Do you agree that Southwest Airlines qualifies as a "travel service"?
If so, do you then agree that SWA's travel service is a "public accomodation" per 12181(7)(F)?
If so, do you agree that booking a ticket from SWA's website involves the "enjoyment" of some service "of" SWA's travel services offices?
Finally are those offices not "a place of" SWA's travel services operations?
There's plenty of textual support -- look at the entire definition of "public accommodation." These are all physical places that provide some sort of service.
No, 12181(7) tells you what it lists: "The following private entities are considered public accommodations". Further in (7)(F) it emphasizes this with the language "other service establishment". A place of public accomodation is just a place of buisiness, for the listed classes of business entitites.
The emphasis on "place" is not that important and moreover it modifies the "public accomodation" NOT the location of the "full and equal enjoyment" of the services provided by that buisiness. Were the "place of" langauge an important criteria for a cause of action, I expect it would have been separately defined.
sufficient nexus between the public accommodation and the service -- that is, ultimately, it's the service that serves as a "door" (pretty much the only door) to getting into the public accommodation.
Now you are getting it right. The connection must be between the public accomodation and the service (not between the "full enjoyment" of the service and the place it is provided).
And indeed, if you have no travel arrangement you don't get in the "door" of the plane, or even to the gate. The web is really no different than phone or mail -- it allows you to do business from home. I believe (and said so in several posts) that the real meat of the case should be over whether the other ticket procurement methods that SWA offers do provide full enjoyment of their travel service to the blind. But that is a factual matter that requires evidence. Yes they have a 1-800 number, but they supposedly offer incentives for using the web that don't apply there.
At any rate, the best way to argue your point to a judge would not be that "this is the plain meaning, you fool" but rather that "websites are subsumed under the plain meaning of the statute, but even if you find they are not, the intent of the drafters and the clear purpose of the statute supports inclusion of websites under its purview."
I stand by my prediction that this will be reversed on appeal. I simply don't find the judge's reading of the statute to be consistent with it. If a thousand judges repeated his argument, I would still find it untenable. There are many cases where judges pick between alternative readings of the statute, which is fine, but I do not see any support for a physical colocation requirement here, and ceratinly Rendon provides one counterexample.
Wow, okay, clearly you're not a lawyer. I have made no statement regarding this. I am not offering legal advice here, so my arguments will serve as their own measure of credibility.
Whether the Southwest website is a public accommodation is at the crux of the matter.
No, the issue is whether discrimination occurs regarding "full and equal enjoyment of... services... of any place of public accomodation". In order to state a valid cause of action it is sufficient to identify (1) a place of accomodation and (2) a service "of" the place of accomodation, and (3) a discrimination that prevents the full and equal enjoyment of that service. I have done so. (1) is SWA's travel services department (2) is the website 's travel booking functionality and price discount (3) is the lack of standards compliance that allows screen readers to render the website in a way that can be used by the blind.
I am a lawyer. I am trained, among other things, to interpret statutes.
The statue is written in plain English. It really couldn't be clearer. I categorically reject the notion that you must be a lawyer to "interpret statutes". You were trained to interpret statutes when you learned to read in elemetary school. If law school provides you with experience and skill that augments your reading comprehension, then that will be reflected in the strength of your arguments and need not be cited as support for those arguments.
Any "services" are services given AT the place of accommodation.
The ticket booking service provided via the web site is "given" AT the place of accommodation. It is "received" somewhere else. But more fundamentally, there is no statutory support for your contention. On the contrary, the "full and equal enjoyment" of the ticket booking service includes the ability to receive it via the web.
What language in the statute can you point to to support your contention that enjoyment of services offered by the place of accomodation must occur at the place of accomodation?
*In fact,* from the opinion, it seems that it *was* argued -- and the judge refused to believe it, because she could not find a good enough nexus between the website and the airline's "place." This is an interesting result, but not unexpected; you can access the website anywhere, not just at the building. Again, it goes back to the "place" being a physical location where the potential plaintiffs or beneficiaries of the ADA are being accommodated.
The nexus between the website's travel booking functionality and the place of accomodation is that the former is a service "of" the latter. The judge's reading of the statute redacts the word "of" and replaces it with "at", in direct contradiction the phrase "full and equal enjoyment", which plaining includes those services provided to people not physically present at the place of accomodation.
If they are arguing that governement developed software can only be public domain, then fine, but I am not offended by that position.
