My posts look like music to me, and when Slashdot has to start paying out royalties Slashdot dies; which is an infringement of the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Everything they do to try to shore up the notion of intellectual property being applied to normal people is a direct assault upon the First Amendment. You can't have copyright laws apply to the public without stealing from the freedom to speak and be heard by willing listeners.
"The reason why compulsory license is opposed by the RIAA and their members is because it just legalizes exactly what they are trying to prevent: loss of control of music distribution."
Exactly. Why isn't the RIAA out there busting every pirate on the street corner selling CDs? Because the pirates don't threaten their control over their slaves -- I mean artists.
Slashdot is a P2P network. Every message put here is just as much copyrighted as the latest hit by Stupid Band of The Week, or that eBook you want to get your hands on.
Compulsory licencing will end up being a tax on speech.
Here's the best part: "I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
If the dumb idea of software patents wasn't already on its deathbed Microsoft looks to be pushing it into the grave. What the RIAA is doing for copyright Microsoft will do for software patents.
I've still got my "Stop the MPAA" bumpersticker, right below my "Free The Mouse" bumpersticker. But let's face it, the RIAA is making the MPAA look good.
The article's ending is wrong. The big five record labels have pissed everyone off.
Buy from unsigned artists. Buy from independent labels which are not members of the RIAA. It isn't good enough for the RIAA to lose. Their competition has to do well.
I know for a fact that many people are using the public forum of the P2P networks in an attempt to get their message out to willing listeners. These are the only people involved who have any fundamental rights at stake here.
I don't care what the majority of the traffic on the P2P networks is, other than kind of wishing the copyright interests could get their stuff off of them without interferring with the fundamental right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. Then I'd find it easier to find the stuff I'm actually interested in hearing.
Using their limited commercial right as an excuse to shut down a public marketplace of ideas is unacceptable.
The Internet isn't going to give them a choice if the RIAA has any say in the matter.
The RIAA is stomping upon our freedom to speak and be heard by willing listeners in order to prevent them from having a coice. The RIAA doesn't want their slaves to get away.
Give me the right to hear music by people who sing in order to be heard. Let the copyright interests rot. I don't like their crap anyway.
Re:Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Not the ones I've seen. You can go first in attempting to justify your statistics; while I wonder about just who the 800 people were that the RIAA polled.
Don't be surprised when I don't reply to your justification.
Re:Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Heheh. There are more filesharers in the U.S. than the number of people who voted for Bush. Do some simple extrapolation given that filesharing is at least as popular in the rest of the world as it is in the U.S..
"You sound like you are reading too much EFF. EFF is about depriving people from the right to excercise copyright on their own work. Free speach belongs to the old agenda."
Forget the filesharer's free speech. Worry only about the author's free speech. These are the only people with any sort of fundamental rights involved here.
There is a fundamental right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. Nothing else really matters.
Copyright has expanded beyond its proper bounds and is infringing upon this basic right. It is giving a limited commercial federal statue greater power than a fundamental right which the Constitution merely gives voice to.
Dancing through what you are saying here is going to be a bit difficult....
I am certainly willing, and even interested, in extending some sort of protection to the actual creators of new information -- but not at the expense of basic political rights. Once the war is over and the copyright monopolies are dead and long gone I would like to discuss the issue of finding some way of compensating these creators for their efforts. I am not willing to have this conversation while the large media coppyright monopolies still exist to pollute the conversation.
I don't see where the general public should even be concerned with copyright. The very fact that we are discussing it is proof that the notion has expanded beyond its proper bounds. A proper solution to the problem will make sure that the actual creators of information are properly compensated, and that the rest of us won't care.
Re:Birds of a feather
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Your're getting warm, but the fact is that the RIAA is stomping upon our constutional rights in order to accomplish something which is illegal anyway.
The only people who have any sort of fundamental right here is the people who are attempting to use P2P in order to reach willing listeners.
The RIAA is attempting to prevent P2P from becoming a conduit for artists reaching the general public without going through them. That is to say, they are attempting to restrain trade.
The right to be heard by willing listeners is a fundamental part of the right to free speech -- not to mention the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Since we cannot tell which music is released to P2P as free speech and which music is protected by some sort of limited commercial copyright protection, it is only reasonable for us to assume it to be free speech (a fundamental right) until proven otherwise.
Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
"Sigs are like bumper stickers."
If you run into "free_the_mouse" in the Yahoo news message groups, that's me. I also have a bumper sticker on my car which says "FREE THE MOUSE" just above the one which says "Stop the MPAA."
They're both getting a bit weathered...
Re:Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I'm still getting used to the term 'barratry'. It certainly applies here, as does the technical legal term "fucking assholes."
Re:Build tools that sidestep the RIAA
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Sounds interesting. I'll look into it.
I run a Freenet node. I'm too busy fighting for my fundamental free speech rights to have any time for downloading myself, but I figure that doing things like running Freenet are worth the effort.
I'm not sure if things like iRate really do anything to protect my rights or not. It's something I'll have to think about.
Author's rights.
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In general, the conversation about P2P misses the constitutional point entirely. Forget about the filesharer's rights and think only in terms of the author's rights. This is purely a conflict between author's rights.
There is music out there which the author wants shared. There is music out there which the author doesn't care if it's shared. There is some music out there which the author wants protected by copyright. The problem is that it is impossible to tell which music is which.
The filesharer is simply a hapless bystander who is caught-up in a legal quagmire. If the filesharers assume the work is protected by copyright then they are infringing the author's right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. If they assume the work is an act of free speech then they might be infringing the author's limited commercial copyright.
The question, then, is this: Ought the filesharer assume the work is a constitutionally protected act of free speech, or ought the filesharer assume the work is protected by an obscure federal statute giving limited commercial protection from copying?
Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"...but let's not forget at the same time the recording industry labels support these chuckleheads - where's the boycott against the labels?"
For the most part, the people doing the boycotting know very well that the RIAA is a stand-in for the Big Five labels. There is a lot of talk in the various fora about buying from unsigned artists and independent labels.
Some are even pointing out that Sony et. at. sell other things besides CDs, and suggest boycotting the entire company.
Slashdot Mirror
How is a poor filesharer supposed to know which files are free speech, and which files are copyright protected?
My posts look like music to me, and when Slashdot has to start paying out royalties Slashdot dies; which is an infringement of the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Everything they do to try to shore up the notion of intellectual property being applied to normal people is a direct assault upon the First Amendment. You can't have copyright laws apply to the public without stealing from the freedom to speak and be heard by willing listeners.
As soon as there is compulsory licensing I'm getting into the game. I'll register each of my messages for royalites.
(If necessary, I'll sing my messages. Although I might get prosecuted for war crimes.)
"The reason why compulsory license is opposed by the RIAA and their members is because it just legalizes exactly what they are trying to prevent: loss of control of music distribution."
Exactly. Why isn't the RIAA out there busting every pirate on the street corner selling CDs? Because the pirates don't threaten their control over their slaves -- I mean artists.
Slashdot is a P2P network. Every message put here is just as much copyrighted as the latest hit by Stupid Band of The Week, or that eBook you want to get your hands on.
Compulsory licencing will end up being a tax on speech.
I'm putting out stuff as public domain and not telling people about the fact that it is public domain.
Besides, all the content would be on Freenet, where the tax would be uncollectable.
Try googling "free music" now, and google isn't even thinking about it.
The number of filesharers in the U.S. is greater than the number of people who voted for Bush.
I think you'll like this:
A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841 by Thomas Babington Macaulay
Here's the best part: "I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
" Software patents will soon see their death."
If the dumb idea of software patents wasn't already on its deathbed Microsoft looks to be pushing it into the grave. What the RIAA is doing for copyright Microsoft will do for software patents.
I've still got my "Stop the MPAA" bumpersticker, right below my "Free The Mouse" bumpersticker. But let's face it, the RIAA is making the MPAA look good.
The article's ending is wrong. The big five record labels have pissed everyone off.
Buy from unsigned artists. Buy from independent labels which are not members of the RIAA. It isn't good enough for the RIAA to lose. Their competition has to do well.
I know for a fact that many people are using the public forum of the P2P networks in an attempt to get their message out to willing listeners. These are the only people involved who have any fundamental rights at stake here.
I don't care what the majority of the traffic on the P2P networks is, other than kind of wishing the copyright interests could get their stuff off of them without interferring with the fundamental right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. Then I'd find it easier to find the stuff I'm actually interested in hearing.
