RIAA Says There's No Value In The Public Domain

from the true-colors dept

Fri, Jun 3rd 2011 4:57am — Mike Masnick

While I've already written about the hearings for the Copyright Office concerning copyright on pre-1972 sound recordings, but I wanted to call out one particularly egregious and ridiculous statement from the RIAA. The RIAA's Jennifer Pariser claimed that there's no value to a work in the public domain. Apparently Pariser is unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare. Or Beethoven. Is she serious? I mean, you could make the argument that it makes life more difficult to sell those works for the labels she represents, but those works have tremendous value. Pariser, of course, is famous for making ridiculous statements, sometimes under oath. Back when she worked for Sony-BMG she made some statements, on the stand and under oath, in the Jammie Thomas trial that were blatantly untrue. Only much later, after the jury had ruled, did the RIAA admit that Pariser "misspoke" while on the stand. One hopes she "misspoke" here as well, but I get the feeling she actually believes the blatantly incorrect statement she made.

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: copyright, cost, economics, jennifer pariser, public domain, riaa, value
Companies: riaa

91 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

martyburns (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:03am

there's no value to a work in the public domain..for the RIAA.

There, I think that's what she really meant..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Simon, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:18am
  
  Re:
  There's no value in it.
  
  OK - we mean there's no value in it for the music industry.
  
  OK - we mean there's no value in it for the recording industry.
  
  OK - we mean there's no value in it for the RIAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    This one should be excluded from the list.
    
    "OK - we mean there's no value in it for the music industry."
    
    That is all ...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:21am

So nobody makes money off the bible?
The bible is only the best selling book in history and at least some of the interpretations are in the public domain. So I guess all those companies selling it should stop since there is no value in it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JT, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:57am
  
  Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
  Some - such as myself - would say it has enough negative value to be reasonably considered evil.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:59am
    
    Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
    Yes, lets turn a business model discussion into a good ole fashion religion bashing. But since we are playing this game, unfortunately for you, you are very wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jim O (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
      Nice retort. Seriously... thank you for taking the higher ground.
      
      --reading last sentence--
      
      Oh. Never mind.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JT, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
      That was not religion-bashing, that was attempting to demonstrate how that kind of value - you know, the non-monetary one you imply with your choice of words - is not just subjective, it's so subjective that it is a matter of direction, and not just scale.
      
      If you'd like to see some actual religion-bashing to contrast with the straw-man; or discuss where exactly the introduction of religion to the subject of value happened in this thread, I'd be happy to oblige...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
        You are the one throwing out a strawman now. This blog post was about the "value" of public domain works. My comment was that public domain works still have value and money can still be made from them with the bible being just one example. So I was not implying any non-monetary value at all. You read into what you wanted to due to your negative view of the bible. That was your fault, not mine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Designerfx (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
      religious books are absolutely hands down the worst fiction books to ever come out of society. Ask any psychology major worth their credo.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
        Psychology major? Really? No thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
        How abouit an insane Psych major? I think it's all bunk anyway, designed to rationalise away immoral deeds. Kind of like the Zombie Rapture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Krusty, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
        Psychobabble Really?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Sheldon, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So nobody makes money off the bible?
        The social sciences are mostly hokum anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallow-T, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:24am

Someone with more time than I have might want to work back to primary sources on this one...

My understanding is that a good part of the wealth of the recorded-music business traces back to a reckless act of disregarding copyright, for material which SHOULD have been in the public domain. In 1952, folklorist Harry Smith issued the ANTHOLOGY OF AMERICAN FOLK MUSIC, a 6-LP collection on the Folkways label which passed on key blues & roots recordings from the 1920s and 1930s to a new generation of listeners -- many of those would go on to develop the massively popular musics of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s etc.

Smith seems to have seen those old 78's as "abandonware" and he did tremendous cultural work in passing the music along for future generations. The issuing record companies saw no value in that old junk and of course it was all out of print by 1952. But, in today's terms, Harry Smith was a copyright criminal, as neither he nor the record company did proper licensing.

