"P2P might harm some business models (release a crappy movie, overhype it, and hope everyone sees it on week 1), but other business models survive."
For example, the folks who run TPB and Kazaa are very wealthy indeed. Perhaps the TPB folks aren't millionaires yet like the principals of Shaman Networks, but they'll be there soon.
Re:Addendum about artist's rights:
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Yes, and the penalities are actually much less for stealing property, if you get caught."
The confusion is the media's fault -- whenever the RIAA or MPAA goes after a file-sharing whale, the press paints it as if they were busted for "downloading," when the reality is that they were nailed for making a bunch of stuff available for distribution.
Thus, "person nailed for filesharing" and "person nailed for shoplifting a CD" is not the best comparison. Closer to the mark is "person nailed for filesharing" and "person nailed for having 1,000 unauthorized copies of a CD in the trunk of their car." In the latter case, it's the same section of Title 17 that applies: $750 - $3K per work statutory damages and the like.
This reminds me of hydroponics dealers...
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
...who will discuss just about everything about their equipment except its suitability for growing pot.
I dislike intrusive and prohibitive DRM as much as everybody else, but it's clear to me that if the magic wand were waved tomorrow and DRM disappeared, the immediate effect is that people would be pirating a lot more.
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
"In fact, there are several studies that show that those things that are pirated also enjoy a higher profit margin."
I have never seen studies linking profit margins to piracy rates. Can you post a cite to one of them? Profit margins on a product-by-product basis are often closely guarded secrets (ie. Adobe will tell you their end of year profit margin, as they are a publicly traded company, but good luck learning the profit margin on PhotoShop) so I would love to see the methodology of said studies.
"All rights to a work belong to the originator of that work."
The way it works now in the music biz is that the composer and lyricist maintain the rights to the words and music, but the record company has the copyright on the recording of the words and music. Sometimes the copyright is shared with the engineer or the producer.
Now, although a lot of Slashdotters think it is so, a sheet of paper with words or music on it is not the same as a finished, engineered and produced recording. The nerds on the other side of the glass often make all the difference. They put their creative heart and soul into the work, and the recording is often a collaborative effort. In your vision of fixing the copyright problem, to whom would the copyright on the recording be assigned?
Do I also understand you correctly that you would like to abolish work-for-hire? That is, if I were a small business and I hired a graphic designer and a programmer to create my web site, the copyrights would remain with them, even if they left the company?
I don't normally respond to ACs, but this is a great question:
"Clear this up for me. How can people who can afford a computer (usually a nice on), supplies (CDs, DVDs, Scanners), and a broadband connection not be able to afford music, movies, software, games, or books?"
They can afford them, of course. They simply choose not to buy the stuff legimately.
We humans have a great capacity for rationalization. "I use [ P2P | allofmp3.com ] because buying CDs or from the iTMS is too expensive!" removes them a bit from the implications of piracy -- you see, they have no choice, because the real deal is simply priced too high. I take a more pragmatic approach; if you'd rather keep that $1 in your pocket by using P2P, then just say that it is so.
"Well, allofmp3.com is not breaking any law. They are compliant with all US laws and all Russian laws."
Another poster addressed this claim; however, whether something is illegal or not does not necessarily make it right. The fellow in Florida would be no more or less right or wrong in what he did if it were illegal to, say, sell pirated software in Florida.
"Just because you think allofmp3 should be illegal does not mean it is."
...I said no such thing...
"Your lies about the $1 a track not being affordable is not a correct statement."
Oh, by all means, I can certainly afford a buck a song. Stick around Slashdot long enough and you'll find plenty of people who claim that they cannot. High prices are a common justification around here for using P2P or the Russian sites. Sad, but true.
"allofmp3.com is the only place I know where you can legally download (legal if you are in Russia, questionable legality if you are in the US, though that has never been decided in court) non-DRM files in a variety of formats, including lossless."
Above, you said that allofmp3.com is compliant with all US laws; here you are saying it is of questionable legality. Can you clarify? At any rate, if you want some good, cheap DRM-free music available in more formats than iTMS offers you, check out emusic.com and Magnatune. And unlike allofmp3, they pay the artists and there's no "questionable legality" to fret over.
"Since you can't see the difference between that and someone that knowingly breaks copyright, fraud and other laws (wait until the IRS gets a hold of him) with the intent to profit at the expense of the company he is imitating and the people he lies to while selling his fraudulent product, then you are a nutjob no more logical than people that illegally copy music and clam it is legal or a moral imperative or such."
