"So most likely the actual pirate here signed up for an ISP using her home address and name."
Yup... like one of her kids. Remember when you were under 18, and your phone and cable bills were in your parent's name?
The RIAA has already sued a lot of parents over the actions of their kids. So far, "I didn't know my kids were using my computer to break the law" has not been an effective loophole.
"i'm assuming she doesn't have broadband either. what ip address did they use to find her? just goes to show how stupid these lawsuits are."
A much more likely scenario is that somebody else in her household was doing the file trading, and her name happened to be on the cable or phone bill. It's a very common scenario for the cable or phone bill to be in the name of an adult (typically a parent or guardian), while a child or teenager uses the Internet connection to do something the parent/guardian doesn't know about. Might be downloading porn, might be sharing MP3 files. But it happens... a lot.
"How they managed to find this woman and sue her is beyond me..."
Probably one of her kids, or somebody in her hourse, was doing the actual file trading, and this woman's name happens to be on the cable or phone bill.
"Okay, did I read the correct story? So she may have never used a computer, but I assume she is paying for the cable or dsl service that is likely attached to her television or phone bill? Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases. A kid shares the music and the parent is blissfully ignorant. The way the blurb is phrased sounds like it was written by Pravda. Is there another article with more details?"
THANK YOU.
I have no idea what the full story is here. None of us do. But what I do know is that the page linked to in the writeup is that of the defendant's lawyer.
It's the lawyer's job to convince you of their client's innocence. They don't need to be fair and balanced. They don't even need to be accurate, if it promotes their agenda and helps them win the case.
It's really quite sad that so many people are reading a statement by a lawyer handling a case -- and thus whose motivation should be clear -- and are just swallowing it like it's gospel truth. Slashdotters are usually smarter than this.
"It's clearly shown that they're not doing the most basic of fact-checking."
The page you read is that of the woman's lawyers. They're paid to make you think she's innocent. Looks like they're doing their job well. The ironic thing is that you're accusing somebody else of not doing the most basic of fact checking!
"Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth..."
"My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed..."
The page linked to is that of the woman's lawyer. "Let's automatically believe something the lawyer said" is the last thing I'd ascribe to the typical Slashdot reader. The fact that you're doing so, you're openly admitting it, and you're +5 is really quite astonishing. Well done, my good man. But in case you (and the people who modded you up) weren't aware, of course her lawyer is going to try to convince people that she's innocent. That's what lawyers are paid to do.
"Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?"
The proper thing to do is to judge each case on its own merit. Some people the RIAA have sued have been caught red-handed. In other cases, there was a mistake. Again: judge each case on its own merit. This is how you would want to be treated if you were brought into court for anything, isn't it?
Yes, opt-in lists are bulk. I had to jump through lots of hoops to get onto AOL's whitelist program just so that people who sign up to my web sites can get their confirmation email.
Once I got on it, it was fine (unlike Hotmail, which randomly drops emails on the floor, to the chagrin of my customers). We get a surprising number of AOL users who mistake the "this is spam" button for the "delete" button, but apparently not in large enough quantities to get us de-listed.
Just be glad we haven't yet had the usual nitwits who point to the backwardness of the organization because they have the archaic word phonograph in their name.
It probably eludes these people that this is common. The "C" in NAACP doesn't stand for "African-American," and I don't even want to bring up what the 2nd "T" in "AT&T" stands for.
"What if you own an album that is unplayable(scratched) or hard to convert(vinyl), then download it because you are unwilling to be extorted by paying several times for your content."
The guys were purportedly sharing thousands of tracks each. What are the odds that each one of those songs was download to replaced damaged media? Keep in mind that there's something known colloquially in the legal profession as the "laugh test." In short, if you couldn't tell your friends that each and every track in your share directory is something that you downloaded because your original CD was scratched without your friends laughing at you, it would not make a good defense in court.
"It is easy to leech and not give back(although shunned upon). I also don't see how they can prove if you were sharing it. You may be listed as a peer, but have your upload turned off."
With software. Or, just by downloading it (cue the "if they downloaded it then they broke the law!" morons in 5..4..3..). Don't make the dangerous assumption that the record industry can't find people as smart or smarter than you to work the technical side of things. It's in their best interest to have their cases as tight as possible, as they've made some serious blunders in the past.
