Lessig, Zittrain, Barlow To Square Off Against RIAA 288
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's case in Boston against a 24-year-old grad student, SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, in which Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School, along with members of his CyberLaw class, are representing the defendant, may shape up as a showdown between the Electronic Frontier and Big Music. The defendant's witness list includes names such as those of Prof. Lawrence Lessig (Author of 'Free Culture'), John Perry Barlow (former songwriter of The Grateful Dead and cofounder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation), Prof. Johan Pouwelse (Scientific Director of P2P-Next), Prof. Jonathan Zittrain (Author of 'The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It'), Professors Wendy Seltzer, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey, and others. The RIAA requested, and was granted, an adjournment of the trial, from its previously scheduled December 1st date, to March 30, 2009. (The RIAA lawyers have been asking for adjournments a lot lately, asking for an adjournment in UMG v. Lindor the other day because they were so busy preparing for the Tenenbaum December 1st trial ... I guess when you're running on hot air, you sometimes run out of steam)."
Zit Train? (Score:5, Funny)
I bet he had a fun childhood.
Re:Zit Train? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel for him. Can you imagine how sick I got of hearing "Oh, McGrew, you've done it again?"* Of course, my classmate Charlie Salmon** had it worse than me ("Sorry, Charlie")
*For those of you non-geezers out there, I was in sixth grade at the time, early'60s. There was a popular TV cartoon then called "Mister Magoo" about a nearly blind old man who was too vain to wear glasses, and of course I wore coke-bottle glasses.
**Charlie Tuna was new then, he's made a comeback in recent years. He's the "Chicken of t
Re: (Score:2)
-100 wrong brand, skimpy explanation.
StarKist.
They don't want tuna with good taste, they want tuna that tastes good.
Solly, Cholly (Score:2)
Charlie Tuna was new then, he's made a comeback in recent years. He's the "Chicken of the Sea" brand tuna mascot
Last time I checked, Charlie was on StarKist [starkist.com], not COTS.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you imagine how sick I got of hearing "Oh, McGrew, you've done it again?"
About as sick as I got of "like Captain Kirk? Aye-aye! HAR HAR HAR" as ten thousand successive wits invented the joke for the first time.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:5, Insightful)
let's remember that Lessig doesn't want to abolish copyright, but simply restore short terms.
I didn't think the argument was about 'sensible' copyright as opposed to the current life +75 years copyright abomination of common sense.
It may not be such a bad thing to have sane copyright laws, reasonable first sale doctrines, and appropriate penalties for consumer violations.
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:4, Insightful)
It may not be such a bad thing to have sane copyright laws, reasonable first sale doctrines, and appropriate penalties for consumer violations.
It wouldn't be such a bad thing to have sane copyright laws. In fact, it wasn't when we did.
The disapproval of copyright law has arisen as a result of the changes (bastardizations?) that have occurred in recent decades. No one complained about copyright when it first came into existence. If we put copyright back to the way it once was, most of the complaining will go away.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:5, Interesting)
but simply restore short terms
The problems with the copyright system aren't just about getting sumthin' for nuthin'. It's about the inevitable abuses of the copyright owners.
A hyperbolic example: having to pay royalties to the RIAA because you sang "Happy Birthday to you" at your friend's party. Some may even say that the RIAA's asking settlements constitute "cruel and unusual punishment".
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:4, Interesting)
I will pay for the media when the content providers develop reasonable business models. I want to enjoy what I pay for on any device that I own without having to satisfy pointless software and hardware DRM requirements and other annoyances such as being forced to sit through previews.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once they do, they will see how few consumers (approximately 0%) are willing to purchase music for personal use under that kind of restriction.
Piracy will become the -only- channel for consumers to personally get music, since not a single consumer will purchase a song good for only one play. Their business model collapses, hopefully chapter 11 ensues, new management enters, abolishes overpaid execs.
Sanity can return to the music indust
Re: (Score:2)
It would be quite amusing when they post their first quarter profits after adopting fully such a model.
