Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News

RIAA Tactical Legal Victory vs SBC 182

Posted by CmdrTaco from the no-privacy-left dept.
lurker412 writes "The RIAA has won a tactical victory in its legal battle with SBC Communications/PacBell Internet Services. CNet News reports that a San Francisco judge has moved the case to a District of Columbia federal court. SBC had resisted turning over the identities of purported coyright infringers to the RIAA. While the San Francisco court ruled on procedural grounds only, the DC court is the same one that previously ruled against Verizon in a similar attempt to contest the DMCA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Tactical Legal Victory vs SBC More

RIAA Tactical Legal Victory vs SBC

Comments Filter:

  • typo (Score:4, Funny)

    by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) * on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:25PM (#7610048) Homepage Journal
    You're gonna get a million or responses about the new coyright laws...

  • Any RIAA win (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pingular ( 670773 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:25PM (#7610055)
    is a loss for freedom.
    • All they need now is the power to arrest. It's sickening what's been done. Too many corrupt politicians and judges...
    • We don't have to take it. Consumers can put the RIAA into history's trash can with the horse and buggy industry just by not buying CDs. [dontbuycds.org]

  • I love to see... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PhilippeT ( 697931 )
    how money can influence anything. And anyone who says that the courts are impartial is a blind as Justice herself.
    • Whose money? Are you implying that the RIAA's money bought the transfer of venue? That's crap. Secondly, SBC is not some "disadvantaged worker being beat down by the man". They have the funds and motive to fight this with high powered attorneys as well.

      And why is that comment "Insightful"?
      • Im implying that the judge probably moved it up the ladder due to the presence of the RIAA's high, over, paied lawyers. As i said in a lower post, who would miss one or two judges.

  • I'm Glad (Score:5, Funny)

    by welthqa ( 111199 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:29PM (#7610089)
    It is nice that the ISPs are kind of sticking up for us. I mean, if it wasn't for all the free music we get I'm sure $50 bucks might be too much for internet access.

    • Re:I'm Glad (Score:5, Funny)

      by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:32PM (#7610122) Journal
      >if it wasn't for all the free music we get I'm sure $50 bucks might be too much for internet access.

      If you haven't surfed for free pr0n, you haven't surfed at all.
    • I agree completely. I am glad there a large companies that actually understand the way the internet works and look at it realistically.

    • Re:I'm Glad (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:12PM (#7610512) Journal
      That's actually one of the reasons that ISPs are sticking up. One of the main perks of having broadband to Joe User is that he can get media content (IE, MP3s) much much faster than with dial-up. If the RIAA makes it loud and obvious that you will probally get sued by sharing MP3s, then Joe User won't share MP3s and cancel his $40 / month broadband and go back to $15 / month dialup, since dialup is enough for mail and html surfing.

      Do you really think that Verizon or any other ISP gives a damn about their user's privacy? They'd rather just give the RIAA everything and be free of the legal hastle, but with thousands if not millions of subscribers on the line, they'll be willing to fight it out to the last.

  • RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by randall_burns ( 108052 ) <randall_burns@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:29PM (#7610091)
    The fundamental question is how long can they continue along this path before the public demands a fundamental reform of copyright laws and intellectual property mechanisms.


    The simple fact is that the RIAA is a pretty dang poor mechanism for mediating between the public and artists(i.e. the transaction costs are just too high-and this will become more obvious in time). These various court battles having nothing to do with creative effort and everything to do with maintaining power and control.

    • They aren't even mediating for the artists, but for the labels. Nearly all of the extra money they've received as results of these litigations have just gone into the coffers and not into the pockets of artists.
      • Thats not the way it works.

        Imagine that you are a programmer for Unisys. You create a large amount of code that your employer sells. Let's say this code is stolen, and your employer sues the theif. You wouldn't have any claim to damages in this situation.

