I browse in Linux but personally I hate the idea that my browser is giving away any information beyond the rendering engine and locale information, as such my user-agent is along the lines of Mozilla/5.0 (compatible;U;en-gb). I would recommend the firefox plugin used for this to others too.
You can do that all you like, GP was merely trying to save you the heartache of one day realising how meaningless such efforts are.
Linux isn't tied to any one person or any one organisation. Even Linus cannot force people to use linux in any particular way.
If there is anything in Linux to be critical about.. you can figuratively speaking head straight for the culprit and criticise them directly. Eliminating the need to criticise Linux as a kernel, or a desktop, or a server. If you criticise RedHat, that is not the same. Neither is criticising Linus. You may as well criticise nature for wars. It'd do about as much good.
You're totally discounting modern films and large-scale video games, which wouldn't be possible without unbreakable DRM or copyright
Interesting presumptions, they have a lot in common with the Churchill quote in your sig. Your analysis gives an incomplete cause-effect prediction by neglecting the positive effect of alternative outcomes as they are not directly related to your agenda.
In your sig, Churchill is right in saying that the poor will not be richer as a direct consequence of wealth being redistributed but does not explain what would happen to the wealth. In one possible scenario he could mean taking rich peoples money out of the economy altogether which would increase the value of all money - a net benefit for the poor. Another would be taking the money to provide services for the poor - a net benefit again. Then again he could be talking about taking the money from the rich to use for a purpose that would in no way benefit the poor. So while he could get away with saying 'the poor are no richer for the rich being poorer' as an observation, his actual quote can only be treated as a matter of opinion and is pretty useless lacking context.
Moving back to copyright, you assert that copyright is the only realistic way to ensure the production of expensive art. However, take away copyright and you have no less resources and no less consumers. As copyright does not actually facilitate the production of art only the means to fund it we can presume that the resources are available to be used elsewhere including but not limited to, the subject of art.
Scenario one, no copyright, people don't invest in art. It would follow that all the effort that had previously been put into producing art is now elsewhere.. maybe science, maybe war. The important thing is that while people would be poorer culturally the void would be filled by something else.
History tells us that people like art though and that it is practically impossible to destroy it completely. After all, why would it be an issue if the art had no value in the first place? So given that art is wanted and copyright has no effect on the 'need' for art, what would happen with no copyright? You say that we would have no big budget productions. I say good riddance. As I have explained, the value of those productions does not disappear, the gap is filled by something else.
Given that art will exist, and given that for art to exist there has to be some means to make it.. what need does copyright address that cannot be met by the forces of supply and demand? The so called 'positive' effect copyright has is skewing the redistribution of wealth in favour of art far beyond the actual demand for art. It may well be that you think any price is worth it for big budget movies but if that is true for everyone then the demand will be met regardless of copyright.
As with the quote from Churchill, your argument in favour of copyright relies a lot on the world being exactly as you perceive it.
I would imagine they include settlements in their definition of successful. So yeah, the argument relies a lot on a tactic being considered reasonable because it produces results.
It fails to take into account whether the successes can be weighed against the harm caused to innocent parties or whether their idea of success is representative of the number of people actually found to be acting unlawfully by such tactics.
but it's difficult to persuade people that most paedophiles don't abuse children because of the existing conflation of terms.
Wikipedia manages to quote an article stating "We were unable to find any published reports indicating the prevalence of pedophilia among those who were either arrested for or convicted of child sexual abuse or the prevalence of pedophilia in the general population." for citation of the statement "The disorder is common among people who commit child sexual abuse."
It is a shame that most campaigners for other deviant opinions seem to either ignore or go out of their way to distance themselves from your own problems. On the surface that would seem to be a prudent move of self-interest.. but if you consider the bigger picture you realise that the war against ignorance is better fought on all fronts rather than picking and choosing battles. As long as people can justify the concept of thought crime in any form then they will be content to let governments run riot over other peoples rights.
Perhaps you could write a book, 'life at the thin end of the wedge'.
Please note that we did not elect the current cabinet, they took control when Tony Blair stepped down. The phrase 'from frying pan into fire' springs to mind.
Also note that previous to Tony Blair we had endured Margaret Thatcher followed by John Major. Margaret was a strong leader but for every great idea she had there was another completely idiotic one. John Major was about as useful as Gordon Brown but probably a more honorable person. So understand that Tony Blair was set up to win because the country was fed up with the Tories and Labour was all shiny and new at that time.
