" Umm the RIAA didnt make the itunes music store happen, Steve Jobs did. The reasoning is quite sound. The members of the RIAA have no outlet for digital music that meets the demand of the customers. "
Record labels distribute music. Stores like Tower Records sell the music. Apple is just 1 more store the record labels use to sell music. iTunes is an outlet for RIAA members to sell music online, so your statement is incorrect, just like techfocus' statement. They are the copyright holders, not Apple.
"Bill Gates says that according to error reporting software in windows, 5% of all windows installations crash two or more times every day."
Is this the sw that prompts you to ask whether to report if an application crashes that he's referring to? If so, how does it run to prompt you to allow it to report your computer has crashed, if your computer has crashed and the sw can't run? My XP installation never crashes so I don't understand. Is this the last thing that works before your system hangs. Doesn't make sense to me. Ive seen this come up from buggy apps, but ctrl-alt-del allows me to kill the app without rebooting the computer.
" ok, 5% crash 2 or more times per day.
Let's say then, that maybe 10% crash once per day, 20% crash every couple of days, 40% crash once a week, etc. If we only go that far that's saying
75% of windows computers crash at least once a week."
hope this was meant to be funny. 5% crash twice a day means 5% crash 14 times a week, not 75% crash at least once a week. You can't infer that from the data.
Actually, if you buy used cds, you increase their value. This allows people to sell used cds at a higher price, giving them more incentive to buy more new cds. Therefore, by buying used cds, you are indirectly supporting buying new cds.
" Can you get every song from iTunes? Every piece of every RIAA (jackbooted thugs that they are) member artist's back catalog? With no requirements to buy a whole album to get the one good song?"
What does this have to do with anything. Techfocus claimed the recording industry wasn't working on methods of distributing over the internet, but instead just suing people. In reality, they're doing both, as techfocus alluded to themselves by mentioning iTunes. But Techfocus is too stupid to realize that. The fact that you can't get everything online yet wasn't the issue. The issue was whether they were making an effort, which they clearly are based on iTunes, Rhapsody, etc.
"3. The RIAA is choosing to devote their resources to target individuals, rather than devoting their resources to creating a feasible distribution method (see iTunes). We will not allow this website to be used as a resource with which they could utilize user statements or comments against them. While this has not happened, we are pre-emptively moving to avoid this."
You just mentioned iTunes in the same sentence where you claim the recording industry is not creating a feasible ditribution method for music online. iTumes is one of their feasible distribution methods. The stupidity of some people just amazes me.
" then you have the right to subpoena any of the artists that you are accused of sharing. Put them on the stand and ask them if they support the RIAA's suing of their customers. Ask them how much money they have lost because of file sharing. Ask them every question under the sun. Take up as much time as possible for each artist. If each Metallica member has to spend 2 days in court for every person they sue, then maybe they'll just shut their pie holes and be grateful for what their fans have given them."
First, the artists aren't the copyright holders. The labels are. If you put a record exec on the stand, he'll say he supports the RIAA's action, that's what he pays them for. Second, it's doubtful you can convince a judge that it's necessary to force these witnesses to appear in court in the 1st place, since they have no relevant testimony to the case.
"I am looking forward to several things: The death of CD sales and painful realization of the RIAA that they are going down. The explosion of indi artists and methods of distribution, and no more focus-group artists!."
The death of cd's has nothing to do with whether or not RIAA members survive. If they own the copyright to music, and it is enforcable, they will make money, whether it's selling cds or selling music through Apple, or whatever. Indie artists are signed by labels BTW, many of which are RIAA members. Unsigned artists are not signed up to a label. Other methods of distribution, such as internet radio, may help indie artists, but thats good for the major labels too, because they will sign them up when their contrct expires with the indie label, to give then a shot at really being big (see REM, for instance).
