The problem with laissez-faire capitalism is that it stops being laissez-faire after a while.
As we learned from the 1920-s, and as we have now learned again from the Reagan - Bush era. It is, put simply, a lie. Unregulated capitalism does not work. It is as much a lie as the "trickle-down" theory.
I wonder how many more times Americans will be idiotic enough to buy into it before they come to realize that in a complex world, where large complex corporations hold economic sway, the word "government" is not a dirty word.
will eventually restrict your ability to post your opinion in a public forum if it differs from what is "acceptable".
You mean like/. moderation system perhaps? -Sure you get to say anything, but no one gets to read it much outside/. group think.
Freedom from legal liability is one thing. Freedom from criticism is quite another. Insulating something from criticism is the same as preventing free speech in others.
the general surplus of internet-specific statutes such as CDA promotes an illusion among internet users, that the internet is fundamentally different and beyond the scope of previous law, a false impression of legal ambiguity that is clearly detrimental to the rule of law.
Interestingly, the "safe harbor" of the CDA was basically a codification of the law existing at the time, which was merely an "internetization" of the non-internet case law existing at the time, so that the CDA "safe harbor" provisions -- while "internet specific" -- are no different than the law that would be applied to a newspaper today, or that would have been applied to a newspaper 15 years ago.
The courts are overloaded because the system is being abused. Until such time as the courts start acting in a decent way against those that are abusing the system the situation will continue to exist - to the benefit of the abusers.
I vaguely recall that there was a concept of "justice" wrapped up in this..
All IMHO, of course, IANAL..
There are already laws in place to protect against the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Name them. (And once you do I will show you why every one you name is entirely ineffective to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits.) The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits and the Big 4 record companies are the best customers for this product. They have spent far more on it than they have on product development.
Well-heeled investor types generally don't like getting told what they're allowed to do with their money. Especially when they're told they're not allowed to put it somewhere where they think it will make them lots of money.
The reality is that 'investor types' could care less about such matters. They put their money where they believe it will make the most money relative to the risk. And if the making of the investment were to put at risk more than the investment itself, but their own assets, they will steer clear. Even if the only exposure were the legal fees incurred in defending a frivolous lawsuit, that is a substantial risk which could run into the millions.
The fact is, this is not a theoretical possibility. This is something that is happening now, ever since the judge in Napster incorrectly allowed the investors to be exposed to the record companies' frivolous claim. The investors did not choose to 'fight for a principle' or 'show the record companies what they could do with it' or show them how 'they don't like being told what to do'; they did what businesspeople do, they settled, to avoid the risk of continued litigation expense and exposure. Since then, some investors have balked at investing in digital music, preferring instead to put their money in other industries, where the competition are not a bunch of litigation-crazy freaks.
Suing individuals for ridiculous sums of money was like a playground bully beating up scrawny kids for their lunch money. It's easy, but there's not much profit in it.
Suing investors who can actually afford to mount a legal defense for similar sums of money is like trying to beat up the principal for his lunch money.
It's not the suing they're interested in. It's the sending a message to angel and venture capital investors, that they should invest in a different industry and stay far away from digital music, that they enjoy. If you're a VC, and you've got 100 different applicants from 15 different industries asking for a $250k investment.... it's pretty easy to decide to take a pass on the digital music startup and go somewhere else.
Lets think about how this would have affected the development of: the personal computer, the VCR, the tape deck, CD burners, torrent distribution, the xerox machine, the printing press...
What's really going on?
RIAA warfare against "piracy?"
or
The RIAA is attempting to buy legislation which would allow them to destroy technologies that allow independent artists to compete with them.
That is their goal. To return to that glorious place they enjoyed for decades. A competition-free zone.
Well all of the lawyers and judges and litigants involved in decisions being handed down on a regular basis would recognize that the safe harbor provision of the Communications Decency Act is alive and well and thriving.
And the vibrancy of internet communications emanating from the US attests to it.
