my friends and i make anime music videos. In order to do that you have to not only copy it, but convert it into an "unmanaged" format. I don't need the bounded thought of intel getting in my way.
But just FYI, creating these "music videos" is copyright infringement, and exactly the type of thing that DRM is designed to protect against.
Personally, I don't like DRM, and if you are making personal music videos for your own consumption, more power to you -- but from a technical standpoint, what you are doing is copyright infringement, and stopping that is sort of the whole point of DRM...
Asserting your legal rights to control distribution and reproduction of a copyrighted work is not a misuse of the legal process.
when was the last time a judge actually ruled in favour of the RIAA?
Irrelevant. Each case presents a different set of facts which could affect the outcome of the case. Until some court finds that the RIAA lacks legal standing to pursue the cases or lacks a legal leg on which to stand, even if the RIAA loses some cases, it won't affect any of the other cases.
Oh wait... that has never happened... no cases ever went to trial before.
Just FYI, something like 98% of cases (in the Federal Courts, at least) settle before the trial starts. Every case filed, in either state or federal court, is required to go through some sort of ADR (alternative dispute resolution, which usually means mediation or arbitration) before it can go to trial. In today's legal system, a trial is pretty unlikely in the overwhleming majority or cases.
In fact the RIAA even has a nice "tribunal" set up somewhere as an payment counter to process all these settlement^WEXTORTION claims.
You know, if these defendants had such a righteous case of innocence, they could probably get their legal fees paid for -- that's the usual penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit (not to mention the lawyers themselves could lose their licenses to practice law or could potentially be fined or go to jail for misuse of the legal system). Maybe a lot of these people are "not that innocent."
My employment is "at will", I know this because it says so in my contract!
If they can fire you "at will," it's not an employment contract.
"...employment at will essentially means that, under common law and in the absence of a contract to the contrary [emphasis added], employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers."
Besides, under the usual theories of contract law, if one party or the other can get out of the contract "at will," it's generally found that no contract exists. Of course, there are exceptions, but this is by far the more general rule. Both sides generally need to suffer some sort of "detriment" for a contract to exist.
An "employment contract" in employment law terms means an actual contract, which generally describes such things as the length of the contract, what the "bargain" is (what you are going to do, and how much and often they need to pay you), and how to get out of the contract (usually requires notice on your part, and "cause" on their part). The law treats bonafide employment contracts very differently from the usual "at will" employment.
BTW, there are situations where "implied" employment contracts can arise, but these are rare occassions -- besides, in this context, we are discussing contracts that are entered into up front, so the impied contract isn't really at issue here. Just want to add that for completness' sake.
I've worked for numerous employers, from retail sales up to my current position in a large law firm, and I have never signed an employment agreement. I've signed offer letters, I've signed employment applications, I've signed forms giving away any IP I develop to the company, I've signed forms stating that I understand and agree with a company's susbtance abuse policy -- but I have never signed an agreement that limits my ability to quit whenever I want, and limits their ability to fire me whenever I want. That's an employment contract.
Are you using some strict terminology about what constitutes an "enployement contract" beyond the papers you have to sign on the first day of work?
Well, I guess I am -- although it's not really strict terminology so much as "legal" terminology. Maybe that's where some confusion lies.
In any event -- if we use my "strict" construction of an employment contract -- basically a limitation on when I can quit and when they can fire me -- then that would be more analagous to the contract between the recording industry and artists. However, such a contract, at least in the U.S., is certainly not the norm -- virtually all employer-employee relationships are governed by regular old at-will employment, and not a formal employment contract which retricts when you can leave and when they can fire you.
Oh, well why didn't you just say so earlier? Oh, I guess you did. My mistake. I didn't realize you were citing verifiable facts, I thought you were just giving your opinion earlier. My bad.
Now that we've accepted that fact can we please quit wasting my taxpayer money cluttering the courts with their lawsuits pouting about how life isn't fair?
I would totally agree with you, if all these lawsuits were simply about the RIAA crying "no fair." But they are not, so I can't agree with you. Now, you may think that a copyright owner complaining about copyright infringement is simply crying "no fair," but the laws and the courts disagree with your assessment.
Perfect. Now let's here you say that to the recording companies with respect to p2p.
Fine. To the recording companies, with respect to p2p, "Life isn't fair." Feel better?
But how does that have anything to do with the contractual agreements between the recording industry and artist? How does that have anything to do with whether the artists get any money or not and whether that justifies copyright infringement?
