Inquiry Into RIAA's Piracy Crackdown Tactics 727
MongooseCN writes "Sen. Norm Coleman started an inquiry to check the RIAA's tactics on attacking online music swappers. He believes the RIAA's tactics may not be taking into consideration the damage they do to innocent people. It's good to know that someone remembered people in the US have Rights." As a former roadie, Senator Coleman doesn't oppose file sharing penalities, he merely wants to make sure the punishment fits the crime.
So what now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
[metaphor] Street lines aren't repainted until there are a few major accidents on the road. It's an unfortunate fact of life. [/metaphor]
"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not a "fact of life." Birth, death, and the need to consume food in between are facts of life.
Street lines not being repainted until people are injured or killed, environmental laws being repealed to appease Baby Bush's oil buddies, and draconian laws that don't get fixed until the lives of thousands are ruined or threatened with ruination are NOT "facts of lif
Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
I will conceed that some corruption happens on the hill on a daily basis, it's gonna happen because some people feed on that. However, I will not conceed the point of view that all people who make a living running this country are corrupt. They do what is either in the best interest of their constituants, or they listen to those people when they change their minds (as a majority). He still needs to get votes to keep his job.
On a side note, yes attorneys have a large voice in DC, but that's because they hire a ton of folks to do lobbying for them. It's not what you say, it's how many voices you say it with.
Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption (Score:3)
Re:Nothing to do with dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. I think the rules should apply equally to everyone. Exactly what political biases are you attributing to me? I hate the liberal every bit as much as the conservatives. But what I hate most of all is GroupThink.
Yes indeed, I believe we should let everyone speak. What I despise are the megaphones people erect in the form of Political Action Committees.
Any message worth sending resonates from the masses. It d
Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, we haven't had a true majority rule in anything other than congress in years. Presidential elections nowadays are rarely won by a true majority. Closer to the truth would be that a plurality rules in America, but even this is stretching it a bit considering that we have a representative form of government, so in reality we have a very small minority making most of our decisions (Congress, the President, etc.). Sure, we elect them, but only once every few years, and even then, no one pays attention to everything their congressmen do, so they're free to give lip service to the big issues and then do whatever they want. Therein lies one of the problems of a representative government.
Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
No, democracy (in its purest form) has not a damn thing to do with protecting minority rights. That is why we had to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, to protect the minority from the tyranical power pure-democracy allows the majority.
Yeah, in the American verion of representative democracy, we protect minority rights, but that is because of the modifcations we've made to the idea of democracy not b
Democracy !?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowhere in the bill of Rights, Constitution or any other original documents is the term DEMOCRACY used. This is not afterthought but intentional. Your form of government is not a Democracy - period. It is a Constitution Republic. It may be turning into a democracy but it was never intended to be one. A democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. A Constitution ensures that the rights of o
Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm afraid that it seems the laws regarding to the RIAA's punishments have been somewhat slow to develop, but that is because this is the first time it's been this easy to violate their copyrights (which is what's happening legally, regardless of whether or not we feel like it's right). If we give it enough time, something will sort itself out, it's just that a few people may unfortunately get burned in the process.
As an aside, I think it's really unfortunate that the ones who stand to be prosecuted most often are the college students. File sharing for music files has become so popular around the campuses that many of the students, who wouldn't be likely to keep up with this sort of debate online, don't realize that they're playing with fire right now to be sharing music. They aren't usually intentionally trying to screw the music industry out of the supposed billions they lose through piracy, but they are being prosecuted as if they were professional pirates. That's where I think the government ought to step in and provide some protections, but sadly, as you mention, it will require a critical mass before this happens, and as long as it's just a few college students who are being screwed, it isn't likely to reach that level.
Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
With this line, you effectively made the guy's point for him. Your say in Washington is directly proportional to the number of lobbyists you can hire (i.e. how much money you throw around).
Re: NO, we don't have rule by majority in the USA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So what now? (Score:3, Funny)
-Ralph Wiggum
Re:So what now? (Score:4, Interesting)
I could see class action cases started by lawyers working pro bono for recovery of settlement money, if it was shown to be coerced, or punitive damages for abuse to privacy, or even harm to minors (as many on the RIAA's list appear to be minors.)