Using their limited commercial right as an excuse to shut down a public marketplace of ideas is unacceptable.
The Internet isn't going to give them a choice if the RIAA has any say in the matter.
The RIAA is stomping upon our freedom to speak and be heard by willing listeners in order to prevent them from having a coice. The RIAA doesn't want their slaves to get away.
Give me the right to hear music by people who sing in order to be heard. Let the copyright interests rot. I don't like their crap anyway.
Not the ones I've seen. You can go first in attempting to justify your statistics; while I wonder about just who the 800 people were that the RIAA polled.
Don't be surprised when I don't reply to your justification.
Heheh. There are more filesharers in the U.S. than the number of people who voted for Bush. Do some simple extrapolation given that filesharing is at least as popular in the rest of the world as it is in the U.S..
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"You sound like you are reading too much EFF. EFF is about depriving people from the right to excercise copyright on their own work. Free speach belongs to the old agenda."
Forget the filesharer's free speech. Worry only about the author's free speech. These are the only people with any sort of fundamental rights involved here.
There is a fundamental right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. Nothing else really matters.
Copyright has expanded beyond its proper bounds and is infringing upon this basic right. It is giving a limited commercial federal statue greater power than a fundamental right which the Constitution merely gives voice to.
Dancing through what you are saying here is going to be a bit difficult....
I am certainly willing, and even interested, in extending some sort of protection to the actual creators of new information -- but not at the expense of basic political rights. Once the war is over and the copyright monopolies are dead and long gone I would like to discuss the issue of finding some way of compensating these creators for their efforts. I am not willing to have this conversation while the large media coppyright monopolies still exist to pollute the conversation.
I don't see where the general public should even be concerned with copyright. The very fact that we are discussing it is proof that the notion has expanded beyond its proper bounds. A proper solution to the problem will make sure that the actual creators of information are properly compensated, and that the rest of us won't care.
Your're getting warm, but the fact is that the RIAA is stomping upon our constutional rights in order to accomplish something which is illegal anyway.
The only people who have any sort of fundamental right here is the people who are attempting to use P2P in order to reach willing listeners.
The RIAA is attempting to prevent P2P from becoming a conduit for artists reaching the general public without going through them. That is to say, they are attempting to restrain trade.
The right to be heard by willing listeners is a fundamental part of the right to free speech -- not to mention the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Since we cannot tell which music is released to P2P as free speech and which music is protected by some sort of limited commercial copyright protection, it is only reasonable for us to assume it to be free speech (a fundamental right) until proven otherwise.
"Sigs are like bumper stickers."
If you run into "free_the_mouse" in the Yahoo news message groups, that's me. I also have a bumper sticker on my car which says "FREE THE MOUSE" just above the one which says "Stop the MPAA."
They're both getting a bit weathered...
I'm still getting used to the term 'barratry'. It certainly applies here, as does the technical legal term "fucking assholes."
Sounds interesting. I'll look into it.
I run a Freenet node. I'm too busy fighting for my fundamental free speech rights to have any time for downloading myself, but I figure that doing things like running Freenet are worth the effort.
I'm not sure if things like iRate really do anything to protect my rights or not. It's something I'll have to think about.
In general, the conversation about P2P misses the constitutional point entirely. Forget about the filesharer's rights and think only in terms of the author's rights. This is purely a conflict between author's rights.
There is music out there which the author wants shared. There is music out there which the author doesn't care if it's shared. There is some music out there which the author wants protected by copyright. The problem is that it is impossible to tell which music is which.
The filesharer is simply a hapless bystander who is caught-up in a legal quagmire. If the filesharers assume the work is protected by copyright then they are infringing the author's right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. If they assume the work is an act of free speech then they might be infringing the author's limited commercial copyright.
The question, then, is this: Ought the filesharer assume the work is a constitutionally protected act of free speech, or ought the filesharer assume the work is protected by an obscure federal statute giving limited commercial protection from copying?
"...but let's not forget at the same time the recording industry labels support these chuckleheads - where's the boycott against the labels?"
For the most part, the people doing the boycotting know very well that the RIAA is a stand-in for the Big Five labels. There is a lot of talk in the various fora about buying from unsigned artists and independent labels.
Some are even pointing out that Sony et. at. sell other things besides CDs, and suggest boycotting the entire company.