Great interview, but come on... 2-3 word "question summaries" before the answers? WTF? Is Slashdot trying to save electronic trees/hard drive space by not having the full question before the answer? Whose brilliant idea was this? I have an extra 100 meg hard drive lyin' around here that I'd be glad to donate to slashdot if storage is getting so tight that we need "question summaries."
Not ONLY will RFID prevent terrorism, but it will save our children in the process. If that's not reason enough to let companies see what products are inside our homes (after all, what do you have to hide?? eh??) I don't know what is.
What do you think the people deserve? The people each spent like $100 on a piece of software. The lawyers spent years of time and tens of millions of dollars financing the lawsuit. Do the individual class-member plaintiffs deserve more than a few bucks? No. Does microsoft deserve to have to pay a fuckload? Yes. Do the lawyers deserve to make money? Well if they didn't, then everyone would have microsoft DRM barcode tattoos on their asses to protect them from unauthorized copying/piracy of MS software. Gotta scan your ass to install/log in... it's for your own benefit. Suing microsoft isn't cheap. Winning is really expensive. Someone who feels Microsoft shafted them $50 on the price of a piece of software isn't gonna pay some lawyers $40 million to get a $50 rebate from MS.
That being said, the plaintiffs should get cash, not credit on their next Microsoft purchase. Cold hard cash only. the settlement in an antitrust suit shouldn't perpetuate the monopoly of the defendant. Bad public policy.
No, let's just watch out for slippery slopes so we don't fall and hurt ourselves. Society falls apart without property rights in physical things such as one's home and automobile and crops and land. Society can not only function without intellectual monopoly "property," but society will work a lot better without it. There will be more creativity, more ideas, and more open expression. You're just confused because the word "property" is used in both ideas. They do that to confuse people like you into supporting intellectual property. Because by gosh, if we don't have copyright or patent law, then we won't own our own homes/land/cars/etc. If we get rid of one form of "property" what's to stop them from getting rid of all other forms of "property!" Quick stick your money in your mattress and grab your shotgun. And wear a helmet, as those slopes can be dangerous.
Well, first of all, the courts long ago threw out the "sweat of the brow" justification for copyright. I never bought it for a second. People are going to make maps (and aside from other planets, there's nothing left to map, anyway). Maps, more than anything, should be open source. Copyright shouldn't apply to information, anyway. A map is not an expression of an idea. A map is a compilation of facts (boundaries and distances). Maps deserve absolutely no protection whatsoever.
The purpose of copyright is not to stimulate creativity or "sweat of the brow." The purpose is to guarantee profits. Nodobody, NOBODY, deserves guaranteed profits. Supply and demand create profits, not laws. If your product is valueless without a law, too bad. Give it away and find a new day job. Just because you make something doesn't mean you deserve a legally-created market for it. Copyright has become an entitlement nowadays. I made something, thus I *deserve* a monopoly on it for as long as possible (forever minus a day). No, you don't.
Today, anyone can publish a book. Stick it online as a text file. Published. Copyright isn't here to protect authors. It's to protect the publishing industry. Just like how you don't see musicians suing downloaders. It's the recording industry that's doing it. These people don't create a damn fucking thing. In fact, their very existence hinders creativity. It's been proven time and again here that there will be much more creativity without copyright. The same goes for patents, too. In fact, patents are a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned. "No, starving african peoples, you can't plant those seeds to feed yourselves unless you buy a license to plant them each year." "But we have no money, we have no food!" "Oh well, too bad. Looks like we'll have to (get our government to) burn your infringing crops."
There's nothing "interesting" about a release clause. When you settle a lawsuit, that's what happens (or else why the hell would they settle in the first place?) Note: nobody was forced to join the class action.
It can't be protected as a trade secret if you're selling it in the open. Trade secrets are ingredients, not the end-item itself. A britney spears song can't be a trade secret; whereas maybe her diet and exercise routine can be. As for "trade secrets" protecting what would otherwise be protected by patent... no, that won't work either. If the "secret" is actually a secret and you can prove i worked at your place and stole the secret (or broke in and stole it) then maybe there would be a claim. And that's assuming we keep "trade secrets" as a viable cause of action. Without any other form of IP, I don't see why there would be trade secrets. As for protecting a commercial "idea" via national secret... naw, not gonna happen. Again, you're not talking about protecting an idea, but the right to make and sell that idea. If it's out there, it's not secret. Not a national secret, not a trade secret, not any kind of secret.
