Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Just to be technical.
Stealing is taking by stealth. Robbery is taking by force. Extortion is taking by threat (Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage).
That's the 'deceptive' part of false and deceptive advertising. The question is: what would a normal reasonable person think? If a normal reasonable person would think they were offering a real deal here and they haven't then they are screwed.
Buy directly from unsigned artists. Buy from Independent record labels which are not members of the RIAA. It isn't enough that they lose. Their competition must do well.
How is the girl, her parents, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to determine what is illegal infringement and what is furthering free speech? Those people who use P2P to get their music out to anyone who will listen are, after all, the ones who have fundamental rights here. The copyright monopolies only have some obscure federal statute.
It might be copyright infrigement, but I have every moral right to do it anyway. If I post the entire album I am engaging in non-commercial free speech -- even if my objective is to bring ruination to a commercial entity.
On the twenty-ninth of January 1841, Mr Serjeant Talfourd obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of copyright. The object of this bill was to extend the term of copyright in a book to sixty years, reckoned from the death of the writer.
On the fifth of February Mr Serjeant Talfourd moved that the bill should be read a second time. In reply to him the following Speech was made. The bill was rejected by 45 votes to 38.
Though, Sir, it is in some sense agreeable to approach a subject with which political animosities have nothing to do, I offer myself to your notice with some reluctance. It is painful to me to take a course which may possibly be misunderstood or misrepresented as unfriendly to the interests of literature and literary men. It is painful to me, I will add, to oppose my honourable and learned friend on a question which he has taken up from the purest motives, and which he regards with a parental interest. These feelings have hitherto kept me silent when the law of copyright has been under discussion. But as I am, on full consideration, satisfied that the measure before us will, if adopted, inflict grievous injury on the public, without conferring any compensating advantage on men of letters, I think it my duty to avow that opinion and to defend it.
The first thing to be done, Sir, is to settle on what principles the question is to be argued. Are we free to legislate for the public good, or are we not? Is this a question of expediency, or is it a question of right? Many of those who have written and petitioned against the existing state of things treat the question as one of right. The law of nature, according to them, gives to every man a sacred and indefeasible property in his own ideas, in the fruits of his own reason and imagination. The legislature has indeed the power to take away this property, just as it has the power to pass an act of attainder for cutting off an innocent man's head without a trial. But, as such an act of attainder would be legal murder, so would an act invading the right of an author to his copy be, according to these gentlemen, legal robbery.
Now, Sir, if this be so, let justice be done, cost what it may. I am not prepared, like my honourable and learned friend, to agree to a compromise between right and expediency, and to commit an injustice for the public convenience. But I must say, that his theory soars far beyond the reach of my faculties. It is not necessary to go, on the present occasion, into a metaphysical inquiry about the origin of the right of property; and certainly nothing but the strongest necessity would lead me to discuss a subject so likely to be distasteful to the House. I agree, I own, with Paley in thinking that property is the creature of the law, and that the law which creates property can be defended only on this ground, that it is a law beneficial to mankind. But it is unnecessary to debate that point. For, even if I believed in a natural right of property, independent of utility and anterior to legislation, I should still deny that this right could survive the original proprietor. Few, I apprehend, even of those who have studied in the most mystical and sentimental schools of moral philosophy, will be disposed to maintain that there is a natural law of succession older and of higher authority than any human code. If there be, it is quite certain that we have abuses to reform much more serious than any connected with the question of copyright. For this natural law can be only one; and the modes of succession in the Queen's dominions are twenty. To go no further than England, land generally descends to the eldest son. In Kent the sons share and share alike. In many districts the youngest takes the whole. Formerly a portion of a man's personal property was secured to his family; and it
I've no problem with copyrights as long as they are considered strictly commercial speech. As soon as copyright law steps even the slightest bit into the realm of private speech then I have nothing but condemnation for it. If an individual wishes to copy a book and give it with no monetary consideration to another then I say there ought to be no recource provided to the copyright holder, as this is a private non-commercial act.
I've got to vote for this one. The clueless are protected. The adepts can do what they want. The ISP has an up-front cost, but no continuing administrative overhead.
I'd tend to agree, but I think Google is playing a very quiet game here. They didn't give any notice about this 'policy' of theirs. I can kind of see making this "just the way it is done" rather than being in "in your face."
What makes your post really funny is that I was thinking about exactly that while I was typing the song in.
Re:google censorship
on
Google Turns 5
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm very impressed with the way google is handling the whole DMCA crap. They are adhering strictly to the law in order that they not be the butt of a lawsuit, but they are also making a mockery of the law.
It is google policy to: "...document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act. A copy of the notice will be sent to a third party who will make it available to the public."
The third party is the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, and Google puts up a statement at the bottom of the page pointing at this notice. Since the notice has to list the specific sites to be removed, there is a nice list of all the removed sites -- and who wanted them removed.
If this isn't giving the DMCA the finger then what is?
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be technical.
Stealing is taking by stealth. Robbery is taking by force. Extortion is taking by threat (Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage).
I guess you're right, even if it's going to be a bitch pulling the cable over.
Which equatorial country is the U.S. going to invade?
some anonymous programmer releases code which infringes a patent?
That's the 'deceptive' part of false and deceptive advertising. The question is: what would a normal reasonable person think? If a normal reasonable person would think they were offering a real deal here and they haven't then they are screwed.
I'd like to be on the jury...
And on the next day we set our sights on the MPAA.
Buy directly from unsigned artists. Buy from Independent record labels which are not members of the RIAA. It isn't enough that they lose. Their competition must do well.
