RIAA Gets Nervous, Brings In Big Gun 423
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "I guess the RIAA is getting nervous about the ability of its 'national law firm' (in charge of bringing 'ex parte' motions, securing default judgments, and beating up grandmothers and children) to handle the oral argument scheduled to be heard on Monday, August 4th in Duluth, in Capitol v. Thomas. So, at the eleventh hour, it has brought in one of its 'Big Guns' from Washington, D.C., a lawyer who argues United States Supreme Court cases like MGM v. Grokster to handle the argument. This is the case where a $222,000 verdict was awarded for downloading 24 songs, but the judge ultimately realized that he had been misled by the RIAA in issuing his jury instructions, and indicated he's probably going to order a new trial. But, not to worry. A group of 10 copyright law professors from 10 different law schools and several other amici curiae (friends of the court) have filed briefs now, so it is highly unlikely the judge will allow himself to be misled again, no matter who the RIAA brings in as cannon fodder on Monday."
Nervous? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they're just bringing in the best hired gun that they can. No different from any other company or organization in that respect. This case is absolutely huge to them. Of course they're going to get the best counsel they can. Wouldn't they be foolish if they didn't?
Re:Nervous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Washington DC lawyers are the best (Score:5, Funny)
1) Ban reporters from courtroom
2) Turn off the lights
3) Win!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd even argue that it's un-American. And the good, Jeffersonian kind of American. Every entity in court should have the best representation possible. Monetary issues obviously come into play, but that's the "possible" part.
Re: (Score:2)
They have already established the foolish part by using unlicensed PIs etc.
Yes, Nervous. (Score:4, Interesting)
they're just bringing in the best hired gun that they can
OK, so then why didn't they bring this guy in for the other parts of the trial?
Of course they're nervous.
Re:RIAA thinks it can win... (Score:2)
Suppose they do. Do you have enough energy to be angry, or shall we skip the effort and just wilt?
Re:Nervous? (Score:5, Funny)
Even MS would think twice before sueing a 2000 year old grandmother, on social security, who dont have a clue how to work a computer.
Whoa, slow down, if she's from a civilized part of the world, she probably speaks Latin or Chinese, but maybe not English (which didn't appear until she was at least 1000 years old, how many 1000-year-olds do you know who can learn a new language, so it's hard for her to defend herself in court). And I doubt that she's on social security, since her working years were well before the time that social security was invented. In her day, "social security" meant having a lot of male children. As for computers, she was probably pretty good in her day, but when your hands are gnarled with arthritis, it's difficult to slide the beads on the wires.
A battle of most epic proportions! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A battle of most epic proportions! (Score:5, Funny)
No, they'd make a movie out of it, and it would do brilliantly at the box office. Then they could sue people for copying it.
Ouroboros FTW!
The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
And, this seems like a good stopping point. As of 1976 we had 2 26 year terms for a copyright, the act was amended that year and has been amended so many times since that whole treatises exist just to explain the changes in the law over a 32 year period.
What is particularly outrageous is the Sonny Bono extension - or, Save Mickey from the Public Domain Act. That crazy amendment brought material that was in the public domain back into copyright!
The great argument was that the authors would be more motivated to create with longer royalty periods - the only problem: I haven't heard any new creations from George and Ira Gershwin - the lazy bastards (ok, they're dead). The real reason to extend and extend these terms is to allow the corporate assignees to continue to profit. Disney was a strong backer because Mickey was about to become public domain - and that mouse is worth millions to its corporate masters.
The RIAA has been raking in the loot for 10-15 years now - and it is about time to put a stop to this kind of bs. I think that Monday will be the beginning of the end of the RIAA's tactics.
Re:The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that is what I call stealing.
Anyway, if people think the pace of progress is getting faster and faster (or want it to be so), and that marketing and distribution is better than years ago, then it makes no sense that copyright terms should be getting longer and longer.
Logically they should be getting shorter and shorter.
Re:The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
"That crazy amendment brought material that was in the public domain back into copyright!"
Now that is what I call stealing.
Hell, just extending the term of copyright is blatant theft from the public domain. The works were created under the terms of the social contract that existed at the time. The creators agreed to the terms, the public agreed to the terms when it paid the creators and their distributors. Then the lawyers yanked the rug out from underneath us, kept the money and kept the creations.
