Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Brief Attacks Free Software Foundation
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has requested permission to file a response to the amicus curiae brief filed by the Free Software Foundation in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston case against a Boston University grad student accused of having downloaded some song files when in his teens. In their proposed response, the RIAA lawyers personally attacked The Free Software Foundation, Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawyer), and NYCL's blog, 'Recording Industry vs. The People.' The 9-page response (PDF) — 4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding — termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs,' and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies. They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site' and stated that NYCL 'is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion for his conduct in representing a defendant' (without disclosing that plaintiffs' lawyers were 'subject to a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions for their conduct in representing plaintiffs' in that very case)."
The RIAA thinks it's a bad man in a big town when it reality it wouldn't make a pimple on a simpleton's ass in a village.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
But what's with all of the RIAA action all of a sudden? What's got a bee in their bonnet now as opposed to, say, five years ago?
...support piracy, so the FSF must be a terrorist organization, right?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It seems the RIAA is getting better at picking targets. Your job just became harder, NYCL. They *can* learn.
--
Toro
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
The RIAA is way over-reaching itself, and a vicious backlash would appear inevitable if they don't learn to at least tone it down a bit. I'm kind of amazed they've gotten this far with virtually nothing but a bully's bluster.
Caveat Utilitor
'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies.
Funny. I always thought the RIAA has an open and blatant bias against Fair Use. (yes, I know file sharing is not F/U, but those guys don't even want you copying your own stuff even if you never share it)
Need more useless stuff to read on teh internetz?
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement.
So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
"4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding"
And?
-mkb
'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs'
was changed from:
'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, modifying computer programs and not bathing'
'open and virulent bias against copyrights'
was changed from:
'open and virulent boils'
It sounds like they are getting desparate.
The RIAA is an organization that has repeatedly shown no respect for other persons or property, including the myriad recording artists, the plain intent of the Constitution, or its corpus. It is a usurper and an invader. It is an organization that needs prosecutions under RICO as well as numerous civil suits.
I love the FSF, but which of the quotes listed here is inaccurate? The FSF *does* want to get rid of copy restrictions, and does dislike the RIAA. Although, I would say the FSF hates on the RIAA, not the "recording industry", but I suspect the RIAA doesn't see the difference.
This is news how?
The only thing newsworthy I got from this is that the RIAA is just slightly more petty than I thought. Of course the Free Software Foundation is about making software "FREE", and of course, anyone with a blog aimed at bringing to light the RIAA's idiocy is going to be the target of their Ire. The thing people need to get over, and real quick, is the thought that the second they see anywhere in media the acronym RIAA, that they need to immediately post it on Slashdot.
We also need to realize, as a whole, that the RIAA hates us as much as we hate them, and we also need to note that the RIAA is a litigous bunch of pr1cks and that they will bring DMCA takedown notices, and law suits, and anything their multi-million dollar legal team can come up with against anyone who thinks differently than they do. The thing is, they have this crazy thing called MONEY backing them. When you have a band like Metallica, or Universal Studios supporting your cause, you can then afford frivolous lawsuits and such because money is no object
What we need, to effectively fight back against their idiocy, is SUPPORTERS. Find some corporation (good luck) that shares our ideals, or even a political movement. Then get them to help with the money to cover the expenses of all these court proceedings, offer legal support to the unfortunate few that get randomly targeted by the RIAA (like the ACLU does) and find someone to help us get some lobbying going in Washington.
Those are the things we need to do, or maybe even get some of us geeks to inundate media with easily comprehended information that average Joe blow can read and care about, and help spread the word to the masses about their evils. Find a way to make the average citizen give a crap about this issue, and you've found a way to get some money and influence behind this issue on a side that is NOT the RIAA. But until then, we'll always be a flea, biting the back of the Mammoth that is Industrialized politics at work.
"This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
It seems like there's going to be a need for a NYCL fan club.
Facebook group incoming.
I can't wait to see what RMS is going to say in his reply :-)
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
On the other hand, saying that the FSF is "dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs" is extremely accurate. In fact, though I didn't see it on the home page, it's the quote that comes up in the Google blurb when you search.
