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."
Objection (Score:5, Funny)
I object to the verb 'sneaking' in TFA.
It suggests purpose, strategy, and some level of intelligence.
Re:Objection (Score:5, Funny)
I agree with you about "sneaking"; I was thinking more along the lines of "groping".
But then I realized "groping in the dark" had too many positive connotations.
Mmmmmm.... Boobs
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Objection (Score:4, Funny)
Molesting?
Think of the kiddie diddlers who you compare with RIAA ilk! How dare you! They ought to sue you for bringing the pedos on the RIAA level..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmmmmm.... Boobs
For more info, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tits [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How about "crashing through the underbrush"?
Re: (Score:2)
You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Pity the (2) fools. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pity the (2) fools. (Score:5, Interesting)
I second that statement.
I actually got a letter a little over a year ago which was one of these you are in deep s$%t for downloading music. Only issue it was addressed to "Occupant". I almost wet myself laughing. In my over exuberance I tore up the letter. I will probably regret that move for many years. It is something to be framed.
The best part is. I have never ever downloaded music from the net illegally. I still like that physical quality of a CD.
Oh Nothing happened. There was ZERO follow up on the letter by the sender.
Re: (Score:2)
re: RIAA
Nuke them 'til they glow, and then shoot them in the dark. They are no better than communists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are no better than communists.
One could argue that the RIAA is a lot worse than the Communists were. Consider the Soviet Union: The Communists were voted out of power despite all the vote rigging that the party in power always does everywhere, and they accepted the vote. This wasn't a fluke; it has happened in most of the countries that had Communist governments. The RIAA and MPAA were never elected to their positions, and we can't vote them out. They'll be around longer than any Communist governme
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, bringing the Internet under control works out REAL well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess you are not counting all those millions killed under the State as a "bad" thing.
Even worse than that. (Score:2)
They are no better than communists.
One could argue that the RIAA is a lot worse than the Communists were. Consider the Soviet Union: The Communists were voted out of power despite all the vote rigging that the party in power always does everywhere, and they accepted the vote. This wasn't a fluke; it has happened in most of the countries that had Communist governments. The RIAA and MPAA were never elected to their positions, and we can't vote them out. They'll be around longer than any Communist government, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. They are private corporations created by other private corporations to "coordinate" their business so that no real market could develop. Judicious bribery, uh, I mean campaign contributions, led to the draconian copyright laws that helped prevent a market in music or movies.
Maybe the move to the Internet will end this whole centrally-controlled system. Or maybe they'll find a way to bring it under control. Stay tuned ...
Don't forget, through the DMCA the "central authority" at the RIAA issues forth the command "thou shalt build X device X way, or not at all".
A command economy under the command of one corporation is no different then a command economy under the control of an authoritarian government.
Oh wait, it's worse, because, in this case, they own the media, and we're still "free" because we elect people who will loyally stand by proclaiming every day activities "theft"
Re:Pity the (2) fools. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish you would have saved it as well. It seems to be a well kept secret of how often this type of intimidation is used under the guise of 'legal threats'.
A year ago, I received a Cease and Desist letter about some domains that I owned. The level of accuracy was similar, as it was addressed to my name but a different address, apparently pulled from the phone book. The letter was threatening all sorts of off the wall things; civil charges, punitive damages, and CRIMINAL charges among others. You can read the letter here sent by
Caton Commercial [demystify.info]
Sure, I could have played along and used the same legal system to smack down the lawyer for making such unfounded threats(it would fall under ethical rules of the bar assn), but instead I decided to post it for all to read.
In that period of time, when searching for the name of the company who sent it, the letter comes up in the top 4 results, along with a link to all the court cases the company is involved in in the local county courthouses publishing of cases. According to my logs, almost 10,000 people have read the letter since its posting.
oops...
Re:Pity the (2) fools. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are interested, there is more back story to this. You can read some of my previous posts, if you care to learn more. At least more from my side of the story, as every story always has more than one side.
Thanks for reading. Pass it on
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My name is John Occupant you insensitive clod! :)
Re: (Score:2)
You jest, but lots of people have named based upon location or job or relationship. My last name means "home" in German or Dutch. (Actually the literally translation is "hedge" but it refers to a person's home.)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the two people who paid up are now wishing that they hadn't.
