U.S. Sides with Record Labels Over DMCA Subpoena Powers 530
Injektilo* writes "The Washington Port is reporting
that the U.S. government sided with the recording industry in its dispute with Verizon Communications Inc. on Friday, saying a digital-copyright law invoked by
record labels to track down Internet song-swappers did not violate the U.S. Constitution." We've been following this case.
Interesting Link (Score:4, Informative)
Not as bad as goatse... but still a phony link!
Re:Interesting Link (Score:3, Informative)
The article, however, is from neither paper. The author works for Reuters. (The Washington Times, BTW, eschews Reuters for UPI)
Re:Interesting Link (Score:2)
In cahoots (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In cahoots (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you didn't notice: the US's electoral system promotes a 2 party system. starting a new party won't accomplish a thing, it's winner takes all.
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't agree that the electoral college promotes any particular system with respect to congress. Your comments are simply wrong.
Your vote for congress, house or senate, had nothing to do with the electoral college, it has only to do with how many votes are in a district and nothing more. The electoral college has exactly NO bearing.
It is NOT winner take
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In cahoots (Score:2)
I support Recall myself. Many states have provisions for recall, but most don't, especially on the federal level. Gov. Grey Davis is
Re:In cahoots (Score:5, Interesting)
If no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the Electoral College votes, the Senate decides who is president.
Voting for a third party has a huge disincentive in that it empowers whichever major two-party candidate you like the least since you could've voted for the one you DISliked the least. Winner-take-all single-vote systems encourage two-party voting. There is no way around it. This is not rhetoric or partisanism here, this is game theory backed by real mathematics.
There are other winnter-take-all voting systems that at least allow other candidates to have a chance. My favorite is "pairwise comparisons", but there are others like Borda Count and Instant Runoff that also work (although not as well as Pairwise Comparisons IMHO).
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Insightful)
You can vote for anyone in America. You can write in anyone's name you choose. You can vote for Mickey Mouse if you choose. America is NOT a two party system. It has two strong parties and several smaller parties, but its not setup for 2 parties only.
And you should really do something about all that bitterness. Its not good for you.
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct, which is why the media LOVES the new election reforms: It makes them more powerful. Now candidates are more reliant on free exposure from media. Special interest groups can NOT run ads 60 days before an election, so they must grease the palms of the media for their issue to, magically become 'news'. This greasing can come i
Re:In cahoots (Score:4, Insightful)
I live in a country where there is such a system (the netherlands), multiple parties have to form a coalition in order to get a majority. I would choose this system above the US system any day. If I vote for one of the smaller parties (which coincidentally I do) I know my vote counts, even if it's a small party, they can still have some influence. If I were living in the US, I would never vote for a similar party as I voted for during the last elections in the netherlands. Either the democrats or the republicans rule the country, in a winner-takes-all situation, I'd rather use my vote to help the democrats instead of a small party. because although I'd rather see <small party> win, common sense tells me this is never going to happen, and I'd better choose the lesser of two evils.
If I would live in the US, I'd have to support a bunch of fscking idiots to prevent a bunch of bigger fscking idiots from ruling the country.
I'm thankfull that I'm living in a country where at least a small number of people in the government think the same way as I do about how the country should be run, and they're trying their best to talk a bit of sense into the bunch of fscking idiots that run it.
Good question, why not run for Senate? (Score:2)
Maybe if we could get more geeks in Senate we could change the laws. We need some of you slashdot people to run for Senate based on issues we care about.
Re:In cahoots (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of a Democratic Republic (like the US)is to elect people to represent our interests, not necessarily to vote the same way we would. Complaining about the way our Congress votes on a matter isn't whining, its political expression. The whole idea of individuals speaking out freely where our representatives can see, in the hopes to influence their votes is the whole idea behind America. Free speech is not just so you can complain TO the government, but about it to others to influence them as well.
With all due respect, you seem to miss that point entirely with your overreaction to something most of us consider important: The right to bitch about our elected officials. Newspapers express political opinions that are not directed only to the elected officials. So do TV, radio and internet news sites. People discuss politics in barbershops, cafe's and even on online posting news sites, like Slashdot. It lets other hear it, it has the potential to influence.