Also, just because the GPL requires copyright to function doesn't mean that the FSF isn't against copyright. I think most of us concede that the GPL is a case where the FSF is using copyright law in a novel, unintended way to accomplish their goals.
If the FSF could rewrite copyright law, it'd be completely different. I'd say they have an open dislike (maybe not "bias") against the current typical use of copyright, especially for computer programs.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
We have achieved stage two, they have learned to fear us...
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
If their facts are wrong, attack their law; if their law is strong, attack their facts; if both their law and their facts are strong, attack their lawyer. I guess we can now assume that both their facts and their law pretty much suck 'cuz they're attacking somebody *elses* lawyer...
Of course I'm not gonna RTFA (Do you know what site this is!?!), and I'm sure that the brief was fired with vitriolic language and attempted to nitpick every sentence they could find a misplaced comma or a shade of meaning that they could use and ignore every valid point in the FSF's document, but from the summary this looks like its high praise coming from the RIAA.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
These corporate welfare rat bastards need to be killed off. Their greed and corruption knows no bounds. They can go fuck themselves. If they want a fight --a real one-- then go ahead, take on the FSF! The RIAA is in dire need of a good beating. Their clock needs cleaning. There are many groups and corporations related and connected to the FSF, much, much bigger than the RIAA. If they really want to signal the end of their time, just keep it up.
I am not a lawyer but my understanding that amicus curiae briefs came from parties not directly involved with the case but are very rarely neutral. From wikipedia: "The role of an amicus is often confused with that of an intervener. . . The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. . . Non-profit legal advocacy organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or NORML frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation."
Again from wikipedia: "Amicus curiae or amicus curiæ (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it." Offering additional information is the point of amicus curiae.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
GNU General Public License, version 6, 2013
1. Pull down you pants.
2. Bend over.
GPLv2 or later doesn't sound like such a good idea now, does it?
They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site' and stated that NYCL 'is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion for his conduct in representing a defendant' (without disclosing that plaintiffs' lawyers were 'subject to a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions for their conduct in representing plaintiffs' in that very case).
So, is Ray "subject to a pending sanctions motion", and if so, what does that mean anyway? NYCL, as much as I respect you and wholeheartedly support and appreciate what you're doing, I'm not a fan of the "they did it too!" defense.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Let's just assume that everything they said were accurate accusations and that the FSF is anti-copyright, anti-RIAA, anti-whatever...
How is this relevant to their case? If anything, doesn't that make the FSF the opposing balance in the scales of the arguments? I'm just not sure that what they're saying really comes down to much more than just 'name-calling' and doesn't really explain whether their case has merit.
If you or I were to do things like that, then we'd be called lying assholes... but if a lawyer does it, then he is simply doing his job.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The RIAA claims that the damages are much higher than 35 cents per song, because the song could potentially be downloaded by millions of people.
...
But that is a lie. Bandwidth is limited. For example, with a 10 GB upload allowance, I can upload a song with a typical size of 4 Megabyte only 2.500 times per month. But that is not the limit per song, that is the limit for _all_ songs.
I would also add that newspapers in the UK have been regularly adding CDs to their complete circulation. That is complete CDs packed full with music that was commercially produced and sold successfully have been distributed to say 2 million readers of the Daily Mail. As an example, I have a CD titled "Daily Mail - 20 Love Songs" (don't ask) containing the following songs:
Brown Eyed Girl (Van Morrison)
Piece Of My Heart (Erma Franklin)
If You Don't Know Me By Now (Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes)
Me & Mrs Jones (Billy Paul)
It's Over (Roy Orbison)
The Most Beautiful Girl (Charlie Rich)
Always On My Mind (Willie Nelson)
Ain't No Sunshine (Bill Withers)
Love Really Hurts Without You (Billy Ocean)
After The Love Has Gone (Earth Wind & Fire)
I Left My Heart In San Francisco (Tony Bennett)
Eternal Flame (The Bangles)
These twenty songs have not been distributed to "potentially millions of downloaders", they have been distributed to two million real newspaper buyers!
I would really like to know how much the Daily Mail paid for this.
Can the snippet be re-written in English please? I don't speak Lawyeresse.
