Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

RIAA v. Barker Showdown Slated for January 76

Posted by Hemos from the waging-the-war dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA v. Barker Showdown Slated for January More

RIAA v. Barker Showdown Slated for January

Comments Filter:
  • Best of luck to her... looks like this one might be quite important for setting precedents!

  • "Making available" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by splutty ( 43475 ) on Monday December 04, 2006 @08:16AM (#17098066)
    I wonder..

    If I leave a stack of copied CDs (ones I own myself) that I made for backup purposes (since my CDs quite easilly scratch) accidentily on a table in a foodcourt and someone takes them with them, would I be sueable for infringement of copyright?

    And if I did it on purpose?

    And how do we decide whether it's on purpose or not?

    Splut.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sorry. Nobody ever said that even making the backup copies was an OK thing to do, remember?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by splutty ( 43475 )
        Sorry. Nobody ever said that even making the backup copies was an OK thing to do, remember?

        Actually :) In the country where I live, that *is* legal. So then you get the added problem if this random person would for example start mailing the things elsewhere.

        (Just making a solid real world comparison to the ethereal 'net' world, and yes, it's flawed, I do realize that :)

    • If I leave a stack of copied CDs (ones I own myself) that I made for backup purposes (since my CDs quite easilly scratch) accidentily on a table in a foodcourt and someone takes them with them, would I be sueable for infringement of copyright?

      More up here [canada.ca]. Not only you can copy all the CDs you borrow (be it from a friend or a library), but you can share them online, too (says the Supreme Court [google.ca]).

      • If he wanted to pay copyright redistribution fees on all his media he wouldn't even be asking the question.
    • If I leave some drugs in the back of a car, and someone steals that car, then later on, he decides to give me a gift of a few thousand dollars, am I really a drug dealer?
    • Let's take this to another level

      If you have your CD's stolen (not copies, but the original CD's) is the person who took them guilty of theft, or copyright infringement?

      Surely you could not be guilty of distribution, since they were wrongly taken from you. Giving them away would not be a crime either, as you are giving up ownership willingly. The key to the argument is numbers. When you, and the 2nd party are both using a single purchased copy, at the same time (as opposed to, say, renting and returnin
    • The system was designed to require both intent and action necessary to commit a crime, though now just intent can be a crime (attempted murder) or just action (tons of things).

      Ideally, no, that act would not fall under copyright infringement by itself without intent.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by oliverthered ( 187439 )
        attempted murder requires both intent and an action, just daying your going to kill someone (without making a threat to that person) isn't attempted murder.

        In the UK I'm sure you could only be found guilty of conspiricy if a 'crime' had actually happened, now adays just talking about something is enough to get a conspiricy charge.
        • Yeah, this is offtopic with the whole murder angle (I hate people that use other crimes as examples when they're not lawyers), but in most states just saying you're going to kill someone (even as a threat) is *NOT* prosecutable unless the threatened person dies of un-natural causes. In some states this has been changed so that a threat of murder is considered to be a crime (I believe it counts as a misdemeanor assault charge or the like), but in most states in the U.S. it is not a crime to say you're going

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Cauchy ( 61097 )
        Intent is necessary but not sufficient for attempted murder. You have to do the action with the intent to kill. And, at least technically, the state needs to prove both. Remember that the guy that bashed Reginald Denny upside the head got off on attempted murder because he claimed he did not intend to kill Denny. So, I guess even the "straight faced" test doesn't apply. Hmmmm. So, by that precedent, you could leave the cd's in the food court with a sign saying, "copies, please have" and still be ok as
        • Well, it still was your intent in that case (apparently), and you'll be in trouble if they can prove it because you'll be guilty of purjury in addition. But yeah, I may have used a bad example with attempted murder.
      • Then why are you liable for "making available" content when using a filesharing tool without knowing jack about it, while you're not liable for having a spambot on your computer? The damage is at the very least the same, and in both cases the intent is missing. You didn't want to (and you didn't know) that you're spreading spam or content.