        Artists are contractors who sell their music to companies who have the resources to market and produce it. They aren't any less or more special than others who do the same thing.
        • Copyright/patents aren't the only way to support artists and inventors. A substantial amount of basic research and art is already funded by government/private grants or prize awards. Those mechanisms could be expanded and formalized-and this would quite possibly involve less overhead than the hiring of armies of accountants, attorneys and MBA's associated with the copyright/patent system. It is really a question of what is the right balance here-and what creates for people the kind of future and culture the
          • Do you really want THIS government deciding what music should be produced?

            -- Ravensfire
            • Well, this government is _already_ deciding what kind of art is going to be produced via its mechanisms of copyright laws and patents. The question is whether there are potentially better governmental mechanisms here. I'd like to see a wider range of mechanisms-and metrics for evaluating the success of each.

              I tend to think that having congress award grants is a pretty bad mechanism for rewarding artists and inventors-as is completely leaving things up to major corporations. I think it might be interesting

        • The difference is that the the computer code in your example is "A work for hire" your employer owns it.

          In the case of music, the songs are licensed by the artist to the record label who sells them to the public. The artist retains the copyright ... some labels try to get an assignment of copyright from the artist but I don't think they've gotten away with it very often.
        • The parent message should be marked as "wrong", not "informative"...

          With almost all music (except that done specifically as work for hire like certain advertisements) the writers retain the copyright.

      • I would suggest that the real signficance of the RIAA isn't the money that it rakes in(which it does)-but the precise mechanisms in which it turns down money. The RIAA folks have an aspect of monopoly power-and within some limits they can promote art that might not be optimally profitable under the present system or surpress art for which there is a real demand. IMHO it would be important to do good analysis here
        (one of the other participants here, baldrson has done something similar with analysis of films

    • How that's going to play out (Score:5, Funny)

      by ColonelPanic ( 138077 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:41PM (#7610216)
      ... before the public demands a fundamental reform of copyright laws and intellectual property mechanisms.



      Public: Congress, we demand fundamental reforms of copyright laws and (other) intellectual property mechanisms!

      Congress: Sure, just a moment. Mr. Big Donors, how about it?

      RIAA: No way (slap!)

      Congress: Sorry, public. Bad idea.

    • >how long can they continue along this path before the public demands a fundamental reform of copyright laws and intellectual property mechanisms.

      As long as it goes ! This is not just the policy of RIAA, but the entire corporate america. They dont aim anything for the long term. What they aim is some quick(dirty) money by any means. Enron guys knew well that they wouldn't be able to continue it forever. But the policy was pull as much money as they can until everything collapse. RIAA is also doing the s

    • Re:RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:43PM (#7610246)
      The fundamental question is how long can they continue along this path before the public demands a fundamental reform of copyright laws and intellectual property mechanisms.

      Considering the majority of the public is uneducated about law and worry more about Ben Affleck's love life, probably a very very very long time... if ever. After all... it's the people who let shit like the Patriot Act happen.

      Man, what a great idea.. let's allow the FBI to search our houses without even KNOWING!! Woo!!
    • These various court battles having nothing to do with creative effort and everything to do with maintaining power and control.

      I believe you're right about trying to maintain control, but it does really seem like the RIAA is trying only to gain speed toward a supreme court case. They don't really care about one ISP not willing to cave-in to the pressure...they're trying to set precedents with these smaller court "wins" to give legitamacy to their stance on the whole issue, which (of course) they'll use to
    • I will agree with you completely here. What I'd like to know is: If they are litigating for the good of their artists, and any money they get from the litigations are suppose to be for the artists (minus the usual *cough* legal fees), then where do we find out how much has been distributed to the artists? For that matter, how do we find out how much the RIAA and it's associates "earn" from music sales, and how much of that is given to the artist? I know a large portion of money paid to artists has to be