"Also, stuff like peerguardian will likely block most snoops ip's so you wouldnt be giving them any of it."
Pity they didn't use peerguardian, then. If they go back to sharing music, hopefully somebody will clue them in to it.
"The point being, if you already own the content, and if you arent contributing to piracy, would they be able to still convict you?"
It would likely be a civil case, so "convict" isn't the right phrase -- I believe it would be "find you liable." However, you are correct: if you are not pirating music, the odds are low (but not zero) that you will be found liable for piracy. Similarly, if you are not jaywalking, the odds are that you will not be ticketed for jaywalking... but you never know!
However, this likely does not relate to the case reported by the BBC.
"Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)"
Obviously? You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional? Perhaps the fellows really were sharing all those songs with Kazaa or whatever? It's interesting that a common sentiment on Slashdot is "There are millions and millions of filesharers! You can't stop us!" and then when the occasional unlucky few out of the millions and millions get caught, a common assumption is that it must be a misunderstanding.
"Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as."
"Don't put thousands of copyrighted works in your share directory if you don't have the right to do so" is straightforward enough.
"The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to."
Judges have been hearing civil and criminal copyright cases since before our grandparents were born.
"The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.
The fact that some people think that putting thousands of copyrighted files in your share directory without permission is morally acceptable makes little difference here. This is why we have laws: to protect society against human nature.
"So, what are the ramifications of a portion of the RIAA suing itself?"
It's not the RIAA suing itself. The RIAA is a trade group, of which many record companies are members.
Think of it more like a doctor suing the AMA.
Anyway, this isn't too uncommon. I knew a guy who ran a guy who ran an indie record company. He said on more than one occasion that although he was a member of the RIAA (for all the benefits that joining provided), the RIAA did not speak for him.
For what it's worth, this guy was young ( lay off his friends. He put in 60-hour weeks and loved the hell out of the music. This is why I sadly shake my head when I see teenagers justifying piracy because music industry employees are a generation older than them, richer than them, and thus not of any consequence.
"I'm no law scholar here, but doesn't the judge have to actually refuse any defendant's claim with some logical arguement instead of simply claiming "nah, I'm pretend I didn't hear that?""
Yes.
I'm guessing you're assuming this didn't happen because you didn't read about it in the article? Keep in mind that it's a 15-sentence writeup on a mainstream news website. The brevity of the writeup should not be taken to mean that something didn't happen just because it did not go into detail.
The likelihood is that the judge did look at all the evidence and deem that the guy was full of crap. My guess is that he was trying some of the the typical Slashdot defenses ("maybe somebody was sitting in my driveway tapping into my wireless network!", "maybe those were just a thousand Excel spreadsheet files which I happened to rename after songs by popular artists!", and so on) and found out that real courts usually work in a much more matter-of-fact way than many Slashdotters are aware.
"Let me make this simple for you: I learned on Sesame Street that sharing is GOOD."
Looks like that took precedent over the Golden Rule in your household. For the uninformed, that's "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." It's in the Bible but it's a sentiment shared across lots of cultures and you don't need to be a Christian or even religious to understand its value.
The golden rule applies to music sharing thusly: if you know that the artist is cool with you sharing their stuff, and they have the right to let you share it (ie. the artist owns the copyright on the recording as well as the words and music), then go ahead and do it. There are plenty of artists who independently produce their work and allow it to be freely distributed. More power to them, and we should support them.
If you suspect that the artist would not want you distributing their stuff, or helping yourself to a copy without paying it, then DON'T. Why? The golden rule. You would not want the artist to ignore your wishes.
This seems simple enough, but lots of people who don't quite get ths spirit of the golden rule still justify music piracy with a statement like "if I were a musician, I'd self-produce all my stuff and give it away for free" or "well, I write software that I give away, and I wouldn't mind the artist making a copy of my software for free. So, I'll copy their music for free, since I wouldn't mind them doing the same to me." The former is just a bit too hypothetical (what you think you would do if you were trying to make a living with your music, and what you would do if you were actually in that situation are worlds apart), and the latter simply indicates a lack of respect for other people's wishes.
"When will the RIAA stop these senseless lawsuits and focus on the digital download market."