        No intent. Why are you liable for one while you're not for the other?
        • Hey, I don't agree with it. I was just pointing it out.

          As you've demonstrated, the effect of intent on being charged with a crime varies depending on the crime. Specifically, how much "they" dislike the crime.
        • Ooo...you're on shakey ground with that ascertion. There is certainly intent assumed when you willfully download and install a file sharing tool. Ignorance of its capabilities is *NOT* a defense when you willfully sought out, downloaded, installed, clicked past the EULA and ran a file sharing app on your computer. That's completely different from a piece of spyware being added to your machine without your knowledge due to a vulnerability or a piece of code that was toughted to be for another purpose that
          • In many countries, the download of software, even copyrighted software, is not a crime.

            It is often not stated in the EULA (which are also, in some countries, by no means binding) or in the manual of P2P programs that you are automatically offering what you are downloading.

            So many people run P2P tools with no knowledge behind the idea of P2P (similar to their general knowledge concerning computers, IP laws and all the other little funny things that clog the legal system) and offering copyrighted material wit

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by radarjd ( 931774 )
      And how do we decide whether it's on purpose or not?

      That is, of course, one of the main jobs of a jury. The law has spent a few thousand years (as long as there has been law) making determinations as to whether the actions of an individual were on purpose or not. It's not a new problem.

      • Having kept an eye on cpt kangarooski's posts, I believe I can correctly say that there are still civil penalties for unintended copyright infringement. I also believe that making available copyrighted materials for distribution probably isn't illegal since there is no law that I know of that makes attempting to infringe a civil or criminal offense. So saying you'll make a copy for someone isn't illegal. It becomes illegal when you actually make the copy.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by radarjd ( 931774 )
          Having kept an eye on cpt kangarooski's posts, I believe I can correctly say that there are still civil penalties for unintended copyright infringement

          There's no need to rely on any one person for the penalties for or definition of copyright infringement -- go to the source [gpo.gov] (or Cornell's helpful pseudo-mirror [cornell.edu]). I agree with you that there may be penalties for unintended infringement.

          I also believe that making available copyrighted materials for distribution probably isn't illegal since there is no law

          • This is hypothetical and would require an OS level DRM scheme to be plausible, but an OS level DRM scheme could detect an "attempt" to copy a protected piece of content whether successful or not and report said attempt to the copyright holder or authorities. You could see prosecution occur at that point, but that would challenge the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of the U.S. legal system (everywhere but New Orleans that is). How do they know it wasn't a kid (under 12) or just a mistake that caused

    • Re:"Making available" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday December 04, 2006 @09:49AM (#17098870) Homepage Journal

      If I leave a stack of copied CDs (ones I own myself) that I made for backup purposes (since my CDs quite easilly scratch) accidentily on a table in a foodcourt and someone takes them with them, would I be sueable for infringement of copyright?


      The short answer: probably not.

      Using this as an analogy for P2P sharing ignores two important ethical and legal factors: (i) what you intent was, and (ii) what results are reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions.

      If somebody picks up your backup CDs that you have accidentally left on the food court table, you clearly have no intent to enable copyright infringement. But if you leave the backup CD's at a kiosk somebody has labelled "CD Swap", a reasonable person might infer you intended to give a third party access.

      As for forseeability and its relationship to responsibility, let me give you a true example. My nephew leant his college roommate his laptop to do a last minute paper. The roommate left the laptop open on the floor and went to bed. My nephew came in late at night, and very considerately did not turn on the light. As a result he stumbled over his laptop and broke the screen. The roommtate contended he wasn't at fault, because it was my nephew who stepped on his own laptop.

      This story illustrates several valuable points, not the least of which is "neither a borrower nor a lender be." But the key one for us is that we are responsible for the reasonably forseeable cosequences of our actions. A reasonable person would predict that a laptop left open on the floor in a darkened room probably would come to harm. This means that the roommate has a duty not to put it there, and by breaching that duty makes himself responsible for the consequences.

