.

The only other solution, of course, would be to change the name of the DoJ to DoL (they're not about Justice, but about law).

That's, of course, my opinion.

I never thought of the argument in that way

[DJRumpy]

The RIAA is essentially prosecuting the initial downloader for crimes that others commit by then downloading from him or her. Why isn't this being used as a defense? When you stop and think about it, it doesn't matter how many people (how many 'counts') download from this person. They are in affect prosecuting the initial downloader for the crimes of others.

This person should be responsible only for the content he downloaded, and punished for making it 'available' to others, but he or she did not force it down others throats. They elected to download it in turn.

How have the laws become so twisted that a person could be prosecuted based on the actions of others?

Re:Constructed Cases

[TaoPhoenix]

But is there something stopping this?

It's like that theorem against nearby intelligent life - "If it's that easy, why hasn't it been done?"

Re:Song!

[TaoPhoenix]

(Warning! Pastiche Post!)

On Thursday Ray gave us the idea, but we were all probably Mostly Working or burnt afterwards.

I believe quality DOES matter because that will help the song share, and not accidentally die a Red-Herring death from apathy.

....

(Pasted from Thursday's thread:
Re:In MP3 format, so what? (Score:3, Informative)
by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Thursday April 09, @11:30PM (#27527709) Homepage Journal
The MP3 is the format that's being served up by the government's website.
The reason the format is mentioned in the article so prominently is the irony, as I stated above.

Exactly, Chabo.

This is a lawsuit meant to restrict the sharing of MP3's online.

This is a petition, within that lawsuit, to try and prevent making an oral argument in that lawsuit available online.

And the Court making the determination (a) makes its own oral arguments available online, and (b) the format in which it chooses to do so is MP3's, which are freely shareable, and even remixable. This oral argument could wind up as the soundtrack for some anti-RIAA movies on YouTube.)

...

These are the youtube copies, courtesy of another user.
Re:Someone, please... (Score:4, Insightful)
by mariushm (1022195) on Thursday April 09, @09:19PM (#27526845)
Here you go:

Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2RHBDwlH8c [youtube.com]
Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHAF39JxNs [youtube.com]
Part 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06BJu9GVU-w [youtube.com]
Part 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JcOi6htmHM [youtube.com]
Part 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9idglz0ANA [youtube.com]
Part 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWOAR6ZU0JA [youtube.com]

9 min 10 sec each, last is 1 min 10 sec

...

Ray's Official acknowledgement.
Re:Someone, please... (Score:2)
by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Friday April 10, @12:05AM (#27527935) Homepage Journal
mariushm, Thank you for putting it up on YouTube. I've linked to your above comment, providing the YouTube segments, in my blog post.

...

This is what should happen next:
Paging all nerdy internet DJs (Score:5, Insightful)
by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday April 09, @06:45PM (#27525597)
Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat!

If you think the RIAA is going nuts now just wait until that shows up on P2P.

.....

At the time of this post there were no entrants posted to the Slashdot thread of such mixes.

I have an idea of a starting point but I have to hope "quality does not matter" so someone more talented than I gets the idea and can do better.

One more time...

[dontmakemethink]

Consumer shares music, other would-be consumers become aware they can get music for free, they stop buying music in favor of free music, *even if it's different from the artists they originally sought to buy*. RIAA loses millions per year, spends millions on legal and lobbyists to get back to making those millions again. The actual ratio of damages per file shared is academic. You'll know when the gavel drops.

Re:Song!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

On Thursday Ray gave us the idea, but we were all probably Mostly Working or burnt afterwards:

(Pasted from Thursday's thread: Re:In MP3 format, so what? (Score:3, Informative) by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Thursday April 09, @11:30PM (#27527709) Homepage Journal The MP3 is the format that's being served up by the government's website........the Court making the determination (a) makes its own oral arguments available online, and (b) the format in which it chooses to do so is MP3's, which are freely shareable, and even remixable. This oral argument could wind up as the soundtrack for some anti-RIAA movies on YouTube.................

... These are the youtube copies, courtesy of another user:

Re:Someone, please... (Score:4, Insightful) by mariushm (1022195) on Thursday April 09, @09:19PM (#27526845) Here you go: Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2RHBDwlH8c [youtube.com] Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHAF39JxNs [youtube.com] Part 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06BJu9GVU-w [youtube.com] Part 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JcOi6htmHM [youtube.com] Part 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9idglz0ANA [youtube.com] Part 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWOAR6ZU0JA [youtube.com] 9 min 10 sec each, last is 1 min 10 sec

... Ray's Official acknowledgement:

Re:Someone, please... (Score:2) by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Friday April 10, @12:05AM (#27527935) Homepage Journal mariushm, Thank you for putting it up on YouTube. I've linked to your above comment, providing the YouTube segments, in my blog post.

... This is what should happen next:

Paging all nerdy internet DJs (Score:5, Insightful) by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday April 09, @06:45PM (#27525597) Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat! If you think the RIAA is going nuts now just wait until that shows up on P2P. .....

At the time of this post there were no entrants posted to the Slashdot thread of such mixes. I have an idea of a starting point but I have to hope "quality does not matter" so someone more talented than I gets the idea and can do better.

Thank you, Tao! I needed an organizer.

OMG! He's using /.speak!

[kickassweb]

Quick! Call a Doctor! This is serious! What if he speaks like this in front of a JUDGE????

Re:OMG! He's using /.speak!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Quick! Call a Doctor! This is serious! What if he speaks like this in front of a JUDGE????

I'll just tell him how it would be in Soviet Russia, if Natalie Portman were involved.