(Folkways, by then under the ownership of the Smithsonian Institution, did get licenses for a CD-era reissue of the set.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:24am

What we read:

"RIAA Says There's No Value In The Public Domain"

What they meant:

"RIAA Says There's No Price In The Public Domain. Which is a downer, because we can't sell that stuff."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  But the truth is that if they approached it properly they COULD make money, fairly, on the public domain. They just aren't smart enough to understand how.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    You are correct, but do you really want the labels to take over an even larger chunk of the music industry, such as controlling concerts, ancillary sales, etc.?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
heeger.org, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:35am

ok
the riaa is just under the spell of big business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob563 (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:30am
  
  Re: ok
  if the RIAA ia under the spell of big business that means the RIAA is under their own spell
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:46am

The sooner the RIAA withers and dies the better, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LegitTroll (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:37am
  
  Re:
  The problem with statements like this (which I have made myself) is that groups like the RIAA never seem to die off the way that we want them to. They mutate like a virus into something different and change tactics even though the overall effect is the same.
  
  We have become so enthralled with this "ownership" society that regular citizens like myself and probably most of the people who comment here are going to have no choice but to be "criminals" by letter of the law. Whether its Apple telling me that I cannot giveaway my new iPad2 for a promotion, or the collection societies trying to tax me over and over for my choice in ringtones.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem with statements like this (which I have made myself) is that groups like the RIAA never seem to die off the way that we want them to. They mutate like a virus into something different and change tactics even though the overall effect is the same.
    
    And now we finally know the origins of the BORG.
    
    "We are the Borg. Lower your Public Domain and surrender your freed intellectual property. We will add your audio and video recordings to our own and hold copyright on them in perpetuity. Your culture will adapt to service us under threat of lawsuit, prison and having your useful organs sent to the organ banks for implantation into our artists so they never die. Resistance is futile.
    
    Spoiler alert!
    P.S. This would make Sonny Bono the first Borg Queen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - LegitTroll (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *tips imaginary hat.
      
      We just need to find us some Species 8472 and we could rap this up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cipher-0, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have experiment 626 is that helps any...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DogBreath, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We just need to find us some Species 8472 and we could rap this up.
        
        That, and keep Captain Katherine Janeway from resigning from Starfleet and going to work for the MPAA/RIAA. If that were to happen, our Public Domain would be doomed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prisoner 201, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:51am

Of course the public domain is worthless.

The value of a product and/or service is measured by seeing how much it inflates the bank account of RIAA CEOs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:57am

Real Ignorant Assholes of America

'Nuf Said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:04am

Of course she misspoke.
It's pretty obvious that she misspoke.

What she meant was "the public domain holds no value for the RIAA" because they can't charge rents for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: Of course she misspoke.
  They still sell it anyway. You get 2$ off if the cd is in the public domain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DH's Love Child (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:07am

This woman
Needs a history lesson. RIAA's entire existence DEPENDS on public domain. There is absolutely no music being created that can't be associated with a previous work. None.

If she really believes that PD has no value, then I would challenge the RIAA to have the record labels remove everything from the market that used material from the public domain. She can see how much value PD has then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:23am
  
  Re: This woman
  A small and churlish part of me wants retroactive perpetual copyrights. I just to bankrupt Disney when they get sued for 9/10 of their movies by the ancestors of the original authors.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallow-T, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:26am

On the VALUE of public domain music: we have a very current example in Britain, where sound recordings still go out of copyright after 50 years (unless a change to that has been rammed through).

The last decade or two have seen a flood of budget boxed sets of old blues, country, roots music -- the sort of stuff Harry Smith was anthologizing, as I mentioned above. Also old jazz and classical -- the Naxos label has reissued a lot of classical, and got strung up by New York State copyright laws when they tried to bring important historical reissues to the USA.

These boxed sets are being reissued in Britain FOR MONEY/PROFIT, and the fact that the sets have continued to be released for many years indicate that there is commercial value here in public domain sound recordings.

