I'd like to add as well that 90% of what you read is dicta; the holding of the court was mainly:
One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.
Mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor to liability. Nor would ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability in themselves.
The inducement rule, instead, premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise.
That, and they clarified the holding of Sony, since the 9th Circuit had misinterpretted it.
Concurring opinions only exist for persuasive purposes; however, only the opinion for the court (unanimous in this case) is binding law.
Also, concurrences tend to muddle the results a little, since we have 6 of the 9 justices expressing slightly different opinions about the matter, you could say that parts of the unanimous opinion only reflect 3/9ths of the court's opinion.
At any rate; the concurring opinions are good to read, but lower courts only have to follow the "main" opinion.
The Fifth Amendment (takings clause) generally applies to the states (and thus state and local governments) through the Fourteenth Amendment (and yes, I realize it is more complicated than this, but you get the general idea).
States don't get to decide what the U.S. Constitution means.
As a general rule, whenever someone criticizes another's grammar they will make at least as many grammatical mistakes or spelling errors as the person they are criticizing.
"It" is a pronoun, the possessive of "it" is a new word: "its." The confusion exists because of the contraction "it's" which is simply "it is" shortened through the use of an apostrophe.
Other examples:
He - His She - Hers You - Yours Me - Mine It - Its
You wouldn't say "The cat licked he's fur." or "I liked you's fur."
but the RIAA isn't fooling many people with their whole 'save the starving artists' angle.
Which is why their angle is more like "Save the starving stage-hand." At least I know the MPAA was taking this approach. They know people don't care if the actors lose money, because they see visibly every day that they aren't starving, but what about all the other employees involved in movie/music production?
Language evolves over time. I don't think anyone that hears the term "software piracy" would equate it in their mind with anything regarding the "arrr" variety of a pirate.
In fact, I bet if you gave people a multiple choice question regarding what "piracy" meant, very few people, except those who religiously celebrate Talk Like a Pirate Day would mark the box labelled "Shiver me timbers!"
Find a better argument, it's just a word, and it doesn't have the connotation you claim it does.
You can't accumulate credits unless someone else is paying for that. Unless it is a 1 for 1 exchange (1 credit for 1 upload) this won't happen.
Also, each person that you upload too has just become another potential uploader; so for each credit you gain, the chance of you getting another for that same song decreases.
Don't you also need information like the person's last employer, wage information, why the person was terminated, etc.
Also, isn't an employer notified when a former employee starts collecting unemployment, since they have to pay part of that anyway? (And they can contest it as well for certain reasons).
The article makes sound like all you need is a SSN and you can parade on down to the unemployment office and leave with a check.
I wouldn't doubt that a few people have tried to collect unemployment using a stolen SSN; however, he's really just trying to create FUD, which is evidenced by his "example" which is a hypothetical that probably has never occurred. (Don't most states actually require you to file an unemployment claim in person initially?)
Remember I'm talking about new works. What artist wouldn't prefer to keep the copyright on new works, if there were a viable distribution network that would collect royalties for them?
The problem is they need a way to gain popularity. Word of mouth is only successful for the best of the best, and even then it can't be counted on.
So, how do you become popular? You could go and try to play in every city in the US, but you need money to do that. Money that record labels will put down for you and then you can earn back by selling tickets and records.
Or you can try radio. But, guess what? ClearChannel and a few others own radio. They're not going to let just anyone have access to their airwaves. But they have some good friends in the record industry that they give access too. Good luck getting decent radio play without the label.
The problem lies at the core of the music industry. An independent artist has a very difficult time getting established because all of the major distribution/advertising channels are ran by the industry giants.
Reminds me of a something that a manufacturer said about Wal-mart, "The only thing worse than doing business with (any record label) is not doing business with (any record label)."
Now, that doesn't mean this is an unchangeable system, but it is one hell of a beast to slay.
The typical situation is that the artist signs with the label and then the work that they produce is actually considered "work-for-hire" and the copyright is owned by the label at that point, which the contract then dictates what the artist receives, etc.
Another typical situation would be that the artist creates the work outside the label. Then the artist holds the copyright; however, they have the transfer their rights to a label in exchange for publicity, publishing, etc. (Not that they have to, but the label won't have it any other way more than likely.)
Copyright actually consists of many rights, which include, inter alia, the exclusive right to:
- reproduce the work - prepare derivative works - distribute the work - perform the work publicly (applies to only certain classes) - display the work publicly (applies to only certain classes)
It is possible to assign only some of these rights to other individuals, which may be another way that the music industry gets things done. The sad truth is that because of the oligopoly of radio stations held by a few media giants, it is difficult or almost impossible to get anything done with major record labels, who are only interested in screwing artists out of every dime they have.