Re:The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:4, Interesting)
"Hell, just extending the term of copyright is blatant theft from the public domain. The works were created under the terms of the social contract that existed at the time."
That's a very good point. How is this different from retroactive punishment for a crime that didn't exist when you committed the act? A: it's not -- the only difference here is that the PUBLIC, rather than an individual, is being "punished" by a retroactive penalty which did not exist at the time the "crime" (creation of copyrighted work) was "committed".
So -- extending copyright extends the "punishment" the public endures for allowing content owners their limited monopoly (ie. copyright).
(That didn't come out as clear as I'd hoped, but you get the idea...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...Also saved from public domain by Bono, may he burn in hell for his crimes against the people he should have served.
It's a bit unfair to blame the Sonny Bono Copyright Act on im, as he died 9 months before it passed--- it was named after him posthumously. However, his burning in hell is still appropriate, as (in his stated opinion) he thought copyright should last forever. What a fucking greedy shithead moron. The dangers of electing entertainers to public office...
Re: (Score:2)
Is that in 1928 dollars?
Re:The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't go so far as to end it. A reasonable time - say 30 years - ought to be enough. Romeo & Juliet became West Side Story. Now, Leonard Bernstein's music is still in copyright as is Arthur Laurents (book), and Stephen Sondheim's lyrics....
But, from 1957 when the play opened on Broadway, only Sondheim is still alive. That show is 51 years old and by our current copyright laws it could remain in copyright (for one or more of the three creations) for at least another 50 years. What makes a fine derivative work like West Side Story so special that another Bernstein or Laurents or Sondheim couldn't build onto West Side Story and create another masterpiece - but not for another 50 years?
As for that damned mouse and its creator - Disney needs less income - it owns so much now that it can't keep track of it all.
Re:The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
No. A law that tries to control the right to copy makes no sense in a world where everyone has every day access to copying machines. The direct social benefits of copying cannot be denied by the naive backwards belief that restriction of that copying is the best way to encourage the creation of new works. We now know that is wrong. We now know that, in fact, the exact opposite is true - people create more new works when they have free access to the work of others. Some of us have known this for centuries, but we tolerated the nonsense of the singers and song-writers because there really wasn't much harm being done. Now this absurd conspiracy against the public interest must be stopped.
Re:The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:4, Interesting)
1. That's irrelevant. You can't criminalize the population to keep some ancient business model.
2. Patents and Copyright are not the same thing.
3. The constitution enumerates the powers that the state has the option of using. By your logic the president is required to declare war because the constitution says has the power to.. actually, that might explain why there's some idiot declaring a war every freakin' year.
It proves how stupid they were to begin with (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Using a crappy law firms
2. Using unlicensed PI's to supposedly download songs
3. Using a business model from 50 years ago in a post Y2K world
4. Not figuring out for years how to make money off of music the old fashioned way- by earning it through new ways of distribution, not by suing people.
5. By potentially generating so much case law that even the MPAA will have to give up as well
Re:It proves how stupid they were to begin with (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you miss the point with #4. There is no revenue in recorded music anymore. I know I'm not buying any, and nobody I know is buying any. Anyone that knows how to is downloading it for free. Some folks think they are clever by saying they will eventually buy something when it is the right price and right quality. In the meantime, they are downloading as well and not paying.
I'd like to hear about a business model whereby the artists produce the music and put it out on the Internet for free. Where is the "business" here? If I download and never, ever even think about going to a concert or buying an overpriced T-shirt, where exactly is the "business"? I surely do not see one.
I think the "business" of music is pretty much over. There are the people that know the world owes them an audience because they are so great, and there are the people that love the idea of singing or playing and will do it no matter if anyone pays them or not. We don't need more of the first sort - watch the beginning of the American Idol season for some examples. We may benefit in the end from the latter sort, but they gotta eat too. So there will be very few of them. Too bad, really.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I have membership accounts with emusic.com and magnatune.com. There, now you know someone who is buying music.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I'm going all vinyl. So music files in my computer are of little importance. I love looking around in used record stores, occasionally finding some gems on the cheap.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A week after the album's release, the official Nine Inch Nails site reported over 750,000 purchase and download transactions, amassing over US$1.6 million in sales. Pre-orders of the $300 "Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition" sold out in less than three days of its release.
