Found it! Append research to previously unresearched comment: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (USSC+) See the case here: http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/h istoric/query=[group+315+u!2Es!2E+568!3A ]!28[level+case+citation!3A]!7C[group+citemenu!3A] !29/doc/{@1}/hits_only? Argh, I need to learn HTML...:-P
Caution: unresearched comment, IANAL, etc. That said, here goes: AFAIK, in the US at least, it is not legal to say things that the speaker would be reasonably expected to know would have a high probability of causing a physically violent reaction in the persons/people to whom the comments are directed. Note that this does not imply that illegal consequences to the physically violent reaction (eg beating the crap out of the speaker/aggravated battery) are protected. They are still illegal. To paraphrase the judge who wrote the decision in the relevant case in the US Supreme Court, "Them's 'Fightin' Words', and they ain't protected." For example, it is not protected speech to walk up to a black person and call them a "watermelon-eatin', cotton-pickin', nigger monkey". (I'd never say that, BTW, it's just an example, and does not reflect in any way my beliefs or opinions.) Not sure how the decision is worded, or how it would be enforced, but I would guess that it would be similar to "inciting a riot" or somesuch... If anyone knows a link to the relevant decision (mid 60's???) I'd love to read it...
Hello, Jon. Haven't POSTed much on/. to date, but I figure this is a decent spot to jump in. You seem to be a bit contradictory in your article, simultaneously trying to say that you support a new way of distributing music that offers it more cheaply while also saying that it has become a "tradition" to young people (like my sister...) to download MP3's without paying for them. Calling that which is illegal under current law a "tradition" is not a good way to get people on your side, IMHO. The kids who are downloading MP3's of copyrighted work without paying for them are stealing under current copyright law. MP3.com violated current copyright law by making MP3's off of copyrighted CD's with the express intention of using that MP3 database to lure people to their site to generate advertising revenue, and did so without a liscensing agreement with the RIAA or individual record companies. While it is true that the ruling against MP3.com could produce enormous penalties, I don't think they can exceed the advertising revenue that MP3.com made off those MP3's plus or minus whatever is considered "appropriate" fiscal damages. If MP3.com simply deletes the archive, the damages would likely be much less. OTOH, if the RIAA is smart, they'll basically ask for their share of profits made to-date and then ask for a liscensing agreement to be made or the archive deleted, thus minimising the fuss and getting a foot forwards into the MP3 market.
Okay, back to the kids as theives deal. A rewriting or re-interpretation of the "fair use" clause could eliminate most of this problem, if and only if the music companies and/or the record labels and/or the artists themselves change the way they sell the music. Charging $1 each for the songs themselves in digital form is fine and seems perfectly reasonable to me. Then charge $1 for whatever medium it is put on if you don't bring your own. (IE: "No blank disk? We sell 'em for a dollar when you buy music. Here ya go!") The industry could still offer it's pre-packaged full CDs with all the liner notes, photos, etc. on them and special sets and whatnot all they want. People would buy less of them, but the music industry would more than make up for that in a huge increase in sales volume.
You do have valid arguments and ideas, your wording just seems to be a bit contradictory from time to time from my view here. Sure, this whole thing can be seen as a revolution, but since this is basically a revolution in the business model it needn't be shown as a revolution in a socio-political sense. It's free-market capitolism at work. Supply and demand. The masses are demanding, and the music industry has to supply or die. If they're smart, they'll take this as an opportunity to liscense MP3.com as a distributor, thereby cutting themselves on a possibly huge new market. And they wouldn't even have to change any written laws to do so!
The whole issue of freedom of speech and open source and free software and whatnot all else is not directly related to this issue except from an overall revolutionary standpoint that is striving to change the whole system. Too big a picture to drag in to such a small case.
As for the Napster lawsuit, it will take a bit but a level-headed judge and jury will be able to get it cleared up. Copyright law doesn't apply to Napster directly. It's like trying to sue the DOT for providing roads to stores where you steal CD's. Going after the people trading unpaid MP3's would be more appropriate, though darned difficult in practice. Again, a smart solution would be to make MP3's available legally and cheaply. $1 each for exactly the songs you want? I can't tell you how many times I've forgone buying a CD because I only liked one song on it! Ergo, if I could combine all those "one hit wonders" the record company will make $12-15 off me when they wouldn't otherwise when I don't buy the CD because I don't like the rest of it.