Thor the caveman didn't need to be promised a term monopoly in order to give him the incentive to invent the wheel. People solve problems. It's how our species works. And when we're not busy solving problems, we create things/express ideas. We don't need monopolies to get us to do that any more than we need monopolies to get us to fuck and spawn more children.
Zittrain proves to be yet another intelligent person who can't see past the "we must have copyright or there will be no creativity" fallacy. It's really a shame. Yes, even the founding fathers fucked up on that one, although they at least limited it to 14+14 years, which was acceptable. Had they really had foresight, they would have stuck "Congress shall make no law establishing a monopoly - temporary or permanent - on any creation, artistic or technical" in the First Amendment. Yes, no patents, no copyrights. People will still get off their asses and make stuff. We did it before the advent of intellectual "property" monopolies and we'd still do it once those monopolies are abolished. Bottom line: get rid of copyright (yes, all of it, erase Title 17) and people will still paint pictures, record music, make movies, books, television shows, and software. In fact, since the size of the public domain will increase a million-fold overnight, there will be a lot more to use in order to create such things. And jack valenti should be left asking "do you want fries with that?"
A Netflix for music CDs would be illegal. It is illegal to rent music CDs. There are exceptions for public libraries (and no, you can't make your netflix a public library).
Go read Federalist No. 10 (Madison's comments on rule by factions). America is absolutely NOT a majority-rules country. There are plenty of countries that are, and if you want to live in one of them, I can send you a list. If america were a majority rules country, we would not need a constitution or bill of rights; only ballots. Slavery would still be legal, gays would be oppressed (even moreso than they currently are), we would have a National American Church of Christianity (which you'd be forced to belong to and pay taxes/tithings to), and all sorts of other horrors. Rest assured, even if 99.9% of the population wants something, the minority is protected. At least in theory. Yes, a certain majority can amend the constitution, but history and the actual process involved show that that is very, very hard to do. An "Equal Rights (for women)" amendment couldn't even get passed.
I'm not mixing them up. I never said that either of them have anything to do with mental states by definition. I said that there isn't much of a useful distinction, especially in this day and age -- i.e., nowadays we have much deeper discourse about what we think is actually "inherently" right or wrong, and thus the lines are much blurrier than they would have been when society first started talking about mala prohibita and mala in se as discrete concepts.
Ok, I guess I understood your statement to imply malum prohibitum = specific intent whereas malum in se = general intent. I know see what you were trying to say, and yeah, I agree.
I hope your crim law professor didn't waste any time trying to get you to explain the difference between the two! It's just not useful. I understand where you're coming from; at heart, I agree that downloading 100 songs isn't inherently evil, or even kind of evil. But therein lies the problem: that's what you and I think, but what does society think? What do lawmakers -- who ostensibly represent society -- think?
Well, it's not useful from a purely legal standpoint, unless you are on the committee setting sentencing guidelines, I suppose. Other than that, it's an adjective and nothing more (at least not substantively). But I don't think defining an act as malum prohibitum or malum in se is as subjective as you do. Downloading music, no matter how much, is not evil. Anyone who does argue that downloading a song is either named Lars Ulrich, owns a BIG record company, and/or is a high-ranking member of the RIAA. And deep down inside, they know it's not "evil"... they just don't like it because in their mind, it's costing them money. Their revenue has gone down over the past few years (along with every single other industry - ya know, it's a recession....) thus they can either blame Clinton (pres when the recession started), themselves (which never happens), or an external force (that's always the easiest, and that's what is gonna happen). Our revenues are down, people are sharing our music online, therefore that must be the reason. I think slashdot has had hundreds of stories showing that logic is complete bunk, but the RIAA is nothing more than a group that organizes price-fixing and attempts to get the most $17 music CDs sold as possible. They see filesharing as costing them money (which at the very least is arguable, and in fact is complete bullshit), there is a (ridiculously overbroad) statute (17 USC 501) that can stop people from doing this, so I suppose they have a semi-fiduciary duty to sue as many people as possible. I say "semi" because if they decided to not sue kids for downloading songs of Kazaa, I could not imagine that as being a breach of a fiduciary duty to RIAA members. [Also keep in mind that it is the recording industry assoc, not the musicians/artists assoc, so the RIAA owes absolutely no duty to any bands or singers. The interests of the two groups sound like they are mutual, but as we all know, those interests are adverse 99% of the time. The only time they are not adverse is when a band/performer is in the top 0.0001% of income generating acts, such as Metallica. Those guys have the bargaining power to negotiate deals so far in their favor that they are, in effect, their own recording industry.] Everyone knows that the best way to get people to comply with a stupid law is to try to convince them that not doing so is evil/immoral. That is best done with TV commercials (still pisses me off the gov't wastes taxpayer money on those jackfuck stupid anti-drug commercials) and highly-public lawsuits. Everybody knows downloading music is just fine, not immoral in the slightest little bit, so the whole "it is no different than walking into Best Buy and shoplifting a bunch of albums" argument is nothing more than appeal-to-emotion advertising.