If they are arguing that governement developed software may be given a proprietary licence but may not be given a GPL licence then I emphatically disagree.
I certainly agree with that part of the ruling, though I find it to be an irrelevent side-show. I'll stipulate that none of 42 USC 12181(7)(C), (H) & (E) cover Southwest Airlines. I further agree that the SWA website is not a "place of public accomodation".
All of that is beside the point and moreover not sufficeint to dismiss the claim. What the judge did not acknowledge was the undeniable fact that Southwest Airlines aggregate business functions include a "travel services" component, which is a public accomodation by the black letter law of 12181(F). The "place" of public accomodation is the office buildings where SWA runs it's travel services operations. The ticket purchasing functionality of the website is one "service", in the sense of 12182(a), provided by SWA in its capacity as a "place of travel services".
Although you are being a bit more precise, it doesn't really change anything. The website is still the "service", not the "place". The "place of public accomodation" is the "place" (whatever that means) where the travel services of Southwest Airlines is provided. Likely that is the office buildings of SWA (or their agent) where their websites are hosted, administistrated, configured, programmed, specified, designed, and published.
What this judge is essentially saying is that you have to be at the "place" of public accomodation to receive it's services. That is patently absurd, and wholely unsupported by the statute.
Did you actually read the statute and the opinion? I'm astounded by the judge's contorted reading of the statue (and I even think SWA will eventually prevail).
I predict this particular order will be reversed on appeal because he badly mis-construed the "place of accomodation" stuff. The language refers to the type of business establishement, not the physical location of product delivery. (Good god, is this judge STUPID?!) Southwest Airlines is undeniably a "travel service", which is one specifically enumerated type of "place of accomodation". It provides a website as one particular "service" provided by its general travel services function.
For this judge to misunderstand that "place of accomodation" means the SWA business establishment is really unbelievable.
That is not comparable. The vision requirement for driving a car is necessary to protect the safety of others on the road. The ADA has specific language for a safety exception.
It also has language that factors in how readily available the desired accessibility improvement is. W3C has an existing standard for accessiblity that many web sites are able to comply with. Until somebody invents sonar powered driving, no such analogy exists for driving a car.
This guy stated specifically that he is a contractor, which rules out work for hire. Do a goodle search for CCNV v. Reid if you want Supreme Court precedent to clarify the differnece in the copyright context.
I'm rather baffled by this judge's reading of the statute. I might expect SWA to prevail eventually if they could show that blind people can use SWA's travel services by calling a 1-800-number, but to dismiss the case on this reading of the statute seems untenable to me. In fact it seems blockheaded. I can't imagine that an appeals court wouldn't overturn the particular reasoning he used (again, I'm not saying SWA won't eventually prevail -- just that not because of this insane reasoning).
The court seems to ignore 42 USC 12181(7)(F) which lists the following among several types of "public accommodations"
a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop,
travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment
It seems to me this judge misreads the basic statute as well 42 USC 12182(a):
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
The "place of accommodation" in this case is Southwest Airlines itself, in-so-far as it provides "travel services" per 42 USC 12181(7)(F). The website is not the "place of accommodation", but rather is one of the "services" provided by the place of accommodation.
By default, independent software contractors own the copyright on work they produce. Unless you specifically signed over the rights, you probably still own it. Normally if they pay you, then they can use it (that's what they are buying). If they haven't paid you they may be commiting copyright infringement by using your code after you inform them that you have not authorized them to use it unless they pay. If they have revenue flow tied to the software, you might be able to threaten them with an injunction (but see below).
Even if you have signed over the rights, if they breach the contract that transfers the rights by not paying you, then the whole contract might be thrown out.
Unfortunately, if they are in bankruptcy, you usually can't sue them until they come out of it. However, if you send them a C&D letter informing them that you own the copyright and want them to stop using it and they blow you off, then they will be notching it up to "willful" violation which has hefty penalties. It is very rare for a company to completely liquidate, so eventually you have some leverage.
You absolutely need a lawyer (IANAL). Look up the names of some on some of the filings in the DVD-CCA case -- that was in California.
No, that is totally false, and in fact what is actually happening is proving you wrong.
The law provides a "gap filler" that applies in the absense of an explicitly negotiated contract. For example, SoundExchange, the RIAA's organization for collecting the fees is waiving the rate set by the LOC and allowing anybody who qualifies for small webcaster status to pay the $500 which would be the minimum, regardless of what their playlist would require.