The FACT is, fair or not, if people are uploading or downloading copyright materials without the express permission of the copyright owner, the copyright owner has the right to take legal action to stop the unauthorized distribution of works that they own. I don't see where fairness" comes into play here.
I completely agree. But don't make the signing deals out to be fair.
Fine, They are not fair. But you know what -- life isn't always fair.
At the same time the same laws which govern signing deals govern my employee agreement and I can't afford to be unemployed.
I wasn't talking about employment agreements in general, just agreements between recording companies and artists specifically. Besides, in the U.S., it is very unusual to have an employment contract anyway -- virtually all workers in the U.S. who are employees or a company work without a contract.
Are you even employed in an industry which has an employee agreement? If not then you've instantly lost all credibility in this thread.
Nope, I'm like the 99% of employees in the U.S. who don't work under employment contracts. How does that mean I've lost my credibility? We were talking about recording artists and their contracts with the record industry, not employment contracts in general, and I don't see how my not having an employment contract has any impact on my credibility. Now, if we were talking about general employment contracts, then maybe you would have something -- but we are not, and so you don't.
Besides, you are clearly not from the States if you are concerned about general employment contracts -- should I make claims about your lack of credibility for being a foreigner when we are talking about U.S. law? Of course not, so I expect that my credibility shouldn't be an issue here either.
Even 9-to-5 jobs require an employee agreement and, unless you're financially wealthy enough to be able to afford to turn them down, there's nothing you can do but accept an unfair agreement.
Again, not in the U.S. In 49 of the 50 states (Montana being the exception), employment is "at will" and generally without contract. Usually the ONLY people working under a contract are athletes, musicians, actors, etc. -- virtually everyone else is working without a contract.
The exception, of course, is those who are part of a union -- but even union members don't have individual employment contracts, they just have a "blanket" collective bargaining agreement that covers everyone in the union, not any one person in particular.
Again, I don't know how we got off on this tangent to discuss employment agreements in general. We don't have them in the U.S. for the most part, so I'm not going to opine on them -- I was discussing the contracts between artists and the recording industry in particular.
And in THAT case, I still hold that whether or not they are the only game in town is irrelevant -- nobody is forced to sign those contracts, so if they are unfair, well, then the artists must have felt that any "unfairness" was outweighed by the chance to bo the next U2 or whatever.
Everyone has the "right" to state a demand, it's called freedom of speech, and they have the right to work to make it happen. What they don't have the right to is to force anyone else to give it to them thus denying them of their rights. I hope this is what you mean.
That's what I meant -- thanks for being more clear than I was originally...
Yeah. You too. The moment I hear this a little light goes on which reads,"Trolling". No one who's ever seen an employment or recording contract could maintain that they're a fair deal and keep a straight face. Either you've never had to sign one or you're financially wealthy enough where you can afford to turn them down.
Please. Nobody has the right to demand that they be allowed to be a rock star -- if people want to be rock stars so badly that they feel they can't turn down an unfair deal, fine. But don't then go on and say that they had no choice but to take the unfair deal -- they did have a choice, they could have chosen to get a regular 9-to-5 job or whatever. They chose to be professional musicians, they could have chosen something else.
If that makes me a troll, so be it. And no, I'm not independently wealthy, although I do wish that I were...
If her claims are correct all the "evidence", even if accurate, would be thrown out as illegal search and seizure in a criminal case, but this seems to be a cival case unless something in the countersuit makes it a criminal case.
Not only are you correct about the criminal v. civil difference, but "illegal search and seizure" only applies to the government and their agents (the police, etc.). Evidence you or I (or the RIAA) gather in a civil case may still be admissible, even if the evidence if gathered by the cops wouldn't be under the 4th amendment if used in a criminal case -- the rules are different in civil cases. Doesn't mean that the stuff WILL get it, just that it might, and it's a different set of standards than what the police have to follow.
P2P file sharing of copyrighted material is not illegal if the other person own a spoiled/broken original cd.
Unfortunately, that's not correct -- this would still be illegal under the AMG v. Napster decision. It's unfortunate, this should be legal, but under current law, it's not.
1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
So what? Presumably the musicians didn't sign their record contracts at gunpoint -- they were free to take their business elsewhere. Again, presumably the contract the record company offered was a better deal for them (or, at least, so they thought at the time) than any other alternative.
Yes, the record comanies are essentially the only game in town if you want to sell millions of albums. Yes, the record companies have substantial bargaining power compared to any particular band, especially one without a track record of sales. But that's irrelevant -- bands could, if they wanted to, figure out how to market and sell their own product if they didn't like the deal being given to them by the record companies. They choose to sign those deals.