You don't think driving 100 mph in a school zone is evil? I certainly don't think it's reckless. Going 60 in a school zone, that's reckless. Going 100 in a school zo
No, you are confusing "specific intent" crimes with "general intent" crimes. Mala prohibita and mala in se have nothing to do with mental states by definition, although most malum prohibitum offenses (i.e. speeding) do not require a specific mens rea.
A malum prohibitum offense is "an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or wrong." Downloading mp3's and driving over the speed limit are the two most obvious examples of such an offense.
A malum in se offense is "an offense that is evil or wrong from its own nature irrespective of statute." Murder, shoplifting, burglary, assault/battery, treason/selling national secrets to the Chinese (unless you're a Democrat President, then you can do that and it's not even malum prohibitum, go figure), arson, rape... those are all mala prohibita offenses.
(I'm sure you know this, but the other guy who responded to this asked for definitions of 'the latin terms').
At any rate, your post misses the point that there are copyright infringements that you can go to jail for, and there are copyright infringements that you will only get sued for. There's a big difference between the two.
You can, in theory, go to jail for downloading a a number of songs off of kazaa if their value exceeds $1000. Keep in mind, the value of the song (yes, just that one song - a "copyrighted work") will be $16.99 -- the price of the album (same way RIAA calculates their losses). That means if you download 58 songs within a 180 day period, you can go to jail if you wilfully did it. That means if you intentionally get on kazaa, select 58 songs (over a 180 day period), and click "download" section 506 applies to you and you can go to jail. Who here has not downloaded 100 songs a year? Jail for you. Is downloading approx 100 songs per year inherently evil? Well, the RIAA will tell you that it is, but the rest of the population knows that its not. Malum in se? Not a fucking chance. It shouldn't even be malum prohibitum. It should be perfectly legal, encouraged, and enjoyed by all. The recording industry can then either come up with a new way to sell a product that everyone can make perfect copies of with a click of a button, or find new jobs.
But the only reason why there are so many civil suits lately is because the RIAA does not need probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion) to file civil infringement charges against you. They just need your name and the $50 to pay the filing fee to issue the subpoena. If it turns out (like the UPenn Prof. "Usher" case) that you are completely not liable, they will just nonsuit the case against you, and go on to the other thousands of downloaders they've subpoenaed. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the RIAA. Frankly, if they are going to act like the police, then I think the Fourth should apply to them by implication. They should have to get search warrants from neutral magistrates based on probable cause to watch (broadband-tap) my connection. Or else the exclusionary rule should apply to anything they "find." They should have to read Miranda rights to everyone they sue (regardless of the fact that the sued is not in RIAA custody/interrogation). And they should have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt on all elements. If you act like police (and yes, that includes rent-a-cops) then all the constitutional protections should apply to you. It's always bothered me that private rent-a-cops can arrest someone, interrogate them, and not have to give Miranda warnings. Then when the "real" cops show up, everything the accused has said (possibly something incriminating) to the rent-a-cops can be used against him/her.
Anyway, that's just a pet peeve of mine.
One person's malum prohibitum is another's malum in se.