    • Re:RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nolife ( 233813 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:52PM (#7610337) Homepage Journal
      Why stop at copyright laws. I believe the root of this problem and many others is campaign finance reform that actually has an effect. Looking at lobby and special interest groups efforts BIG picture is nothing more then bribery. "Here's some money, go do what is best for me!!". How we have come to accept this practice is well beyond me. Just because it's been happening for so long does not make it right. Try offering the policeman who pulls you over for speeding a $20 bill. How could your intentions be interpetted any other way then bribery? Just because the police enforce the law and congress makes the law should not be a difference, the end result is the same.
      Bottom line...
      Those that pay get thier way.
    • Another take on this would be to analyze the RIAA "business model". Since they are suing end-users, and legal business is quite expensive, how big a fraction of the cases must they win to be "profitable". The reparations cannot possibly be huge for most people, on the scale of large organisation budgets. If the legal actions become too expensive to maintain, then the RIAA will be forced to change its strategy. It will also mean that their grip on the markets and labels will have to loosen.
    • That assumes the public at large doesn't just sponge up the spin from the big media corporations like they do and actually tries to think.

  • whats different (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dhuv ( 241988 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:30PM (#7610096) Homepage
    If it didnt work for Verizon why does SBC think they will win? Is there anything different with this case?
    • There doesnt appear to be any difference. The state court just didnt want to make a decision so it goes to a federal one...I dont think SBC has much of a chance after Verizon failed though.

    • Re:whats different (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BanjoBob ( 686644 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:49PM (#7610309) Homepage Journal
      Actually, from a legal perspective there is a change of environment. When the Verizon case was handled, there was no precident and no errors in subpoenas. In the case of SBC, they now have proof that the RIAA process is flawed -- something Verizon could only speculate about. How they play that hand will likely determine the outcome of this case.
      • All things considered, if the RIAA lost in a lower court, wouldn't they just pursue it in a higher one? By bumping this up to the higher courts, this should determine a higher level of precedent. In the event of a win (which it should be unless the judge is bought) this would be good news for everyone.
    • When this story was first reported on /., I wrote this comment [slashdot.org] which I think is still applicable.

      I doubt SBC really cares if it wins or loses. It's not like money beyond legal fees is at stake. If they lose, they turn over customer data. It's just important to them that they turn over that data by court order so they're covered from any possible liability that could result from cooperating with the RIAA.

  • The last 'A' stands for America not World... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...and that is good.

  • Slightly offtopic question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:30PM (#7610105)
    Is it possible to get sued by the RIAA if you download (but do not share) songs by bands whose record labels are not affiliated with the RIAA?
    • I think it's possible to get sued by the RIAA for just about anything.

    • Re:Slightly offtopic question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:43PM (#7610245) Journal
      The RIAA can sue on behalf of anyone they want to provided that person had not issued a decree that the RIAA may not do so.

      Anyone can sue anyone else on behalf of any third party - take a class action, for example. Someone sue's an alleged negligent automobile manufacturer on behalf of everyone who owns one, and it is up to the individual owners to "opt out" of the lawsuit to avoid losing their rights to obtain their own suit.

      THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, The RIAA can sue all downloaders in a class action on behalf of all artists, and then those artists, even though they are not members of the RIAA, would have to "opt out" of the lawsuit. The RIAA could potentially grab damage rights away from thousands of non-affiliated artists, without their knowledge or consent, and steal all of _that_ money, too.

      All they are required to do is put an ad in a paper of reasonable market coverage in the area in which the principal plaintiff has their principal place of business, which means one ad in the LA paper that 99.99% of artists would not see. After the opt-out deadline, the RIAA would then own the damage rights that previously belonged to all of those artists. Again, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING.

      In any case, do you think that artists are seeing a damn dime of all this settlement money? It's all going to the lawyers and RIAA executives.
      • And this sort of behavior is right how?

        Oh, that's right, in America, we have a legal system, not a Justice system.

      • You have to have standing WRT the case. You can sue anyone, but the first hurdle is finding the right jurisdiction, then comes your standing in the matter, and then establishing that you have been wronged somehow.