The idea that you could write music and tell me that I could publish it and that I would have to pay the RIAA is completely moronic, even for the RIAA. It would also be unconsitutional -- neither the Copyright Clause nor the First Amendment would tolerate Congress forcing speakers to pay somebody with no rights to the coypright a fee.
This situation is very complicated and confusing. It is not clear whether this development (Helms stopping this bill) is a good one or a bad one.
The Library of Congress set the.07 dollars per song-listener fee. Then the house introduced a bill to provide a temporary stay with no fees for 6 months. I think they did this to buy more time.
Somehow the bill got rewritten at the last second to instead reduce the.07 fee for some small listeners, but to implement a set fee schedule. The house passed this, and it is unclear if the House Rep's actually knew it had been changed or if the people who called in support liked the massively changed bill. Never-the-less the bottom line is that the change reduced the statuory fee.
Now, thanks to Helms, the bill failed in the Senate and so the LOC's rules take effect. Except that they really don't for RIAA music because the implementing organization has said they will accept less the minimum fees regardless of the actual amount due.
I'm thinking Helms wants next years Congress (which he won't be part of) to get a better long term deal for small webcasters than what the House bill would have done. However, by deciding to hold out, the status quo does change as the LOC rules take effect as a backdrop.
Confused? Skeptical? Me too.
I've said it before and I'll say it again now -- when negotiating with the RIAA and Congress for the use of RIAA music, we will not win. Even if we win, we will lose. The best thing we can do is develop and support channels for non-RIAA music.
Thanks. This is the first really usefull reply to this article. MOD IT UP!!
I'm listening to it right now in XMMS. We need **"MORE LIKE THIS"**. (Anybody got other ones?) I love their slogan... something like "Just by listening, you are resisting".
Folks, this is the path. Stop trying to coexist with the RIAA and start ignoring them. Build a system that works the way we want.
Of course you can publish for free if you have the permission of the copyright holder. Since every original thing you say is copyrighted, to suppose otherwise would say you have to pay fees to talk.
In fact, the fees are proportional to the number of ASCAP song listenings, so if that number is zero, then the fees are zero. If they hassle you, send them a check for $0.
The ball really is in our court. The barrier to entry IS lower IF you are publishing music that grants the right to play it. The RIAA controls huge amounts of music that will never be legal to stream for free, but that doesn't mean that if I go out and make my own music that I can't make it "free music" as in "free software". This situation is NO different than the battle against proprietary software. Instead of trying to get RIAA music for free, we need to promote all new music.
I really don't see why it would be so hard to set up a net radio station and say "send us your music under a licence that allows it and we'll play it". Frankly, if somebody could post a link of a net station doing that right now, I'd be listening too it.
People out there need to stop whining about how evil the RIAA is, that is old news. Just make, play, and listen to free music. That's all it takes.
**Somebody** might have violate a non-disclosure contract (I certainly don't know that they did), but there is actually Supreme Court precedent that says that judicial decisions are public domain.
Usually when a legal service publishes the decisions, they add some headers and indexing that allows them to copyright it. If you strip that off, then you are copying their protected elements, then you aren't violating copyright, but you might be violating a contract. Certainly nobody here agreed to any such contract, so we're all fine.
Well, there is an argument that the Constitution says Congress may secure copyright "to authors". You could argue that allowing the security to persist after their death violates this.
Don't forget, however that Lessig was Scalia's clerk. From reading the transcript, Scalia was very hard on Olsen. I think Scalia will be for Eldred, because he clearly "gets it".
In order to get a conviction you must make the following links: 1) bullet to gun 2) gun to perpatrator
The hard part is #2. The gun's rightful owner is generally not the perp. (You know that, right?). Even if you could comprehensively backpopulate all 50 million existing guns to their fingerprint, you would acheive nothing.
For example, after the first shooting we have the fingerprint of this gun. We know that the following shootings were done by the same gun. We do not have an arrest. WHY? Because it is step 2 that is hard.
Of course, attempts to make a database of existing guns will fail utterly. I think the 30 million NRA members will probably interpret your request for a bullet sample a little differently that you.
I'm confused by all of this. If the RIAA is pushing small webcasters away form RIAA music, won't that push them towards non-RIAA music? To me, that is a good thing. People need to stop trying to figure out how to co-exist with the RIAA and start figuring out how to get rid of the RIAA. Severe financial penalties for small RIAA puppet webcasters is a good thing.