Had there been a short stay in power by the Tories instead of Thatcher's long reign then the Lib Dems may have had the chance to take advantage of a confidence drain on both parties. In a two party system the longer a party is in power the more confidence can grow in the opposition despite previous failure (people's memories are short in the grand scheme of things).
As it is now we are looking like this pendulum is due for another swing and the Tories will get a turn. If they can stay in power long enough for people to forget what bloody idiots Labour were then the trend will probably continue for a long while yet.
Of course all this momentum tends to ignore the actual people in the parties.. the power of the party names is such that the actual politicians might not even be significant enough an issue to change things.
This swinging two party system we're stuck in isn't something easy to cure but it is something that you can effect by having a better system for the democratic process. Unfortunately most of the measures that would effect it would have to come from the politicians stuck in the system.
In conclusion, most of what we get from government is down to chance more than choice and until we can nudge the pendulum in the right way at the right time this farce is set to continue for many years to come.
The only seemingly possible reason for sealing the documents I can find would be some form of expungement but I fail to see how the case would qualify before it is even over.
From the linked pdf on NYCL's blog, it appears that the reasons cited for dismissing the case amount to a twisted interpretation of the Noerr Pennington doctrine roughly translated to:
1. IP addresses are fair game for probable cause because a previous case involving DirecTV successfully used the Noerr Pennington directive to challenge class action against people supposedly infringing on their signals by buying smart card readers.
2. Media Sentry not holding state investigative licenses is irrelevant because the information they gathered was publicly available.
3. That allegations of the impropriety of accessing publicly shared folders has no basis in law.
4. That any objection to the numerous 'Doe suites filed is countered by the successfulness of such proceedings. Also that such proceedings are not against the law.
5. That the case against Ms Andersen herself was not "objectively baseless" despite failure to link Ms Andersen to the accused infringing Kazaa user name due to flaws in the investigative process.
- IANAL
Still, pretty weak arguments imho. Certainly shouldn't be enough to dismiss the case.
As to the whole sealed shenanigans.. I guess we have to wait and see.
I once put the issue of the etymology of the word paedophile to someone after noticing it's frequent usage on the news in relation to crime stories. The response I got was one of 'well it's the accepted usage, I don't think you can expect people to differentiate'.
It is one of the most bizarre ironies of our time that a word coined from a positive adjective ends up synonymous with 'child abuse'.
I think it has a lot in common with attitudes towards other perversions. Those who regard 'deviant' thought as harmful are often the same people who have their moral boundaries set out for them by their peers. Again, some irony, that those who believe themselves least capable of making their own judgements are those most likely to have others judged.
He's right about what though? I say that conversely, there are significant cases that you can argue his statement is plainly false.
For example, people who directly benefit from government through undue influence surely do not deserve what they get (eg. recording industry and other money orientated lobbyists).
As well, children are in many ways prevented from participating in the political process and can be hard to blame for the failings of government.
That's significant groups of people who either influenced government and got what they didn't deserve or could not influence government and thus cannot be held accountable. Add to that every damn person who puts more effort into improving society through politics than they see a return on from government and I have an issue with what he's right about.
Maybe you could just add one word, like 'generally', to qualify the statement. Still about as useful as saying 'the sky looks blue' but at least it'd be as accurate.
P.S. 'if it looks like a rant and sounds like a rant..'
I hate that phrasing with a vehemence. If you are going to use short and single sentencing in an effort to sound pithy then you could at least be unambiguous. Any more ambiguous and you would be implying that pets aren't making enough effort politically.
An easy position to take if you are content with the political status quo on a subject.
There is always a 'more vital' political issue to consider. The fact is that change often rides the tide of events such as the pirate bay trial. If people want a change to how things work then now is the time to do it. Don't forget how much lobbying the music industry has done to get us where we are today; should we let them screw us over culturally and financially just because the issue isn't about starving people?
Economics, foreign policy, social policy, tax, education and healthcare are deep rooted issues. Why is it a bad idea to tackle an issue such as copyright while it is at it's most vulnerable? I'd rather see it sorted today while it is an issue of a few crying artists than tomorrow when it is a deep rooted intellectual tax.
Perhaps what is most bizarre about your attitude though is the clash it causes with most arguments I hear from pro-copyright people of the 'right way' to make a change. I wonder what you would have them do to get the issue debated, maybe you expect them to lobby the politicians like the media companies did and screw democracy altogether.
I don't think you needed to 'get over' the point because you missed it.
