RIAA Abandoning Mass Lawsuits In Favor Of Backroom 3 Strikes Policy
from the it's-a-step,-but-a-very-small-one dept
It really was just three days ago that we suggested that if the record labels actually wanted anyone to take them seriously concerning their desire to come up with more constructive solutions to the business model challenges they face, they should at least stop suing folks as a gesture of trying something new. The usual recording industry defenders in the comments claimed this was a ridiculous suggestion, but it appears that the RIAA is at least taking a small step in that direction. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the recording industry (the WSJ mis-labels it "the music industry") is abandoning its strategy of mass lawsuits.First off, this is a step in the right direction -- and we think it's great that the record labels have agreed to do this, even if it's many, many years too late. And, it's hardly a huge concession. The lawsuits have been an unmitigated disaster. They have done nothing to slow file sharing (in fact, the publicity generated from the lawsuits has often been credited with alerting many people to the possibility). The strategy has also splintered the file sharing space into many, many different players, many of them way underground, unlike in the early days when there were a manageable number of players who could be worked with proactively. It's also done tremendous damage to the brands of the major record labels (Universal, Warner, EMI and Sony) and the RIAA itself -- leading many to swear off buying any of their products. Finally -- and most importantly -- the strategy did absolutely nothing to help musicians adapt to a changing market that was opening up tremendous new opportunities both to spread their music and to profit. So, kudos to the folks at the RIAA for finally realizing how backwards this strategy has been.
The fine print
But, of course, this is the RIAA, so you can rest assured that the details aren't anything to be happy about. In exchange for not filing mass lawsuits, the RIAA has worked out backroom deals with numerous ISPs (brokered by Andrew Cuomo -- who has a history of using baseless threats to get ISPs to censor content they have no legal responsibility to censor). The exact details are a bit sketchy, but it sounds like a variation on the ridiculous three strikes policy that has been (mostly) rejected in Europe as a violation of basic civil rights. Basically, these ISPs will agree to be the RIAA enforcers. Based solely on the RIAA's flimsy evidence, the ISPs will either pass on, or directly email subscribers with, warning letters. Depending on the specifics of the agreement, the users will get one or two more warning letters before the ISP will start limiting their internet access or potentially cutting them off entirely. If you think this sounds suspiciously like what Europe just rejected, you're right.
And, of course, the RIAA still says it may sue those who don't stop file sharing after all of this. They're just backing away from the mass lawsuit filings that they've been doing.
Why this is still a bad deal
Okay, so over the past few weeks, recording industry defenders have said that we were jumping the gun in criticizing a potential plan because it wasn't final. Our point was that since the record labels claim they want a "conversation," these deals shouldn't be negotiated in backrooms not involving substantial stakeholders. So what happened here? Yup, a backroom deal was negotiated without any involvement from users. And it was done under the direction of Andrew Cuomo, who just spent many months browbeating ISPs into agreeing to censor content.
So, hopefully, we won't be told that we're being premature in criticizing this plan -- but somehow I find it unlikely.
This plan is hardly a major concession by the record labels and the RIAA. The lawsuit strategy was a massive failure in almost every facet. Giving them up is hardly a big deal. It's admitting what pretty much everyone else knew from the beginning: that suing your fans and customers is a monumentally dumb move. Ending a brain-dead, self-defeating policy is worthy of kudos, but only for finally recognizing the obvious -- not as some magnanimous gesture.
And in exchange for the RIAA stopping its policy of shooting itself in the foot, we get ISPs making a huge concession themselves, agreeing to become RIAA enforcers, despite the clear safe harbors they have via the DMCA. These ISPs will now be heavily involved in the process of policing their users, increasing their expense, which of course will be passed on to users.
But the biggest problem is the fact that this allows private organizations to judge users without any significant defense on their part. The stories of falsely accused file sharers are widespread at this point. IP address-based evidence is notoriously unreliable. Yet, the RIAA will be basing its notifications on such evidence. Sure, plenty of the IP addresses dug up by the RIAA are probably accurate, but we live in an innocent-until-proven-guilty world, and this does away with that completely.