Record companies, like you and me, can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time.
The success of the digital download market is due to the record companies' focus. Universal has finally digitized their entire catalog and is now digitizing their back catalog of European releases. They've even made noises about an online-only music label, ostensibly so they can make investments in more commercially risky artists without the overhead of the traditional retail channel and hard goods.
"Piracy will always exist, accept that and work on growing your customer base instead of increasing the number of enemies."
This is another example where folks don't realize that record companies act like other businesses.
Think of your favorite store. Maybe it's a grocery store, or a Fry's Electronics, or a hobby store, or whatever. Odds are that you've noticed that they have sales and promotions, but they also take efforts to curb shoplifting. Your newspaper is filled with pages and pages of ads for sales at your local stores, yet the anti-theft industry remains huge.
Now imagine if you went to your local store owner and gave him or her the same advice you have for the record industry: "Shoplifting will always exist, accept that and work on growing your customer base instead of increasing the number of enemies."
Do you think that would be good avice?
Store owners know that shoplifters will always exist, but this does not prevent them from taking measures to stop it when they can. The record companies take the same approach.
"This comes after weeks long scandals by the TV networks that the iPod videos would ruin their ratings."
That's interesting... I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link to an article in which the networks are complaining about their shows being on iTunes?
Since the networks sell the shows to iTunes willingly, and are presumably making money on the deal, I do not see why they would then turn around and complain.
"Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM. That's the argument for "Intellectual Property"."
That's a textbook definition of a straw man argument. Nobody who wants the right to make money off of their ideas also wants people to starve. Shame on you for even implying that.
"If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work.
And when George Bush and his ilk use the "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," line, it's obvious bullshit, too.
If you want to save some money by buying a cheap Intel PC at Wal-Mart and installing OSX on it rather than paying Apple's high margins, then groovy -- go for it, if that's what you want to do. This makes you a careful consumer, not some crusader for human rights. If you'd rather keep the money for yourself, than give it to some purveyor of computing hardware or operating system software or record company or film studio, and this fits with your moral compass, then you're simply looking out for your own bottom line. It's saving a few bucks, not the Montomery Freedom March.
"Radio stations pay to RIAA and suchlike for broadcasing rights already. This is where the music is sold. If RIAA thinks it is underpaid, it could try to raise the price for the stations."
It's pretty common knowledge that if you want to operate a broadcast station in the US, you get a license from ASCAP and BMI. Somebody else mentioned Harry Fox but I don't believe they handle radio licensing. And the RIAA definitely doesn't get a piece of that pie.
ASCAP, BMI, and Harry Fox are representatives of the artists. The RIAA is the representative of the record labels. See the difference? If one is of the mindset that anybody who wants to be paid for providing music is evil, then I suppose there isn't much difference at all, but this is a vital distinction to understand for those who kneel at the shrine of "artists good, record companies bad."
Thanks for the clarification. I've seen the "...as I like" phrase used by people to justify piracy so many times that I just assumed that's what you meant.
I think market forces will eventually kill DRM-laden CDs. CD-based DRM is awful and evil and I can't even play DRMed CDs in my car. For what it's worth, iTMS' FairPlay DRM just so happens to let me do whatever I like. I've no doubt that it's too restrictive for some, but they let me do all the things that I happen to want to do with the stuff I buy from the iTMS. I think Apple got it right.
Oh, please. I was pointing out that he he can not do as he pleases with the content simply because the word "license" does not appear on the CDs that he buys (which appears to be his implication). It was a quick note, not a master's thesis. I'm quite aware of the difference between a violation and a breach, and that the creator need not print any particular verbage in order to have or enforce their rights. I am honestly at a loss to why you'd assume otherwise. But since I obviously wasn't clear the first time: the fact that there's no license does not mean that he can do what he pleases with the material.
I always enjoy reading your posts (I'm on your fan list) and I appreciate your tireless efforts to introduce actual factual information, something which is often quite rare around here, particularly in regard to copyright law.
This might be a reading comprehension issue. He played about 40 rounds against 40 people over three days and lost once. In sudden death mode, 5-4, to another pro gamer. I was there.
If you think this makes him a bad player, or even an average player, or even a slighly above average player, you're mistaken.
