Just as the courts have said that VCRs, ISPs and even file sharing services are not liable for illegal uses when there are legitimate uses, MS is also safe.
After the Verizon descision and this settlement, prepare to see people sued on a regular basis. Call it the Copyright Lottery. Continue to steal and maybe your number is next.
The record industry is So incredibly fucked. I quit buying CDs two years ago... I just about have replaced every CD I ever owned with MP3s downloaded from usenet...
This is why they are fucked. Because you are stealing from them.
I don't think VOD systems will ever replace DVD (or whatever comes next in the HDTV age) because colleting movies is all the rage. Today, more people than ever are buying their favorite films instead of renting or PPV. Its great to line your shelves with LOTR box sets and that cool metal slipcase for the Highlander DVD/CD set.
This is kind of like the case with CDs. They are now a collection of singles and give no reason for ownership, unlike the old days. I remember buying the Led Zep Houses of the Holy LP with a awesome die cut windows on the cover, or how about Styx Paradise Theater with the doublefold artwork and the laser etching on the B-side of the LP. All this has been lost to the record labels, but not to the motion picture studio who give us great artwork and extras on the disc up the wazoo.
Cheapskate, no way. How could anyone who bought an overpriced computer like an Apple be a cheapskate? However, you are a music thief. Each song you download for free is money out of the poclet of the artist/writer/producer.
AAC is the Advance Audio CODEC. Currently it is the default audio standard of MPEG-4 video, as well as used by XM Satellite Radio. It was developed by Dolby Labs and is similar to AC-3 (Doly Digital). It is targeted as having CD quality at 64k per channel (128 for stereo).
Pleae don't confuse a codec with a DRM device. A DRM device would wrap around a CODEC to protect its contents, but it is not a CODEC itself.
You don't get it. The $100-million for the production is paid for by a bank, borrowed against two factors:
1. The film library owned by the studio. If you get your way this is all public domain and will have no collateral value
2. Return on Investment. So yo pay a buck. A $100-million dollar movie needs to earn about $200-million minimum to break even with publicity, distribution, etc.
re working hard to support a distribution channel that will never do anything but steal from you.
Please don't make assertations based on heresay. This current distribution channel does not steal from me. I make money via retail outlets and online sales without interference from the majors. As for Ms. Love, many artist don't follow many of her beliefs. I only support her on the fact that contracts with majors last too long and it takes too long to get your masters back.
The U.S. Government is established to serve the will of the people, not the will of the corporation.
Corporation? No... artist. The US Constitution staes: "the Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." I'll say it up front: the copyright term is way too long. Maybe resuded to say 28+14 years again (I'd be in favor). However, in much the same way as you incorrectly asserted that I am supporting somethg for the wrong reason, look at you. You say this is all about freedom for artists. Bah. 99% of the music being traded is done so without permission. My point is this: P2P trading is fine, and if an artist wants to include his/her material to promote it, that too is fine. But you are taking the artist choice away. You are telling me that, "well, because you wont put it up, I'll rip it and put it up for you." That is not free speech. That is violation of my rights to dstribute how I want for the period of copyright. Maybe the RIAA is a little heavey handed, but two wrongs do not make a right.
The future you refer to is bleak. Continue this fight and you may win, but you'll never see another Terminator movie or Lord of the Rings or many other cool films because NO ONE WILL FINANCE THEM. Destroy the industry and see how much there is to enjoy. Same will happen in music. If your future comes true I will quit the indistry because I will need to get another job to afford to live.
there was NO COURT ORDER OR JUDGE INVOLVED yet, people!)
May I quote from the article: "Under the law [DMCA], a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge. Right there it says the subpena was issued by the court. You can argue that it should have judicial review, but the law doesn't require it.
Now, under the law the copyright holder must provide significant reason for it to be issued as in the Washington Post article from April 25: Bates rejected Verizon's arguments, saying that copyright holders must provide detailed, sworn declarations in support of their request for subpoenas and that Internet service providers have the right to contest them.
In support of the law and the need to stop the rampant infringments the article has Bates saying Congress intended to enable copyright holders to move quickly to stop infringement, and that the harm RIAA suffers from continued infringement outweighed any harm Verizon might suffer by turning over the customer's name before the case is heard on appeal.
