Should RIAA Win Against Jammie Thomas Be Tossed After RIAA Admits It Misspoke On The Stand?
from the one-would-think... dept
Well, well, well. This morning when we pointed out that the RIAA's responses to the whole Howell affair were rather lacking, we missed an important point. In the NPR debate between the RIAA's Cary Sherman and the Washington Post's Marc Fisher, while Sherman may have had the stronger case (this one time!), he did make one interesting statement that could have much wider implications. When pushed on the Howell case, rather than admitting he was wrong, Fisher moved on to a different situation: the infamously incorrect statements by Sony BMG exec Jennifer Pariser, who said on the stand, in response to a question about whether it was okay to make a personal backup copy from a CD, that saying so was "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'" As we (and many others) pointed out at the time, this statement is blatantly false.When Fisher brought it up, Sherman responded by saying:
"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial. I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."This actually is somewhat believable, as the industry does believe that downloading a single copy is the equivalent of "stealing just one copy," (even if that's questionable in itself). However, Sherman also claims "other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred."
It's not clear who those other reporters and bloggers are, but it's a bit surprising that they would then choose not to write about it. After all, it was a recording industry exec admitting she had made false statements under oath -- and those false statements were part of the case that helped Jammie Thomas lose her lawsuit. That has folks like Ray Beckerman wondering if the RIAA had notified the judge that Pariser had misspoke. Considering that we never heard the judge tell the jury to ignore those statements, at the very least, it would appear that the jury was never told that Pariser misspoke -- which certainly would suggest that Thomas has grounds to call into question that original ruling against her.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cary sherman, copyright, jammie thomas, jennifer pariser, lawsuits, riaa
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
suspicious
And if not, public humiliation works well too. For me, at least... maybe not so well for jammie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Misspoke?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Misspoke?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyWjnis9MVk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should RIAA Win Against Jammie Thomas Be Tossed Af
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawyers and their iPODs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawyers and their iPODs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I thought it was called perjury?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Under Oath vs PR
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Misspoke?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jammie's SOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Attorney Should Use this Info
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not likely for mistrial
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Misspoke?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mistrial
A mistrial is a courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to its normal conclusion. The Thomas trial has already ended, so it is too late for a "mistrial".
Sheese, what a bunch of maroons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Misspoke?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Still Accepting Donations
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not possible to object!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Excuses for Theft
1. The RIAA isn't fair with the musicians, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
2. Disney should not have the right to Mickey Mouse's image for 95 years, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
3. Musicians' real rewards come from creating music, not from financial gain, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
4. Music stores and other outlets charge too much, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
5. Sharing music with friends by giving them copies should not be illegal, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
6. No law is sacrosanct which means that laws against copyright infringement are not sacrosanct, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
7. It takes virtually no effort or absolutely none at all for an artist to have copies made of his or her music, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
8. No physical harm results from making unauthorized copies of music, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
9. Congress has no business extending the periods for the retention of copyright ownership, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
10. It really doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, there is nothing immoral about it, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
11. People break laws all the time, laws concerning highway speeds, laws concerning illegal possession of drugs and many other laws, and breaking those laws is worse than breaking copyright laws, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
12. It is ridiculous to have to buy a CD with 20 songs on it when all that is wanted is one particular song, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
13. Making copies surreptitiously without the consent and knowledge of the copyright holder hurts no one including the copyright holder, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
14. Thomas Jefferson had serious doubts about awarding copyrights to creators, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
15. Millions of people worldwide have already done it, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
16. Laws and ethics taught in school won't stop illegal downloads, only technology will and that technology has not yet arrived, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
Let me add one more that I haven't seen, but will be just as good a reason (or excuse) as the 16 listed.