A lot of people here keep whining about how the word theft shouldn't be used to describe copyright infringement, so I though it was great how the lawyer argued that copyright infringement is actually worse than theft of a physical good in many instances, as follows
"In some instances, piracy can actually be more damaging than traditional theft. Unlike traditional theft, where a person steals a specific number of tangible objects, one product in digital format can alone be used to generate hundreds of thousands of near-perfect digital copies within hours. In the case of software piracy, for example, the developer has not been deprived of his product in the traditional sense it has merely been copied. Yet, he faces the grim reality that his product is now available around the world, often for free, to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. In very real terms, even though he retains his property, the digital victim is in a much worse position than the victim of a more traditional theft. To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t be more real."
" I thought that was interesting too, because technically there was a violation of the perjury clause there. The RIAA claimed to be authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder of that specific MP3, when in fact they were NOT authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. Isn't that precisely the situation that the perjury clause is designed for?"
You're making the same mistake the questioner did. The RIAA represents the copyright owner of Usher. They have not lied about this so there is no perjury. The fact that the mp3 in question was not the copyrighted work of Usher, but something else, is irrelevant to the perjury clause. It's not illegal to file a charge based on poor evidence, just a waste of everyone's time. If the defendant wants to countersue for damages, that's his option.
Patents aren't evil, but overly broad patents are ridiculous. There's a case going on now where some company claims to own patents on transmitting video over the internet. This company didn't actually develop any software that anyone is using, but they're trying to collect royalties because they patented the idea that you could send video over internet first. This case is similar. Encryption has been along for a long time. The idea of using encryption to protect and manage files is obvious. You shouldn't be able to patent something so broad that no one can design DRM software without paying you, even if their approach is totally different than yours. The implications for OSS are bad. If this goes through, no one will be able to release DRM OSS software until the patent expires unless collecting a license fee is involved. This could put OSS in a bad position to compete against corporate backed SW in some areas.
from here, you're allowed 30dBm of transmit power with a 6 dBi antennae (isotropic) for 802.11b. If they're broadcasting more power than that into the stadium, they're breaking the rules. Given the normal range of 802.11, I doubt they can broadcast into the stadium legally, even if they use a directional antennae to improve efficiency.
"Imagine being a touring indie band and be able to tell people to go to iTunes and buy your songs;"
If you're a touring indie band, you probably already have a record label. Indie means not on a major label. It doesn't mean unsigned. This service is to get unsigned artists a representative to push your music in the digtal world.
"it seems this could be a huge boon to musicians wanting to circumvent/boycott/avoid/destroy the RIAA."
If you don't have a record label, you won't get any radio airplay. For your $40, CDBaby will listen to your music, take the best of what they get, and hope someone like Apple is willing to sell it online. Whether or not anyone previews it and buys it is anyone's guess.
" such sensible people!
maybe next they'll force computer manufacturers to offer alternative OSses on computers, to open up competition and lower prices."
It's a real win for freedom when the govt. points a gun at you an tells you how to run your business. This market will never be really free as long as the govt. is regualting who can run network cables, and where.
"If SCO is stupid enough to try to enforce this, then they will have the "smoking gun" they need to really slam SCO into the ground, on the basis of clear and continuing violation of a legal contract (the GPL)."
David Boies is not stupid. The GPL is a copyright agreement. Why would you think it's valid if the work in question is a derivative of someone else's work, as SCO claims? It is interesting though that they're going outside the legal system in collecting damages, i.e. licensing fees. I would have thought they'd need to wait for the courts to award them, but IANAL. It'll be interesting to see what the courts decide, but it'll take a few years.
"No, if they encumber the linux codebase with their own license, then the GPL becomes void and no longer can be used to distribute Linux. At that point, the distribution of every piece of linux that they don't explicitly own becomes prohibited, completely, because Linux falls back to copyright law which indicates that the contributors of the other pieces still own them and have not licensed them to any distribution but GPL. Therefore, if they tell people they need to pay to run linux, linux becomes un-runnable."