Very well put. If there comes a day that the major distributors of music, TV and films decide that it's in their best interest to release stuff that's easy to make unlimited copies of, they'll do so. The "Entertainment wants to be free" mantra is true only if both the consumers and producers agree.
Slashdotters can test this by producing their own movies and TV shows, then putting them on the 'net with no restrictions. So far it's not working well (compare Magnatune's sales to those of, say, the iTunes Music Store) but who knows... maybe one day things will change.
"But I never read the part on the music I bought that says "You are purchasing a license for one copy of this music." I was under the impression that I bought the CD and the copy of the music on the CD to do with as I like."
They use simpler verbage like "unauthorized reproduction prohibited" and the like. It means the same thing. The copyright holder still has their rights; the music does not pass into the public domain upon publication. The fact that they don't use the word "license" should not be taken as tacit permission to put it in your Kazaa share directory, or make ten copies and give them to your friends.
"Not to mention novelists and filmmakers. Won't someone think about THEIR rights?"
You raise a good point. Countries with weak intellectual property laws tend to be the same countries that don't export a lot of intellectual property, and vice versa. In the world of intellectual property, it's safe to say that Sweden is on the "consumer" side of the scale.
Similarly, Canada -- downloading is presently legal, and there's a tariff on recordable media and recordable devices that goes to artists and copyright holders. Lots of Canadian Slashdotters, of course, use these two facts as moral ground to pirate as much as they want, since they incorrectly believe that they are "paying for" the right to pirate, and that the money goes to the artists whose work they are copying for free. But the tariff goes only to Canadian artists, and it's another safe bet that the average Canadian MP3 monger's collection is not made up exclusively of Anne Murray and Rush tracks. The point here is that Canada is taking care of its own, and relatively speaking, Canada is largely a consumer of intellectual property, rather than a producer.
The flip side, of course, is the USA, where intellectual property is one of our biggest exports. Thus, some of the toughest laws. Like Canada, we are taking care of our own.
Slashdot Mirror
"So most likely the actual pirate here signed up for an ISP using her home address and name."
Yup... like one of her kids. Remember when you were under 18, and your phone and cable bills were in your parent's name?
The RIAA has already sued a lot of parents over the actions of their kids. So far, "I didn't know my kids were using my computer to break the law" has not been an effective loophole.
"i'm assuming she doesn't have broadband either. what ip address did they use to find her? just goes to show how stupid these lawsuits are."
A much more likely scenario is that somebody else in her household was doing the file trading, and her name happened to be on the cable or phone bill. It's a very common scenario for the cable or phone bill to be in the name of an adult (typically a parent or guardian), while a child or teenager uses the Internet connection to do something the parent/guardian doesn't know about. Might be downloading porn, might be sharing MP3 files. But it happens... a lot.
"How they managed to find this woman and sue her is beyond me..."
Probably one of her kids, or somebody in her hourse, was doing the actual file trading, and this woman's name happens to be on the cable or phone bill.
"Okay, did I read the correct story? So she may have never used a computer, but I assume she is paying for the cable or dsl service that is likely attached to her television or phone bill? Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases. A kid shares the music and the parent is blissfully ignorant. The way the blurb is phrased sounds like it was written by Pravda. Is there another article with more details?"
THANK YOU.
I have no idea what the full story is here. None of us do. But what I do know is that the page linked to in the writeup is that of the defendant's lawyer.
It's the lawyer's job to convince you of their client's innocence. They don't need to be fair and balanced. They don't even need to be accurate, if it promotes their agenda and helps them win the case.
It's really quite sad that so many people are reading a statement by a lawyer handling a case -- and thus whose motivation should be clear -- and are just swallowing it like it's gospel truth. Slashdotters are usually smarter than this.
"It's clearly shown that they're not doing the most basic of fact-checking."
The page you read is that of the woman's lawyers. They're paid to make you think she's innocent. Looks like they're doing their job well. The ironic thing is that you're accusing somebody else of not doing the most basic of fact checking!
"Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth..."
"My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed..."