Why aren't people here taking the same line they take with open source software? If you aren't allowing free use and copying then WE SHOULD REJECT YOUR MUSIC TOTALLY. That means rejecting artists on all major labels. It means creating a community of non-RIAA artists and stations. The RIAA is the Microsoft of music, and it's JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE to like proprietary music. We need free music, just like we need free software.
Why slashdotters posting links non-RIAA webcasters? Why aren't slashdotters creating music (I expect some of you are musicians) that is royalty free? Why aren't slashdotters creating web-sites to focus attention on free music? Why aren't slashdotter submitting stories about bands they like that create free music?
The RIAA needs to be destroyed. RIAA supported musicians need to be destroyed. If your favorite musician is an RIAA musician, then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
3) A Fortune 500 company will deploy desktop Linux. A Fortune 100 company will deploy Open Office.
4) Tech hiring will pick up as corps beef up cybersecurity and integrate handhelds into core business processes
5) IBM buys Sun and changes Java to their open source licence
6) Boucher's bill passes, Berman's bill passes (both modified and clarified), while Hollings bill fails as the tech industry (sans MS) rallies against it.
7) DVDCCA loses both the jurisdiction and on the merits in CA, meanwhile all Federal threats to the DMCA fail, and no major new litigation commenses even though flagrant violations become commonplace.
8) The MS trial concludes by the judge adopting a slightly tougher final judgement than the DOJ version, and both sides declare victory. MS promptly combines innovating new forms of anticompetitive behavior and routine violations of the agreement.
9) US based laws for open source procurement fail, but many succeed in the developing world.
10) Spam increases by 30%. Some lawsuits succeed, others fail. Congress introduces legislation making forged headers illegal.
11) AOL converts its users to the Netscape browser, and web-based XUL applications start to appear. The browser war 2 is declared in the media. Tech users embrace Phoenix as their browser of choice.
12) CD sales revenue will fall by another 10% even though existing P2P networks become unusable. Semi-private, trust based P2P networks become the rage.
Slashdot Mirror
I have some questions for you:
Do you agree that Southwest Airlines qualifies as a "travel service"?
If so, do you then agree that SWA's travel service is a "public accomodation" per 12181(7)(F)?
If so, do you agree that booking a ticket from SWA's website involves the "enjoyment" of some service "of" SWA's travel services offices?
Finally are those offices not "a place of" SWA's travel services operations?
There's plenty of textual support -- look at the entire definition of "public accommodation." These are all physical places that provide some sort of service.
No, 12181(7) tells you what it lists: "The following private entities are considered public accommodations". Further in (7)(F) it emphasizes this with the language "other service establishment". A place of public accomodation is just a place of buisiness, for the listed classes of business entitites.
The emphasis on "place" is not that important and moreover it modifies the "public accomodation" NOT the location of the "full and equal enjoyment" of the services provided by that buisiness. Were the "place of" langauge an important criteria for a cause of action, I expect it would have been separately defined.
sufficient nexus between the public accommodation and the service -- that is, ultimately, it's the service that serves as a "door" (pretty much the only door) to getting into the public accommodation.
Now you are getting it right. The connection must be between the public accomodation and the service (not between the "full enjoyment" of the service and the place it is provided).
And indeed, if you have no travel arrangement you don't get in the "door" of the plane, or even to the gate. The web is really no different than phone or mail -- it allows you to do business from home. I believe (and said so in several posts) that the real meat of the case should be over whether the other ticket procurement methods that SWA offers do provide full enjoyment of their travel service to the blind. But that is a factual matter that requires evidence. Yes they have a 1-800 number, but they supposedly offer incentives for using the web that don't apply there.
At any rate, the best way to argue your point to a judge would not be that "this is the plain meaning, you fool" but rather that "websites are subsumed under the plain meaning of the statute, but even if you find they are not, the intent of the drafters and the clear purpose of the statute supports inclusion of websites under its purview."
I stand by my prediction that this will be reversed on appeal. I simply don't find the judge's reading of the statute to be consistent with it. If a thousand judges repeated his argument, I would still find it untenable. There are many cases where judges pick between alternative readings of the statute, which is fine, but I do not see any support for a physical colocation requirement here, and ceratinly Rendon provides one counterexample.
Wow, okay, clearly you're not a lawyer.