That was my first thought as well.
Is iit over yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Any chance they could sue to get their money back? If the settlement letter they paid off is bogus (and it demonstrably is in this case since the RIAA dropped the discovery and walked away from it, which says they had no intention of following through with prosecution) it seems to me that the RIAA gained the money through something resembling fraud.
I'm not sure if it would be fraud, or extortion, or whatever - but it just seems to me that the RIAA doesn't have a legal claim on the money. "Pay us and we won't take you to court." So someone pays. But they didn't take the non-paying people to court and dropped the case. So the settlement letter is absolutely bogus. Shouldn't be too difficult a point to make in front of a judge. IANAL though, so I might be very wrong, but it seems that way.
Re: (Score:2)
wised up ? More likely found a softer target ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As has been posted here, the RIAA is changing its target from suing individuals to (trying to) sue ISPs who do not do the their dirty work (checking, tracking, denying access) for them.
Small ISPs who cannot do that (too few customers -> no business) will simply die from the RIAAs litigations, and the bigger ones (who can deal with a few less customers) are softer targets, as they have got less to loose (as opposed to an individual which can loose upto a few times his yearly income), especially not when simply ending a customers contract on the first sign of RIAA related trouble.
Lets hope the Judges are allready sensitivised to the RIAA to such a level that even seeing their paperwork will give them an instant itch ...
The calm before the storm (Score:5, Interesting)
My piratey sense is tingling
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that can be safely assumed. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to represent the RIAA. Lawyers are free to refuse cases if they can't reconcile the need for zealous representation with their own personal code of ethics. (Except public defenders, but that's a whole different ball game, and beside the point here.)
So yes, Mr. Ogden probably does
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OMG SCARY.. (Score:2)
I obviously can't say what he'll do once in office but his team has pretty much been called...
I know what he'll do.
he'll get right into that office near the boiler and grumble about his stapler.
Seriously, the guy is at the third tier!
My mother is a claims adjuster for a subsection of healthcare coverage, maybe I should burst into her room and start kicking her all over the place because no insurance company will cover my chronic condition?
Re: (Score:2)
My mother is a claims adjuster for a subsection of healthcare coverage, maybe I should burst into her room and start kicking her all over the place because no insurance company will cover my chronic condition?
So you're comparing a one-in-a-few-thousand claims adjuster's position for an insurance company with "Deputy Attorney General" which according to the all-knowing trash heap is "the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice". Pretty fancy boiler he'll stand around ...
And if your Mom did coincidently put lots of her work into refusing chronic patients and advising other adjusters to do as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lawyer's personal opinions have no bearing on the position he puts forward.
As someone who's been a litigator for 30 years I beg to differ.
Any lawyer who says things he does not believe in has a fool for a client.
Re: (Score:2)
NYCL, does it? (Score:3, Insightful)
This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark.
Does it? Really? Or, does it point to them just not having the money in this downward spiraling economy to continue these frivolous lawsuits while they, in parallel, scramble to redesign their digital content schemes?
I have a feeling that this is going to be a lull for a few years while they regroup, retask and come at the file sharers again, or seek legislation to aid their fight; the latter being less likely under the incoming administration. The RIAA (and MPAA) are not going down without one hell of a fight. This type of battle may be ending, but evil never sleeps and is constantly trying to devise new ways to overcome good. These idiots are just confused and don't see the good in what file sharing does for their (still growing) sales.
To quote Frank Herbert, "This is all far from over..."
It's their job (Score:2)
Nope, they won't quit.
Yes, the RIAA is ridiculous. Yes, they treat humans like scum. Yes, they continuously do things which makes our hair stand on end. Yes, they will continue to do their best to create new, even more idiotic laws.
And that's their job. As long as they keep getting paid by the industry, they will keep standing there as The Bad Guys To Hate. Instead of, say, the industry responsible for this.
Re:Do not steal (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone shoots a photograph of your house, did they steal it? It seems you don't understand your own sources.