Okay, this has been really rambling and not so coherent, but the issue keeps getting dragged all over the place anyway.:-) Glorifying kids' theft and demonizing the RIAA doesn't do anything but get a lot of arguing going on. Pointing out the specific business benefits that could be gained by tapping into the new distribution format will get execs and stockholders listening to you.
Okay, if anyone wants to rebut, go ahead. This is a discussion after all, the object of which is to share ideas and viewpoints so as to approach a better overall understanding of the issue. No one person has it right first, constant discussion hones all!:-) -Will
>It's one of our countries biggest problems really: instead of finding the root problem and working through it, we take a pill and hope it just goes away.
This is sort of an aside/adjunct to the earlier post "Depressed People". There's been a number of articles about stuff like "Prozac Nation" and whatnot, how anti-depressants are over-prescribed, etc. and along with that there is still this overall stigma about taking a pill to help correct a chemical imbalance that caused/is caused by (Despite great advances, this is still considered a real chicken/egg problem...) depression and related mental illnesses.
That is partly why, for example, I took so long to realize that I needed such help. Hey, I've got news for y'all: They work! But, in order to work properly, they must be combined with a doctor who cares, regular followup visits including blood tests (to determine concentration of active ingredients, etc.) and discussions about side effects and positive effects, and therapy also helps as well. I've made huge advances in the past few months, I feel better than I have in a long, long time. Check out the book "The Feeling Good Handbook" by Dr. Burns. The title smacks of those ubiquitous "self help" books, but it is a text that is based on the principles of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or CBT and it gives you the most important thing for helping get through depression and life in general: a mental toolkit to dissect the thoughts that bother you and help you un-twist them and either figure out a way to counter them or at least give them a realistic basis. The basic premise of CBT is that your *thoughts* are the basis for your feelings. Being ignored by your peers doesn't make you feel lonely. Thinking "Man, everybody is ignoring me. I must be a total loser." makes you feel lonely. A semantic difference, maybe, but an important one.
Adolescence is a tumultous time for many, with powerful new emotions and abilities as yet untempered by the wisdom of experience. In some cases, psychiatric drugs may be useful, but they darn well better be prescribed by someone who *knows what they are doing and cares about their patients*! If you can't get along with your shrink because they don't seem to want to help you work with the thoughts and feelings you have, get a different one! People who are being "driven crazy by psychiatric drugs" are obviously not getting the continuing followup care they need to make sure the drugs are doing what they are supposed to and the side-effects are being minimized. For some, the pills alone are all that's needed, and 3-6 depression-free months later they can go off them. For others, the pills make enough of a difference in their mood for them to be able to participate actively in their own therapy, which goes on to make a significant positive change in their lives and again, after 3-6 depression-free months they can go off them again, at least until the next relapse.
Okay, well, I've rambled on quite a bit here. To try and tie back to the topic at hand, targeting differences is just going to exacerbate the problem. A lot of what this W.A.V.E. program seems to try to target are well within the "normal" range of responses to the situations a "typical" hormone-engorged adolescent presents. Especially when he or she has had a particularly bad day. I can't even begin to imagine how much worse this will make life for those in high school who are discovering that they are either bisexual or homosexual! The addition of yet another set of codes to try and stay within the boundaries of in order to avoid having the spotlight put on you will make things worse... Okay, now I'm starting to get really redundant. I'll stop.
Unfortunately, however, it is not that easy. Currently there are no liscenses available for low-power stations and there are no guidelines, yet you need a liscense to operate a station. Nice catch-22, eh? Check out Radio Free Berkeley to see what progress they're making in fighting the FCC on this issue. To get a station legally you will have to pony up the bigbucks and buy one from one of the media giants that currently owns it... Related question, though: Do nonprofit radio stations (ie non-commercial or educational) stations currently have to pay any royalties to the RIAA? What about net-based non-profits? Just curious...