... services ... of any place of public accomodation". In order to state a valid cause of action it is sufficient to identify (1) a place of accomodation and (2) a service "of" the place of accomodation, and (3) a discrimination that prevents the full and equal enjoyment of that service. I have done so. (1) is SWA's travel services department (2) is the website 's travel booking functionality and price discount (3) is the lack of standards compliance that allows screen readers to render the website in a way that can be used by the blind.
I have made no statement regarding this. I am not offering legal advice here, so my arguments will serve as their own measure of credibility.
Whether the Southwest website is a public accommodation is at the crux of the matter.
No, the issue is whether discrimination occurs regarding "full and equal enjoyment of
I am a lawyer. I am trained, among other things, to interpret statutes.
The statue is written in plain English. It really couldn't be clearer. I categorically reject the notion that you must be a lawyer to "interpret statutes". You were trained to interpret statutes when you learned to read in elemetary school. If law school provides you with experience and skill that augments your reading comprehension, then that will be reflected in the strength of your arguments and need not be cited as support for those arguments.
Any "services" are services given AT the place of accommodation.
The ticket booking service provided via the web site is "given" AT the place of accommodation. It is "received" somewhere else. But more fundamentally, there is no statutory support for your contention. On the contrary, the "full and equal enjoyment" of the ticket booking service includes the ability to receive it via the web.
What language in the statute can you point to to support your contention that enjoyment of services offered by the place of accomodation must occur at the place of accomodation?
*In fact,* from the opinion, it seems that it *was* argued -- and the judge refused to believe it, because she could not find a good enough nexus between the website and the airline's "place." This is an interesting result, but not unexpected; you can access the website anywhere, not just at the building. Again, it goes back to the "place" being a physical location where the potential plaintiffs or beneficiaries of the ADA are being accommodated.
The nexus between the website's travel booking functionality and the place of accomodation is that the former is a service "of" the latter. The judge's reading of the statute redacts the word "of" and replaces it with "at", in direct contradiction the phrase "full and equal enjoyment", which plaining includes those services provided to people not physically present at the place of accomodation.
As a final comment, I note that a different judge did in fact find that web sites are covered by the ADA.
If they are arguing that governement developed software can only be public domain, then fine, but I am not offended by that position.
If they are arguing that governement developed software may be given a proprietary licence but may not be given a GPL licence then I emphatically disagree.
I predict that the bizarre reasoning of the dismissal will be reversed and that the case will go to trial and will be decided on these grounds.
If what you say is true, then it actually changes my opinion of the likely outcome.
I certainly agree with that part of the ruling, though I find it to be an irrelevent side-show. I'll stipulate that none of 42 USC 12181(7)(C), (H) & (E) cover Southwest Airlines. I further agree that the SWA website is not a "place of public accomodation".
All of that is beside the point and moreover not sufficeint to dismiss the claim. What the judge did not acknowledge was the undeniable fact that Southwest Airlines aggregate business functions include a "travel services" component, which is a public accomodation by the black letter law of 12181(F). The "place" of public accomodation is the office buildings where SWA runs it's travel services operations. The ticket purchasing functionality of the website is one "service", in the sense of 12182(a), provided by SWA in its capacity as a "place of travel services".
Although you are being a bit more precise, it doesn't really change anything. The website is still the "service", not the "place". The "place of public accomodation" is the "place" (whatever that means) where the travel services of Southwest Airlines is provided. Likely that is the office buildings of SWA (or their agent) where their websites are hosted, administistrated, configured, programmed, specified, designed, and published.
What this judge is essentially saying is that you have to be at the "place" of public accomodation to receive it's services. That is patently absurd, and wholely unsupported by the statute.
Finally, common sense from the bar.
Did you actually read the statute and the opinion? I'm astounded by the judge's contorted reading of the statue (and I even think SWA will eventually prevail).
I predict this particular order will be reversed on appeal because he badly mis-construed the "place of accomodation" stuff. The language refers to the type of business establishement, not the physical location of product delivery. (Good god, is this judge STUPID?!) Southwest Airlines is undeniably a "travel service", which is one specifically enumerated type of "place of accomodation". It provides a website as one particular "service" provided by its general travel services function.
For this judge to misunderstand that "place of accomodation" means the SWA business establishment is really unbelievable.
That is not comparable. The vision requirement for driving a car is necessary to protect the safety of others on the road. The ADA has specific language for a safety exception.
It also has language that factors in how readily available the desired accessibility improvement is. W3C has an existing standard for accessiblity that many web sites are able to comply with. Until somebody invents sonar powered driving, no such analogy exists for driving a car.