Then they'll blame it on piracy and the process begins anew ;)
Luckilly, it seems that each iteration is beginning to favor the consumer rather than than the content providers, and then the RIAA will run out of steam as the summary suggests.
Jukebox (Score:4, Funny)
they will see how few consumers (approximately 0%) are willing to purchase music for personal use under that kind of restriction.
Citation needed [wikipedia.org].
Not in this day and age (Score:3, Insightful)
Their business model collapses, hopefully chapter 11 ensues, new management enters, abolishes overpaid execs.
Not in today's United States. Federal bailout. It's the new model for capitalism these days.
Incompetent execs? Outdated business model? Are you selling something that was great in the 80's but sucks today?
Federal bailout. After all, we can't have these overpriced incompetent execs making the unemployment numbers worse, can we?
I'm only halfway kidding. I would not be surprised if these
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:4, Insightful)
The proper response to a law that you disagree with is not to disobey the law.
If a law is obeyed there is no reason to change it. It took millions of people drinking illegally for years to get Prohibition rescinded.
Otherwise we would have people murdering others out of principle.
That's the fourth box. Content providers are probably safe at least until the people exhaust the soap, ballot, and jury boxes.
If you disagree with the laws about downloading material, then you should just not listen to the music period.
Listening to music does not violate even the current draconian copyright laws.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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".
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:4, Informative)
The RIAA holds copyrights on recordings. The copyright on songs like Happy Birthday is held by songwriters' associations like BMI/ASCAP.
BMI and ASCAP are Performing Rights Organizations, and as such don't hold copyrights. They administer the payments of performance royalties to copyright holders.
The "Happy Birthday to You" copyright is held by Time Warner.
A question about Happy Birthday logistics (Score:3, Interesting)
How is it possible to hold a copyright on Happy Birthday? The lyrics change every time you sing it.
What does their copyright look like?
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday dear *
Happy birthday to you.
Or have they filed millions of copyrights?
Copyright 2234257612, Happy Birthday to You, Aaby version.
...
Copyright 2234257613, Happy Birthday to You, Aaron version.
Copyright 2234257614, Happy Birthday to You, Abe version.
Re:A question about Happy Birthday logistics (Score:4, Informative)
Or have they filed millions of copyrights?
Copyright 2234257612, Happy Birthday to You, Aaby version.
Copyright 2234257613, Happy Birthday to You, Aaron version.
Copyright 2234257614, Happy Birthday to You, Abe version.
They only need a copyright on one version, and all the other versions are derivative works, which is a reserved right under copyright.
That's why you can't make a proprietary Linux kernel by changing one variable name.
The Name Game is the same way.
The stupid part isn't being able to copyright a song that has a lyric that changes every time. The stupid part is that it's such a fundamental part of our culture that most people don't even realize it's copyrighted, and yet it's going to be for quite a long time yet.
Re:A question about Happy Birthday logistics (Score:4, Informative)
The stupid part is that it's such a fundamental part of our culture that most people don't even realize it's copyrighted, and yet it's going to be for quite a long time yet.
Until 2030, as it was registered in 1935, if we assume that copyright is not lengthened again. But for us to assume would make an ass out of u and me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Additional Additional Nit: Give them time.
Before long if your RMIM (Rectal Music Industry Microphone) detects Happy Birthday being sung within 100 yards of you, it'll automatically show up as a charge on your credit card.
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:4, Insightful)
No one in their right mind on Slashdot should want to abolish copyright. As authors of free software under licenses like the GPL, we actually depend on copyright law to keep our creations free.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't possibly think Stallman would be happy to abolish copyright. The entire purpose of the GPLv3 was to stop people from hiding changes in things. With no copyright, I could take any GPLed program, improve it to a point that people would want to use it in mass, and then not release any code or anything. In other words, Listen to what Stallman has to say about the BSD license.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With no copyright, I could take any GPLed program, improve it to a point that people would want to use it in mass, and then not release any code or anything.
If you do "not release any code", you're running a server. On the other hand, if you publish executable code but not source code in an environment with no copyright, expect people to disassemble, comment, and document the shit out of your binaries in their free time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OK, so I obfuscate the code before compiling it to make it difficult and they will always be 10 steps behind me with less then usable crap going around.
