Actually, the RIAA technically makes it's money from membership dues and donations paid for by the Labels and their supporters. They are a Trade Association.
The RIAA isn't a corporate body per se. Thay are an association. They are a club that charges dues and provides the members with some kind of benefit which usually involves lobbying on the behalf of their members common interests and/or need. They are probably even a non-profit (not a charitable non-profit though).
The Members of the RIAA (lables) are the for-profit companies. The members are who really own the copyrights, IP and Artists.
Suing the RIAA for anti-trust would be like suing NORML for being the only real marijuana activist group or suing the American Medical Association (AMA) for being the primary association for doctors.
Everyone is worried about the meaning of "share" here. From the bill itself:
10 Section 653(b) of title VI of Public Law 106-58 (15
11 U.S.C. 1128(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol-
12 lowing: ``The Council shall develop guidelines to ensure
13 that its component members share amongst themselves 14 law enforcement information related to infringement of 15 United States copyrighted works.'' 16 SEC. 103. ENHANCED CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT REPORTING.
You could take the definition from the context used by Berman et al., which seems to relate to ehpemeral sharing (everyone has access to the same item without dividing it) and not tangible sharing (such as a CD).
I wonder if any of that related "law enforcement information" is copywritten... Are they putting it on a Windows share on their network? Hmmmm......
What is your average case load per attorney? With the recent litigation announcements of the RIAA (to serve several hundred to several thousand alleged infringers in one fell swoop) and the explosion of users who infringe, how do you plan to prevent the IP enforcement systems that you work with from becoming so overburdened with active cases that they become ineffectual (like some state Parole systems, for example)?
This is a question I have had for years, why doesn't Sci_Fi channel actually run Science Fiction?
The same reason MTV doesn't play music videos: They are done with their hook and now have the luxury of milking their reputation. It hasn't hurt MTV very much at all.
if ISPs would simple require, as a term of service, that users keep their machines virus free
Most large ISPs already do require you to keep your computer secure, but they haven't gotten to the point of penalizing offenders (yet). Check this little bit out in SBC/Yahoo!'s TOS:
Assumption of Risk. There is a risk that other users may attempt to access your computer through the Internet or connected networks. You acknowledge this risk as inherent to the shared nature of the Service and you agree to take full responsibility for taking adequate security precautions and safeguarding your data from loss.
This type of stipulation is usually coupled with their disclaimer of responsibility for any security problems that you may have.
Doesn't this go against the typical/. group-think--that it is OK to download as long as you see them in concert?
I've never been a purvayor of that attitude. As to the idea that musicians can't make a living by touring anymore, I don't think such a blanket statement can be made. I would say that their ability to make a living from performance has bee largely devalued by the market that has been built during the last century. The situation can be fixed, but a lot of "Recording Artists" wouldn't quite survive as performance artists (not that I think losing a bunch of pop would be bad, but some good artists may suffer as well). This is the path to a healthy music industry whether anyone likes it or not.
"Ditching a system that had worked for centuries was a bad idea and now they can see their lack of foresight." Can't quite figure out what you're talking about. What system has worked for centuries? The movie industry and record industry haven't existed for even 100 years.
Musicians playing live to support themselves have existed for centuries as have the business men who manage/exploit them. Sure, not many of them became super stars or millionaires before the advent of recording, but the best did rise to the top and earn a good living. The notion of selling recorded music as a commodity has largely displaced this tradition, but the avance of the technology itself should have been a sign that recording and duplication would eventually make it's way to the masses in a convenient form. Tracking the movement of technology should have predicted that this would happen.
When it comes down to it, the record labels are the same ilk as the old theatre owners, vaudville managers and patriarchs that have lived symbiotically with musicians throughout history. Only in the last century, they have found a way to make a small group of performances (recordings) incredibly profitable. The business of music has probably been around since the first performance. The players may have different names and methods, but their motives and roles have remained much the same.
My point is that modern music executives and managers have gutted the long term sustainability of what they do for ludicrous (sp?) amounts of short term cash (and they probably actually did know it). Most artists (not many ever "make it") get chewed up and cast aside by this new process because their ability to make a living from performance has been deteriorated.
What profits? If consumer take over distributing, how are artists going to get any money?
This is probably why the MPAA isn't as litigation happy as the RIAA is. The MPAA still has the theater experience as their primary income source (though losing early release DVD would hurt them a lot). I personally think the RIAA still has live performance to fill this gap, but they've been focused too heavily on distribution of copies. If they had worked harder making touring more profitable 20 or 30 years ago, I bet we wouldn't have this problem. Instead they used live performance as a loss leader, thus raising the audience's expectation of the performance (lights, pyrotechnics, video screens, etc).
Ditching a system that had worked for centuries was a bad idea and now they can see their lack of foresight. They themselves helped build this proliferation of technology and the demand for it.