In our society, complaining IS doing something. Implying that someone should either run for office or shut up is so against free speech, that I surprised to even hear you say it. If you don't want to hear opinions, then I suggest you stay off Slashdot.
Re:In cahoots (Score:2)
I doubt they read slashdot.
Re:In cahoots (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were in love, I wouldn't need broadband.
Re:In cahoots (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think people are better educated now, try looking at a prep school textbook from the 1940's. You will be surprised and insulted at far dumbed down everything has become.
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Informative)
My point is, the only thing that will change when "better education" is implemented is more education (eg. the vast % of High School grads go on to get MS/MA's). It's nice to talk about better education leading to more informed voters, but it won't
Re:In cahoots (Score:4, Interesting)
Pick up any _major_ newspaper or magazine, or watch the TV news and you will often see the most egregious errors in grammar and spelling. And dont' think that's just a matter of following outdated rules. Bad grammar leads to poor communication. Words in our language have precise meanings, and to be sloppy in communication fosters being sloppy in thought (or maybe it's the other way around) and ultimately people just get stupider (i.e., less well-educated).
Take a look at the typical letter from any average person (like the soldiers' letters you read from the civil war). Not only does the average person not communicate so eloquently and clearly today, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of a university English literature department who could write that well.
We aren't smarter or better educated than our ancestors... quite the opposite. We are only much more productive due primarily to the technology to which we have access.
Truly better education will lead to more informed voters, but except for a small minority of lucky people in this society, better education is still a dream.
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing obsolete about understanding the behaviour of curve or factoring. While it may be OK to use successive approximation based on a graphical output in applied mathematics if you only need it occasionally, if you need it regularly then the understanding of factoring and curves behaviour will be considerably faster (more productive). If you study mathematics as a theory, there is no substitute at all for understanding the basics.
Mathematics is nothing more or less than symbolic logic. Abstrac
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, in theory. Theory is great. I love theory too. Theory is a lot of fun to talk about because the difference between theory and practice, is that in theory there's no difference between theory and practice.
Let's talk about education in practice. More education will only lead to higher education (for the majority) and not to better education. It's always been that way.
Hey, You're A Partner in a Special Interest Dance (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, this is an issue that is of little or no relevance to most people, and trying to explain it will just cause eyes to glaze over. ("We're here to talk to you about copyright law.....")
Face it, you guys are the other partner in a special interest dance, but you don't want to recognize it. If you don't want the RIAA to win this, you'd better stop imagining that millions of Americans are suddenly pick up their phones and start talking to Capitol Hill about the evils of the RIAA. They aren't, and wishing won't make it so.
Get some money, get some offices, hire some lawyers and lobbyists, and hit the D.C. streets.
Re:Hey, You're A Partner in a Special Interest Dan (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hey, You're A Partner in a Special Interest Dan (Score:2)
Re:In cahoots (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, how horrible. How come no one has passed the Right To Steal Music Act of '03 yet?
Re:In cahoots (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for raising a good point. The ONLY way we are going to put a fire under congress's ass about this is to realize that the stupidity behind their actions is not partisan. Its not a conservative vs. liberal thing, both philosophies support freedom, and both parties are screwing the pooch on this one.
What can be done is writing your congressman. Not emailing, but WRITING. A short, simple, intellegently written letter has more impact than 50 emails. Congress knows that interest groups pump out form letters and get people who are not as interested in a topic to simply push "submit" so email is NOT as powerful. If you take the time to write a letter, it means you actually care. I had several letters "from" Bill Clinton when he was in office (all thrown away, canned replies). Of course with some politicians, its easier to get influence by participating in a pole than email anyway...
They still takes good quality, hand written letters pretty serious though.
Re:In cahoots (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't much difference between emailing, writing, or calling. A congressman gets thousands of each of these every month. Even the really good representatives (I worked for one) can't get more in-depth than getting a tally. Casework is a different story, but as far as POLICY positions go, a congressman is not going to be affected by one letter.
This is my recommendation. Call the office. Ask to speak to the congressman's scheduler. Tell them you are from his district, you will be in washington on dates X-Y, and you would like to schedule a meeting with congressman to discuss issue Z. The scheduler should be able to work something out, but you will probably only get 15-20 minutes.