Reverse engineering isn't as easy as saying it. Look at SAMBA in which they had tried for how many years to reverse engineer some of Microsoft's authentication schemes just to reliably be on a windows domain network let alone participate as a server. Look at the open source exchange boxes and clients and how they still haven't really got it.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL etc. is copyright defending against copyright. (Score:3, Informative)
No one in their right mind on Slashdot should want to abolish copyright. As authors of free software under licenses like the GPL, we actually depend on copyright law to keep our creations free.
But what we're keeping them free from is mainly compilation copyrights.
The problem is that software couldn't be safely released into the public domain because somebody else could fix a bug or make a useful mod, copyright the fix or upgrade, and everybody else (including the original author) are hosed. They can't fix
Re:GPL etc. is copyright defending against copyrig (Score:2)
Heh. Described a different copyright problem than I named.
Compilation copyrights are copyrights on collections of otherwise free (i.e. public-domained) works. A bad guy could also get a copyright on a piece of freed software by including it with several other pieces in a distribution and copyrighting that.
Both this and copyrights on derived works based on a public-domain work are copyright recapture. Both are defended against by open licenses built on copyright. And both cease to be a problem if copyrig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you on what these copyrights cover.
But if one copyrights the fixes or upgrades to a software work, it gives them standing to claim that an equivalent fix or upgrade infringes their copyright.
Similarly, copyrighting a "compilation" of a set of otherwise free works - for instance, a Linux distribution - would give the holder of that copyright standing to claim that another, later, linux distribution was an infringing work derived from theirs.
Even if the claim is provably bogus the ability to asse
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The primary, and completely valid, reason to dislike the RIAA is that they harass innocent people and cost them a lot of money. They've sued individuals who didn't even own a computer. If the RIAA carefully used ethical methods, and not the shotgun "John Doe" approach they're famous for, they would have a lot more support from the Slashdot crowd. Like the DEA, they don't care at all if they've gone after the wrong person.
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Do you think slashdot is just a bunch of people who want to abolish copyright altogether? No copyright means the gpl is no longer enforceable. Essentially, all things would be public domain. No copyright hurts a lot of things.
The consensus Im seeing with geeks and non-geeks alike is a sensible copyright limit and sensible damage caps. We should absolutely be cheering these guys on for what they are doing. and unlike your extremist position, they have a chance of winning and changing minds.
>He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.
The idea that any sensible person, let alone someone of Lessig's stature, would support something like that is beyond ridiculous. People dont mind paying fair prices and owning what they buy. The fight against the RIAA isnt to abolish copyright, its to protect consumers and to stop corporations from using the courts as a debt collection service.
Re: (Score:2)
Also to limit time. Life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years for a work of corporate authorship, is just obscene.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear.
Unfortunately, part of the structure of copyright law is its explicit recognition that a game of whack-a-mole is impractical as an enforcement tool if damages are limited to the actual damages from the particular infringement that is caught and successfully prosecuted - because only a tiny fraction of those infringing will be caught. So it provides a draconian minimum penalty to serve as a deterrent and to help make up for the losses on the moles that are missed.
Whether this is the right thing to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key statement in the GP post that you overlooked is "people don't mind paying fair prices and owning what they buy".
In other words, some people download so they can actually use the content they have paid for, because it's harder to break the artificial restrictions (i.e., DRM) yourself than just download something without those restrictions.
Some people also download because they don't want to pay $20 for the crapshoot that new movies are. It's sort of like paying on the way out of a movie theater if y
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I just finished reading his book Creative Commons (you can download it here [free-culture.cc]). I have to say I agree with just about everything he says in the book.
I think that if all his reforms were instituted, there wouldn't be an "abolish copyright" movement. If copyrights were truly limited, most of what is downloaded would be free to download anyway.
The main thrust of the book is that the "permission culture" (as opposed to "free culture") harms creativity itself, something I've also been preaching.