      Applying this principle to your analogy, a reasonable person does not expect that carrying backups around will lead to their being stolen; it might happen, but it is not likely. The degree of probability matters; people carry things that are valuable to them around all the time, and sometimes lose them. But I think you're in good shape if you can show that the care you took with the copies is no different from the care a reasonable person takes with property that is his own and in which he places considerable value.

      Personally, I'm pro music sharing. But there's no consistent way to argue that copying music on P2P is a copyright infringement but that sharing music on P2P is not. Every right, whether fundamental or statutory, imposes corresponding duties on others to respect that right. The duties aren't limited to direct violations of the right, but extend to taking reasonable care that the right not be violated as a predictable result of our actions.

      A good example of the duty of reasonable care is the recent spate of stories about databases of personal information being stolen because they were on laptops or removable media. The argument that absolves P2P sharers from responsiblity for forseeable copying would also absolve the agencies in these cases from responsibility for forseeable identity theft.

      There are only three logically possible ways to argue that P2P sharing is not a copyright violation. The first and best would be to argue that P2P downloading is not a copyright violation at all, but somehow falls under the heading of fair use. The second would be to show that the kinds of copying done as a result of sharing would not reasonably forseeably include copyright violations. The last way would be to show that you took reasonable steps to guard against improper copying.

      The last two arguments are not as attractive as they might seem. A mistaken belief that an act is legal doesn't absolve you of your duty not to aid it, any more than believing that the person who steps on the laptop is responsible makes it OK to leave the laptop on the floor. It's the forseeability of the act that matters, not the foreeability of the act's legality.
      • You make an excellent post. Congrats.

        As for forseeability and its relationship to responsibility, let me give you a true example. My nephew leant his college roommate his laptop to do a last minute paper. The roommate left the laptop open on the floor and went to bed. My nephew came in late at night, and very considerately did not turn on the light. As a result he stumbled over his laptop and broke the screen. The roommtate contended he wasn't at fault, because it was my nephew who stepped on his own laptop.

        A reasonable person would predict that a laptop left open on the floor in a darkened room probably would come to harm.

        (emphasis mine) Yes, a reasonable person would predict that. But this was a college student who was probably up late writing the last minute paper, and when he was going to bed the open laptop probably provided enough illumination for him to think that it is visible in the dark room easily.

        That he was probably tired may have assisted in forgetting about the power-saving mode. Or maybe he was ignorant of power-saving mode at all - you can never tell what someone kno

      • There are only three logically possible ways to argue that P2P sharing is not a copyright violation. The first and best would be to argue that P2P downloading is not a copyright violation at all, but somehow falls under the heading of fair use.

        A minor question here: Isn't the RIAA arguing that an MP3 copy (not lossless) is the same as a CD quality (lossless) copy of the music involved in the infringement. If so, this puts recordings off the radio in the same category as MP3 file sharers? Doesn't it? If the

        • I'm fairly certain that the law enforcement authorities will try only to catch the forger rather than all who have used the fake $20 bill.

          I think they would care if you knew that it was fake and still tried to use it. We can be reasonably sure (in the US, at least) that the currency is not fake. We can't make the assumption that files on P2P networks are legit from the copyright owner.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          A minor question here: Isn't the RIAA arguing that an MP3 copy (not lossless) is the same as a CD quality (lossless) copy of the music involved in the infringement. If so, this puts recordings off the radio in the same category as MP3 file sharers? Doesn't it? If the music industry says that copying any music from any source without license is illegal, don't they step all over fair use precedents?

          No. True, they'd probably like to be able to say copying music from any source without a license is illegal, bu

          • The difference here is not the quality of the copy you make, but the fact that the station has paid to license the work for redistribution.

            AFAIK radio stations don't pay for that right. In fact, the record companies generally send out advanced copies of CD's to the radio stations to play. Radio is a free advertisement for the record company of their artist.