I know that despite the intense advertising campaign to call downloading music theft, legally the definition of theft requires depriving someone of their property, intellectual or otherwise. To deprive someone of any such item, they can't use it after you steal it. Therefore, while copying music is damaging to the RIAA, the RIAA's tactics of pretending that music copying is theft is just plain dishonesty.
Copying music is already illegal, so there's no need to add in theft charges. Just like there would be no need to add in murder charges for copying music because you are proverbially killing the artist.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless if you're stealing from the garage band up the road, or a RIAA member - it remains stealing.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's questionable as to whether it's legally stealing. But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut -
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
Copying something is very different from taking something.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
Then people must be realizing that what they've been taught is nonsensical [micheleboldrin.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's questionable as to whether it's legally stealing. But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut -
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
Copying something is very different from taking something.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
Then people must be realizing that what they've been taught is nonsensical [micheleboldrin.com].
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. It's your business, and if they want to prevent you from downloading it they should make it harder. Of course, it'd make better economic sense for them to realize that people will download because it's easier, and because most of the stuff they're producing is crap and not worth the price
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
I'm pretty sure that point has been completely discredited, it's fairly obvious that downloads do not equate to lost sales. (Their point also raises the absurd question of, buying from their competitors instead of them also deprives them of sales they could have made, so is that stealing from them?)
Of course, it'd make better economic sense for them to realize that people will download because it's easier, and because most of the stuff they're producing is crap and not worth the price of a CD, but still. I'm not holding my breath. It'd be nice if they realized that and adjusted their business model to suit, but I doubt it'll happen.
These companies are big enough that they might have a hard time going out of business fast enough to avoid having that realization forced on them. Well, at least in normal economic times.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
This may be their point, but has nothing to do with mine. Frankly, I find the actions of the RIAA to be despicable, and I can only hope that eventually they'll get called out for them in a court of law - in a way that sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
Ah, yes. "Information wants to be free"? Note that I don't advocate forbidding sharing of any knowledge. I think software patents are crap too. Both of which are besides the point: music is a tangible product of a creative process. Just because you can make a copy of it without depriving the creator (or the persons designated by the creator) of his copy doesn't mean that you're not . If something is not worth paying for, what makes it worth taking without paying for? And by what right do you do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes. "Information wants to be free"?
Information will be free, despite everyone's best efforts, and it is on the whole detrimental to attempt to prevent this.
If something is not worth paying for, what makes it worth taking without paying for?
Nothing has been taken. A copy has been produced.
And by what right do you do that?
By what right do you forbid that? The copyright holder is not (necessarily) aware of the interaction, so by what right can they interfere? It doesn't affect them any more than going with a competitor would.
You obviously are not paying for those bits -- you're paying for the creator's work, time, and effort.
So go to a concert or buy mugs and T-shirts or something.
I get it. I really do. You feel that the artist does not have the right to charge for the work in the first place
Eh, sure they do. They just shouldn't be able to restrict what I can do with th
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of time and effort go into creating mathematics also. Yet, it is not copyrighted. A lot of time and effort go into designing and building a house. Yet the bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc. don't keep receiving payments for a hundred years after their work has been completed.
Well spoken. Indeed, very few of us keep receiving payments for a hundred years after our work has been completed. Indeed, very few of us are around a hundred years after our work has been completed. The revenue from most of the copyrights of course goes to a few sociopathic corporations with perpetual life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut - taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
I am reminded of a proverb/quote/saying I heard once:
If I have a penny and you have a penny and we exchange pennies, now you have a penny and I have a penny. But if I have an idea and you have an idea and we exchange ideas, now you have two ideas and I have two ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, I agree that music "sharing" is wrong - on the other hand, if downloading a few 1 dollar songs off the internet is just wrong in a petty sort of way, then the practices of the RIAA are inhuman and despicable
100% agreed.
Stealing from the RIAA is wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, doing business with them is wrong as well.
Also agreed. And I think CC music, or other commercial paths (pay for download direct from web site is my favorite method) is a great way to do it.
But I can't stand the attitude that says, "I'm doing this to stick it to the RIAA" -- because it just doesn't sink in that sharing of RIAA-company owned music proves and supports the RIAA's case that "piracy" is the cause of their woes.