The RIAA is an organization dedicated to maximizing restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying music. They have a virulent, though perhaps less open, bias against music customers; and are blatantly biased for the record companies.
termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs', and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies. They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site'
What part of our confrontational legal system does the RIAA not understand?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Looking over the summary, at least, I'm left with one question: Are there any actual legal ramifications to this, or does this more or less boil down to "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeeee!"?
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
I am shocked and amazed that the people who filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the RIAA's actions in court are all actually members of organizations with a history of opposing the RIAA!!! We cannot allow this bias to continue! Anyone submitting an amicus curiae brief should first have to prove that they no particular bias towards either side of the argument! Look, it is by definition an adversarial relationship; it is a lawyer's job to paint their opponents in as poor a light as possible. Any judge who can't see through this blatant hyperbole doesn't deserve to sit on the bench.
As far as the "pending sanctions motion", anybody can _request_ sanctions against opposing counsel - I've done it myself, when somebody suing me for $500,000 couldn't even be bothered to meet the court imposed deadlines. A pending motion is standard operating procedure. Get back to me when a judge actually imposes sanctions -- that is much more rare.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad.
Seriously, it is great to see them being openly evil like this, for those that are slow or haven't gotten the point.
Well done, RIAA. Try twirling your mustache the next time you accuse anyone, just to really seal the deal.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Why pay these thugs to beat people up?
We pay their salaries. No-one else does.
Boy
Cott
RIAA
Boy
Cott
RIAA ...
That reminds me, pardon my Godwin, of an old line from the late Pierre Desproges: "You will never manage to completely convince me that jews weren't at least a LITTLE bit guilty of irrationnal anti-nazi bias."
And then in the very next sentence:
I mean... unless something has changed in their pattern, they only have documentation of one legal download and that being from an investigation team that may or may not be licensed.
Why has no attorney ever taken a look at the finances and circumstances associated with one particular song - how much revenue did this earn in the year prior, the year during, and the year after the alleged infringement. Most of the songs that I've noted have been out for at least a decade if not two, with little or no marketing, and zero spins on any of the radio stations I listen to.
Another argument I never see in any of these is the challenge the RIAAs ownership of the material. A 20 year old song may or may not have a clear ownership record, and with the history of the industry, you really should establish that the recording artists, the producers, and the songwriters all have given the RIAA authority willingly and contractually prior to the filing of any individual lawsuit.
The GNU licence uses copyright law against itself. It doesn't mean the FSF condones copyright law. Just like if I don't agree with ill-considered tax-breaks doesn't mean I'm going to be the only fucker paying them.
The FSF is against copyright, it just so happens to use copyright to protect itself from copyright abusers.
I've noticed that people resort to ad hominem when they haven't a better arguement to use.
The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
Or, to paraphrase, "Don't listen to him, he's just a lawyer! Whereas I am the True Friend of the Court, he's your enemy! Actually, he's mine, but I'd prefer you thought of him as yours".
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
They didn't claim FSF is a terrorist organization (yet.) "Dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs" and having an "open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies." sounds like a compliment to me. I'd wear it as a badge of honor, as I'm sure FSF will do.
The RIAA didn't attack the FSF, they were praising the FSF for standing up to an evil organization: the RIAA.
So, I feel you are saying:
"We are preaching to the choir, and will never get anywhere"
If I have misunderstood, then correct me...I can take it, and welcome it, in fact.
Working on the above perspective, I have to reply to counter argue.
I will use myself as an example.
I lurked here for several years before getting an account.
Why?
I learned stuff that was new to me, but was dismissed as 'old news' by those with your attitude. Those comments still came through, in spite of those like you.
I found interesting things to explore and learn about, and still do here on slashdot...every day!
I found out about GNU/Linux on slashdot, despite you, and the fact it existed before I was aware that it was news.
There is benefit to 'preaching to the choir', as the choir grows, and talks to others.
I've learned about many things that I had no previous clue that they existed from the 'preaching to the choir' bunch here on slashdot.
Again, if I have misunderstood, please accept my apology, and correct me.