That is true and irrelevent.
This guy stated specifically that he is a contractor, which rules out work for hire. Do a goodle search for CCNV v. Reid if you want Supreme Court precedent to clarify the differnece in the copyright context.
The court seems to ignore 42 USC 12181(7)(F) which lists the following among several types of "public accommodations"
It seems to me this judge misreads the basic statute as well 42 USC 12182(a):
The "place of accommodation" in this case is Southwest Airlines itself, in-so-far as it provides "travel services" per 42 USC 12181(7)(F). The website is not the "place of accommodation", but rather is one of the "services" provided by the place of accommodation.
By default, independent software contractors own the copyright on work they produce. Unless you specifically signed over the rights, you probably still own it. Normally if they pay you, then they can use it (that's what they are buying). If they haven't paid you they may be commiting copyright infringement by using your code after you inform them that you have not authorized them to use it unless they pay. If they have revenue flow tied to the software, you might be able to threaten them with an injunction (but see below).
Even if you have signed over the rights, if they breach the contract that transfers the rights by not paying you, then the whole contract might be thrown out.
Unfortunately, if they are in bankruptcy, you usually can't sue them until they come out of it. However, if you send them a C&D letter informing them that you own the copyright and want them to stop using it and they blow you off, then they will be notching it up to "willful" violation which has hefty penalties. It is very rare for a company to completely liquidate, so eventually you have some leverage.
You absolutely need a lawyer (IANAL). Look up the names of some on some of the filings in the DVD-CCA case -- that was in California.
Thanks!
All I can say is that somebody needs to take the time to list them all. This would be a great genre for one of those "Top-N" sites.
No, that is totally false, and in fact what is actually happening is proving you wrong.
The law provides a "gap filler" that applies in the absense of an explicitly negotiated contract. For example, SoundExchange, the RIAA's organization for collecting the fees is waiving the rate set by the LOC and allowing anybody who qualifies for small webcaster status to pay the $500 which would be the minimum, regardless of what their playlist would require.
The idea that you could write music and tell me that I could publish it and that I would have to pay the RIAA is completely moronic, even for the RIAA. It would also be unconsitutional -- neither the Copyright Clause nor the First Amendment would tolerate Congress forcing speakers to pay somebody with no rights to the coypright a fee.
This situation is very complicated and confusing. It is not clear whether this development (Helms stopping this bill) is a good one or a bad one.
.07 dollars per song-listener fee. Then the house introduced a bill to provide a temporary stay with no fees for 6 months. I think they did this to buy more time.
.07 fee for some small listeners, but to implement a set fee schedule. The house passed this, and it is unclear if the House Rep's actually knew it had been changed or if the people who called in support liked the massively changed bill. Never-the-less the bottom line is that the change reduced the statuory fee.
The Library of Congress set the
Somehow the bill got rewritten at the last second to instead reduce the
Now, thanks to Helms, the bill failed in the Senate and so the LOC's rules take effect. Except that they really don't for RIAA music because the implementing organization has said they will accept less the minimum fees regardless of the actual amount due.
I'm thinking Helms wants next years Congress (which he won't be part of) to get a better long term deal for small webcasters than what the House bill would have done. However, by deciding to hold out, the status quo does change as the LOC rules take effect as a backdrop.
Confused? Skeptical? Me too.
I've said it before and I'll say it again now -- when negotiating with the RIAA and Congress for the use of RIAA music, we will not win. Even if we win, we will lose. The best thing we can do is develop and support channels for non-RIAA music.
there a quite a few Internet radio stations that don't broadcast RIAA music.
Please, name some.
Somebody below posted www.rantradio.com which plays non-RIAA industrial.
Thanks. This is the first really usefull reply to this article. MOD IT UP!!
... something like "Just by listening, you are resisting".
I'm listening to it right now in XMMS. We need **"MORE LIKE THIS"**. (Anybody got other ones?) I love their slogan
Folks, this is the path. Stop trying to coexist with the RIAA and start ignoring them. Build a system that works the way we want.
Of course you can publish for free if you have the permission of the copyright holder. Since every original thing you say is copyrighted, to suppose otherwise would say you have to pay fees to talk.
In fact, the fees are proportional to the number of ASCAP song listenings, so if that number is zero, then the fees are zero. If they hassle you, send them a check for $0.