The page linked to is that of the woman's lawyer. "Let's automatically believe something the lawyer said" is the last thing I'd ascribe to the typical Slashdot reader. The fact that you're doing so, you're openly admitting it, and you're +5 is really quite astonishing. Well done, my good man. But in case you (and the people who modded you up) weren't aware, of course her lawyer is going to try to convince people that she's innocent. That's what lawyers are paid to do.
"Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?"
The proper thing to do is to judge each case on its own merit. Some people the RIAA have sued have been caught red-handed. In other cases, there was a mistake. Again: judge each case on its own merit. This is how you would want to be treated if you were brought into court for anything, isn't it?
Yes, opt-in lists are bulk. I had to jump through lots of hoops to get onto AOL's whitelist program just so that people who sign up to my web sites can get their confirmation email.
Once I got on it, it was fine (unlike Hotmail, which randomly drops emails on the floor, to the chagrin of my customers). We get a surprising number of AOL users who mistake the "this is spam" button for the "delete" button, but apparently not in large enough quantities to get us de-listed.
Just be glad we haven't yet had the usual nitwits who point to the backwardness of the organization because they have the archaic word phonograph in their name.
It probably eludes these people that this is common. The "C" in NAACP doesn't stand for "African-American," and I don't even want to bring up what the 2nd "T" in "AT&T" stands for.
"What if you own an album that is unplayable(scratched) or hard to convert(vinyl), then download it because you are unwilling to be extorted by paying several times for your content."
The guys were purportedly sharing thousands of tracks each. What are the odds that each one of those songs was download to replaced damaged media? Keep in mind that there's something known colloquially in the legal profession as the "laugh test." In short, if you couldn't tell your friends that each and every track in your share directory is something that you downloaded because your original CD was scratched without your friends laughing at you, it would not make a good defense in court.
"It is easy to leech and not give back(although shunned upon). I also don't see how they can prove if you were sharing it. You may be listed as a peer, but have your upload turned off."
With software. Or, just by downloading it (cue the "if they downloaded it then they broke the law!" morons in 5..4..3..). Don't make the dangerous assumption that the record industry can't find people as smart or smarter than you to work the technical side of things. It's in their best interest to have their cases as tight as possible, as they've made some serious blunders in the past.
"Also, stuff like peerguardian will likely block most snoops ip's so you wouldnt be giving them any of it."
Pity they didn't use peerguardian, then. If they go back to sharing music, hopefully somebody will clue them in to it.
"The point being, if you already own the content, and if you arent contributing to piracy, would they be able to still convict you?"
It would likely be a civil case, so "convict" isn't the right phrase -- I believe it would be "find you liable." However, you are correct: if you are not pirating music, the odds are low (but not zero) that you will be found liable for piracy. Similarly, if you are not jaywalking, the odds are that you will not be ticketed for jaywalking... but you never know!
However, this likely does not relate to the case reported by the BBC.
"Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)"
Obviously? You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional? Perhaps the fellows really were sharing all those songs with Kazaa or whatever? It's interesting that a common sentiment on Slashdot is "There are millions and millions of filesharers! You can't stop us!" and then when the occasional unlucky few out of the millions and millions get caught, a common assumption is that it must be a misunderstanding.
"Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as."
"Don't put thousands of copyrighted works in your share directory if you don't have the right to do so" is straightforward enough.
"The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to."
Judges have been hearing civil and criminal copyright cases since before our grandparents were born.
"The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.
The fact that some people think that putting thousands of copyrighted files in your share directory without permission is morally acceptable makes little difference here. This is why we have laws: to protect society against human nature.
"So, what are the ramifications of a portion of the RIAA suing itself?"
It's not the RIAA suing itself. The RIAA is a trade group, of which many record companies are members.
Think of it more like a doctor suing the AMA.
Anyway, this isn't too uncommon. I knew a guy who ran a guy who ran an indie record company. He said on more than one occasion that although he was a member of the RIAA (for all the benefits that joining provided), the RIAA did not speak for him.
For what it's worth, this guy was young ( lay off his friends. He put in 60-hour weeks and loved the hell out of the music. This is why I sadly shake my head when I see teenagers justifying piracy because music industry employees are a generation older than them, richer than them, and thus not of any consequence.
"I'm no law scholar here, but doesn't the judge have to actually refuse any defendant's claim with some logical arguement instead of simply claiming "nah, I'm pretend I didn't hear that?""