Actually, the GPL is probably no longer strictly valid for the Linux Kernal if it contains copyrighted work from SCO. In the end, it's up to the courts to decide what the proper remedy is for the situation. SCO can't really decide, as you have pointed out, but neither can Linus, et. al., because they have harmed SCO, if SCO's claims are true. Therefore, the court system will eventually determine a remedy and award damages, if any are necessary, and both SCO and Linux must abide by the court's decision. MS went through this same thing, except with antitrust laws. In the end, judges decided the remedy, not the DOJ or MS. Same thing here.
"Looks like Intel's competition is going to be coming more and more from IBM, not AMD..."
Wait a minute. You rightfully criticized the Itanium for being a money sink, but then concluded IBM is bigger competiton for Intel than AMD? That doesn't follow logically. A better conclusion would be that Intel has left the door open for IBM and AMD.
A OS message has nothing to do with the govt. Govt. signs are meant to inform users of rules of the road. An OS message has nothing to do with govt rules, and making it illegal to impersonate one is just silly. What next, go after beer advertizers because babes don't flock to you when you drink their product? This is just another of many frivolous lawsuits strangling business in America like suing McDonalds because you're fat.
" No, that would be a run-of-the-mill advertisement. A FUI would be an offical looking "All Trucks Must Exit Here" sign leading to a truck-repair center. Or, maybe more realistically, a sign that says "Warning: next stop for blinker fluid in 200 miles""
The 1st example is a bad analogy since the official signs are posted by the govt. while a meesage popping up on your computer by the OS is not govt. related. The second example is bad since nobody is claiming that the products advertized through double click are fraudulent. They just don't like the bait.
"1. The max penalty is $150,000 per song. Had you stolen a CD from a store, would you be charged $2,250,000 (assuming that there are fifteen tracks on a CD, not unreasonable)? Any store would be laughed out of court if they wanted 2 and a quarter million dollars in damages for a single CD. However, the RIAA gets away with it."
They're suing people for uploading songs, not downloading songs. If you've uploaded a a song 150 times, thats $150 dollars at Apple prices. "3. There are legitimate uses for P2P. If, indeed, I've performed "copyright infringement," by downloading music, then that means that I've violated a license to listen to that music. That means that buying a CD isn't buying a specially pressed piece of plastic -- it's buying a license to listen to certain music. That means I'm legally justified in downloading MP3s of the songs I own on CD. And often times, I misplace CDs. So I feel totally fine about downloading MP3s of those CDs. However, if the RIAA saw me doing this, they'd slap me with a lawsuit. And then I'd have to waste thousands of dollars on legal fees proving that what I was doing wasn't illegal. And that unnerves me. I mean, you steal a CD from a music store, and lights flash, alarms go off, etc. It's pretty clear-cut as to who's stealing music and who's walking away with it legitimately. But the possibility for false positives on illegality for P2P makes it far less justified to just "shotgun" off lawsuits, especially to only casual users."
Again, they going after updoaders. On p2p networks, you have no idea whether the downloader has a right to a copy of the song. Therefore, your action is irresponsible.
"4. A democracy is made up of the general will of the populace. MILLIONS of people in the country share files (lets save the debate about whether it's sharing or theft or whatever for another time. It's just the verb I'm using). Most of these people are college students and people in their twenties. These are the future of America. The RIAA is what, two hundred 50-year-old lawyers with a giant bank account? The government should be responding to how people act en masse. Copyright is a civil granted right -- it's not a natural right. That means the people can revoke it. (As opposed to your right to life, to not be beaten up on the street, etc.) And if millions of private citizens are acting in concert in a manner contradictory to how current copyright law acts, well, it's time to change the law."The US is more than a democracy. The constitution was written to insure certain liberties, regardless of public opinion. The framers didn't want to start a country where it's allowed for instance, to kill your neighbor because he looks at you funny, just because the majority thinks this may be good someday. The supreme court routinely strikes down laws that are popular, but unconstitutional. The constitution is designed to protect your individual rights as the framers saw them, even if you're in the minority. The constitution protects copyright, and majority opinion can't change that, since that would be unconstitutional, and a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, which the framers felt was an important right.
