RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers 1192
Sayonara writes "The RIAA are now well and truly gathering their forces for a financial onslaught on file sharers in the US, with a "fear and awe" campaign targetting college and high school students in particular. The strategy can be reduced to 'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.' In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"
RIAA and SCO (Score:4, Funny)
Re:RIAA and SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Death to RIAA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since they have declared war on us with this scare and awe bullshit, this only will speed up their own demise. There was once a time when the RIAA had a chance to actually take their piece of the pie and keep some market share by selling music to consumers embracing the new technology, but the RIAA has totally fucked it up and ruined their chances of actually surviving this.
So here is what will happen, the RIAA meaning record companies will cease to exist. I dont know how they figure they can sue people
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
That'll make the world a much better place.
You know, if the RIAA and the anti-RIAA weren't being such destructive, pointless, vengeful, nutjobs, maybe something sane and wonderful in the world of music might happen.
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean they already blame piracy for the recession, so who cares? Lets actually give them a reason to blame it on piracy! Lets directly take their profits away.
"Either way they'll be portrayed as victims and filesharers online as the ones who killed a benevolent organization. Either way, they win."
They just declared war on us!!! Does it matter? In a war only one side can survive. The side which survives usually writes the history books, not the loser.
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, if they go out of business they lose. I could care less what an expired, non-existant bankrupt recording industry cites as the reason for their demise. They can say whatever they want. If they no longer exist, they lost.
And thats the exact problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot scare a person into buying music, you can scare them into not listening to your music anymore, but hey if they dont listen to your music anymore they wont buy your music.
So its a lose lose situation for the RIAA. They wont have any customers left to sell to. In the end their industry will die and be replaced by internet companies like Napster, Kazaa, Mp3.com, etc.
Re:RIAA and SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Then stand back and let them sue eachother into oblivion.... ahhh we can dream!
Re:RIAA and SCO (Score:5, Informative)
Damn I'm a pessismist (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws that make it possible won't get changed either.
*sigh*
What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
You should check out the site http://downhillbattle.org/ [downhillbattle.org] and see what the RIAA is doing. They are only making the revolution more organized and more powerful. The more people they sue, the more who will join the boycott, the more hated the RIAA will become.
And for them to DARE use the "scare and awe" crap, thats like declaring we are all terrorists!
"Buy our music or else you are supporting terrorism!"
Re:What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that its hard, if not impossible, to stop your money from flowing to the RIAA, especially if you want to compete with them. Blank media taxes, recording device taxes, professional recording device taxes, and a few dozen other hidden fees go straight to their coffers.
GOOD! (Score:5, Insightful)
God, I hope that gets tossed out. Well, actually, I hope it all gets tossed out, or 'nycfashiongirl' gets a small ($1/song shared) damage against her.
Repeat after me: You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.
*sigh*
Just for musing... (Score:5, Funny)
Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or is there such a thing and I should be contributing reviews to it already?
Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (Score:5, Informative)
One already exists.
It's called CD-Baby [cdbaby.com].
Use RIAA Radar (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a free and easy tool that will let you know if a cd is from an RIAA affiliated company:
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ [magnetbox.com]
Sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Interesting)
God I hope an uprising is in the works!
Our entire "Intellectual Property" based system that we (US and much of the world) is putting in place will merely continue to entrench the "privileged" in thier positions of privilege.
Large corporations who "own" the polititions will only continue to try and (successfully) force the masses into submission.
Governing by consent of the governed is no longer the case. Instead, it is governing by consent of those who would be most suited to profit by your governing.
We need a revolution of sorts.
Alternatively, we need tech-savvy reps and lawmakers!
I, personally, will vote for anyone who guarantees a priority of drastically reducing or eliminating the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" and the sham of goverment endorsement that accompanies it.
This endorsement is used and abused in situations such as these. Ask any 20 people on the street if a corporation should have the legal rights to behave in the fashion RIAA is. Should anyone have the legal rights that led up to this situation? I say no! There is no good reason that I should repress myself from consuming or otherwise using a piece of information.