            There is a big difference between P2P downloading and radio, in that with the P2P you can download the entire album and play it over and over again at

            • Radio stations pay to play music, yes. It goes into a general fund defined in the audio home recording act and I have no idea how it is disbursed (but the act says it goes to "interested parties" - I'm interested in money! It says something about copyright too, but I don't think it actually says copyright holders. I forget for sure though.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) *
        hey! writes: "There are only three logically possible ways to argue that P2P sharing is not a copyright violation. The first and best would be to argue that P2P downloading is not a copyright violation at all, but somehow falls under the heading of fair use."

        1. I disagree that there are only 3 logical arguments.

        2. Additionally, your statement fails to take into account the fact that there are a great multiplicity of different kinds of "P2P sharing" behaviors involving copyrighted recordings, just as th

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by honkycat ( 249849 )

          1. I disagree that there are only 3 logical arguments.

          Do you have examples of other arguments that don't fall in his categories? Note that he's not talking about arguments about whether copyright law is just in this regard, merely that it is, in fact, illegal to violate copyright law as it stands. Perhaps you could claim that copyright law would not withstand a constitutional challenge if it blocked P2P sharing, but that seems pretty unlikely.

          2. Additionally, your statement fails to take into account the

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) *
            1. Yes I do, but I'm actually a practicing lawyer defending these cases: it would be foolish of me to publicly post my arguments before I've put them in play in actual litigations. There's nothing to be gained by tipping my hand.
            2. You can assume, if you like, which of the multitude of possibilities he was talking about, but I was clarifying an error in the logic of the statement. He was speaking as though there were one kind of file sharing behavior, when in fact there are a multiplicity. I predict that

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hey! ( 33014 )

              You can assume, if you like, which of the multitude of possibilities he was talking about, but I was clarifying an error in the logic of the statement. He was speaking as though there were one kind of file sharing behavior, when in fact there are a multiplicity. I predict that the distinctions among them will be quite important as these cases wind their way through the courts.

              Well, I suppose that if you want to take the statement out of context, you are correct.

              If you read back to the start of the thread, I

            • 1. Yes I do, but I'm actually a practicing lawyer defending these cases: it would be foolish of me to publicly post my arguments before I've put them in play in actual litigations. There's nothing to be gained by tipping my hand.

              Great, well, if you don't actually say anything more than "I disagree," then why bother posting on a discussion site? It adds nothing.

              As for your other point, I think the other reply to your post said it pretty well... sure, there ARE plenty of clearly legal uses of P2P sharing but

              • I'm sorry that you feel that having an actual lawyer who is actually working on these cases, who can report to Slashdot readers with first hand information and analysis as to what is going on in these litigations, is not worthwhile, just because he cannot share with you his innermost thoughts and confidential legal strategies in advance of their being implemented in the litigation.

                And I'm sorry you fault me for pointing out that there are many different types of file sharing behaviors, rather than just one
                • Having an actual lawyer say "no" without any useful explanation on that point is little better than having a troll say the same. Seriously.
                • Also, let me just say, I don't actually mean to call you a troll or ask you to stop posting, because it IS good to have such opinions here. However, it's not enough to get a free pass to just answer yes/no questions with authority when, as you point out, there is still a lot of debate at all levels of involvement in these questions. I am not any better informed for having been told by a lawyer that he doubts there are no other ways to defend these cases -- all I could possibly do is give hearsay that "oh
                  • I have never asked anyone to accept anything I say as gospel.

                    The GGGP said there are only 3 possible arguments.

                    I responded that there are many more than 3.

                    If you want to believe that there are only 3 possible arguments, that's your prerogative.
                    • Ok, but it seems like a pretty widely encompassing three. Note that he's not saying there's only three ways to defend such a case. He's arguing that if you want to claim P2P copying is legal. There are a lot of illegal acts that are successfully defended every day. His categories of defense seem pretty broad and I have a hard time imagining how you could argue that the act of making or enabling a copy to be made is legal without showing one of them. I was hoping for some insight on this point, but I gu
                    • Well if you want to have some fun with it why don't you start imagining all the possible p2p sharing behaviors, analogizing to what people do in the real world with song files that are on a cd? And then when you've done that, see if you can add a few more that are behaviors which one can do on the internet that one cannot do with physical cd's. I can think of quite a few such behaviors, but each time I start thinking of them, I start thinking of different factual wrinkles, and then a few more.... and I'm on

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          I disagree that there are only 3 logical arguments.