Besides, any time anyone supports copyright, some slashdotter steps in and says "but REAL artists aren't in it for the money..."
2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.
Again, not really relevant as to whether or not copyright infringement is coccuring. It may impact the damages calculations, but under U.S. copyright law, if the copyrights are registered (and they basically all are when it comes to music produced and sold by the record companies), the copyright holder can sue for statutory damages, and never has to show any damages at all. File sharing could result in MORE sales, and the copyright owner would STILL be able to sue for copyright infringement.
3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models. The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.
No questions with that statement.
To sum up, I'm not sure where you were going with your comment, and I'm also unsure as to why you think it's "biased" to claim the record companies' actions amount to legalized extortion, especially when it appears they may have been going after people with very little, if any, evidence of actual infringement. But I'll leave elaboration on those points to you.
Come on, you don't think that the statement "legalized extortion" isn't inflammatory? Besides, it's nonsense anyway -- if it's legal, it ain't extortion.
Your argument boils down to, "it is impossible to make everything exactly fair so we should ignore unfair circumstances entirely."
And I guess you are only concerned that some people start out with more money than other people.
Fair means everyone should be given an equal opportunity, or as nearly equal as it is practical to create.
I would agree with this statement.
Fair means one person should not be born into a situation where they never have to work, or think, can buy anything they can think of, are free to flaunt most of the laws and get away with it, and are free from worrying about hunger or hardship, while another person has to eat ketchup packets from fast food joints, has no hope of ever being out of debt, has no chance for a real education, and has no chance to ever be able to afford a home, without turning to crime.
I don't agree with this. Again, you focus on one aspect of fairness -- money. But even if the "rich" kid doesn't have a trust fund, or isn't given an inheritance, this isn't going to change the fact that some people are going to grow up hungry -- unless you are talkking about a redistribution of wealth.
And there are a lot of people who grow up in tough situations, and don't turn to crime. You seem to imply that "equal chance" means "equal chance to become uber-wealthy" -- the reality is, many people who work hard will, eventually, be able to afford a house. Maybe not a dream estate in Beverly Hills, but a house nonetheless. And most kids CAN afford to go to college -- they may have to take out student loans instead of getting mom+dad to pay or getting grants or whatever, but if they want to go to school, they can -- Junior College is an option.
But my key point was -- life isn't fair, and I'm not sure that wealth redistribution (or even taking wealth away from the rich) is the way to make things more "fair."
Neither does it mean we should tolerate a system of government and economics that is designed to keep the rich and wealthy rich and wealthy, and make them even wealthier at the expense of the poor.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game -- just because one person gets richer does NOT mean that someone else has to be poorer.
While I believe those with special problems should be helped by society, the distribution of wealth is the specific problem we are addressing. It takes money to make money and in a capitalist system money consolidates. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer and all economic models show this will continue, despite the relative efforts and hard work of the poor. Any system that consolidates all the money and makes more and more poverty and makes incredibly wealthy people even wealthier as time passes is broken.
Just because some people are really, really rich doesn't mean that life is hell for everyone else. I guess it depends on what you consider to be a reasonable "outcome" of wealth. You seem to assume that if everyone is given a roughly "even" start, that everything will be okay, or at least, better than it is today. What evidence do you have that that would be the case, other than you don't like rich kids getting a "head start?"
Just FYI, I never had a trust fund, I worked full time through my undergrad, masters and B-school, and took loans out to pay for law school -- but I don't resent "rich kids" any more than I resent people that are better looking than I am, or smarter, or are better atheletes. That's just life.
Simply banishing all inheritance and dumping that money into paying off the national debt and then into tax reductions would be a good start.
The reason why we have such a huge national debt is becuase our government does a lousy job of budgeting its money -- why do you think that a huge influx of new money would change anything? Why is the government better off having that money than private citizens? Will the government spend that money better, or more wisely?
If they ask why tell them because those two kids were born to special parents. How many do you think will think that is fair?
Where does it say that life is "fair?" Is it fair that one child might get cancer at a young age, or that one child might be able to run faster and jump higher than the other kids, or that one kid is black and the other is white? What if the kid born to rich parents is crippled -- does that even everything out?
If "fair" is even something we should strive for, how do we define it? You are right, it's not "fair" that some kids are born to rich parents, or some are born in the U.S. instead of Sudan, or some are born healthy and other born with Down's syndrome -- how do we figure out what is the "fair" starting point for everyone? Is starting out with the same amount of money "fair?" What if one kid is born in a place with a higher cost for living -- doesn't that put him at a disadvantage compared to a kid who was born in a low cost-of-living area?