Ghosts I-IV [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Apparently Turned $570 Million Profit from ITunes Last Year [wired.com]
Quote: "So when revenue is brought back to the States, Billb
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
<Something deep here>
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd like to hear about a business model whereby the artists produce the music and put it out on the Internet for free."
The same business model whereby writers write books, the publisher sells a single copy to a library and fifty people borrow it for free.
The existence of the public library doesn't stop people from buying books. On the contrary, libraries creates book-lovers and sustain the book business.
Re:It proves how stupid they were to begin with (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to hear about a business model whereby the artists produce the music and put it out on the Internet for free. Where is the "business" here?
Patronage. Mass patronage.
Where anybody who would like the artist to produce another creation (album/song/book/poem/architectural design/movie/etc) for whatever reason can put money into a group escrow account. When the escrow account balance reaches the creator's asking price, the money is pocketed and the artist puts the work out on the internet for free.
As for how the artist gets started? Gives it away for free, just like they do today. The only difference is that instead of giving away their first four albums to the MAFIAA for free, they give one (or more if the first one sucks too much to generate an audience) directly to the public.
Re:It proves how stupid they were to begin with (Score:5, Interesting)
I know I'm not buying any, and nobody I know is buying any. Anyone that knows how to is downloading it for free.
I buy plenty of music. On CD if I care about the quality (maybe 4-5 CD's a year). On Amazon if I don't (maybe an mp3 a week, though Pepsi has been upping that a bit for me). On P2P if it's otherwise unavailable (out of print, not digitized).
What possible reason could there be for not spending 89 cents for a song you want that's easy to find, of good quality, and immediately available? I mean, unless you're morally opposed or a hoarder.
I'd like to hear about a business model whereby the artists produce the music and put it out on the Internet for free. Where is the "business" here? If I download and never, ever even think about going to a concert or buying an overpriced T-shirt, where exactly is the "business"? I surely do not see one.
I wrote this [slashdot.org] here about 8 years ago. It mostly still applies. Concert tickets are too expensive - that means there's more demand than supply. So even if you don't go to concerts and buy $40 T-shirts, that has no bearing on the music economy in general. Seriously, if a band you liked was in town playing the local theatre for $10 a seat you wouldn't go?
Re:It proves how stupid they were to begin with (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate the RIAA as much as the next /.er, but let's not forget - that business model fucking rocked. Not for the artists, but for them. And they're not the artists, they're themselves. I know if my seven-figure paycheck depended on screwing everyone else, I'd just ask where the condoms were!
To quote Upton Sinclair,
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Friend of the court? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I didn't know the phrase amicus curiae before, so I looked it up in Wikipedia and... I can't help it, it sounds a tad bit like "lobbying for courtrooms".
How do courts keep this from happening? Or do they, actually?
Re:Friend of the court? (Score:5, Informative)
The Court can decide what briefs it accepts or not.
Arguably, I think the briefs are misfiled and that the process of the amicus curiae is being abused; A good amicus brief should, in my opinion, not be filed in support of any particular side, but in defense if a particular argument of law or explanation of fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps they will incorporate some of its information.
How should I know? I haven't read it.
The difficulty with these briefs is that everybody's got an angle. Everybody wants something, and to be perfectly honest, it's never 'good will toward mankind and advancement of the human race'- or if it is, that's only incidental to the primary purpose.
At least where the plaintiff and defendant stand is clear. Where 'friends' of the court stand is much less so, and for that reason I think they're being (not just h
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know... but I think that, as a question of law, is really too broad a topic. I wouldn't mind a nice brief (and as I said in a sibling comment, I haven't read the briefs, so keep that in mind) that merely sets out the qualifications for how one might mis-instruct a jury and how the elements of this case press upon those elements, without drawing a conclusion- because, to be perfectly frank, I feel that is the job of the Court and the Court alone. Counsel for the parties are allowed to propound a spec
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's true at all. For example, I often go to the Law Library to look up vague topics related to cases- for example, I was there today looking up the law of evidence as it relates to hearsay and exceptions to the hearsay rule. The work as presented in the text was certainly well written, wasn't useless at all, and despite that was entirely unbiased when related to the case at hand (for obvious reasons).