Have you hear the Kidd Rock song "all summer long?" It starts with a note-for-note and sound for sound copy of Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London and copies much of Skynard's Sweet Home Alabama (the song is about drinking whiskey and smoking dope and having sex while listening to Sweet Home Alabama). The Zevon start is a very creative statement about the fact that the two songs use the same chords and sound a lot alike, something he isn't alone in noticing (a friend of mine who plays in bars does a medely of those two songs and a third I can't think of right now). If he wasn't on the same label as Warren Zevon and Lynard Skynard, there would be hellishly expensive lawsuits. It isn't right that no independant artist could have recorded a similar song.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, this is one of the main thrusts of why the MAFIAA is trying to prop up their business model though lawsuits and buying legislators. If they have copyrights that are perpetual, or at least so long that they may as well be perpetual, no one will be able to create or even express *anything* without their permission an
Re:Before you start cheering them on... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, no. Kid Rock actually licenses his music from other when he uses it. He didn't just create a song that took parts of other people's works then think no one would care, I saw him explain this a while back when he did a cover of a Metallica song. About the only thing having the same song label (if that is true) has to do with it is perhaps more favorable licensing agreements or access to the artists.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
About the only thing having the same song label is that the label owns the copyright to the recording. Paul McCartney tried to buy the copyrights TO HIS OWN SONGS from the label, but was outbid.
Re: (Score:2)
Before those of us here who love to download copyright films and music at no cost start cheering these men on who challenge the RIAA, let's remember that Lessig doesn't want to abolish copyright, but simply restore short terms.
Shortening the term of copyright is a sensible and fair objective. I still fail to see why copyright should have a longer term than a patent (20 years maximum).
He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.
Follow that path, and the production of good media will drop in quantity, while the majority of new media will be of even lower quality than today - think of user-generated content on youtube, for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are joking. If not, who is this "we" who think they should get whatever media they want whenever they want for no cost?
What I want is copyright laws that serves the needs of copyright holders and the public equally. Shorter copyright terms, allowances for fair use and penalties for infringement that are more in line with the actual damages would be a good start.
If you just want to be a freeloader, you de
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are joking. If not, who is this "we" who think they should get whatever media they want whenever they want for no cost?
I'm not sure if this was the intent of the original poster it sounded a bit like satire against the slashdot community. I may be wrong though. In that light, the comments on articles like this tend to include a large number of people who admit to downloading copyrighted works. Some justify it by saying that they're "screwing the MAFIAA" or "making a point by not buying their stuff". I think a boycott loses it's teeth when the boycotters aren't actually boycotting the product, they just aren't paying for it
Re: (Score:2)
Lessig has a point. Copyright does actually serve a purpose... it helps to ensure that the artists get paid for their work. This allows them to continue producing work, and provides incentiv
Re: (Score:2)
Since the mainstream in the US on copyright is to increase terms to infinity (less one day, to let the robed 9 declare it OK), increase scope nearly as much, and increase penalties to the point where you'd get a lesser term for shooting a record company executive than copying one of t
That's not what we want (Score:2)
He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.
Short terms is what we actually do want. Copyright and patent.
Make your money off of something when it's new. Let a few years pass. Then it goes into the public domain.
How is this a bad scenario? Sounds like a little slice of heaven to me.
Re: (Score:2)
He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.
I beg your pardon? Why are you putting words in our mouths?
I don't want whatever media whenever at no cost. I want to buy a copy of a song or movie at a reasonable cost (pennies on the download, dimes for a hardcopy) and listen to that copy on my computer, in my car, in my house, while walking the dog, whatever, and make a backup copy just in case. And I want those things to be easy to do. Easy for me. And easy
Not surprising at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't just steamroll a group like that with a single "cease and decist or we'll ruin you" email.
Dangit! *closes exchange*
Re: (Score:2)
That presumably matters if you're paying your lawyers.
Is this pro-bono or not? Anyone know?
Re:Not surprising at all (Score:4, Informative)
Is this pro-bono or not? Anyone know?
My guess is yes. The Judge specifically asked Prof. Nesson to take the case. It's in this transcript [blogspot.com], where she asks Mr. Tenenbaum if he'd been contacted by Prof. Nesson yet.