I don't know if I agree with that statement. One can make a lame, attenuated argument that any violation of any law (driving 36 in a 35 zone) is inherently evil (i.e. "speeding endangers everyone, and you put everyone's life at risk!") But no, d
I know, I was being sarcastic. Yeah I don't think there's any doubt that rechargeable batteries are better for the environment. My initial post, and I think this thread, presume as much. It's that fact alone which should cause you to choose rechargeables if you want to help the environment.
All the RIAA knows is that you downloaded a song. That in itself is not illegal.
If that's the case, then after you've spent a few grand on legal fees and sufficiently prove that you were the owner of the copyright in the files that you downloaded (or that they were public domain), the RIAA will be more than happy to dismiss their case against you (no, they won't refund your legal fees nor compensate you for your wasted time).
The problem is the RIAA is not the police (not officially, and it's to their benefit). The RIAA does not need probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, to sue you for copyright infringement. If their "charges" turn out false (like the UPenn "Usher" case) they will just nonsuit the case and "let you go." I think they were nice enough to send the UPenn professor an Usher t-shirt. So, maybe you'll get a free t-shirt if you stir up some major shit and are really, really, REALLY big-time, no questions asked innocent, err.. not liable.
What can we do? Counter sue them for harassment. I'm still waiting for someone to do that... I wish the UPenn Professor had done so.
After the Verizon case, I don't see why they shouldn't think that. They don't want to "do stuff" to the networks, only sue the people using the networks in certain ways. The only thing they need the networks to do is supply the name of the user of a certain IP at a certain time. They'll take care of the rest.
File sharing copyright infringement is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. People shouldn't go to jail for trivial little malum prohibitum offenses. The fun(ny) part is watching the RIAA, etc try to convince the world that file sharing is really malum in se. At that, we all laugh our collective asses off, as that notion is sillier than potsmoking causing toxic overdoses and woldwide terrorism.
The only thing wrong with filesharing is that there is a statute which, by sheer overbreadth, makes it technically illegal. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with filesharing copyrighted material.
Yes I realize this, but just because it's mainstream doesn't mean it's not immune from the media police. In fact, the fact that it is mainstream and NOT run by geeks leads me to believe it will be extra-easy for the riaa cops to find them and hand out the subpoenas.
Private warez sites have existed since the first modem. They've never been immune from police. I don't see how a site full of mp3's is any different than a site full of adobe software (and if it's a private ftp site, chances are it's gonna have a bit of both). I'm not making any moral judgments on such sites, but am merely wondering why this is something considered "new" and why anyone would think that it is secure from prosecution?
What is with these people who think they have some innate right to have their business model preserved and protected by taxpayer money/laws? Nowhere in the constitution does it say "Congress shall make no laws infringing upon a person's current working business model." Why doesn't it say that? Well, 1) the constitution doesn't say a lot of things, and 2) the people who wrote the Constitution weren't total fucking idiots. The fact that nearly 30 million people have already signed up for the Do Not Call list is conclusive proof that it is needed and most certainly wanted. The good thing is, any politician who votes to repeal this will do so in the face of 30 million plus voters. I can't picture a court throwing this out, either.
No, it says either caller unknown, out of area, or private. You'll never get "Bob's Telemarketing, Inc." and a phone number on your caller ID. Never. Like spammers, they hide, because deep down inside they know they're sacks of shit.
there are plenty of ways. people will still pay them (tip jars, etc). Musicians should make money on concerts, not albums (albums are free ads for conerts). Picasso paintings sell for a lot of money, copyright notwithstanding. Artists don't need CR to make money. Only the RIAA and MPAA need it to make money.
No, this issue is not about republican/democrat rich/poor. It is about paying off congresspeople to act on an issue that "the american people" do not care about. Well, to that extent it is about money, but only the RIAA's money. Ever notice how every evil copyright bill that gets passed is sponsored by one republican and one democrat? I explained why this is on another post on another thread, and I'm too lazy to go find it (but of course it was +5 insightful hehe). Fucking over the american media consumer, much like getting rid of kiddie porn, is an issue with complete bi-partisan support. It could be worse - both parties could be trying to out-do each other and show who is "really" tougher on IP pirate-theives.