There is no problem with microsoft bundling a browser, the problem was the inability for anyone else to bundle a browser that could compete with Microsofts turf. As long as the browser was tied to the operating system it was both advantaged by the fact that you could not remove it and even if you did remove it you would not be able to tie another browser to the OS. This arguably led to Netscape's demise as they wanted to bundle their browser via OEMs.
Linux by virtue of being open source would struggle to do anything remotely similar. Apart from there being no good reason to develop a crappy API for open source software, you could still write your own API and completely replace the crappy one.
It's similar to the accusations Microsoft have faced about putting undocumented hooks in their programs to disadvantage competitors.. except that in this case it was obvious as you can't hide the fact that you won't let anyone uninstall your browser.
It they 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?
I think if they successfully prosecuted everyone who shared files using the damages model they are proposing.. well lets do some crappy maths:
Using some fairly crappy statistics from the IFPI I can guess that at least 20 billion files were 'illegally swapped' in 2007. At the rate of $750 per infringement (the RIAA's minimum damage amount), I find that they would receive 15 quadrillion dollars. For that one year.
I'm not entirely sure the significance of that number.. but I would not be surprised if it is more money than all the economies of the world put together. Regardless, these figures are hardly to be taken seriously.. after all they are only conservative estimates using the recording industries own numbers.
For some reason, I suddenly have an image of Dr Evil demanding a ransom.
A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
See above, perhaps you can explain how any of these stories have a substantial likelyhood of prejudicing the proceedings?
Not so sure, NYCL was stating an opinion not giving an argument and i'm fairly sure that 'ad hominem' is specific to arguments. Still, it is funny even if it's not all that ironic.
Incidentally, anyone else think that the only reason NYCL submits these stories is to brighten up our day with the humour that ensues?
I think perhaps codes of ethics don't always match too well with reality. While it may well violate some lawyers code of ethics (I wouldn't know), I don't see any real ethical issues as long as NYCL has given due thought to how it may effect his client or the case before posting.
Maybe you could be more specific about whether you are referring to a code violation or a matter of actual ethics theory? If it is the latter then you would have to have an insight into the case that I lack to have spotted any problems.
The RIAA would probably point out that the people who download the song would share it too. Which would nicely sum up the usefulness of arguing with them as it is technically irrelevant but gives the faithful more things to point at to support their opinion.
As you point out, making music available for people to copy is pretty much the business model that supports them. The thing that qualifies most 'pirates' to receive their wrath is the judgement passed on their intentions because they haven't 'paid the piper'.
Eventually society may learn to see through their dogma to the futility of criminalising something all in the name of a business model; especially when there is no effective way to police it. At best they are really naive. Evidence suggests that that being so greedy and selfish, they also lack the ideals they champion.
At the end of the day, the only people keeping momentum going in the RIAA's favour is the RIAA through the funds of the redundant business model. While they may eventually find a new way to make money.. at that time the greedy pigs will no longer care about the current issues. Those who think it is a moral issue may witness the recording industry suddenly doing a u-turn (like they did with TV, radio, etc.) and embracing whatever new way they find to swindle people.
Things are already at the point where their supporters are suggesting that the futile gestures are necessary in the name of morality. When the RIAA stop championing the issue the 'thou shalt not steal' crowd will no longer be relevant.
Yeah, the cynic reflex was screaming that it is probably par for the course with these sort of things. I suppose that judges may actually prefer it as it could speed things up too.
On another note, the response is a great read.. full of irony. They go on about how the FSF are unfit to present their motion because of their bias towards wanting to change copyright when copyright has got where it is today mostly through the lobbying of the record industries and their ilk.
I only hope their technical arguments are as shallow.
Maybe I can't count but I only count 3 pages longer. Still, the reason the response was so long mostly owes to the fact that the RIAA first state in no uncertain terms that they consider the FSF to have no business filing the motion and then go on to try and counter the motion's argument anyway.
I do wonder whether they lessen the effect of their argument by giving the credence of a response at the same time that they are trying to dismiss the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, a lecture on usability from someone who writes a sentence per paragraph.
I browse in Linux but personally I hate the idea that my browser is giving away any information beyond the rendering engine and locale information, as such my user-agent is along the lines of Mozilla/5.0 (compatible;U;en-gb). I would recommend the firefox plugin used for this to others too.
You can do that all you like, GP was merely trying to save you the heartache of one day realising how meaningless such efforts are.