For mainstream spin see... (Score:5, Informative)
I submitted a story about this Monday, Constitutionality of P2P law "under attack" (rejected) after seeing it in an AP story in the Chicago Tribune. That story quoted NYCL, who it of course called Ray Beckerman. I wondered at the time why he hadn't submitted it himself.
But at any rate, for the corporate media spin on this, here are a few links:
Billion Dollar Charlie vs. the RIAA [boston.com]
Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case [nytimes.com]
Lawsuits Brought by Music Industry Are Unconstitutional, Lawyer Says [findingdulcinea.com]
Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits (AP) [google.com]
Law Professor Takes on RIAA [thecrimson.com]
Prof: Penalty unfair, will help with $1M download lawsuit [bostonherald.com]
RIAA defendant enlists Harvard Law prof, students [arstechnica.com]
Harvard Professor: File-Sharing Lawsuits Unconstitutional [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I submitted a story about this Monday, Constitutionality of P2P law "under attack" (rejected) after seeing it in an AP story in the Chicago Tribune. That story quoted NYCL, who it of course called Ray Beckerman. I wondered at the time why he hadn't submitted it himself.
I had submitted the story about Prof. Nesson entering this RIAA litigation [slashdot.org], but the Slashdot editors chose someone else's story.
Re: (Score:2)
It happens. It's not like it's a problem, I would rather have seen your submission accepted than mine.
Re:For mainstream spin see... (Score:5, Funny)
That story quoted NYCL, who it of course called Ray Beckerman.
The bastards.
:)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can I quote you on that?
Only if you include the ":)".
Re: (Score:2)
But at any rate, for the corporate media spin on this, here are a few links:
Billion Dollar Charlie vs. the RIAA [boston.com]
Hmm, the story you linked on Slashdot's coverage refers to Slashdot's coverage. This must be some kind of trick!
If they'd stop putting a bad taste in my mouth... (Score:5, Insightful)
I might stop being spitting mad.
I hate:
1. DVD's that lock you out of fast forwarding through the crap (long intros, FBI warnings, previews, etc).
2. Stupid itunes making it a hassle to give my wife a copy of something WE own legally (or often was free in the first place).
3. Anti-competitive prices on CD's, and music in general. There have been findings of fact showing anti-competivie behavior, but nothing done to stop it.
4. CD's that try to install crap on my machine (yes, you Sony).
5. DVD's that all prevent me from being able to make fair use of their content (using short clips for example) without becoming a criminal.
6. Retarded EULA's.
I want to own my own shit again!
I can't wait until my clothing starts coming with FBI warnings that the design is trademarked, pateneted and that I may only wear the shirt before Labor Day, and before 8 PM on weeknights. You just wait.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If they'd stop putting a bad taste in my mouth. (Score:4, Insightful)
I had posted that story to a photography forum I'm a member of and someone took the initiative to contact Toyota's legal department. They're backpedaling now on their original claim:
Translation: We found a couple of legitimately infringing photos on your site but rather than give you specifics we decided to be lazy and just order them all down. We figured you'd just roll over and take it, but then you had to spread the word. Now we're facing a ton of bad PR so we're going to limit our claims to just those originally infringing photos.
Re:If they'd stop putting a bad taste in my mouth. (Score:5, Funny)
I can't wait until my clothing starts coming with FBI warnings that the design is trademarked, pateneted and that I may only wear the shirt before Labor Day, and before 8 PM on weeknights.
That's absolutely reasonable. When you wear that shirt, you're representing Tommy Hilfiger and are, therefore, impacting the future sales of that brand. By wearing that white shirt after labor day, you're in effect saying that the Hilfiger brand itself is out of style, causing irreparable and immeasurable damage. This theft of future sales is obviously wrong and it needs to be stopped. Since there's no telling how many days you've warn that shirt in a damaging way, and there's no telling how many people were negatively impacted, I think it's entirely fair to set the minimum damages to $15,000 and the maximum at 2% of the brand's gross yearly earnings (even though the damages may be much, much greater).