Slashdot Mirror
Found it! Append research to previously unresearched comment: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (USSC+) See the case here: http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/h istoric/query=[group+315+u!2Es!2E+568!3A ]!28[level+case+citation!3A]!7C[group+citemenu!3A] !29/doc/{@1}/hits_only? Argh, I need to learn HTML... :-P
Caution: unresearched comment, IANAL, etc. That said, here goes: AFAIK, in the US at least, it is not legal to say things that the speaker would be reasonably expected to know would have a high probability of causing a physically violent reaction in the persons/people to whom the comments are directed. Note that this does not imply that illegal consequences to the physically violent reaction (eg beating the crap out of the speaker/aggravated battery) are protected. They are still illegal. To paraphrase the judge who wrote the decision in the relevant case in the US Supreme Court, "Them's 'Fightin' Words', and they ain't protected." For example, it is not protected speech to walk up to a black person and call them a "watermelon-eatin', cotton-pickin', nigger monkey". (I'd never say that, BTW, it's just an example, and does not reflect in any way my beliefs or opinions.) Not sure how the decision is worded, or how it would be enforced, but I would guess that it would be similar to "inciting a riot" or somesuch... If anyone knows a link to the relevant decision (mid 60's???) I'd love to read it...
Hello, Jon. Haven't POSTed much on /. to date, but I figure this is a decent spot to jump in. You seem to be a bit contradictory in your article, simultaneously trying to say that you support a new way of distributing music that offers it more cheaply while also saying that it has become a "tradition" to young people (like my sister...) to download MP3's without paying for them. Calling that which is illegal under current law a "tradition" is not a good way to get people on your side, IMHO. The kids who are downloading MP3's of copyrighted work without paying for them are stealing under current copyright law. MP3.com violated current copyright law by making MP3's off of copyrighted CD's with the express intention of using that MP3 database to lure people to their site to generate advertising revenue, and did so without a liscensing agreement with the RIAA or individual record companies. While it is true that the ruling against MP3.com could produce enormous penalties, I don't think they can exceed the advertising revenue that MP3.com made off those MP3's plus or minus whatever is considered "appropriate" fiscal damages. If MP3.com simply deletes the archive, the damages would likely be much less. OTOH, if the RIAA is smart, they'll basically ask for their share of profits made to-date and then ask for a liscensing agreement to be made or the archive deleted, thus minimising the fuss and getting a foot forwards into the MP3 market.
:-) Glorifying kids' theft and demonizing the RIAA doesn't do anything but get a lot of arguing going on. Pointing out the specific business benefits that could be gained by tapping into the new distribution format will get execs and stockholders listening to you.
:-)
Okay, back to the kids as theives deal. A rewriting or re-interpretation of the "fair use" clause could eliminate most of this problem, if and only if the music companies and/or the record labels and/or the artists themselves change the way they sell the music. Charging $1 each for the songs themselves in digital form is fine and seems perfectly reasonable to me. Then charge $1 for whatever medium it is put on if you don't bring your own. (IE: "No blank disk? We sell 'em for a dollar when you buy music. Here ya go!") The industry could still offer it's pre-packaged full CDs with all the liner notes, photos, etc. on them and special sets and whatnot all they want. People would buy less of them, but the music industry would more than make up for that in a huge increase in sales volume.
You do have valid arguments and ideas, your wording just seems to be a bit contradictory from time to time from my view here. Sure, this whole thing can be seen as a revolution, but since this is basically a revolution in the business model it needn't be shown as a revolution in a socio-political sense. It's free-market capitolism at work. Supply and demand. The masses are demanding, and the music industry has to supply or die. If they're smart, they'll take this as an opportunity to liscense MP3.com as a distributor, thereby cutting themselves on a possibly huge new market. And they wouldn't even have to change any written laws to do so!
The whole issue of freedom of speech and open source and free software and whatnot all else is not directly related to this issue except from an overall revolutionary standpoint that is striving to change the whole system. Too big a picture to drag in to such a small case.