Luckily Verizon is still pushing for legal changes to the DMCA to limit this DMCA provision. Although I don't think they should need to get a judge's signature for each individual infringer (that's just trying to protect file sharers through beuracracy), a judge should need to sign off on groups of file sharers, by looking at how the IP addresses were obtained, and determining whther this method show reasonable suspicion of illegal file sharing which would warrant a subpoena.
" The RIAA is trying to cling to its old business model, when it clearly does not apply to today's technological/economical reality."
This sad arguement is still being pushed by the EFF even though the RIAA has provided legitimate means of downloading files online. This statement is so last week.
"If they really want to stop piracy, or at least reduce it immensely, here's a recipe: Drop the price of a CD to $3.00. I bet you MP3 file sharing will go down the next day. But then... Ah, how's poor RIAA exec going to pay for his BMW? It's Easier to sue everybody."
No company should be forced to adjust price through extortion, i.e. sell it to me cheaper, or I'll just take it anyway without paying you a penny. Even if they refused to offer songs online for a fee, you have no right to demand it that way. You simply have the right to offer to buy it that way, and they have the right accept or refuse. That's how free market works, which is a fundamental necessity for real freedom.
" You know, I've been reading all morning the other threads over here about citizen's rights to bear arms.
A pretty good argument is that armed citizens could defend themselves against a tiranny. How is that compatible with the current situation where corporations seem to have totalitarian powers over the US citizens?"
It's amusing that you brought up the right to bear arms and so-called totalitarian powers of corporations. The NRA probably has more power than any other lobby group in Washington. The reason is it's composed of a huge number of VOTERS. Corporations don't run America, voters do. That's why gun legislation is impossible to pass. Lobbying only works on issues the average person doesn't care about. A politician won't take money to support an issue that will cost him more votes than he can gain using that money. That's the economy of politics.
Slashdot Mirror
" Umm the RIAA didnt make the itunes music store happen, Steve Jobs did. The reasoning is quite sound. The members of the RIAA have no outlet for digital music that meets the demand of the customers. "
Record labels distribute music. Stores like Tower Records sell the music. Apple is just 1 more store the record labels use to sell music. iTunes is an outlet for RIAA members to sell music online, so your statement is incorrect, just like techfocus' statement. They are the copyright holders, not Apple.
"Bill Gates says that according to error reporting software in windows, 5% of all windows installations crash two or more times every day."
Is this the sw that prompts you to ask whether to report if an application crashes that he's referring to? If so, how does it run to prompt you to allow it to report your computer has crashed, if your computer has crashed and the sw can't run? My XP installation never crashes so I don't understand. Is this the last thing that works before your system hangs. Doesn't make sense to me. Ive seen this come up from buggy apps, but ctrl-alt-del allows me to kill the app without rebooting the computer.
" ok, 5% crash 2 or more times per day. Let's say then, that maybe 10% crash once per day, 20% crash every couple of days, 40% crash once a week, etc. If we only go that far that's saying 75% of windows computers crash at least once a week."
hope this was meant to be funny. 5% crash twice a day means 5% crash 14 times a week, not 75% crash at least once a week. You can't infer that from the data.
Actually, if you buy used cds, you increase their value. This allows people to sell used cds at a higher price, giving them more incentive to buy more new cds. Therefore, by buying used cds, you are indirectly supporting buying new cds.
Here's a link that also mentions these criteria.
" Can you get every song from iTunes? Every piece of every RIAA (jackbooted thugs that they are) member artist's back catalog? With no requirements to buy a whole album to get the one good song?"
What does this have to do with anything. Techfocus claimed the recording industry wasn't working on methods of distributing over the internet, but instead just suing people. In reality, they're doing both, as techfocus alluded to themselves by mentioning iTunes. But Techfocus is too stupid to realize that. The fact that you can't get everything online yet wasn't the issue. The issue was whether they were making an effort, which they clearly are based on iTunes, Rhapsody, etc.