When are we going to see a civil suit against the RIAA?
tommer
Re:So what now? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So what now? (Score:4, Funny)
*clippy* You look like you're writing a subpoena. Would you like some help with that?
a group big enough to influence... like the EFF? (Score:5, Insightful)
notice how every victory emboldens them? this last time they didn't even necessarily want to go to court, they were just looking for 2000 settlement checks, much like DirecTV.
and did the gov't finally get its act together? or did we, their constituents, finally get -our- act together?
if you want to protect your rights, how about you email your representatives and write your check to the EFF?
you can rail against the system, or you can use your power as a voter to get things done.
I'm sorry... power? as a voter? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you don't have the money to get them elected, it does them little good to listen to you.
Depressing, but that's how it seems. At leasst from my perspective, not being a US resident and all.
In Australia, it often feels like we may as well be a US state in terms of how strongly US events affect our own laws and politics, but we don't get a vote in the events that largely determine our eventual laws. As if the politicians think we're another US state...
Re:I'm sorry... power? as a voter? (Score:2)
like i'm saying, americans can either complain about the problems, or do something.
currently our options to change things are:
support candidates who support campaign finance reform
make educated votes, and encourage everyone around you to do the same
support the EFF to defend our liberties
support the ACLU to defend our liberties
or
complain
most people choose the latter; as we have something atrocious like 25% voter turnout.
Re:I'm sorry... power? as a voter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the only reason it's coming up is because everyone was so disgusted with the 2000 election that anyone who is in office now knows they will not be if they vote against it.
Kind of funny how democracy works. It may not turn on a dime, but it does manage a few quite miracles.
That's wonderful! (Score:2)
That'll hopefully actually FIX the one massive, gaping problem with the American political system (at least as seen from outside of it). No more "Senator for auction, bidding starts at $5m". Except they never seem to be that expensive, that's the sad part.
Of course, Hollings will be out of a job, being "Mr Disney"... so sad
Re:That's wonderful! (Score:5, Insightful)
It will improve it, though----You have to remember, sneaky people can get around laws
And politicans are the sneakiest of the bunch. These laws will improve the situation somewhat, until some more corruption is unveiled by the media, and then another iteration of laws will be implemented.
Anyways, I'm hoping for the best
Ahem. NOT. (Score:5, Informative)
How soon they all forget.
Gore won the popular vote - he had more ballots with his name on them.
Bush won the electoral college - he won more states.
'Sheep, thought I.' - Anthony Burgess
-72
Re:Ahem. NOT. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh please. The only way that this situation could have happened is if niether candidate was ideal. Face facts, Gore may have had a handful of more votes, there's still half the country that didn't want him in.
Re:So what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Middle Ages, Lord would declare just about anything illegal that vaguely represented a threat to their power. Hell, before the American Revolution, England was so afraid of America becoming self-suffiecient (and thus not needing them anymore) they forbade metal tools from being imported or produced here.
Having been on the recieving end of such treatment, our founding fathers decided that government should only tackle the bleedingly obvious problems. You can't put someone away for what the might do, only what they have done, or were in the process of doing.
Frankly, seeing the mess that "preventative" lawmaking makes versus "reactive" lawmaking, I'd take "reactive" any day. The both have problems. But at least reactive lawmaking eventually fixes them. Preventative lawmaking ends up causing unforseen problems of its own.
It may sound like I have my head in the sand, but look at the track record of the Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Now compare that to the hand off (until it was mature) approach congress took with the Internet. Somewhere in the middle would by Radio and Television, which needed regulation from the start because all parties are competing for limited chunks of the broadcast spectrum.
Re:So what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look - the problem is still 99% piracy and 1% RIAA overreach. it's nice that somebody is looking at the 1%, but don't forget that the major problem still is piracy.
remember the slashdot excuse pre-crackdown: go after the offenders, not the technology. support going after the offenders.
Re:So what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm saying that the government should define the problem away. Copyright is a limited monopoly assigned by the government to artists for the purposes of promoting the arts. IMHO, copyright should be 2-3 years. Most P2P copyright infringement would vanish. Me, I'm extreme enough to say that there shouldn't be any copyright past 6 months, but thats not going to happen.
