Mom, and Now Judge, Stand Up to RIAA 670
Nom du Keyboard writes "First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing. Now Judge McMahon doesn't seem to be letting the RIAA have it all their way either in this case. Godwin's Law summarizes the rebuke of Judge McMahon to the RIAA lawyer now that a court case has been filed. A transcript of the entire court appearance is also available."
Finally..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally..... (Score:5, Insightful)
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
Gandhi
Re:Finally..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Finally..... (Score:5, Funny)
This is the Soviet Russia we're talking about here
Lets try this again:
In Soviet Russia, first you ignore them. Then you laugh at them. Then they fight you. Then they win anyway
Re:Finally..... (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, there is a Comprehensive collection of links on this case (Elektra v. Santangelo) [blogspot.com]. Tells you much more than in the summary link, including her lawyer's rebuttals of the RIAA's claims.
Re:Finally..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Finally..... (Score:4, Funny)
First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then everybody loses. :-D
Then, they send you to Siberia....
Re:Finally..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally..... (Score:5, Funny)
Steve: So what are you in prison for?
Gandhi: To free my people from colonial rule. How about you?
Steve: I don't want to pay for Mariah Carey CDs so I demand the right to download them for free.
Re:Finally..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Gandhi
This is annoying, and almost offensive. To compare Gandhi in any way to the selfish and morally devoid mantra of "I want this for free, so I'm going to construct a philosophical framework that lets me justify stealing it" is completely off-base. The very fact that you're making a comparison like this, and have been modded up to (Score: 5, Insightful) shows me just how few people on slashdot have actually stood for any cause that mattered.
Re:Finally..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The "justification" was already written by the likes of Thomas Jefferson before the relevant laws and preceeding constitution were written.
Also, this issue has far broader implications than just whether or not some kid can download yesterdays's top 40 hits. This is why the problem of suppressing this form of information exchange was explicitly addressed by the founding fathers.
Copyright is a balance between competing public and private interests, not just a simple virtual land grab.
Me downloading the Beatles catalog is not stealing. It's merely acting consistent with the original intent of copyright law.
But why stop at just music. There's also great literature and textbooks to consider. Under your morally simplistic view of things, all the great works of our civilization would end up forever and irrevocably trapped in a mire of ownership interests.
You're only even alive today, and able to experience a nice soft live, because a few Irish monks 1500 years ago decided to pirate everything they could get their hands on.
Quakity banter in TFA... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like a drama... so what happened after the sounding off? This was not a court case, this was a pelimnary hearing... nothing was decided (though the sentiment of the judge was obvious).
Re:Quakity banter in TFA... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Quakity banter in TFA... (Score:5, Informative)
See her lawyer's site [blogspot.com], which has their responses. It looks like the evidence is so thin it will be thrown out.
Not a lot about nothing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people keep calling it **AA? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (Score:5, Funny)
Good catch.
Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm reading all these posts arguing about the best way to make a general expression for the different organizations which threaten both fair use and technical development and I have a far simpler solution:
I think it's about time that someone is standing up to these *ASSHATS* in the world!
Best part is that it's completely multifunctional! Instead of digging up the acronym or abbreviation for the person/group in question, in only 10 minutes a day you can learn to use my amazing technique.
Damn the CIA^H^H^H^H^Hose ASSHATS!
Screw that warmongering Presi^H^H^H^H^H ASSHAT!
I hope those liberal ACLU^H^H^H^H ASSHATS burn in Hell!
Slashdot is run by duping edito^H^H^H^H^H ASSHATS!
See? Piece Of Cake!
Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (Score:3, Informative)
If, however, they are treating the acronym in question as an expletive, it is standard procedure to blank out multiple letters with the '*' character. (Ex: Those s**tty suits) If that's the case, however, it should more properly be 'R**A'... so they more likely did intend it as a wildcard.
Still, not inappropriate to consider them as expletives given their behavior of late...
I think I'll start using 'Random Evil Media Or Recording Asso
Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (Score:5, Funny)
There will be nothing to stop us this time... (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA - High Priests of Virgin Sacrifice (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I think the RIAA is afraid of one of these going to trial because they know the evidence is shaky. That's why they try to push the settlements so hard.