I think you've nailed it, Einstein. Any other words you want to put into my mouth? Any more straw men you want to build today?
"And another one falls into the fallacy of "moral=legal". Something being illegal is no ethical reason not to do it."
I said no such thing. I believe that the primary reason to support unsigned artists and non-RIAA labels, rather than simply pirating RIAA music, is because the former will cause a change in the balance of power, and show more and more musicians that there is a better alternative. The latter just gives the RIAA an excuse to blame the problem on piracy.
"Sometimes the law is just wrong, as it is in this case. And there IS a god-given right to download music - its the right of free speech, and its generally considered quite important."
You are partially correct. Free speech is important. Violating copyright law is not exercising free speech.
"He harmed the folks who worked on the software and weren't paid. This guy made enough money to buy a Lamborghini and other cars, and multiple airplanes, for crying out loud. That's millions. Frankly, the sentence seems kind of low considering how much money he made that should have gone to the software developers who actually did the work."
A thought experiment here: the guys at allofmp3.com likely sell more than 100,000 downloads per month, so they've probably made their first million. They are selling music at a discount similar to what the guy in Florida was offering on software. This is, of course, because he, like the allofmp3.com guys, got to sell the goods without having to pay the supplier.
Now, the guys at allofmp3.com have exploited a loophole in Russian law, so it's highly doubtful that they're going to jail. But it's also highly unlikely that the couple of hundred bucks per month they pay in webcast licensing ever gets to the people who "actually did the work," either.
The point that I am slowly getting to is that the allofmp3.com guys are regularly regarded as heroes who are purportedly giving the iTMS some much-needed competition, yet I don't see the Florida guy being held aloft as a hero. Interesting.
"Is 200 the same as 2? No, but 200 is a whole lot closer to 2 than it is to thousands."
The other article was confusing because it refers to "downloading" but the issue that the record companies have with her is that she's sharing those 200 songs. If ten people downloaded each song, that's 2,000+ unauthorized copies. Meanwhile, the fellow in Florida sold about 2,000 unauthorized copies of PhotoShop for $99 each to pay for his Lambo.
"This guy made enough he could buy sportscars, planes, the works. Even if you just look at the $4.1m restitution, that's a lot of salaries Adobe, Macromedia and Autodesk could have paid. It's easy to dismiss it as "Oh well, they're big companies, no harm, no foul." but it becomes much more of an issue when they cut the job of a guy whose health insurance got his daughter treatment for cancer."
Very well put.
A common Slashdot response to the piracy issue is "the person wouldn't have bought the legitimate copy anyway." In this case, the guy was selling copies of $649 software for $99. This is roughly comparable to the discount that allofmp3.com offers on music, and many people defend their allofmp3.com use because they cannot afford to pay $1 / track. Just like allofmp3.com, this fellow was able to sell $649 software for $99 because he did not need to worry about paying the rightsholders. Unfortunately, lots of people would disagree with you about actual harm to Adobe, et al.
I suspect that if this were a story about music piracy, the guys writing "They're big companies, no harm, no foul" would be the ones with the 5, Insightful ratings, where you'd be marked down as a troll and likely accused of astroturfing.
"Artists/bands don't have to back the RIAA, record companies back the RIAA. Personally I don't agree with pirating of music. Bands/Artists make so little off sales it's rediculous. You want the RIAA to go away? then get every band and artist out there to NOT sign on with a major record label that is part of the RIAA and to NOT sign on with any that have talked with or are considering working RIAA. Until then this is what we get. Or until there are enough counter suits against them that they get the point."
Precisely. If we vote by supporting non-label artists and artists from labels that are taking saner approaches (Magnatune et al) we will eventually shift the financial power away from the big labels. If we vote by simply pirating the music produced by the big labels, it's all too easy for the labels to brand us as "pirates."
Don't like the practices of the RIAA labels? Don't buy their stuff... but don't pirate it, either.
"No chance. The record company is crushing somebody, destroying their life just because they can and they think it will scare people into paying their information tax."
She likely knew what she was doing was illegal. She took a chance, and was caught.
She did not have a God-given right to this music; nor would her life end without it. If she was simply morally opposed to paying $0.99 a track, she had plenty of options. Magnatune, CDBaby and emusic have lots of great music that's available for a lot less than $0.99 per track. There are tons of unsigned artists who release their stuff for free under variants of Creative Commons. She could have listened to terrestrial radio, satellite radio, or any number of streaming audio stations. She could have borrowed (but not copied) CDs from friends, or even gone to a coffee house where there's often live music.