If anything, I suggest that entering the public domain allows these recordings to find NEW VALUE, while permitting the original copyright owners to keep them locked up DESTROYS VALUE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hjoranna, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:33am

Simple Really
This makes perfect sense really; the RIAA often confuses value and price. Since public domain stuff has a price of 0, its value must also be 0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lester A Jones (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:07am

What about the bible... Is there no value in that. All the stries that have been mined from it over the year. Someone needs to pay God royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Krusty, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  Psychobabble Really?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  "Someone needs to pay God royalties."
  
  Never, ever, suggest that again. The copyright maximalists will push for an age of the universe (13.75 billion years) plus a day copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:51pm
    
    Re: The copyright maximalists will push for an age of the universe (13.75 billion years) plus a day copyright.
    They can�t claim for a day over 6000 years, otherwise they�re contradicting their own religion.
    
    In other words, the term has long since expired, and the Universe is now in the Public Domain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Krusty, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:10am
  
  Re:
  D' OH, disreguard this I replied to the wrong post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:12am

There is no value in the public domain, in that there is nothing that can be easily turned into money or income for anyone. If all content immediately went into the public domain, there would be no economic model that could be applied to pay for it's creation.

Value is a term that has different meanings to people at different times. Applying only a single meaning to it is sort of misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:24am
  
  Re:
  Oh really? Disney, for one, made billions off of works in the public domain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, Disney didn't make a penny off of the public domain. They made money on works based in part off of the public domain, creating copyrighted and marketable products. Just having the stuff in the public domain made nothing.
    
    If they only took an existing public domain work (say a book of fairy tales) and reprinted it verbatim, they would have made little if anything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, to be fair, that's accurate. However, the principle still stands, as the Fairy Tales were public domain when Walt Disney Animation Studios copyrighted Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but you need to understand: the material in the public domain has no commercial value as it was. We might as a society value it in some way, but actual commercial value is nil.
        
        Disney made an entirely new animated movie based on the public domain (which is perfectly legal) and copyrighted the resulting work (again, perfectly legal). Since that time, the duration of copyright has been extended and the work is still under copyright (still perfectly legal).
        
        It is significant to note that Disney's animated Snow White still has significant value, both commercially and in a social / society sense, unlike the public domain work which is essentially ignored at this point.
        
        Perhaps that is part of the deal on copyright, as Disney took something that was ignored and turned it into something of true value, and something that continued to hold it's value long past what anyone would expect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ikarushka (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Agreed. Another example: Zefirelly made "Romeo and Juliet" based on an obscure work of previously unknown author William... (sorry, can't recall his last name). Kudos to Zefirelli for creating a movie of both cultural and commercial value, otherwise the humanity wouldn't know about that fascinating love story.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Which would be fine, but for the attitude that Disney have shown - there's a running gag to the effect of "Mickey Mouse is as old as copyright extensions."
        
        What's yours is now mine and what's Mine is mine, too. That selfishness has no place in the copyright debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A non-mouse, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, Disney didn't make a penny off of the public domain.
      
      Yes actually, they did. Millions upon millions.
      
      They made money on works based in part off of the public domain, creating copyrighted and marketable products.
      
      Had the fairy tales still been under copyright, then Disney would not have been able to create new works based upon them. Not without a licensing deal anyway.
      
      Just having the stuff in the public domain made nothing.
      
      The basic script was already written for them, they just freshened it up a bit and presented it in new way. I'm not trying to belittle what Disney does, just simplify it for the sake of conversation. Yes, the animation is what makes it new & special, but they started out with a wonderful story that was already well known & popular. Is there no value in that?
      The public domain gives EVERYONE (not just Disney) a tremendous pool of material to draw from. Free of charge, free from restraint. There is incredible value in that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ikarushka (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Another rarely mentioned instance of the public domain value is the freedom to vandalize the culture. If Victor Hugo's works were copyrighted, and I was the rightholder, I would sue Disney for defamation :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You make a great statement, but you still managed to miss the point.
        
        Yes, the public domain gives us a great pool of stuff. It's value as stuff is difficult to measure, most of it is ignored and left to rot. For every Shakespeare there is a Florencia Pinar that most people here wouldn't know without Googling.
        