Birth should not be an entitlement and everyone should have an equal chance at wealth and happiness regardless of who their parents are.
How do you determine what an "equal chance" is? Even if everyone starts with the same amount of money in the bank, what if some kid is just smarter than everyone else? What if some kid is crippled? What if some kid had parents who were teachers, and got an "edge" in learning versus a kid who was born in a poor part of Alabama to high-school-dropout parents? How do you make everything "fair" to give all of them an "equal chance?"
Or does "fair" jsut mean that everyone should have a trust fund, or noone should?
It's only "Legal Murder" and "Legal Robbery" if the state's doing it, but we use colorful euphemisms like "Capital Punishment" and "Eminent Domain"
But at least with eminent domain you get paid. A better example of "legal robbery" would be asset forfeiture laws related to drugs and the like, where the cops can take your car or your house, without ever even charging you for a crime -- all they need is a reasonable belief that such a crime is occuring in your house or car. Some cities even allow forfeiture of your car if you are caught soliciting a prostitute -- and those forfeitures have been upheld in court. That's legal robbery.
Just FYI, but many federal district court cases ARE published -- it's generally up to the judge's disretion whether he wants to write up a case for publication. However, you are correct in the a district court case is of limited precedential value -- most of the time, district court cases are merely "influential" instead of "precedential." Different courts handle things differently, and sometimes you have districts that treat published cases from within their own district as effectively "precedential," and in other districts you have splits of authority within the district itself.
I wonder why there is no popular movement to review this specific legislation so anyone can defend him/herself against corporate lawsuits without fear of losing everything to the lawyers on the way to reclaim Justice.
Because it works the other way too -- if a person is injured by a product made by some company, you want them to be able to go and try and get compensation from the company, without the fear of being bankrupted by having to pay the other side's attorneys fees should they lose. No case is a guaranteed winner or loser, so there is alsways some risk involved. Plaintiff's lawyers often work on contingency -- a piece of the winnings, if any -- while defense lawyers get paid by the hour or the case. Under the current system, if an individual sues a big company and loses, their lawyer just doesn't get paid, and the plaintiff is no worse off; under a loser pays system, the plaintiff now has a huge legal bill presented to them. For many plaintiffs, that simply would be too big of a risk, and the result would be that big companies wouldn't need to fear getting sued by consumers.
Of course, you could put some sort of cap on "reasonable" expenses, but even those fees might be too much for many injured plaintiffs to risk.
And finally, even though this may seem like heresy to the slashdot crowd, chances are not all of the RIAA's suits are meritless -- and who wants to try to stand up to the RIAA when, at the end, they not only get hit with damages, but the other sides' legal fees as well, plus their own legal fees? Like I said, no case is a certain winner or certain loser -- there is always risk. At least if you are paying only your own legal fees, you can manage the risk to some extent.
(ii) stealing what you can't afford is the only way people can have what they can't afford.
I can't afford a Ferrari, even though I really, really want one. Should I be able to steal said Ferrari -- since I can't afford it, and really want it -- and, if I have the bad luck to be caught, only have to return the Ferrari? Sweet.
No, you do not own the content on your video cassette, or DVD, etc. Try looking it up:
I never said you did own the content -- but time-shifting is a lawful exercise, and there is no "time limit" as to how long you can keep a time-shifted work. If you read Sony v. Universal, you will see that SCOTUS explicitly says that home, noncommercial time shifting is a lawful exercise under copyright law:
"When these factors are all weighed in the "equitable rule of reason" balance, we must conclude that this record amply supports the District Court's conclusion that home time-shifting is fair use." Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984) at 454-455.
Slashdot Mirror
my friends and i make anime music videos. In order to do that you have to not only copy it, but convert it into an "unmanaged" format. I don't need the bounded thought of intel getting in my way.
But just FYI, creating these "music videos" is copyright infringement, and exactly the type of thing that DRM is designed to protect against.
Personally, I don't like DRM, and if you are making personal music videos for your own consumption, more power to you -- but from a technical standpoint, what you are doing is copyright infringement, and stopping that is sort of the whole point of DRM...
Can you please tell us what you are working us?
d =13701072
?
Even flipping burgers for Macdonalds would require a contract..
Even becoming a checkout counter whore in Walmart would require a contract.