Also, since clothing brands are named after the person who designed them, and by wearing them incorrectly, we're going to start calling the improper wearing of clothes "Assassination" instead of the more tame "bad style". The Designer Assassination Prevention Act of 2009 will set all of this into the law books. It's only fair, after all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Are you working on legislation which would lock up all of those content thieves who get up and go to the bathroom instead of watching the commercials thereby depriving the starving artists of their hard earned income?
These BATHROOM BANDITS must be stopped.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with you except for #3. An anticompetetive price would be one that was underpriced, when RIAA music is sickeningly overpriced. There is no reason whatever why you should have to pay more than ten bucks for a CD, as you can get professionally duplicated lots as small as 1000 for $1k including covers and printing. I'd guess for RIAA sized lots they could get them for a quarter of that.
Most local bands here in Springfield have their own CDs, and sell them for five or ten bucks each.
copyright protection schemes (Score:2)
have three effects:
1. they punish well-behaved customers for what pirates do
2. they have zero effect on the pirates
3. they turn well-behaved customers into pirates
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confused. Pirates hijack boats, sometimes kill people, sometimes hold hostages for ransom, and otherwise cause jackassery upon the open sea (near Somalia I guess).
Copyright infringement is a civil matter and has to do with DRM and the like.
Please don't continue calling copyright infringement piracy. It's not.
while i appreciate the sentiment (Score:3, Insightful)
words evolve in meaning and use, and you need to get used to it
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait until my clothing starts coming with FBI warnings that the design is trademarked, pateneted and that I may only wear the shirt before Labor Day, and before 8 PM on weeknights. You just wait.
Wait till produce markets start selling oranges that have a note injected under the peel that says, after about 6 pages of legal boilerplate and definitions, "Sunkist Oranges are owned and trademarked by Sunkist. Any reproduction including but not limited to: using seeds to grow more Sunkist Oranges, taking pictures of Sunkist Oranges, or using Sunkist Oranges for any non-personal use is prohibited by law and punishable by a maximum fine of up to $500,000 per offense and 5 years of incarceration. Purchasi
Re: (Score:2)
I might stop being spitting mad.
I hate:
2. Stupid itunes making it a hassle to give my wife a copy of something WE own legally (or often was free in the first place).
Try Mediamonkey. http://www.mediamonkey.com/ [mediamonkey.com]
Works as advertised.
Not slashvert, just a happy user, with loads of Macs & PCs, iPods, bluetooth in the cars...and three teenage girls. Junked iTunes early on, never looked back.
Strange timing (Score:2)
Re:Strange timing (Score:5, Funny)
Are they perhaps trying to postpone the trial long enough so that the class has finished it's term and the 'defense team' has moved on to a new subject?
Perhaps yes. But last time I looked, Harvard Law School did have a sufficient number of new applicants to keep Prof. Nesson's CyberLaw class quite full.
Delay While Lobbying (Score:2)
The RIAA lawyers have been asking for adjournments a lot lately, asking for an adjournment in UMG v. Lindor the other day because they were so busy preparing for the Tenenbaum December 1st trial ... I guess when you're running on hot air, you sometimes run out of steam
I'd restate that as, "I guess when congress sells you a few new laws every year, delaying is a pretty smart business tactic."
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the judge/others have to do their decisions only based on the laws that were at the time of this very criminal act?
Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for someone get convicted of something that might not had been illegal when the act was committed?
That is, if *AA would get some more horrendous laws passed while they are on Hawaii...
Re:Delay While Lobbying (Score:5, Interesting)
"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 [blogspot.com] is going to be rubber stamping MAFIAA legislation.
Adjournment: So the RIAA is basically saying . . . (Score:3, Funny)
"I'll get back to ya on that!"
Didn't someone just recently copyright that phrase?
I hope the RIAA gets sued!
Just waiting. (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously they're postponing trials because they are busy drafting a Federal bailout of the music industry.
The Govt. created the Internet, they owe the record companies some love. $30 Billion ought to do it.