If my assumption was correct, or close, then think about what I said, and have some patience...we were all n00bs at one point....there will always be n00bs, and the future is full of n00bs...in reference to anything.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Here is one of the RIAA's claims: Indeed, the cost of an unrestricted license to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted works for free on the Internet would be astronomical.. I think that could be checked with a simple call to Magnatune (www.magnatune.com).
Say?
His reply will be to mobilize the GNU/HURD, unsheath his katana, and attack, like robot-ninja-monkeys...
There will be no 'say'...just bloody apocalypse!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Don't forget his Recorder of Death.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if that FSF has an "'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against record companies". Since I last heard, it's not illegal to criticize the RIAA and copyrights.
Or, to put it another way, Richard Stallman's cock is larger than the the cock size of everyone associated with the RIAA combined! What are they going to do in the face of such an enormous penis? What can they do?
Yeah I could make a serious post on the subject, but I'm giving the RIAA all the respect they and their shrill complaints deserve.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Wow, perfect grammar in a /. story summary! I can't recall seeing such an exquisite exposition of the proper usage of nested quotation marks.
It's almost as if /. found a professional editor!
Oh wait...
They should have simply called the FSF, "Fucking Communists" and that would have sufficed.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
It's been a few years since law school, so I may not be remembering my legal ethics class fully--but it seems at the very least highly questionable for a lawyer involved in a case to be submitting articles about that case to Slashdot.
Does not mean "a lot", like the author, and millions of other people, seem to think. It is, in fact, mathematically impossible to say "exponentially more than 35 cents". All that exponentially means is that a certain additive increase to the independent variable translates into a constant multiplicative increase in the dependent variable, no matter at what point in the function the additive increase is being applied.
...but I'd really like to know how to file one of those amateur circus briefs.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
When you don't have the facts on your side, pound on the law.
When you don't have the law on your side, pound on the facts.
When you have neither on your side, pound on the table.
When an opposing party start attacking people on their beliefs, you know they are in bad shape.
Fight Spammers!
My brain has cooked up this situation where I'm in a room with the guy who sent out this "document".
Me: You * don't * get * to * choose * how * much * you * get * paid * in * damages! You * ass! ***
Where * gets replaced by a hefty face punch.
I can dream...
Oh, and kudos NYCL, keep up the good work, hope the whole "not being streamed" thing gets sorted out somehow.
An assumption by one party of bias on the other party does not constitute proof that bias actually exists.
If I believed the entire world was biased against me, it is sign of a mental illness.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the FSF. I would argue they protect copyright with the GPL.
Many of their statements are unsupported even by their own references.
The Free Software Foundation is providing funds for experts. As the Free Software Foundation relies on donations, It is the members of the foundation who are expressing support for this action. The intent of actions by certain members should not be used to disparage the organization in entirety
In Soviet Russia, comment makes you new!
They now have a president appointing their attorneys to the DOJ en masse.
From the excerpts I read they were arguing that the damages should be astronomical because of the potential distribution of millions of copies.
So what I want to know is when do they stop suing? It they caught an successfully prosecuted everyone who shared files wouldn't they get millions of times more money than the actual value of all the copies out there?
They provided (at least to me) a pretty good argument why they would need to prove definite evidence of sharing to specific people. So they don't effectively collect their moneys more than one time per distributed copy.
Who cares if they have a bias?
That's what LAWSUITS are all about.
There's biases in EVERY lawsuit.
Trying to get kids and old ladies to pay 2100 times the damages is unreasonable. Courts have found unreasonable damages unenforceable, can't remember the case but it was someone taking cash out of the country. I would support such a finding for this specific case.
But I do not want to attack the concept of high statutory damages in general. An author of open source software has no direct income from distributing his software, so what besides an injunction can he hit Huge Corporation with to discourage infringement of his work? Statutory damages. If not for statutory damages they can infringe at will, make millions, and just stop using the work when hit with an injunction.
"They didn't claim the FSF is a terrorist organization (yet)> "
Not only are that not doing that, precisely what in this part of their filing is wrong?
The 9-page response (PDF) â" 4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding â" termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs', and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies. They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site'
The FSF does want to do those things. They do have a bias against copyright (though not copyleft). I've heard Stallman say that copyright violation could be called "sharing with your neighbor". That blog they mentioned is an anti-industry website.