        If you sue GM saying their steering wheels are too slick and could be dangerous if you leave your sunroof open in the rain, the questions the Court will ask are

        1. Why are you asking me about this, and not a lower court or the one in Detroit?
        2. Are you the legal representative for a GM customer, or a
        • >> the original entity bringing the suit has to show cause

          "Your Honor, it is not reasonable to assume that people who download music are downloading only music created by RIAA artists..." --Check

          >> and that other people have been harmed in the same way

          "Therefore, under the previous argument, it _is_ reasonable to conjecture that other artists, even those not affiliated with the RIAA, are suffering financial harm at the hands of the downloaders...." --Check

          >> Why are you asking me a
      • This comment isn't that far offtopic, and raises an interesting scenario, however, even I think that this is a very cynical view of the situation.

        You mentioned that it is a theoretical situation, but the rope that ties the hands of the RIAA/MPAA in this situation is that it would expose what is at the heart of the actions of the digital gestapo. If the RIAA were to take a sweeping action on behalf of the artists, even unaffiliated ones, the Congress of the United States simply wouldn't be able to turn a b
      • This is a gross overstatement. Generally, lawsuits have to be prosecuted by a party with legal "standing," and must be prosecuted by the "real party in interest." Class actions are a limited exception to this rule, and one the RIAA cannot take advantage of.

        It's true that the RIAA can claim to be acting as a representative of a party, but if it is not actually acting as that party's representative and this fact is brought to the court's attention, the suit will be dismissed.

  • Passing the buck (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dubdays ( 410710 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:31PM (#7610120)
    It really irks me that this court didn't have the balls to stand up to the RIAA. Why does it all have to go up the court-ladder? Why can't these judges just make an informed, reasonable decision. It bothers me even more that the high courts in this country always seem to lean more toward the side of big business.
    • Because they dont want to end up dead. it's not like it has happen but alot of people die in the US who would miss one or two judges.

    • Re:Passing the buck (Score:4, Informative)

      by KrispyKringle ( 672903 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:43PM (#7610240)
      It's not a case of passing the buck. It's a case of jurisdictional integrity, which you should appreciate that the court had. The law being contested here is a federal law, and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.

      Informed decision? Try that yourself ;)

      • Yeah I think they made the right choice in passing the decision up the jurisdictional ladder, BUT think about the line that comes after it.

        'the DC court is the same one that previously ruled against Verizon in a similar attempt to contest the DMCA." '

        Oh yeah, gee thats a real smart idea. Pass a case like this up to the same court where a similar case was tried and failed. Thats getting out of the frying pan and into the fire.

    • Re:Passing the buck (Score:1, Insightful)

      by sckeener ( 137243 )
      Is this federal or state courts?

      if it is state courts, then the judges are elected and therefore need $$ from big business to get reelected.

      If it is a federal court, then the judges were put in there by an elected officals linked at the hip to big bussiness.

      What we need is campaign reform. Take big bussiness out of the equation. With the web and mircopayments it could be done. Just look at AZ.

    • It really irks me that this court didn't have the balls to stand up to the RIAA.

      The task of the court is to evaluate the evidence presented before it and make a decision according to law, not according to knee-jerk reaction and prejudice.

      Why does it all have to go up the court-ladder?

      It didn't. The Washington District Court is at the same level as the San Francisco District Court. And yes, both of them are federal courts. According to this article [dietk.com]

      '[Judge] Illston said that because the two cases in

  • MediaSentry (Score:4, Funny)

    by b3k ( 551611 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:35PM (#7610148)
    MediaSentry, a company that scans file-trading networks such as Kazaa for copyright violations and contacts ISPs on behalf of copyright owners, and Titan Media, an adult content provider that also sought identities of SBC Internet subscribers.

    I am so busted! I downloaded Buttmans "BIG BUTT BABES" last night.
    "Honey, it was hackers."

  • kind of like O.J. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:37PM (#7610168)
    ...where we move the trial to the location where we get the verdict we want.

    • Re:kind of like O.J. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ClubStew ( 113954 )
      Good point, except that it won't last near as long...as someone previously said, the higher courts favor big business. (And it won't be as interesting - though just as rediculous - as the OJ trial!)

  • Court reputations (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:37PM (#7610172) Journal
    So, did the RIAA attempt to force this by their arguments and "evidence". It's a pretty sad state of affairs if the system is so cynically manipulated (and capable of being manipulated) like this.