RIAA and the copyright MAFIA need to end. (Score:2, Interesting)
The copyright environment sucks.
I was using a torrent to download a linux distro the other day. I was actually concerned about being "tracked" by my ISP as a file pirate.
This is so wrong. Corporations are using private law backed up by copyright statute to create a Kafka-esque "guilty because we say you are guilty" environment. Oh, sure, they don't have the power to imprison you, but with the courts they do have the power to bankrupt you with lawyers fees with no credible evidence.
I'm serious, people need t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RIAA and the copyright MAFIA need to end. (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [blogspot.com], who just filed RICO counterclaims pointing out the RIAA's extortion, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and these government officials in North Carolina [blogspot.com] who have summoned the RIAA's investigators to a "probable cause hearing", and these state troopers in Massachusetts [blogspot.com] 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 [blogspot.com].
Re:first post (Score:5, Informative)
Re:first post (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll bet if Weird Al were to sell his digital downloads directly on his own webpage without RIAA support he'd have a different opinion on the profitability of digital music sales. Especially if Steve Albini's numbers are correct. [negativland.com]
Al is probably earning about 2% of each sale. I'd be pissed too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Author/editor Eric Flint [baens-universe.com] (of the Baen Free Library fame) wrote a whole series of wonderful essays on copyright as editorials in the "Jim Baen's Universe" magazine. You can read them all for free (and I urge you to go read them.. he make a whole series of great points).
Re: (Score:2)
I would feel sorry for the Georgia slaveholder, he'd already (however rightly so - since it was made illegal) lost property that he'd paid for. But since he was doing something completely legal for years, society had made it illegal, it's okay for government thugs to destroy his home and and food/income as well? In the land of bad analogies that is /., your analogy truly stinks.
Just because something is legal does not make it right. He still deserves what he gets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would feel sorry for the Georgia slaveholder, he'd already (however rightly so - since it was made illegal) lost property that he'd paid for. But since he was doing something completely legal for years, society had made it illegal, it's okay for government thugs to destroy his home and and food/income as well? In the land of bad analogies that is /., your analogy truly stinks.
Just because something is legal does not make it right. He still deserves what he gets.
There you go again foisting your morals off on others.
He does not deserve what he gets, and the type of bullying you're suggesting amounts to something quite worse than what the RIAA does to the people on the receiving end of their bullying.
Forcing him to comply with the law is one thing, basically killing him by destroying his ability to eat is as bad as it gets, it's tantamount to murder. In fact, they are basically murdering him and his whole family (children and all), as well as anyone else who depende
Re: (Score:2)
The government didn't "take" property. They made kidnapping and forced labor illegal.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The law currently allows ridiculously long period of copyright protection, while technology allows individuals to undermine the stupidity of current law. All copyr
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess when you're running on hot air, you sometimes run out of steam
=( looks like i blew it lol
I am perturbed at the references to steam engines [mikebrownsolutions.com] today.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a knee-jerk reaction among many mods to downmod ANY first post, even it it's on-topic, insightful, informative, and/or funny and in no way insiteful or inflammatory. Every time I've made a first post it gets its ass ripped with "offtopic" or "troll" yet somehow winds up at better than 1, often 5.
Think before you mod.
However in this case, I'd have downmodded it too.
Re: (Score:2)
When we finally get these production companies out of the picture maybe we can start getting some decent music
There is already lots and lots of very, very good music out there. The problem is that the RIAA has a monopoly on getting their dreck on the radio.
Go to bars, I've seen some incredibly talented people playing in bars with professionally produced, recorded, and duplicated CDs for five to ten bucks each, available at their shows. They're in it for the art. Making art for the love of art often makes mo
Re:Well Shoot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The first question to ask... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
In the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial," the issue before the trial court wasn't evolution, it was the teaching of evolution in the public schools in violation of Tennessee state law.
That was the position of the prosecution. The position of the defense was that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the teacher's (Scopes) constitutional rights (the law benefited a particular religious group). But at some point the trial became a media circus full of the celebrities of the age and the defense just made speeches (that as you point out were irrelevant).
Re:The first question to ask... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).