Libel and slander cases have always been cost-ineffective, from a claimant's perspective, as long as I have been working in that field, which is almost 35 years.
While it's great that you're shedding some light on this issue, there is one thing I take issue with:
Communication on the internet is not the "wild west"; it is subject to the same laws as the rest of the world. If someone libels someone, they are held liable under the same principals.
Which laws are you referring to? Those of the US, UK, Australia, etc? Or by some international body such as the UN?
My point is that the internet transcends mere geographical and political boundaries, and consequently any laws on it can always be sidestepped by moving to a content/service provider outside of the country.
While your argument holds up as long as the content/service provider, the defamer and the defamed are in the same country, taking legal action becomes difficult once you bring other countries into the equation. This is demonstrated by the Pirate Bay lawsuit.
I agree that the existence of the internet creates a level of fluidity and ubiquity that confounds attempts to determine which body of law is applicable under which circumstances. But that is a separate issue. And, it may surprise you to learn, it is not a new issue. It is an issue that has existed in libel law throughout the 20th Century. As someone who began working in libel law in 1974, I can tell you that basically the same difficult "choice of law" and "conflict of law" issues existed with newspapers, magazines, television, and radio... any form of communication that can transcend (a) state borders and (b) nations' borders.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article and offer feedback. We have revised the language in that paragraph to clarify the fact that the holding of Reno v. ACLU struck only two provisions of the CDA, rather than the entire statute. We have also corrected the year identified as the CDA's inception, which was 1996 rather than 2007.
Thank you. That evidences a sense of responsibility not often exhibited these days. I'm impressed.
If I was smarter than a lawyer, where would I be?... in a really huge house with the bazillions of dollars I'd be making doing something even more lucrative than law practice!
If you really believe that there is a correlation between intelligence and wealth.... then you haven't met the same people I've met in my life.
Is anybody else tired of following highly public legal cases for several years, only to have them end in secret settlements? Highly litigious entities like the RIAA have full access to their own records of how they settled past lawsuits, but their new opponents have no such information. This hardly seems fair. The outcomes of lawsuits become, in effect, laws we have to live by, and people have a right to know the law. I think there should be a threshold for lawsuits, maybe a certain amount of court time. If it takes longer, the outcome should be made public. After all, the public pays much of the actual costs of operating the court system. I think we're entitled to find out how these stories end.
I agree. And I have no doubt that the RIAA uses its financial might to determine which settlements are confidential and which aren't. Those they want the public to see, are public. Those they want to keep confidential, are confidential. It's important information not only to the public, but also to the defendants in other cases, and lawyers representing them.
But the thing is I can't imagine the law being changed. Our courts are overloaded. The courts need for cases to be settled. And some settlements just wouldn't happen if one or the other of the parties couldn't insist on confidentiality.
Well look I don't know for sure either and it's got nothing to do with "sympathy for Amazon". They sure don't need my sympathy or yours.
All I'm saying [and I'm (a) a non-digital native who had enough trouble trying to attune himself to the 20th century before having to take on the 21st, and (b) a former English Lit major, Classics minor, college newspaper editor-in-chief, and editorial board member of my college literary magazine] is this:
(1) it's tough getting people, and especially kids, to read books these days, due to the allure of electronics; and
(2) when Amazon came up with a way of marrying books to electronics in the form of the Kindle, this was a good thing for people who try to make a living writing books.
Let me correct a few misconceptions in the underlying article and the post. 1. The CDA isn't dead; it's alive and well and thriving. Only 2 constitutionally repugnant sections were struck down by the US Supreme Court. 2. They were struck down in 1997, not in 2007. 3. Communication on the internet is not the "wild west"; it is subject to the same laws as the rest of the world. If someone libels someone, they are held liable under the same principals. An anonymous libel is easier to trace on the internet than it would be in the brick and mortar world. 4. The suggestion that 'online slander' is an 'epidemic' is pure hype.
The world needs more lawyers like you, successfully fighting on behalf of 'the common man' against the big corporations, getting word out to the masses, and just being an all around 'fine chap'.