During your meeting, you will talk to the Congressman and his Legislative Assistant for that area (in this case, technology). If you respectfully and rationally put forward your case, you may have some impact on how your congressman votes. In particular, talk about how your position is good for the economy (doesn't stifle innovation). Be sure to address both the rep. and the LA. The LA is the one that will monitor the issue, so his take on things will really affect the congressman's vote.
Options. (Score:2)
You can run for office.
You can start a lobbiest group.
You can simple make a list of people not to vote for, and spread the list over the internet to punish anyone who votes for stupid laws.
Anyone in Senate or Congress who votes for stupid laws like these we should politically destroy, instead of a petition, set up a fund, donate money and put ads all over the net and on MTV.
Make the kids hate them, and their parents will follow.
Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
When you walk into a store, you cannot sample food because theres no more food if everyone samples it.
When you download music, 95 percent of the people who do this are college students who dont wouldnt buy the music even if they couldnt download it, so no money is lost unless its a potential sale lost.
The same people who dont go to the movies and watch copied VHS tapes, the same ones who record songs off the radio, the same people who use the VCR to illegally record movies off Cable and record movies they watch on PayPerView, the ones who record and copy movies they rent, these are the ones who download mp3s.
These arent the type of people who usually have the money to buy every movie, every song, etc, so they buy only the best, they but a DVD only to see it in high quality. They go to the movies only to see it on the big screen.
People would buy music if the music was in good quality, no one wants a 128bitrate mp3 if its their favorite song ever, they want to see the band live, they want to go to the concert.
Just like if you download the matrix its never as good as going to the movies and seeing it, its not even as good as buying the DVD, funny the movie industry isnt losing any money, they make more!
Spiderman made plenty of money even though you can download it, I rented the spiderman DVD even though I could see it for free, why? Because I wanted to see it in DVD quality, thats why.
Why should your congressmen listen to your argument. You advocate and promote illegal activity through turing a blind eye.
[ Reply to This ]
Stealing is when you remove something from someone else, if you honestly believe people can own information, you also believe its stealing to use math you didnt create, like 1+1=2, you believe we stole calculus, you believe this country (which was stolen) should be given back to the native americans, you believe we should give reparations to blacks in the USA, and that we should give back the diamonds to the africans, you believe we should give the oil back to the middle east, and basically give the whole world back because stealing is wrong?
Guess what, majority rules, and majority believes stealing is right. America is what it is because of stealing, this country was built on it, its impossible to pay everyone back. Now we have technology which allows us to steal without anyonen being harmed in the process, information no longer has owners because it can be reproduced by machines.
Just like if you had a machine which could create diamonds, or a machine which could create oil on demand, you could not claim you are stealing from the Africans or the Arabs anymore, because you arent stealing their oil, you are simply making their oil less valueable.
Guess what, the day we come up with unlimited energy are you going to be the idiot who says "No this is wrong, its stealing from the oil companies!!" I bet this same arguement is used to prevent us from going to Hydrogen fuel. It would rob the oil industry, rob the poor iraqis, and rob the rich billionare oil companies.
Who gives a damn?I thought the purpose of copyright and patents was to promote progress, now we are at the point where capitalism, patents and copyright is actually SLOWING progress, this is against the whole purpose of the system. The system was created to benefit the people, the masses, the world, not to benefit companies already established.
When you get to a point where your system is so warped that it goes against its original purpose, that system needs to be removed. The people want progress. People like you who own information want to hold the whole world back because you are too dumb to adapt to new technology. You remind me of the oil CEOs who wont let us use Hydrogen. You remind me of car company CEOs wont wont build new Engines, and you remind me of Microsoft who wont build anything new in their OS, because progress is not profitable and anything thats not profitable is illegal!
That means we are now a plutocracy, where big business controls everything, democracy is dead and if things keep up at this pace, I'm going to move to Canada or even France.
Re:Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:2)
And you think there would be movies, books, etc. if everybody copied them?
Re:Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have math?
Did books exist before copyright?
Did musicians exist?
Do people still go to concerts?
Do people still go to the movies?
