Universal is really trying to get control of the music business back from Apple. Looks like they're willing to use any means necessary to do so.
There's a huge Catch 22 here. I'm all for competition, but if they win, and crush the iPod, do you think we'll be better off? They're the music business after all. Out to screw the customer and the artist. In the end, we'll all lose out. Exactly. And we all know that by now. So why would anyone in his or her right mind buy into it?
By the way how could you call it "competition"... competitors joining forces to try to defeat someone else's business. Isn't that what you would call "anticompetitive"?
Honestly, please stop using bolds everywhere and words like "IDDIIIIIOOOOOTS" (negates the point of bolds when half your submission is bolded). You're comments should be strong enough on the value of your words not by shoving them down everyone's throats by over the top formatting. And to me I thought "IDDIIIIIOOOOOTS" was an understatement.
this is all very good for the consumer but what about artists, i'd like to know how this would be included in royalties for each end every artist in the world, i cant see how they are going to make that work! I don't think they care much about that. They say they don't even know how much royalties they owe the artists. (See Oct. 11th letter of Richard L. Gabriel).
If I had any stok or option on those companies I would consider selling them now before is too late. I think the Motley Fool investor web site agrees with you.
sorry SONY, I no longer need you. Well said; they must be confusing the American public with someone who gives a damn what hairbrained scheme these corporations can come up with.
I think we're witnessing the beginning of the end of the 'traditional' music company and these sort of suggestions are just spasms from a body that doesn't know it's head has been cut off... You got that right. Within these companies the people who were supposed to come up with ideas and haven't, have to put something out to save their jobs, so they mention something ridiculous like this. I can't imagine there are 6 people left in the US who would have enough trust in these companies to plunk down the kind of money that would be needed to give this any chance whatsoever of making a profit.
2. Don't they realize that their antitrust combination to try to defeat Apple would be a flagrant violation of antitrust law?
3.
Why are they incapable of just trying to compete with someone in a fair and open way?
4. Who in the US would be stupid enough to patronize their new venture and thus subsidize their RIAA lawsuits against the American people.
5. SONY BMG are the guys who just testified in Capitol v. Thomas that it is illegal for people to copy their cd's onto their computers for personal use.
Anyone who would buy anything from these companies is an idiot.
(I bet that the RIAA settles with Ms. Thomas privately, and uses their victory to put fear in other persons who have much deeper pockets.) That would be the smart play, wouldn't it?
17 USC Sec. 106
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under
this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of
the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or
phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted
work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other
audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or
sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted
work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted
work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
(emphasis added)
Notice that it doesn't say "make and distribute copies", just "distribute copies". Distribution is one of the exclusive rights granted to a copyright owner. If you distribute without permission, you infringe.
IANAL. YAONALE. Yes and it says there must have been -copies or phonorecords distributed (which there weren't) and -they must have been distributed "to the public" (which they weren't) and -there must have been "sale[s] or other transfer[s] of ownership, or....
rental[s], lease[s], or lending[s]", which there weren't.
So, out of all of the required elements, the RIAA proved exactly..... none. And under the jury instructions, were required to prove exactly..... none.
Thing is, this juror misunderstood. Defendant was not trying to prove, and probably could not have proven, spoofing. Her lawyer was just showing, on cross examination, that there were many possible alternative explanations for Jacobson's conclusion.
I'm not saying she can't appeal. I'm just saying that if the appellate court doesn't grant cert, it doesn't matter. On the first day of reporting, I was wondering why the legal head of BMG was allowed to testify as to her opinion of what copyright law is. That's simply not relevant. It seems like a lot of irrelevant stuff was allowed in, inflaming the jury.
So the plaintiff did not show file transfer. Could the plaintiff have done so if required? No
Did they have the evidence of actual files being transferred? No
If not, did they have the evidence that the computer in question shared real files and not just file stubs? No Didn't even have evidence that it shared file stubs.
As I understand, they never got to examine the hard drive. Your understanding is wrong. They did examine the hard drive and it did not support their claim.
I was waiting for the cavalry to arrive. Ray, you are the cavalry. I meant on Slashdot, not in the anti-RIAA world. The RIAA lawyers I can handle. It's Slashdotters that are tough.
Am I missing something? Yes you're missing something. I said "unconstitutionality". The Supreme Court has held that jury awards which are more than ten (10) times the actual damage are presumptively unconstitutional. Read this stuff if you want to learn more about it.
I find it very difficult that she is going to proceed, mainly because of the money. I think this highly publicized, and highly absurd, verdict, has been a wake up call, and I think you will money and legal talent pouring into this case from all over the place. If the RIAA gets away with this nonsense, the internet as we know it is going to disappear.
So when will this lawyer be disbarred for obviously, knowlingly, and willingly breaking the law, not to mention bringing disrepect and irreparable harm to the image of the courts and integrity of lawyers? That's for the judges. We did all we could do, which was notify them of what the RIAA had failed to tell them.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way how could you call it "competition"... competitors joining forces to try to defeat someone else's business. Isn't that what you would call "anticompetitive"?
And yes.
It sounds highly illegal to me as well.
1. Have these guys ever heard of antitrust laws?
2. Don't they realize that their antitrust combination to try to defeat Apple would be a flagrant violation of antitrust law?
3. Why are they incapable of just trying to compete with someone in a fair and open way?
4. Who in the US would be stupid enough to patronize their new venture and thus subsidize their RIAA lawsuits against the American people.
5. SONY BMG are the guys who just testified in Capitol v. Thomas that it is illegal for people to copy their cd's onto their computers for personal use.
Anyone who would buy anything from these companies is an idiot.
But they don't usually go for the smart play.
-copies or phonorecords distributed (which there weren't) and
-they must have been distributed "to the public" (which they weren't) and
-there must have been "sale[s] or other transfer[s] of ownership, or
So, out of all of the required elements, the RIAA proved exactly..... none. And under the jury instructions, were required to prove exactly..... none.
Thing is, this juror misunderstood. Defendant was not trying to prove, and probably could not have proven, spoofing. Her lawyer was just showing, on cross examination, that there were many possible alternative explanations for Jacobson's conclusion.
The key line: "I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here."
She was from out of town.
Jammie Thomas has asked me to notify people that contributions to her cause can be made via PayPal at freejammie.com.
Jammie Thomas has asked me to notify people that contributions can be made via Paypal at freejammie.com.
While the motion is pending they have an obligation to alert the judge that the authority they'd sent him is no longer valid.
Great article in Newsday by Glenn Gamboa, Who needs record labels?"
Didn't even have evidence that it shared file stubs. As I understand, they never got to examine the hard drive. Your understanding is wrong. They did examine the hard drive and it did not support their claim.
Our legal system doesn't rest on speculations as to what might have happened; it rests on evidence.
I think you will see a lot of people coming to her aid at this point.
Virgin v. Thomas balance sheet
Income.......0
Expenses
Lawyers.........475,000
Other......... 25,000
Total expenses. 500,000
Profit (Loss)..(500,000)
RIAA Lawyers to clients: "This was a great victory"