Also, as the EU noted in rejecting this proposal, the "punishment" hardly fits the crime. These days, an internet connection is a necessity -- and taking it away from people because someone is sharing the gift of music with others not for any sort of commercial gain is totally unbalanced. It takes away an individual's civil and privacy rights, all because the big record labels refuse to recognize that there are other business models out there that already work. And that final point may be the most important. As we noted in explaining why the music tax is a bad idea, none of these moves by the RIAA are actually necessary.
Musicians are figuring out plenty of fantastic business models that work wonders, and many of them actually involve embracing file sharing and using that to help grow their markets. What's wrong with letting those business models establish themselves, without brokering a totally unnecessary backroom deal that will almost certainly harm innocent people thanks to flimsy evidence?
So, yes, we're thrilled that the record labels have finally progressed to the point of realizing that mass lawsuits were a bad idea, but working out a backroom deal for a type of three strikes policy is not a particularly good solution. It's more of the same: trying to prop up an obsolete business model by a private industry unwilling or too stubborn to change with the market. That NY's Attorney General felt this private business model issue should involve his efforts in the midst of a huge financial crisis, including the largest Ponzi scheme ever, makes little sense.
If these are the "new leaf" and "open conversations" the record labels are insisting they're about these days, they've got an awful lot of work to do still.
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: andrew cuomo, isps, lawsuits, three strikes
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Step in the right direction?
Because anything the RIAA does is never in the "right" direction when it benefits their pockets, all the while the consumer gets screwed.
I dare my ISP to jump on board with this. They'll find themselves in a lawsuit so fast, they'll wish they never heard of RIAA.
At any rate, consumers will continue allowing the RIAA to thrive as they'll not stop buying music.
Most are totally unaware of RIAA and what they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step in the right direction?
Man the US education system needs some work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Step in the right direction?
You can't have both statements in one blog be accurate. The entire message, from RIAA, states "We'll drop the lawsuits if the ISPs are on board". How can both be a "step in the right direction"?
Reread the section titled "The fine print", then assess your "education" statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step in the right direction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm tired of the RIAA's tactics, but this will backfire on them too. Slowly, they'll disconnect the biggest fans of their product from communicating about the product. By limiting their access to music, those people will lose interest in the actual product. Sales will continue to go down.
Not to mention all the people they'll harm with invalid disconnects.
It's another horrible idea from a group still selling water pumps in a world with indoor plumbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why ISP's might buy into this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why ISP's might buy into this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Financial Suicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Financial Suicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfitting Punishment?
I'd say this is a poorly supported argument.
First, an internet connection is by no means a necessity. Ask my grandma. She is perfectly happy driving to the bank to talk to a real human instead of using a computer to check her balance. The internet is a useful tool, and an extremely valuable one, but not a requirement for life.
Second, this gift of music is not theirs to give. I don't like the copyright system, and I'd like it to go away, but its a fact of life at the moment, and until that changes, this 'gift-giving' is still illegal. Someone who breaks the law goes to jail. They lose almost all of their rights freedoms.
This seems like a fitting parallel. If you break the law via the internet, you lose your right to use that technology. You have shown yourself unfit to judge how to use it properly and legally.
That said, prison sentences come with terms for release and parole. The punishment of losing internet access can be appropriate, but it will likely be abused, misused, and used as a bludgeon to force people to do as the RIAA wants. Without the courts involved, and an impartial judge to make the call, its unlikely that this will end with any sort of fairness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfitting Punishment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
The Internet is a privilege. Its not a constitutional, god-given right.
And if you show yourself to be unfit to use it wisely, then taking away that privilege seems fair. Forgive me for falling back on the old car analogy, but if you drink and drive, then they take away your license to drive. A car is a very useful tool, but it is not a necessity of life. I apply that same logic in this situation.
So again, if you screw up while using the internet for illegal purposes, then it seems logical to me that you should not be allowed to use the internet. At least until you can prove that you are capable of using it in a responsible manner.