The method seems to be "if you give us the virgin, we'll make sure the volcano doesn't destroy their village." They will try to steer this to an out of court settlement so they don't have to go through the public spectacle of being refused a virgin and the people seeing that the volcano didn't erupt.
So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest and quietly convince her to go to another village. You threatened it, she said she doesn't want to leap, so bring it on and stop pussyfooting around."
- Greg
Better yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Better yet, what she said was, Don't expect me to lure the virgin into the forest. Once you've brought her to me, she's under my protection, I decide, not you and your gang hidden away in the forest.
Re:RIAA - High Priests of Virgin Sacrifice (Score:3, Interesting)
one might think.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RIAA - High Priests of Virgin Sacrifice (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally..... (Score:3, Informative)
P2P should, therefore, be treated exactly
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the most interesting thing about the transcript as I read it was that the lawyer for the music industry wanted the defendant/her lawyer to mess around with some industry settlement process, but the judge basically squashed it flat:
The judge earlier stamped on an attempt to get the defendant to state a position under oath before having the chance to take legal advice pretty heavily, too.
Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, how far does the judge have to go in saying that he's leaning towards a particular party before the evidence is even presented, before he starts risking invalidating the whole trial?
Re:About time (Score:5, Funny)
Uhhh
Re:About time (Score:3)
The judge's bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Since IANAL, I can't answer that, but let's look at the transcript. The judge tells the defendant to try to find a lawyer, and allows time for this, squashing the plaintiff's attempt to get material from the defendant under oath before the legal advice is available. Then she tells the defendant she wants her to fight the case, and tells the plaintiff's lawyer that he has to present his case in court now they've started a lawsuit. Throughout, the judge is fairly clearly in favour of the defendant getting a fair day in court.
The one thing she doesn't do is give any indication of whether she thinks the defendant should actually win the case, and to my legally untrained mind, that seems to be the only thing that would have been inappropriate. In fact, I find it rather reassuring and highly appropriate that a judge was heavily in favour of a defendant fighting against a fair case in court, and not being intimidated into doing things that aren't in their best interests without the benefit of counsel.
Re:The judge's bias (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh?
That's awfully close to saying that the defendant should win.
She's also already made her mind up that there's a group of cases that all seem alike. That may not be legally problematic, but frankly divulging such information seems like it's crossing a line that most judges don't cross at the beginning of a case.
Certainly, it's
A Sequel.. (Score:4, Funny)
Full Blog Text (Score:5, Informative)
I've always said that the Recording Industry Association of America and its member companies are perfectly within their rights to sue those they think are infringing on music copyrights through peer-to-peer file-trading of songs. At the same time, it seems obvious that the RIAA should pick the lawsuits prudently, based on solid evidence, so that when the cases are publicized it will be clear that the defendants deserved what they got.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening, however. Instead, the RIAA notifies potential defendants that they are subject to a lawsuit that may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability, and then gives them the option of settling the claim for only a few thousand dollars. It ought to be needless to say this, but sometimes an innocent defendant might still opt to take the settlement, because the risk of going to court and losing is so great.
Occasionally, however, you find a defendant who is troubled enough that he or she is willing to stand up to RIAA regardless of the risk. That seems to be the case with Patricia Santangelo. I urge you to read the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's court appearance here. It is fun to read, and it has made me an instant admirer of Judge McMahon, who refused to be a mere conduit steering Ms. Santangelo to the RIAA's "conference center" (which should properly be called a "surrender center"):
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
Another Blog Link (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently she's gotten herself a lawyer
Just from the address I'm assuming that they're doing this Pro Bono for herI checked out their website and found this gem [blhny.com]
Not Pro Bono (Score:4, Informative)
He expects the courts to order the RIAA to pay the bill wheh they loose;which is not uncommon.
Why read the summary? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why read the summary? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why read the summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (Score:5, Funny)
Born 1951 in Columbus, OH
Federal Judicial Service:
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by William J. Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by John F. Keenan;
From http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2799 [fjc.gov]
Way to go Clinton
*quickly ducks*
Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA [wikipedia.org]
Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (Score:5, Insightful)
While Clinton signed the DMCA, the RIAA were the ones that decided to use it for extortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion [wikipedia.org]). Luckily, a judge that Clinton appointed is trying to put a stop to that. Checks and balances...more than just an idea?