"3. The RIAA is choosing to devote their resources to target individuals, rather than devoting their resources to creating a feasible distribution method (see iTunes). We will not allow this website to be used as a resource with which they could utilize user statements or comments against them. While this has not happened, we are pre-emptively moving to avoid this."
You just mentioned iTunes in the same sentence where you claim the recording industry is not creating a feasible ditribution method for music online. iTumes is one of their feasible distribution methods. The stupidity of some people just amazes me.
" then you have the right to subpoena any of the artists that you are accused of sharing. Put them on the stand and ask them if they support the RIAA's suing of their customers. Ask them how much money they have lost because of file sharing. Ask them every question under the sun. Take up as much time as possible for each artist. If each Metallica member has to spend 2 days in court for every person they sue, then maybe they'll just shut their pie holes and be grateful for what their fans have given them."
First, the artists aren't the copyright holders. The labels are. If you put a record exec on the stand, he'll say he supports the RIAA's action, that's what he pays them for. Second, it's doubtful you can convince a judge that it's necessary to force these witnesses to appear in court in the 1st place, since they have no relevant testimony to the case.
"I am looking forward to several things: The death of CD sales and painful realization of the RIAA that they are going down. The explosion of indi artists and methods of distribution, and no more focus-group artists!."
The death of cd's has nothing to do with whether or not RIAA members survive. If they own the copyright to music, and it is enforcable, they will make money, whether it's selling cds or selling music through Apple, or whatever. Indie artists are signed by labels BTW, many of which are RIAA members. Unsigned artists are not signed up to a label. Other methods of distribution, such as internet radio, may help indie artists, but thats good for the major labels too, because they will sign them up when their contrct expires with the indie label, to give then a shot at really being big (see REM, for instance).
A lot of people here keep whining about how the word theft shouldn't be used to describe copyright infringement, so I though it was great how the lawyer argued that copyright infringement is actually worse than theft of a physical good in many instances, as follows
"In some instances, piracy can actually be more damaging than traditional theft. Unlike traditional theft, where a person steals a specific number of tangible objects, one product in digital format can alone be used to generate hundreds of thousands of near-perfect digital copies within hours. In the case of software piracy, for example, the developer has not been deprived of his product in the traditional sense it has merely been copied. Yet, he faces the grim reality that his product is now available around the world, often for free, to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. In very real terms, even though he retains his property, the digital victim is in a much worse position than the victim of a more traditional theft. To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t be more real."
" I thought that was interesting too, because technically there was a violation of the perjury clause there. The RIAA claimed to be authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder of that specific MP3, when in fact they were NOT authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. Isn't that precisely the situation that the perjury clause is designed for?"
You're making the same mistake the questioner did. The RIAA represents the copyright owner of Usher. They have not lied about this so there is no perjury. The fact that the mp3 in question was not the copyrighted work of Usher, but something else, is irrelevant to the perjury clause. It's not illegal to file a charge based on poor evidence, just a waste of everyone's time. If the defendant wants to countersue for damages, that's his option.
Patents aren't evil, but overly broad patents are ridiculous. There's a case going on now where some company claims to own patents on transmitting video over the internet. This company didn't actually develop any software that anyone is using, but they're trying to collect royalties because they patented the idea that you could send video over internet first. This case is similar. Encryption has been along for a long time. The idea of using encryption to protect and manage files is obvious. You shouldn't be able to patent something so broad that no one can design DRM software without paying you, even if their approach is totally different than yours. The implications for OSS are bad. If this goes through, no one will be able to release DRM OSS software until the patent expires unless collecting a license fee is involved. This could put OSS in a bad position to compete against corporate backed SW in some areas.
from here, you're allowed 30dBm of transmit power with a 6 dBi antennae (isotropic) for 802.11b. If they're broadcasting more power than that into the stadium, they're breaking the rules. Given the normal range of 802.11, I doubt they can broadcast into the stadium legally, even if they use a directional antennae to improve efficiency.