Period.
If it can be reduced to bits, then you do NOT own it! Simple as that. Or, say that you "own" it if you want, but you do not own "exclusive rights" to it to the exclusion of others. At least, not any rights that *I* will recognise or support.
I know I am not alone in this either.
Lets get someone in office who agrees with this viewpoint and begin to push back the tide of "Intellectual Enslavement and Combat" that is occuring, waiting for newcomers into the barratry [wikipedia.org] game.
-dave-
Shameless plug:
Use BearShare [bearshare.com] for all your peer-to-peer [bearshare.com] needs!
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, let the uprising begin.. I mean, nobody goes to Metallica concerts anymore, right?
Last I heard, they were still selling-out stadiums across the country.
Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone's really gotta put a stop to this. Where are they getting this $150,000 number from? If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?
Why the bias against people who "steal" (or infringe copywrites) with computers?
Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers (Score:4, Informative)
Well, if you actually did it, and they sue you, you're pretty hosed. Your best bet is to settle. There's little chance that you'd win if you went to court, and the expenses of a court battle are significant anyway.
As for what they can do, they can sue you, civilly, for copyright infringement. And there might be some other possible causes of action related to what you're doing, but the copyright one is the biggie.
As for the $150,000 number, that's from 17 USC 504. Basically, copyright infringement causes some damage to the RIAA members in terms of their ability to commercially exploit the works they hold copyrights on. They can sue for either their actual damages, or since that can be difficult to compute, statutory damages. The maximum possible statutory damage amount is $150,000 per work infringed upon. Of course whether the maximum will be applied is largely up to the judge. In these sorts of cases, it could be as low as $750 per infringement. But you'd be taking a big risk if you were betting that you could get it to be that low.
If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?
Hm. Maybe.
Stealing the CD is a fairly minor act of conversion. I'd be more worried about criminal penalties for shoplifting than for a civil action.
Burning it though for others is certainly a copyright infringement again, however. Depending on the precise circumstances involved, there might be a defense based on 17 USC 1008 (but you HAVE to read 1001 for the definitions of the terms used in 1008) but I doubt that a court would accept that defense if it saw any way around it.
Anyway, the big difference between SCO and RIAA is that RIAA appears to have a legitimate complaint, and is not doing this to make money, but to discourage infringement. I suspect they're losing money doing this. SCO is less likely to have a legitimate complaint, and is really after money.
It's been said before, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then when the poor student has picked himself up from the floor and the blood returns to his face, the lawyers will say broadly: "OK, we'll let you off the fine if you agree to pay, let's say, a mere $15,000".
Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000.
If this isn't extortion, By God, I don't know what is.
Re:It's been said before, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
High Schools... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open season? (Score:3, Insightful)
By that logic, everyone is open to whatever searches of other people's systems they want. Why is the US gov't going after people for "hacking", if the intent is just to look around then all is fine according to them.
Shallow (Score:3, Insightful)
Because due process is shallow and boring and not really necessary, right? If the RIAA says you're doing something bad, well, that should be all the proof the government needs!
Sheesh. If they're breaking the law to catch people breaking the law, they're still breaking the law.
well done RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Extortion (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, even if a court does rule that you owe the RIAA $100 000 000, what would happen? It's not like they could ever collect. I never expect to own that much money.
Immunity??? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I hack Mr. Oppenheims computer and "unreasonably" search it (i.e. rifle through his private data) I am immune to rules on unreasonable searches because I am a hacker and not a cop? Nice to know.... Now where did I put that SubSeven kit.....
"Futile" (Score:4, Insightful)
Go after the real source of profit-loss (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA Strategist #2: Brilliant! Then they'll have more money to buy from us!
RIAA Strategist #1: What should we do about the rampant piracy in eastern europe and asia?
RIAA Strategist #2: Sorry, repeat that? I was listening to the satisfying sound of ruining everyone's lives.