So what if Sony or BMG or some other huge record company wants you to pay a buck a track for their particular artist? Fuck 'em... don't pay the buck, but don't download their music illegally, either. Support smaller indie labels and unsigned artists.
And enough with the "destroying their life" already. The RIAA will likely hit them with the default judgement of $3.5K. That's less debt that many adults already have on their credit cards. It's less than one month's mortage payment for me. It's five car payments for many people. It's a pain in the ass to pay down, sure, but go visit a local homeless shelter to learn the true meaning of "destroying their life."
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(Clause 2 goes on to state "(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.")
"If that's all they expect to receive from the downloading services, then they rightfully shouldn't expect anything more than that as penalties for non-pay downloading."
When one buys a track from the iTMS for a buck, one does not get the right to distribute unlimited copies, as the defendant apparently did. Come on, guys, this should be basic stuff -- if I crack your $25 shareware app and distribute it to 1,000 people, I don't simply owe you just $25 for that one copy I cracked. If I use your OSS code in my closed-source app and sell 1,000 copies for $100, I don't owe you $0 for just that one instance of the source code that I copied.
On behalf of all Americans, I hereby apologize to the world for our collective utter ignorance of our own laws.
"Why isn't action protected by the 5th amendment??"
This is what the fifth amendment of our constitution states (boldface mine; as our founding fathers did not have a "B" button on their 18th century word processors):
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"If they were to be fair, I think they should charge with $1 for each Mp3, since that's what it would cost her to buy them through iTunes (or maybe $2, or $10, since she could make copies, but nothing near $150,000), and the costs of the trial."
The article was misleading, as it referred primarily to her downloading. She was actually fingered because she was sharing these songs. Even if we used the $1-per-song idea, if each of these 200 song were downloaded 18 times, we're at $3.5K, the amount of a typical settlement, and an amount which many Slashdotters point out can "financially ruin" families.
However, I'm glad that the law generally doesn't work this way. Woe to me if I owned, say, a jewelry store, and the only disincentive for somebody to walk out with a $10K diamong ring is that they would have to give it back (or pay $10K in cash) plus cover court costs. But I can see how it would be appealing for people who like to P2P music.
"So... Apple gets rid of some lawsuits, sets things up to make trouble for some other music player makers, and gets another revenue stream. All in all, this doesn't look too bad as a business move for Apple."
And Creative gets rid of some lawsuits (Apple's counter-suits), sets some things up to make trouble for some other music player makers (precident on the patent), and also gets another revenue stream (Creative will likely make more profit on their "made for iPod" accessories than Apple will). Pretty good business move for Creative, too.
"No, you are not over reacting. This is the feedback system for corps. If they misbehave, we the customers, have the option -the obligation- to vote with our wallets. Lawsuits, and petitions, and letters to the board are nowhere as simple and effective as not spending money with them."
Interesting. Given that Apple tried to file a similar patent and Creative was simply faster -- if things had been a little different and Apple had been awarded the patent, what do you think would be happening now?
Would they be chasing down infringing companies? You know, like Apple is known to do.
Would you feel that they were in the right? Or, would you boycott Apple?
Make no mistake: if Apple had filed their patent just a few months earlier, we'd be swapping "Apple" and "Creative" in all of these posts. Remember, Apple is the company that doesn't allow anybody else to draw their hard drive icon in the style of a hard drive. If you really feel this strongly about companies enforcing their patents, you probably stopped buying Apple products years ago. If Apple'd been first; they'd be all over Creative, et al. like they were the last chopper out of Saigon.
"Perhaps it would've been better if you'd also taken the time to read it and interpret it correctly before wrongly accusing someone of being factually incorrect."
Check your assumptions. The GGP who attempted to distill down the patent did everybody a disservice.
It would be great if the collective Bureau of Slashdot Patent Experts around here were right; they could show Apple's legal team a thing or two. Everybody's boggled by a seemlingly contradictory set of facts:
The patent is very simple, broad, and blindingly obvious.
Yet it was granted and Apple was unable to challenge it.
Apple paid $100MM because, apparently, their lawyers weren't as smart as all the patent experts around here
And when you have a set of contradictory facts, it's time to check your assumptions. Empirically, I'd go with #1. Slashdotters are famous for thinking they're experts in areas they're not, and when it comes to patent law, they're especially famous.