It's possible to write a legal treatise about specific points of law without making it obvio
Re: (Score:2)
I think you brought forward the difference yourself- 'is it appropriate for third parties to present analysis of any kind to the court' is different from 'can people write opinionated analysis?'.
The answer in the latter case is, of course, yes. In the former, I would argue no; that's what the parties to the action are for. They're there to present their cases, and nobody else should be doing so unless they can get themselves added to the action as parties.
As for crowd-sourcing, I think that's a reasonable
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up - amici curiae are fine and were often meant to be used in this manner. The main concern is if the brief has merit prima facie - which can and is determined by the judge when he reads the brief.
Re:Friend of the court? (Score:5, Insightful)
This means that they are not really a problem the way lobbying Congress is a problem, because amicus briefs contain nothing to influence a judge other than the merit of their arguments (and maybe a bit of the perceived prestige of whoever wrote them.)
Re:Friend of the court? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I didn't know the phrase amicus curiae before, so I looked it up in Wikipedia and... I can't help it, it sounds a tad bit like "lobbying for courtrooms". How do courts keep this from happening? Or do they, actually?
For the most part, amicus curiae briefs are encouraged, much like pro bono work. Anyone with enough money can hire lawyers to exhaustively research legally grey areas looking for precedents. Friend of the court briefs are generally used to help even the odds for people without those kind of resources. In this case, for example, an important precedent being discussed and high priced lawyers funded by a huge cartel (convicted of criminal actions) is suing an individual with no real resources. When concerned experts volunteer their time to help the court have all the information from the other side, well I think that is a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the most part, amicus curiae briefs are encouraged, much like pro bono work. Anyone with enough money can hire lawyers to exhaustively research legally grey areas looking for precedents.
This situation is extremely unusual. In this case the judge actually invited amicus curiae briefs [blogspot.com].
And this is surprising because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having good lawyers on both sides can really cut through a lot of the fluff and the misery in a case like this. Of course, if the lawyers deliberately want to exacerbate the problem and the judge isn't on the ball, they can make things worse. But otherwise, why would the RIAA not want the best lawyer it can get?
They've already had their expert "ambushed" with Daubert in the previous UMG vs. Lindor deposition that Ray Beckerman posted. This is 100% a rookie mistake. A competent firm would have briefed the expert and all related parties extensively on Daubert to ensure this doesn't happen. The downside for the opposition is that a better lawyer has a better chance of avoiding these rookie mistakes, so you have to actually argue facts rather than procedure.
Do all of you who rail against the RIAA really want them defeated because they hired crappy lawyers, or do you want them defeated on the merits? I fear that the answer from the Slashdot crowd at large is "either way, doesn't matter" but I think that's a little intellectually dishonest.
In P2P file sharing, copyright infringement is taking place. It is almost certainly NOT fair use. If you don't like it, you really need to be writing your members of Congress to change Copyright law. An issue like Capitol v. Thomas, where the issue seems to have shifted toward the magnitude of damages, is something that can be fought in the courts. And if it is to be fought in the courts, let it be fought on the essence of the issues and not on accidental factors such as the quality of the attorneys involved.
Re:And this is surprising because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do all of you who rail against the RIAA really want them defeated because they hired crappy lawyers, or do you want them defeated on the merits? I fear that the answer from the Slashdot crowd at large is "either way, doesn't matter" but I think that's a little intellectually dishonest.
Personally (and I don't think I'm alone in this) I want to see them defeated because of the tactics they are using. It's not so much that they have crappy lawyers (I couldn't say one way or the other), but that they are using crappy evidence in order to intimidate people into coughing up money. I couldn't say how many people who get hit with these lawsuits are *actually* infringing copyright. But what I can say with some conviction is that the evidence the RIAA is presenting should not be enough to decide the case. Couple that with the shotgun approach to selecting defendants (targets), and it really makes me want them shut down.
Many people on Slashdot (possibly even most) make their living from creating copyrighted works. The people here are in an interesting position of being creators *and* users. Many of us would prefer to see different business models emerge that make life better for users. This, despite the fact that we are creators (imagine that!). Given our position, I don't think it's terribly unusual that we have a bias against distributors, who are neither creators nor users. We would prefer that the link between creator and user be shortened -- to 0 if possible.