What about other activies? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you why. It's because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business (in the long term) much much more than a little music piracy by college students who wouldn't be able to afford to buy the thousands of songs they steal anyway.
This is, and has always been, about controlling music distribution and not about stopping piracy. Piracy is a side effect of the real problem: Loss of Control.
Not quite correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather, our system of law has set up a structure for their sales, and they were following it. Yes, the structure, known as copyright, is flawed, but it is the structure that they, as a legal business entity, have to deal with.
Now, P2P is not following the law. They are breaking the law. (rewind) Bzzewwwpt (Vol up) THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW (Vol down). So the RIAA is going after them in the only way that they can.
Now, if you want to bring in a better business model, which is legal, then please go ahead and do so.
BTW, I've posted in my journal under "Public Domain", one idea on how to do just that. Since I did PD it, you can use it, without paying me anything.
Replies per post compared to RIAA stupidity level (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't they understand that college students and high school students download songs because they are broke? Now with the continued slash and burn method; once the college student graduates and finds a job, this new generation of 'pissed off at the RIAA' simply are not going to purchase music legally simply out of hate, spite, etc...
Pushing a rope (Score:5, Interesting)
They live in a dream world, thinking that all business problems can be solved by legal force. Bright idea! If they won't buy our stuff, let's sue them to get the money anyway! Whatever happened to studying the consumers and trying to develop a product they will buy?
The problem is this: they don't want to study the consumers. They want to control them. They are terrified that they are losing the ability to make and break artists, and define what is popular and what is not. Their whole business model revolves not around creating a quality product, but creating a slightly different product and brainwashing the consumers to buy it.
Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, folks, I think it's time to put the fear of god, or rather us 60 million people, into the record execs and heads of the RIAA. If they think it's cute to illegally root through our files and information, then let's see what they think about some payback. Let's put our considerable skills to work and dig up all the dirt (tax evasion, fraud, marital infidelities, etc.) we can on them. Let's expose them for the criminals they really are. Shoot, we could nail them on violating payola laws alone.
On the political front, let's get our acts together and start making the politicians who do their bidding feel the heat. We've seen how the Howard Dean campaign has been able to raise money over the net and sign up armies of volunteers, so let's do likewise. Imagine how quickly the tables would turn if a thousand protesters showed up in a flash mob in front of our representatives' family homes every time the RIAA turned the screws like this.
Enough whining and doublethink on Slashdot. Let's DO something about this.
Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I don't know, maybe just the people who actually own the intellectual property that's being routinely pirated...?
My hope is that they succeed at this. My hope is that they manage to squash file sharing, and build up a huge amount of ill will from the public, and end up destroying the popularity of all the material that they own. In the best of all worlds they'll succeed at this until they drive themselves utterly out of business.
Then we can start
Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves (Score:5, Interesting)
What the community needs is to organize along the lines of the take no prisoners and scorched earth policies of the NRA [nra.org] and ABATE [abate-il.org]-IL. The NRA, with a few million committed members has managed to hold onto the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. ABATE of Illinois, with only a handful of members has maintained a no-helmet law for the state. Whether you agree with these grass-roots organizations or not, they are extremely effective. Both have legislative alerts (here [nra.org] and here [abate-il.org]) and the NRA has a "contact your lawmaker [nra.org]" page. Does anyone know of similar organization(s) that fight for sanity for file sharing ($150,000 per song is not sane)? Am not sure if the Electronic Freedom Foundation [eff.org] is focused enough. I would like to join and support an effective organization. Alternatively, I would be happy to join with others to found such an organization. Instead of whimpering and complaining, it is time that we joined (or formed) a strong counterbalance to the RIAA. It is, in fact, time to do something both with our time and money. Until we do, the RIAA or the MPAA will simply do what they want.
Break the law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Break the law... (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, I side with the lesser evil.
Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
We not only have a concpet of fair punishments in the US... IT'S IN THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Re:Break the law... (Score:5, Insightful)
How to fix this (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, there's an easy solution: quit downloading RIAA stuff and go for independent music instead. Artist-approved downloads. If you absolutely must have an RIAA tune, buy it, but otherwise ignore their stuff entirely. They'll be bankrupt in no time, with no legal recourse whatsoever.
And the best part is, we don't need any special boycott campaign. The RIAA is taking care of that for us. All we need to do is publicize the alternatives, as vigorously as possible.
Want to do your bit? Link to independent music on your weblog. If the RIAA isn't completely braindead (which is an open question), then this is what they're afraid of more than anything. Piracy is nothing compared to irrelevance.
50,000$ (Score:5, Funny)
I guess that seems like a fair deal given the price of CDs.
This *must* be illegal, right?? (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand this is a civil case, not a criminal case, right? So-- if this isn't extortion, what is??
Honestly, I want to see one of these go to a jury trial. If 50+ million Americans really are filesharers, then it's going to be DAMNED tough to find a jury that's not chock full of EM!
Seriously, this is such a travesty. People should be liable for the actual damages (ie the cost of the CDs) not the "potential" losses. You can sell a gun to a minor that's used in a murder and only get a year in jail, but if you make a file available, they charge you more than the loss could ever possibly cost them. We need some balance here.
How to Not Get Sued By the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Read. Sign up. Send email to your representatives.
What If I Just Don't Pay? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always been amused by this sort of thing and a thought that goes with it:
If I already have nothing to lose, what if I just continually refuse to pay? The court can TELL you to pay up, but it can't really MAKE you do it. The worst they can do, IIRC, is ruin your credit and whatnot. Could they actually repo things to try and recover the "damages" the plaintiff was seeking? I got sued for a couple hundred bucks. Ultimately, the nasty little JP upped it to 1200, but from what I was told, it sounded like if I never paid it I could just be reported to collections if the plaintiff so desired. If 15000 RIAA victims all refuse to pay, what are they going to do, send 15000 people to collections? That's a pretty big group of people. Big groups engaged in active civil disobedience can get media attention... but then, I could be wrong about that - maybe they CAN make you pay up somehow.
I used to be one of those people who came on /. and argued that stealing songs was wrong regardless, but as the RIAA abuses got worse, so did my attitude. Frankly, I don't give a fuck anymore. Put all of them, "artists" and all out on the street. If the RIAA wants war, they can have it. And it's time people got off their high horses about 'not going down to their level' and fought it.
Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Downloading vs. sharing (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has been charged with a RIAA lawsuit on dowloading alone. Downloading digital music might be a legal activity under so many circumstances (you have a legal CD, the file is not copyrigthed, etc.)
All of the RIAA lawsuits in the US are targeted towards file sharers, not downloaders, but uploaders, if you will.
Why? Simple as it is, the companies belonging to RIAA are the sole entities allowed to distribute and license distribution of their music. The label has indeed a shallow argument if it tries to sue anyone for downloading, but sharing music with others is violation of this exact premise, and the law is clearly on RIAA's side in any country where the property laws are upheld.
Another Volley (Score:3, Interesting)
[scroll overlay against dark space to Pink Floyd's "Signs Of Life"]
And so, with the passage of time, we find the landscape changing in the outer worlds. The heyday of digital smuggling began to change as the RIAA overloads rachetted up the penalties for those caught. Eventually, entire square parsecs were left empty, encircled by only the empty hulls of caught offenders. Husks of empty steel that once held a fortune in content formed a warning sign to those entering the fray.
But the rebels of the age were smart. They turned to deeper methods, encrypting their content, running private servers, and WAR driving. The random element of physical contact reduced the smuggler's domain to a fraction of his former, but the overlap of these small circles kept fresh booty flowing. Content was still open to move, simply the transfer couldn't be without extra steps to know the receiver and secure the path.