Do people still buy art? Do artists still exist?
More music would exist if it were freely shared than if it were not. Look at math, most math was made before copyright existed, if copyright existed we would have kept re-inventing the wheel forever.
Re:Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:5, Interesting)
In the pre-copyright era very few individuals owned books, and the size of the average library held less than 50 volumes.
Did musicians exist?
Recorded music did not exist pre-copyright. Every piece of music played in concert was an original performance that was paid for on the spot by attendees. The only music that was published in any sense was sheet music, and the fact is that the market for sheet music didn't take off until after copyright laws were passed.
Look at math, most math was made before copyright existed
Completely wrong. Most advances in mathematics, much like the rest of modern knowledge have occurred since the first copyright laws in 1710.
Re:Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
Name some, all of the copyrighted advances which may have been made, are prolly still under copyright now and only used by a select few.
Re:Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect. For much of the history of western music, music played in church for free was the major source of music for most people. Most music, including that composed by the classical giants, was passed from musician to musician with no thought of payment. For example, minstrels and other folk musicians freely exchanged ballads, and payment for most of their performances was optional, much as
Re:Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:4, Insightful)
the first copyright laws in 1710.
After a 120 year struggle to control printing presses, the first copyright law was established in 1557. It prohibited anyone but the Stationers' Company from publishing books. The Stationers' Company checked with the crown before publishing anything. Its purpose was to allow the crown to dictate public opinion.
Modern copyright law was established with the Statute of Anne [gnu.org] in 1710. The statute granted a very limited monopoly for 14 years, with the option of renewing for a second 14 year term.
In 1791, the U.S. enacted its first copyright law based on the Statute of Anne.
In the pre-copyright era very few individuals owned books, and the size of the average library held less than 50 volumes.
Do you suppose this could have anything to do with printing presses being outlawed until copyright was established? Or that books were expensive and time consuming to print?
Recorded music did not exist pre-copyright.
Recorded music did not exist until Thomas Edison invented the phonograph in 1877--320 years after the first copyright law. What the invention of the phonograph has to do with copyright law is beyond me.
Most advances in mathematics, much like the rest of modern knowledge have occurred since the first copyright laws
Most advances in mathematics occurred after the computer was invented.
Copyright law did not suddenly cause science to leap forward. Most scientific advances took place long after copyright law was enected. Most of those advances would have occurred without copyright law. The printing press on the other hand, likely had a direct impact on the advancement of knowledge. It should come as no surprise that copyright was established as a direct result of the printing press.
Scientists would publish their work without copyright. Even today, most scientists have to surrender their copyright just to have their research published in a major journal. If it weren't for copyright, scientific knowledge would be much more accessible than it is today. If anything, copyright impedes scientific progress.
Re:Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:2)
Leibniz::Buzz Aldrin
--Joey
Re:Stealing is assuming you'd buy it (Score:2)
Your right, but how many people that don't want to spend the money on a POS CD with only three good songs, want to go, or even can afford to go to the concert? Specially when the concert wont be CD quality?
The main point is that the bands of today suck. I have not bought one CD where all the songs were good. So many peopl
Re:In cahoots (Score:2)
That's not the problem. The problem is that there's demand for services and the RIAA won't provide them. As a result of that, they release corrupted discs and waste their time trying to squeze 96 billion dollars from a college student.
Then there's the whole matter of fair use rights. Copying != stealing. There is no evidence that large numbers of people are downloading music to save money on buying CDs. There are, however, lots of people who h
Problem is the law (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the law. Since the RIAA co-wrote the law, it is their fault. The law is a problem because it basically gives the RIAA police investigatory powers without the restrictions the police would face. Specifically, the RIAA can compel an internet service provider to hand over evidence without checking with a judge first.
If I find someone selling my stolen laptop on EBay, I would have to get a judge to sign a subpeona before I could compel EBay to hand over any evidence they have identifying the suspect. Seeing as you like to compare copyright to other crimes, why should copyright meet lower due-process requirements than burglary?
The RIAA is fishing for suspects. The evidence in this case is so weak, a judge won't even sign their subpeona. Based on that weak evidence, the RIAA wants to hassle ISPs all over the nation, and threaten innocent competitors with law suits.