So while I understand your point, I think it's quite reasonable for many of us to despise the RIAAs tactics, fear their use of shoddy evidence *and* wish that they (and their ilk) disappear for good. From our perspective, life only gets better without the distribution cartels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In P2P file sharing, copyright infringement is taking place. It is almost certainly NOT fair use.
All of the times I have downloaded music via torrents, I either already own the piece that it was ripped from, or the music was licensed in such a way that this form of distribution was allowed.
Fair use says (or it should, at any rate; it may not have been tested in courts yet) I can have a copy of my music that isn't encumbered with DRM crapware; if I've bought my music outright, then I'm sure as hell entitled to play it on anything I want--not just in itunes and on my iPod Touch.
The RIAA wants you t
Re: (Score:2)
In P2P file sharing, copyright infringement is taking place. It is almost certainly NOT fair use.
I think most /.'ers want "Fair use" to be extended to include any copying/distribution that is profit free.
I know I do.
Re:And this is surprising because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do all of you who rail against the RIAA really want them defeated because they hired crappy lawyers, or do you want them defeated on the merits?
I realize that the case law precedent would be stronger if they were defeated on a thorough review of their arguments, but if a loss by a technicality grants an injunction against their driftnet attack on their own customers, I for one am all for it.
And, aside from the idiots who screwed up in UMG vs. Lindor, they're not crappy lawyers, IMO. They are lawyers who know the law and procedures enough to avoid following the intended purpose. That's not easy to do, unless you divest yourself of your conscience and common sense. After reading NYCL's article summarizing their tactics, I am sure many here would agree that they should at least be investigated and sanctioned, if not disbarred.
That said, if this big-shot lawyer plays by the rules and if he's defeated by reason in the Capitol hearing, this will effectively ice the RIAA's campaign and crush any hope of the same tactic by the MPAA and BSA. I'm thinking NYCL's excited about this, as the RIAA has spent time and resources to try to keep the courts from seeing that they are acting much like the stereotypical mafia boys roughing up innocent people for payment. I'm sure you'll agree that while there are legions of downloaders grabbing infringing content, there are far more people who only use the Web and email without any clue what a P2P application is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is surprising because? (Score:4, Insightful)
Responding to the above (and not your post in general), it's worth noting that:
Victims? If these people had owned the telegraph companies 120 years ago, they would have sued Bell out of existence. If they had been a blacksmith cartel, cars would have been outlawed because auto owners hadn't purchased a license to use the roads, which were clearly designed for horse-drawn buggies.
Piracy? As in rapine and murder? Really? Sounds like guilt bubbling to the surface to me. Deep down, these people know they are thieves. You can't be a middleman and take 70%+ of the profit without stealing from someone.
Back the "good old days" of Napster, I discovered Garrison Starr, David Shutrick, and got hold of the remaining episodes of "The Goon Show". If Napster had been legalized in the same way that cable television was in the early 80's, I would have paid a subscription fee to stay on it. I would certainly pay one now. Why? Because I never would have come across these musicians and comedians otherwise. But the content providers shot themselves in the foot not because of their fear of piracy but because of their desire to control the entire entertainment market from top to bottom. That is what they held out for, that is what they still hold out for, and that is why they want to sue P2P users, censor Usenet, eliminate the public domain, and move to a model where all entertainment is leased on a per-use basis.
In actual fact, downloading is a lot like speeding; nearly everyone is a little guilty, and a few are extremely guilty. But no one in America would claim that a $200,000 speeding ticket is justified. And in the case downloading, it's only the international cartel, clinging to it's outdated business model, that's holding us back from finding a revenue model that will allow legitimate transactions. We would not be having this discussion today if this cartel wasn't using its full force to stop the inevitable: a change in business model which they will not profit from.
jury nullification (Score:3, Informative)
In P2P file sharing, copyright infringement is taking place. It is almost certainly NOT fair use. If you don't like it, you really need to be writing your members of Congress to change Copyright law.
Going to congress isn't the only way to change laws. Probably the most important part of citizenship is on a jury and when on a jury the citizen has the most power. If a juror believes a law is wrong, and don't let any judge tell you otherwise, it's their duty to vote innocent and send the message the law is b
Stop the RIAA!!! (Score:2)
Maybe is time (Score:2)
wake me when you have something new to say (Score:2)
.