Slashdot Mirror
Great interview, but come on... 2-3 word "question summaries" before the answers? WTF? Is Slashdot trying to save electronic trees/hard drive space by not having the full question before the answer? Whose brilliant idea was this? I have an extra 100 meg hard drive lyin' around here that I'd be glad to donate to slashdot if storage is getting so tight that we need "question summaries."
Not ONLY will RFID prevent terrorism, but it will save our children in the process. If that's not reason enough to let companies see what products are inside our homes (after all, what do you have to hide?? eh??) I don't know what is.
:(
So what you're saying is you wouldn't have had any valuable ideas but for the existence of copyright?
What do you think the people deserve? The people each spent like $100 on a piece of software. The lawyers spent years of time and tens of millions of dollars financing the lawsuit. Do the individual class-member plaintiffs deserve more than a few bucks? No. Does microsoft deserve to have to pay a fuckload? Yes. Do the lawyers deserve to make money? Well if they didn't, then everyone would have microsoft DRM barcode tattoos on their asses to protect them from unauthorized copying/piracy of MS software. Gotta scan your ass to install/log in... it's for your own benefit. Suing microsoft isn't cheap. Winning is really expensive. Someone who feels Microsoft shafted them $50 on the price of a piece of software isn't gonna pay some lawyers $40 million to get a $50 rebate from MS.
That being said, the plaintiffs should get cash, not credit on their next Microsoft purchase. Cold hard cash only. the settlement in an antitrust suit shouldn't perpetuate the monopoly of the defendant. Bad public policy.
No, let's just watch out for slippery slopes so we don't fall and hurt ourselves. Society falls apart without property rights in physical things such as one's home and automobile and crops and land. Society can not only function without intellectual monopoly "property," but society will work a lot better without it. There will be more creativity, more ideas, and more open expression. You're just confused because the word "property" is used in both ideas. They do that to confuse people like you into supporting intellectual property. Because by gosh, if we don't have copyright or patent law, then we won't own our own homes/land/cars/etc. If we get rid of one form of "property" what's to stop them from getting rid of all other forms of "property!" Quick stick your money in your mattress and grab your shotgun. And wear a helmet, as those slopes can be dangerous.
Well, first of all, the courts long ago threw out the "sweat of the brow" justification for copyright. I never bought it for a second. People are going to make maps (and aside from other planets, there's nothing left to map, anyway). Maps, more than anything, should be open source. Copyright shouldn't apply to information, anyway. A map is not an expression of an idea. A map is a compilation of facts (boundaries and distances). Maps deserve absolutely no protection whatsoever.
The purpose of copyright is not to stimulate creativity or "sweat of the brow." The purpose is to guarantee profits. Nodobody, NOBODY, deserves guaranteed profits. Supply and demand create profits, not laws. If your product is valueless without a law, too bad. Give it away and find a new day job. Just because you make something doesn't mean you deserve a legally-created market for it. Copyright has become an entitlement nowadays. I made something, thus I *deserve* a monopoly on it for as long as possible (forever minus a day). No, you don't.
Today, anyone can publish a book. Stick it online as a text file. Published. Copyright isn't here to protect authors. It's to protect the publishing industry. Just like how you don't see musicians suing downloaders. It's the recording industry that's doing it. These people don't create a damn fucking thing. In fact, their very existence hinders creativity. It's been proven time and again here that there will be much more creativity without copyright. The same goes for patents, too. In fact, patents are a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned. "No, starving african peoples, you can't plant those seeds to feed yourselves unless you buy a license to plant them each year." "But we have no money, we have no food!" "Oh well, too bad. Looks like we'll have to (get our government to) burn your infringing crops."
There's nothing "interesting" about a release clause. When you settle a lawsuit, that's what happens (or else why the hell would they settle in the first place?) Note: nobody was forced to join the class action.
It can't be protected as a trade secret if you're selling it in the open. Trade secrets are ingredients, not the end-item itself. A britney spears song can't be a trade secret; whereas maybe her diet and exercise routine can be. As for "trade secrets" protecting what would otherwise be protected by patent... no, that won't work either. If the "secret" is actually a secret and you can prove i worked at your place and stole the secret (or broke in and stole it) then maybe there would be a claim. And that's assuming we keep "trade secrets" as a viable cause of action. Without any other form of IP, I don't see why there would be trade secrets. As for protecting a commercial "idea" via national secret... naw, not gonna happen. Again, you're not talking about protecting an idea, but the right to make and sell that idea. If it's out there, it's not secret. Not a national secret, not a trade secret, not any kind of secret.