It's pretty silly to protest those things when, not only are they true, but their members and admirers are proud about it. It's like Che Guevarra protesting "But he called me a Commie, your honor!". Yeah, so? It's true, isn't it?
Why is anyone shocked that they're filing a response? Seriously?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
FSF is a little "out there" in the opinion of most business-owners. (And check your 401k, even if it's a 200.5k right now... you're likely a part owner of a business that deals in copyrights.) But here's the thing, what's wrong with that? Sure, they dream of a world where copyleft has taken over copyright... but nobody is being forced to GPL their code, and some smarter businesses use the GPL because they think they can make money on hardware optimized to be used with the code... see also Asterisk's Digium and TiVo.
I really think this is more grandstanding than a valid argument.
You've been listening too much to the "IP is property" mantra. Copyright is an artificial monopoly which is granted by a national government --- you cannot transfer it to another nation. The "other nation" is often respecting the some kind of international treaty which makes it recognize the original nation's copyright status for your work, but that would be automatic, in general.
The FSF is not a neutral friend of the Court. Rather, FSF is an organization dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs, classic intellectual property, much like the sound recordings at issue in this case. See http://ww.fsf.org./
To that end, FSF opposes the recording industry's enforcement efforts.
That couldn't be further from the truth. We, the supporters of the GPL, want OUR OWN works to be freely redistributable, and when changes are made, to have those changes returned to the community. OUR OWN WORK! WE DO NOT STEAL! Sorry for shouting.
I do not speak for the FSF.
They act like they think they're running the US Justice Department. Oh, wait...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Keep it up and Linux distributors will have to copyright and charge for their works. Next thing you know the 60% of the worlds servers running variants of Linux will only be able to use registered copies....Lots o fun! -Oz
Standing up against the tactical thuggery of an organization which purports to represent the "recording industry" is not at all the same as being "anti-recording industry."
This article and the other article about Biotech Company To Patent Pigs makes me feel like this world has gone nuts and crazy!!!
I have less and less respect for copyrights, intellectual property, etc. Lets go pirate some more music, software and ... pigs!!!
How do you pirate a pig? Anybody can help, please? Pirate Bay maybe ..?
Yes!! - found it - http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4722715/The_Third_Pig
I don't have anything to say. I just wanted to reply to the parent's subject line.
"They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site' "
Sorry, but that's exactly what it is. Its fucking tragic that you would be upset by this.
People call me anti-piracy a lot, because that accurate. And when they do so, I don't come crying to slashdot about it.
You are massively, overwhelmingly anti-record-company. Why are you so fucking annoyed at being called what you are?
I guess your mission is accomplished, to get yet another slashdot story that generates tons of ad-impressions for your blog.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
"Rule 11. All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored."
(Citation: Rules of the internet)
It's like watching the whole SCO thing again, but this time it's a nation rather than a company. Where's Darl - he's my favourite baddy...
Assuming for the sake of argument this guy is no longer a teenager and that he was not accused of anything else in this case, isn't there some kind of statute of limitations for downloading stuff? When can my friend who may have downloaded a few thousand songs from Napster back in 2000 safely say he or she got away with it?
[...] termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on birth-controlling, deporting, and experimenting on Jews', and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against racism' and 'blatant bias' against the NSDAP. They called 'NSDAP vs. The People' an 'anti-nazi web site' and stated that NYCL 'is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion for his conduct in representing a defendant'
I don't care about Godwin's law. Just tell me why this fits so well...
(Of course I do not say with this, that the gravity of the Holocaust is even remotely on the same level as this thing. But... you know what I want to say. It's just not funny anymore.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Congratulation to the FSF! The "ignore you" stage is definitely over.
So you can keep your pants on.
Please.
Give 'em Hell NewYorkCountryLawyer!
I call it "copyright", because controlling distribution in this way is neither novel nor unintended. It's just artists limiting distribution of their works in exchange for money
Changed that for you. The thinking behind copyright is this (using just music as an example):
So: copyright exists to move money towards musicians by limiting who can sell their music, such that they can afford to practice eight hours per day, such that we all can have better music.
Allowing everyone to distribute, while not putting yourself in a good position to earn money from it, seems to go counter to that.