Good cough none the less
Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (Score:3, Informative)
Shouldn't one '*' be enough since a wild card does multiple characters?
It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (Score:3, Interesting)
Good for her and everything, but "the tide" is not shifting to the RIAA's disadvantage.
Re:It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (Score:3, Interesting)
Though, no doubt the RIAA will probably throw some legal weight onto this case soon (I'm surprised they didn't do it already, but the defendant's lawyer says RIAA still has junior lawyers on the case [p2pnet.net]).
Something to point out... (Score:5, Informative)
MS. SANTANGELO: Okay.I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week, started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked into it before, but --
THE COURT: Yes, that, I can well understand.
MS. SANTANGELO: -- that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.
Re:Something to point out... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because, it will be presented like this:
"DRM will help secure you and your computer so that nobody will be able to pirate movies or music through your computer and you won't have to worry about being sued for $100k".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Something to point out... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, he "shares" some of the songs he ripped from a CD or someone shares a song with him in return. Now "sharing" is a crime and it shouldn't done.
I understand that it really isn't sharing to the adult world, but to a child who has been taught that you should "share", it seems natural that it is okay to share something of yours which you bought with your own allowance.
I am not saying that it is right or wrong, but I think the "powers-that-be" need to be a little less "heavy-handed", and realize that file-sharing may be non-obvious crime to a typical young person.
I am reminded of a story that someone told me recently. A boy was three or four and saw a pile of money on the table. He didn't see it as "money" like an adult, but as just some funny pieces of paper. He took the money, not realizing its importance. The mother caught the boy with the money and punished him for "stealing". The boy protested saying that all he did wanted to do was play with the paper. Instead of explaining the significance of the paper (educating the youngster), she applied adult standards of conduct to the child. I would wager that the boy had no idea what he did wrong, because in his eyes, he was just playing with some paper which he had probably done before.
The point is that we should not assume that children know what they are doing wrong. Rather than looking to punish, we should be looking to educate and bring about understanding. Children are not small adults. They are naieve to the ways of the adult world, and anyone who expects otherwise is an idiot.
I would imagine that those at the RIAA are all child-less, because they have no common sense when it comes to these things.
Re:Nail on the head (Score:3, Insightful)
It can, but it doesn't. Just like pigs can fly, but they don't. Quit spreading FUD. The music industry will be just fine after it gets its head out of its backside and turns around to face the reality that sharing is one of the few good parts of life.
No. It doesn't. Automated file sharing has be
ObHeinlein (Score:5, Interesting)
Heinlein put it best.
------
Crap, unclosed tag (Score:3, Insightful)
---
All you have to do is tell your kids "don't break the law." It's just so easy isn't it? (You guys all have kids, right?) Well it would be easy, if the U.S.C. wasn't so huge; and we didn't need law degrees to understand it and all its implications.
Here's an idea - a new book called U.S.C. 2005, For Kids!, or maybe a weekly cartoon show would be better. Anyway, then parents might have a
Do people really think this happens? (Score:5, Funny)
19 And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL
20 or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with
21 that my children had downloaded anything.
Yeah.... that'll happen.
The RIAA should drop this one (Score:4, Interesting)
They need to drop this one as soon as possible - there's no way they're going to "win" - they either lose the case or financially wipe out a single Mom of five kids for something about which she may not have had first-hand knowledge.
Re:The RIAA should drop this one (Score:3, Informative)
Check the litigation papers (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it almost looks like it is. The music industry guys seem to have dropped the ball big time with this one.
A little digging turns up a load of links to the various litigation documents [blogspot.com], courtesy of defence lawyer Ray Beckerman's blog. If you read the defence's revised reply memorandum of law, they make a convincing (to me as a non-lawyer) argument for what appear to be two open-and-shut claims, which basically mean the plaintiffs have failed to make a case for the defendant to answer. If the court accepts that argument, presumably any of the the other stuff doesn't matter, because the music industry didn't file it at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.