Thor the caveman didn't need to be promised a term monopoly in order to give him the incentive to invent the wheel. People solve problems. It's how our species works. And when we're not busy solving problems, we create things/express ideas. We don't need monopolies to get us to do that any more than we need monopolies to get us to fuck and spawn more children.
Zittrain proves to be yet another intelligent person who can't see past the "we must have copyright or there will be no creativity" fallacy. It's really a shame. Yes, even the founding fathers fucked up on that one, although they at least limited it to 14+14 years, which was acceptable. Had they really had foresight, they would have stuck "Congress shall make no law establishing a monopoly - temporary or permanent - on any creation, artistic or technical" in the First Amendment. Yes, no patents, no copyrights. People will still get off their asses and make stuff. We did it before the advent of intellectual "property" monopolies and we'd still do it once those monopolies are abolished. Bottom line: get rid of copyright (yes, all of it, erase Title 17) and people will still paint pictures, record music, make movies, books, television shows, and software. In fact, since the size of the public domain will increase a million-fold overnight, there will be a lot more to use in order to create such things. And jack valenti should be left asking "do you want fries with that?"
A Netflix for music CDs would be illegal. It is illegal to rent music CDs. There are exceptions for public libraries (and no, you can't make your netflix a public library).
Go read Federalist No. 10 (Madison's comments on rule by factions). America is absolutely NOT a majority-rules country. There are plenty of countries that are, and if you want to live in one of them, I can send you a list. If america were a majority rules country, we would not need a constitution or bill of rights; only ballots. Slavery would still be legal, gays would be oppressed (even moreso than they currently are), we would have a National American Church of Christianity (which you'd be forced to belong to and pay taxes/tithings to), and all sorts of other horrors. Rest assured, even if 99.9% of the population wants something, the minority is protected. At least in theory. Yes, a certain majority can amend the constitution, but history and the actual process involved show that that is very, very hard to do. An "Equal Rights (for women)" amendment couldn't even get passed.
I'm not mixing them up. I never said that either of them have anything to do with mental states by definition. I said that there isn't much of a useful distinction, especially in this day and age -- i.e., nowadays we have much deeper discourse about what we think is actually "inherently" right or wrong, and thus the lines are much blurrier than they would have been when society first started talking about mala prohibita and mala in se as discrete concepts.
Ok, I guess I understood your statement to imply malum prohibitum = specific intent whereas malum in se = general intent. I know see what you were trying to say, and yeah, I agree.
I hope your crim law professor didn't waste any time trying to get you to explain the difference between the two! It's just not useful. I understand where you're coming from; at heart, I agree that downloading 100 songs isn't inherently evil, or even kind of evil. But therein lies the problem: that's what you and I think, but what does society think? What do lawmakers -- who ostensibly represent society -- think?
Well, it's not useful from a purely legal standpoint, unless you are on the committee setting sentencing guidelines, I suppose. Other than that, it's an adjective and nothing more (at least not substantively). But I don't think defining an act as malum prohibitum or malum in se is as subjective as you do. Downloading music, no matter how much, is not evil. Anyone who does argue that downloading a song is either named Lars Ulrich, owns a BIG record company, and/or is a high-ranking member of the RIAA. And deep down inside, they know it's not "evil"... they just don't like it because in their mind, it's costing them money. Their revenue has gone down over the past few years (along with every single other industry - ya know, it's a recession....) thus they can either blame Clinton (pres when the recession started), themselves (which never happens), or an external force (that's always the easiest, and that's what is gonna happen). Our revenues are down, people are sharing our music online, therefore that must be the reason. I think slashdot has had hundreds of stories showing that logic is complete bunk, but the RIAA is nothing more than a group that organizes price-fixing and attempts to get the most $17 music CDs sold as possible. They see filesharing as costing them money (which at the very least is arguable, and in fact is complete bullshit), there is a (ridiculously overbroad) statute (17 USC 501) that can stop people from doing this, so I suppose they have a semi-fiduciary duty to sue as many people as possible. I say "semi" because if they decided to not sue kids for downloading songs of Kazaa, I could not imagine that as being a breach of a fiduciary duty to RIAA members. [Also keep in mind that it is the recording industry assoc, not the musicians/artists assoc, so the RIAA owes absolutely no duty to any bands or singers. The interests of the two groups sound like they are mutual, but as we all know, those interests are adverse 99% of the time. The only time they are not adverse is when a band/performer is in the top 0.0001% of income generating acts, such as Metallica. Those guys have the bargaining power to negotiate deals so far in their favor that they are, in effect, their own recording industry.] Everyone knows that the best way to get people to comply with a stupid law is to try to convince them that not doing so is evil/immoral. That is best done with TV commercials (still pisses me off the gov't wastes taxpayer money on those jackfuck stupid anti-drug commercials) and highly-public lawsuits. Everybody knows downloading music is just fine, not immoral in the slightest little bit, so the whole "it is no different than walking into Best Buy and shoplifting a bunch of albums" argument is nothing more than appeal-to-emotion advertising.