As for the Napster lawsuit, it will take a bit but a level-headed judge and jury will be able to get it cleared up. Copyright law doesn't apply to Napster directly. It's like trying to sue the DOT for providing roads to stores where you steal CD's. Going after the people trading unpaid MP3's would be more appropriate, though darned difficult in practice. Again, a smart solution would be to make MP3's available legally and cheaply. $1 each for exactly the songs you want? I can't tell you how many times I've forgone buying a CD because I only liked one song on it! Ergo, if I could combine all those "one hit wonders" the record company will make $12-15 off me when they wouldn't otherwise when I don't buy the CD because I don't like the rest of it.
Okay, this has been really rambling and not so coherent, but the issue keeps getting dragged all over the place anyway.
Okay, if anyone wants to rebut, go ahead. This is a discussion after all, the object of which is to share ideas and viewpoints so as to approach a better overall understanding of the issue. No one person has it right first, constant discussion hones all!
-Will
>It's one of our countries biggest problems really: instead of finding the root problem and working through it, we take a pill and hope it just goes away.
This is sort of an aside/adjunct to the earlier post "Depressed People". There's been a number of articles about stuff like "Prozac Nation" and whatnot, how anti-depressants are over-prescribed, etc. and along with that there is still this overall stigma about taking a pill to help correct a chemical imbalance that caused/is caused by (Despite great advances, this is still considered a real chicken/egg problem...) depression and related mental illnesses.
That is partly why, for example, I took so long to realize that I needed such help. Hey, I've got news for y'all: They work! But, in order to work properly, they must be combined with a doctor who cares, regular followup visits including blood tests (to determine concentration of active ingredients, etc.) and discussions about side effects and positive effects, and therapy also helps as well. I've made huge advances in the past few months, I feel better than I have in a long, long time. Check out the book "The Feeling Good Handbook" by Dr. Burns. The title smacks of those ubiquitous "self help" books, but it is a text that is based on the principles of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or CBT and it gives you the most important thing for helping get through depression and life in general: a mental toolkit to dissect the thoughts that bother you and help you un-twist them and either figure out a way to counter them or at least give them a realistic basis. The basic premise of CBT is that your *thoughts* are the basis for your feelings. Being ignored by your peers doesn't make you feel lonely. Thinking "Man, everybody is ignoring me. I must be a total loser." makes you feel lonely. A semantic difference, maybe, but an important one.
Adolescence is a tumultous time for many, with powerful new emotions and abilities as yet untempered by the wisdom of experience. In some cases, psychiatric drugs may be useful, but they darn well better be prescribed by someone who *knows what they are doing and cares about their patients*! If you can't get along with your shrink because they don't seem to want to help you work with the thoughts and feelings you have, get a different one! People who are being "driven crazy by psychiatric drugs" are obviously not getting the continuing followup care they need to make sure the drugs are doing what they are supposed to and the side-effects are being minimized. For some, the pills alone are all that's needed, and 3-6 depression-free months later they can go off them. For others, the pills make enough of a difference in their mood for them to be able to participate actively in their own therapy, which goes on to make a significant positive change in their lives and again, after 3-6 depression-free months they can go off them again, at least until the next relapse.
Okay, well, I've rambled on quite a bit here. To try and tie back to the topic at hand, targeting differences is just going to exacerbate the problem. A lot of what this W.A.V.E. program seems to try to target are well within the "normal" range of responses to the situations a "typical" hormone-engorged adolescent presents. Especially when he or she has had a particularly bad day. I can't even begin to imagine how much worse this will make life for those in high school who are discovering that they are either bisexual or homosexual! The addition of yet another set of codes to try and stay within the boundaries of in order to avoid having the spotlight put on you will make things worse... Okay, now I'm starting to get really redundant. I'll stop.
Unfortunately, however, it is not that easy. Currently there are no liscenses available for low-power stations and there are no guidelines, yet you need a liscense to operate a station. Nice catch-22, eh? Check out Radio Free Berkeley to see what progress they're making in fighting the FCC on this issue. To get a station legally you will have to pony up the bigbucks and buy one from one of the media giants that currently owns it... Related question, though: Do nonprofit radio stations (ie non-commercial or educational) stations currently have to pay any royalties to the RIAA? What about net-based non-profits? Just curious...