Interestingly, just before the conclusion, that defence memorandum reads
That sounds to me like not only are they trying to get this initial case dismissed, but also they're trying to block any attempt to bring any directly related case in future. I don't know how the appeal rules work if the court finds for the defence in this case, but given the defence's argument and the judge's apparent contempt for actions that don't give the defendant a fair chance to defend herself, it sounds as though this one's going to stop as dead as any music industry case ever can.
What is the Value of an IP address? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like a hard thing to prove in court. Isn't the threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a crime, and "preponderance of the evidence" for civil cases?
Maybe it is time to chance the threshold for guilt from preponderance to "highly likely".
What happens if someone has a wireless router in their apartment and the neighbor downloads music using it?
What happens if a community college with a wireless lan network has students download music?
What if a parent has their childrens friends over, and the kids download music?
There are thousands of ways music can be shared, where the person who owns the IP address will have no knowldge of the downloading.
And what if someone masks their IP address on the P2P networks? How hard is it to use a proxy? How hard is it to find a hack? The RIAA might see my IP address, but how can they prove it came from my IP?
Does the defendant have to prove innocence here?
Is the IP address infallible?
Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to college in Long Island. I got a letter from the RIAA claiming that I'd been sharing episodes of Sex in the City. I've got no interest in that series - I wasn't sharing those at all. They listed an IP address they claimed was mine, but I have a dynamic DNS service that logs what IP I have, and I'd never had that IP.
My landlady opened my mail because it was marked "urgent" (I was out of town for a few days to go to a programming competition), saw the legal complaint, kicked me out of the house one month before finals, and refused to give me my deposit back. This was one of the major factors that led to me dropping out of college for the second time.
(Admittedly I dropped out of college and went straight into a programming job at Google, so I'm not about to claim "this ruined my life" - if anything, it was a net win for me. But still.)
I'm not claiming that the RIAA is responsible for my landlady's actions, but they did send me offical legal papers that were not based in any way in fact. I wouldn't believe any of their lawsuits without some real concrete evidence.
Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (Score:5, Informative)
All her actions after that point are also actionable on your part. But, it sounds like you don't care to, since you're now in good circumstances. Luck be with you!
Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (Score:3, Informative)
I took pictures of the entire apartment before I left, so she can't claim I left it trashed. And I kept all the notes she left for me too.
Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (Score:3, Insightful)
Salient Quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
Defendant uses the Kazaa search engine, which furnishings the software, which allows the defendant to upload other users' files.
Do you see how they put her in the wrong immediately by spinning the definition of Kazza? Now I'm not saying Kazaa is solving world hunger, but this is expert stuff.
The captured materials in Exhibit B shows that the defendant had uploaded at least 1,641 files.
This is like asking a witness, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
From there, the RIAA's has a tough road ahead because the judge identifies almost immediately with the defendant and assists her in a few different ways.
MR. MASCHIO: Can I be heard for a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: You can be heard all you want.
OUCH!!!
Here's where it gets really ugly for the lawyer.
MR. MASCHIO: That's okay. We would just like -- we think it's appropriate for her to say, yes, I did this or, no, I did not do this under oath. The other thing is that --
THE COURT: First of all, you didn't file a verified complaint, and she doesn't have to file a verified answer. So she doesn't have to do anything under oath.
MR. MASCHIO: Well, okay.
At this point the lawyer is a spineless mass on the court's floor with grey matter seeping out of his ears. RIAA didn't file properly and have a lawyer in there that thinks this will go over his way just because he's the RIAA. Love it or hate it, courts have these procedures and you pay dearly if they aren't followed.
Here's the quotes around questioning the whole IP address/ account name as incontrovertable evidence.
MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action, your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see. And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy with her.
Now, if she is lying, she's in BIG trouble. Let's hope she's truthful and the entertainment corps can't prove a lie.
This next part is hilarious and starts by the judge telling the lawyer to give his business card to the defendant.
I'll give her my card, but our instructions are for these people to deal with the conference settlement center. They had discussions.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge --
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you.
MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you file it in front of an arbitrator.
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
That lawyer was SO unprepared it is hard to believe. I really should have gone to law school because I know I can run rings around jokers like this.