        I would actually suspect that without Disney, most people in this generation would never have heard of Snow White. How many thousands (or millions) of similar stories sit unknown in the public domain because of a lack of interest?
        
        Remember: people aren't actively file trading 15th century books. They are file trading modern movies, tv shows, music, and the like. The public domain is there free for the taking and nobody is taking it. That is perhaps the clearest indication of the true value of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Vincent Clement (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They are file trading CURRENT movies, tv shows, music and the like. Five years from now, very few people will be file trading House, Community or any other content produced today.
        
        The idea isn't to completely copy the public domain. It's supposed to inspire people to do different things with that content
        
        Your comment about the most of the public domain being ignored and left to rot applies equally to material still subject to copyright. Plenty of content with copyright being ignored and left to rot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        wallow-T, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The public domain is there free for the taking and nobody is taking it."
        
        I think Project Gutenberg, which takes public domain books, digitizes them and puts them on line, would disagree with that statement. Guys, does Project Gutenberg have any stats on what gets downloaded?
        
        (I know I have one friend who loads up her Sony e-reader with 19th century books from Project Gutenberg.)
        
        Dover Books would also disagree with you: their business for years has been reissues of public domain books. Their reissues are sold for cash money in for-profit bookstores.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Their total re-issue is a spoonful from the ocean of public domain. Everything that has come before 1900 is in the public domain. Everything. Every newspaper, every book, every story. Yet, only a very small amount of it is available in any format.
        
        There will always be exceptions, but business models are not build on exceptions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  The value of the public domain is that it is the sole reason society tolerates copyright. Without it, what possible purpose is there in allowing a corporation to have an indefinite monopoly on distribution. Ostensibly they should have a limited window to make a profit, after which the work goes into the public domain. This erosion is the reason people like me no longer have any respect for copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  We should just get rid of the public domain already. We should also get rid of the public.
  
  It would solve a lot of issues for businesses who need to make money. And at the end of the day, isn't money more important than culture? You can't buy food or pay rent with culture, everybody knows this!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RobShaver (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:34am
    
    Get rid of the public domain?
    Right now any business can sell anything in the public domain. If we get rid of the public domain then they can't. Who would get the works in the public domain?
    
    Oh, and nothing new is going into the public domain either because the copyright period is/will be extended forever. The only way to make something free is Creative Commons. Google Nina Paley or search TechDirt for her name.
    
    I guess your position is that if you can't make money from it, get rid of it. Well, what good is a new born baby? (I suppose you might sell it.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Togashi (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  You're right, nobody has ever made money selling Shakespeare, Beethoven, et al.'s works. A lot of us aren't arguing for immediate public domain entering. We would be happy with shorter copyright, say 20 years instead of life plus 70 years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    The point is the commercial value isn't in the existing work, the value is in the resale of that work in a new format, new presentation, and so on. Just sitting there, few people will go dig them out. However, represented as a new work (say a movie based on one of the bard's books), or a new recording of classical music is what people are paying for.
    
    More importantly, all of that is just a small part of the full public domain pool. It is the part that the public has been exposed to over and over again as the result of new movies, recordings, etc. There is a huge amount of the public domain that just doesn't get any attention. What is it's true value?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:39am

"RIAA Says There's No Value In The Public Domain"

When they say "value" they mean "profits for them"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:58am

"RIAA Says There's No Value In The Public Domain"

You have it backwards,

"There is no Value in the R.I.A.A."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re:
  That reminds me of the old Nietzsche joke ...
  
  God is dead, Fred.
  Fred is dead, God.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:30am

Would that include Radio & Broadcast TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:30am

She is confused.
Profit is not equal to value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:58am

She's nothing but a corrupt peon willing to play fiddle for the highest bidder.

Mike, literally, if you offered her a salary higher than the one she currently has she would be saying the exact opposite thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrWilson, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:16am

She's absolutely right if she's referring to most of the last century. There little of value in the public domain because the copyright maximalists have ensured that nothing of value falls into the public domain.