Why is this not a copout? The notion of copyright was established in a different era, because of the costs associated with distribution and creation. Why would an artist produce anything if they couldn't capitalize on their works?
Now, things have changed a bit. I think artists can support themselves on concert performances. Indeed, most artists HAVE too---they don't make much from CD sales. Copyright is not something assigned by god, nor do I consider it some sort of inalienable human right. Recognize copyright for what it is----a limited MONOPOLY on a product assigned by the government.
Given that monopoly is no longer a necessary condition for the production of music, the monopoly only IMPEDES efficent economic distribution. Why? Because P2P, without cost (because distribution costs are borne by the P2P users) to artists, is the MOST efficent means of distribution currently avaliable.
If the Government eliminated copyright on music tomorrow, artists would still make music. And the world would keep spinning.
Indeed, what we would probably see would be extremely similar to what we have now----Where small and mid-level bands made their money on live performances, and large bands would make their money on live performances and sales of memorablia. Heck, if artist X produced a REALLY good album, sold it in a nice case, included a book of lyrics and information, wouldn't you buy it? I would.
Fact is, copyright on music is an outdated notion. So outdated, that technologies like Freenet WILL end it, without truely draconian government legislation. Like mandated palladium on steroids. Like banning all 'old' non-palladium computers. And I just don't see that happening.
Why won't that happen? Go look up the size of the music industry. Then look up the size of the home electronics industry. 'Nuff said
Good riddance, RIAA
Resistance is Futile.
Re:So what now? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, my brother has his own band and writes his own music. He's already gotten cease and desist letters for putting some of his band's music up on Kazaa. Were he to have kept the music on Kazaa, and the RIAA to follow-through with their threat, he would be forced to settle, even through he has every right to distribute those mp3s.
The big problem I see is that the RIAA's lawsuits are less about going after pirates than they are about getting as much money out of those people that probably won't fight back. The new battlecry is "We know you can't afford a legal battle with us. Fork over or perish."
Re:So what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but my thoughts on a response: your brother should file copyright on his songs so he has clear and established rights, then take the C&D letter down to the district attorney's office, or whoever handles this sort of thing, and see if he can file a *criminal* complaint against the RIAA. That makes pursuing the case the government's job.
Re:So what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
he's right. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:he's right. (Score:2, Insightful)
The bottom line is, it is against the law to steal stuff, and pirating anything, be it software, music, or movies, is stealing. That's just the way it is.
I am, however, perfectly willing to promote and even perpetuate the robbing blind of the RIAA and the major labels until such a time as they either go out of business, or figure out that they need to start
Re:he's right. (Score:2, Informative)
You're wrong on one count:
If "copyright infringement" is too many syllables for you, use a less loaded term like sharing. But please do not help the RIAA propagate its spin. It's doing fine on its own.
Re:he's right. (Score:4, Informative)
>it's bad without using any concept of stealing or
>theft. I can't do it. I don't think you can,
>either.You cannot use the concept of paying
>people for their hard work if you enjoy the
>fruits of their labor, since not doing that is
>stealing.
Copyright ionfringement is creating a new copy of something which you are not allowed to do. That is, you gained something you should ne have been allowed to gain.
Theft has an additional part, which is that not only did you gain something, the one you stole from lost his copy of it (since there was not any copying involved creating a second copy).
In addition, copyright infringment works on non physical objects while theft works on physical ones (well, at least normally).
Finally, copyright infringement is limited in time, after a certain time (which is definately to long in my opinion right now), the copying IS suddenly allowed. If any copying would be stealing, how come it suddenly stop being theft just because the copyright expired, it is still the exact same copying.
It is also worth noticing that copyright infringment is NOT directly connected to money or value since even if there is no selling for money or other value transaction, it is STILL copyright infringement to to copy something you don't have the right to copy (even if someone holding the copyright for example is giving away copies for free which makes it very hard to claim the equality of theft in such a case, while it is still copyright infringement).
Re:he's right. (Score:4, Insightful)
YOU stop it.
This entire line of reasoning has led to people who are afraid of their computers because they don't understand it, who are afraid of others because they don't understand it, and who are perfectly willing to let their government run amok because they don't understand it.
