"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies..."
Two things:
1) Techincally, this is true. They are not "authorized copies", they are copies for which authorization is not required. Same for any application of fair use.
Hand-waving worthy of a boot to the head? Maybe.
2) Not clear from the summary where they draw the line. Are they arguing that making the mp3 is illegal, or are they arguing that putting it on a shared drive makes it illegal?
Either interpretation is invalid, at least without further information (what type of shared drive? shared with whom? just among his own computers, or a P2P share?) and maybe regardless. But if it's the share (and not the mp3 format) that defines the problem, then they are at least being relatively consistent even if they're wrong.
This would be an application of the "making available" line of reasoning, which really does require more fleshing out. Here's the thing -- I don't buy the "making available" line without further de-blurring of lines; but I don't buy that putting copyrighted files on a p2p share is an innocent act, either.
The shared storage is the digital equivalent of leaving my mp3 player on the front porch. Hard to see how that's illegal, though in a sense the tracks are "available" if someone wants to come swipe them.
But the p2p shares are also indexed for search and retreival, no? That's the digital equivalent of yelling out "Hey, come get a copy of the tunes I left on my porch!" That's a little more than "merely" making available.
Actually, the way you propose scaling up the Prisoner's Dillema is more like the Tragedy of the Commons. (An alternative interpretation of what a scaled-up PD looks like can be found in one of the Xanth novels, but I can't remember which one... in any case, it still considers 1-to-1 interactions but amongst a larger total field of participants; in that scenario, it shows that tit-for-tat is a winning strategy. But I digress...)
The Tragedy of the Commons talks about how individuals treat a commonly-held interest. Traditionally it's stated in terms of a field shared by many farmers. The "right thing to do" is to pass on the short-term benefits of letting your animals over-graze; but everyone knows that they all lose the long-term benefit of the land if just one neighbor doesn't comply, so the overall incentive structure favors over-grazing.
However, it doesn't take 100% compliance to make a boycot work. You have to reach a critical mass before it has real economic effect, but you don't need 100%. Also, the fact that you're below critical mass now doesn't negate the possibility of reaching it later, unlike a true Tragedy of the Commons situation. And the costs and benefits of over-grazing (buying RIAA music), or of refusing to do so even though your neighbors might, are different.
So there's a similar pressure in play, but it's not the same thing. Anyhow, we don't need new laws to control the RIAA. In some cases we have too many laws, in some cases we just have the wrong laws, but we don't have too few. As it applies to this case -- well, let me know when the court actually sides with the RIAA that a personal copy isn't fair use. That someone makes an outrageous legal claim isn't the same as the law being on that party's side.
A few years back, I looked for good independent music. Followed some recommendations, but couldn't find anything I liked. About a month ago I tried again, and this time I found a lot of good stuff. The tide is changing. The "personal cost" of a boycot is small, and whether driven by organized boycot or not the competition is growing.
Who is to say that "adjustment of your computer settings" doesn't include adjustment of.html files being delivered to you
Who is to say? Well, provincially anyone familiar with the English language. Words do have meanings, and "content I'm downloading" means something different from "my computer's settings".
Should an ISP try to interpret the above language in that way, and assuming a consumer actually stands up for his/her rights, then ultimately a judge or jury will be the one to say that "adjustment of your computer settings" doesn't include adjustment of.html files being delivered to you.
Nice try, though.
It's a shame, you know. The premise is correct to a point -- most people don't pay attention to what they're agreeing to, and in that environment ISP's have and will continue to write agreements that give them more and more freedom to do whatever they want. So why not back it up with facts instead of trying to shoehorn the first thing you can find into meaning something it doesn't?
Riiiight, what MS (and its consumers) really need is more segmentation in the market.
Plenty of open source projects let you choose an older version (within reason) and download it. But point me to any commercial vendor that acheives price discrimination by selling an old version along side the new version. (Oh, some might placate a large customer by selling them additional licenses to the version they already know and love, but even that they will fight against.)
No, the way commercial software differentiates the market is by deliberately disabling some features in a low-tier edition of the current version, and with good reason.
If I sell you an old version, I create a support headache for myself. I have to have the resources to deal with Issues X, Y, and Z on the old version, and issues W, X, and Q on the new version, and my support people have to keep it all straight.
If I fixed a bug in the new version and you buy the old version but insist that the bug is a show-stopper, what should I do? Patch the old version? Wasteful. How about tell you that the bug is fixed if you upgrade? But, oops, I just cajoled you into buying the old version by pretending it was still a viable (albeit lower-tier) product.
Depending on the nature of the bug, I might even expose myself to liability (one-sided language in EULA notwithstanding).
Open source projects can keep old versions out there because they don't hvae to support them. Commercial software companies can't reasonably do it that way.
Now, you can argue about whether Vista is really an improvement over XP, but that's a totally separate issue. Clearly MS has moved on and wants you to move on; so their marketing the new as better than the old is natural and consistant with how just about everyone does business.
And our current batteries last up to 40% longer than the ones we made just 5 years ago.
Of course, deliberately working to pass an unconstitutional law should by all rights backfire. Badly. Sure, it might help relations with a special interest, but in the battle of campaign ads if we (the public) allow this kind of behavior to yield positive results, it's nobody's fault but our own.
"Senator X says he's tough on Issue Y. He points to his support of Bill Z.
But Bill Z resulted in laws struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. So did Bills A, B, and C, also supported by Senator X.
Is the problem that Senator X's opponant doesn't care enough about Issue Y? Or that Senator X doesn't care enough about the rights he's sworn to protect?
Slashdot Mirror
True, but a bit beside the point I think.
Yes, the current system sucks, nobody is really going to read what they're agreeing to all the time, and until laws change it will continue to suck.
