If they don't want to fight it, then give up the database to someone who does. I resent the overall destruction of information simply to please a party who wishes to profit from it, and say so in strong terms!
Seems to me that the MPAA is now in possession of stolen property, for which they have knowingly paid money. After all, you can't reasonably defend yourself in court if you were to pay cash to someone who delivered you a car that could have only been stolen in the first place.
The judge dismissing the counter-suit against the MPAA is just one more entry on my list of why I'm really coming to truly hate apparently computer-illiterate federal judges!
This could actually good for a guy like me.
I am working on a website with my own music, and it occurs to me that I'll be lost in a sea of over-hyped, over-produced, under-inspired music and media that was never intended to be "free" in any sense. I can't imagine how I could begin to get noticed, much less "compete" with all this stuff that's been promoted so vigorously in the establishment media.
Never forget Sound Exchange, who feels they own your music whenever it's broadcast in order to collect royalties for you.
Of course, never forget also that the cost of collecting those royalties from them likely exceeds the size of the check you'll actually receive, so they'll just keep your money for the big companies that own Sound Exchange. If you make music under the current regime, you're pwned!
Since all you have to do to evade a filter is encrypt the content, there can never be an effective, industry-wide filtering system. Encrypt the content with even a poor algorithm, put the key as part of the title name, and the filter will never be able to keep up with the new methods of key distribution.
If anything, this would make encryption much more wide-spread among savvy users.
So, this begs a curious question: How much of this is in the Internet Archive?
Also: How much can be saved out from there and rehosted in a much safer (e.g. Sweden, Russia...) country?
After all, if you can't shut down spammers, this must be able to survive somewhere.
Lastly: Why not only remove the affected songs?
IANAL, but C&D letters are very cheap to send. They are often sent with no justification at all. When one comes from a whole 'nuther country, that can't be the scariest thing.
Many years ago, late 1970's IIRC, I saw where some well-funded person had performed a high resolution scan for it's time of Mona. You can imagine the technology they used at the time -- probably a good photographic negative, a drum scanner, and a computer mainframe.
Anyway, using knowledge of how paint pigments aged, they took the image back in time to show what it most likely looked like when completed. Much nicer than the rather murky looking image we see today.
I'd love to get a copy of that image now. I've seen the Mona Lisa in person, and prefer the version as it looked when Leonardo had just laid down the last brush stroke.
What I notice is that while Usenet.com promoted -- stupidly perhaps in today's legal climate -- access to many MP3 files, I didn't see anywhere they they specifically said that these were illegal, copyrighted, RIAA member MP3 files.
The attitude of the RIAA appears to be that any and all MP3 files are by their very nature illegal, and that they deserve huge woges of money for anyone who has ever touched one. This, of course, is not true at all -- except in the mind of the RIAA.
If anyone at all is going to kill the rich culture of this country, it won't be the filesharers. It will be the RIAA, and copyrights extended to infinity -- and beyond!
It all sounds good except this line makes me a bit nervous:
and expand the definition of cybercrime to include extortion schemes that threaten to damage or access confidential information on a computer.
Would threatening to expose a security flaw in a server or website unless it was patched open you up to prosecution under cybercrime laws then? I know that's already fairly shaky ground from a legal standpoint, but would this make it even worse?
Would this apply to the RIAA and MediaSentry/SafeNet breaking into private individuals computers?
How long before they take on Google Groups? (And why didn't any of the posters above beat me to this Insightful +5 thought?)
Hey RIAA, why not go pick on someone your own size? Google Groups probably does more with usenet than anyone else. But right? They actually have real lawyers, and your case is a crock if it was ever challenged by an equally financed opponent.
Trust me, soc.singles is the one group you do not want to be caught with offtopic cross-posts. Those people are Mean!
Re:The average user does not know about useFIREFOX
on
RIAA Sues Usenet.com
·
· Score: 1
others will be introduced into another realm of the internet that isn't on a web browser.
Okay, where is the Firefox usenet AddOn?
Re:Ahh crap-DISMANTLE ONE SERVER AT A TIME
on
RIAA Sues Usenet.com
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Usenet.com isn't Usenet.* It's a Usenet access provider that markets itself pretty transparently (although not transparently enough to be illegal, I'd guess) as a warez service.
Don't think that Usenet.com is not usenet, and therefore usenet is safe. By now you should know that the RIAA tries to take one case against a weak defendant, and then leverage that win in the courts against everyone else. If they can win against Usenet.com and their servers, expect legal letters to go out to every other usenet node telling them to shut down, filter groups (yeah, like that would work), or face a lawsuit against a billion dollar corporation.
