OK cliffski, let's bury the hatchet. I looked you up, I see that you're not anonymous, and I respect that. I also understand why you have this point of view. I see that you're a small independent guy who designs games, and makes them DRM-free... and is then no doubt betrayed by people who make unauthorized copies instead of paying you the probably modest price to which you are entitled and which you have earned. Someone like you should be protected. And I have never at any time expressed any opposition to copyright law. I have been working in copyright law for more than 34 years. What I am opposed to is the RIAA/MPAA cartel's collusion, violation of antitrust laws, bullying of mostly innocent people, frivolously litigating, making extortionate settlement demands, violating the procedural laws, making false legal arguments, misrepresenting the facts, etc. I have nothing whatsoever against a person like you, or a person like you being protected by the copyright law.
And I can tell you that I have done nothing to deserve the venom you spew at me. When I have a client who actually did commit copyright infringement, we put in an answer fully admitting the copyright infringement, and challenge only the exorbitant damages the RIAA is seeking, which run from 2,600 to 450,000 times the record companies' actual damages.
And if you think the RIAA, MPAA, and other mega corporations are friends of independent guys like yourself, think again. They would squash you in a second, like they have squeezed the life blood out of musicians for so many years. You have much more in common with me, and with the victims of their over-the-top aggression, than you do with them.
wow, you are so delusional you think anyone who disagrees with you must work for a record company.
What a prick.
I make a living making original stuff.
Talk about delusional. I'm sure the stuff you make is completely 'original'.
I do not believe there is any legal standing for the idea that the account holder is responsible, in any way, for the actions that take place on the connection.
You mean like the RIAA telling Ohio University that if the university pays $76,000 to the RIAA's expert witness's company, the letters will stop, and then the university pays, and then the letters suddenly stop?
2. You are a consulting practice not an investigative company.
3. It is not at all obvious why you are anonymous, since your claims are self-laudatory.
In any event, of course the term 'instructions and parameters' could be interpreted in different ways. However, if you'd read the declaration of the RIAA's Bradley Buckles you'd know that in this case it has to be interpreted in the bad way, not the good way. In the innocent way, there would have been nothing to conceal. E.g. if RIAA lawyers said "we would like you go on the internet and catch people who are downloading or distributing our copyrighted song files" -- which would have been perfectly innocent "instructions and parameters" -- there would have been no need for the secrecy that Mr. Buckles was seeking to invoke. But they didn't say that, they said something like "this is how we want you to do it", which is why they needed to keep it secret.
there will be less 'megastars' but there will be more people making a living at their art, instead of having to take 'day jobs' to sustain themselves. Society will be the better for it.
Says you. If that happens, who's going to be surly to me while bringing my double chees[e]burger?
I was merely pointing out that the RIAA doesn't adequately investigate anyone before suing them. Given the limited information we have so far, it appears that the RIAA knows that their methods cannot accurately identify an individual but proceeds anyway. Again, even if this suit isn't successful in the end, the discovery part will shed light on this.
And I was agreeing with you. I guess I should have included the ":)".
There already many cases where this has occurred. Lindor, Anderson, Foster to name a few. However these people that actually persevered in court had to spend years and tens of thousands in legal fees to clear their name. Add to that the documented cases where the RIAA sued people who didn't have computers, dead people, etc. Most people I suspected just paid the fine instead going through the whole ordeal. While it may not be successful, the discovery process may unearth what we have long suspected: The RIAA does not adequately investigates someone before suing them, does not dismiss lawsuits when it appears that they may have erred, and will continue to abuse the legal system in this way.
Well according to this guy their investigative methods are untested, have never been accepted in the scientific community, have never been published, were not subjected to peer review, are completely secret, and... he invented them himself, out of his own head. And according to this guy the "instructions and parameters" for the investigations were given to the investigators by the lawyers.
So why wouldn't you think the RIAA's investigation is reliable, UnknowingFool?
Does it really have to be "all or nothing?" Do I have to turn my back completely on popular culture or roll over and accept anything the big players in the content industry tell me I must accept?
No.
Conversely, is the only meaningful response to their outrageous grab for power to simply take as I please, self-righteously proclaiming that they are evil so I may do as I please?
No.
Keep in mind, too, it's not just "big labels" you would need to boycott if you want to take a principled stand; it is any art that gets to patrons via commercial channels. And that's a lot of art.
Also, as has been said elsewhere, many of us are copyright holders. I'm not just talking about "you own your slashdot comments," I mean many of us produce work that falls under copyright. Do I have to give up my own ability to have a say in the distribution of my work just because some dorks in LA could'nt figure out a new business model that doesn't depend on distribution of little plastic discs?