You don't think driving 100 mph in a school zone is evil? I certainly don't think it's reckless. Going 60 in a school zone, that's reckless. Going 100 in a school zo
No, you are confusing "specific intent" crimes with "general intent" crimes. Mala prohibita and mala in se have nothing to do with mental states by definition, although most malum prohibitum offenses (i.e. speeding) do not require a specific mens rea.
A malum prohibitum offense is "an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or wrong." Downloading mp3's and driving over the speed limit are the two most obvious examples of such an offense.
A malum in se offense is "an offense that is evil or wrong from its own nature irrespective of statute." Murder, shoplifting, burglary, assault/battery, treason/selling national secrets to the Chinese (unless you're a Democrat President, then you can do that and it's not even malum prohibitum, go figure), arson, rape... those are all mala prohibita offenses. (I'm sure you know this, but the other guy who responded to this asked for definitions of 'the latin terms').
At any rate, your post misses the point that there are copyright infringements that you can go to jail for, and there are copyright infringements that you will only get sued for. There's a big difference between the two. You can, in theory, go to jail for downloading a a number of songs off of kazaa if their value exceeds $1000. Keep in mind, the value of the song (yes, just that one song - a "copyrighted work") will be $16.99 -- the price of the album (same way RIAA calculates their losses). That means if you download 58 songs within a 180 day period, you can go to jail if you wilfully did it. That means if you intentionally get on kazaa, select 58 songs (over a 180 day period), and click "download" section 506 applies to you and you can go to jail. Who here has not downloaded 100 songs a year? Jail for you. Is downloading approx 100 songs per year inherently evil? Well, the RIAA will tell you that it is, but the rest of the population knows that its not. Malum in se? Not a fucking chance. It shouldn't even be malum prohibitum. It should be perfectly legal, encouraged, and enjoyed by all. The recording industry can then either come up with a new way to sell a product that everyone can make perfect copies of with a click of a button, or find new jobs.
But the only reason why there are so many civil suits lately is because the RIAA does not need probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion) to file civil infringement charges against you. They just need your name and the $50 to pay the filing fee to issue the subpoena. If it turns out (like the UPenn Prof. "Usher" case) that you are completely not liable, they will just nonsuit the case against you, and go on to the other thousands of downloaders they've subpoenaed. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the RIAA. Frankly, if they are going to act like the police, then I think the Fourth should apply to them by implication. They should have to get search warrants from neutral magistrates based on probable cause to watch (broadband-tap) my connection. Or else the exclusionary rule should apply to anything they "find." They should have to read Miranda rights to everyone they sue (regardless of the fact that the sued is not in RIAA custody/interrogation). And they should have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt on all elements. If you act like police (and yes, that includes rent-a-cops) then all the constitutional protections should apply to you. It's always bothered me that private rent-a-cops can arrest someone, interrogate them, and not have to give Miranda warnings. Then when the "real" cops show up, everything the accused has said (possibly something incriminating) to the rent-a-cops can be used against him/her.
Anyway, that's just a pet peeve of mine.