Re: (Score:2)
If I want something that is not free, I pay for it. If I don't want it, I do not. If I want it, but do not think it is worth the price (OFTEN the case with modern music from RIAA companies), then I do without. You, I have no doubt, will continue to come up with your justifications to convince yourself that taking things (even copies of things) that you have not paid for, and that the creator reasonably expects compension for, is perfectly OK.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. Unless one were to physically "take" a physical thing, that thing has not been stolen. Get it? The thing is still in the possession of it's owner. Get it?
Semantics. If you want something, and it has a monetary price, but you do not pay that price and instead take it for free (or even take a copy of it for free), then what do you call it if not stealing?
At my wedding, the photographer took a ton of pictures, then wanted me to pay for the ones I selected even though they were in digital form. Was I paying for the bits, or was I paying for his time and skill? If I chose to break into his web site and make copies of the photos instead of paying, what is th
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't stealing their property, you are stealing their money. If I take your wallet, empty it into my pocket and hand you your wallet back I've not stolen anything from you, right? You still have your wallet. This rather unclear concept in today's society of "money" is really quite abstract and you can't be prosecuted for stealing abstract things, now can you? Only physical property. So while your wallet is yours, the money in it is just an abstract concept and free for the taking.
Re: (Score:2)
In such cases, what money are they "stealing"? Profits that even theoretically would not exist?
In the other 20% or so of the cases, you might have a point.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Musician and sound tech chiming in here, I smell a troll mod coming, but here goes anyway.
Copying music without authorization from the copyright holders is theft, no doubt about it. This notion that the copyright holder is in no way deprived of property is simplistic and misguided. Music is marketed in so many different ways and none of them are benefited by illegal file sharing.
If you think managers, agents, and labels do not investigate how much a band's music has been pirated before agreeing to promote
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
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement == "he stole my idea!" == theft
You're probably pointing out that it is not a crime to steal music. You're right. It's still theft. If I say those damn pirates are stealing my songs, you know exactly what I'm talking about. That's because everyone agrees upon what the term implies. That is thus what the word means.
And most mainstream albums only cost $75k-200k to produce. It's the promotions afterwards that cost $300+k. And I don't defend that type of music marketing, but it doe
NO!!! (Score:2)
Please, go back up to the beginning and read more of this thread. Copyright infringement is NOT theft. Period. I am not saying that it is right, but it is not theft, and there are a number of very good reasons (both legal and ethical) for saying so! Try to get educated on this issue, dontmakemethink, before assuming things that ain't so.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, go back up to the beginning and read more of this thread.
It's easier to provide a link than to describe where one might find it. [slashdot.org]
.faiL
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger fail.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that many artists get nothing.
Mind you: getting 10% of an 8-digit profit figure is still a 7-digit figure. That's still really a lot of money, especially as the band takes very little financial risk by themselves. Not many bands go bankrupt, even if they don't take off the musicians just go back in the amateur circuit and take up a day job.
The problem is that artists tend to get 1% or less. 1% of an 8-digit number is still a 6-digit number, still nice, but getting a bit pathetic.
Add on
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA amd MPAA have made a lot of noise about their position that the reason they are suing 12-year-old girls is because "the artists" are not getting their royalties. However, even when there was a settlement made, there is no record of the RIAA and MPAA NEVER giving any of that money to the artists!
I won't belabor the point furthe
Gah. Grammar. Typos. (Score:2)
late. tired.
Re: (Score:2)
Make no mistake
You are mistaken. When you purchase a CD, you own the CD. There is no license, it is yours, and you can do with it almost as you wish. The only limit is placed upon it by the law, not the company that sold it to you. That company may opt to allow you to do more with it than you would normally be allowed to do, and for that they may demand that you pay for a license.
But make no mistake: when you buy a CD, it is yours and there is no license involved. Only the government, via the law can tell y
Re: (Score:2)
When you purchase a CD, you own the CD.
but not the music on the physical media, nor the right to redistribute the contents; reselling the used physical media with it's contents are a grey-area.