I would like to point out that as an indie filmmaker with an indie recording label I full support the DMCA to protect my investments. Unlike the majors I live close to the line in what I spend to make product and infringments hurt me triple.
May I quote from the article: "Under the law [DMCA], a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge. Right there it says the subpena was issued by the court. You can argue that it should have judicial review, but the law doesn't require it. Now, under the law the copyright holder must provide significant reason for it to be issued as in the Washington Post article from April 25: Bates rejected Verizon's arguments, saying that copyright holders must provide detailed, sworn declarations in support of their request for subpoenas and that Internet service providers have the right to contest them.
In support of the law and the need to stop the rampant infringments the article has Bates saying Congress intended to enable copyright holders to move quickly to stop infringement, and that the harm RIAA suffers from continued infringement outweighed any harm Verizon might suffer by turning over the customer's name before the case is heard on appeal.
I would like to point out that as an indie filmmaker with an indie recording label I full support the DMCA to protect my investments. Unlike the majors I live close to the line in what I spend to make product and infringments hurt me triple.
Actually, I reread the article, it says that the subpeona was issued by the court clerk, NOT by the RIAA. It is a legal document issued by the court. Then, the judge backed it up. In order to get the subpeona they had to give evidence that copyright infringement was going on in a sworn deposition. So the idea they went direct is wrong if you'd read all the articles releated to this.
Here is the fact: form. Under the law, a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge. Sounds like the court issued it at the request of the copyright holders.
Look, if you are going to take a side, get the facts straight. I am trying to.
Fair, you didnt say steal it. But I hear that a lot.
Being an indie music/film guy where my cash is very tight, I do need some ways to protect my stuff from being copied all over the world via the internet. I am for delivering on the internet and will use it, but I will also do what it takes to protect my copyrights.
BTW: If there were no laws against musrder, drugs, etc, I think you would see a lot more people killng and using drugs.
The same logic applies apart from the network-centric world of Slashdot
You know, I have noticed a distinct disconnect between real world logic and on-line logic from those arguing points on Slahdot. Jst because it is online does not mean throw out years of arguments and court rulings because ideas are transferred via bits rather than paper or CDs.
Do you believe for a second that people who love your work will settle in the end for a degraded digital copy on a CD-R?
Yes. It is shown that an untrained ear cannot desern the difference between an MP3 and the original. Most people listen to music on systems that are either not built for the best sound quality (low cost boom boxes are very popular) or are not set up properly to reproduce it correctly.
In my experience, being able to hear new music via P2P had led to buying more new music in its officially sanctioned retail format, not less.
I have learned early not to trust my own views on subjects. We each have quirks that we think are universal but do not represent the universal whole. Just because you are buying more music does not mean that is what the majority do. I have loved TV shows that cancelled because no one else watches them. yet I thought they were great.
The internet is the best means of distributing audio and video available to the independent artist...
If the choice of the artist how they distribute. If they want to give it away, that is fine as long as it is the artist's choice. For instance, Genesis made the new track from their Turn It On Again...the Hits album availble for download for those who owned all the old albums so they would not have to pay again for material they already own. The main problem is that the way P2P is now takes the choice for distributing the music for free out of the hands of the artist. How many people trading the new Madonna song, for instance, got permission to ditribute that song? Is that fair?
Do you really want to take your art out of the global marketplace and allow SONY to decide whether it's worthy of distribution?
I want it in the global marketplace but with safeguards on controlling my copyright. It has nothing to do with Sony. It is my choice to assign my work to SONY or do distribute independently or to make the songs available for download.
The RIAA is a group sponsored by the major labels. The RIAA does not make product or sell things.
Plus, it is not the only industry group opposed to the stealing going on. The National Songwriters Association is as well, and it speaks for the artists themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as the courts have said that VCRs, ISPs and even file sharing services are not liable for illegal uses when there are legitimate uses, MS is also safe.
After the Verizon descision and this settlement, prepare to see people sued on a regular basis. Call it the Copyright Lottery. Continue to steal and maybe your number is next.
The record industry is So incredibly fucked. I quit buying CDs two years ago ... I just about have replaced every CD I ever owned with MP3s downloaded from usenet...
This is why they are fucked. Because you are stealing from them.
The lesson is for other traders. Illegally trade copyrighted music and you just may have to pay for it in spades.