Maybe, instead of using hyperbole and calling things names they are not, if we actually educated people as to what "copyright" and "copyright infringement" are, people might actually understand. And an understanding populace might want change. I honestly have no idea what a fully informed American populace would want. Maybe they would sympathize with the back street boys and britney spears they've been force-fed, and demand the death penalty for the file-traders. But at least it would be an informed decision, not the result of the RIAA's crying or people telling them what to think.
Explain what copyright infringment is and why it's bad without using any concept of stealing or theft.
Copyright is a government-granted monopoly on the production (usually via copies of an original) and distribution of a creative work of art. Copyright infringement is attempting to compete with that production and distribution. Simple, isn't it? Originally, copyright wasn't about "access control" or "encryption", it was about who had the right to copy a given work. The DMCA (which doesn't protect copyrights at all, it protects encryption and access control methods, and if not repealed, will continue doing so long after the copyrighted work is released into the public domain - in a protected encrypted form) is just the latest in a long line of legislation and standard operating procedures that turned the copyright issue into one of locked-down corporate ownership of individuals' ideas and creations.
If you actually understood and accepted that the main costs of creating music and such are in the creation...
I thought that the major costs (at least in what the RIAA labels charge the bands) were for promotion and such. I know using a professional recording studio is pretty expensive, but I don't see how it can trump the cost of whatever passes for radio payola these days and other forms of advertising.
If you support filesharing, you support Microsoft adding whatever they want from Linux into Windows while keeping Windows proprietary.
Heh heh heh that will blow a few minds. It is the exact same thing. Well almost... the core rules governing it are the same, but the GPL is enforced with a written license, while CDs do not come with explicit instructions indicating that I cannot convert the CD into a format I can put on my ipod. (and yet, with the industry attempting to produce unrippable cd's, that seems to be what they don't want me to do)
Re:he's right. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:he's right. (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright Infringment (Score:2, Insightful)
How can RIAA claim any loss in salse when the people sharing files do not have the dispoable income to purchase Cds in the firs tplace?
So where is the damage, again RIAA?
Its about like RIAA's position on piracy sales outside the US in that the CDs go for about $5 or less and yet RIAA claims loss at ful price not the actual money exchanged..
to me the actual money that was exchanged is the legal monetary da
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:3, Insightful)
mmmmmkay, they spent their last few cents on their broadband connection and huge hard drives so they can't possibly afford CDs... RIGHT.
maybe they should seek damages from the people who get the "disposable income" instead, like pizza deliverers and breweries? ;)
o me the actual money that was exchanged is the legal monetary damage of the piracy not invented figures..
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:5, Insightful)
Their business is based on the distribution of music and charging money for it. If someone else distributes music that is covered by the exclusive right the law has granted them (copyright), it weakens their business. It's not "one illegal download = one lost sale" as they like to think, but it's also deceptive to say "illegal downloads = no impact on business".
Illegal distribution of copyrighted material hurts the business of the corporations the RIAA presents. I don't really care of their business and I'd rather want to legalize this currently illegal distribution but that's different from saying it wouldn't hurt them.
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:2)
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they are claiming full price, they did lose the full price... the pirated CD might only sell for $5, but since it's pirated, nothing is going to the publishing company of the music! It's an illegal copy!
Re:Copyright Infringment MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say a person with zero assets downloads such music. How does this hurt the coprightholders?
Some examples:
here is a very crucial point:
THE RIAA SUING COLLEGE KIDS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BECAUSE THE KIDS HAVE NO ASSETS.
It shows that the RIAA is interested in STOPPING THE BEHAVIOR, not collecting damages. Yes, they might sue for 10B, but they'll never collect. What they are clearly doing by going after asset-less individuals and getting outrageous-sounding judgements is SENDING A MESSAGE. It's the RIGHT message - RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE'S COPYRIGHTS. The US produces a hell of a lot of IP in arts and sciences compared to, say, China largely because we have well-structured IP systems.