So yes, it is good when someone sees a particular abuse in someone's "standard" language that they should point it out, loudly.
But in the mean time, keep in mind that you may have agreed to something you later don't like.
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies..."
Two things:
1) Techincally, this is true. They are not "authorized copies", they are copies for which authorization is not required. Same for any application of fair use.
Hand-waving worthy of a boot to the head? Maybe.
2) Not clear from the summary where they draw the line. Are they arguing that making the mp3 is illegal, or are they arguing that putting it on a shared drive makes it illegal?
Either interpretation is invalid, at least without further information (what type of shared drive? shared with whom? just among his own computers, or a P2P share?) and maybe regardless. But if it's the share (and not the mp3 format) that defines the problem, then they are at least being relatively consistent even if they're wrong.
This would be an application of the "making available" line of reasoning, which really does require more fleshing out. Here's the thing -- I don't buy the "making available" line without further de-blurring of lines; but I don't buy that putting copyrighted files on a p2p share is an innocent act, either.
The shared storage is the digital equivalent of leaving my mp3 player on the front porch. Hard to see how that's illegal, though in a sense the tracks are "available" if someone wants to come swipe them.
But the p2p shares are also indexed for search and retreival, no? That's the digital equivalent of yelling out "Hey, come get a copy of the tunes I left on my porch!" That's a little more than "merely" making available.
Actually, the way you propose scaling up the Prisoner's Dillema is more like the Tragedy of the Commons. (An alternative interpretation of what a scaled-up PD looks like can be found in one of the Xanth novels, but I can't remember which one... in any case, it still considers 1-to-1 interactions but amongst a larger total field of participants; in that scenario, it shows that tit-for-tat is a winning strategy. But I digress...)
The Tragedy of the Commons talks about how individuals treat a commonly-held interest. Traditionally it's stated in terms of a field shared by many farmers. The "right thing to do" is to pass on the short-term benefits of letting your animals over-graze; but everyone knows that they all lose the long-term benefit of the land if just one neighbor doesn't comply, so the overall incentive structure favors over-grazing.
However, it doesn't take 100% compliance to make a boycot work. You have to reach a critical mass before it has real economic effect, but you don't need 100%. Also, the fact that you're below critical mass now doesn't negate the possibility of reaching it later, unlike a true Tragedy of the Commons situation. And the costs and benefits of over-grazing (buying RIAA music), or of refusing to do so even though your neighbors might, are different.
So there's a similar pressure in play, but it's not the same thing. Anyhow, we don't need new laws to control the RIAA. In some cases we have too many laws, in some cases we just have the wrong laws, but we don't have too few. As it applies to this case -- well, let me know when the court actually sides with the RIAA that a personal copy isn't fair use. That someone makes an outrageous legal claim isn't the same as the law being on that party's side.
A few years back, I looked for good independent music. Followed some recommendations, but couldn't find anything I liked. About a month ago I tried again, and this time I found a lot of good stuff. The tide is changing. The "personal cost" of a boycot is small, and whether driven by organized boycot or not the competition is growing.
Who is to say that "adjustment of your computer settings" doesn't include adjustment of .html files being delivered to you
.html files being delivered to you.
Who is to say? Well, provincially anyone familiar with the English language. Words do have meanings, and "content I'm downloading" means something different from "my computer's settings".
Should an ISP try to interpret the above language in that way, and assuming a consumer actually stands up for his/her rights, then ultimately a judge or jury will be the one to say that "adjustment of your computer settings" doesn't include adjustment of
Nice try, though.
It's a shame, you know. The premise is correct to a point -- most people don't pay attention to what they're agreeing to, and in that environment ISP's have and will continue to write agreements that give them more and more freedom to do whatever they want. So why not back it up with facts instead of trying to shoehorn the first thing you can find into meaning something it doesn't?
Riiiight, what MS (and its consumers) really need is more segmentation in the market.
Plenty of open source projects let you choose an older version (within reason) and download it. But point me to any commercial vendor that acheives price discrimination by selling an old version along side the new version. (Oh, some might placate a large customer by selling them additional licenses to the version they already know and love, but even that they will fight against.)
No, the way commercial software differentiates the market is by deliberately disabling some features in a low-tier edition of the current version, and with good reason.
If I sell you an old version, I create a support headache for myself. I have to have the resources to deal with Issues X, Y, and Z on the old version, and issues W, X, and Q on the new version, and my support people have to keep it all straight.
If I fixed a bug in the new version and you buy the old version but insist that the bug is a show-stopper, what should I do? Patch the old version? Wasteful. How about tell you that the bug is fixed if you upgrade? But, oops, I just cajoled you into buying the old version by pretending it was still a viable (albeit lower-tier) product.
Depending on the nature of the bug, I might even expose myself to liability (one-sided language in EULA notwithstanding).
Open source projects can keep old versions out there because they don't hvae to support them. Commercial software companies can't reasonably do it that way.
Now, you can argue about whether Vista is really an improvement over XP, but that's a totally separate issue. Clearly MS has moved on and wants you to move on; so their marketing the new as better than the old is natural and consistant with how just about everyone does business.
And our current batteries last up to 40% longer than the ones we made just 5 years ago.
Of course, deliberately working to pass an unconstitutional law should by all rights backfire. Badly. Sure, it might help relations with a special interest, but in the battle of campaign ads if we (the public) allow this kind of behavior to yield positive results, it's nobody's fault but our own.
"Senator X says he's tough on Issue Y. He points to his support of Bill Z.
But Bill Z resulted in laws struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. So did Bills A, B, and C, also supported by Senator X.
Is the problem that Senator X's opponant doesn't care enough about Issue Y? Or that Senator X doesn't care enough about the rights he's sworn to protect?
Vote Senator X's opponent."