If the court supports the RIAA, ISPs will have to hand over private customer data simply because the customer published academic research [chillingeffects.org] or a public domain movie [chillingeffects.org].
Re:Very simple (Score:5, Insightful)
A non-Repub/Demo leadership in Washington is not very likely. Ever.
Re:Very simple (Score:2)
I am not arguing against voting for third party candidates, however. Please do if you agree with their platforms and policies. It won't get any third party candidate elected, but it is
Re:No, no, no! (Score:2)
speaking of the record industry... (Score:5, Interesting)
just heard this report [realimpact.net] by investigative journalist greg pallast that says she been tasked with re-writing iraq's intellectual property laws.
so we've got corporate vultures writing iraqs laws... people with no experience in government or nation building... pretty disturbing.
How to help Verizon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon says such a move is necessary to protect user privacy because otherwise any copyright holder -- or anybody claiming to be a copyright holder -- could easily obtain the name and address of any Internet user.
Ok. Here is the idea--
By default everybody owns the copyright to everything they write, right? Which means that everybody problably owns a copyright to something....
Lets all claim that our college papers may be being passed around Kazaa, and ask Verizon for the name and address of everyone using this network. Or pick your favorite P2P.
Submit this request in writing, etc.
This should give Verizon legal ammo to use against the RIAA.
Since I have written some interesting articles and documents, maybe I will do this first
Re:How to help Verizon? (Score:2)
Re:speaking of the record industry... (Score:2)
I found an excerpt of the RIAA Management Fast Track Manual she's referring to in drafting these new IP laws. Find it here. [216.239.57.100]
Re:speaking of the record industry... (Score:2)
Re:JAFM (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot that Bush respectfully exempted himself from the Geneva Convention. He wages wars without an UN mandate. And he forbids the International War Crimes Court [csmonitor.com] to try American Citizens.
If you're the strongest military power on the face of the earth, you get to rewrite International Law.
Duh! Stating the obvious! (Score:3, Interesting)
That the junta^Wgovernment repeals a stupid law? Has that ever happened in the recorded history?
Govermnent does not kill stupid laws, judges do.
That't why the Bush clan made sure that judges sympathetic to their cause have the majority in the important courts.
This is how a dictatorship works, you know? The government makes stupid laws, and there are no independent judges to declare it unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Duh! Stating the obvious! (Score:2)
Re:Duh! Stating the obvious! (Score:2)
We need some oldstyle patriots (terrorists in modern doublespeak) like James Maddison to straighten this shit out.
Re:Duh! Stating the obvious! (Score:2)
Prohibition.
Re:Duh! Stating the obvious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh.
This quote nicely stands on its own, and makes your opponent's point without his even bothering to respond.
Very considerate of you, IMO.
Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, this story is confusing. (Score:5, Insightful)
The story says the Justice department merely filed a brief with the court stating their position, yet they refer to it as a "ruling". So which is it?
"Verizon's persistent efforts to protect copy thieves on pirate peer-to-peer networks will not succeed," [RIAA's Matt Oppenheimer] told Reuters.
Copy Thieves. heh
Re:Wow, this story is confusing. (Score:2, Insightful)
no surprise here (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't you guys ever take any civics class? Industry writes the laws, congress passes them, judges uphold them, and the president smiles at the camera. The four branches of government.
Profits.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Profits.... (Score:2)
Re:Profits.... (Score:5, Interesting)
no joke), public performers, stores who play popular songs in elevator music, etc. You know what? The artists do not see a dime on this!
Then they turn around and complain that they do not have enough money and want drm in everything.
My guess is if they could ban all p2p the tarrifs would remain so they can make more money. Remember when cassatte tapes cost only $6? Cd's were expensive so they charge more, then got more money from people buying music they already on tape, then as cd's began becoming cheaper then tapes to produce, the RIAA raises prices!
Oh gee people aren't buying the latest spice girls and Britney spears cd's for $22 each! It must be piracy.
The sadest thing in all of this is that the executives really believe this. They actually think that people buy cd's based on how sexy the artists look on TV( sex sells), and the music quality has gone down the tubes.