17. Bush and Cheney lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Clinton lied about having sex with Monica, therefore it is OK to download copyrighted music files without paying for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Excuses for Theft
Another of my favorites is that musicians, like other artists, shouldn't be in the craft in order to do something crass, like make a living. The joy of creation should be sufficient. And, in fact, they should be paying the audience for gifting them with their time and attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
or not
I mean, she used her same handle as her email and her ISP as her file sharing username - a handle that was made up of her name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Excuses for Theft
Scorpiaux, I'm guessing you're new around here. If you read our posts, you'll find that we do NOT defend people downloading copyrighted music files without permission. We try to explain why the owners of those copyrights would likely be better off if they chose not to rely on the crutch of copyright and *allowed* people to make use of their content. It's a very different thing.
You can read more on that here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061129/010043.shtml
So, I'm not sure what kind of point you think you're making in posting this list.
I will say one thing, however: you really ought to learn the difference between "infringement" and "theft." They are two very different things with two different consequences. I don't deny that both are illegal. But, please don't call infringement theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
How would they "likely be better off"? Have you ever heard of anyone listening to a music download and then voluntarily sending a payment to the artist? And if so, haven't you noticed that 1 million free downloads of a given piece of music is not accompanied by a million dollars of mailed or emailed payments? Maybe you are thinking that the warm fuzzy feeling of giving entertainment free to a million people is worth it to the artist? Maybe you are thinking that recording artists will make a good living from commercial endorsements for cat food or BMWs is they give away their right to distribute their music? Mike, you don't understand the capitalistic marketplace. Microsoft doesn't give away Windows to anyone who wants it. Notice that the free Linux operating system hasn't exactly plowed Windows under. I wonder why (not really).
Infringement and theft may not be the same with respect to copyrighted material, but the same person may be both infringer and thief. The person who sells or distributes unauthorized copyrighted works could be said to be an infringer whereas the person who knowingly receives the unauthorized copyrighted works could be called a thief. The same person could be both. Either way, an illegal act takes place. You might notice as someone else has pointed out that so far the RIAA is "batting 1.000". Every court decision has gone its way and every suit that did not go to trial was settled out of court. Bet there is virtually no one who has been sued who has gotten off "scott free." You are on the wrong side of the issue, Mike. Your side is getting pummeled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
Basic economics.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
You use the infinite goods to make scarce goods more valuable.
Have you ever heard of anyone listening to a music download and then voluntarily sending a payment to the artist? And if so, haven't you noticed that 1 million free downloads of a given piece of music is not accompanied by a million dollars of mailed or emailed payments?
Of course not, because that's a dumb business model. But what is NOT a dumb business model is building up a huge following through giving away free music and then selling additional scarce goods: concerts, access, tangible goods.
You seem to think economics is a zero sum game and that the only way to make money is directly by selling content. That's simply untrue. If you recognize that an infinite good EXPANDS a market, you'd realize that there's much more opportunity to make money by giving away music.
Mike, you don't understand the capitalistic marketplace
I understand it quite well. So you explain to me, which is more "capitalistic." Building up a giant gov't subsidy in the form of a gov't backed monopoly... or letting the free market do its thing? I'd argue that ignoring copyright and trusting the free market is a lot more capitalistic.
You seem to prefer centralized gov't intervention.
Microsoft doesn't give away Windows to anyone who wants it. Notice that the free Linux operating system hasn't exactly plowed Windows under. I wonder why (not really).
Don't compare apples to oranges. Linux has actually done amazingly well against Microsoft in exactly the market it was designed for: the server market. And the companies that "give it away" are making a ton of money. Do you know how much money IBM makes from giving away Linux? They understand how to give away the infinite good and make a ton of money on the scarce goods those infinite goods make more valuable.
Infringement and theft may not be the same with respect to copyrighted material, but the same person may be both infringer and thief. The person who sells or distributes unauthorized copyrighted works could be said to be an infringer whereas the person who knowingly receives the unauthorized copyrighted works could be called a thief.
Huh? I've read these statements a few times now, and they make no sense.
Either way, an illegal act takes place.
Indeed. As I said. I'm not sure why you think that's a point worth repeating. I've already said that's the case.
You might notice as someone else has pointed out that so far the RIAA is "batting 1.000".
This is actually quite wrong. The RIAA has been losing an awful lot of cases lately. But, again, that's not really the point. The RIAA's cases are fairly meaningless compared to what we're talking about: which is the business models it should be adopting and supporting.