Now, what if you bought the song you shared? Did you buy the rights to copy and distribute that song? If you bought a CD with the song on it, then you did not. If you bought it from iTunes, then you did not. So you are doing something illegal. If you are the owner of the copyright, and you choose to distribute your song freely, then thats awesome, and you are probably going to be more successful at winning the hearts and mind of your fans than the RIAA will ever be. Unfortunately, just because its stupid of the RIAA to be miserly with the music they own doesn't mean they don't have that choice to be stupid. They just have to deal with the consequences of it in the form of bad PR, disgruntled fans, and loss of market share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
But there's a relation there. If you drink and drive, you're demonstrating that you are a danger to other human beings when you get behind the wheel. If you infringe copyright on the web, whose life are you endangering? More importantly, what does that have to do with all the other things you do online?
Coming up with counter examples is so trivial. If you infringe someone's intellectual property rights with a camera, should you lose your "right" to take photographs? C'mon, you don't really believe what you're saying, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
Just because YOU THINK, that "no one" will be hurt does not give you the right to break the law, or to do something illegal.
Drinking and driving is illegal and you lose your license if you are caught **NOT** because you might kill someone, or that you are 'endangering' someone.
It is because, if you drink and drive you are NOT SURE of what damage you are possibly doing.
'J" walking (when you cross the street) is also illegal and it is hard to see how that is 'endangering' anyone.
But it is not up to YOU to determine that, it is clear that 'normal people' do **NOT** know what is 'best' for them or for their community.
There is no such thing as a "victumless crime" you have no ideal what are the affects or consequences of your actions.
Be it J walking, drink driving, or stealing music or breaking copyright law.
It is possible that if you download a song you want as opposed to purchase it legally, (or you purchase one copy and make 1000 copies available to your 'friends').
As a result of you downloading it, you take away 1 (just one) sale from the company that has the legal right to sell it, that one (or 10,000) lost sales means that the 22 year old young mother with a little baby might lose her job !!!.
But you would never know that, and you do not care, you think somehow a musician creates a song (somehow all by himself) and he does everything, without any support structure. and that no one else will be hurt because you feel you have a right to take something that you are not allowed to take. (not the music, but the copyright for that music).
So if you cannot think past your own greed, you would see that you are not the only person on earth and that a vast number of people require the vast majority of people to be honest and at least considerate to the needs and requirements of their fellow human beings.
If you infringe someone's intellectual property rights with a camera, .
what an amazing and odd statement !!!!
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us ?
And show us some photo's of someone's intellectual property rights !!!!
Clearly, you do not understand what IP is !!! really do you think IP is something you can keep under your bed ? or locked up in a safe ? or posted on the internet ?
No it cannot, IP is what you know and what you can achieve (or what you can do), how would you be able to infringe on what I know and can do with a camera ?
Yes, you might be able to take a photo of the PRODUCT of my intellect, but that is not a photo of my intellect(ual property).
As an engineer, I am asked to apply my intellectual property to develop a new 'thing'. (we'll call it the "gruntmaster 2000").
I apply my IP to that problem, and I create a device, when the company pays me for that design they are paying me for a real and physical item. (even if it simply a 'paper design'), it is something that can be made real.
A real product, or design for a real product is no longer Intellectual property, it is now physical property, and the owner of that physical property is the company that paid for it's creation. (and NOT ME).
I own the IP, I still own the IP, and I cannot 'give away' or sell IP, and companies do not come to me and say "how much for your IP?"
Therefore a song, or a movie, or a design, or a patent is NOT IP, but is a real and physical item, just as real and physical as you are or your car is (if you have not been drinking and driving)..
So this argument about who has or can have or what you can do with IP is non sequitur.
is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
Just because YOU THINK, that "no one" will be hurt does not give you the right to break the law, or to do something illegal.
Drinking and driving is illegal and you lose your license if you are caught **NOT** because you might kill someone, or that you are 'endangering' someone.
It is because, if you drink and drive you are NOT SURE of what damage you are possibly doing.