For example, I searched for Weezer, and you'll see that their song "Undone" lists Spike Jonze as the director, but the "Claimant" (copyright holder) is Geffen Records, Inc. (employer for hire). Sometimes the actual author is listed, but that means nothing as far as who is entitled to royalties or has control over the work.
What the artist gets is determined entirely by their contract with the record company. Feel free to look up more of your favorite artists, etc. But you will rarely find a well-known artist that owns their own copyright.
Therefore, it is impossible in most cases for your "someone" in your hypothetical to contract directly with the artist, because the artist has nothing to offer them.
I understand the arguments for why iPod doesn't support certain formats; but the bigger question is, should the content producer be the one putting everything out in 10 different formats to satisfy all of the different products that can use the content; or should the products making use of the content be the ones that simply support as many formats as possible so as to make things easier on the content producers?
Which of these options is best for all parties involved, including the consumer?
I don't know the answer, but I think it is an interesting question.
It's like the Wal-Mart philosophy. You make the customer think they're getting a cheap prices, but really they're just soaking up the costs you normally would have had to bear in other areas, so it appears cheaper but it isn't. (For Wal-Mart this means most of your hourly employees are on government healthcare; with this sytem, it means that the user bears the cost of bandwidth, electricity, time, etc.)
For RIAA, this can only work if they give very little credits to uploaders.
So long as the credit is less than the cost of downloading one song, they're making money.
If 1 song costs $1, and you got a $0.90 credit for every upload
$1 - You downloaded the song $10 - 10 people download the song from you ($9) - You spend your free credits on 9 songs
They made $11 on 20 downloads. Continue ad inifitum and it's still making money, considering the costs on their end of running the system are pretty minimal.
For every "credit" you get, they already made money off the person downloading from you to give you that credit.
If the artists aren't going to get any royalties from this, then this is the RIAA committing piracy.
Was there any claim that they wouldn't be receiving the royalties guaranteed them in their contracts? Oh, and most of the time, the artists don't hold the copyrights to their works anyway, they sold them along with their soul in order to get signed to a particular label.
If the RIAA didn't give the artists any royalties due, they would be breaching their contract with the artists, but not committing piracy.
Rich Suger Daddy?!? No. Firefox users feel generous enough to donate to the foundation to help support a great FREE browser. This type of competition bashing is not good for business.
More like, AOL gave them $2,000,000 and Mitch Kapor gave them $300,000. I'd imagine that user contributions pale in comparison to those.
While I tend to agree that a good majority of popular music at this point in time is horrible, I think it is naive to think that there is really any difference between music other people enjoy and that which I enjoy.
Popular music might be prefab, rehashed, overrated trash, but the fact remains that a good chunk of people enjoy listening to and are willing to pay good money to listen to that music, and pay a lot of money to stand in a crowded room and watch a "performance" while the same CD they have at home plays in the background.
The music I enjoy is created in a much different environment and results in a much different sound; however, the end result is the same: something people are willing to pay money to listen to.
I'm not sure I really made my point, but I think you see where I am going with this.
As an aside: if these "real artists" you refer to were "real artists" wouldn't they be doing it for the music and not the money? And if so, then why does it matter to them what it sells for?
But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry.
It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
Stop trying to compare the two. It's like comparing stealing a loaf of bread from the grocery store to using someone else's trademark.
I would add that sometimes you want to keep quiet until your idea/plan/design/whatever is more concrete and refined.
If you let people take a peak at what you plan on doing and it looks like crap, then they're going to be less interested by the time you get working.
You also want to avoid over-hyping, which can lead to disappointment once you finally release.
So my advice would be:
1. Keep quiet until you have something of high enough quality that people would pay real money for it. 2. Don't say how great your product will be unless you know for sure it will be that awesome when you finally put it on the market. 3. Don't start hyping your product when a deadline isn't even in sight. When you finally do get out there, people will be so annoyed with your out-dated hype that they won't care about you anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to add as well that 90% of what you read is dicta; the holding of the court was mainly:
One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.
Mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor to liability. Nor would ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability in themselves.
The inducement rule, instead, premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise.
That, and they clarified the holding of Sony, since the 9th Circuit had misinterpretted it.
Concurring opinions only exist for persuasive purposes; however, only the opinion for the court (unanimous in this case) is binding law.
