Just to clarify, the RIAA companies own the rights to the recording, not the song itself. The rights to the underlying song could belong to the artist but usually belong to a music publisher.
I agree with you. I've been collecting a list of links to sources of non-RIAA music which I call Liberated Music. I've added garageband.com to it (I already had Creative Commons in there). Incredible the wealth of music that's out there once you liberate yourself from the monotony of the 4 big record companies.
Correct. See Gary Millin deposition testimony at pages 2-4 of Reply Memorandum of Law, where he admitted making bogus files that looked like song files, and littering the internet with them. He admitted that the only way to tell if it was a real song file was to listen to it from beginning to end.
Yes they do flood the internet with junk files which look like song files but aren't. The only way to tell if it's a real song file is to listen to it from beginning to end. See Reply Memorandum of Law at pages 2-4. As you can see from the deposition testimony excerpted there, the company that 'investigates' for the lawsuits and the company that floods the internet with junk pseudo-song files is the same company.
They have eleven song files they claim to have downloaded from the computer in Ms. Lindor's apartment. But they announced that they are trying to recover damages for thirty eight (38) recordings. Ms. Lindor's says "how can you prove 38 when you only have 11?"
Their "perfect digital copies" line comes up in their responses to followup interrogatories (exhibit B to Reply affidavit of Morlan Ty Rogers).
Maybe you know better than I do why they made such a point of how 'perfect' their 'digital copies' were. Maybe they thought that if the copies were really, really perfect, it wouldn't matter that they didn't have copies of them.
I believe they would have to have downloaded the song files. See UMG v. Lindor (Letters dated August 1, 2006, and August 4, 2006), where they want to be able to say at trial that they are suing over songs for which they do not have the song files, and we are seeking to preclude them.
1. I was adversarial long before I went to law school.
2. If you're looking for a honey-tongued lawyer who tries to make his clients like him, you wouldn't want me for your lawyer anyway.
Interesting, isn't it, that those who "deny" that the election was stolen never "refute" it? Especially here on slashdot, where people are supposed to be all scientific and empirical. When John Conyers submitted his report to Congress, and the bicameral "debate" took place in Congress, the Republicans defending the seating of the Ohio electors never once refuted any of the massive evidence that had been presented. They simply called those complaining, in essence, sore losers.
If the facts are not disputed, they are admitted. Based on the admitted facts, any American who says that what happened is ok is, to my way of thinking, helping to destroy democracy in our country.
1. Yes, it really does matter. 2. I have collected links to hair-raising material on the Ohio 2004 election, and they are just the tip of the iceberg; it was a complete scam. 3. There is a good new documentary coming out, Stealing America, by emmy award winning film maker Dorothy Fadiman.
1. You believe people should take their legal advice from overseas internet download sites that tell you that what they are selling you is legal.
2. You believe people should take their legal advice from Slashdot comments that have been moderated to +3 or better.
3. You are not conversant in the English language and do not understand what someone means when he says that "a US judge will not care whether allofmp3.com is legal in Russia or not".
4. You are an RIAA troll trying to recruit more RIAA lawsuit victims. 5. You are an RIAA troll trying to disparage lawyers so that people will not seek legal advice.
Good comment, fermion. You've well expressed some of the frustration that I've felt, better than I've been able to articulate it. You really summed it up with this one:
"The fact is that most of these questions were nonsensical. Answering them would be like answering what kind of food do the trolls that run your car need."
OK OK I'll be more precise. Boy are you technical.
1. 3 of the 4 members of the RIAA's litigation cartel are foreign corporations.
2. Although the RIAA is bringing and managing the litigations -- presumably to make sure that all of these competitors work in lockstep and no one bolts from the pack -- it brings the actions in the names of the actual recording companies.
My off the cuff reaction is that it would be a non-issue on the question of liability, but might relate in a small way to the damages. I.e., since the quality of the copies is inferior, a few audiophiles like yourself will still insist on buying the originals.
grefeld wrote: "These guys obviously don't have the answers we would like to hear, or perhaps more succinctly, the answers that we need to settle these questions"
Actually the second clause is not a more succinct version of the first, it is an entirely different concept.
Which is really what you meant to say? (a) the answers you would like to hear, or (b) the answers you would need to "settle" the question one way or the other?
If it was the former, I can't help you. I can only tell you what is.
If the latter, I settled the 2 questions that consumed 90% of this forum's time. Question 6 asks if you would be safer to do illegal downloading from a foreign site, and I think my answer reflects that it is "no". Question 7 asks if you have a perpetual listening right, so that you can make additional copies without permission if your first copy is lost or stolen, to which which I think my answer reflects that it is "no".
The questioner in 7 was assuming, and many subsequent commenters were asking if it was so, that one could freely make copies of one's own cd for backup purposes, mp3 player purposes, etc. To that 3rd question I indicated that there was no law one way or the other on it. Some people didn't like that answer. It wasn't "what they wanted to hear", and it didn't help them "settle the question". Can't help that, though: there is no law one way or the other on that subject.
Slashdot Mirror
There were only 9 listed with the complaint. No reason for them to have omitted the other 2 if they actually had them.
Exhibit B is the RIAA's response to the followup interrogatories. It's the 8th document listed in the article.
Just to clarify, the RIAA companies own the rights to the recording, not the song itself. The rights to the underlying song could belong to the artist but usually belong to a music publisher.