'J" walking (when you cross the street) is also illegal and it is hard to see how that is 'endangering' anyone.
But it is not up to YOU to determine that, it is clear that 'normal people' do **NOT** know what is 'best' for them or for their community.
There is no such thing as a "victumless crime" you have no ideal what are the affects or consequences of your actions.
Be it J walking, drink driving, or stealing music or breaking copyright law.
It is possible that if you download a song you want as opposed to purchase it legally, (or you purchase one copy and make 1000 copies available to your 'friends').
As a result of you downloading it, you take away 1 (just one) sale from the company that has the legal right to sell it, that one (or 10,000) lost sales means that the 22 year old young mother with a little baby might lose her job !!!.
But you would never know that, and you do not care, you think somehow a musician creates a song (somehow all by himself) and he does everything, without any support structure. and that no one else will be hurt because you feel you have a right to take something that you are not allowed to take. (not the music, but the copyright for that music).
So if you cannot think past your own greed, you would see that you are not the only person on earth and that a vast number of people require the vast majority of people to be honest and at least considerate to the needs and requirements of their fellow human beings.
If you infringe someone's intellectual property rights with a camera, .
what an amazing and odd statement !!!!
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us ?
And show us some photo's of someone's intellectual property rights !!!!
Clearly, you do not understand what IP is !!! really do you think IP is something you can keep under your bed ? or locked up in a safe ? or posted on the internet ?
No it cannot, IP is what you know and what you can achieve (or what you can do), how would you be able to infringe on what I know and can do with a camera ?
Yes, you might be able to take a photo of the PRODUCT of my intellect, but that is not a photo of my intellect(ual property).
As an engineer, I am asked to apply my intellectual property to develop a new 'thing'. (we'll call it the "gruntmaster 2000").
I apply my IP to that problem, and I create a device, when the company pays me for that design they are paying me for a real and physical item. (even if it simply a 'paper design'), it is something that can be made real.
A real product, or design for a real product is no longer Intellectual property, it is now physical property, and the owner of that physical property is the company that paid for it's creation. (and NOT ME).
I own the IP, I still own the IP, and I cannot 'give away' or sell IP, and companies do not come to me and say "how much for your IP?"
Therefore a song, or a movie, or a design, or a patent is NOT IP, but is a real and physical item, just as real and physical as you are or your car is (if you have not been drinking and driving)..
So this argument about who has or can have or what you can do with IP is non sequitur.
is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfitting Punishment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfitting Punishment?
I bet your Grandma isn't a office worker that tele-commutes 3 days a week to stay at home with the kids while ordering food from fresh direct and checking amazon for the latest released books on the subject of the internet as a utility.
But then again we all can't be so totally AWESOME as your grandma right?
forgive the partial troll
The fact remains that for people in the modern world (of which your grandma is NOT included as she is assumed to be retired)
the internet is very much an essential part of life.
as for the rest of what you said.......ok
music "sharing" is still illegal- very true
With this step the ISPs are now saying they will tap all communications on their lines for the benefit of a private organization .
And yes it is a form of wiretapping (how else can they determine what traffic is suspect with out actually looking at said traffic) This I think is actually much worse and does nothing but prop up the sinking ship that is RIAA's bussiness model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
Um, not necessarily. All the music I listen to comes from people/bands willing to distribute for free, over the net. Sometimes I'm motivated to do videos for that music, which gets them some eyes and ears over at youtube. They have all been very supportive of my little hobby (the one informal takedown request was from a group that was happy I was doing it, but felt their performance was sub-par that night.)
I'm concerned that my trading of files is going to cause me a lot of explaining, if not limit my connectivity options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
Sharing music owned by the RIAA(by which I mean the labels who are backing the cartel) is still illegal- very true
I support what you are doing and hope that more people like you continue to oppose-by-example the tactics of the RIAA.
If more artists are able to get support from guys like you I think that the RIAA will see the difference where it counts.
Their wallets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment?