If you were John Carmack from ID software trying to negetiate with a game publisher to cut your cd's would you accept only a $1 per game while activision charges $40?
Hell no. THey work for you right? Well in the RIAA the exact opposite thing is happening. An artist wants to put his cd on store shelves. The RIAA comes in and says we will stock it. But under the condition that you recieve a $.50 per cd for royalities while we get $12 and the store gets $5. If you do not like it, get the fuck out of my office.
The RIAA is a monopoly and needs to be split up. Hell if I had billions in the bank I would start a record label where the artist gets %75 of the profit per cd while I would get %20 and the store would get %5. The cd's in return would sell off the shelf if they were only $10 each vs the britney collection for $18.99!
:
Re:Profits.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Profits.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Profits.... (Score:2)
Like I said I would need billions to start a record label because I would actually have to pay the retailer( not vice versa) to stock my product. After all the retailer
Re:Profits.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Profits.... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were an investor in the RIAA I would be pissed. One million dollars would reduce the price of one million cds by one dollar. Lower the cost, increase the demand, make your customers happier.
I don't think they've only spent only one mill here. Pity they didn't use that money to increase advertising or to make places like Listen.com bette
What else would you expect? (Score:2)
How long until... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
"Who's internet? Our internet!"
Its The Washington POST (Score:3, Informative)
Why civil disobedience is the only answer? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a normal situation, when I have a problem with a law, I would suggest petitioning your congressman and seeking popular support. But IMHO, with copying things it's different, the only real way is with civil disobedience and defiance.
First, copying things is a moral right, like freedom of speech, that exists above government. If we try to petition our leaders to obtain this right - then it would imply that the right to copy derives from the powers that be, and that is intellectually dishonest.
Second, the main foundation behind politics is that it's better to fight wars of words than wars of bloodshed. But copying things doesn't require violence at all. It can be done with impunity, little risk, little fear of getting caught, and no violence initiated on our part. The old rules just don't apply.
Thrid, laws like the DMCA, infinite extensions, and suvere disproportionate punishments and the like are just symptions of trying to impose copying restrictions in the information age. The sooner we get the problem at the root, the sooner we will get the dogs off our back.
Fourth, we have a moral imperitave to hit the people behind this like the RIAA and the MPAA where it hurts - in their revenue streams, so as to thwart their advances on our rights. Defiance of copyrights is the only real way to do that. Does anyone really think we would get that thru legal petition.
Fith, these industries not only controll the media, they are the media. They have an unfair advantage, and incentive to lie about the nature of copyrights, and even call people dishonest names like "pirate" - this is the only real way of dealing with that.
Re:Why civil disobedience is the only answer? (Score:3, Interesting)
>copying things is a moral right, like
>freedom of speech, that exists above government.
So you are saying that creative works (books, music, movies, games, etc.) are fair game to copy because of free speech. The constitution guarantees anyone the right to profit from their creative works for a limited time to protect against illegal copying of works. Copyright is the right of the materials creator to designate who can copy and distribute a certain work.
Better question: where is the moral right to
This is an AMICUS you ASS (Score:4, Informative)
Amicus briefs are filed every day by the DoJ.. so this is nothing extraordinary. Move along, nothing to see here except utter confusion generated by the poster of this topic.
Re:This is an AMICUS you ASS (Score:2)
The story never said that this is a ruling. They never even suggested it was a ruling. Thus the parent has absolutely no right to correct the submitter at all (and least of all in such a rude manner) . Even if the article was wrong the parent would still have no right to be so rude.
btw it is really nice that you know what amicus is and all but that does not give you right to be rude. You are not the only one that went to law school, and I know for a fact
The sky is falling (Score:4, Insightful)
PS cnn is owned by time-warner.
Re:The sky is falling (Score:2)
That answer is pretty obvious since the whole industry makes 9 billion a year. This means that 1 out of every 3 movies are pirated. I find this very hard to believe. Its probably more in the tens or hundreds of millions and they want Senator Hollings to implement drm to shave off another %10 of potential earnings at the sake of a whole industry 10 times its size.