Now, let's hope she's smart enough to get someone willing to invest the time and effort to make her case a test case. Either that or counter sue.
Re:Salient Quotes (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but, from dictionary.law.com [law.com]:
Now that's taking it too far (Score:3, Funny)
Now they want people to "expire" just for copyright infringement??
Maybe it's worth it (Score:5, Funny)
Questioning the ID10T5 at the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
And I go out and buy a CD of music...
Then I go out and download every scene on that DVD from KAZAA or (insert your favorite file sharing thing here)...
Or I download every song off the CD from (share system)
Have I broken the law?
How do they know that I didn't buy it, how do they know that I don't have rights to make copies or download copies of something I have purchased...???
Hmmmm...methinks that something is smelling, and it wasn't beans and cabbage...
Quote of the week (Score:5, Insightful)
From [stereophile.com]http://www.stereophile.com/news/082205riaa/ [stereophile.com] ...
I wonder what the markup is on commercially produced CDs and DVDs ... 8000% ??
Such ... irony ... the recording industry complaining about the high price of pirated content ... cannot ... suppress ... gales of laughter ...
Freudian slip? (Score:5, Funny)
[RIAA]:
[Judge]: Her time to answer.
[RIAA]: -- time to answer does not expire until May 15th.
Ahh...so just suing people isn't good enough...now we see what they really want!!
I feel cheated now (Score:5, Funny)
After reading this I expected to read that Judge McMahon had called the RIAA lawyer a Nazi.
The battle has yet to begin (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a good thing that the judge was sympathetic towards the defendent, because the RIAA representative was being very forceful about trying to put her at a disadvantage. The lady was basically defenseless, and the plaintiff was attempting to guide the case in a direction that isn't necessarily legal (but not illegal, if you catch my drift). Without the judge to back her up, the RIAA would have made her tie her own rope, and not before suggesting that she still might settle with them outside of court. This sort of pressure was obviously designed to scare her into settling with the RIAA and paying them money she does not legally owe. I feel some kind of bully mentality here (intimidate the victim into not making an appeal to authority), and it's kind of scary to see a very polite man in a suit radiate such a sinister aura. Maybe I'm just afraid of lawyers. ;-)
It's quite questionable in my eyes whether or not she can be held responsible (and I speak merely from common sense, not legal precedence), and it seems to me that the RIAA's open-and-shut tactics, not to mention the eagerness to settle, suggest that they feel some anxiety about how strong their case is and whether or not they could win it. Call me blind, but I think this is a battle the RIAA would rather not fight, and that's precisely why the judge is eager to make it happen (you'll notice that he gives the defendent quite a shove in the right direction).
Re:Only 1 day behind the times (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Only 1 day behind the times (Score:3, Interesting)
The benefit isn't necessarily timeliness, it's relevance. Or rather, how relevant the news is to what I'm concerned with.
I checked out digg.com -- it looks like a useful website but there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of overlap between their recent news and Slashdot's recent news. The Slashdot news seems to be more along the l
Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? I wasn't aware of that. And here I got legally married by a district magistrate and didn't even know he was working for God. And all those papers I filed, did they go to God too?
Is God responsible for insurance coverage and cost differences based on marital status of a household?
Marriage is not only a religious institution. Historically, it's been used as a way to determine inheritance, cement alliances, transfer property, and establish responsibility and rights for others. Saying it is only a religious institution is a fairly narrow view. It can also be legal, cultural, societal, economic, and religious.
Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (Score:3)
Last time I looked gay people were suing to get the right to get married CIVILLY - they're suing the state, not the churches - I believe they should have the same civil rights to marry as us straight people do - If they start suing churches I'd get upset (1st amendment and all that)
Like or not there are two sorts of marriage - civil and religious, the state only recognizes the civil ones, though it allows religions to perform them on
Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to agree with the thought that they are two separate things, the civil/legal aspect of joining resources, etc and whatever your beliefs are. B
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, not everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
I know many peopel who don't knwo what kazza is, or more importantly, how it works.
Re:She lives under a rock! (Score:4, Insightful)
So back in your face fuckwad...