The ball really is in our court. The barrier to entry IS lower IF you are publishing music that grants the right to play it. The RIAA controls huge amounts of music that will never be legal to stream for free, but that doesn't mean that if I go out and make my own music that I can't make it "free music" as in "free software". This situation is NO different than the battle against proprietary software. Instead of trying to get RIAA music for free, we need to promote all new music.
I really don't see why it would be so hard to set up a net radio station and say "send us your music under a licence that allows it and we'll play it". Frankly, if somebody could post a link of a net station doing that right now, I'd be listening too it.
People out there need to stop whining about how evil the RIAA is, that is old news. Just make, play, and listen to free music. That's all it takes.
Lawmeme has a poll on how you think it Eldred will come out. Read the transcript and vote.
**Somebody** might have violate a non-disclosure contract (I certainly don't know that they did), but there is actually Supreme Court precedent that says that judicial decisions are public domain.
Usually when a legal service publishes the decisions, they add some headers and indexing that allows them to copyright it. If you strip that off, then you are copying their protected elements, then you aren't violating copyright, but you might be violating a contract. Certainly nobody here agreed to any such contract, so we're all fine.
Well, there is an argument that the Constitution says Congress may secure copyright "to authors". You could argue that allowing the security to persist after their death violates this.
Don't forget, however that Lessig was Scalia's clerk. From reading the transcript, Scalia was very hard on Olsen. I think Scalia will be for Eldred, because he clearly "gets it".
In order to get a conviction you must make the following links:
1) bullet to gun
2) gun to perpatrator
The hard part is #2. The gun's rightful owner is generally not the perp. (You know that, right?). Even if you could comprehensively backpopulate all 50 million existing guns to their fingerprint, you would acheive nothing.
For example, after the first shooting we have the fingerprint of this gun. We know that the following shootings were done by the same gun. We do not have an arrest. WHY? Because it is step 2 that is hard.
Of course, attempts to make a database of existing guns will fail utterly. I think the 30 million NRA members will probably interpret your request for a bullet sample a little differently that you.
I'm confused by all of this. If the RIAA is pushing small webcasters away form RIAA music, won't that push them towards non-RIAA music? To me, that is a good thing. People need to stop trying to figure out how to co-exist with the RIAA and start figuring out how to get rid of the RIAA. Severe financial penalties for small RIAA puppet webcasters is a good thing.
Why aren't people here taking the same line they take with open source software? If you aren't allowing free use and copying then WE SHOULD REJECT YOUR MUSIC TOTALLY. That means rejecting artists on all major labels. It means creating a community of non-RIAA artists and stations. The RIAA is the Microsoft of music, and it's JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE to like proprietary music. We need free music, just like we need free software.
Why slashdotters posting links non-RIAA webcasters? Why aren't slashdotters creating music (I expect some of you are musicians) that is royalty free? Why aren't slashdotters creating web-sites to focus attention on free music? Why aren't slashdotter submitting stories about bands they like that create free music?
The RIAA needs to be destroyed. RIAA supported musicians need to be destroyed. If your favorite musician is an RIAA musician, then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
1) $100 PC
2) Greater PC/TV integration leveraging wireless networking
3) A Fortune 500 company will deploy desktop Linux. A Fortune 100 company will deploy Open Office.
4) Tech hiring will pick up as corps beef up cybersecurity and integrate handhelds into core business processes
5) IBM buys Sun and changes Java to their open source licence
6) Boucher's bill passes, Berman's bill passes (both modified and clarified), while Hollings bill fails as the tech industry (sans MS) rallies against it.
7) DVDCCA loses both the jurisdiction and on the merits in CA, meanwhile all Federal threats to the DMCA fail, and no major new litigation commenses even though flagrant violations become commonplace.
8) The MS trial concludes by the judge adopting a slightly tougher final judgement than the DOJ version, and both sides declare victory. MS promptly combines innovating new forms of anticompetitive behavior and routine violations of the agreement.
9) US based laws for open source procurement fail, but many succeed in the developing world.
10) Spam increases by 30%. Some lawsuits succeed, others fail. Congress introduces legislation making forged headers illegal.
11) AOL converts its users to the Netscape browser, and web-based XUL applications start to appear. The browser war 2 is declared in the media. Tech users embrace Phoenix as their browser of choice.
12) CD sales revenue will fall by another 10% even though existing P2P networks become unusable. Semi-private, trust based P2P networks become the rage.