(In other words: copyright is an employment program :D)
or code protected by it could deliberately be used in proprietary software
So? The (first) goal of the FSF is not to eradicate all proprietary software, "only" to make it obsolete.
That is to say, they want to make it so that everything you need to get done with a computer, you can get done using only free software.
A second goal might be to convince everyone to value their freedom, but again the existence of proprietary software doesn't make this impossible, it only means there is an obstacle.
Without copyright, all software would be public domain, which is FSF-approved Free Software. The problems with public domain is the same as with BSD/MIT/X11 licenses: proprietary derivatives _can_ exist.
The FSF doesn't need copyright law. It helps them, though.
Well I wish computer programming was more accessible to me.
Well, I'm sure you can Ask Slashdot for advice. I can in particular recommend asking which programming language you should be learning as your first.
The discussion will be very constructive. By the way, Visual Basic sucks.
Dear RIAA: Nobody likes you. That is all.
In the beginning, there was null.
See for example the state secrets policies of both major parties in the US. Also see the primary challenges the *Republicans* funded against their own incumbents who voted against the patriot act.
Ron Paul looks like a better president every day that has passed of both W's and O's terms.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Who here wouldn't LOVE to see Jack Thompson file a brief siding with the RIAA?
You know you've really arrived when an avid Slashdot reader finally opens an account and names himself after you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Why wait? PayPlay, CD Baby, and numerous others have NOTHING to do with the RIAA and they're more than happy to sell (and in at least some cases, HAND) you music galore.
But how can somebody who spends a lot of time commuting or traveling find what he likes among artists on PayPlay or CD Baby? (The major record labels promote works to people in vehicles through FM radio.) And how can somebody learn that artists on PayPlay or CD Baby even exist?
wow. you admit you know nothing about copyright law.
Anonymous Coward makes a good point: The copyright law of Sweden is not the copyright law of the United States. Nor is it a word-for-word transposition of the Berne Convention and the European Bono Act. And even if the statutes were identical, case law might go differently in the two countries.
But in practice I think when the casual reader sees "the FSF has a blatant bias against the recording industry", they think the FSF is against content producers, as well.
Attack the RIAA at every opportunity!
You have to take the cargo from a factory almost certainly INLAND CHINA to a port (how do you get there? TRUCK or rail; how many miles? Good question; I will guess on average a MINIMUM of 50 miles). You have to load the ship. All this takes ENERGY. Then you transport via ship. Once you get to LA, THEN YOU HAVE TO SHIP AROUND THE PLACE SUCH AS TO FLAGSTAFF AND DENVER VIA TRUCK (possibly rail). You may also send it to Chicago, NY, etc.
OTH, if this is local factory say flagstaff, you ship via truck to LA, Denver, NYC, etc.
Local building and shipping IS cheaper. The question is by how much. When oil is low, then the yuan is fixed against the dollar to sux the work out. BUT, as oil price rises, the transportation becomes SIGNIFICANT all around.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So they have these "biases". Why should it matter a flying copulation? Is there suddenly a law against having a different agenda than the RIAA? Why the hell do they think there's a lawsuit in the first place?
Yes, many of us, not just the Free Software Foundation, have a different agenda, and yes, we want to use all the legal, financial, and moral power we can muster to REDUCE THE SIZE, WEALTH, AND POWER OF THE RIAA. As a musician, recording artist, and music consumer they have opposed my interests in every possible way, have horribly corrupted and damaged the legal mechanisms for protecting artists, and offer nothing of value in return. I simply don't want into the game they play - I want it to get out of the way of other, more interesting games.
Yes, a US company could transfer (actually, I think the more common legal language in this case is "assign") its US copyright to a company in France; but it would still have (automatically) a French copyright also. The post I replied to seemed to me to imply that there wouldn't have been any copyright on that work in France until some kind of "transfer" would occur.
And any change in US copyright law would affect that US copyright in the same way, no matter in what nation the assignee happened to be, making the post I replied to a bit, er, hard to understand.
Anyway, if the situation degenerates to the degree of the AC's GPL v.6 license, I doubt there will be much use of trying to squeeze out of it by some kind of legal side-stepping....