    One of the strengths of the division between the courts and the law-makers is that the courts interpret the law, but if joe random nasty-person can try to establish precedent in a "favourable" court, then it reduces the value of the 'interpret the law' job description. Sad.

    Simon.

  • Getting the problem at the root (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @12:42PM (#7610221)

    Copyrights (or more accurately, the alleged right to restrict what other people duplicate) are really the root of the problem, when we deal with this one - then all the other ones will go away by themselves.
    • Not quite. Copyrights for "works for hire" that are owned by corporations are the root of the problem. Actually, no, it's simpler than that. The abuse of the concept of copyright by the industry. The concept of copyright itself is not the problem.

      Here, picture this. You just spent the last three years of your life writing your magnum opus. It ends up being universally acclaimed as the greatest novel to hit the world in the last fifty years. You find a publisher who agrees to distribute it for you (a
      • Individual copyrights "works for hire" and corporate copyrights are the same thing, but a different form. When anyone has the right to restrict what other people freely copy then problems like this are going to come up again and again in one way or another.

        What if I said, well corporations shouldn't own slaves, but individuals can. and ... well how would you feel if you spent all this money to import a slave from africa ... and then ... he ran away. .. or who'se gonna grow cotton without slaves? Note ho
        • The rennaisance happened without copyrights. The artists got paid by princes, dukes, and popes. Personally, I'd take copyright law with all the extensions, before I would go back to being ruled by princes, dukes and popes.
        • People don't have the right to rob a bank for a living because that would deprive other people of their rights to make a living. Where did you suddenly decide you have the right to copy something? It's just as imaginary as having the right to prevent someone from copying something.

          When it comes to copyright, people do use a similar logic all the time -- let me copy something that I had no part in creating, without compensating those who created it, thus depriving them of the right to a decent living. Pe
          • The "right to a decent living", is what is communist (which I prefer to call Marxisim, because there is nothing community related about it). It always leaves off at the end "at someone elses expense", which I already talked about.

            Another typical behavior of Marxists is to tout phony rights like the famous saying "from each according to their own, to each according to their needs". Smart people know that just because an institution calls somthing a right doesn't mean that it is. This is especially true w
  • Why does the RIAA continue going after the little guy who doesn't have any money to give them for their file trading? Especially since some ISP's are trying to fight back for him/her. They managed to get blank CD's taxed because of the potential for copyright infringement, I'm suprised they haven't tried to put a tax on bandwidth for the potential copyright infringement that internet access offers.
  • I may be off topic, but I think that we should start using a better technology (may be low-tech?) for file sharing in order to avoid a big clusterfuck that is about to explode. I have no doubt that RIAA wins a lot of cases because it has money, unlike many of the students it is trying to sue. Here is one example:
    You and your friends download different stuff by using Bit Torrent. Then, you visit each other (or have a party) with external hard drives. Plug-and-play baby!

  • Another Battle Lost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $lingBlade ( 249591 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:26PM (#7610645)
    Sorry to be the voice of pessimism on here, but I've noticed a few people asking for *courses of action* which we as consumers could suggest or take to remedy the **AA's gestapo style tactics for movie and music sharers.

    IMHO there is nothing we can do that will provide them the security and control that they want, while at the same time, protecting our rights as consumers. They simply will NOT let go! It really is that plain and simple. They've built an industry out of milking every last dime out of an intangible product. They don't offer a service... they offer an *experience*.

    That's what sells... and sells very very well. There is no happy medium in this fight. They either get the control they want and we lose the control we want... or we get what we see now, half-assed versions of the products (if they can be called that) that we were used to, i.e. DRM'd CDs, bans on academy award screeners, etc. They'll do ANYTHING and everything to keep their fingers in the pie.

    The only thing that would wake them up is a total nose-dive in sales. Not just a lull or low... an over-the-cliff, down the rocks, plummet of sales, either for music or movies. How will that ever happen? It won't... it won't happen because they're spoonfeeding us their restrictions. They know that whatever they come out with, we'll hack. Whatever move they make, we'll make another. But each step forward that they make, however small, in general public acceptance of their new products
    whether it's a slightly DRM'd CD whose protection is defeated with a green sharpie pen or a watermarked movie, any little bit of that that slips into the mainstream and doesn't cause WalMartians to flip out over, is a victory for them.