NO, it is not. (Score:3, Interesting)
Theft deprives a property owner of the use of something they already own, whether that something is goods or money. Copyright infringement does
Re:Do not steal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to believe someone is actually defending the actions of the RIAA, but I checked your posting history and no, you aren't joking. Although technically you are correct and under existing law you could use the term thieves, you conveniently ignore the fact that the RIAA has run the campaign more like a protection racket than as a legitimate campaign to prosecute (or educate, depending on which RIAA shill you believe) the supposed offenders. They've collected "evidence" illegally, ignored court orders, used questionable legal arguments and arguments based on legal principles that do not exist. Any time anyone actually chooses to fight them in court they walk away in order to prevent a precedent from being set. The large corporations backing the RIAA can't or won't adapt to the changing market and instead are attempting to use legislation to cling to a failing business model. The existing body of law was largely set before the internet came into being, and subsequent changes have been heavily influenced by the same large corporate copyright holders. Your average person doesn't understand IP and your average congressman knows who is buttering his bread. Their entire campaign is a sterling example of how a large moneyed interest can abuse the entire legal system both in the courts and in their efforts to influence the lawmaking process itself.
All this leads me to one question: Why are you so mindlessly insistent that the law is just?
Re: (Score:2)
You are mostly correct, but misunderstand the situation the RIAA and all companies selling "recorded music" are in. The value of a song today isn't $0.99 on iTunes - it is zero on BearShare, LimeWire, Kazaa, Shareaza, and many, many other services. Just because iTunes can sell 1% of the downloaded music doesn't mean very much when the other 99% is freely distributed.
The RIAA's position is quite simple - stop downloading or die. They aren't going to stop free downloading which means there is no revenue in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not just continue conventional copyright protection for commercial use -- restaurants, television commercials, and so on -- while allowing unlimited personal use? Even without non-commercial use, there's still a revenue stream, albeit a smaller one, and still an incentive for artists to create popular music.
Plus, artists will always have live events and merchandise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you apparently don't understand, I'll explain what's happening: The record companies are throwing the mother of all hissy-fits over the obsolescence of their business model. In the old days, there were no record companies and artists made their living by *performing*. Then along came radio and the phonograph. The music industry was born, which was based on selling overpriced pieces of plastic, along with radio revenue. The pieces of plastic evolved into CDs and eventually cost the consumer on average
Re: (Score:2)
the issue is not about whether copyright should exist at all but rather how best to stimulate creativity to promote the public good rather than the interests of corporations
In order to arrive at such a radical conclusion, you must have actually gone back and read the United States Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
who says it's worth $0.99?
A bailout would be better for the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
If, instead of claiming that people are stealing their music, the RIAA would accept the simple fact that their product sucks, their marketing strategy sucks, their whole business plan sucks, then they could claim their problems are the result of the economic meltdown and get a few billion $$$ from Washington. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do not steal (Score:4, Funny)
There, fixed that for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Whaah. If you would use the term properly, no one would object.
What has been taken? Perhaps property rights have been infringed upon, but nothing has been taken.
There is a difference
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is theft.
However, it is theft of services, not of goods.
It's very much like walking into a theater and watching a movie without buying a ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is theft.
However, it is theft of services, not of goods.
It's very much like walking into a theater and watching a movie without buying a ticket.
Right, because downloading something from a random stranger puts a load on the RIAA's servers, and maybe interferes with them providing downloads to people who pay them...
Re: (Score:2)
Economically, there is no difference.
Movies and songs both have close to zero marginal costs when you up the number served by one. Me walking into a theatre unawares to watch a movie raises the box office's costs zilch, just as if I were to pirate a song.
Also, in both cases, my utility goes up, because I'm enjoying the service. However, since I haven't paid for it like I was supposed to, my consumer surplus goes up. My marginal utility will still go down however, and whatever satisfaction I got by cheati
Re: (Score:2)
*Copyright infringement is not theft*
Reading Merriam-Webster, I find "stealing" to be:
1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
So you don't think that copying music without paying for it is appropriating it without the right to do so?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Appropriate (or "take") is still implying the same thing -- the taking of a physical object. It has nothing to do with creating a copy.