Every court decision has gone its way and every suit that did not go to trial was settled out of court.
You mean other than the ones where the judges totally trashed the RIAA's arguments, tossed them out of court and ordered the RIAA to pay the attorneys' fees for those who they wrongly sued? Yeah... other than those.
Bet there is virtually no one who has been sued who has gotten off "scott free."
Well, beyond being wrong, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
You are on the wrong side of the issue, Mike. Your side is getting pummeled.
Fascinating. MY SIDE? MY SIDE is that I'm trying to show the industry how it can continue to make money in the new world. I'm IN FAVOR of the recording industry being able to make money. Besides, if I look at the music industry right now, I see that more and more artists are adopting my views and my models. I see more music than ever before getting created. I see more people than ever before listening to more kinds of music than ever before. I see more musicians making more money than ever before. The ONLY part of the business that is struggling is the one small part that thinks the only way to make money is by selling it directly: the recording industry. That's who's losing. That's who's getting "pummeled."
And there is no "my side" and "your side" in a capitalistic world (are you really that out of it)? Capitalism is about transactions that make BOTH parties better off. And most of the music industry has recognized that. It is only the big record labels that still seem to think there are two sides to this and it's a zero sum game where one party is worse off when the other is better off.
There is no my side and your side. There is one side and it's going exactly the way the economics I describe predicted it would go. It's only folks who are holding onto relics of scarcity -- who think that somehow they can put up artificial scarcity and people won't route around them -- who think that this is a fight where someone who is trying to HELP them make money needs to be "pummeled."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ranting
So Mike makes many, many good points here.
So I recently decided to jump on the bandwagon of this "Leave Britney Alone" thing, and saw all the user-created content that came from this singular piece of non-copyrighted work. I started with YouTube... Good God. There's parody from Seth Green, National Lampoon, and hundreds of others. Most of it is great, and builds upon the original.
Personally, I think we need to reinvent the copyright wheel. Instead of making everything private-only, we need to be able to build upon and extend upon others copyrights (or if need be, patents). Anything else just really puts us at a disadvantage when it comes to global markets.
If the system was properly setup to facilitate licensing, I think we'd be in a different ballgame than we are today... but instead we wait until being served a notice of appearance by the lawyers, and have to show how our ability to create and market a product is better than someone who just sits on a piece of paper who says "This is Mine".
...But that's just me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can however perjure yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atlantic vs. Howell
Additional prediction: A lot of posters here will be trying to use the results to make Howell a martyr in their quest to steal what is rightfully someone else's, namely the right to distribute what belongs to someone else without compensating the owner.
All of the intellectualizing cannot force someone to give away something they own and who do not wish to give it away.
With respect to the arguments concerning business models, why try to force anyone or any business to do business in the way you think they should rather than leaving them alone to succeed or fail on their own? Want to do away with copyrights? Amend the Constitution. In the meantime do not piously attempt to suggest that your business model is superior.
This suit is between the plaintiff and the defendant. Atlantic believes it has been injured by Howell and it looks as though this will be the final conclusion once any appeals are made and rejected. If I were Atlantic or its officers and stockholders, I would NOT be sitting around wishing that I had just allowed Howell to usurp my rights and deprive me of potential income from the sale of intellectual property. I would also not be inviting uninvolved onlookers to tell me how to run my business. Whether I lose or fail would be up to me, not a bunch of vultures waiting in the wings for my demise.
I will be combing the Internet reading the wailing about the decision once it has been handed down. Bet it will be laughable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ranting
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
=====
I wonder (and haven't checked) about what results Stephen King had by producing a book a chapter at a time on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ranting
Saying that copyright infringement is theft is lying. Why should anyone care what a liar says anyway? You're liable to say anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Excuses for Theft?
However, the laws that govern copyright are easily changable and in fact, OUGHT to be changed.
You're right, as the law is written now, songs are the intellectual property of the copyright holder. As such, they have the right to determine what happens to their intellectual property. But just because that's the way the law is written now doesn't mean that's the way it OUGHT to read.