It's costly to defend yourself.
Especially when you are in the wrong. They broke the law and settled to don't have to pay MILLIONS to the industry.
The money will most likely go back into enforcing piracy laws.
Thereby slowing piracy and making the artist mor money in sales.
Knwing that there is one bullet in the gun people still play Russian roulette, my friend.
I don't think VOD systems will ever replace DVD (or whatever comes next in the HDTV age) because colleting movies is all the rage. Today, more people than ever are buying their favorite films instead of renting or PPV. Its great to line your shelves with LOTR box sets and that cool metal slipcase for the Highlander DVD/CD set.
This is kind of like the case with CDs. They are now a collection of singles and give no reason for ownership, unlike the old days. I remember buying the Led Zep Houses of the Holy LP with a awesome die cut windows on the cover, or how about Styx Paradise Theater with the doublefold artwork and the laser etching on the B-side of the LP. All this has been lost to the record labels, but not to the motion picture studio who give us great artwork and extras on the disc up the wazoo.
Cheapskate, no way. How could anyone who bought an overpriced computer like an Apple be a cheapskate? However, you are a music thief. Each song you download for free is money out of the poclet of the artist/writer/producer.
What is AAC?
AAC is the Advance Audio CODEC. Currently it is the default audio standard of MPEG-4 video, as well as used by XM Satellite Radio. It was developed by Dolby Labs and is similar to AC-3 (Doly Digital). It is targeted as having CD quality at 64k per channel (128 for stereo).
Pleae don't confuse a codec with a DRM device. A DRM device would wrap around a CODEC to protect its contents, but it is not a CODEC itself.
You don't get it. The $100-million for the production is paid for by a bank, borrowed against two factors:
1. The film library owned by the studio. If you get your way this is all public domain and will have no collateral value
2. Return on Investment. So yo pay a buck. A $100-million dollar movie needs to earn about $200-million minimum to break even with publicity, distribution, etc.
Go on. Destroy the industry.
re working hard to support a distribution channel that will never do anything but steal from you.
Please don't make assertations based on heresay. This current distribution channel does not steal from me. I make money via retail outlets and online sales without interference from the majors. As for Ms. Love, many artist don't follow many of her beliefs. I only support her on the fact that contracts with majors last too long and it takes too long to get your masters back.
The U.S. Government is established to serve the will of the people, not the will of the corporation.
Corporation? No... artist. The US Constitution staes: "the Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." I'll say it up front: the copyright term is way too long. Maybe resuded to say 28+14 years again (I'd be in favor). However, in much the same way as you incorrectly asserted that I am supporting somethg for the wrong reason, look at you. You say this is all about freedom for artists. Bah. 99% of the music being traded is done so without permission. My point is this: P2P trading is fine, and if an artist wants to include his/her material to promote it, that too is fine. But you are taking the artist choice away. You are telling me that, "well, because you wont put it up, I'll rip it and put it up for you." That is not free speech. That is violation of my rights to dstribute how I want for the period of copyright. Maybe the RIAA is a little heavey handed, but two wrongs do not make a right.
The future you refer to is bleak. Continue this fight and you may win, but you'll never see another Terminator movie or Lord of the Rings or many other cool films because NO ONE WILL FINANCE THEM. Destroy the industry and see how much there is to enjoy. Same will happen in music. If your future comes true I will quit the indistry because I will need to get another job to afford to live.
there was NO COURT ORDER OR JUDGE INVOLVED yet, people!)
May I quote from the article: "Under the law [DMCA], a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge. Right there it says the subpena was issued by the court. You can argue that it should have judicial review, but the law doesn't require it.Now, under the law the copyright holder must provide significant reason for it to be issued as in the Washington Post article from April 25: Bates rejected Verizon's arguments, saying that copyright holders must provide detailed, sworn declarations in support of their request for subpoenas and that Internet service providers have the right to contest them.
In support of the law and the need to stop the rampant infringments the article has Bates saying Congress intended to enable copyright holders to move quickly to stop infringement, and that the harm RIAA suffers from continued infringement outweighed any harm Verizon might suffer by turning over the customer's name before the case is heard on appeal.
I would like to point out that as an indie filmmaker with an indie recording label I full support the DMCA to protect my investments. Unlike the majors I live close to the line in what I spend to make product and infringments hurt me triple.