Granny is not the victim - the incontinent - drooling - rocking-chair stereotype the Geek chooses to project.
These days Granny is sitting on the Bench.
Little Red Riding Hood has got herself a Wii and is whooping it up in the basement with the Big Bad Wolf - and don't think for a moment she doesn't know it.
The appellate judge is quite deliberately from the removed from the pumped-up moral outrage and melodrama of the courtroom. It is perhaps just as well, be
Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Money is strictly short-term, precedents affect the long-term.
The RIAA want precedents to be set such that they can continue to harass innocent people without regard for the consequences of their mistakes.
THIS IS AWESOME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Now we know they're almost done!
From video game experience, we all know that the boss brings out his most dangerous and powerful weapon right before you win.
Dont get your hopes up; D.C. loves RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
The republican party is prioritizing business interests over consumers any time the have a chance.
And the democrats are all cozy and in bed with the Hollywood elite.
Expect RIAA, Viacom, Hollywood and all other companiers with IP content to consistently get everything they want from Wahington. As a consumer, dont even try to get your hopes up. You will continue to get screwed.
Just as a reminder: After entertainment became a big business with lobbyists around 1920, *no* new copyrighted work have expired. Every 10 years or so, it has been extended by at least 10 years, and is now about two lifetimes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They'd sue the hell out of McDonalds if McDonalds offered Starbucks coffee without a license.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. A transcoding is not a "copy." It bears no relation whatever to the sound or video recording alleged to be infringed. At most the misleading title is a trademark violation. A sufficiently engineered codec could take as input the source code to the Linux kernel and produce as output Britney Spears' latest single too. That doesn't mean that linux is a copy of a computer simulated tonally corrected mixture of a woman's voice with bad background music.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Analog 'copies' have long been considered copies, even thought they really aren't. Dancing around and pretending that you could possibly engineer an encoder that does what you state without ever referring to the original slutmix is just silly non-sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And when you throw in fair use, the same string of bits that might be used for 3 different things. Face it, our laws were meant for an analog world, when you use them in a digital context they just are plain stupid
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. I challenge you to come up with a string of 1000 bits that has 3 different (meaningful!) meanings, let alone a string of 4 million bits, which is much more representative of mp3 compressed audio. If you manage to accomplish that, I challenge you to find 9 more.
(Note that there are [301 digit number starting with 1 that the lameness filter will not accept] different 1000 bit numbers...)
Copyright terms and so forth do not fit current technology, but the digital/analog divergence that you are arguing is the worst kind of logical contortion (the kind where you simply ignore inconvenient facts and information).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why 1000 bits? I wasn't aware copyright has any restrictions on length. Why does it have to be "meaningful" in any human context? In the digital world, every single bit is "meaningful."
I hereby copyright "1110100100101000." In the music word, even a sample of a work is considered infringement so any file that has that binary sequence in it is infringing.
I can guarantee it appears in every single GIF image ever made.
Therefore, all GIF images - or at the very least all images created or copied after this moment - are violating my copyright. Pay me.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to build a database of melody sequences which are in the public domain and use that to pry any modern melody that uses those sequences into the public domain.
The fact that a song contains elements from the public domain does not place that song in the public domain. It just means that the elements that were already in the public domain can be freely reused -- the rest of the copyrighted song is still copyrighted.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be an idiot. Copyright holds the concept of a derived work, and you cannot distribute a work that is derived from a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. An encoded version of a music track is clearly derived from the original music track, and as such distributing it without permission is against the law.
Programmers tend to think that any law which can't be expressed in Perl (or Python or whatever) is too ambiguous to be useful. This is, however, not how things actually work.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Use of "fixed that for you" shall be considered proof that the user is a complete tool.
There, fixed that for you.
By the way... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lawyers in these cases have argued that "making available is the same as distributing," that a single shared song is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and a great many things that are far more absurd than my statement. The law is an ass and the lawyers in these cases are abusing the ignorance of the courts and the rights of the people.
It's time to take back ownership of our network, our computers, our rights to fair use and our right to "progress of science and useful arts" by taking back ownership o
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The first guy to cook a piece of cow loves the way you think.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
but it could be argued that the torrents on the site because they are MP3s and not the original CDs, are different.