"And look what gets +4 informative on slashdot... someone pasting the obtuse text of a patent that when stripped down obviously describes the type of navigation that NeXT was using for file browsers a decade before the patent."
Ah, the devil's in the details, isn't it?
It very well could be that the average congregators in a Slashdot discussion just happen to be experts in patent law, but it's highly doubtful. If you think it's as simple as stripping it down to a few words, but you're boggled by the fact that the patent was awarded and enforcable, it's time to check your assumptions.
"And it would be a bad thing if Apple started patenting user interfaces... really."
Maybe that's a joke that went right over my head, but Apple is quite well known for patenting user interfaces. For instance, nobody else is allowed to depict a hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo or an illustration of a hard drive, because Apple has the patent on it.
Here are some examples:
D523,441: Icon for a portion of a display screen
7,064,759: Methods and apparatus for displaying a frame with contrasting text
This is a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword."
"Didn't Apple's leagl team search the internet archives for prior art on this?"
Occam's razor, my friend. Which is more likely to you:
It did not occur to Apple to search for prior art, or,
All the so-called "prior art" examples which you and others have pointed out, actually aren't applicable?
Whenever the subject comes up, various Slashdotters come up with lots of (sometimes laughable) claims of prior art. If only the patent were as simple as Slashdotters made it out to be.
"Sure, you probably won't see an unsigned band's stuff in WalMart, but again: if you can make the same amount of money being a regional band, and have total creative control... I don't understand the allure."
When you're an unsigned band without the benefit of an agent, manager and label working for your success, it's pretty much up to you to do everything. Designing and running your website, or paying somebody (with your money, not record company money) to do it for you. Carrying your own equipment. Cajoling store managers and radio stations yourself. Schlepping CDs in the back of your car, and paying for the gas yourself. Plus, paying for the gas yourself when you drive 1,000 miles for a gig, and buying your own meals and paying for your own lodging. In other words, spending a lot of hours, and a lot of your own money, doing grunt work.
Not an easy life. For some, the tradeoff of being able to keep 100% of the sale price of a CD is not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
"P2P might harm some business models (release a crappy movie, overhype it, and hope everyone sees it on week 1), but other business models survive."
For example, the folks who run TPB and Kazaa are very wealthy indeed. Perhaps the TPB folks aren't millionaires yet like the principals of Shaman Networks, but they'll be there soon.
"Yes, and the penalities are actually much less for stealing property, if you get caught."
The confusion is the media's fault -- whenever the RIAA or MPAA goes after a file-sharing whale, the press paints it as if they were busted for "downloading," when the reality is that they were nailed for making a bunch of stuff available for distribution.
Thus, "person nailed for filesharing" and "person nailed for shoplifting a CD" is not the best comparison. Closer to the mark is "person nailed for filesharing" and "person nailed for having 1,000 unauthorized copies of a CD in the trunk of their car." In the latter case, it's the same section of Title 17 that applies: $750 - $3K per work statutory damages and the like.
...who will discuss just about everything about their equipment except its suitability for growing pot.
I dislike intrusive and prohibitive DRM as much as everybody else, but it's clear to me that if the magic wand were waved tomorrow and DRM disappeared, the immediate effect is that people would be pirating a lot more.
"In fact, there are several studies that show that those things that are pirated also enjoy a higher profit margin."
I have never seen studies linking profit margins to piracy rates. Can you post a cite to one of them? Profit margins on a product-by-product basis are often closely guarded secrets (ie. Adobe will tell you their end of year profit margin, as they are a publicly traded company, but good luck learning the profit margin on PhotoShop) so I would love to see the methodology of said studies.
"All rights to a work belong to the originator of that work."
The way it works now in the music biz is that the composer and lyricist maintain the rights to the words and music, but the record company has the copyright on the recording of the words and music. Sometimes the copyright is shared with the engineer or the producer.
Now, although a lot of Slashdotters think it is so, a sheet of paper with words or music on it is not the same as a finished, engineered and produced recording. The nerds on the other side of the glass often make all the difference. They put their creative heart and soul into the work, and the recording is often a collaborative effort. In your vision of fixing the copyright problem, to whom would the copyright on the recording be assigned?
Do I also understand you correctly that you would like to abolish work-for-hire? That is, if I were a small business and I hired a graphic designer and a programmer to create my web site, the copyrights would remain with them, even if they left the company?