Meanwhile, the RIAA replaced the existing law enforcement for tracking and penalizing those still foolish to appear on the public channels. No judge, no jury was required as the cost for including them in your defense were too high for all but the wealthiest. Given that smuggling was done on the cheap, for the masses, suffice it to say no one could pay for such accutrements. Although the Creators approved of the tactics, they continued to fight for slimmer traditional channels.
As the Age Of FAIB (Free As In Beer) came to a wane, the inner worlds continued to bustle with mass marketing and pop culture. The outer worlds succumbed to the MPAA/RIAA stormtroopers' patrols. Surprise searches and constant paranoia crept up on those who stayed too long in the toughest zones. Eventually, the smuggling became "wiped out" publicly, and the inner worlds no longer sent the curious making the journey to grab a piece of the action along the rim. But for those who knew the newest tricks, adventure and discovery continued to be the drug that filled their libraries with the Creators' best output...
[fade to black]
BOYCOTT MAJOR LABELS (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/artists/
PLEASE!
Re:shallow? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, come on, _really_.
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and these four 80's compilations I bought trying to find Der Kommissar by After the Fire? They don't have it, so I downloaded it. Here, I'll give the RIAA back three copies of She Blinded Me With Science in exchange.
Oh, and I bought the Steve Miller Greatest Hits, but they shafted me with the short version of "Fly Like An Eagle", so I downloaded the full version. Fuck 'em.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, according to the CD insert, I've purchased a license to use the works on the CD. Therefore, as long as I retain the CD insert, I'm free to redownload and reburn the works provided.
Doesn't matter anymore anyway, as I have encoded all of my music CD's and store the originals on a spindle where they can't get damaged or stolen. But I still am owed several CD's that I still have the inserts for, but the CD's have gone damaged or missing. I have the license to use the music, so I can either download, copy from a friend or pay the RIAA to send me another CD and duplicate license. Guess which one I won't be choosing.
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Informative)
They don't care. Unless I missed something big, they still aren't suing you for DOWNLOADING anything--I don't even think that they can track what you download. AFAIK, they're going after folk who SHARE the files--i.e., what they've got for upload.
You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.
Kazaa Backup Software (Score:5, Funny)
I use this so called Kazaa backup software to back up all my mp3s. I just put them in my "to be backed up" directory, also called "My Shared Folder", and automagically they get backed up (sometimes quite a lot!). In fact, it is so secure, there are multiple copies, redundancy as I like call it. There's even stuff I don't remember backing up! Anyway, I don't know what all the commotion is over this peer to peer backup software, I'm SOLD (ok, it didn't cost me a thing...sshhh).
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why anyone is complaining about this campaign... the
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me the difference.
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
not download, sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically it's illegal to even make copies for your friends but the RIAA (or anybody for that matter) can't feasibly do anything about it. But when you share your CDs (whether you own a legal copy or not is irrelavent) for millions of your closest "friends" then no duh you're looking to get in trouble.
It's idiotic that people think they can put CDs on the black market for the whole world to see what they're doing and then expect that their ISP is going to act as some kind of security guard to prevent them from being arrested.
Putting copyrighted materials on Kazaa is no different than firing up a burner and setting up at a street corner selling or even giving away copies except that your production costs are practically $0 with Zazaa.
You have no legal grounds to aquire anything you own from an illegal source. It doesn't matter if you own the CD. If you buy (or are given something) from the black market you've just committed a crime. Unless a company gives you a Lifetime Warrenty you haze ZERO expectations that what you bought is going to last forever. And if it becomes unusable then you have no legal recourse but to buy another if you didn't have some form of backup that you made yourself from your legal copy that you originally purchased.
Ben
The reason why they said it was shallow (Score:5, Informative)
The defendent is claiming their 4th Admendment right was violated (unreasonable search etc...). RIAA is saying that they are not a goverment body so it does not apply to them.
However, they invoke legal power (Score:4, Insightful)
To take the classic car trunk analogy. In this case, the police officer would open the trunk for the RIAA, but not actually look into it himself. Would that be legal? If so, the 4th amendment is basicly worthless.