No, actually, my grandma works in a factory. She retires next year, and is trying to dodge the layoff bullet until then. She drives back and forth every day, and watches David Letterman every night. Well, she usually falls asleep after the monologue.
Anyways, she's still a productive member of society. She buys her groceries from Wegmens every other weekend, and buys dirty romance novels from walmart. The brick and mortar store, not their website.
I grant you, she is in the minority. And some day, her kind may even cease to exist. But travel to a few third-world countries, and see how many people you can find that don't use the internet, but still manage to live a full life.
My point stands. The Internet Is NOT a Necessity of life.
Sharing Music without permission is Illegal. And if you do it over the internet, then I see no problem with cutting you off from the internet. If you do it with bootleg copies of cassette tapes, then confiscate your cassette players. If you do it by recording live performances at concerts onto a camera phone, then take away your camera phone. When you show that you can handle the responsibility of these new technologies, they will be returned to you. That seems very reasonable to me.
But I could be wrong. I'm just another moron in a hurry. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfitting Punishment?
Really? What happens if you break the law via telephone? Or, if something illegal is sent through the mail, should one be forbidden from using the post office? I mean, if you break the law by writing someone should your right to use a pen be taken away?
It's not necessarily a good fit because it ignores all the other completely unrelated uses. How is using the Internet to email your boss or your co-workers the sort of thing you should be forbidden from doing because you downloaded some Metallica songs illegally?
This reminds me of Cory Doctorow's piece... it's not as if internet access is something important, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfitting Punishment?
Further, what is being argued is that this punishment is more along the levels of pirates who profit from sharing. The people who are on BT are not profiting from sharing their music. To punish them as if they were seems excessive don't you think? If I am selling those shared files and making money off it, fine kick me off, but if I am sharing culture and you kick me off of the internet...well I have problems with that.
Yes the punishment is overkill considering the "crime" (which I could argue as well)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next gen legal strategy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not quite here
This doesn't mean they won't toss settlement letters and threaten lawsuits.
This is about as good as covenant not to sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why nor use the CFAA against users?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why nor use the CFAA against users?
We have just had a 70 year old couple in the UK accused of torrenting a Gay porn DVD in the UK called "Army F**kers". Now imagine the amount of _Stress_ that will have caused this old couple. It's a real shame this didnt happen in the USA, land of law suits !!!
Now you know why the change of stance from RIAA & Co. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now you ISP is going to be complicit in this Big Brother operation. Boy, that sure makes me view the record industry in a more positive light. Or not.
There is also possible legal exposure for the ISPs and this may lead to higher rates for you and me because the false accusation that someone is file sharing can result in a defamation action that will be financially and publicly embarrassing for the ISP industry, which is already the object of scorn from customers who feel as if they are a captive audience thanks to consolidation in that industry and horrid customer service (Time Warner, AOL and Comcast, I am looking at you).
While the RIAA backing off file sharing suits is long overdue and has actually been a money loser for them (shareholders should be delighted at that fact), this is still a bad deal for consumers.
Cuomo himself is an idiot. His stint at HUD was an unmitigated disaster and he contributed to the problems that we have seen from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. So that we end up with this Faustian bargain at his urging isn't a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Settlement is Still a Loser for Consumers
And now you ISP is going to be complicit in this Big Brother operation. Boy, that sure makes me view the record industry in a more positive light. Or not.
There is also possible legal exposure for the ISPs and this may lead to higher rates for you and me because the false accusation that someone is file sharing can result in a defamation action that will be financially and publicly embarrassing for the ISP industry, which is already the object of scorn from customers who feel as if they are a captive audience thanks to consolidation in that industry and horrid customer service (Time Warner, AOL and Comcast, I am looking at you).
While the RIAA backing off file sharing suits is long overdue and has actually been a money loser for them (shareholders should be delighted at that fact), this is still a bad deal for consumers.
Cuomo himself is an idiot. His stint at HUD was an unmitigated disaster and he contributed to the problems that we have seen from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. So that we end up with this Faustian bargain at his urging isn't a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupidity on a silver platter
Just. Wow.