Reforming a business model can come about two ways. By choice or by law. If the laws are changed to reign in copyright, the business models would have to change to survive. And in changing, Mike contends, they would prosper.
The Recording Industry, however, can also CHOOSE to embrace a "digital-age" business model instead of clinging onto a model that is doomed to failure. Suing your customers is never a sound business model. Soon (some would argue VERY soon), people will turn away from that model and embrace something different. Something they WANT.
And that is the choice that the Recording Industry faces. Reform by choice, go down with the old law, or be reformed by new law. Only one of these routes involves choice and survival, and we can only sit back and wonder, "When will they get it?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Atlantic vs. Howell
Liar, liar, liar...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Excuses for Theft?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blame the victim
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Excuses for Theft?
-----
As far as I can tell, Mike doesn't have a business that he can risk. It's easy to suggest that others sacrifice themselves on behalf of your cause. It is quite different when the sacrifice is yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Atlantic vs. Howell
I don't deny that. I actually agree. The chances are quite high that Atlantic will win the case. Especially considering Howell is trying to defend himself without a lawyer.
Additional prediction: A lot of posters here will be trying to use the results to make Howell a martyr
Really? Why would you say that? We didn't do that with Jammie Thomas. We said it looked like she was guilty and it made no sense for her to fight the case.
in their quest to steal what is rightfully someone else's, namely the right to distribute what belongs to someone else without compensating the owner.
Again, I have already pointed this out to you so I'm not sure why you repeat it. WE DO NOT DEFEND INFRINGEMENT. We are merely talking about it from the perspective of the content creator. So, no, we do not defend infringement (which you again, incorrectly, refer to theft -- showing either ignorance or stubbornness in accepting fact).
All of the intellectualizing cannot force someone to give away something they own and who do not wish to give it away.
Indeed, and we've never said otherwise. We're not trying to force anyone to give away anything. We're trying to help them understand why they would be better off doing so -- while also pointing out that if they do not do so, they'll be in serious trouble when everyone else does so.
With respect to the arguments concerning business models, why try to force anyone or any business to do business in the way you think they should rather than leaving them alone to succeed or fail on their own?
Again, I'm not sure where you get the idea that we're trying to force a business model on anyone. We're not. However, the MARKETPLACE is trying to force this new business model on people, because that's basic economics. Artificial scarcity does not last in an economic world.
Want to do away with copyrights? Amend the Constitution.
First of all, there's no reason to amend the Constitution if the point is to get businesses to recognize why they're worse off relying on copyright. Second, there's no reason to amend the Constitution when the problem is the unconstitutional use of copyright (and patents) in a way that does not "promote the progress..."
In the meantime do not piously attempt to suggest that your business model is superior.
It's not "suggesting." It's proven, with plenty of examples and support historically and through research. Besides, I'm surprised that someone who claims to be a supporter of capitalism would EVER suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to suggest a superior business model unless he can first "change the Constitution."
That sounds like someone who's stuck on a crutch, not someone who actually believes in the free market.
This suit is between the plaintiff and the defendant. Atlantic believes it has been injured by Howell and it looks as though this will be the final conclusion once any appeals are made and rejected.
Indeed. I'm not sure why you think we've suggested otherwise. In fact, if you haven't noticed (and by now, I get the sense you don't read very carefully), we've been defending the RIAA in the Howell case.
If I were Atlantic or its officers and stockholders, I would NOT be sitting around wishing that I had just allowed Howell to usurp my rights and deprive me of potential income from the sale of intellectual property.
Again, I'm not sure why you make these false assumptions about "depriving me of potential income." We're not. If I were Atlantic, its officer and stockholders, what I would want is a company that recognizes the marketshift that is going under way, the underlying economics and how to BENEFIT from it, rather than clinging to an outdated business model.
I would also not be inviting uninvolved onlookers to tell me how to run my business. Whether I lose or fail would be up to me, not a bunch of vultures waiting in the wings for my demise.
So you'd act just like Doug Morris? Stick your head in the sand and yell "woe is me!"