OK, NYCL: He's been properly brainwashed. You may commence taking over the world now.
Not until you come around as well. I am waiting until all pockets of resistance have been subdued.
Since you discovered Slashdot, Slashdot hasn't been the same either... and I mean that in a good way.
Thank you for your contributions. With you around, the signal to noise ratio is much more bearable.
Yeah but which did I contribute, more signal, or more noise?
You should be nominated (along with PJ [Groklaw]) for the/. Hall of Fame....if we had one!
Thank you for your kind words!
Technically, there is a Slashdot "Hall of Fame" and, I am honored to say, I am in it, being in 8th place on the list of "Most Active Submitters" (which is actually kind of a misnomer; it is based only on accepted submissions; rejected submissions aren't counted). What is even more gratifying, though, is the list of people who have named me as a "Friend" on Slashdot. The list is so long I can barely load the page. If and only if you are confident in the speed and power of your computer, internet connection, and browser, here's the URL.
As long as we have a system where politicians are allowed to receive money from corporations, the politicians will, of course, pass laws favoring their campaign contributors.
And, as long as we have a system where corporations are given all the rights of, but not all the duties of a citizen, the individual will always have to fight a pitched fight.
One day, the average American will figure out that if he doesn't want to give power to the government because a government might not have your best interest at heart, the alternative is invariably that corporations seize the power, and corporations will never have your best interest at heart.
Brilliant comment, arth_1. Hope you get modded to +5 for that insight.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with laissez-faire capitalism is that it stops being laissez-faire after a while.
As we learned from the 1920-s, and as we have now learned again from the Reagan - Bush era. It is, put simply, a lie. Unregulated capitalism does not work. It is as much a lie as the "trickle-down" theory.
I wonder how many more times Americans will be idiotic enough to buy into it before they come to realize that in a complex world, where large complex corporations hold economic sway, the word "government" is not a dirty word.
will eventually restrict your ability to post your opinion in a public forum if it differs from what is "acceptable".
You mean like /. moderation system perhaps? -Sure you get to say anything, but no one gets to read it much outside /. group think.
Freedom from legal liability is one thing. Freedom from criticism is quite another. Insulating something from criticism is the same as preventing free speech in others.
the general surplus of internet-specific statutes such as CDA promotes an illusion among internet users, that the internet is fundamentally different and beyond the scope of previous law, a false impression of legal ambiguity that is clearly detrimental to the rule of law.
Interestingly, the "safe harbor" of the CDA was basically a codification of the law existing at the time, which was merely an "internetization" of the non-internet case law existing at the time, so that the CDA "safe harbor" provisions -- while "internet specific" -- are no different than the law that would be applied to a newspaper today, or that would have been applied to a newspaper 15 years ago.
The courts are overloaded because the system is being abused. Until such time as the courts start acting in a decent way against those that are abusing the system the situation will continue to exist - to the benefit of the abusers. I vaguely recall that there was a concept of "justice" wrapped up in this.. All IMHO, of course, IANAL..
Well perhaps YANAL but YAR.
I suppose that you also expect people to read the articles before responding.
You must be new here.
There are already laws in place to protect against the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Name them. (And once you do I will show you why every one you name is entirely ineffective to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits.) The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits and the Big 4 record companies are the best customers for this product. They have spent far more on it than they have on product development.
Well-heeled investor types generally don't like getting told what they're allowed to do with their money. Especially when they're told they're not allowed to put it somewhere where they think it will make them lots of money.
The reality is that 'investor types' could care less about such matters. They put their money where they believe it will make the most money relative to the risk. And if the making of the investment were to put at risk more than the investment itself, but their own assets, they will steer clear. Even if the only exposure were the legal fees incurred in defending a frivolous lawsuit, that is a substantial risk which could run into the millions.