The RIAA Once Again Misses the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Even scarier, is this gen from the Justice Department statement of the decision:So aparently it's accepatable to violate the due process rights if suspected crininals. I look forward to seeing the 'clarification' of this statement that is sure to be issued, because we all know the justice department can't support the violation of the due process rights of suspected criminals.
--CTH
Don't blame the administration for this (Score:4, Informative)
The real problem here is that it is far too easy to enact laws and far too hard to repeal or overturn them.
This is just the first, and cheapest defense... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is absurdly ill-thought-out that a "court clerk" gets to "rule" on whether the or not the RIAA has just cause to demand people's personal information. And I certainly hope that Verizon defies them in this regard and lands this in an actual court case. This would be an expensive move on their part, so I'm not holding my breath.
The RIAA's statement shows just how far from constitutional that they think Napster (et. al.) permits them to go:
Um, no. The courts have an unambiguous entitlement to determine who is breaking the law. That entitlement is constitutional. Having a copyright does not make you a peace officer; it does not qualify you to be trusted with confidential information and to use that information only in support of the court's decisions. The mechanisms currently in place to defend against such abuse are substantial (if flawed).
A court clerk (for all their many virtues) is not going to be qualified to verify that the methods by which the "infringing" IP addresses were discovered are valid or applicable to this law. The RIAA is going to get vast amounts of data on perfectly innocent people and force them to prove their innocence in order to remain connected to the one truly Free information media we have left.
How many minutes will it be until the RIAA uses this information to attack people like you and me that are freely expressing our discontent. After a 100 people who speak out against them have paid more than $1000 dollars each in lawyer fees to retain our Internet connections, who will dare to risk their connection by speaking out against these people.
If there is no blanket ruling against the RIAA in the first court case to come to trial what will follow will be ugly. First because of all the innocent, decent people that will be caught in the crossfire, second because measures this draconian will make even the average human sufficiently aware of the injustice to finally stop buying CDs.
Privacy for criminals? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want your privacy respected, RESPECT the law!
I think the RIAA are a bunch of swine myself, but sheesh people you are breaking the law, they're in the right you're in the wrong.
Re:Privacy for criminals? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I happen to decide to call my 'group' Ecstasy and I decide to do songs of elements (ie, Of Car
What to do.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What can we do? Support the artists we can enjoy and respect us regarding this issue. They do not even need to be P2P friendly..bands and artists that are neutral towards live music at least will do the trick. We will see more respect coming from the industry.
2)For the "anti-pirates" out there, realize that suggesting the purchase of a live album, in the eyes of the labels is the equivilent of piracy. If it is not available, do not reinforce their meme-share by encouraging used sales over P2P sharing. Both are one and the same.
3. Forget about changing the political system. In fact, thinking that we can change things through matching their lobbying efforts is silly. The only way we can win is to bring it to the public. Do not support parties, support their supporters. Throw your hat in the cacophony of support for a common cause. Even if the politicians are corrupt, our trust must be in each other. In this way, we can avoid being ignored by the politicians, and in essence, make our goal reality.
Re:What to do.. (Score:2)
Replace the second live with used. Used CDs are the same, in the eyes of the record company, of bootleg sales. It is our right to sell them, but we should avoid purchasing them, again, to support the artists.
Re:What to do.. (Score:2)
A boycott will work. The money people spend on mainstream music _absolutely_ funds the efforts of the RIAA. NONE of that money goes to the artist. Very little of that money goes to production. A little of it goes to marketing. ALMOST ALL of it goes to the bottom line of RIAA-sponsored companies. If you don't give them $19 for a CD, they just lost somewhere between $10 and $15 per unit for their campaign. Eventually, their lawyers on staff and their lobbyists will go do their lawyering and lobbying fo
Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
How is this not stealing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How is this not stealing (Score:3, Insightful)
Alright. So you buy a CD, right? You own that CD, so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it: Copy, distribute, throw around as a frisbee, whatever.
But there's this thing called Intellectual Property. Alright, fair enough. If you go around distributing CDs then yeah, I suppose you're technically stealing because you can plausibly be making money off of something that isn't yours, right? Fine. That works. So while you
Spammers? (Score:3, Insightful)
A spammer could then, conceivably, send you an email to/through Verizon (anonymously, through a proxy server, etc.) then contact Verizon, demanding access to your email inbox/log files to see if you're receiving 'copyrighted' material.