This really is a big deal on a new front, and if they don't lose big time here, they'll try to roll over everyone else.
The truth is that the RIAA truly believes that they are more important than absolutely everybody else in the world!
I wonder if I inverted the image (rotated it 180 degrees), if the copyright filter would catch me. Turn your monitor 180 degrees to watch, or have a small app to flip the viewer's screen.
I think this is the federal government intruding where they have no right to be. If Target doesn't wish to have blind customers purchase from their site, why is this business decision anybody else's business. I don't recall anywhere in the United States Constitution where it states that all web sites must be accessible by all blind people -- nor that its the government's job to "fix this".
Pile on enough laws and you can destroy the web for everyone. It's not as resilient as you may think.
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't want to fight it, then give up the database to someone who does. I resent the overall destruction of information simply to please a party who wishes to profit from it, and say so in strong terms!
The judge dismissing the counter-suit against the MPAA is just one more entry on my list of why I'm really coming to truly hate apparently computer-illiterate federal judges!
Of course, we only have your word for this now. How long before you become classified?.
Okay, less power. But what have you given up in the trade-off?
Just say no! When games quit selling, this crap will quit being part of them. If you buy it with it, you have no one to blame but yourself.
One DRM system to protect them all.
And only one DRM system afterwards to break-through.
This might not be as bad as it sounds. They're outnumbered a million crackers to one DRM system.
Never forget Sound Exchange, who feels they own your music whenever it's broadcast in order to collect royalties for you.
Of course, never forget also that the cost of collecting those royalties from them likely exceeds the size of the check you'll actually receive, so they'll just keep your money for the big companies that own Sound Exchange. If you make music under the current regime, you're pwned!
If anything, this would make encryption much more wide-spread among savvy users.
Also: How much can be saved out from there and rehosted in a much safer (e.g. Sweden, Russia...) country?
After all, if you can't shut down spammers, this must be able to survive somewhere.
Lastly: Why not only remove the affected songs?
IANAL, but C&D letters are very cheap to send. They are often sent with no justification at all. When one comes from a whole 'nuther country, that can't be the scariest thing.
The International Music Score Library Project are Cowards, for not standing up for their legal rights in their own country.
I always thought that Canada prided themselves on not being either the USA, or Europe. They sure sound like both now.
Obviously that group number wasn't computed using Excel.
Clearly this is meant to accommodate two-faced people, people of multi-faced discrimination, and Hexadecimal.
Anyway, using knowledge of how paint pigments aged, they took the image back in time to show what it most likely looked like when completed. Much nicer than the rather murky looking image we see today.
I'd love to get a copy of that image now. I've seen the Mona Lisa in person, and prefer the version as it looked when Leonardo had just laid down the last brush stroke.
The attitude of the RIAA appears to be that any and all MP3 files are by their very nature illegal, and that they deserve huge woges of money for anyone who has ever touched one. This, of course, is not true at all -- except in the mind of the RIAA.
If anyone at all is going to kill the rich culture of this country, it won't be the filesharers. It will be the RIAA, and copyrights extended to infinity -- and beyond!
Would this apply to the RIAA and MediaSentry/SafeNet breaking into private individuals computers?
Why does such an obvious idea take so long to be realized?
Hey RIAA, why not go pick on someone your own size? Google Groups probably does more with usenet than anyone else. But right? They actually have real lawyers, and your case is a crock if it was ever challenged by an equally financed opponent.
Trust me, soc.singles is the one group you do not want to be caught with offtopic cross-posts. Those people are Mean!
Okay, where is the Firefox usenet AddOn?
Don't think that Usenet.com is not usenet, and therefore usenet is safe. By now you should know that the RIAA tries to take one case against a weak defendant, and then leverage that win in the courts against everyone else. If they can win against Usenet.com and their servers, expect legal letters to go out to every other usenet node telling them to shut down, filter groups (yeah, like that would work), or face a lawsuit against a billion dollar corporation.
This really is a big deal on a new front, and if they don't lose big time here, they'll try to roll over everyone else.
The truth is that the RIAA truly believes that they are more important than absolutely everybody else in the world!
Now the RIAA really must die.
I wonder if I inverted the image (rotated it 180 degrees), if the copyright filter would catch me. Turn your monitor 180 degrees to watch, or have a small app to flip the viewer's screen.
I hear that the government has already ordered a thousand of these.
Nigeria has social services?????
Pile on enough laws and you can destroy the web for everyone. It's not as resilient as you may think.