Also, concurrences tend to muddle the results a little, since we have 6 of the 9 justices expressing slightly different opinions about the matter, you could say that parts of the unanimous opinion only reflect 3/9ths of the court's opinion.
At any rate; the concurring opinions are good to read, but lower courts only have to follow the "main" opinion.
The Fifth Amendment (takings clause) generally applies to the states (and thus state and local governments) through the Fourteenth Amendment (and yes, I realize it is more complicated than this, but you get the general idea).
States don't get to decide what the U.S. Constitution means.
As a general rule, whenever someone criticizes another's grammar they will make at least as many grammatical mistakes or spelling errors as the person they are criticizing.
Why is this being taught on Slashdot, a forum populated largely by native English-speaking intelligent adults?
Slashdot might be populated largely by native English-speakers; but I have some doubt about whether they are intelligent or adults.
Possessive pronouns do not use apostrophes.
"It" is a pronoun, the possessive of "it" is a new word: "its." The confusion exists because of the contraction "it's" which is simply "it is" shortened through the use of an apostrophe.
Other examples:
He - His
She - Hers
You - Yours
Me - Mine
It - Its
You wouldn't say "The cat licked he's fur." or "I liked you's fur."
The same goes for "it."
but the RIAA isn't fooling many people with their whole 'save the starving artists' angle.
Which is why their angle is more like "Save the starving stage-hand." At least I know the MPAA was taking this approach. They know people don't care if the actors lose money, because they see visibly every day that they aren't starving, but what about all the other employees involved in movie/music production?
Language evolves over time. I don't think anyone that hears the term "software piracy" would equate it in their mind with anything regarding the "arrr" variety of a pirate.
In fact, I bet if you gave people a multiple choice question regarding what "piracy" meant, very few people, except those who religiously celebrate Talk Like a Pirate Day would mark the box labelled "Shiver me timbers!"
Find a better argument, it's just a word, and it doesn't have the connotation you claim it does.
You can't accumulate credits unless someone else is paying for that. Unless it is a 1 for 1 exchange (1 credit for 1 upload) this won't happen.
Also, each person that you upload too has just become another potential uploader; so for each credit you gain, the chance of you getting another for that same song decreases.
Don't you also need information like the person's last employer, wage information, why the person was terminated, etc.
Also, isn't an employer notified when a former employee starts collecting unemployment, since they have to pay part of that anyway? (And they can contest it as well for certain reasons).
The article makes sound like all you need is a SSN and you can parade on down to the unemployment office and leave with a check.
I wouldn't doubt that a few people have tried to collect unemployment using a stolen SSN; however, he's really just trying to create FUD, which is evidenced by his "example" which is a hypothetical that probably has never occurred. (Don't most states actually require you to file an unemployment claim in person initially?)
Remember I'm talking about new works. What artist wouldn't prefer to keep the copyright on new works, if there were a viable distribution network that would collect royalties for them?
The problem is they need a way to gain popularity. Word of mouth is only successful for the best of the best, and even then it can't be counted on.
So, how do you become popular? You could go and try to play in every city in the US, but you need money to do that. Money that record labels will put down for you and then you can earn back by selling tickets and records.
Or you can try radio. But, guess what? ClearChannel and a few others own radio. They're not going to let just anyone have access to their airwaves. But they have some good friends in the record industry that they give access too. Good luck getting decent radio play without the label.
The problem lies at the core of the music industry. An independent artist has a very difficult time getting established because all of the major distribution/advertising channels are ran by the industry giants.
Reminds me of a something that a manufacturer said about Wal-mart, "The only thing worse than doing business with (any record label) is not doing business with (any record label)."
Now, that doesn't mean this is an unchangeable system, but it is one hell of a beast to slay.
When the author referred to the victims of this crime as being the government agencies and not the taxpayers, I stopped reading.
I think the appropriate term for what the RIAA does to artists is "rape".
The typical situation is that the artist signs with the label and then the work that they produce is actually considered "work-for-hire" and the copyright is owned by the label at that point, which the contract then dictates what the artist receives, etc.
Another typical situation would be that the artist creates the work outside the label. Then the artist holds the copyright; however, they have the transfer their rights to a label in exchange for publicity, publishing, etc. (Not that they have to, but the label won't have it any other way more than likely.)