Linux isn't tied to any one person or any one organisation. Even Linus cannot force people to use linux in any particular way.
If there is anything in Linux to be critical about.. you can figuratively speaking head straight for the culprit and criticise them directly. Eliminating the need to criticise Linux as a kernel, or a desktop, or a server. If you criticise RedHat, that is not the same. Neither is criticising Linus. You may as well criticise nature for wars. It'd do about as much good.
You're totally discounting modern films and large-scale video games, which wouldn't be possible without unbreakable DRM or copyright
Interesting presumptions, they have a lot in common with the Churchill quote in your sig. Your analysis gives an incomplete cause-effect prediction by neglecting the positive effect of alternative outcomes as they are not directly related to your agenda.
In your sig, Churchill is right in saying that the poor will not be richer as a direct consequence of wealth being redistributed but does not explain what would happen to the wealth. In one possible scenario he could mean taking rich peoples money out of the economy altogether which would increase the value of all money - a net benefit for the poor. Another would be taking the money to provide services for the poor - a net benefit again. Then again he could be talking about taking the money from the rich to use for a purpose that would in no way benefit the poor. So while he could get away with saying 'the poor are no richer for the rich being poorer' as an observation, his actual quote can only be treated as a matter of opinion and is pretty useless lacking context.
Moving back to copyright, you assert that copyright is the only realistic way to ensure the production of expensive art. However, take away copyright and you have no less resources and no less consumers. As copyright does not actually facilitate the production of art only the means to fund it we can presume that the resources are available to be used elsewhere including but not limited to, the subject of art.
Scenario one, no copyright, people don't invest in art. It would follow that all the effort that had previously been put into producing art is now elsewhere.. maybe science, maybe war. The important thing is that while people would be poorer culturally the void would be filled by something else.
History tells us that people like art though and that it is practically impossible to destroy it completely. After all, why would it be an issue if the art had no value in the first place? So given that art is wanted and copyright has no effect on the 'need' for art, what would happen with no copyright? You say that we would have no big budget productions. I say good riddance. As I have explained, the value of those productions does not disappear, the gap is filled by something else.
Given that art will exist, and given that for art to exist there has to be some means to make it.. what need does copyright address that cannot be met by the forces of supply and demand? The so called 'positive' effect copyright has is skewing the redistribution of wealth in favour of art far beyond the actual demand for art. It may well be that you think any price is worth it for big budget movies but if that is true for everyone then the demand will be met regardless of copyright.
As with the quote from Churchill, your argument in favour of copyright relies a lot on the world being exactly as you perceive it.
I would imagine they include settlements in their definition of successful. So yeah, the argument relies a lot on a tactic being considered reasonable because it produces results.
It fails to take into account whether the successes can be weighed against the harm caused to innocent parties or whether their idea of success is representative of the number of people actually found to be acting unlawfully by such tactics.
but it's difficult to persuade people that most paedophiles don't abuse children because of the existing conflation of terms.
Wikipedia manages to quote an article stating "We were unable to find any published reports indicating the prevalence of pedophilia among those who were either arrested for or convicted of child sexual abuse or the prevalence of pedophilia in the general population." for citation of the statement "The disorder is common among people who commit child sexual abuse."
It is a shame that most campaigners for other deviant opinions seem to either ignore or go out of their way to distance themselves from your own problems. On the surface that would seem to be a prudent move of self-interest.. but if you consider the bigger picture you realise that the war against ignorance is better fought on all fronts rather than picking and choosing battles. As long as people can justify the concept of thought crime in any form then they will be content to let governments run riot over other peoples rights.
Perhaps you could write a book, 'life at the thin end of the wedge'.
Please note that we did not elect the current cabinet, they took control when Tony Blair stepped down. The phrase 'from frying pan into fire' springs to mind.
Also note that previous to Tony Blair we had endured Margaret Thatcher followed by John Major. Margaret was a strong leader but for every great idea she had there was another completely idiotic one. John Major was about as useful as Gordon Brown but probably a more honorable person. So understand that Tony Blair was set up to win because the country was fed up with the Tories and Labour was all shiny and new at that time.
Had there been a short stay in power by the Tories instead of Thatcher's long reign then the Lib Dems may have had the chance to take advantage of a confidence drain on both parties. In a two party system the longer a party is in power the more confidence can grow in the opposition despite previous failure (people's memories are short in the grand scheme of things).