You wouldn't actually ask people who understand the economics of what's happening? You wouldn't ask people who understand the technology? You wouldn't ask people who have examples of those who have embraced the business model and thrived?
As for "vultures," how can SUGGESTING A BETTER BUSINESS MODEL be considered coming from Vultures?
Man. I hope you're not actually running a record label, though it wouldn't surprise me.
I will be combing the Internet reading the wailing about the decision once it has been handed down. Bet it will be laughable.
Again, that has nothing to do with this. We agree that Atlantic will probably win, but that's totally irrelevant to the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Excuses for Theft?
Then you need to refresh you're reading skills, because just about every claim in that sentence is incorrect.
The "new business model" appears to be the brainchild of someone destined to fail.
Only when you misread it so badly that you don't seem to understand a single concept explained.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blame the victim
Again, I suggest you refresh your reading skills. This is not the case at all. First of all, I don't understand why you continue to call it theft, when there is no theft going on at all.
I'll quote the Supreme Court on this one, since you're so damn fond of demanding "the rule of law."
"Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." -- Justice Blackmun, Dowling v. United States
What kind of logic compels someone to conclude that victims ask to have their rights violated and that they further should not have redress in the legal system?
I'm not sure, but it's not us. Again, you have mistaken what we have said. I'm beginning to wonder about your reading skills. You need to separate out two ideas in your head, because they keep merging into an ugly and incorrect mush.
1. Showing a better business model, while also showing the economic forces that are undermining an existing business model.
2. Defending the rights of individuals to infringe on copyrights.
We are doing the first, not the second. Your response, repeatedly, is to point to the second one and then complain about it. You are arguing against a different point than we are making.
The rule of law should prevail, not popular sentiment.
This, by the way, has to be one of the more ridiculous statements you have made. We live in a democracy, sir. In a democracy, laws are supposed to represent popular sentiment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Excuses for Theft?
As far as I can tell, Mike doesn't have a business that he can risk. It's easy to suggest that others sacrifice themselves on behalf of your cause. It is quite different when the sacrifice is yours.
For like the 9th time today, I need to point out that your reading skills are incredibly poor, if you think I don't have a business that I'm risking every damn day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Blame the victim
"This, by the way, has to be one of the more ridiculous statements you have made. We live in a democracy, sir. In a democracy, laws are supposed to represent popular sentiment." - Mike
You are hopeless, Mike. You are now advocating that popular opinion should trump the law when the two do not agree. In a democracy, laws are changed by legislatures, not popularity contests. If we operated on popular opinion, Gore would have been elected president in 2000, not Bush. But the law says that a majority of electoral votes determines the president, not the majority of individual votes. Don't like this law? Get a Constitutional amendment passed. Don't like copyright laws? Get them changed democratically.
You are just getting emotional over my taking to task some of the opinions expressed in this forum. Not all of my criticisms have been directed at you. You have simply taken them personally. Pitty. It gets in the way of your being more objective and being taken more seriously. You are more of an advocate than a moderator.
Btw, my reading skills are fine.
I understand what Supreme Court Justice Blackmun is saying with respect to infringement vs. theft. From a legal standpoint, infringement is the operating term and the perpetrator is an infringer. However, the word "thief" is a much baser term than "infringer" and connotes a baser act than the more sophisticated "infringer." My use of the term "theft" implies not just an illegal act, but a very low one at that. Language, too, is fluid and, quoting Alice, "Words mean what I want them to mean."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Blame the victim
Again, you have confused the two points. That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that when popular sentiment does not match with the law, it is time to change the law.
Don't like this law? Get a Constitutional amendment passed. Don't like copyright laws? Get them changed democratically.
This is my favorite part. You say that we should try to get the laws changed, yet when we speak up about why the laws should be changed, you tell us we have no right to talk about this stuff.
Fascinating world you live in.
Btw, my reading skills are fine.
Then why do you continue to misrepresent the arguments made here? Either your reading skills have a problem, or you are purposely being disingenuous. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former, but if you'd prefer, I'll assume the latter.