See my other post for an explanation: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164046&ci
Where did you get your "99%" figure that you state oh so obviously?
Made it up.
Except this is a misuse of legal process...
Asserting your legal rights to control distribution and reproduction of a copyrighted work is not a misuse of the legal process.
when was the last time a judge actually ruled in favour of the RIAA?
Irrelevant. Each case presents a different set of facts which could affect the outcome of the case. Until some court finds that the RIAA lacks legal standing to pursue the cases or lacks a legal leg on which to stand, even if the RIAA loses some cases, it won't affect any of the other cases.
Oh wait... that has never happened... no cases ever went to trial before.
Just FYI, something like 98% of cases (in the Federal Courts, at least) settle before the trial starts. Every case filed, in either state or federal court, is required to go through some sort of ADR (alternative dispute resolution, which usually means mediation or arbitration) before it can go to trial. In today's legal system, a trial is pretty unlikely in the overwhleming majority or cases.
In fact the RIAA even has a nice "tribunal" set up somewhere as an payment counter to process all these settlement^WEXTORTION claims.
You know, if these defendants had such a righteous case of innocence, they could probably get their legal fees paid for -- that's the usual penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit (not to mention the lawyers themselves could lose their licenses to practice law or could potentially be fined or go to jail for misuse of the legal system). Maybe a lot of these people are "not that innocent."
My employment is "at will", I know this because it says so in my contract!
e r/a/twoweeksnotice.htm
If they can fire you "at will," it's not an employment contract.
"...employment at will essentially means that, under common law and in the absence of a contract to the contrary [emphasis added], employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers."
http://jobsearchtech.about.com/cs/resignationlett
Besides, under the usual theories of contract law, if one party or the other can get out of the contract "at will," it's generally found that no contract exists. Of course, there are exceptions, but this is by far the more general rule. Both sides generally need to suffer some sort of "detriment" for a contract to exist.
An "employment contract" in employment law terms means an actual contract, which generally describes such things as the length of the contract, what the "bargain" is (what you are going to do, and how much and often they need to pay you), and how to get out of the contract (usually requires notice on your part, and "cause" on their part). The law treats bonafide employment contracts very differently from the usual "at will" employment.
BTW, there are situations where "implied" employment contracts can arise, but these are rare occassions -- besides, in this context, we are discussing contracts that are entered into up front, so the impied contract isn't really at issue here. Just want to add that for completness' sake.
I've worked for numerous employers, from retail sales up to my current position in a large law firm, and I have never signed an employment agreement. I've signed offer letters, I've signed employment applications, I've signed forms giving away any IP I develop to the company, I've signed forms stating that I understand and agree with a company's susbtance abuse policy -- but I have never signed an agreement that limits my ability to quit whenever I want, and limits their ability to fire me whenever I want. That's an employment contract.
Are you using some strict terminology about what constitutes an "enployement contract" beyond the papers you have to sign on the first day of work?
Well, I guess I am -- although it's not really strict terminology so much as "legal" terminology. Maybe that's where some confusion lies.
In any event -- if we use my "strict" construction of an employment contract -- basically a limitation on when I can quit and when they can fire me -- then that would be more analagous to the contract between the recording industry and artists. However, such a contract, at least in the U.S., is certainly not the norm -- virtually all employer-employee relationships are governed by regular old at-will employment, and not a formal employment contract which retricts when you can leave and when they can fire you.
Sorry if there was some confusion there.
Yes, they are.
Oh, well why didn't you just say so earlier? Oh, I guess you did. My mistake. I didn't realize you were citing verifiable facts, I thought you were just giving your opinion earlier. My bad.
Now that we've accepted that fact can we please quit wasting my taxpayer money cluttering the courts with their lawsuits pouting about how life isn't fair?
I would totally agree with you, if all these lawsuits were simply about the RIAA crying "no fair." But they are not, so I can't agree with you. Now, you may think that a copyright owner complaining about copyright infringement is simply crying "no fair," but the laws and the courts disagree with your assessment.
Perfect. Now let's here you say that to the recording companies with respect to p2p.
Fine. To the recording companies, with respect to p2p, "Life isn't fair." Feel better?
But how does that have anything to do with the contractual agreements between the recording industry and artist? How does that have anything to do with whether the artists get any money or not and whether that justifies copyright infringement?
The FACT is, fair or not, if people are uploading or downloading copyright materials without the express permission of the copyright owner, the copyright owner has the right to take legal action to stop the unauthorized distribution of works that they own. I don't see where
fairness" comes into play here.
Checkmate.