20. The system of claim 13 wherein the content translation module resides on the at least one source device.
21. The system of claim 13 wherein the content translation module resides on the at least one destination device.
Do I really want to have a language dictionaries stored on my Handheld or Phone? As it is, just installing spell checking features for only one language takes up an alarming chunk of my Palm Vx's RAM (8MB). Imagine what it would take to hold a few translation dictionaries. On a phone, this gets even worse because now you can install tons of ring tones and other junk that will only be used seldomly. Eventually, our hand held devices will have just as much of a storage mess as the common Windows hard disk all in the name of "features".
MS: Pioneering convoluted filesystems for more than 20 years.
What would probably be more effective in our marketplace is for Cannon to start putting a "Refillable Cartridges" or "Works with Third Party Ink" kind of tag into their advertising and packaging. Getting a company to advertise that they are doing something deceptive is near impossible, but getting a company to differentiate themselves because they aren't doing a deceptive industry-wide practice is far easier and arguably a better solution for a "Free Market".
Even if the piece is mostly hype and bluster opinion, I have to admit that I had never even heard of the ruling until now and have learned something new. It just proves that misinformation and opinion can be educational or at least thought provoking.
"Listen to your enemies because your friends will mostly tell you what you already know"
-Anonymous
And at that rate they burn out faster too. Just what we need. More middle aged, unhappy and depressed company in 10 years. What does the manager care? He'll just do the same thing when the kid's production level drops.
(Guy in White Shirt and Smart Tie): OK SCO, let's negotiate a settlement...
(Leans to Guy in White Shirt and Smart Tie next to him, whispering):...while we build a REAL big ugly patent suit like you've never seen and give it to you hard.
I wonder who would win in a patent stand off, hmmm?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the RIAA technically makes it's money from membership dues and donations paid for by the Labels and their supporters. They are a Trade Association.
The Members of the RIAA (lables) are the for-profit companies. The members are who really own the copyrights, IP and Artists.
Suing the RIAA for anti-trust would be like suing NORML for being the only real marijuana activist group or suing the American Medical Association (AMA) for being the primary association for doctors.
Professional and Trade Associations have become an intregal and pervasive part of our political landscape. It's a shame that most people don't even realize that they exist. Assocaitions are so pervasive that there's even a California Christmas Tree Association.
Great! I can see poeple blowing themselves up in their "ammo labs" now. They'll be just as professional as your average Meth or LSD lab.
I wonder if any of that related "law enforcement information" is copywritten... Are they putting it on a Windows share on their network? Hmmmm......
No, it's a girl named Penn (must be a stage name or a model or something) and he's been poking her library (obviously a strange metaphor for labia).
Steps to funding Black Ops
1. Start Super-Classified Government Project
2. ????
3. Profit!
4. Fund Super-Classified Government Project with step 3
What is your average case load per attorney? With the recent litigation announcements of the RIAA (to serve several hundred to several thousand alleged infringers in one fell swoop) and the explosion of users who infringe, how do you plan to prevent the IP enforcement systems that you work with from becoming so overburdened with active cases that they become ineffectual (like some state Parole systems, for example)?
"There can be only... An entire race of us on a far off world." It just doesn't have any umph to it....
Yes, they are covering their ass, but this kind of language wouldn't have been there two or three years ago. I find the fact that it is interesting.
When it comes down to it, the record labels are the same ilk as the old theatre owners, vaudville managers and patriarchs that have lived symbiotically with musicians throughout history. Only in the last century, they have found a way to make a small group of performances (recordings) incredibly profitable. The business of music has probably been around since the first performance. The players may have different names and methods, but their motives and roles have remained much the same.
My point is that modern music executives and managers have gutted the long term sustainability of what they do for ludicrous (sp?) amounts of short term cash (and they probably actually did know it). Most artists (not many ever "make it") get chewed up and cast aside by this new process because their ability to make a living from performance has been deteriorated.
Ditching a system that had worked for centuries was a bad idea and now they can see their lack of foresight. They themselves helped build this proliferation of technology and the demand for it.
As of today's exchange rate of £1 to $1.67179
£1.70 = $2.84
23p (£0.23) = 38 ($0.38)
MS: Pioneering convoluted filesystems for more than 20 years.
What would probably be more effective in our marketplace is for Cannon to start putting a "Refillable Cartridges" or "Works with Third Party Ink" kind of tag into their advertising and packaging. Getting a company to advertise that they are doing something deceptive is near impossible, but getting a company to differentiate themselves because they aren't doing a deceptive industry-wide practice is far easier and arguably a better solution for a "Free Market".
When they bought the license, it wasn't stolen. As I said, SCO has been paid for their licenses.
(Guy in White Shirt and Smart Tie): OK SCO, let's negotiate a settlement... ...while we build a REAL big ugly patent suit like you've never seen and give it to you hard.
(Leans to Guy in White Shirt and Smart Tie next to him, whispering):
I wonder who would win in a patent stand off, hmmm?