The fact is, this is not a theoretical possibility. This is something that is happening now, ever since the judge in Napster incorrectly allowed the investors to be exposed to the record companies' frivolous claim. The investors did not choose to 'fight for a principle' or 'show the record companies what they could do with it' or show them how 'they don't like being told what to do'; they did what businesspeople do, they settled, to avoid the risk of continued litigation expense and exposure. Since then, some investors have balked at investing in digital music, preferring instead to put their money in other industries, where the competition are not a bunch of litigation-crazy freaks.
Suing individuals for ridiculous sums of money was like a playground bully beating up scrawny kids for their lunch money. It's easy, but there's not much profit in it. Suing investors who can actually afford to mount a legal defense for similar sums of money is like trying to beat up the principal for his lunch money.
It's not the suing they're interested in. It's the sending a message to angel and venture capital investors, that they should invest in a different industry and stay far away from digital music, that they enjoy. If you're a VC, and you've got 100 different applicants from 15 different industries asking for a $250k investment.... it's pretty easy to decide to take a pass on the digital music startup and go somewhere else.
Lets think about how this would have affected the development of: the personal computer, the VCR, the tape deck, CD burners, torrent distribution, the xerox machine, the printing press...
What's really going on?
RIAA warfare against "piracy?"
or
The RIAA is attempting to buy legislation which would allow them to destroy technologies that allow independent artists to compete with them.
That is their goal. To return to that glorious place they enjoyed for decades. A competition-free zone.
IANAL but I thought the whole point of corporations was to limit investors' exposure to the amount of their investment.
IAAL... and I was under the same impression.
I don't think it's alive and well and thriving.
Well all of the lawyers and judges and litigants involved in decisions being handed down on a regular basis would recognize that the safe harbor provision of the Communications Decency Act is alive and well and thriving.
And the vibrancy of internet communications emanating from the US attests to it.
Libel and slander cases have always been cost-ineffective, from a claimant's perspective, as long as I have been working in that field, which is almost 35 years.
While it's great that you're shedding some light on this issue, there is one thing I take issue with:
Communication on the internet is not the "wild west"; it is subject to the same laws as the rest of the world. If someone libels someone, they are held liable under the same principals.
Which laws are you referring to? Those of the US, UK, Australia, etc? Or by some international body such as the UN? My point is that the internet transcends mere geographical and political boundaries, and consequently any laws on it can always be sidestepped by moving to a content/service provider outside of the country. While your argument holds up as long as the content/service provider, the defamer and the defamed are in the same country, taking legal action becomes difficult once you bring other countries into the equation. This is demonstrated by the Pirate Bay lawsuit.
I agree that the existence of the internet creates a level of fluidity and ubiquity that confounds attempts to determine which body of law is applicable under which circumstances. But that is a separate issue. And, it may surprise you to learn, it is not a new issue. It is an issue that has existed in libel law throughout the 20th Century. As someone who began working in libel law in 1974, I can tell you that basically the same difficult "choice of law" and "conflict of law" issues existed with newspapers, magazines, television, and radio... any form of communication that can transcend (a) state borders and (b) nations' borders.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article and offer feedback. We have revised the language in that paragraph to clarify the fact that the holding of Reno v. ACLU struck only two provisions of the CDA, rather than the entire statute. We have also corrected the year identified as the CDA's inception, which was 1996 rather than 2007.
Thank you. That evidences a sense of responsibility not often exhibited these days. I'm impressed.
It says (Chrome): "This webpage is not available." "Error 2 (net::ERR_FAILED): Unknown error."
Don't say I didn't warn you. It's a very tough page to load. Over 1600 people there.
If I was smarter than a lawyer, where would I be? ... in a really huge house with the bazillions of dollars I'd be making doing something even more lucrative than law practice!
If you really believe that there is a correlation between intelligence and wealth.... then you haven't met the same people I've met in my life.
Many years from now, when you tell your grandkids that you know what an RSS feed is, you are going to blow their minds.
Not really. They'll probably be using some much more advanced technology, like "RCS". ("Really Complex Syndication").