I understand what Supreme Court Justice Blackmun is saying with respect to infringement vs. theft. From a legal standpoint, infringement is the operating term and the perpetrator is an infringer. However, the word "thief" is a much baser term than "infringer" and connotes a baser act than the more sophisticated "infringer." My use of the term "theft" implies not just an illegal act, but a very low one at that. Language, too, is fluid and, quoting Alice, "Words mean what I want them to mean."
Yes, but there is a huge problem when the words have tremendous importance, and your misuse of them distorts what is actually happening.
Infringement is different than theft in many important ways -- not just because it is "illegal." Because infringement involves no actual loss, the impact of infringement is quite different -- and from a legal, policy and business perspective, that makes quite a difference.
When you conflate the two things, you cut off any discussion about how ignoring copyright can be used to your advantage. It's stunning in this day and age, as the recording industry is continually losing business, that it would so systematically cut off those trying to show them new business models by which they could make more money. Calling infringement "theft" is simply a way to stick your head in the sand.
You are free to do so, of course. It's a free world. But do not accuse me of "theft" for trying to save the recording industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses for Theft by Scorpio (I w
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blame the victim
Really? When did I post that assertion?
Calm down, Mike. You are getting careless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blame the victim
At 4:25am when you wrote: "Don't tell them how to run their business."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Excuses for Theft
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/b_l_review.pdf
Or you can read the whole book it's based on:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses for Theft by Scorpio
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses for Theft by Scor
You mean we're not allowed to give people advice, and back it up with examples, data and evidence?
I would ignore them and go about finding the best solutions elsewhere
Why? If our ideas actually are the best solution, why would it make sense to find them elsewhere?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Blame the victim
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses for Theft by
That's arrogance on your part.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. I don't think you have a clue as to what it might take for a company to transform itself. And why go through the wrenching process if it is not necessary? And if it is, why permit someone who has no investment to protect to tell you what to do and how to do it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses for Theft
I wasn't claiming that our ideas absolutely *were* the best solution, I was just asking why they shouldn't pay attention to us if they are the best solution?
There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
And I never claimed there was. In fact, for over a decade I've been claiming that there isn't.
I don't think you have a clue as to what it might take for a company to transform itself.
Nope. I've only been in the business of helping companies transform themselves for about a decade now.
And why go through the wrenching process if it is not necessary?
Well, you make two incorrect assumptions: (1) that it would be more wrenching than what the industry is going through now and (2) that it's not necessary.
And if it is, why permit someone who has no investment to protect to tell you what to do and how to do it?
Um, because if the ideas I (and many others) are presenting are backed up with evidence, examples and proof that it is better... why wouldn't you? At no point am I saying "this is how they must do things." All I've done is explain why it makes sense and they can then make their own decision. Some recognize that what I'm talking about is important, and are willing to hire us to help them. Some choose to listen and go their own way. Some bury their head in the sand and pretend we're saying something different than we are.
But I'll tell you one thing: I very much have a huge investment in being proven right. It's called my reputation and my credibility, which is a huge part of my business.
What about you? What's your stake in all of this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses for Theft by
The right of free speech does not carry with it the right to be heard by the audience of your choice. You can petition Congress for a redress of grievances, but you can't petition the RIAA to force them to give you a hearing.
The way you are reacting tells me that you have not had many sustained counters to your articles and posts. Perhaps you should take a deep breath and concentrate on other matters for awhile. You might regain your balance.
Does the RIAA really care what you think and write and post? Maybe they do.
Hey! Here is a thought. Maybe you should consider changing your business model and act as a moderator rather than an advocate. Who knows? You might become one of the Great Bloggers in Internet history. You could be rich. You might even make a book out of your articles and give it away free for the asking. I am sure you will get countless invitations to speak at professional and civic gatherings and pull down hefty fees. Hmmmmmmm!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses for T
For now, let's just say (truthfully) that I am a creator of intellectual property. I have no direct stake in the outcome of Atlantic vs. Howell. I have encountered several instances where people and organizations have made unauthorized copies of my creations and I got them to back off through my lawyer threatening them with huge lawsuits. In every case, their own lawyers advised them that it would be prudent to cease and desist. Each did. I did manage to put one well established firm out of business, however.