Are there excesses? Surely. Is the mickey mouse extension, well, mickey mouse? absolutely. but is copyrightholders going after music-infringers in order to send a message that such behavior will not be tolerated wrong? absolutely not.
the music industry is trying damn hard to provide music in digital form now - but what's the problem? the problem is that everybody's running around trying to figure out how to do this while not basically 'giving away the store' given how easy digitial redistribution is. iTunes has been a success, though it is mac only. others have had less success because they are either toe-in-the-water ventures with limited playlists or because the music is overly encumbered with DRM. but why is this so?
BECAUSE OF PIRACY!
if there were no idiots out there like you trying to justify blatant piracy on any number of grounds, that is to say, this whole cloud of pseudo-justifications for widescale copyright infringement and a general climate that tolerates such behaviour, we'd RIGHT NOW have 50c music dowloads as far as the eye could see.
we'd have LESS middlemen, MORE choices of artists, and BETTER digital portability if it wasn't for the fact that every self-styled h4xor seems to think that he is a) smarter and b) better than the law, and even if the law isn't so bad, he isn't going to get caught anyway. THAT is what's keeping a flourishing of online music from happening.. a climate that tolerates or even encourages piracy.
--- END OF RANT ---
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:3, Insightful)
You're suggesting that people who can afford computers and internet connections can't afford a $15 CD?
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't endorse copyright infringement/piracy so I don't want this to be construed the wrong way. I've done it in the past but have stopped.
Anyhow, your statment is absurd. One can allocate resources for education (computer, internet, books), housing, food, bare essentials and not any any left over for movies or music. Being able to afford a computer does not imply being able to afford $20 DVDs or $15 CDs.
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they're well aware of the facts behind the matter which includes (a) the bearish economy over the past couple years, and (b) the recent and continuing drop in overall quality of their products, but they're using P2P as a convenient scapegoat to try to recoup their reduced revenues over this period of time.
Almost
RIGHTS? (Score:5, Funny)
oh sorry was channelling Hilary Rosen for a minute... ewww.. I feel dirty now.
Re:RIGHTS? (Score:2)
What I'd be more intrested in... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be more intrested in questioning the legality of the RIAA's 'tactics'.
This guy earns my vote, and should earn yours too (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not from Minnesota, but if I was, I'd suddenly be sparked to start a massive campaigning effort for this guy.
Regardless of what side of the p2p issue you're on, you have to admit that this guy is the first Senator in a LONG time to openly investigate possible infringements on the rights of the common Joe by big business. With so many of our senators and representatives in the pockets of corporations, this man deserves the utmost respect, and if you are from Minnnesota, your vote.
Now, on to my side of the p2p battle, this is just another sign that the RIAA is eventually going to eat it for their practices. Senators hate to be wrong
Re:This guy earns my vote, and should earn yours t (Score:3, Insightful)
Norm Coleman: A Brief Political History (Score:3)
He was a major booster of St. Paul during his terms, which really had slid downhill in terms of its downtown. He worked hard to get a stadium built to ensure an NHL expansion franchise and to provide subsidies for new buildings to entice major corporations to relocate there, his biggest success being the luring of
well. (Score:5, Interesting)
to answer the first post - it took this long because now is the perfect opportunity for a politician to finally speak out and garner some public support for their election given the latest round of subpoena's has indicted innocent victims or third party individuals who were a matter of circumstance. It's best summed up in this paragraph:
>>> "The industry seems to have adopted a 'shotgun' approach that could potentially cause injury and harm to innocent people who may simply have been victims of circumstance, or possessed a lack of knowledge of the rules related to digital sharing of files," Coleman wrote. >>>
Before it was students etc they were filiong against and the claims were pretty justified - there wasn't much leeway for a politician to step up - now there is a distinct case to be made and popular support to be garnered from it.
Re:well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly. The student who wrote a search engine; the hard-up students "cheekily" bootlegging some music, being hit for their lifesavings?
Not what I'd call "justified."
Now say that about people "pirating for profit," and I might agree.
The claims the RIAA made for damages were and are, outrageous and unjust.