Yes.
I'm guessing you're assuming this didn't happen because you didn't read about it in the article? Keep in mind that it's a 15-sentence writeup on a mainstream news website. The brevity of the writeup should not be taken to mean that something didn't happen just because it did not go into detail.
The likelihood is that the judge did look at all the evidence and deem that the guy was full of crap. My guess is that he was trying some of the the typical Slashdot defenses ("maybe somebody was sitting in my driveway tapping into my wireless network!", "maybe those were just a thousand Excel spreadsheet files which I happened to rename after songs by popular artists!", and so on) and found out that real courts usually work in a much more matter-of-fact way than many Slashdotters are aware.
"Let me make this simple for you: I learned on Sesame Street that sharing is GOOD."
Looks like that took precedent over the Golden Rule in your household. For the uninformed, that's "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." It's in the Bible but it's a sentiment shared across lots of cultures and you don't need to be a Christian or even religious to understand its value.
The golden rule applies to music sharing thusly: if you know that the artist is cool with you sharing their stuff, and they have the right to let you share it (ie. the artist owns the copyright on the recording as well as the words and music), then go ahead and do it. There are plenty of artists who independently produce their work and allow it to be freely distributed. More power to them, and we should support them.
If you suspect that the artist would not want you distributing their stuff, or helping yourself to a copy without paying it, then DON'T. Why? The golden rule. You would not want the artist to ignore your wishes.
This seems simple enough, but lots of people who don't quite get ths spirit of the golden rule still justify music piracy with a statement like "if I were a musician, I'd self-produce all my stuff and give it away for free" or "well, I write software that I give away, and I wouldn't mind the artist making a copy of my software for free. So, I'll copy their music for free, since I wouldn't mind them doing the same to me." The former is just a bit too hypothetical (what you think you would do if you were trying to make a living with your music, and what you would do if you were actually in that situation are worlds apart), and the latter simply indicates a lack of respect for other people's wishes.
"When will the RIAA stop these senseless lawsuits and focus on the digital download market."
Record companies, like you and me, can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time.
The success of the digital download market is due to the record companies' focus. Universal has finally digitized their entire catalog and is now digitizing their back catalog of European releases. They've even made noises about an online-only music label, ostensibly so they can make investments in more commercially risky artists without the overhead of the traditional retail channel and hard goods.
"Piracy will always exist, accept that and work on growing your customer base instead of increasing the number of enemies."
This is another example where folks don't realize that record companies act like other businesses.
Think of your favorite store. Maybe it's a grocery store, or a Fry's Electronics, or a hobby store, or whatever. Odds are that you've noticed that they have sales and promotions, but they also take efforts to curb shoplifting. Your newspaper is filled with pages and pages of ads for sales at your local stores, yet the anti-theft industry remains huge.
Now imagine if you went to your local store owner and gave him or her the same advice you have for the record industry: "Shoplifting will always exist, accept that and work on growing your customer base instead of increasing the number of enemies."
Do you think that would be good avice?
Store owners know that shoplifters will always exist, but this does not prevent them from taking measures to stop it when they can. The record companies take the same approach.
Thank you! Looks like ABC is doing a poor job on right hand/left hand management.
"This comes after weeks long scandals by the TV networks that the iPod videos would ruin their ratings."
That's interesting... I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link to an article in which the networks are complaining about their shows being on iTunes?
Since the networks sell the shows to iTunes willingly, and are presumably making money on the deal, I do not see why they would then turn around and complain.
"Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM. That's the argument for "Intellectual Property"."
That's a textbook definition of a straw man argument. Nobody who wants the right to make money off of their ideas also wants people to starve. Shame on you for even implying that.
"If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work.
And when George Bush and his ilk use the "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," line, it's obvious bullshit, too.
If you want to save some money by buying a cheap Intel PC at Wal-Mart and installing OSX on it rather than paying Apple's high margins, then groovy -- go for it, if that's what you want to do. This makes you a careful consumer, not some crusader for human rights. If you'd rather keep the money for yourself, than give it to some purveyor of computing hardware or operating system software or record company or film studio, and this fits with your moral compass, then you're simply looking out for your own bottom line. It's saving a few bucks, not the Montomery Freedom March.