I guess, if you say so.
I completely agree. But don't make the signing deals out to be fair.
Fine, They are not fair. But you know what -- life isn't always fair.
At the same time the same laws which govern signing deals govern my employee agreement and I can't afford to be unemployed.
I wasn't talking about employment agreements in general, just agreements between recording companies and artists specifically. Besides, in the U.S., it is very unusual to have an employment contract anyway -- virtually all workers in the U.S. who are employees or a company work without a contract.
Are you even employed in an industry which has an employee agreement? If not then you've instantly lost all credibility in this thread.
Nope, I'm like the 99% of employees in the U.S. who don't work under employment contracts. How does that mean I've lost my credibility? We were talking about recording artists and their contracts with the record industry, not employment contracts in general, and I don't see how my not having an employment contract has any impact on my credibility. Now, if we were talking about general employment contracts, then maybe you would have something -- but we are not, and so you don't.
Besides, you are clearly not from the States if you are concerned about general employment contracts -- should I make claims about your lack of credibility for being a foreigner when we are talking about U.S. law? Of course not, so I expect that my credibility shouldn't be an issue here either.
Even 9-to-5 jobs require an employee agreement and, unless you're financially wealthy enough to be able to afford to turn them down, there's nothing you can do but accept an unfair agreement.
Again, not in the U.S. In 49 of the 50 states (Montana being the exception), employment is "at will" and generally without contract. Usually the ONLY people working under a contract are athletes, musicians, actors, etc. -- virtually everyone else is working without a contract.
The exception, of course, is those who are part of a union -- but even union members don't have individual employment contracts, they just have a "blanket" collective bargaining agreement that covers everyone in the union, not any one person in particular.
Again, I don't know how we got off on this tangent to discuss employment agreements in general. We don't have them in the U.S. for the most part, so I'm not going to opine on them -- I was discussing the contracts between artists and the recording industry in particular.
And in THAT case, I still hold that whether or not they are the only game in town is irrelevant -- nobody is forced to sign those contracts, so if they are unfair, well, then the artists must have felt that any "unfairness" was outweighed by the chance to bo the next U2 or whatever.
Everyone has the "right" to state a demand, it's called freedom of speech, and they have the right to work to make it happen. What they don't have the right to is to force anyone else to give it to them thus denying them of their rights. I hope this is what you mean.
That's what I meant -- thanks for being more clear than I was originally...
no one has been sued or extorted for downloading anything, its the uploading part.
Maybe not yet. But under the AMG v. Napster ruling, downloaders are just as liable for infringement as uploaders.
Yeah. You too. The moment I hear this a little light goes on which reads,"Trolling". No one who's ever seen an employment or recording contract could maintain that they're a fair deal and keep a straight face. Either you've never had to sign one or you're financially wealthy enough where you can afford to turn them down.
Please. Nobody has the right to demand that they be allowed to be a rock star -- if people want to be rock stars so badly that they feel they can't turn down an unfair deal, fine. But don't then go on and say that they had no choice but to take the unfair deal -- they did have a choice, they could have chosen to get a regular 9-to-5 job or whatever. They chose to be professional musicians, they could have chosen something else.
If that makes me a troll, so be it. And no, I'm not independently wealthy, although I do wish that I were...
If her claims are correct all the "evidence", even if accurate, would be thrown out as illegal search and seizure in a criminal case, but this seems to be a cival case unless something in the countersuit makes it a criminal case.
Not only are you correct about the criminal v. civil difference, but "illegal search and seizure" only applies to the government and their agents (the police, etc.). Evidence you or I (or the RIAA) gather in a civil case may still be admissible, even if the evidence if gathered by the cops wouldn't be under the 4th amendment if used in a criminal case -- the rules are different in civil cases. Doesn't mean that the stuff WILL get it, just that it might, and it's a different set of standards than what the police have to follow.
A little dated, but the classic:
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1011 (9th Cir. 2000)
P2P file sharing of copyrighted material is not illegal if the other person own a spoiled/broken original cd.
Unfortunately, that's not correct -- this would still be illegal under the AMG v. Napster decision. It's unfortunate, this should be legal, but under current law, it's not.
1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
So what? Presumably the musicians didn't sign their record contracts at gunpoint -- they were free to take their business elsewhere. Again, presumably the contract the record company offered was a better deal for them (or, at least, so they thought at the time) than any other alternative.