No, it couldn't. Regardless of the format, be it MP3, CD, cassette, 8 track cartridge, vinyl LP or Edison phonograph, if the order of notes and chords, lyrics, style, and performance are the same, it's the same as far as copyright is concerned.
Or, to put it another way, if the listener can identify it as the same song, it's the same song. The actual order of 1s and 0s is irrelevant, because they're only a storage medium that has to be translated back to something you can hear. CD and MP3 differ only in the accuracy of reproduction; if encoding to MP3 changed the fundamental nature of the music it would be an utterly useless format.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, all that and even if it wasn't, an MP3 would certainly be a derivative work of the CD.
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, no. In order to qualify as a "derivative work" according to the accepted definition it must be significantly different from the original, but still contain recognisable elements.
Example: the theme for Men In Black is a derivative work because it used a portion of K.C & the Sunshine Band's "Forget Me Nots". An MP3 of "Forget Me Nots" is still "Forget Me Nots", it just sounds a little worse than an uncompressed PCM file.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but even if for the sake of argument one wishes to consider the MP3 different than the original recording that doesn't change anything.
An MP3 file would then be a derivative work and as such could only be made legally by the original copyright holder or somebody licensed the the holder to do the work.
You'd still have to demonstrate that the particular use was qualified for a fair use defense. You've gained nothing at all from the exercise. You'd still be banned from distributing the files without per
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if this was about people actually selling pirated DVDs, it'd be a different story.
This is closer to suing one person for over $10k per cup of coffee they stole.
I'm going to stick with that for the moment, as it's equally unfair to both sides -- stealing a cup of coffee actually deprives someone of potential revenue, whereas stealing a song is just a copy. But stealing a cup of coffee only feeds you (or your caffeine addiction) for a day -- you'll be back later, either to steal or to buy -- whereas stealing a song means you can listen to that same song again, as many times as you like.
But no matter how you want to spin it, stealing a cup of coffee does not carry a $10k fine. Stealing a song shouldn't, either.
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually stealing a CD doesn't get you into that, it's copying that does.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought about that as I was walking out of a store last night, past a rack of CDs and DVDs for sale. If I were to swipe a DVD on my way past, and got caught, the consequences for shoplifting would be absolutely trivial, compared to getting caught downloading the same movie over the Internet, which takes longer, doesn't include the bonus features, and would probably require me to burn it to a DVD-R to free up space on my file server. And yet, stealing a DVD actually deprives the store of physical property that they paid for, while downloading via BitTorrent doesn't harm anyone.
How many people are going to switch from downloading to shoplifting because they're concerned about the possible repercussions?
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Their main revenue stream is out-of court.
Really? Is that true anymore? I haven't bought a single RIAA CD in 10 years and I don't think anyone I know has either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly (or gladly) enough people do still buy CDs. I know if it is a band I like, that I do.
The problem is, if (assuming) CD sales are declining, it's just more ammo for the RIAA to push for more legislation to "combat" their flawed sales model.
One thing that always gets a laugh out of me are all the people who claim they refuse to buy RIAA member released CDs thinking that will somehow stop the RIAA - when the truth is, as evidenced by too many statements made by the RIAA, they blame every decline in CD
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because telling the courts how to do their jobs really worked well for his gitmo problems.
Judges are not perfect and in cases where they set aside laws they face a significant amount of backlash from people with no legal knowledge accusing them of judicial activism. Yes, sometimes the rulings absolutely boggle the mind such as whenever the SCOTUS chooses not to set or affirm precedence, but like it or not they do have the right to set aside laws that they deem to be in violation of the constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that always gets a laugh out of me are all the people who claim they refuse to buy RIAA member released CDs thinking that will somehow stop the RIAA
I don't buy RIAA CDs, but I do buy quite a few other CDs. If more people did the same, then the non-RIAA labels would be able to say 'our sales are up' whenever the RIAA says 'CD sales are down!'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The post you replied to was not saying their main revenue stream is selling CDs, it was saying their main revenue stream is getting people to settle out of court rather than going to court and possible having to pay more plus waste a bunch of time.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Back before the Internet, copying a song from a record onto a cassette might deprive the RIAA member of a single sale. If that was what we were talking about, you would be correct.
This is not suing someone for downloading a song. This is about putting the song up for everyone on the Internet to download - potentially at least thousands or tens of thousands of people. So comparing it to stealing a single cup of coffee isn't quite correct. It is a lot closer to stealing hundreds of cups of coffee, maybe more.