No
Sorry, I've got to go or I would have more to say on this. Maybe I'll write more later.
I think there is a middle ground, and as soon as these dinosaurs who run the entertainment industry in the US die off, I think we'll all find we can achieve a compromise.
and yes, that is what the riaa is trying to do by using the word "pirate", and yes, they are wasting their time. so you want to be as hopeless and retarded as the riaa? the game the riaa is playing is stupid. you beat them by not playing their stupid game. stop trying to redefine words. they ebb and flow in meaning on their own, at the behest of popular culture, which no one controls. pure folly
Wasting their time? The mainstream media uses the term regularly now. I think they've completely succeeded in their goal of redefining the term. It may be folly to try to resist that, but I'm really not convinced of it. Pointing it out to the media that they're using a loaded term may not always accomplish anything, but I think it might in at least some cases. It shows bias, which is something that should be avoided.
Unfortunately you're right, Danse. The term 'piracy' always meant large scale, wholesale reproduction of exact copies for resale, as e.g. the people who run off copies in their basement. But the PR flacks from the RIAA and MPAA have succeeded in getting newspeople to use the term synonymously with 'copyright infringement' so that a person who downloads a copy of a p2p from a friend is all of a sudden a 'pirate'. (Which is why I'm a little suspicious of the "Pirate Party". Aren't they playing right into the MAFIAA's hands?)
Listening to music does not violate even the current draconian copyright laws.
I don't think the laws are as draconian as many assume; it's the MAFIAA's incorrect interpretation of the copyright laws that is "draconian". Actually the words I would use are "ludicrous", "frivolous", and "fictional".
Get a grip. It's attitudes like yours which make everyone who opposes the RIAA look like a criminal jerk.
Are you sure you meant to say that? That is tantamount to saying that the large majority of people in this country 'look like criminal jerks'. I have never met anyone who ever heard of the RIAA who does not oppose it, except for people who are on its payroll. And I have never met anyone who thinks that 'everyone who opposes the RIAA looks like a criminal jerk'.
A lot of people think it's the RIAA and their aiders and abettors that are 'criminal jerks', such as these attorneys in St. Louis, who just filed RICO counterclaims pointing out the RIAA's extortion, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and these government officials in North Carolina who have summoned the RIAA's investigators to a "probable cause hearing", and these state troopers in Massachusetts who have ordered them to "cease and desist" from their illegal "investigations".
So, just between you and me, I think you may have overstated things a bit. If it's you who thinks that everyone who opposes the RIAA looks like a criminal jerk, well, that's you, and you alone, and maybe this guy.
Is what do these all these "expert" witnesses contribute to the case before the court?
The plaintiff will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes them $1 million. The expert witnesses will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes the plaintiffs nothing (or maybe $6.93).
Well spoken, danzona. I hope you get modded up for that succinct observation (and I hope I don't get modded down as 'redundant' for agreeing with you and for not being able to improve on what you said).
The Music Industry wants to keep its cash cow alive for as long as it can (time is money) even if it requires very expensive lawyers to do it. But sooner or later (later if the Music Industry has its way), the digital music culture will start feeding on public domain music and independently produced and distributed music, then things will change geometrically.
The most interesting factor in all of this is talent. How rare is talent? How much talent does it take to develop talent? The future may help answer this.
In my experience, talent is not rare. Being untalented myself, I am always surprised by it, but there are a great many very gifted people out there who have been underemployed, in the sense that they are not employed to do the thing that best utilizes their special talents. And the reason these very talented and creative people have not been able to make a living at their art has been the 'gatekeepers'... i.e. the MAFIAA. The internet and digitalization have made it possible for the 'gatekeepers' now to be dispensed with. In my view, we are entering a golden age of music, where there will be less 'megastars' but there will be more people making a living at their art, instead of having to take 'day jobs' to sustain themselves. Society will be the better for it.
It happens. It's not like it's a problem, I would rather have seen your submission accepted than mine.
Yeah, I know, but I worked hard on that submission, trying to weave together a bunch of useful links. But what can you do? I guess I get more than my share accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
OK cliffski, let's bury the hatchet. I looked you up, I see that you're not anonymous, and I respect that. I also understand why you have this point of view. I see that you're a small independent guy who designs games, and makes them DRM-free... and is then no doubt betrayed by people who make unauthorized copies instead of paying you the probably modest price to which you are entitled and which you have earned. Someone like you should be protected. And I have never at any time expressed any opposition to copyright law. I have been working in copyright law for more than 34 years. What I am opposed to is the RIAA/MPAA cartel's collusion, violation of antitrust laws, bullying of mostly innocent people, frivolously litigating, making extortionate settlement demands, violating the procedural laws, making false legal arguments, misrepresenting the facts, etc. I have nothing whatsoever against a person like you, or a person like you being protected by the copyright law.