Re:well. (Score:3, Informative)
you are correct about the search enghine student, I was being vague; I apologize. I meant in the initial round of filings the sharers who were sharing 5,000 + music files there wasn't much leeway with.
unfortunately in the search engine case, there wasn't as much media hype because it simply affected only that one student. The tech world was pretty informed on it, however the 'mass sheep' were not for the most part. This case is completely different because it affects so many and is a big media story.
alb
In the RIAA's eyes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, from the article:
"Theft is theft, but in this country we don't cut off your arm or fingers for stealing," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who was a rock roadie in the 1960s.
And yet, all Coleman wants is to see a copy of the subpoenas & any measures the RIAA is taking to ensure that 'innocent people' aren't getting snagged.
How about doing something useful, Senator? How about imposing a cap on the amount of damages the RIAA can levy against its victims? You're not at all concerned that they're claiming damages upto $15,000 per song? Is 'Oops! I did it again' really fscking worth $15,000 to anyone?
This is just another example of a gubment windbag trying to grab some press for being the 'good guy' while not actually doing shit for his constituents.
Give the guy a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
He may well be a gubment windbag (the fact that he is a senator significantly increases this possibility) but at least, for the time being, on this issue, he's OUR gubment windbag. The pro-file sharing lobby has been screaming that Capitol Hill is in the pockets of the **AAs, so it's nice to see that one of them isn't. And at least calling for information is a warning shot across the bows of the RIAA that they will be expected to conform to the letter of the law. I'm relieved to see this, because the tide had been running firmly in the other direction, what with the DMCA, and the Patriot Act, and all. It's nice to see the elected representatives doing something on behalf of the people that they are representing, even if it isn't exactly what the file sharers would like him to do.
Re:In the RIAA's eyes.. (Score:2)
I should've used a song by everyone's favorite media whore - Madonna.
My bad, won't happen again.
Coleman was great up to the end of the interview (Score:4, Interesting)
"I must confess, I downloaded Napster, and then Napster was found to be the wrong thing," he said. "I stopped."
So, he's a former roadie, and a Senator, and he waited until the justice declared Napster the wrong thing to stop using it? when he downloaded songs off Napster, shouldn't he have sensed that guilt that should have come from his being a former roadie, and his current position as (supposedly moral) senator?
So yeah, go Senator, but I wonder if he's not just another file swapper with a louder voice than everybody else, who tries to hide the fact behind "I recognize the very legitimate concerns about copyright infringement" statements, so as to not be labeled as a pirate by the RIAA.
Re:Coleman was great up to the end of the intervie (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Napster was innocent until proven guilty by a court of justice. Coleman did the right thing.
Or else, all $BigCorp [sco.com] had to do was spread some fud about questionable legality of its competitor, and everybody would just oblige and roll over? First let's the courts decide, and only then be part of the punishment.
Re:Coleman was great up to the end of the intervie (Score:2)
File sharing is moral [vt.edu]
RIAA not understood (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA not understood (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't tell you how many times on CSPAN I've heard a congressman cite a letter he/she recieved from a constituant. I have seen first hand how a letter to a Representative or a Senator can clear up some confusion about beuracratic issues.
Indeed if you ask any one of these folks who tell you that Government doesn't respond t
I'm thinking... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fight fire with fire.
Re:I'm thinking... (Score:2)
The only people who make money from it are the lawyers, and the companies involved get away with a comparitive slap on the wrists.
Everyone who was wronged by the RIAA should take them to small claims court. Individually. They will either have to field a lawyer for each case, or loose by default.
The Legal System does not discriminate against who it screws.
What I still find hard to believe (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a higher burden of proof - a judge should be looking over it. Or, you'll clog the court system, as is happening with the RIAA and it's 900+ subpoenas. It would also encourage them to go after the serious people (those making money through piracy) as opposed to the college kids and grandparents (who will normally just roll over instantly due to potential legal costs).
However, I don't think it's going to take them much longer to hit critical mass for "people fucked off". Then it'll start to get interesting again. No more Mickey Mouse Preservation Acts, etc then: they'll blow the goodwill the $$$ in politicians pockets bought them.
-- james
They rolled Verizon because.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon is still in appeals. (Score:2)
I also was under the impression that this was likely to end up in the Supreme Court because it's an issue of Congress stomping on the Constitution with the passage of the DMCA.