Why don't you pull your ass out of your world of warcraft fantasy world, turn off the computer, walk outside and TALK TO PEOPLE.. you might just find that very few people care that much about computers, software and gadgets and of those few that do, maybe 3% have any real understanding of "what it's all abut".
And just how much time do you think a single mother of 5 has to devote to figuring out all the nifty shit a computer can do when she has work, bill, and five pesky kids to watch over and feed? Hell, I bet she uses her computer to do her taxes, pay bills and chat with family when she has time to use it at all.
So to you and others like you, wake the fuck up and get out more because you're a borderline sociopath who's clearly lost touch with the real world.
don't look a gift horse in the mouth (Score:4, Insightful)
you think she's stupid?
i think she's innocent
innocence has a funny way of appearing stupid to cynics in this world, you know?
but more important than that should be to you is this: it is upon this poor woman's back that an EXTREMELY cynical enterprise, the RIAA lawsuit mill, might actually be broken
so don't look your gift horse in the mouth
you should BLESS this woman and THANK her for being technically clueless!
there is a certain amount of knowledge in this world that is assumed to be necessary for you to survive: you have pay your taxes, you need a driver's license, etc.
but i hardly see that what you are saying is true at all: that the knowledge "p2 is bad" is common or even necessary
Re:Second Conference July 8? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:i wish they would try (Score:3, Informative)
A business contract was breached by an ex-affiliate of my company. We filed suit, defendant avoided being served but was eventually served. Sanctions issued to defendant (basicly a an order for him to pay) for serving fees and lawyer's billable tim
Re:Sounds Fishy to Me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An embarassment, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
As an example, Ben Franklin was an inventor, yet he was an opponent of "intellectual property." Out of all the things he invented (the Franklin stove, bifocals, etc.) none of them were patented.
Not necessarily. In my experience, most people who download music would have just done without otherwise.
You seem to have some problems constructing a logical argument. Specifically, you tend to assert that A implies B, even when it doesn't. Perhaps you should read up on logical fallacies [datanation.com] so as to actually be able to convince thinking people. Pay special attention to begging the question [datanation.com].
I too... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an author too, I write software. I'm an intellectual rights advocate as well. I advocate considerably shorter copyright terms and an entire restructuring of the patent system. Copyright is completely broken by the existence of copyright terms lasting for life + 75/95 years. Copyright should last a maximum of 28 years. Given the extremely efficient means of distribution and production that we have today as opposed to 200 years ago, I would even support shorter terms. Special interests and politicians like Sonny Bono have stolen what rightfully belongs in the public domain. In doing so, they have created an environment where the people at large see no reason to respect the system. Because the system is so imbalanced, people feel no shame infringing on an author's copyright. Who here would refuse to sing "Happy Birthday" [snopes.com] to their child in public on grounds of infringing Time Warner's intellectual property?
Additionally, they've created an environment where innovation is no longer possible. An author cannot build on the work of others because once written, the work is monopolized perpetually. Due to the system we have now, innovation is dragging to a halt. The systems that made this country mighty are now killing it. Look at how horribly broken the patent system has become. Numerous 'businesses' exist solely to patent everything thinkable and sue anyone who dares to create. Empty shell companies do nothing but collect 'Intellectual Property' and sue others who attempt to make an idea into reality.
The fundamental reason for copyright, patents and the whole morass of 'intellectual property' is to encourage innovation and progress, not to impede it. The only way to restore intellectual rights is to restore balance to the system. Even if they weren't suing grandmothers and children, I'd feel no pity for the RIAA. They and their lobbyists have only brought this upon themselves. Massive and flagrant infringement is the symptom, not the disease.
Re:I too... (Score:4, Interesting)
Give me just ONE example of where COPYRIGHT (NOT trademarks, and NOT patents) prevents innovation. Just one. In fact, I'll settle for a conceptual model.
Alright, I'll bite. I've had MythTV running for about a year and a half now, and I must say it's jolly good fun.
I'll also say that it was far from simple to get everything up and running just right.
I'll also say that the thought has occured to me on many occasions that a tidy little business could be built off of MythTV -- not selling boxes on ebay, but a legitimate, local, service business. And not by locking the source, but by providing the benefits of my own experience and expertise -- in much the same way that the knowledge of how to change the oil in a car is not proprietary, but most people are unwilling to do it themselves.