          Well, IANAL, but I think these three classes of arguments are the only ones I can imagine when it can be shown you have provided a file somebody else has copied illegally. I suppose that you could add disputing whether the copying in fact took place.

          Additionally, your statement fails to take into account the fact that there are a great multiplicity of different kinds of "P2P sharing" behaviors involving copyrighted recordings, just as there are a great mult

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) *
            Please check out my response to honkycat. I'm not really talking about affirmative defenses, now, such as fair use, waiver, estoppel, unconstitutional damages, etc. I'm talking about plaintiff's prima facie case of copyright infringement. Some types of 'sharing' might be copyright infringement. Other types definitely are not. When we get into trials, and post-discovery summary judgment motions, I am predicting the distinctions among the different types of sharing behavior will be very important.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hey! ( 33014 )
              Well, I think we pretty much agree then. I presume we are talking about the proposition that evidence of sharing does not equal evidence of infringement.

              What I'm talking about isn't what you can get away with; it's what the law entitles you to do with copyrighted materials.

              Suppose, as a lawyer, a client asked you about a certain P2P application that would be illegal, but impossible to prove. Can you ethically and legally advise him to go ahead just because it would be easy for you defend later? Naturally,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Wolfger ( 96957 )
        A reasonable person would predict that a laptop left open on the floor in a darkened room probably would come to harm.
        Nah. I'd take *good* care of my new laptop!

    • Re:"Making available" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray@NOsPAm.beckermanlegal.com> on Monday December 04, 2006 @10:34AM (#17099440) Homepage Journal
      That's about it. The RIAA argues yes. You made them available. That makes you a distributor.

      If they would read the statute (copyright Act section 106) they'd feel differently, but they don't feel they have to do stuff like that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Wolfger ( 96957 )
      I wonder.. If a library leaves a stack of books (ones it owns itself) accidentily on a bookshelf in a public building and someone takes them with them, copies them, and returns the originals, would the library be sueable for infringement of copyright? And if it did it on purpose? Oh, wait... it does.

  • "Making Available".. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aero2600-5 ( 797736 ) on Monday December 04, 2006 @09:11AM (#17098498)
    She's in trouble for "Making available"? FUCK! Quickly! Close down all those public libraries! They're "making available" all those copyrighted books! Anyone could take one home and photocopy it, scan it, or even copy it by hand.

    This argument is full of holes.

    Aero

    • Not just books (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tpjunkie ( 911544 )
      You can borrow Audio CDs and DVDs from most libraries too!
      • My younger sister does just that, as pop music costs about $20 per CD, and our public library stocks modern pop music under an initiative (people can request CDs to be purchased with bond money in a sort of tally system.) So, if she wants to see if a CD is worth buying, she'll check it out for a few days, to see if she likes it. I personally find it helpful for finding classical and old bebop that's out of print or simply not stocked by the braindeads at Sam Goody's.

        Is the library to be blamed for "making a
    • Yeah this is iffy. Copying a copyrighted book without permission is obviously illegal. But you can take the book home without making a copy. So the method of transmission from libary->house doesn't involve a copy operation. But distributing things electronically is intrisincally a copy operation. So you can't say "I'm going to download it, but NOT make a copy." because you have already made a copy by downloading it. I can see lawyers ending up in some sort of infinite loop and exploding from this...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shark72 ( 702619 )

      "She's in trouble for "Making available"?"

      Not quite -- for making unauthorized copies available. It's just two words, but an important distinction. If the library made their own copies and sold or lent them, there'd be an issue. But (much to the RIAA's chagrin, I'm sure), you can generally lend, sell, trade, etc. originals as much as you like. I know that many people reading this will say "what's the big deal if I lend the CD I bought to my friend Billy, vs. burning him a copy?" but the law has countles

      • shark72 writes in response to "She's in trouble for "Making available"?" as follows:

        "Not quite -- for making unauthorized copies available. It's just two words, but an important distinction."