In fact, here's a dictionary, to back me up:
Appropriate \Ap*pro"pri*ate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
Appropriated; p. pr. & vb. n. Appropriating.]
1. To take to one's self in exclusion of others; to claim or
use as by an exclusive right; as, let no man appropriate
the use of a common benefit.
Creating a copy does not exclude others from creating a copy, so no.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To take to one's self in exclusion of others; to claim or use as by an exclusive right; as, let no man appropriate the use of a common benefit.
Hmmm. Exclusion of others. That means it's not theft if we play it loud enough for the neighbors to hear?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Creating a copy does not exclude others from creating a copy, so no.
No but your appropriating the rights holder's right to distribute; better to support a good local band and go to their proformances and buy your CDs directing from the band and let the RIAA vampyres die of their own accord.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep reading...
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right
That's definition 3 of appropriate. You can argue that maybe Merriam-Webster didn't mean this particular definition when they used the word in the previous definition, but it's there and to me it seems to apply.
Re: (Score:2)
An honest one? Seriously, it's a popular crime. Sooner or later he's going to get one that is guilty (at least, in the informal sense).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it honest to sell out your client? You realize that a lawyer's job is to be a zealous advocate (though within the bounds of the law), don't you? A lawyer is not the judge and jury. It's not the attorney's role. Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter how guilty. And even if found guilty, there is the question of how much punishment the guilty person deserves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to sell him out, but to admit, privately or non-committally, that you're pretty convinced this guy is guilty, or if not that, then many of your clients are most likely guilty.
Don't forget that the RIAA aren't the only aggressors in this ongoing feud. There are still people out there unlawfully using what they risked their precious capital to pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that the RIAA aren't the only aggressors in this ongoing feud.
Yes. There's the MPAA too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Careful here, how does copyright infringement force people to continue making music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And slavery isn't fucking theft either. It's goddamn kidnapping, assault, probably some rape, all sorts of other crimes, but it's not theft.
Re: (Score:2)
How about unconscionable contract? Even non-compete clauses have an expiration date and valuable consideration for compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
*Forcing people to create music without pay is not theft*
...which is why record companies do it that way ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's doubtful the John Does spent a single penny. I know that I would not, until my name actually appeared on a court document. Meanwhile I'd be hiding.
Also: Recall that RIAA may win a case, but they still have to collect the money.
Good luck trying to find me.
I hear Canada is a nice place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a Saturday Night Live fake ad: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/82/82ntexxon.phtml [jt.org]
"Texxon. Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt."
-Mike
Re: (Score:2)
Nice switch from ad misericordiam to ad hominem. In point of fact, I don't download music and never have. But your blatant appeal to pity immediately brought that skit to mind. In any case, I think the recording industry's problems have more to do with stubbornly clinging to an outdated business model than with people downloading music.
-Mike
Re: (Score:2)
They make an everyday wage and they're about to layoff 400+ people from their offices.
Seen any other industry in the same downturn? You are quick to lay the blame.
Companies that adapt and find the needs to be met do better. For example, Music is still sold for private home use only. By definitation, it is not in the license to place it on a personal music player and take it jogging with you, play it in your car away from home etc.
Multimedia is expanding the uses for the product, but the product license
This is not our problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll go the "Anonymous Coward" route...
My fiance works for a music distributor. They make an everyday wage and they're about to layoff 400+ people from their offices. Oh yeah, my fiance also has Multiple Sclerosis. Her MASSIVE medical expenses are paid for through health insurance provided by her company, which she will lose if she gets laid off.
So...THANK YOU for stealing music!!!
I'm sorry, but maybe you should be speaking to people and campaigning for healthcare reform and universal healthcare. (for my part, I graduated college into this recession, have no job, and am also uninsurable at any price. I'm quickly plummeting toward the precipice with 2k/mo in Rx. )
If it wasn't the downturn or the pirates it would be something else, but your husband would have eventually lost his job (thus his insurance), and from there it's a quick drop into disability.
The injustice here is not your hu
Re: (Score:2)
It's more likely they are just regrouping before the next attack.
Set the jib me hearties and ready the canon. Arrrr, they not be takin me without a fight.