Like Verizon I bet they will be subject to identifying users in the future.
file swapping exists because of the greediness of the record companies.
File swapping exists because people like getting things for free.
*eye roll* mmmmm.... red herring.
Just pointing out your illogic
No subpoena was "granted" by the court.
May I quote from the article: "Under the law [DMCA], a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge. Right there it says the subpena was issued by the court. You can argue that it should have judicial review, but the law doesn't require it. Now, under the law the copyright holder must provide significant reason for it to be issued as in the Washington Post article from April 25: Bates rejected Verizon's arguments, saying that copyright holders must provide detailed, sworn declarations in support of their request for subpoenas and that Internet service providers have the right to contest them.
In support of the law and the need to stop the rampant infringments the article has Bates saying Congress intended to enable copyright holders to move quickly to stop infringement, and that the harm RIAA suffers from continued infringement outweighed any harm Verizon might suffer by turning over the customer's name before the case is heard on appeal.
I would like to point out that as an indie filmmaker with an indie recording label I full support the DMCA to protect my investments. Unlike the majors I live close to the line in what I spend to make product and infringments hurt me triple.
The RIAA did not file a subpeona.
Actually, I reread the article, it says that the subpeona was issued by the court clerk, NOT by the RIAA. It is a legal document issued by the court. Then, the judge backed it up. In order to get the subpeona they had to give evidence that copyright infringement was going on in a sworn deposition. So the idea they went direct is wrong if you'd read all the articles releated to this.
Here is the fact: form. Under the law, a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge. Sounds like the court issued it at the request of the copyright holders.
Look, if you are going to take a side, get the facts straight. I am trying to.
Live in your dream world... the article says the subpeopna was issued by the court and backed up by a judges order.
It is a part of a court action. According to the article the court issued it then the judge backed it up. Sorry, you lose.
Fair, you didnt say steal it. But I hear that a lot.
Being an indie music/film guy where my cash is very tight, I do need some ways to protect my stuff from being copied all over the world via the internet. I am for delivering on the internet and will use it, but I will also do what it takes to protect my copyrights.
BTW: If there were no laws against musrder, drugs, etc, I think you would see a lot more people killng and using drugs.
The subpeona is filed with the court. Sounds legal to me.
Same here, bud.
The same logic applies apart from the network-centric world of Slashdot
You know, I have noticed a distinct disconnect between real world logic and on-line logic from those arguing points on Slahdot. Jst because it is online does not mean throw out years of arguments and court rulings because ideas are transferred via bits rather than paper or CDs.
Do you believe for a second that people who love your work will settle in the end for a degraded digital copy on a CD-R?
Yes. It is shown that an untrained ear cannot desern the difference between an MP3 and the original. Most people listen to music on systems that are either not built for the best sound quality (low cost boom boxes are very popular) or are not set up properly to reproduce it correctly.
In my experience, being able to hear new music via P2P had led to buying more new music in its officially sanctioned retail format, not less.
I have learned early not to trust my own views on subjects. We each have quirks that we think are universal but do not represent the universal whole. Just because you are buying more music does not mean that is what the majority do. I have loved TV shows that cancelled because no one else watches them. yet I thought they were great.
The internet is the best means of distributing audio and video available to the independent artist...
If the choice of the artist how they distribute. If they want to give it away, that is fine as long as it is the artist's choice. For instance, Genesis made the new track from their Turn It On Again...the Hits album availble for download for those who owned all the old albums so they would not have to pay again for material they already own. The main problem is that the way P2P is now takes the choice for distributing the music for free out of the hands of the artist. How many people trading the new Madonna song, for instance, got permission to ditribute that song? Is that fair?
Do you really want to take your art out of the global marketplace and allow SONY to decide whether it's worthy of distribution?
I want it in the global marketplace but with safeguards on controlling my copyright. It has nothing to do with Sony. It is my choice to assign my work to SONY or do distribute independently or to make the songs available for download.
The RIAA is a group sponsored by the major labels. The RIAA does not make product or sell things.
Plus, it is not the only industry group opposed to the stealing going on. The National Songwriters Association is as well, and it speaks for the artists themselves.
So, go ahead and boycott. Just don't steal./P.