How is the girl, her parents, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to determine what is illegal infringement and what is furthering free speech? Those people who use P2P to get their music out to anyone who will listen are, after all, the ones who have fundamental rights here. The copyright monopolies only have some obscure federal statute.
reading BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! People were already pissed, and they are looking with glee upon the case of the poor 12 year old.
The RIAA probably shot themselves in the head instead of the foot this time.
to bash the RIAA, SCO, and MS. Like, hardware is so boring man. Wake me when they've started replacing neurons in the brain.
It might be copyright infrigement, but I have every moral right to do it anyway. If I post the entire album I am engaging in non-commercial free speech -- even if my objective is to bring ruination to a commercial entity.
Well, this doesn't go back quite that far...
A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841
by Thomas Babington Macaulay
On the twenty-ninth of January 1841, Mr Serjeant Talfourd obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of copyright. The object of this bill was to extend the term of copyright in a book to sixty years, reckoned from the death of the writer.
On the fifth of February Mr Serjeant Talfourd moved that the bill should be read a second time. In reply to him the following Speech was made. The bill was rejected by 45 votes to 38.
Though, Sir, it is in some sense agreeable to approach a subject with which political animosities have nothing to do, I offer myself to your notice with some reluctance. It is painful to me to take a course which may possibly be misunderstood or misrepresented as unfriendly to the interests of literature and literary men. It is painful to me, I will add, to oppose my honourable and learned friend on a question which he has taken up from the purest motives, and which he regards with a parental interest. These feelings have hitherto kept me silent when the law of copyright has been under discussion. But as I am, on full consideration, satisfied that the measure before us will, if adopted, inflict grievous injury on the public, without conferring any compensating advantage on men of letters, I think it my duty to avow that opinion and to defend it.
The first thing to be done, Sir, is to settle on what principles the question is to be argued. Are we free to legislate for the public good, or are we not? Is this a question of expediency, or is it a question of right? Many of those who have written and petitioned against the existing state of things treat the question as one of right. The law of nature, according to them, gives to every man a sacred and indefeasible property in his own ideas, in the fruits of his own reason and imagination. The legislature has indeed the power to take away this property, just as it has the power to pass an act of attainder for cutting off an innocent man's head without a trial. But, as such an act of attainder would be legal murder, so would an act invading the right of an author to his copy be, according to these gentlemen, legal robbery.
Now, Sir, if this be so, let justice be done, cost what it may. I am not prepared, like my honourable and learned friend, to agree to a compromise between right and expediency, and to commit an injustice for the public convenience. But I must say, that his theory soars far beyond the reach of my faculties. It is not necessary to go, on the present occasion, into a metaphysical inquiry about the origin of the right of property; and certainly nothing but the strongest necessity would lead me to discuss a subject so likely to be distasteful to the House. I agree, I own, with Paley in thinking that property is the creature of the law, and that the law which creates property can be defended only on this ground, that it is a law beneficial to mankind. But it is unnecessary to debate that point. For, even if I believed in a natural right of property, independent of utility and anterior to legislation, I should still deny that this right could survive the original proprietor. Few, I apprehend, even of those who have studied in the most mystical and sentimental schools of moral philosophy, will be disposed to maintain that there is a natural law of succession older and of higher authority than any human code. If there be, it is quite certain that we have abuses to reform much more serious than any connected with the question of copyright. For this natural law can be only one; and the modes of succession in the Queen's dominions are twenty. To go no further than England, land generally descends to the eldest son. In Kent the sons share and share alike. In many districts the youngest takes the whole. Formerly a portion of a man's personal property was secured to his family; and it
I've no problem with copyrights as long as they are considered strictly commercial speech. As soon as copyright law steps even the slightest bit into the realm of private speech then I have nothing but condemnation for it. If an individual wishes to copy a book and give it with no monetary consideration to another then I say there ought to be no recource provided to the copyright holder, as this is a private non-commercial act.
Would you like to take a survey? :)
What would you think of starting with the law itself?
Final joint version of H.R. 2281,
DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act), Oct. 20, 1998
Signed into law Oct. 28, 1998 as Public Law 105-304
I've got to vote for this one. The clueless are protected. The adepts can do what they want. The ISP has an up-front cost, but no continuing administrative overhead.
Doesn't messing with content this way put you at risk of losing your ISP exemption under the DMCA?
I think they're being careful, and that *would* be pushing it. They'd kind of look like a content provider rather than an ISP.
and go for nano-fusion. How hard would it be to etch an accerator onto a chip?
I saw a paper once which even offered up the possibility of non-radioactive nano-fusion -- boron and carbon, I think.
I'd tend to agree, but I think Google is playing a very quiet game here. They didn't give any notice about this 'policy' of theirs. I can kind of see making this "just the way it is done" rather than being in "in your face."
Nice kid. :)
I've only defenestrated one computer, and it was rather busted anyway. (No, I did not defenestrate the monitor.)
It's one of my favorite words.
I figured I ought to google
it: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm
What makes your post really funny is that I was thinking about exactly that while I was typing the song in.
I'm very impressed with the way google is handling the whole DMCA crap. They are adhering strictly to the law in order that they not be the butt of a lawsuit, but they are also making a mockery of the law.
It is google policy to: "...document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act. A copy of the notice will be sent to a third party who will make it available to the public."
The third party is the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, and Google puts up a statement at the bottom of the page pointing at this notice. Since the notice has to list the specific sites to be removed, there is a nice list of all the removed sites -- and who wanted them removed.
If this isn't giving the DMCA the finger then what is?