Oh yes, you ISPs that get with this plan are simply brilliant! Cut someone off and you do nothing other than lose a customer forever. You probably also lost around 25% of their friends, and you send them all packing to your competitors with cash in hand (cause they likely won't pay you). The person will have internet within a day or two and you lose all that revenue - and the PR mess is stupidly large.
Add that your compatriots from other companies that are tittering at your imbecility will offer and advertise "RIAA-free" connections, or "Unmonitored" or somesuch and lure away customers that don't even download. Some of us obey laws, but we get rather annoyed at companies that violate our privacy. If my ISP does this, I'll bail in a heartbeat - and I don't download music at all.
Fools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine all the artists that could have been discovered with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is no good
so the illegal gathering of shaky evidence will, i predict, now accelerate, with the willing connivance of mensa leaders such as the younger mr. cuomo.
the only problem for the r.i.a.a. is that politicians aren't really your friends, no matter how much you pay them, should public opinion overwhelmingly turn against this practice.
sadly between now and that point, there's going to be quite a bit of collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
foul ball = strike ?
I wonder if that pirating HP laser printer will be disconnected from the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: foul ball = strike ?
That would be awesome. If this goes through, I would love to see the RIAA banned from the internet by their own stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Effects of a litigation society
Perhaps it's time that the US emerges out of the dark ages. K-12 is used by many countries to teach advanced scientific and technological concepts, whereas in the US, the stigma is that knowledge and concepts can only be taught once you become 18 or of legal age. It seems that once you turn 18, a magical wand hits your head, and your suddenly able to learn. In other cultures and society, the opposite is true. Thusly, the USA has this concept grossly misunderstood.
Consider the number of businesses were started by people without background or knowledge of business. Bill Gates is one person that comes to mind. As the profession of law continues to become more complex, skills of litigation can, and will be more useful and should perhaps be taught at a younger age. Yes, maybe we should start with teaching litigation in High School, instead of in college, as that seems to be the desire with the RIAA and MPAA by picking on others the way they do. I theorize that if we quit dumbing down people, provide incentive, and start teaching advanced concepts of litigation at an earlier age, people could learn to settle their differences outside of the gamut of legalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you say tortious interference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy to Forego Common Carrier for Somebody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step in the Right Direction/ Unffinting Punishment
The "It is still illegal" argument is obsolete. In my town it is illegal to eat ice-cream on Sundays. It is also illegal to ride on a river in a clown suit in my state. you find these laws all over the place. just because a law is on the books doesn't mean that it is still valid for the current society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfitting Punishment
Now one lawyer from Harvard is currently trying to argue the case to make sharing music an actual criminal charge. Shills and appologists like yourself should be afraid of such a change because the burden of proof will be on the MAFIAA and the defendants will have the right to a lawyer for free. Hey I'm all for making it illegal too since the MAFIAA won't be able to just make discoveries as easily as they did before. Bring it on Mr. Shill!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wide and far
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081219-no-more-lawsuits-isps-to-work-with-ri aa-cut-off-p2p-users.html
where it seems the author, mr. nate anderson, has become something of an apologist for the recording industry and it's illegal legal tactics.
question: how long will isp's agree to continue with this when they're hit with lawsuits challenging their dmca/common carrier protections?
question2: why do mr. anderson, and many others, continue to push the now debunked bandwidth crunch theory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Bigger Picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So when
I want to sign up with them since they are far more intelligent than all these others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ILLEGAL File Sharing, Stealing, Etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILLEGAL File Sharing, Stealing, Etc.
Or, let's be conserative: song are available as low as $0.69 on iTunes, let's cut that in half -- $20,000 (which is like $5 per CD assuming 10 songs per CD).
Then and again, maybe there is reason for the RIAA to rethink its approach after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ILLEGAL File Sharing, Stealing, Etc.
P.S. the movie downloads are way better ;-) oh and Im at work on a canadian ISP on U.S. soil so fuck you :-)
P.S. the movie downloads are way better ;-) oh and Im at work on a canadian ISP on US soil so fuck you :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]