Hell, after a few requests, they could even forego the 'email' part:
Spammer: Hiya Bill, it's me again.
Verizon: Hey Mark! Need to track down some thieves again? <snicker>
Spammer: <chuckle> You know me, Bill- my justice is swift!
Verizon: Ha haaa! You da man! Shall I zip it for ya?
Spammer: Please.
Blatant Power Grab (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, that's only if this gets past the court now. But here, the DoJ is merely adding their opinion, rather than being the applicant. So the courts might not look at this as governmental abuse of the Constitution. But it would be come a crowbar in the future for the DoJ.
Here, the DoJ isn't looking out for the RIAA's copyrights, it's merly using them as a tool to gain even MORE power than PATRIOT already gave them. First it's bookstores and libraries that are forced into the role of gov't watcher of your information habits (and don't think that when they subpoena records from Borders or Barnes & Noble that they also won't get records of music and other purchases made at those stores), now it's your Telco/ISP for your communication habits, when they don't already have a secret tap on your phone.
I'm not normally this paranoid, but Ashcrost is the #1 threat to this country, far more dangerous than Bin Laden...
This is the sort of crap that... (Score:3, Interesting)
has led me to quit buying CDs/music. I don't buy it anymore. Really. I have what I have and am content with that and will not buy another music CD in my lifetime. I accept compilations and copies from a friend or two now and again but that is pretty much it.
I haven't bought ANY M$ software of any kind since I bought my first PC (a top-of-the-line 486DX-33 in its day) for similar reasons. I don't like the behavior or politics of the producer of the product, so I don't friggin' give them ANY money at all.
They need me more than I need them (speaking as a generic "consumer"). Take that simple fact to heart and live by it. Realise that you really don't NEED to buy any CD or software package. You may WANT to but you do not NEED to and, in fact, you can get by very well if you simply refuse to spend your money on the crap. Spend it on more worthwhile alternatives, blockade giving them blood money. Make them find a new line of work or reform.
general complaint against copyrights (Score:3, Insightful)
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges uness I could plant a tree in your yard, or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are. But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renassance happened without copyrights.
The simple fact is, there is no equivalency relationship between copyrights and property rights - incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The history of Copyrights is not one of rights, but controll of sharing and restricting the open use of knowledge.
That is why people who copy are not criminals, thiefs, or akin to pirates who board ships and murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed.
However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to copyrighrts that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the biggist issue was Xerox machines, today we are entering into the information age where information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either half to controll all of it or none of it. Our communications will either half to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either contunuiously probed or protected.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Unless they incorporate in Bermuda like divisions of Halliburton et. al.
Wish I could do that.
hahaha this is Minority Report (Score:2)
Arrest the criminals before they commit crimes?
I think its time to leave the USA, I mean if things keep getting worse I'm going to leave. When it gets to the point where someone can point the finger and have you raided just because of a filename, something is wrong there.
Re:quis custodiat ipsos corporations? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is because corporations are viewed as legal individual enities; with the rights of a person. Which is a situaion I don't believe the founding fathers had any way to predict or develop contingency plans for.
Re:quis custodiat ipsos corporations? (Score:2)
Sure they did, it's called the SECOND Amendment...
But really, I think the problem here is that the government has had the misleading assumption over the past years that the fourth amendment (against unreasonable search and seizure) was intended solely as a restriction upon the government. Since t
Re:quis custodiat ipsos corporations? (Score:3, Interesting)
To be granted a patent (a monopoly on production of an item) required the approval of the Secretary of State, among others.
A corporation was only created for a very important matter. I mean, before the United States was its own country, the entire damn colony of Virginia was a corporation. After the founding of the United States, corporatio
Re:Let's just throw the Constitution out the windo (Score:3, Insightful)
We the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more profitiable economy for our shareholders, increase our bottom line, protect our corporate interests, ensure the protection of our intellectual property, have full control to abuse our environment, and secure the enslavement of the common people as mindless consumers, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of
Re:shouldn't the Supreme Court have the final word (Score:3, Informative)