Is anybody else tired of following highly public legal cases for several years, only to have them end in secret settlements? Highly litigious entities like the RIAA have full access to their own records of how they settled past lawsuits, but their new opponents have no such information. This hardly seems fair. The outcomes of lawsuits become, in effect, laws we have to live by, and people have a right to know the law. I think there should be a threshold for lawsuits, maybe a certain amount of court time. If it takes longer, the outcome should be made public. After all, the public pays much of the actual costs of operating the court system. I think we're entitled to find out how these stories end.
I agree. And I have no doubt that the RIAA uses its financial might to determine which settlements are confidential and which aren't. Those they want the public to see, are public. Those they want to keep confidential, are confidential. It's important information not only to the public, but also to the defendants in other cases, and lawyers representing them.
But the thing is I can't imagine the law being changed. Our courts are overloaded. The courts need for cases to be settled. And some settlements just wouldn't happen if one or the other of the parties couldn't insist on confidentiality.
Well look I don't know for sure either and it's got nothing to do with "sympathy for Amazon". They sure don't need my sympathy or yours.
All I'm saying [and I'm (a) a non-digital native who had enough trouble trying to attune himself to the 20th century before having to take on the 21st, and (b) a former English Lit major, Classics minor, college newspaper editor-in-chief, and editorial board member of my college literary magazine] is this:
(1) it's tough getting people, and especially kids, to read books these days, due to the allure of electronics; and
(2) when Amazon came up with a way of marrying books to electronics in the form of the Kindle, this was a good thing for people who try to make a living writing books.
Let me correct a few misconceptions in the underlying article and the post. 1. The CDA isn't dead; it's alive and well and thriving. Only 2 constitutionally repugnant sections were struck down by the US Supreme Court. 2. They were struck down in 1997, not in 2007. 3. Communication on the internet is not the "wild west"; it is subject to the same laws as the rest of the world. If someone libels someone, they are held liable under the same principals. An anonymous libel is easier to trace on the internet than it would be in the brick and mortar world. 4. The suggestion that 'online slander' is an 'epidemic' is pure hype.
The world needs more lawyers like you, successfully fighting on behalf of 'the common man' against the big corporations, getting word out to the masses, and just being an all around 'fine chap'.
OK, NYCL: He's been properly brainwashed. You may commence taking over the world now.
Not until you come around as well. I am waiting until all pockets of resistance have been subdued.
Since you discovered Slashdot, Slashdot hasn't been the same either... and I mean that in a good way. Thank you for your contributions. With you around, the signal to noise ratio is much more bearable.
Yeah but which did I contribute, more signal, or more noise?
I'm sorry to hear that your marriage has suffered. It's been difficult finding a date personally.
Tell me about it. I haven't been able to find a date with anyone other than my wife for 40 years now.
And then, when I started getting involved with Slashdot, I noticed that even my wife began finding me less attractive.
You should be nominated (along with PJ [Groklaw]) for the /. Hall of Fame....if we had one!
Thank you for your kind words!
Technically, there is a Slashdot "Hall of Fame" and, I am honored to say, I am in it, being in 8th place on the list of "Most Active Submitters" (which is actually kind of a misnomer; it is based only on accepted submissions; rejected submissions aren't counted). What is even more gratifying, though, is the list of people who have named me as a "Friend" on Slashdot. The list is so long I can barely load the page. If and only if you are confident in the speed and power of your computer, internet connection, and browser, here's the URL.
What matters is that the opinion... should be in agreement with mine
So I've noticed
Or that it be contrary to yours, in which case it is also likely to be correct.
As long as we have a system where politicians are allowed to receive money from corporations, the politicians will, of course, pass laws favoring their campaign contributors. And, as long as we have a system where corporations are given all the rights of, but not all the duties of a citizen, the individual will always have to fight a pitched fight. One day, the average American will figure out that if he doesn't want to give power to the government because a government might not have your best interest at heart, the alternative is invariably that corporations seize the power, and corporations will never have your best interest at heart.
Brilliant comment, arth_1. Hope you get modded to +5 for that insight.