The problem is, nobody knows how many people downloaded from Ms. Thomas. Nobody. Not even Ms. Thomas. Could be nobody. Could be the entire Internet-using population of the world. Nobody can find out. According to some, this means her liability should be ... nothing. I'm not sure that makes sense either.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not suing someone for downloading a song. This is about putting the song up for everyone on the Internet to download
I was going by TFS, which says, and I quote:
This is the case where a $222,000 verdict was awarded for downloading 24 songs
Furthermore, "making available" has, in fact, failed in court, at least once -- which means that they would have to show that he was actually distributing it.
The problem is, nobody knows how many people downloaded from Ms. Thomas. Nobody. Not even Ms. Thomas. Could be nobody. Could be the entire Internet-using population of the world. Nobody can find out.
Not strictly true. Depends what kind of logs the filesharing program kept, or her ISP.
According to some, this means her liability should be ... nothing.
I like to call it "innocent until proven guilty", but apparently, this doesn't apply to civil cases.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the case where a $222,000 verdict was awarded for downloading 24 songs
RTFA. RIAA downloaded 24 songs from her.
Not strictly true. Depends what kind of logs the filesharing program kept, or her ISP.
And you are giving the RIAA the logs from your computer? Her ISP is not logging her file sharing activities.
I like to call it "innocent until proven guilty", but apparently, this doesn't apply to civil cases.
No, it does not. You are correct. One example of Oranthal, who was found innocent of double murder in a criminal trial, but guilty in a civil trial. At a civil trial the burden is not on the prosecutor to prove guilt. The court tries to determine what the most likely thing to happen was, then applies what they feel are the appropriate damages.
Re: (Score:2)
And you are giving the RIAA the logs from your computer?
If subpoena'd, I think I'd kind of have to, right? My impulse is to destroy them, but that would be tampering with evidence.
Her ISP is not logging her file sharing activities.
And you know this how?
ISPs are starting to do deep packet inspection, which means some will have exactly these kinds of logs.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Informative)
This is the case where a $222,000 verdict was awarded for downloading 24 songs
RTFA. RIAA downloaded 24 songs from her.
And they were authorized by the copyright holders to download them.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And they were authorized by the copyright holders to download them.
Unfortunately she wasn't authorised to upload them. All this means is that in this particular transaction the RIAA can't be sued for their part.
innocent until proven guilty (Score:3, Informative)
I like to call it "innocent until proven guilty", but apparently, this doesn't apply to civil cases.
Unlike criminal cases where guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in civil cases it only require a preponderance of evidence or some such. That's why OJ won his criminal case but lost the civil case.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this is actually like buying the newspaper and then leaving it on a bench in the park, for (potential) people to read.
You don't get sued if you leave the newspaper now, do you?
Not all people that see the newspaper will read it (download but never play or not download at all).
One person may actually take the newspaper and throw it in the trash (download and delete right away).
Other person may take it from the bench simply because he spilled coffee on his copy and he wants a better newspaper (download for
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Only on Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, that Ray Beckerman, what a poser. *facepalm*
Mod parent down pls, kthx.
Re:Only on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually... he's an incredibly respectable lawyer who is incredibly knowledgeable on the subject, and writes the entire story based off good, solid facts. His only fault is for using a good lead-in sentence to get you hooked.
Re:Only on Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
I think we should all aspire to be someone who's only fault in a summary is using a good lead-in sentence. Thanks Ray!
I wish that were my only fault, but I have many others. Actually, I'm not even that good with lead-in sentences; I think I just got lucky on this one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But I did mean what I said. He's unintentional cannon fodder. They aren't bringing him in getting him wiped out; they're arrogant enough to think he might be able to get this judge to humiliate himself a second time. But I'm predicting the result will be the same, only exponentially more embarrassing than it would otherwise have been had they brought in the original cannon fodder, instead of the high powered replacement c
Why not both? (Re:Cannon fodder?) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say this guy is going to 'screw up his career'; his career is going very nicely, and his RIAA client is dumb enough to keep on using his firm, which has accomplished exactly nothing. When the Big 4 record companies are in Chapter 11, then they'll probably change lawyers.
The reason this guy won't be enhancing his