I don't normally respond to ACs, but this is a great question:
"Clear this up for me. How can people who can afford a computer (usually a nice on), supplies (CDs, DVDs, Scanners), and a broadband connection not be able to afford music, movies, software, games, or books?"
They can afford them, of course. They simply choose not to buy the stuff legimately.
We humans have a great capacity for rationalization. "I use [ P2P | allofmp3.com ] because buying CDs or from the iTMS is too expensive!" removes them a bit from the implications of piracy -- you see, they have no choice, because the real deal is simply priced too high. I take a more pragmatic approach; if you'd rather keep that $1 in your pocket by using P2P, then just say that it is so.
"Well, allofmp3.com is not breaking any law. They are compliant with all US laws and all Russian laws."
Another poster addressed this claim; however, whether something is illegal or not does not necessarily make it right. The fellow in Florida would be no more or less right or wrong in what he did if it were illegal to, say, sell pirated software in Florida.
"Just because you think allofmp3 should be illegal does not mean it is."
...I said no such thing...
"Your lies about the $1 a track not being affordable is not a correct statement."
Oh, by all means, I can certainly afford a buck a song. Stick around Slashdot long enough and you'll find plenty of people who claim that they cannot. High prices are a common justification around here for using P2P or the Russian sites. Sad, but true.
"allofmp3.com is the only place I know where you can legally download (legal if you are in Russia, questionable legality if you are in the US, though that has never been decided in court) non-DRM files in a variety of formats, including lossless."
Above, you said that allofmp3.com is compliant with all US laws; here you are saying it is of questionable legality. Can you clarify? At any rate, if you want some good, cheap DRM-free music available in more formats than iTMS offers you, check out emusic.com and Magnatune. And unlike allofmp3, they pay the artists and there's no "questionable legality" to fret over.
"Since you can't see the difference between that and someone that knowingly breaks copyright, fraud and other laws (wait until the IRS gets a hold of him) with the intent to profit at the expense of the company he is imitating and the people he lies to while selling his fraudulent product, then you are a nutjob no more logical than people that illegally copy music and clam it is legal or a moral imperative or such."
I think you've nailed it, Einstein. Any other words you want to put into my mouth? Any more straw men you want to build today?
"And another one falls into the fallacy of "moral=legal". Something being illegal is no ethical reason not to do it."
I said no such thing. I believe that the primary reason to support unsigned artists and non-RIAA labels, rather than simply pirating RIAA music, is because the former will cause a change in the balance of power, and show more and more musicians that there is a better alternative. The latter just gives the RIAA an excuse to blame the problem on piracy.
"Sometimes the law is just wrong, as it is in this case. And there IS a god-given right to download music - its the right of free speech, and its generally considered quite important."
You are partially correct. Free speech is important. Violating copyright law is not exercising free speech.
"He harmed the folks who worked on the software and weren't paid. This guy made enough money to buy a Lamborghini and other cars, and multiple airplanes, for crying out loud. That's millions. Frankly, the sentence seems kind of low considering how much money he made that should have gone to the software developers who actually did the work."
A thought experiment here: the guys at allofmp3.com likely sell more than 100,000 downloads per month, so they've probably made their first million. They are selling music at a discount similar to what the guy in Florida was offering on software. This is, of course, because he, like the allofmp3.com guys, got to sell the goods without having to pay the supplier.
Now, the guys at allofmp3.com have exploited a loophole in Russian law, so it's highly doubtful that they're going to jail. But it's also highly unlikely that the couple of hundred bucks per month they pay in webcast licensing ever gets to the people who "actually did the work," either.
The point that I am slowly getting to is that the allofmp3.com guys are regularly regarded as heroes who are purportedly giving the iTMS some much-needed competition, yet I don't see the Florida guy being held aloft as a hero. Interesting.
"Is 200 the same as 2? No, but 200 is a whole lot closer to 2 than it is to thousands."
The other article was confusing because it refers to "downloading" but the issue that the record companies have with her is that she's sharing those 200 songs. If ten people downloaded each song, that's 2,000+ unauthorized copies. Meanwhile, the fellow in Florida sold about 2,000 unauthorized copies of PhotoShop for $99 each to pay for his Lambo.