    Educating the general public about these things is the only way to go. Educating them to the dangers and restrictions that are being forced down their throats. But guess what? The public doesn't care. They don't give a rat's ass about DRM or watermarking or encryption or any such nonsense. They only care about the experience. Being able to escape the real-world for 5 minutes of music or 2 hours of movie is all that they want. So long as the **AA's are in tact organizationally... they'll have product to sell and that my friends.....

    is the "rest of the story" so to speak.

    To get on-topic, this court ruling (however final) is to be expected at this point. Perhaps it's always been this way and we never knew it because it never affected us... but whatever the reason, big-business in the country rules the land with an iron fist. I'm not saying that the justice system is totally corrupt, I'm saying the entire country is totally corrupt. Look around you right now in your offices and homes. What's NOT for sale?

    Damned near everything we see and a good portion of what we can't, is for sale in some form or another. An organization like the RIAA getting SBC's previous ruling overturned is about as surprising as the ending of Titanic. Did you all think that the RIAA was going to bend over and take it like a man? That they'd let a media conglomerate of sorts like SBC tell them whose information is available and whose isn't? Hell no, they want names, they want numbers, they're not going to sit by and let some mid-level corporation tell them what can and can't be done.

  • The 9th District -- and This is a BIG Loss (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:44PM (#7610771)
    It's amazing [to me] that a court in the district that was able to handle the "under God" controversy can't bring themselves to touch this one. And I though they liked issues that affect and piss off everybody.

    This is a big win for the RIAA because there is precedent in the DC Court of Appeals, while none yet exists in the 9th Circuit.

    The judge that transferred the case is a weenie. (I'm pretty safe in saying that. She obviously is not a /. reader.)

  • My anti RIAA plan (Score:4, Interesting)

    by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @02:00PM (#7610910)
    First I stop swapping music files using P2P.(I dont do much of it anyways) Then I buy used cd's at pwnshop and used cd stores.($2-$10)Then I donwload free legit musc online. This make the RIAA think they are winning but Im cutting their throats by buying used cd's since no money goes to them. Sure the artists will loose money by me not buying new cd's but maybe that will give them incentive to get up and stop being such music company sheep and look for other way to redistribute their music.

  • Coyrights (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hoplite3 ( 671379 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @02:16PM (#7611043)

    the identities of purported coyright infringers...

    I don't believe in coyrights. I mean, if you have rights, you should be upfront about them. No need to be coy.

  • Obviously courts and congress aren't listening. We need to speak louder. We should have civil rights era style protests over this, the DMCA and DRM, anti fair use, infinate copyright extension and such. We need consumer rights protests and we need them to be BIG. We need to picket every day in front of the RIAA and MPAA headquarters, congress and such.

    We need people chaining themselves to chairs, stairrails and doors in their offices. Sit ins. Picket major events run by major labels or studios. We
  • Notice that the Justice system isn't as much about Justice as it is about Tactics and Strategy? And that Democracy in America isn't as much about Democracy as it is about Bribery and Influence. It may be a cynical point of view, but the system we pretend to live in is pretty different from the system we pretend to live in. Maybe the Matrix doesn't require a giant computer network. The clever and wealthy are progressively converting the rest of us into a battery pack. The goal of the political system seems t

  • Only in the 21st century... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nephroth ( 586753 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:39PM (#7614850)
    Could we have forgotten the roots upon which this country was founded and hand over such ungodly power to a corporation. The RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) is a profit-hungry organization, and sees people as merely profit generators. They don't care about provisions such as fair use. If they had their ideal situation, they would charge us every time we hear or see some of their "intellectual property" whether it was willingly or not. The common people need to stand up for their rights before they don't have them anymore, and contrary to what the placid images on our televisions tell us, that time is rapidly approaching.

    Prepare to become even more of a faceless number than you already are.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close