This path has already been traveled by Verizon, so unless BC and MIT have some new legal angle, they're just wasting their money on lawyer.
"Imagine being a touring indie band and be able to tell people to go to iTunes and buy your songs;"
If you're a touring indie band, you probably already have a record label. Indie means not on a major label. It doesn't mean unsigned. This service is to get unsigned artists a representative to push your music in the digtal world.
"it seems this could be a huge boon to musicians wanting to circumvent/boycott/avoid/destroy the RIAA."
If you don't have a record label, you won't get any radio airplay. For your $40, CDBaby will listen to your music, take the best of what they get, and hope someone like Apple is willing to sell it online. Whether or not anyone previews it and buys it is anyone's guess.
" such sensible people! maybe next they'll force computer manufacturers to offer alternative OSses on computers, to open up competition and lower prices."
It's a real win for freedom when the govt. points a gun at you an tells you how to run your business. This market will never be really free as long as the govt. is regualting who can run network cables, and where.
"If SCO is stupid enough to try to enforce this, then they will have the "smoking gun" they need to really slam SCO into the ground, on the basis of clear and continuing violation of a legal contract (the GPL)."
David Boies is not stupid. The GPL is a copyright agreement. Why would you think it's valid if the work in question is a derivative of someone else's work, as SCO claims? It is interesting though that they're going outside the legal system in collecting damages, i.e. licensing fees. I would have thought they'd need to wait for the courts to award them, but IANAL. It'll be interesting to see what the courts decide, but it'll take a few years.
"No, if they encumber the linux codebase with their own license, then the GPL becomes void and no longer can be used to distribute Linux. At that point, the distribution of every piece of linux that they don't explicitly own becomes prohibited, completely, because Linux falls back to copyright law which indicates that the contributors of the other pieces still own them and have not licensed them to any distribution but GPL. Therefore, if they tell people they need to pay to run linux, linux becomes un-runnable."
Actually, the GPL is probably no longer strictly valid for the Linux Kernal if it contains copyrighted work from SCO. In the end, it's up to the courts to decide what the proper remedy is for the situation. SCO can't really decide, as you have pointed out, but neither can Linus, et. al., because they have harmed SCO, if SCO's claims are true. Therefore, the court system will eventually determine a remedy and award damages, if any are necessary, and both SCO and Linux must abide by the court's decision. MS went through this same thing, except with antitrust laws. In the end, judges decided the remedy, not the DOJ or MS. Same thing here.
"Looks like Intel's competition is going to be coming more and more from IBM, not AMD..."
Wait a minute. You rightfully criticized the Itanium for being a money sink, but then concluded IBM is bigger competiton for Intel than AMD? That doesn't follow logically. A better conclusion would be that Intel has left the door open for IBM and AMD.
A OS message has nothing to do with the govt. Govt. signs are meant to inform users of rules of the road. An OS message has nothing to do with govt rules, and making it illegal to impersonate one is just silly. What next, go after beer advertizers because babes don't flock to you when you drink their product? This is just another of many frivolous lawsuits strangling business in America like suing McDonalds because you're fat.
" No, that would be a run-of-the-mill advertisement. A FUI would be an offical looking "All Trucks Must Exit Here" sign leading to a truck-repair center. Or, maybe more realistically, a sign that says "Warning: next stop for blinker fluid in 200 miles""
The 1st example is a bad analogy since the official signs are posted by the govt. while a meesage popping up on your computer by the OS is not govt. related. The second example is bad since nobody is claiming that the products advertized through double click are fraudulent. They just don't like the bait.
"1. The max penalty is $150,000 per song. Had you stolen a CD from a store, would you be charged $2,250,000 (assuming that there are fifteen tracks on a CD, not unreasonable)? Any store would be laughed out of court if they wanted 2 and a quarter million dollars in damages for a single CD. However, the RIAA gets away with it."
They're suing people for uploading songs, not downloading songs. If you've uploaded a a song 150 times, thats $150 dollars at Apple prices.