But the major thing that prevents me from doing this is what my box is capable of, and what that means in Good Ole Litigious USA.
By selling a machine that is capable of recording copyrighted materials in an unencrypted, non-DRMed, and easily duplicable format, I would leave myself open to a situation where I'm held liable for a separate instance of copyright violation for every single program recorded by every single client, let alone DMCA-related charges for what Myth can do if the user installs a very small bit of code that lets it play (and archive) DVDs (not to mention the fact that Linux doesn't even register the new CD copy-protection schemes, which may in itself be a DMCA violation).
Because of that, I have not started a business around it, and so am not working full-time to innovate on it, and have not hired others to work full-time innovating (the benefits of which would, of course, be released back to the community under the GPL).
Remeber that this machine was not designed to distribute copyrighted content without consent, but to time-shift (or format-shift) content that the user has already bought. This used to be legal. MythTV can also catalog and play back your music collection, as well as burn compilation CDs (which also used to be legal).
That is a very concrete and very real situation demonstrating how the current interpretation of copyright is harming innovation.
There, you've had your example so humbly suggest that you 'can it'. I also suggest you put together something a bit more edifying and worthwhile that a collection of cheat codes for video games before you start considering yourself literary.
And I'm assuming that all the tips you found on the internet and included in your books were properly documented, and the sources properly compensated. Right?
Re:I too... (Score:3, Interesting)
By selling a machine that is capable of recording copyrighted materials in an unencrypted, non-DRMed, and easily duplicable format, I would leave myself open to a situation where I'm held liable for a separate instance of copyright violation for every single program recorded by every single client,
Wrong. You leave yourself open to a situation where the users of your commercial Myth
Re:I too... (Score:4, Informative)
What part of my argument specifically is it that makes you 'see red'?
Give me just ONE example of where COPYRIGHT (NOT trademarks, and NOT patents) prevents innovation. Just one. In fact, I'll settle for a conceptual model. You see, I've heard this argument again and again, and I've never seen anybody actually manage to justify that statement about copyright stifling innovation.
You must be new here. I'll be happy to provide more than one. Music? Remixing [wired.com] has been affected. Internet radio [usatoday.com] has certainly been stifled by copyright law too. Of course, you can't mention copyright infringement without mentioning P2P. Here, the law puts Bram Cohen's BitTorrent [wired.com] in possible legal jeopardy because of what he said, not how his software works. That's tantamount to thought crime. Why is there no iTunes-like software for my DVD collection? Probably because circumventing CSS, or distributing software that does the same, is a felony in the US. Being an author, you'll find this interesting: Encryption researchers [gigalaw.com] are afraid to publish their findings thanks to copyright law.
But it's not just music, software, movies, and books being affected, it's everything. A frickin' universal garage door opener [wired.com] manufacture got hit with a DMCA lawsuit. If you don't have bags of money sitting around, one lawsuit, regardless of whether or not you are victorious, can put you out of business. I could go on, but I think I've more than adequately met your requirements. Copyright in the USA has gotten way out of hand and is damaging innovation and invention in practically every industry.
In fact, it's COPYRIGHT that protects the open source movement from being downright raped by corporations like Microsoft!
I assume you are referring to the GPL. You do realize that the GPL was designed to be the anti-copyright, [gnu.org] right? Allow me to quote the pertinent part:
In other words, if it weren't for copyright, there would be no need for the GPL. It exists because of copyright.
Re:An embarassment, really... (Score:3, Interesting)
. . . And while recording artists are treated quite poorly in comparison to authors and actors, every time some music is pirated, it IS money that would have otherwise gone to the artist (and a lot more that would have gone to the recording studio, of which quite a bit should be going to the artist instead in my opinion, but that's another issue).
Oh boy, I don't even know where to begin with this one. Let's start with the 'every time music is pirated bit'. Are you talking about piracy (the wholesale du
Re:Copyright infringement, NOT THEFT!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
The law they are using is even call the "No Electronic Theft Act" or NET Act (does every goddamn law have to be a stupid acronym?)
Re:Just curious, what happens to those.. (Score:3, Informative)