As it is now we are looking like this pendulum is due for another swing and the Tories will get a turn. If they can stay in power long enough for people to forget what bloody idiots Labour were then the trend will probably continue for a long while yet.
Of course all this momentum tends to ignore the actual people in the parties.. the power of the party names is such that the actual politicians might not even be significant enough an issue to change things.
This swinging two party system we're stuck in isn't something easy to cure but it is something that you can effect by having a better system for the democratic process. Unfortunately most of the measures that would effect it would have to come from the politicians stuck in the system.
In conclusion, most of what we get from government is down to chance more than choice and until we can nudge the pendulum in the right way at the right time this farce is set to continue for many years to come.
There is a good example of how they are using the Noerr Pennington doctrine along with lots of other interesting related case material on Hackhu.com
The only seemingly possible reason for sealing the documents I can find would be some form of expungement but I fail to see how the case would qualify before it is even over.
From the linked pdf on NYCL's blog, it appears that the reasons cited for dismissing the case amount to a twisted interpretation of the Noerr Pennington doctrine roughly translated to:
1. IP addresses are fair game for probable cause because a previous case involving DirecTV successfully used the Noerr Pennington directive to challenge class action against people supposedly infringing on their signals by buying smart card readers.
2. Media Sentry not holding state investigative licenses is irrelevant because the information they gathered was publicly available.
3. That allegations of the impropriety of accessing publicly shared folders has no basis in law.
4. That any objection to the numerous 'Doe suites filed is countered by the successfulness of such proceedings. Also that such proceedings are not against the law.
5. That the case against Ms Andersen herself was not "objectively baseless" despite failure to link Ms Andersen to the accused infringing Kazaa user name due to flaws in the investigative process.
- IANAL
Still, pretty weak arguments imho. Certainly shouldn't be enough to dismiss the case.
As to the whole sealed shenanigans.. I guess we have to wait and see.
I once put the issue of the etymology of the word paedophile to someone after noticing it's frequent usage on the news in relation to crime stories. The response I got was one of 'well it's the accepted usage, I don't think you can expect people to differentiate'.
It is one of the most bizarre ironies of our time that a word coined from a positive adjective ends up synonymous with 'child abuse'.
I think it has a lot in common with attitudes towards other perversions. Those who regard 'deviant' thought as harmful are often the same people who have their moral boundaries set out for them by their peers. Again, some irony, that those who believe themselves least capable of making their own judgements are those most likely to have others judged.
1b) What do you do with the 57.2 million non muslims who may take exception to ethnic cleansing?
Ditto for the Northern Ireland residents. Often uses of such stats ignore the fact that not everyone believes in forced segregation.
He's right about what though? I say that conversely, there are significant cases that you can argue his statement is plainly false.
For example, people who directly benefit from government through undue influence surely do not deserve what they get (eg. recording industry and other money orientated lobbyists).
As well, children are in many ways prevented from participating in the political process and can be hard to blame for the failings of government.
That's significant groups of people who either influenced government and got what they didn't deserve or could not influence government and thus cannot be held accountable. Add to that every damn person who puts more effort into improving society through politics than they see a return on from government and I have an issue with what he's right about.
Maybe you could just add one word, like 'generally', to qualify the statement. Still about as useful as saying 'the sky looks blue' but at least it'd be as accurate.
P.S. 'if it looks like a rant and sounds like a rant..'
The people get the government they deserve.
I hate that phrasing with a vehemence.
If you are going to use short and single sentencing in an effort to sound pithy then you could at least be unambiguous.
Any more ambiguous and you would be implying that pets aren't making enough effort politically.
Nobody cares about the "Pirate Party." It's just a bunch of morons who signed up online out of spite and probably will never be heard from again.
Uh, considering your whole post was as bad as this, I'm just surprised it didn't stay modded down.
Perhaps if you at least left out all the name-calling?
An easy position to take if you are content with the political status quo on a subject.
There is always a 'more vital' political issue to consider. The fact is that change often rides the tide of events such as the pirate bay trial. If people want a change to how things work then now is the time to do it. Don't forget how much lobbying the music industry has done to get us where we are today; should we let them screw us over culturally and financially just because the issue isn't about starving people?
Economics, foreign policy, social policy, tax, education and healthcare are deep rooted issues. Why is it a bad idea to tackle an issue such as copyright while it is at it's most vulnerable? I'd rather see it sorted today while it is an issue of a few crying artists than tomorrow when it is a deep rooted intellectual tax.