It's a bit hypocritical to criticize the public domain when you work for the people who had a hand in depriving it of value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ikarushka (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:20am

The Public Domain Says There's No Value In RIAA

I shuffled just a couple of words, and suddenly, magically the title phrase started making sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:40am

A Tweet devoid of context is hardly a substitute for what was actually stated by Ms. Pariser.

As for the reference to testimony in the JRT trial, to your knowledge do record labels as rights holders have any significant revenue streams other than the licensing of music? Perhaps I am mistaken, but to my knowledge most of the alternatives mentioned in your earlier article are not pursued by record labels.

Ms. Pariser was also labeled as not being truthful concerning the copying of music CDs. Actually, the only mention of the absolute right under statutory law to make a copy of a CD is with respect to making a backup copy of a software CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  Why the distinctions? IF literally any other person had said that, in a court of law, they would be indicted for perjury. There is, so far as I know, no statute of limitations for perjury.
  
  And yet,t his sorry excuse for a liar is allowed to roam free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:31pm
  
  Re:
  As for the reference to testimony in the JRT trial, to your knowledge do record labels as rights holders have any significant revenue streams other than the licensing of music? Perhaps I am mistaken, but to my knowledge most of the alternatives mentioned in your earlier article are not pursued by record labels.
  
  I can't help but read this and think "Do buggy whip makers have any significant revenues streams other than selling buggy whips? Perhaps I am mistaken, but to my knowledge most of the alternatives mentioned concerning automobiles are not pursued by the buggy whip makers."
  
  Your point is what, exactly, that it's okay for the RIAA to force governments to change laws and lie in courts because they're too stupid or lazy to adapt to a changing market? Really?!?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, my point was that in adapting to changing circumstances labels will begin to look anew at revenue streams that they have historically ceded to others.
    
    Ms. Pariser did not give perjured testimony, and for you to say that she did is unfounded and inappropriate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, my point was that in adapting to changing circumstances labels will begin to look anew at revenue streams that they have historically ceded to others.
      
      Ms. Pariser did not give perjured testimony, and for you to say that she did is unfounded and inappropriate
      
      Wow. You really do love to misrepresent, don't you. The key issue with her statement was not the revenue question, but her claiming that ripping a CD was "stealing" and against the law.
      
      Separately, the lesser of her statements, concerning her claims of how record labels make money was both wrong (record labels do make money from other means) and misleading to a jury. While you now claim that this will mean they will figure out how else to make money, that was NOT the impression she gave the jury.
      
      Your obsessive desire to make us look bad here leads you to state amazingly untrue things. Please stop.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As I noted in my comments, to the best of my recollection the only affirmative right to copy a CD is associated with computer software. Assuming my recollection is correct (I believe it is, but statutes get amended all the time...so who knows), what Mrs. Pariser stated is accurate as a matter of statutory law.
        
        The "back peddling" you are intent on calling a lie is that the music labels have made a decision, as is fully their right, to not pursue claims against those who rip music CDs so that they can listen to the music on their music players.
        
        I have no desire, obsessive or otherwise, to make you look bad. My comments in major part are merely to point out that what this site says "is the law" in many instances "is not the law". The problem as I see it is that you are reluctant to engage in any sort of a discussion to try and understand why this is the case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As I noted in my comments, to the best of my recollection the only affirmative right to copy a CD is associated with computer software. Assuming my recollection is correct (I believe it is, but statutes get amended all the time...so who knows), what Mrs. Pariser stated is accurate as a matter of statutory law.
        
        Not so on multiple accounts. Considering that both time and place shifting has been deemed legal, you are grasping at straws.
        
        Furthermore, even if you *were* right, she was wrong in that she equated it to "stealing," when you know full well it is not, but that it is infringement.
        
        Finally, I find it amazingly obnoxious that even the RIAA has admitted Pariser misspoke... and you STILL insist what she said was accurate.
        
        My comments in major part are merely to point out that what this site says "is the law" in many instances "is not the law".
        
        And yet, a very large percentage of the time, you appear to be wrong in your claims. Even worse, when the law is different in the other direction, you have no problem ignoring what the law says (e.g., your claim that "stealing" is the same as infringement).
        