        Actually, shark, you're giving the RIAA too much credit. Had every single one of the songs been an authorized copy, as for example one purchased lawfully from iTunes or a similar entity, the RIAA would still be pursuing its suit against her. The Hotaling case dealt with unauthorized copies. The RIAA, however, does

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tmack ( 593755 )

        Not quite -- for making unauthorized copies available. It's just two words, but an important distinction. If the library made their own copies and sold or lent them, there'd be an issue. But (much to the RIAA's chagrin, I'm sure), you can generally lend, sell, trade, etc. originals as much as you like. I know that many people reading this will say "what's the big deal if I lend the CD I bought to my friend Billy, vs. burning him a copy?" but the law has countless examples of many seemingly meaningless disti

  • Is there a difference between the DOJ and the USDJ? Or is there just a lack of editing?
    • It's my mistake. Sorry about that. Don't blame Slashdot. I used 2 different abbreviations for the same thing. DOJ (US Dept of Justice) = USDJ (US Dept of Justice).
      • Thanks. Not being American I wasn't sure if I'd missed something in your justice system.

        Civility on Slashdot. Whatever is the world coming to?
        • FreakyLefty wrote: "Thanks. Not being American I wasn't sure if I'd missed something in your justice system. Civility on Slashdot. Whatever is the world coming to?"

          The American justice system used to be characterized by quite a bit of civility, sometimes to the consternation of clients who wanted a 'pound of flesh'.

          That was before a new breed of lawyers came along who will do anything their client tells them to.
          • What's it like in your line of work? Do most lawyers live up to the stereotype? Is dealing with them as unpleasant as popular opinion makes out? It's very easy to just categorise all lawyers as Them and get all narky about it, but it's very rare you actually get a chance to ask someone about it. Any tales from the front?
            • Lawyers have a bad press. In fact there are good people in the profession and bad people in the profession.

              One thing I wonder about with the RIAA lawyers, when they are at a cocktail party and someone asks them what kind of law they practice, what do they say?

              "I sue children, disabled people, dead people, working people, people on welfare, grandmothers, people on social security, people on disability, the working poor, students, and regular middle class people, for copyright infringements they didn't kn
  • As to P2P filesharing, I'd take the probably here unpopular view that it is a plain violation of the rights of the artists and/or recording companies. That notwithstanding, I'm surprised that the complaint is even arguably sufficient. The sole paragraph that identifies the acts the defendant allegedly committed seems to me to lack sufficient specifics. That makes it all the more surprising that the RIAA would be correct, if it is when it argues that in three previous cases these specific allegations have b

    • "As to P2P filesharing, I'd take the probably here unpopular view that it is a plain violation of the rights of the artists and/or recording companies."

      I think that's a mischaracterization. I'd wager that even the most rabid P2P enthusiasts recognize that copyright law exists and that making unauthorized copies via P2P is a violation of same; the common view is that we don't need to pay attention to those rights for one or more reasons:

      1. Artists simply do not deserve the same level of respect that is o
      • I appreciate the points you're making, and I'm sure they're widely shared here - however, I couldn't disagree more with the suggestion that artists aren't entitled to earn their livings, through their creative efforts, with the same respect and legal protection as is anyone else. Further, if you decide that one class of individuals (you picked artists who sell their music) isn't entitled to legal protection, where do you stop? And how do you decide who gets protection? Those who are popular or whose work is

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shark72 ( 702619 )

          Agreed with your points (the list was my summary of popular opinion around here, not a reflection of my own views). I think it's a common belief around here that software developers (in particular, OSS developers) should have their rights respected to a greater extent to artists or record companies, apparently for the primary reason that we have empathy toward OSS developers, whereas we don't feel that much of a connection with people in the music industry (no matter what side of the mixing board or mahogan

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close