Perhaps what is most bizarre about your attitude though is the clash it causes with most arguments I hear from pro-copyright people of the 'right way' to make a change. I wonder what you would have them do to get the issue debated, maybe you expect them to lobby the politicians like the media companies did and screw democracy altogether.
I don't think you needed to 'get over' the point because you missed it.
There is no problem with microsoft bundling a browser, the problem was the inability for anyone else to bundle a browser that could compete with Microsofts turf. As long as the browser was tied to the operating system it was both advantaged by the fact that you could not remove it and even if you did remove it you would not be able to tie another browser to the OS. This arguably led to Netscape's demise as they wanted to bundle their browser via OEMs.
Linux by virtue of being open source would struggle to do anything remotely similar. Apart from there being no good reason to develop a crappy API for open source software, you could still write your own API and completely replace the crappy one.
It's similar to the accusations Microsoft have faced about putting undocumented hooks in their programs to disadvantage competitors.. except that in this case it was obvious as you can't hide the fact that you won't let anyone uninstall your browser.
An unwitting wit, without which, moods wilt?
Maybe the RIAA could try legalise in verse and rhyme. At least then the worth of their arguments would increase if they are better at poetry than law.
It they 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?
I think if they successfully prosecuted everyone who shared files using the damages model they are proposing.. well lets do some crappy maths:
Using some fairly crappy statistics from the IFPI I can guess that at least 20 billion files were 'illegally swapped' in 2007. At the rate of $750 per infringement (the RIAA's minimum damage amount), I find that they would receive 15 quadrillion dollars. For that one year.
I'm not entirely sure the significance of that number.. but I would not be surprised if it is more money than all the economies of the world put together. Regardless, these figures are hardly to be taken seriously.. after all they are only conservative estimates using the recording industries own numbers.
For some reason, I suddenly have an image of Dr Evil demanding a ransom.
A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
See above, perhaps you can explain how any of these stories have a substantial likelyhood of prejudicing the proceedings?
Not so sure, NYCL was stating an opinion not giving an argument and i'm fairly sure that 'ad hominem' is specific to arguments. Still, it is funny even if it's not all that ironic.
Incidentally, anyone else think that the only reason NYCL submits these stories is to brighten up our day with the humour that ensues?
I think perhaps codes of ethics don't always match too well with reality. While it may well violate some lawyers code of ethics (I wouldn't know), I don't see any real ethical issues as long as NYCL has given due thought to how it may effect his client or the case before posting.
Maybe you could be more specific about whether you are referring to a code violation or a matter of actual ethics theory? If it is the latter then you would have to have an insight into the case that I lack to have spotted any problems.
The RIAA would probably point out that the people who download the song would share it too. Which would nicely sum up the usefulness of arguing with them as it is technically irrelevant but gives the faithful more things to point at to support their opinion.
As you point out, making music available for people to copy is pretty much the business model that supports them. The thing that qualifies most 'pirates' to receive their wrath is the judgement passed on their intentions because they haven't 'paid the piper'.
Eventually society may learn to see through their dogma to the futility of criminalising something all in the name of a business model; especially when there is no effective way to police it. At best they are really naive. Evidence suggests that that being so greedy and selfish, they also lack the ideals they champion.
At the end of the day, the only people keeping momentum going in the RIAA's favour is the RIAA through the funds of the redundant business model. While they may eventually find a new way to make money.. at that time the greedy pigs will no longer care about the current issues. Those who think it is a moral issue may witness the recording industry suddenly doing a u-turn (like they did with TV, radio, etc.) and embracing whatever new way they find to swindle people.
Things are already at the point where their supporters are suggesting that the futile gestures are necessary in the name of morality. When the RIAA stop championing the issue the 'thou shalt not steal' crowd will no longer be relevant.
Yeah, the cynic reflex was screaming that it is probably par for the course with these sort of things. I suppose that judges may actually prefer it as it could speed things up too.
On another note, the response is a great read.. full of irony. They go on about how the FSF are unfit to present their motion because of their bias towards wanting to change copyright when copyright has got where it is today mostly through the lobbying of the record industries and their ilk.
I only hope their technical arguments are as shallow.
Maybe I can't count but I only count 3 pages longer. Still, the reason the response was so long mostly owes to the fact that the RIAA first state in no uncertain terms that they consider the FSF to have no business filing the motion and then go on to try and counter the motion's argument anyway.
I do wonder whether they lessen the effect of their argument by giving the credence of a response at the same time that they are trying to dismiss the issue.