People do not take something with no value. They only take what they consider of value to them. To argue that they should be able to take something of value without authorization and without the asked-for compensation is absurd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Excuses for Theft
As things stand, our copyright laws are well overdue for an overhaul (terms need to be shortened, and the public domain needs to be protected - which was the original purpose of copyright before big content got their hands on it).
Move along, nothing to see here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, I know you have your point of view and have written billions of articles on the topic, but you are telling half truths on this issue (one half truth at least.)
I know why you do this, but it is bad form.
Dowling was charged with transporting stolen goods across state lines, not copyright violation. After he wrote "copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud" the good justice also went on to say "copyright violations equate to theft, but awkwardly."
What does that mean? By quoting Dowling v. US, you weaken your case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses for Theft
I'm confused. Where have I demanded that anyone listen to me?
You can petition Congress for a redress of grievances, but you can't petition the RIAA to force them to give you a hearing.
Where have I done that?
I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not sure what good it does you to set up strawmen like that, but you seem to be describing someone other than myself.
I have never said that they need to listen to me. I have simply presented my argument, backed up with detailed analysis, data and evidence and then answered any questions people have.
The way you are reacting tells me that you have not had many sustained counters to your articles and posts.
Um. Have you *looked* at any of the past posts on this topic? Every time some brand new person, such as yourself shows up, and I need to repeat these same points over and over again.
Perhaps you should take a deep breath and concentrate on other matters for awhile. You might regain your balance.
I'm curious how I'm off balance? I've been discussing these topics for years. So far, all we have seen is that you have misread my arguments repeatedly and I have tried to help correct your misperceptions. Your response is to call me unbalanced? Well, ok, then...
Hey! Here is a thought. Maybe you should consider changing your business model and act as a moderator rather than an advocate.
What's the business model in that?
You might become one of the Great Bloggers in Internet history.
Huh? Who cares? Why wold I want to be a "Great Blogger"? That's the least of my concerns.
I am sure you will get countless invitations to speak at professional and civic gatherings and pull down hefty fees
I already get countless invitations to speak at professional and civic gathering and I already pull down hefty fees. What's your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
question
I seldom give unasked-for advice without first labeling it as such. I also know that such advice is seldom wanted. When someone asks me for advice, I may or may not give it. It depends on a lot of factors, one of which in business is whether or not I get paid to give it. If it doesn't cost the other party anything, it may not be perceived as of any real value. On the other hand, a substantial payment usually means you will get an audience that will pay close attention to what you say because there is value attached. Unless you show otherwise, the RIAA isn't asking you for advice and is not sending you big bucks to tell it what to do with its business. How can you possibly expect that they will accept any advice from you (or me for that matter)? I can see, however, that if one day they don't adopt your suggestions and go down the drain, you can have the pleasure of saying, "I told you so." If they don't take your advice and continue on with their own path and succeed, you can always say, "Give it a little more time," and go on your merry way.
This is probably boring everyone to death. And it certainly is off-topic. My apologies for that. I will look for a more suitable venue here to continue this discussion. But maybe not today. Some other time perhaps.
Cheers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
I know that. I've known that since the first denial by Mike that he was. But there are people posting here who have and will continue to do so, although most in a veiled fashion.
"Move along, nothing to see here." - Prang
:D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not just charged, as you imply, but actually convicted. Prosecutors charged him with interstate transport of stolen property because the penalties were greater. The Supreme Court subsequently threw the conviction out on the grounds that copyright infringement isn't theft.
the good justice also went on to say "copyright violations equate to theft, but awkwardly."
That quote isn't even accurate. What he did say, after giving reasons for why it wasn't theft, was "As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language Congress chose - "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" - to describe the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment 2314 makes criminal."
