RIAA Walks Away From Another "Discovery" Case 164
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that the RIAA walked away last week from one of their 'discovery' cases seeking the identities of 'John Does' who attended Rhode Island College. We have just learned that they walked away from another one, BMG Music v. Does 1-14, in Greensboro, North Carolina. 2 of the 14 John Does had settled, but the other 12 — who hung tough — will never be identified to the RIAA lawyers and will not have to pay any 'settlement.' This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark."
Re:Do not steal (Score:1, Informative)
Clear cut? Morally?
Nope.
I'm sorry, but this notion of cultural 'work', that is valuable when copied infinitely etc. is an EXTREMELY recent invention of humanity.
Civilization existed for millennia without this invention of 'copyright'.
If anything, it's the OPPOSITE - the morally acceptable thing is for HUMANITY as a whole to get the most benefit, regardless of the individual...
Therefore it's up to the individual creators to do the best they can, and offer a product the people HAVE to buy and reward them, because it can't be gotten any other way, similar to paying for a performance, or paying for someone to create the music to begin with, (rather than ask for money afterwards) - similar to how it used to be done at times.
Unfortunately, digital INFORMATION is not such a limited product.
Re:Do not steal (Score:1, Informative)
Selling the used physical media with its contents is perfectly OK; it isn't a grey area at all. Copyright doesn't prohibit redistributing something, it prohibits making and redistributing copies. The US has this explicitly as the first-sale doctine [wikipedia.org]. Other countries have this under other names, or implicitly in their copyright law, but it's always there - copyright prohibits copying, not redistribution (hence "copy"right).
Nonsense. (Score:3, Informative)
No, it isn't! It is copyright infringement! The two are legally quite distinct from one another, for good reasons! See my post just above a little bit.
I am not defending the copying of copyrighted material. But I *AM* putting it in its proper perspective. It is NOT stealing or theft. It may be wrong, but it is not theft.
Further, your defense of a by-now-almost-bankrupt business model for the music industry is pretty pathetic. Most bands today don't want to give up their rights to some studio that is willing to put up a 6-digit amount to promote the band, because they are more sophisticated today, and understand that the same studio is likely to keep the vast majority of the 8-digit profits.
On the other hand, I wholeheartedly endorse your final comment. Go live.