"3. There are legitimate uses for P2P. If, indeed, I've performed "copyright infringement," by downloading music, then that means that I've violated a license to listen to that music. That means that buying a CD isn't buying a specially pressed piece of plastic -- it's buying a license to listen to certain music. That means I'm legally justified in downloading MP3s of the songs I own on CD. And often times, I misplace CDs. So I feel totally fine about downloading MP3s of those CDs. However, if the RIAA saw me doing this, they'd slap me with a lawsuit. And then I'd have to waste thousands of dollars on legal fees proving that what I was doing wasn't illegal. And that unnerves me. I mean, you steal a CD from a music store, and lights flash, alarms go off, etc. It's pretty clear-cut as to who's stealing music and who's walking away with it legitimately. But the possibility for false positives on illegality for P2P makes it far less justified to just "shotgun" off lawsuits, especially to only casual users."
Again, they going after updoaders. On p2p networks, you have no idea whether the downloader has a right to a copy of the song. Therefore, your action is irresponsible.
"4. A democracy is made up of the general will of the populace. MILLIONS of people in the country share files (lets save the debate about whether it's sharing or theft or whatever for another time. It's just the verb I'm using). Most of these people are college students and people in their twenties. These are the future of America. The RIAA is what, two hundred 50-year-old lawyers with a giant bank account? The government should be responding to how people act en masse. Copyright is a civil granted right -- it's not a natural right. That means the people can revoke it. (As opposed to your right to life, to not be beaten up on the street, etc.) And if millions of private citizens are acting in concert in a manner contradictory to how current copyright law acts, well, it's time to change the law."The US is more than a democracy. The constitution was written to insure certain liberties, regardless of public opinion. The framers didn't want to start a country where it's allowed for instance, to kill your neighbor because he looks at you funny, just because the majority thinks this may be good someday. The supreme court routinely strikes down laws that are popular, but unconstitutional. The constitution is designed to protect your individual rights as the framers saw them, even if you're in the minority. The constitution protects copyright, and majority opinion can't change that, since that would be unconstitutional, and a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, which the framers felt was an important right.
Luckily Verizon is still pushing for legal changes to the DMCA to limit this DMCA provision. Although I don't think they should need to get a judge's signature for each individual infringer (that's just trying to protect file sharers through beuracracy), a judge should need to sign off on groups of file sharers, by looking at how the IP addresses were obtained, and determining whther this method show reasonable suspicion of illegal file sharing which would warrant a subpoena.
" The RIAA is trying to cling to its old business model, when it clearly does not apply to today's technological/economical reality."
This sad arguement is still being pushed by the EFF even though the RIAA has provided legitimate means of downloading files online. This statement is so last week.
"If they really want to stop piracy, or at least reduce it immensely, here's a recipe: Drop the price of a CD to $3.00. I bet you MP3 file sharing will go down the next day. But then... Ah, how's poor RIAA exec going to pay for his BMW? It's Easier to sue everybody."
No company should be forced to adjust price through extortion, i.e. sell it to me cheaper, or I'll just take it anyway without paying you a penny. Even if they refused to offer songs online for a fee, you have no right to demand it that way. You simply have the right to offer to buy it that way, and they have the right accept or refuse. That's how free market works, which is a fundamental necessity for real freedom.
" You know, I've been reading all morning the other threads over here about citizen's rights to bear arms. A pretty good argument is that armed citizens could defend themselves against a tiranny. How is that compatible with the current situation where corporations seem to have totalitarian powers over the US citizens?"
It's amusing that you brought up the right to bear arms and so-called totalitarian powers of corporations. The NRA probably has more power than any other lobby group in Washington. The reason is it's composed of a huge number of VOTERS. Corporations don't run America, voters do. That's why gun legislation is impossible to pass. Lobbying only works on issues the average person doesn't care about. A politician won't take money to support an issue that will cost him more votes than he can gain using that money. That's the economy of politics.