Yes, the record comanies are essentially the only game in town if you want to sell millions of albums. Yes, the record companies have substantial bargaining power compared to any particular band, especially one without a track record of sales. But that's irrelevant -- bands could, if they wanted to, figure out how to market and sell their own product if they didn't like the deal being given to them by the record companies. They choose to sign those deals.
Besides, any time anyone supports copyright, some slashdotter steps in and says "but REAL artists aren't in it for the money..."
2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.
Again, not really relevant as to whether or not copyright infringement is coccuring. It may impact the damages calculations, but under U.S. copyright law, if the copyrights are registered (and they basically all are when it comes to music produced and sold by the record companies), the copyright holder can sue for statutory damages, and never has to show any damages at all. File sharing could result in MORE sales, and the copyright owner would STILL be able to sue for copyright infringement.
3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models. The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.
No questions with that statement.
To sum up, I'm not sure where you were going with your comment, and I'm also unsure as to why you think it's "biased" to claim the record companies' actions amount to legalized extortion, especially when it appears they may have been going after people with very little, if any, evidence of actual infringement. But I'll leave elaboration on those points to you.
Come on, you don't think that the statement "legalized extortion" isn't inflammatory? Besides, it's nonsense anyway -- if it's legal, it ain't extortion.
Your argument boils down to, "it is impossible to make everything exactly fair so we should ignore unfair circumstances entirely."
And I guess you are only concerned that some people start out with more money than other people.
Fair means everyone should be given an equal opportunity, or as nearly equal as it is practical to create.
I would agree with this statement.
Fair means one person should not be born into a situation where they never have to work, or think, can buy anything they can think of, are free to flaunt most of the laws and get away with it, and are free from worrying about hunger or hardship, while another person has to eat ketchup packets from fast food joints, has no hope of ever being out of debt, has no chance for a real education, and has no chance to ever be able to afford a home, without turning to crime.
I don't agree with this. Again, you focus on one aspect of fairness -- money. But even if the "rich" kid doesn't have a trust fund, or isn't given an inheritance, this isn't going to change the fact that some people are going to grow up hungry -- unless you are talkking about a redistribution of wealth.
And there are a lot of people who grow up in tough situations, and don't turn to crime. You seem to imply that "equal chance" means "equal chance to become uber-wealthy" -- the reality is, many people who work hard will, eventually, be able to afford a house. Maybe not a dream estate in Beverly Hills, but a house nonetheless. And most kids CAN afford to go to college -- they may have to take out student loans instead of getting mom+dad to pay or getting grants or whatever, but if they want to go to school, they can -- Junior College is an option.
But my key point was -- life isn't fair, and I'm not sure that wealth redistribution (or even taking wealth away from the rich) is the way to make things more "fair."
Neither does it mean we should tolerate a system of government and economics that is designed to keep the rich and wealthy rich and wealthy, and make them even wealthier at the expense of the poor.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game -- just because one person gets richer does NOT mean that someone else has to be poorer.
While I believe those with special problems should be helped by society, the distribution of wealth is the specific problem we are addressing. It takes money to make money and in a capitalist system money consolidates. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer and all economic models show this will continue, despite the relative efforts and hard work of the poor. Any system that consolidates all the money and makes more and more poverty and makes incredibly wealthy people even wealthier as time passes is broken.
Just because some people are really, really rich doesn't mean that life is hell for everyone else. I guess it depends on what you consider to be a reasonable "outcome" of wealth. You seem to assume that if everyone is given a roughly "even" start, that everything will be okay, or at least, better than it is today. What evidence do you have that that would be the case, other than you don't like rich kids getting a "head start?"
Just FYI, I never had a trust fund, I worked full time through my undergrad, masters and B-school, and took loans out to pay for law school -- but I don't resent "rich kids" any more than I resent people that are better looking than I am, or smarter, or are better atheletes. That's just life.
Simply banishing all inheritance and dumping that money into paying off the national debt and then into tax reductions would be a good start.
The reason why we have such a huge national debt is becuase our government does a lousy job of budgeting its money -- why do you think that a huge influx of new money would change anything? Why is the government better off having that money than private citizens? Will the government spend that money better, or more wisely?
Just capping the total
If they ask why tell them because those two kids were born to special parents. How many do you think will think that is fair?
Where does it say that life is "fair?" Is it fair that one child might get cancer at a young age, or that one child might be able to run faster and jump higher than the other kids, or that one kid is black and the other is white? What if the kid born to rich parents is crippled -- does that even everything out?