If it does go that far, the RIAA may be sorry for their tactics.
any idiot? hey, that's me! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a minute. Could *I* do this? Could I perhaps inadvertantly target, say, certain industry associations, because my spidering software had mistakenly identified them as distributors of my IP? Could I then hold them to the same standards of proof that they are holding random Kazaa users, and force their lawyers to establish a precident, as the defendants, for just what you have to show in court before you can win such a case?
Seriously, it seems that there's a nice legal hack to be had in creatively abusing the ability to send subpeonas without a judge. Could someone who IAL suggest some possibilities?
Show him your support (Score:5, Insightful)
$15,000 for a copyright violation? hmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Record/buy copyrights to a song which would otherwise sell a couple of thousand copies at most.
2. leak it out somehow, wait for those few thousand people to download it.
3. Sue these guys and recover $15,000 from them each.
4. Profit???
Much better than actually selling good songs, isnt it? Maybe this is why Britney & gang were promoted endlessly...:)
Re:$15,000 for a copyright violation? hmmm.... (Score:2)
3. Sue these guys and recover $15,000 from them each.
The problem is that they don't seem to be suing the downloaders, only the people sharing the music. That's actually the only sane way to do it and is much more effective at combating piracy. If everyone stops sharing files then the network collapses and their goal is achieved.
Bah... either way (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
In other news, the RIAA has cut off the hands of 75 people today in Iran for downloading Busta Rhymes songs.
In a statement issued by the RIAA in Iranian newspapers...
"It will confirm that our actions are entirely consistent with the laws as enacted by the Iranian government and interpreted by the courts". The statement continues, "Yes, we realize many of our artists publish songs that support killing policemen, and raping and beating women, but downloading copyrighted material is wrong and totally unjustified!!"
If you write to Congreeman Coleman... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you write to Congreeman Coleman... (Score:3, Insightful)
This demonstrates that Sen. Norm Coleman's first priority is serving his constituents.
And let's just say that my 5 minute cursory review of the RIAA website [riaa.org] did not turn up the state in which RIAA is incorporated. I do not think it happens to be Minnesota...
Something tells me that if it really came down to an "unsuspecting grandparent" vs RIAA, Coleman would come down
Mosquitos with a howitzer (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately with computer technology the very act of playback requires duplication.
The copyright law foreseeing that things are often copied on a small scale by people tossed in a clause for Fair Use. Fair Use was OK when folks copied tracks of the radio, or put together custom casettes. The problem is that people are doing this Fair Use cut and paste en masse.
We ran into the same issue when the Radio was developed. As a solution we developed compulsory licensing. Everyone who owns a radio station (and hence is easily tracked down owing to their FCC license) pays a flat fee to AASCAP or similar organizations. They also track how often the play what songs, and the compulsory licence folks divvy the spoils amoung the folks who got the most air time.
The problem with the Internet is that you don't need a license. Tracking down individual "broadcasters" is a little difficult.
Now the RIAA does have a gripe. But their hands aren't clean either. They have been pushing for exorbinately high fees for internet broadcast rights. They have also been fighting the compulsory licensing scheme for internet file sharing.
The answer has yet to be found. Grabbing congresses' attention is a good sign.
Re:Mosquitos with a howitzer (Score:2)
Re:Mosquitos with a howitzer (Score:2)
IIRC, the RIAA is paid out of the licensing proceeds.
I might also add that everyone is still paying a surcharge that was originally slapped on compact discs to pay for "research & development costs." We also pay surcharges on blank media, do we not? After 20 years
Senator Coleman (Republican - MA) (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting that his party affiliation didn't make it into the article. If he were a democrat fighting the good fight it would have been mentioned.
Why is thie modded as a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is thie modded as a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
In any event, finding out something you believed to be true at one time is now false isn't lying.
The main point, and the one you've completely ignored is that the Democrats never EVER admit they're wrong. NEVER.
Theft is theft, copyright infringement is theft (Score:5, Interesting)
And so on. Interesting opinion. Unfortunately, it's incorrect.
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun back, Dowling v. the United States: 'It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."' [oreillynet.com]
I know that this is playing to the gallery, but if we're simply going to redefine terms to suit ourselves, how about try a bit of it ourselves. For example:
Then we get a go:
Not perhaps technically accurate, but hey, they started it.