        Might I suggest that perhaps you need to revisit your biases?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You repeatedly note that what a statute "says" is incredibly important. All I said was that as a matter of what the statute actually says Ms. Pariser was correct in her testimony. She did not lie as you might have others believe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 10:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You repeatedly note that what a statute "says" is incredibly important. All I said was that as a matter of what the statute actually says Ms. Pariser was correct in her testimony. She did not lie as you might have others believe.
        
        Even the RIAA admits she did. I'm stunned that you continue to insist otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, the RIAA did not say she was wrong on the law. It did say her testimony did not reflect the policies articulated by the labels.
        
        In fact, the labels are still on record that the copying/ripping of CDs is not per se a legal act (but this in neither here nor there because the labels have made it quite clear that they have no intention of pursuing private individuals who copy/rip CDs for private, personal use). The labels similarly do not acquiesce to the argument that fair use excuses such activities.
        
        I insist otherwise because this is my understanding from RIAA statements I have read.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        BTW, the issue in the JRT case was not how labels make money, or if it is legal to rip a music CD. It was whether or not JRT infringed rights held by the plaintiffs. As much as it may pain some to admit, JRT violated the law, and the evidence on this point was overwhelming.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - iBelieve, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When I purchase a CD, I am purchasing a license to own the music for which I paid for. I am not going to lose that license soley because my CD got scratched and is no longer playable. I must therefore be able to protect my license by backing it up, (ie re-recording it as I see fit). It is not for my capability to resell the music or to mass produce the CD, but for copying to a medium that I can protect and back up -and for the life of the license, enjoy. Or am I out of my mind here?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Or am I out of my mind here?"
        
        I think most rational minded people would say no.
        
        The RIAA mentality, however, seems to say (indirectly) that if a given media is no longer playable, that the license has expired and you must purchase a new one to continue listening.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oops. That was me, forgot to sign in. :\
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What you believe makes preeminent sense, but my comment was merely to note that the backing up of a music CD is not expressly exempted from the rights accorded a copyright holder as is the case with a computer software CD.
        
        Hence, the right to back up a music CD was be found elsewhere, and that elsewhere is a policy decision made by the labels to allow backups/rips. If they do not care, then it does not present you any problem. Importantly, the labels have gone on record stating the law as I have summarized, and announced their policy without acquiescing that backups/rips are countenanced by law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:33am

1. Disney exists.
2. Disney has made movies.
3. Some of those movies were based on public domain works. (Early examples: Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland. Recent examples: Rapunzel, The Frog Prince.)
4. Those movies were profitable. (Cinderella is noteworthy as being critical to Disney's early success.)

Therefore, it is empirically true that public domain works can have value. They cannot, by definition, have cost, but they can be useful, and can therefore have value.
The cost of a thing does not necessarily reflect its value, as anyone who breathes can affirm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkyyy, 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:05am

"Apparently Pariser is unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare. Or Beethoven. Is she serious?"
shakespeare is w/o a doubt worthless, beethoven could use a bit of work, but isnt to bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:40pm
  
  Re:
  "shakespeare is w/o a doubt worthless,"
  
  Yes - because without a doubt, no one has ever written anything based upon anything he wrote - nothing I say - nothing!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - iBelieve, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Shakespeare and Shakes the Clown, both, had ghost writers, didn't they? Lord Byron? Bob Goldthwaite? >:-D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:06am

"RIAA's Jennifer Pariser claimed that there's no value to a work in the public domain."
Whatever. I don't find any value or truth in what comes from the mafiaa media groups. ;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:46pm

When..
the RIAA lawyers/reps lie in court and are found out they "misspoke", when the rest of us lie in court we are indicted for perjury.

Just goes to show that there is one law for citizens and another law for lawyers and politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:35pm

The public says there's no value in the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:15pm

thats why museums give their pieces to visitors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  But they might give infinitely reproducible photographs to visitors. Even hand them out at the door on guides and maps.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:38am

Jennifer Pariser misspoke
What she meant to say was:

how can you compete with free?

(but she wasn't logged in)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iBelieve, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:22pm

I can absolutely forbid the music industry from conducting any further internet commerce activity, absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]