Then you can simply create a force that is not officially a part of the government, but that would be able to inspect your trunk at whim and report whatever they find to the legal system (or worse). But it's still government force that facilitates this.
There is no doubt in my mind that the 4th Amendment should apply to a DMCA invocation like this. Whether that stamp from a judge's clerk is sufficient to be allowed under 4th amendment is a more complex problem, but the amendment itself applies. IANAL, but that's how I read it at least...
Kjella
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA is not going after downloaders, contrary to what they, and the media, would have you believe. The ONLY people they go after are those who OFFER tunes for OTHER PEOPLE to download, in other words, distributing.
I don't care what the headlines say, read between the lines for gods sake and check it out. In every case where someone has been threatened legal action by the RIAA, they were DISTRIBUTING, not just DOWNLOADING.
Machiavelli and the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
It is good if your subjects love you.
But better if you can make them fear you.
But you do *NOT* want them to hate you..
Tested with time, over the centuries...
I can already see where this is ultimately headed...
Its official, I hate the RIAA. (Score:3, Interesting)
And what is my response to "scare and awe"?
My response is, Boycott and Copy.
Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
so, because i'm not linked to law enforcement does that mean i'm immune from rules on searching the internet... say for some rolling stones songs?
Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you aren't affiliated with a law enforcement agency, you can do whatever you want online? Seems to me they could be charged with a real crime then. What's the on-line equivilant of being peeping tom?
Reminds me of the story (urban ledgend?) about the lawyer who insured his cigars, smoked them, and won the insurance claim in court because the contract didn't specify what kind of fire. Then the dumb bastard was charged with multiple counts of arson and fined 10x what he got from the insurance.
You're never as smart as you think you are.
Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL but I'd say that RIAA, by the terms of the DCMA, becomes an agent of the government and therefore is violating the fourth amendment.
oderint dum metuant (Score:5, Interesting)
>
> It is good if your subjects love you.
> But better if you can make them fear you.
>
> But you do *NOT* want them to hate you...
I'm a Machiavelli fan, but the Prince and I would part company on that last line about not wanting to be hated.
I believe history sides with Lucius, who was reputedly quoting Caligula when he penned the line "oderint dum metuant". Let them hate, so long as they fear.
Might work for governments (Score:5, Insightful)
Will this do that? I don't know, but it is somethign they have to consider.
Re:Might work for governments (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, in the united corporations of america, all you have to do is go to your local congresscritter, tell them, we're losing money becuasse people are downloading songs instead of buying them, and they prop up your failing business model.
you've heard of subsidies for farmers? welcome to the world of subsidies for failing corporations
Re:Might work for governments (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The recording companies have been convicted of pricefixing and keeping the cost of cd's inflated.
2) Their numbers are suspect at best. I can't remember where it is, but I've read several reports that shows similar declines in "sales numbers" for other industries since the bottom fell out of the economy.
3) Mp3's are not perfect copies. They're pretty good, but not perfect.
4) Many people use file trading services to determine if an album is any good before they go buy it.
5) Many customers only want the music, not the CDs (I myself fall into this category) and until recently (iTunes) there have been no good online music content providers.
6) Why do consumers have to pay a tax on CD-Rs, to "combat online piracy", when they may use the media for anytything, not necessarily on burning copies of illegally downlaoded songs?
My point being there are always going to be pirates, Always, but they are not doing themselves any good with the methods they have chosen to combat it. They're in the digital age, they need to figure that out, and give theit customers what they (the customers) want, and not try to shove what they want us to have down our throats.
\end rant
did I make any sense, or am i still suffering from lack of caffienation?
Re:Might work for governments (Score:4, Informative)
You seem to be totally unaware of the major labels' sales figures verses the sales of the Independent labels over the last year.
While the RIAA members are whining about poor sales the independents are having a banner year.