Conspiracy Theory... (Score:3, Interesting)
Point 2: The RIAA is seeking the close assistance of republicans with point 1.
Point 3: Sen. Norm Coleman is a republican.
Point 4: The parties mentioned in (3), merely question the methods that the RIAA used to get their subpoenas and whether or not the penalties are affecting "innocent" people. He does not think that P2P is legally or morally OK to use. In fact, he calls the copyright infringement "theft", which clearly it is not.
Theory: RIAA uses its connections to the Republican party to pass new laws, all the while the unsuspecting consumer is egging the republicans on because they are "talking a good talk". While I'm optimistic at the sound of this inquiry, I won't hold my breath for a favorable outcome, and I am suspicious of Coleman's motives.
Re:Conspiracy Theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy Theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's pretty interesting, considering that the head of RIAA, the group that's been causing all of these problems so far, is a supporter and contributor to the Democrat party:
Check out this link:
right here [tray.com]
And type "Recording Industry" into the link. Guess what? It's Hilary Rosen contributing to Gephart's campaign, Kerry's campaign and the like.
Like it or not, this isn'
Here's how to contact Norm Coleman (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.senate.gov/~coleman/contact/index.cf
This is what I sent, short and simple:
Thank you for taking a stand against the ridiculously strong-armed tactics that the RIAA is taking against innocent people. $15K to $250K per song is "Cruel and Unusual"
Stealing is a crime against society! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess we'll just have to get our music old school style. I wanna ask Winona Ryder for some tips.
Time for a Copyright Reform Bill (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole idea of copyright is to provide a limited term of exclusivity so you can make money from your work, in return for the promise that one day, your work will enter the public domain. Frankly, five years should be enough time for anyone to make a fair profit {which is why I think it should be counted from the receipt of the first royalty payment}; and, if you haven't made any money out of it in that time, you're never going to, so you should cut your losses.
I'll maybe rewrite this in more bill-like terms and repost it, if anyone else thinks it's a good idea.
Death Penalty for Parking Violations! (Score:3, Funny)
As a former roadie? (Score:4, Insightful)
Save the Children! (Score:3, Funny)
I was wondering when this would come out...
Coleman, who has two children, admitted that he's faced the issue himself as a parent.
"I've had this problem in my family," Coleman said. "I'm sure my children have used file-sharing programs."
"I have confessed to using Napster," he said, adding that he does not use any file-sharing programs anymore.
Sure, Norm. You just downloaded 'Frampton Comes Alive' and 'Thriller' from my FTP server last week....
"The punishment fits the crime" (Score:4, Funny)
write your senator (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? Do the laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
Take this a step further, who made those laws? Content providers, naturally. So, of course it's illegal, they made it that way as well as the steep penalty! Now they attempt to apply this to Joe Consumer and we are seeing the reults.
As far as theft vs. infringement, the distinction is justified. Theft displaces wealth. While P2P may hurt record sales, it does not 'displace' money from the RIAA.
Good works will generate revenue. Crap will not. Unfortunately, there is very little to preview. To watch a movie, you have to pay. The movie might be really bad, and not worth the money. However, you have to pay money just to find that out. Pirate the movie and pay a tremendous fine or go to jail. Talk about a trap.
The Coming Storm Has Yet to Hit (Score:3, Insightful)
So is the RIAA hoping everyone will get exhausted by their one-step-at-a-time process to get to that point...
And what if people actually do start going to court over this? Lots of people?
There's a rough ride ahead boys.
relevance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this the guy ... Who, after his political opponent Paul Wellstone was killed in an airplane crash, gave his first televised interview posing against a small private plane in a hangar?
Dunno; would that be relevant, somehow? Is nobody allowed to have private planes after their political opponents die in plane crashes?
Re:Nope, Won't Happen (Score:2)
People need to stop complaining. If you don't pay off your congressmen then you certainly shouldn't be expecting them to be looking out for your interests should you? Setup a Paypal donation fund or something and get people to send money into a Congressional Slush Fund for these kinds of things. Want to have legal file sharing? Donate $100 to the C