And I can tell you that I have done nothing to deserve the venom you spew at me. When I have a client who actually did commit copyright infringement, we put in an answer fully admitting the copyright infringement, and challenge only the exorbitant damages the RIAA is seeking, which run from 2,600 to 450,000 times the record companies' actual damages.
And if you think the RIAA, MPAA, and other mega corporations are friends of independent guys like yourself, think again. They would squash you in a second, like they have squeezed the life blood out of musicians for so many years. You have much more in common with me, and with the victims of their over-the-top aggression, than you do with them.
Didn't anybody get that I was being facetious? Boy am I bad at humor!
wow, you are so delusional you think anyone who disagrees with you must work for a record company. What a prick. I make a living making original stuff.
Talk about delusional. I'm sure the stuff you make is completely 'original'.
I make a living making original stuff.
Thank you for revealing the reason for your pro-RIAA bias.
I do not believe there is any legal standing for the idea that the account holder is responsible, in any way, for the actions that take place on the connection.
And the United States Supreme Court shares your belief.
This is without a doubt a protection racket.
You mean like the RIAA telling Ohio University that if the university pays $76,000 to the RIAA's expert witness's company, the letters will stop, and then the university pays, and then the letters suddenly stop?
1. You obviously don't work for MediaSentry.
2. You are a consulting practice not an investigative company.
3. It is not at all obvious why you are anonymous, since your claims are self-laudatory.
In any event, of course the term 'instructions and parameters' could be interpreted in different ways. However, if you'd read the declaration of the RIAA's Bradley Buckles you'd know that in this case it has to be interpreted in the bad way, not the good way. In the innocent way, there would have been nothing to conceal. E.g. if RIAA lawyers said "we would like you go on the internet and catch people who are downloading or distributing our copyrighted song files" -- which would have been perfectly innocent "instructions and parameters" -- there would have been no need for the secrecy that Mr. Buckles was seeking to invoke. But they didn't say that, they said something like "this is how we want you to do it", which is why they needed to keep it secret.
It's a tough room!
Tell me about it.
there will be less 'megastars' but there will be more people making a living at their art, instead of having to take 'day jobs' to sustain themselves. Society will be the better for it.
Says you. If that happens, who's going to be surly to me while bringing my double chees[e]burger?
That's easy.
The RIAA lawyers.
I was merely pointing out that the RIAA doesn't adequately investigate anyone before suing them. Given the limited information we have so far, it appears that the RIAA knows that their methods cannot accurately identify an individual but proceeds anyway. Again, even if this suit isn't successful in the end, the discovery part will shed light on this.
And I was agreeing with you. I guess I should have included the ":)".
Isn't one who buys the connection responsible for their endpoint?
Not according to these guys (MGM v. Grokster).
personally I consider you to be an ambulance chasing jerk
Sorry I offended you. Which record company do you work for?
I'm no legal expert but ...
Don't worry. Neither are the RIAA's lawyers.
What the RIAA is doing is in effect the same as a Mob boss shaking down businesses in an area for "Protection" money.
Indeed, and she agrees with that sentiment.
There already many cases where this has occurred. Lindor, Anderson, Foster to name a few. However these people that actually persevered in court had to spend years and tens of thousands in legal fees to clear their name. Add to that the documented cases where the RIAA sued people who didn't have computers, dead people, etc. Most people I suspected just paid the fine instead going through the whole ordeal. While it may not be successful, the discovery process may unearth what we have long suspected: The RIAA does not adequately investigates someone before suing them, does not dismiss lawsuits when it appears that they may have erred, and will continue to abuse the legal system in this way.
Well according to this guy their investigative methods are untested, have never been accepted in the scientific community, have never been published, were not subjected to peer review, are completely secret, and ... he invented them himself, out of his own head. And according to this guy the "instructions and parameters" for the investigations were given to the investigators by the lawyers.
So why wouldn't you think the RIAA's investigation is reliable, UnknowingFool?
Does it really have to be "all or nothing?" Do I have to turn my back completely on popular culture or roll over and accept anything the big players in the content industry tell me I must accept?
No.
Conversely, is the only meaningful response to their outrageous grab for power to simply take as I please, self-righteously proclaiming that they are evil so I may do as I please?
No.