My daughter uses Kazaa to hunt down really strange stuff from individual artists, and has been doing this for years now. (Why not Kazaa Lite, I ask?) I'd guess that she has an occasional song the RIAA would have claim to, but the ratio is certainly less than 1 in 10.
Furthermore, how are you to tell if the author is asserting their free speech right to be heard or is asserting some obscure federal statute?
If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.
Re:oderint dum metuant (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait, no, he was assassinated by the entirety of the Praetorian Guard when they revolted.
Maybe it's not a good idea to take political advice from him after all.
Re:oderint dum metuant (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that - they killed his wife and bashed his young daughter's head open.
People will only put up with fear and hatred for so long. Then they tend to get angry.
There both wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone fears you, they will do what you want, for a time. When they have nothing left to loose, they will come after you.
If someone hates you, they will do what they can to get you.
If someone loves you, they will stop at nothing to protect you. That includes looking the other way or making excuses for you.
Re:brockman (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, new?
Re:Joy (Score:3, Insightful)
So they're going after high school and college students for $50k? Yeah, right. The RIAA might actually succeed at causing these people to get a free college education... if they have a college debt and the RIAA comes after them for $50k they might just have to declare bankruptcy and their higher education turns out to be free.
This is all just absurd,
Re:Joy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My legal advice to the RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
"You can go f*ck yourselves."
Hey, shallow legal advised is suppose to be posted in Ask Slashdot only!
"go fuck yourselves" doesn't hold up in court (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I love this hypocrasy (Score:3, Insightful)
I think copyright is evil. In its original form it might have been argued to at least be a practical good, and thus worth keeping around, but in its current form it is out and out evil, in that it attempts to squash the development and exchange of ideas in favor of the development and exchange of profit, and ideas are a fundamental part of the development of civilization.
Seeing as I think civil disobedience was one of the better ideas developed
Re:I love this hypocrasy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I love this hypocrasy (Score:4, Interesting)
What seems to be the major issue is that the RIAA, without having any solid proof, is claiming that filesharing is the sole cause of the music industry's financial losses.
They believe that the economy's downturn, does not apply to them, that sales should be constantly rising every year. When they don't rise, they look for a scapegoat.
Rather than studying the download model, they attack it because it threatens their distribution cartel. They don't care about trying to find out how the filesharing phenomenon works. Are people truly using this to sample music and then purchase accordingly? Or are they just plain theiving?
It's wrong to go into a music store and pilfer a CD as much as it is to download an MP3 version of a song. But, is that download occuring because someone wants to sample some music? Or is it just plain theft?
Are there any studies on this?
shared public files (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's right asshole... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you put your files, publically, on a public peer2peer network, what's there to complain about when someone sees what you're sharing?
Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
When I sent an email, just as when I send a (snail mail if you will) letter to someone, I have the expectation of privacy. Tampering with mail is an offense. Intercepting email likewise is not acceptable.
But were I to create a website...a PUBLIC website...and put messages to people on there, I would have no reason to complain if I left private inf
Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is he wrong?
Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? (Score:5, Insightful)
And apparently you don't either. By sharing files, she allowed the Kazaa to publish her location and the files available. By sharing files, she immediately removed the cloak of anonimity.
That's how the "internet" works, and Oppenheim is correct, nycfashiongirl is mistaken if she though her nick would keep her anonymous.
My MP3s sit behind a firewall. There's no link to those files on the internet, no way for the RIAA to find them without hacking through my firewall and into my system. If I share files with my friends through an encrypted VPN, there's no way for the RIAA to know I've shared those files. If the RIAA were snooping in on that VPN traffic, then yes, that would be illegal because there's no reasonable cause for the RIAA to be sniffing my private communications. That is what nycfashiongirl is trying to claim, and that is truly shallow. If you can't see the difference between the two examples, then you don't know how the internet works.
Re:Bill of rights - Amendment VIII (Score:4, Informative)
I could sue you for unlawful access to a website (slash). It's civil then, and bill of rights does not apply.