One person's malum prohibitum is another's malum in se. I don't know if I agree with that statement. One can make a lame, attenuated argument that any violation of any law (driving 36 in a 35 zone) is inherently evil (i.e. "speeding endangers everyone, and you put everyone's life at risk!") But no, d
I know, I was being sarcastic. Yeah I don't think there's any doubt that rechargeable batteries are better for the environment. My initial post, and I think this thread, presume as much. It's that fact alone which should cause you to choose rechargeables if you want to help the environment.
Chances are the electricity you use to charge/recharge those batteries comes from either a coal-burning or a nuclear power plant. Shame on you!
Does it really matter if rechargeable batteries are less efficient than disposable ones? There is nearly always an opportunity cost for "going green."
All the RIAA knows is that you downloaded a song. That in itself is not illegal.
If that's the case, then after you've spent a few grand on legal fees and sufficiently prove that you were the owner of the copyright in the files that you downloaded (or that they were public domain), the RIAA will be more than happy to dismiss their case against you (no, they won't refund your legal fees nor compensate you for your wasted time).
The problem is the RIAA is not the police (not officially, and it's to their benefit). The RIAA does not need probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, to sue you for copyright infringement. If their "charges" turn out false (like the UPenn "Usher" case) they will just nonsuit the case and "let you go." I think they were nice enough to send the UPenn professor an Usher t-shirt. So, maybe you'll get a free t-shirt if you stir up some major shit and are really, really, REALLY big-time, no questions asked innocent, err.. not liable.
What can we do? Counter sue them for harassment. I'm still waiting for someone to do that... I wish the UPenn Professor had done so.
After the Verizon case, I don't see why they shouldn't think that. They don't want to "do stuff" to the networks, only sue the people using the networks in certain ways. The only thing they need the networks to do is supply the name of the user of a certain IP at a certain time. They'll take care of the rest.
File sharing copyright infringement is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. People shouldn't go to jail for trivial little malum prohibitum offenses. The fun(ny) part is watching the RIAA, etc try to convince the world that file sharing is really malum in se. At that, we all laugh our collective asses off, as that notion is sillier than potsmoking causing toxic overdoses and woldwide terrorism.
The only thing wrong with filesharing is that there is a statute which, by sheer overbreadth, makes it technically illegal. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with filesharing copyrighted material.
Yes I realize this, but just because it's mainstream doesn't mean it's not immune from the media police. In fact, the fact that it is mainstream and NOT run by geeks leads me to believe it will be extra-easy for the riaa cops to find them and hand out the subpoenas.
Private warez sites have existed since the first modem. They've never been immune from police. I don't see how a site full of mp3's is any different than a site full of adobe software (and if it's a private ftp site, chances are it's gonna have a bit of both). I'm not making any moral judgments on such sites, but am merely wondering why this is something considered "new" and why anyone would think that it is secure from prosecution?
What is with these people who think they have some innate right to have their business model preserved and protected by taxpayer money/laws? Nowhere in the constitution does it say "Congress shall make no laws infringing upon a person's current working business model." Why doesn't it say that? Well, 1) the constitution doesn't say a lot of things, and 2) the people who wrote the Constitution weren't total fucking idiots. The fact that nearly 30 million people have already signed up for the Do Not Call list is conclusive proof that it is needed and most certainly wanted. The good thing is, any politician who votes to repeal this will do so in the face of 30 million plus voters. I can't picture a court throwing this out, either.
No, it says either caller unknown, out of area, or private. You'll never get "Bob's Telemarketing, Inc." and a phone number on your caller ID. Never. Like spammers, they hide, because deep down inside they know they're sacks of shit.
there are plenty of ways. people will still pay them (tip jars, etc). Musicians should make money on concerts, not albums (albums are free ads for conerts). Picasso paintings sell for a lot of money, copyright notwithstanding. Artists don't need CR to make money. Only the RIAA and MPAA need it to make money.
No, this issue is not about republican/democrat rich/poor. It is about paying off congresspeople to act on an issue that "the american people" do not care about. Well, to that extent it is about money, but only the RIAA's money. Ever notice how every evil copyright bill that gets passed is sponsored by one republican and one democrat? I explained why this is on another post on another thread, and I'm too lazy to go find it (but of course it was +5 insightful hehe). Fucking over the american media consumer, much like getting rid of kiddie porn, is an issue with complete bi-partisan support. It could be worse - both parties could be trying to out-do each other and show who is "really" tougher on IP pirate-theives.