"Fits but awkwardly" here means, in a legal sense, that it just doesn't fit. See this previous thread where Random Thoughts (posting here as well?) has previously tried to argue otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: (ad nauseum) Excuses f
That would be a change for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
People have also argued here that copyright infringement is the same as murder. So what of it? All kinds of comments get posted here. The important thing is to not accuse people of saying things that they didn't.
And when someone says something happened "in a veiled fashion" it makes me wonder if it really only happened in their imagination.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: question
The hardest thing for a company with a cash cow to do is change. Just read a little Clayton Christensen and you'll see what the RIAA is going through. It's the same thing that the horse carriage makers went through when the automobile showed up. They should have become automobile companies, but they didn't -- they fought it. It was only when one of their own started a NEW company in the automobile business and it became a huge success, did they realize what they should have done. By then, it was too late.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong, the Supreme Court said nothing about theft and everything about how Congress had a federal law that covered copyright violation and interstate transport didn't matter since it was already covered.
the good justice also went on to say "copyright violations equate to theft, but awkwardly."
That quote isn't even accurate. What he did say, after giving reasons for why it wasn't theft, was "As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language Congress chose - "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" - to describe the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment 2314 makes criminal."
I think the quote is pretty accurate, less words, but covers the jist of the quote.
No court has ever said copyright violation is not theft. Of course, no court has ever said it was, but to say the Supreme Court declared copyright violation wasn't theft is a lie or at best a half truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Lie.
I think the quote is pretty accurate, less words, but covers the jist of the quote.
Not just less words, but different words as well. Further evidence of your disregard for the truth.
I have no doubt that you will continue lying. You may even convince yourself of your lies in your own mind as the best liars seem to do. There's nothing I can do about that but pity you. What I can do, however, is call you out on it in public so that others aren't misled. Now that I've done that I'm sure you'll just carry on. So, carry on...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just because you want to justify what you do doesn't mean you are correct. My disregard for the truth? That is very funny considering your position. Not only do you disregard the truth, you ignore the law. Course, other criminals do the same thing, so why should I be surprised.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Now that's funny. What I'm doing is exposing a liar and I don't really feel the need for any kind of justification: I just don't like liars and shills. I actually enjoy outing you.
Not only do you disregard the truth, you ignore the law. Course, other criminals do the same thing, so why should I be surprised.
Oh, so now it's even criminal to point out your lies? What a load. Man, you industry trolls just don't know when to give it a break, do ya? You're just making yourself look even more ridiculous (and that's saying a lot).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What does this mean to you? What it means to me is that you try to justify your actions, but it just doesn't cut it. Out me? You are just trying to feel better about yourself. Personally, I don't care, good luck with that. Give it a break? I am sorry, when someone quotes the courts wrong, I point it out. If you choose to ignore facts, thats up to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
=====
Happens every day everywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
>> friends is guaranteed under free speech.
No it isn't, no more than stealing a car falls under the "pursuit of happiness"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
But if you "free love downloaders" really think that taking someone elses work without paying for it is somehow going to make that other person prosper, then you put your money where your mouths are and DENOUNCE your salaries and pay right now...it will all come back to you, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
>> unauthorized copyrighted works could be called a thief.
> Yeah, by a liar that is.
Knowingly receiving stolen merchandise is a crime. If unauthorized copying equals stealing, then "thief" is the correct term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
If you're going to make a mocking statement, it might help if you actually understood the difference between scarce and infinite goods. And, this has nothing to do with "giving up a salary." It has to do with what the competitive market will allow you to sell and what it won't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses for Theft
=====
The only part that I of this excellent comment that I would change is the term "free love downloaders." Those people are more accurately described as "freeloaders."
---------------------------------------------------------
"If you're going to make a mocking statement, it might help if you actually understood the difference between scarce and infinite goods. And, this has nothing to do with 'giving up a salary.' It has to do with what the competitive market will allow you to sell and what it won't." - Mike
=====
Couching hocus pocus mumbo jumbo ooga booga in pseudo-economic phraseology is nothing more than a rationalization to attempt to justify getting something for nothing.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a pirated piece of music and you might serve some time in jail.
There ain't no free lunch, people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]