"This guy made enough he could buy sportscars, planes, the works. Even if you just look at the $4.1m restitution, that's a lot of salaries Adobe, Macromedia and Autodesk could have paid. It's easy to dismiss it as "Oh well, they're big companies, no harm, no foul." but it becomes much more of an issue when they cut the job of a guy whose health insurance got his daughter treatment for cancer."
Very well put.
A common Slashdot response to the piracy issue is "the person wouldn't have bought the legitimate copy anyway." In this case, the guy was selling copies of $649 software for $99. This is roughly comparable to the discount that allofmp3.com offers on music, and many people defend their allofmp3.com use because they cannot afford to pay $1 / track. Just like allofmp3.com, this fellow was able to sell $649 software for $99 because he did not need to worry about paying the rightsholders. Unfortunately, lots of people would disagree with you about actual harm to Adobe, et al.
I suspect that if this were a story about music piracy, the guys writing "They're big companies, no harm, no foul" would be the ones with the 5, Insightful ratings, where you'd be marked down as a troll and likely accused of astroturfing.
"Artists/bands don't have to back the RIAA, record companies back the RIAA. Personally I don't agree with pirating of music. Bands/Artists make so little off sales it's rediculous. You want the RIAA to go away? then get every band and artist out there to NOT sign on with a major record label that is part of the RIAA and to NOT sign on with any that have talked with or are considering working RIAA. Until then this is what we get. Or until there are enough counter suits against them that they get the point."
Precisely. If we vote by supporting non-label artists and artists from labels that are taking saner approaches (Magnatune et al) we will eventually shift the financial power away from the big labels. If we vote by simply pirating the music produced by the big labels, it's all too easy for the labels to brand us as "pirates."
Don't like the practices of the RIAA labels? Don't buy their stuff... but don't pirate it, either.
"No chance. The record company is crushing somebody, destroying their life just because they can and they think it will scare people into paying their information tax."
She likely knew what she was doing was illegal. She took a chance, and was caught.
She did not have a God-given right to this music; nor would her life end without it. If she was simply morally opposed to paying $0.99 a track, she had plenty of options. Magnatune, CDBaby and emusic have lots of great music that's available for a lot less than $0.99 per track. There are tons of unsigned artists who release their stuff for free under variants of Creative Commons. She could have listened to terrestrial radio, satellite radio, or any number of streaming audio stations. She could have borrowed (but not copied) CDs from friends, or even gone to a coffee house where there's often live music.
So what if Sony or BMG or some other huge record company wants you to pay a buck a track for their particular artist? Fuck 'em... don't pay the buck, but don't download their music illegally, either. Support smaller indie labels and unsigned artists.
And enough with the "destroying their life" already. The RIAA will likely hit them with the default judgement of $3.5K. That's less debt that many adults already have on their credit cards. It's less than one month's mortage payment for me. It's five car payments for many people. It's a pain in the ass to pay down, sure, but go visit a local homeless shelter to learn the true meaning of "destroying their life."
From our copyright laws:
(Clause 2 goes on to state "(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.")
"If that's all they expect to receive from the downloading services, then they rightfully shouldn't expect anything more than that as penalties for non-pay downloading."
When one buys a track from the iTMS for a buck, one does not get the right to distribute unlimited copies, as the defendant apparently did. Come on, guys, this should be basic stuff -- if I crack your $25 shareware app and distribute it to 1,000 people, I don't simply owe you just $25 for that one copy I cracked. If I use your OSS code in my closed-source app and sell 1,000 copies for $100, I don't owe you $0 for just that one instance of the source code that I copied.
On behalf of all Americans, I hereby apologize to the world for our collective utter ignorance of our own laws.
"Why isn't action protected by the 5th amendment??"
This is what the fifth amendment of our constitution states (boldface mine; as our founding fathers did not have a "B" button on their 18th century word processors):
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"If they were to be fair, I think they should charge with $1 for each Mp3, since that's what it would cost her to buy them through iTunes (or maybe $2, or $10, since she could make copies, but nothing near $150,000), and the costs of the trial."
The article was misleading, as it referred primarily to her downloading. She was actually fingered because she was sharing these songs. Even if we used the $1-per-song idea, if each of these 200 song were downloaded 18 times, we're at $3.5K, the amount of a typical settlement, and an amount which many Slashdotters point out can "financially ruin" families.
However, I'm glad that the law generally doesn't work this way. Woe to me if I owned, say, a jewelry store, and the only disincentive for somebody to walk out with a $10K diamong ring is that they would have to give it back (or pay $10K in cash) plus cover court costs. But I can see how it would be appealing for people who like to P2P music.
