Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

Lessig, Zittrain, Barlow To Square Off Against RIAA 288

Posted by timothy
from the ensemble-cast dept.
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)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lessig, Zittrain, Barlow To Square Off Against RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • Zit Train? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20, 2008 @02:48PM (#25835527)

    I bet he had a fun childhood.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:17PM (#25835913)
      I don't know, once he hit adolescence I could see him going Quagmire with it: "You must be at least this fine to ride the Z-train! All aboard ladies." :D
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      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

      • by LMacG (118321)

        -100 wrong brand, skimpy explanation.

        StarKist.

        They don't want tuna with good taste, they want tuna that tastes good.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Thursday November 20, 2008 @02:49PM (#25835539) Homepage
    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. He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.
    • by Sun.Jedi (1280674) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @02:55PM (#25835657) Journal

      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.

      • by Rary (566291) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:35PM (#25836145)

        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.

        • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Friday November 21, 2008 @12:04AM (#25841737) Homepage
          A lot of people complained about copyright even when terms were quite short. Publishers on one side of the Atlantic tried desperately to ignore the copyrights of publishers on the other side for decades. And copyright never made any sense at all to most of the world's population, being a peculiar Western concept that only rose within the last several hundred years. Even today, if you tell the typical Indian, Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia that there should be a law to prevent them duplicating media as they see fit, they'd think you're a madman.
    • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Thursday November 20, 2008 @02:58PM (#25835685) Homepage Journal

      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".

      • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Thursday November 20, 2008 @02:59PM (#25835703) Homepage
        The RIAA holds copyrights on recordings. The copyright on songs like Happy Birthday is held by songwriters' associations like BMI/ASCAP.
        • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:13PM (#25835857) Homepage Journal
          I stand corrected, but I will continue to download out of principle because I know that the eventual goal of the *AAs is to charge on a per-listen, per-song basis and they will continue to fight for their revenue stream at the expense of the consumer just as I will continue to fight for the freedom to experience my media with no strings attached. The vast majority of the stuff I download are songs from CD's I bought years ago, or older movies which I see on paid-for cable TV.

          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)

            by Walpurgiss (723989)
            I figure, let them switch to a per song per listen business model.

            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
            • 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)

              by tepples (727027) <tepples@nOSpAM.gmail.com> on Thursday November 20, 2008 @04:31PM (#25836993) Homepage Journal

              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].

            • 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

        • by Rary (566291) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:31PM (#25836097)

          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.

        • 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.
          ...

          • by Chris Burke (6130) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @05:09PM (#25837583) Homepage

            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.

    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:07PM (#25835789) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:10PM (#25835823) Homepage
        Stallman created the GPL to use copyright against itself. He probably would be happy in a world that didn't know copyright or other forms of "intellectual property". Even if people weren't compelled to keep their changes open, a lack of NDAs and the legality of reverse engineering with help would ensure changes got leaked anyway.
        • by sumdumass (711423)

          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)

            by tepples (727027)

            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)

              by sumdumass (711423)

              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.

      • Even those of us who use the BSDL still benefit from copyright, since without it there would be no requirement to credit us for our work. That said, I'd be in favour of abolishing copyright if someone proposes a better system (and no, usage-right systems do not count as 'better' in any way), but abolishing it and leaving a vacuum is not a good idea. Reforming it and giving terms of a sensible length is a good start.
      • 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

        • 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:2, Interesting)

      by LordNimon (85072)

      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.

    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:09PM (#25835819)

      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.

      • by Ioldanach (88584)

        The consensus Im seeing with geeks and non-geeks alike is a sensible copyright limit and sensible damage caps.

        Also to limit time. Life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years for a work of corporate authorship, is just obscene.

      • 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

    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:11PM (#25835829) Homepage Journal

      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)

        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.

        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

      • by sumdumass (711423) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:57PM (#25836427) Journal

        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)

          by mcgrew (92797) *

          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.

    • 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.

      • by CRCulver (715279)
        In the ancient world, there was no copyright. And among the literate elite, there was mass duplication when someone could transcribe poetry recitals, give it to a team of amanuenses to copy, and then sell it in the marketplace with no money going back to the author. Nonetheless, fine literature flourished and so many of the masterpieces Western civilization cherishes today were born. Abolition of copyright would mean the return of patrons as a motivating force in the arts, and it would probably be for the b
    • by multisync (218450) *

      He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.

      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

      • by rhsanborn (773855)

        He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.

        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

    • by KillerBob (217953)

      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. He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.

      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

    • by russotto (537200)

      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.

      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

    • 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.

    • 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

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @02:52PM (#25835587)
    Is anyone surprised that the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats is resquesting more time? It takes a LOT of lawyers to succesfully bully and threaten an entire all-star team of intellectuals college professors well-reknowned in their fields as opposed as a single young student. You don't just steamroll a group like that with a single "cease and decist or we'll ruin you" email.
  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday November 20, 2008 @02:55PM (#25835651) Homepage Journal

    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]

  • by Moof123 (1292134) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:03PM (#25835745)

    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)

      by Muad'Dave (255648)
      Yeah, well the manufacturers of that shirt might sue you if your picture is taken wearing 'their' shirt. It happens [slashdot.org] with cars [boingboing.net].
      • by Jason Levine (196982) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:58PM (#25836459)

        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:

        Response (XXXX) 11/18/2008 04:34 PM
        Thank you for contacting Toyota with your comments and concerns regarding the use of vehicle images. The letter asking the DesktopNexus site to remove all images featuring a Toyota, Scion or Lexus vehicle was the result of mis-communication at Toyota, which we regret.

        Copyright law protects the creative work product of artists, photographers, and other creators. Toyota respects these rights, including those of photographers who work with Toyota. Toyota purchases the rights to the images it posts on its sites, and welcomes public use of those images where we have the rights to give. However, this permission is limited to editorial or personal use, not commercial use, such as advertising any products or services. That's because the photographers - not Toyota - retain the rights to any commercial use, and we cannot give permission to use those images for that purpose. In response the concerns raised by DesktopNexus, Toyota is working with photographers to determine what images may be used for non-commercial purposes, and what we can do to provide broader access.

        We hope you will understand and appreciate the legal constraints we face.

        Toyota also welcomes interested members of the public to use their own images or photography of Toyota's vehicles, and we confirm that we have no objection to this use.

        We appreciate your interest in our products.

        Toyota Customer Experience

        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.

    • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:23PM (#25835987)

      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)

        by Tracy Reed (3563)

        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.

    • by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:25PM (#25836013) Journal

      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.

      Easy solution: Don't buy any of that stuff.

      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.

      Then we'll just get all of our clothing from Sweden like we currently do with all of our media ;)

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      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.

    • 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

      • 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.

    • 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

    • 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.

  • 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?
  • 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."

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:25PM (#25836015)

    "I'll get back to ya on that!"

    Didn't someone just recently copyright that phrase?

    I hope the RIAA gets sued!

  • by psydeshow (154300) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @03:31PM (#25836093) Homepage

    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.

  • 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)

      by TechForensics (944258)
      Respectfully, I have to tell you I found more heat than light in your argument.

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Working...