Copyright actually consists of many rights, which include, inter alia, the exclusive right to:
- reproduce the work
- prepare derivative works
- distribute the work
- perform the work publicly (applies to only certain classes)
- display the work publicly (applies to only certain classes)
It is possible to assign only some of these rights to other individuals, which may be another way that the music industry gets things done. The sad truth is that because of the oligopoly of radio stations held by a few media giants, it is difficult or almost impossible to get anything done with major record labels, who are only interested in screwing artists out of every dime they have.
You can search copyright records at http://www.copyright.gov/ easily;
For example, I searched for Weezer, and you'll see that their song "Undone" lists Spike Jonze as the director, but the "Claimant" (copyright holder) is Geffen Records, Inc. (employer for hire). Sometimes the actual author is listed, but that means nothing as far as who is entitled to royalties or has control over the work.
What the artist gets is determined entirely by their contract with the record company. Feel free to look up more of your favorite artists, etc. But you will rarely find a well-known artist that owns their own copyright.
Therefore, it is impossible in most cases for your "someone" in your hypothetical to contract directly with the artist, because the artist has nothing to offer them.
I understand the arguments for why iPod doesn't support certain formats; but the bigger question is, should the content producer be the one putting everything out in 10 different formats to satisfy all of the different products that can use the content; or should the products making use of the content be the ones that simply support as many formats as possible so as to make things easier on the content producers?
Which of these options is best for all parties involved, including the consumer?
I don't know the answer, but I think it is an interesting question.
No ipod support: No, unfortunately Peer Impact(TM) does not support iPod technology at this time.
Perhaps the converse of this is the real problem?
It's like the Wal-Mart philosophy. You make the customer think they're getting a cheap prices, but really they're just soaking up the costs you normally would have had to bear in other areas, so it appears cheaper but it isn't. (For Wal-Mart this means most of your hourly employees are on government healthcare; with this sytem, it means that the user bears the cost of bandwidth, electricity, time, etc.)
For RIAA, this can only work if they give very little credits to uploaders.
So long as the credit is less than the cost of downloading one song, they're making money.
If 1 song costs $1, and you got a $0.90 credit for every upload
$1 - You downloaded the song
$10 - 10 people download the song from you
($9) - You spend your free credits on 9 songs
They made $11 on 20 downloads. Continue ad inifitum and it's still making money, considering the costs on their end of running the system are pretty minimal.
For every "credit" you get, they already made money off the person downloading from you to give you that credit.
If the artists aren't going to get any royalties from this, then this is the RIAA committing piracy.
Was there any claim that they wouldn't be receiving the royalties guaranteed them in their contracts? Oh, and most of the time, the artists don't hold the copyrights to their works anyway, they sold them along with their soul in order to get signed to a particular label.
If the RIAA didn't give the artists any royalties due, they would be breaching their contract with the artists, but not committing piracy.
Rich Suger Daddy?!? No. Firefox users feel generous enough to donate to the foundation to help support a great FREE browser. This type of competition bashing is not good for business.
More like, AOL gave them $2,000,000 and Mitch Kapor gave them $300,000. I'd imagine that user contributions pale in comparison to those.
*real music*
While I tend to agree that a good majority of popular music at this point in time is horrible, I think it is naive to think that there is really any difference between music other people enjoy and that which I enjoy.
Popular music might be prefab, rehashed, overrated trash, but the fact remains that a good chunk of people enjoy listening to and are willing to pay good money to listen to that music, and pay a lot of money to stand in a crowded room and watch a "performance" while the same CD they have at home plays in the background.
The music I enjoy is created in a much different environment and results in a much different sound; however, the end result is the same: something people are willing to pay money to listen to.
I'm not sure I really made my point, but I think you see where I am going with this.
As an aside: if these "real artists" you refer to were "real artists" wouldn't they be doing it for the music and not the money? And if so, then why does it matter to them what it sells for?
But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry.
It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
Stop trying to compare the two. It's like comparing stealing a loaf of bread from the grocery store to using someone else's trademark.
Your post hurt my brain to read.
I would add that sometimes you want to keep quiet until your idea/plan/design/whatever is more concrete and refined.
If you let people take a peak at what you plan on doing and it looks like crap, then they're going to be less interested by the time you get working.
You also want to avoid over-hyping, which can lead to disappointment once you finally release.
So my advice would be:
1. Keep quiet until you have something of high enough quality that people would pay real money for it.
2. Don't say how great your product will be unless you know for sure it will be that awesome when you finally put it on the market.
3. Don't start hyping your product when a deadline isn't even in sight. When you finally do get out there, people will be so annoyed with your out-dated hype that they won't care about you anymore.