"so just putting a folder of ripped tunes behind a web server infringes on creative's patent?"
No, it doesn't.
If the patent really were as simple as you have reworded it, yes. But it is not.
You're making the same mistake that a few other people are making:
Check your assumptions. The devil is in the details.
"So... Apple gets rid of some lawsuits, sets things up to make trouble for some other music player makers, and gets another revenue stream. All in all, this doesn't look too bad as a business move for Apple."
And Creative gets rid of some lawsuits (Apple's counter-suits), sets some things up to make trouble for some other music player makers (precident on the patent), and also gets another revenue stream (Creative will likely make more profit on their "made for iPod" accessories than Apple will). Pretty good business move for Creative, too.
"Since this case was settled, it doesn't mean anything. It just means Creative was willing to drop the lawsuit for $100 million."
And more importantly, Apple was willing to pay $100MM.
"No, you are not over reacting. This is the feedback system for corps. If they misbehave, we the customers, have the option -the obligation- to vote with our wallets. Lawsuits, and petitions, and letters to the board are nowhere as simple and effective as not spending money with them."
Interesting. Given that Apple tried to file a similar patent and Creative was simply faster -- if things had been a little different and Apple had been awarded the patent, what do you think would be happening now?
Make no mistake: if Apple had filed their patent just a few months earlier, we'd be swapping "Apple" and "Creative" in all of these posts. Remember, Apple is the company that doesn't allow anybody else to draw their hard drive icon in the style of a hard drive. If you really feel this strongly about companies enforcing their patents, you probably stopped buying Apple products years ago. If Apple'd been first; they'd be all over Creative, et al. like they were the last chopper out of Saigon.
"Perhaps it would've been better if you'd also taken the time to read it and interpret it correctly before wrongly accusing someone of being factually incorrect."
Check your assumptions. The GGP who attempted to distill down the patent did everybody a disservice.
It would be great if the collective Bureau of Slashdot Patent Experts around here were right; they could show Apple's legal team a thing or two. Everybody's boggled by a seemlingly contradictory set of facts:
And when you have a set of contradictory facts, it's time to check your assumptions. Empirically, I'd go with #1. Slashdotters are famous for thinking they're experts in areas they're not, and when it comes to patent law, they're especially famous.
"And look what gets +4 informative on slashdot... someone pasting the obtuse text of a patent that when stripped down obviously describes the type of navigation that NeXT was using for file browsers a decade before the patent."
Ah, the devil's in the details, isn't it?
It very well could be that the average congregators in a Slashdot discussion just happen to be experts in patent law, but it's highly doubtful. If you think it's as simple as stripping it down to a few words, but you're boggled by the fact that the patent was awarded and enforcable, it's time to check your assumptions.
"And it would be a bad thing if Apple started patenting user interfaces ... really."
Maybe that's a joke that went right over my head, but Apple is quite well known for patenting user interfaces. For instance, nobody else is allowed to depict a hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo or an illustration of a hard drive, because Apple has the patent on it.
Here are some examples:
This is a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword."
"Didn't Apple's leagl team search the internet archives for prior art on this?"
Occam's razor, my friend. Which is more likely to you:
Whenever the subject comes up, various Slashdotters come up with lots of (sometimes laughable) claims of prior art. If only the patent were as simple as Slashdotters made it out to be.
"There's a sucker born every minute, and apparently some of those suckers are too young to remember the 90s."
Trouble is, some of those suckers made lots and lots of money.
Yahoo! and Fox are apparently satisfied with their purchases of Flickr and MySpace. Sometimes it's a win-win.
"Sure, you probably won't see an unsigned band's stuff in WalMart, but again: if you can make the same amount of money being a regional band, and have total creative control ... I don't understand the allure."
When you're an unsigned band without the benefit of an agent, manager and label working for your success, it's pretty much up to you to do everything. Designing and running your website, or paying somebody (with your money, not record company money) to do it for you. Carrying your own equipment. Cajoling store managers and radio stations yourself. Schlepping CDs in the back of your car, and paying for the gas yourself. Plus, paying for the gas yourself when you drive 1,000 miles for a gig, and buying your own meals and paying for your own lodging. In other words, spending a lot of hours, and a lot of your own money, doing grunt work.
Not an easy life. For some, the tradeoff of being able to keep 100% of the sale price of a CD is not worth it.