I agree with you. I've been collecting a list of links to sources of non-RIAA music which I call Liberated Music. I've added garageband.com to it (I already had Creative Commons in there). Incredible the wealth of music that's out there once you liberate yourself from the monotony of the 4 big record companies.
Correct. See Gary Millin deposition testimony at pages 2-4 of Reply Memorandum of Law, where he admitted making bogus files that looked like song files, and littering the internet with them. He admitted that the only way to tell if it was a real song file was to listen to it from beginning to end.
They're claiming 38 songs, but they can only produce 11 of them. (Actually I don't think even the 11 are legitimate).
Yes they do flood the internet with junk files which look like song files but aren't. The only way to tell if it's a real song file is to listen to it from beginning to end. See Reply Memorandum of Law at pages 2-4. As you can see from the deposition testimony excerpted there, the company that 'investigates' for the lawsuits and the company that floods the internet with junk pseudo-song files is the same company.
They don't have the copyright on the songs, just the 'sound recording copyright' on these particular recordings of those songs.
They have eleven song files they claim to have downloaded from the computer in Ms. Lindor's apartment. But they announced that they are trying to recover damages for thirty eight (38) recordings. Ms. Lindor's says "how can you prove 38 when you only have 11?"
Ms. Lindor is arguing they are limited to 11 times 750.
They are trying to be able to recover 38 times 750.
I was thinking of you when I read the RIAA's responses to our second set of interrogatories the other day in UMG v. Lindor.
They made a big point of saying that the copies they downloaded from defendant's computer were "perfect digital copies". See "Preclusion Motion Filed in UMG v. Lindor; Lindor Says RIAA Cannot Introduce Songs into Lawsuit if it Has Not Produced Song Files", where we asked them, in essence, how they intend to prove that if they can't actually produce those allegedly downloaded files.
Their "perfect digital copies" line comes up in their responses to followup interrogatories (exhibit B to Reply affidavit of Morlan Ty Rogers).
Maybe you know better than I do why they made such a point of how 'perfect' their 'digital copies' were. Maybe they thought that if the copies were really, really perfect, it wouldn't matter that they didn't have copies of them.
Thank you, fragmentate. I too was wondering why I was modified down as flamebait. I appreciate your appreciation of encouraging debate over the facts.
You just said it. That's all they've got.
I believe they would have to have downloaded the song files. See UMG v. Lindor (Letters dated August 1, 2006, and August 4, 2006), where they want to be able to say at trial that they are suing over songs for which they do not have the song files, and we are seeking to preclude them.
1. I was adversarial long before I went to law school.
2. If you're looking for a honey-tongued lawyer who tries to make his clients like him, you wouldn't want me for your lawyer anyway.
Interesting, isn't it, that those who "deny" that the election was stolen never "refute" it? Especially here on slashdot, where people are supposed to be all scientific and empirical. When John Conyers submitted his report to Congress, and the bicameral "debate" took place in Congress, the Republicans defending the seating of the Ohio electors never once refuted any of the massive evidence that had been presented. They simply called those complaining, in essence, sore losers.
If the facts are not disputed, they are admitted. Based on the admitted facts, any American who says that what happened is ok is, to my way of thinking, helping to destroy democracy in our country.
1. Yes, it really does matter.
2. I have collected links to hair-raising material on the Ohio 2004 election, and they are just the tip of the iceberg; it was a complete scam.
3. There is a good new documentary coming out, Stealing America, by emmy award winning film maker Dorothy Fadiman.
OK, here are the possibilities I see:
1. You believe people should take their legal advice from overseas internet download sites that tell you that what they are selling you is legal.
2. You believe people should take their legal advice from Slashdot comments that have been moderated to +3 or better.
3. You are not conversant in the English language and do not understand what someone means when he says that "a US judge will not care whether allofmp3.com is legal in Russia or not".
4. You are an RIAA troll trying to recruit more RIAA lawsuit victims.
5. You are an RIAA troll trying to disparage lawyers so that people will not seek legal advice.
Thanks, Longfinger. Your civilized tone is much appreciated.
Thank you.
OK OK I'll be more precise. Boy are you technical.
1. 3 of the 4 members of the RIAA's litigation cartel are foreign corporations.
2. Although the RIAA is bringing and managing the litigations -- presumably to make sure that all of these competitors work in lockstep and no one bolts from the pack -- it brings the actions in the names of the actual recording companies.
Thanks, catmistake.
My off the cuff reaction is that it would be a non-issue on the question of liability, but might relate in a small way to the damages. I.e., since the quality of the copies is inferior, a few audiophiles like yourself will still insist on buying the originals.
I am not aware of the perfection of the copies being an issue.
Actually the second clause is not a more succinct version of the first, it is an entirely different concept.
Which is really what you meant to say? (a) the answers you would like to hear, or (b) the answers you would need to "settle" the question one way or the other?
If it was the former, I can't help you. I can only tell you what is.
If the latter, I settled the 2 questions that consumed 90% of this forum's time. Question 6 asks if you would be safer to do illegal downloading from a foreign site, and I think my answer reflects that it is "no". Question 7 asks if you have a perpetual listening right, so that you can make additional copies without permission if your first copy is lost or stolen, to which which I think my answer reflects that it is "no".
The questioner in 7 was assuming, and many subsequent commenters were asking if it was so, that one could freely make copies of one's own cd for backup purposes, mp3 player purposes, etc. To that 3rd question I indicated that there was no law one way or the other on it. Some people didn't like that answer. It wasn't "what they wanted to hear", and it didn't help them "settle the question". Can't help that, though: there is no law one way or the other on that subject.