If "fair" is even something we should strive for, how do we define it? You are right, it's not "fair" that some kids are born to rich parents, or some are born in the U.S. instead of Sudan, or some are born healthy and other born with Down's syndrome -- how do we figure out what is the "fair" starting point for everyone? Is starting out with the same amount of money "fair?" What if one kid is born in a place with a higher cost for living -- doesn't that put him at a disadvantage compared to a kid who was born in a low cost-of-living area?
Birth should not be an entitlement and everyone should have an equal chance at wealth and happiness regardless of who their parents are.
How do you determine what an "equal chance" is? Even if everyone starts with the same amount of money in the bank, what if some kid is just smarter than everyone else? What if some kid is crippled? What if some kid had parents who were teachers, and got an "edge" in learning versus a kid who was born in a poor part of Alabama to high-school-dropout parents? How do you make everything "fair" to give all of them an "equal chance?"
Or does "fair" jsut mean that everyone should have a trust fund, or noone should?
It's only "Legal Murder" and "Legal Robbery" if the state's doing it, but we use colorful euphemisms like "Capital Punishment" and "Eminent Domain"
But at least with eminent domain you get paid. A better example of "legal robbery" would be asset forfeiture laws related to drugs and the like, where the cops can take your car or your house, without ever even charging you for a crime -- all they need is a reasonable belief that such a crime is occuring in your house or car. Some cities even allow forfeiture of your car if you are caught soliciting a prostitute -- and those forfeitures have been upheld in court. That's legal robbery.
I prefer the great philosopher 'Weird Al' Yankovic:
"Well, if money can't buy happiness, then I guess I'll have to rent it."
The only person who doesn't lose is he who is judgement-proof. That is a person that lives paycheck-to-paycheck and has no property (house/car).
Well, you can still have your wages garnished, even if you have no assets. But I guess if you have no assets, bankruptcy isn't such a big deal.
Federal District Court Cases are not published
Just FYI, but many federal district court cases ARE published -- it's generally up to the judge's disretion whether he wants to write up a case for publication. However, you are correct in the a district court case is of limited precedential value -- most of the time, district court cases are merely "influential" instead of "precedential." Different courts handle things differently, and sometimes you have districts that treat published cases from within their own district as effectively "precedential," and in other districts you have splits of authority within the district itself.
I wonder why there is no popular movement to review this specific legislation so anyone can defend him/herself against corporate lawsuits without fear of losing everything to the lawyers on the way to reclaim Justice.
Because it works the other way too -- if a person is injured by a product made by some company, you want them to be able to go and try and get compensation from the company, without the fear of being bankrupted by having to pay the other side's attorneys fees should they lose. No case is a guaranteed winner or loser, so there is alsways some risk involved. Plaintiff's lawyers often work on contingency -- a piece of the winnings, if any -- while defense lawyers get paid by the hour or the case. Under the current system, if an individual sues a big company and loses, their lawyer just doesn't get paid, and the plaintiff is no worse off; under a loser pays system, the plaintiff now has a huge legal bill presented to them. For many plaintiffs, that simply would be too big of a risk, and the result would be that big companies wouldn't need to fear getting sued by consumers.
Of course, you could put some sort of cap on "reasonable" expenses, but even those fees might be too much for many injured plaintiffs to risk.
And finally, even though this may seem like heresy to the slashdot crowd, chances are not all of the RIAA's suits are meritless -- and who wants to try to stand up to the RIAA when, at the end, they not only get hit with damages, but the other sides' legal fees as well, plus their own legal fees? Like I said, no case is a certain winner or certain loser -- there is always risk. At least if you are paying only your own legal fees, you can manage the risk to some extent.
But doing the same thing with the new Volkswagen Beetles is no perfectly legal, because Volkswagen got a trademark on the design of the Beetle.
That doesn't change the correctness of your response, just thought I would point that out.
(ii) stealing what you can't afford is the only way people can have what they can't afford.
I can't afford a Ferrari, even though I really, really want one. Should I be able to steal said Ferrari -- since I can't afford it, and really want it -- and, if I have the bad luck to be caught, only have to return the Ferrari? Sweet.
No, you do not own the content on your video cassette, or DVD, etc. Try looking it up:
I never said you did own the content -- but time-shifting is a lawful exercise, and there is no "time limit" as to how long you can keep a time-shifted work. If you read Sony v. Universal, you will see that SCOTUS explicitly says that home, noncommercial time shifting is a lawful exercise under copyright law:
"When these factors are all weighed in the "equitable rule of reason" balance, we must conclude that this record amply supports the District Court's conclusion that home time-shifting is fair use." Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984) at 454-455.