Keep in mind, too, it's not just "big labels" you would need to boycott if you want to take a principled stand; it is any art that gets to patrons via commercial channels. And that's a lot of art. Also, as has been said elsewhere, many of us are copyright holders. I'm not just talking about "you own your slashdot comments," I mean many of us produce work that falls under copyright. Do I have to give up my own ability to have a say in the distribution of my work just because some dorks in LA could'nt figure out a new business model that doesn't depend on distribution of little plastic discs?
No
Sorry, I've got to go or I would have more to say on this. Maybe I'll write more later. I think there is a middle ground, and as soon as these dinosaurs who run the entertainment industry in the US die off, I think we'll all find we can achieve a compromise.
Me too.
and yes, that is what the riaa is trying to do by using the word "pirate", and yes, they are wasting their time. so you want to be as hopeless and retarded as the riaa? the game the riaa is playing is stupid. you beat them by not playing their stupid game. stop trying to redefine words. they ebb and flow in meaning on their own, at the behest of popular culture, which no one controls. pure folly
Wasting their time? The mainstream media uses the term regularly now. I think they've completely succeeded in their goal of redefining the term. It may be folly to try to resist that, but I'm really not convinced of it. Pointing it out to the media that they're using a loaded term may not always accomplish anything, but I think it might in at least some cases. It shows bias, which is something that should be avoided.
Unfortunately you're right, Danse. The term 'piracy' always meant large scale, wholesale reproduction of exact copies for resale, as e.g. the people who run off copies in their basement. But the PR flacks from the RIAA and MPAA have succeeded in getting newspeople to use the term synonymously with 'copyright infringement' so that a person who downloads a copy of a p2p from a friend is all of a sudden a 'pirate'. (Which is why I'm a little suspicious of the "Pirate Party". Aren't they playing right into the MAFIAA's hands?)
Listening to music does not violate even the current draconian copyright laws.
I don't think the laws are as draconian as many assume; it's the MAFIAA's incorrect interpretation of the copyright laws that is "draconian". Actually the words I would use are "ludicrous", "frivolous", and "fictional".
Get a grip. It's attitudes like yours which make everyone who opposes the RIAA look like a criminal jerk.
Are you sure you meant to say that? That is tantamount to saying that the large majority of people in this country 'look like criminal jerks'. I have never met anyone who ever heard of the RIAA who does not oppose it, except for people who are on its payroll. And I have never met anyone who thinks that 'everyone who opposes the RIAA looks like a criminal jerk'.
A lot of people think it's the RIAA and their aiders and abettors that are 'criminal jerks', such as these attorneys in St. Louis, who just filed RICO counterclaims pointing out the RIAA's extortion, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and these government officials in North Carolina who have summoned the RIAA's investigators to a "probable cause hearing", and these state troopers in Massachusetts who have ordered them to "cease and desist" from their illegal "investigations".
So, just between you and me, I think you may have overstated things a bit. If it's you who thinks that everyone who opposes the RIAA looks like a criminal jerk, well, that's you, and you alone, and maybe this guy.
Can I quote you on that?
Only if you include the ":)".
Is what do these all these "expert" witnesses contribute to the case before the court?
The plaintiff will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes them $1 million. The expert witnesses will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes the plaintiffs nothing (or maybe $6.93).
Well spoken, danzona. I hope you get modded up for that succinct observation (and I hope I don't get modded down as 'redundant' for agreeing with you and for not being able to improve on what you said).
The Music Industry wants to keep its cash cow alive for as long as it can (time is money) even if it requires very expensive lawyers to do it. But sooner or later (later if the Music Industry has its way), the digital music culture will start feeding on public domain music and independently produced and distributed music, then things will change geometrically. The most interesting factor in all of this is talent. How rare is talent? How much talent does it take to develop talent? The future may help answer this.
In my experience, talent is not rare. Being untalented myself, I am always surprised by it, but there are a great many very gifted people out there who have been underemployed, in the sense that they are not employed to do the thing that best utilizes their special talents. And the reason these very talented and creative people have not been able to make a living at their art has been the 'gatekeepers'... i.e. the MAFIAA. The internet and digitalization have made it possible for the 'gatekeepers' now to be dispensed with. In my view, we are entering a golden age of music, where there will be less 'megastars' but there will be more people making a living at their art, instead of having to take 'day jobs' to sustain themselves. Society will be the better for it.
It happens. It's not like it's a problem, I would rather have seen your submission accepted than mine.
Yeah, I know, but I worked hard on that submission, trying to weave together a bunch of useful links. But what can you do? I guess I get more than my share accepted.
"I guess when congress sells you a few new laws every year, delaying is a pretty smart business tactic."
I'm not so sure the Obama administration is going to be rubber stamping MAFIAA legislation.
That story quoted NYCL, who it of course called Ray Beckerman.
The bastards.
:)