"Radio stations pay to RIAA and suchlike for broadcasing rights already. This is where the music is sold. If RIAA thinks it is underpaid, it could try to raise the price for the stations."
It's pretty common knowledge that if you want to operate a broadcast station in the US, you get a license from ASCAP and BMI. Somebody else mentioned Harry Fox but I don't believe they handle radio licensing. And the RIAA definitely doesn't get a piece of that pie.
ASCAP, BMI, and Harry Fox are representatives of the artists. The RIAA is the representative of the record labels. See the difference? If one is of the mindset that anybody who wants to be paid for providing music is evil, then I suppose there isn't much difference at all, but this is a vital distinction to understand for those who kneel at the shrine of "artists good, record companies bad."
Thanks for the clarification. I've seen the "...as I like" phrase used by people to justify piracy so many times that I just assumed that's what you meant.
I think market forces will eventually kill DRM-laden CDs. CD-based DRM is awful and evil and I can't even play DRMed CDs in my car. For what it's worth, iTMS' FairPlay DRM just so happens to let me do whatever I like. I've no doubt that it's too restrictive for some, but they let me do all the things that I happen to want to do with the stuff I buy from the iTMS. I think Apple got it right.
Oh, please. I was pointing out that he he can not do as he pleases with the content simply because the word "license" does not appear on the CDs that he buys (which appears to be his implication). It was a quick note, not a master's thesis. I'm quite aware of the difference between a violation and a breach, and that the creator need not print any particular verbage in order to have or enforce their rights. I am honestly at a loss to why you'd assume otherwise. But since I obviously wasn't clear the first time: the fact that there's no license does not mean that he can do what he pleases with the material.
I always enjoy reading your posts (I'm on your fan list) and I appreciate your tireless efforts to introduce actual factual information, something which is often quite rare around here, particularly in regard to copyright law.
This might be a reading comprehension issue. He played about 40 rounds against 40 people over three days and lost once. In sudden death mode, 5-4, to another pro gamer. I was there.
If you think this makes him a bad player, or even an average player, or even a slighly above average player, you're mistaken.
Very well put. If there comes a day that the major distributors of music, TV and films decide that it's in their best interest to release stuff that's easy to make unlimited copies of, they'll do so. The "Entertainment wants to be free" mantra is true only if both the consumers and producers agree.
Slashdotters can test this by producing their own movies and TV shows, then putting them on the 'net with no restrictions. So far it's not working well (compare Magnatune's sales to those of, say, the iTunes Music Store) but who knows... maybe one day things will change.
"But I never read the part on the music I bought that says "You are purchasing a license for one copy of this music." I was under the impression that I bought the CD and the copy of the music on the CD to do with as I like."
They use simpler verbage like "unauthorized reproduction prohibited" and the like. It means the same thing. The copyright holder still has their rights; the music does not pass into the public domain upon publication. The fact that they don't use the word "license" should not be taken as tacit permission to put it in your Kazaa share directory, or make ten copies and give them to your friends.
"If "it goes without saying," why say it at all?"
Likewise, "within close proximity." The word proximity means "The state, quality, sense, or fact of being near or next; closeness."
"Not to mention novelists and filmmakers. Won't someone think about THEIR rights?"
You raise a good point. Countries with weak intellectual property laws tend to be the same countries that don't export a lot of intellectual property, and vice versa. In the world of intellectual property, it's safe to say that Sweden is on the "consumer" side of the scale.
Similarly, Canada -- downloading is presently legal, and there's a tariff on recordable media and recordable devices that goes to artists and copyright holders. Lots of Canadian Slashdotters, of course, use these two facts as moral ground to pirate as much as they want, since they incorrectly believe that they are "paying for" the right to pirate, and that the money goes to the artists whose work they are copying for free. But the tariff goes only to Canadian artists, and it's another safe bet that the average Canadian MP3 monger's collection is not made up exclusively of Anne Murray and Rush tracks. The point here is that Canada is taking care of its own, and relatively speaking, Canada is largely a consumer of intellectual property, rather than a producer.
The flip side, of course, is the USA, where intellectual property is one of our biggest exports. Thus, some of the toughest laws. Like Canada, we are taking care of our own.