"Wouldn't you also get a reward, what with Jack offering a million or so to anyone who designs a game about crusading against the gaming industry?"
-AC
Actually, it was about $10,000 and someone already made the game. And Jack refused to pony up the cash, saying his offer was sarcastic. So, Penny Arcade paid the money themselves and wrote on the check's memo line: "For Jack Thompson, Because Jack Thompson Won't".
Bottom line: Jack is a two-fisted coward who backs down everytime someone calls his bluff. Why all these companies continue pandering to this little boy is beyond me.
"2) Getting a porn magazine named after her."
-Wizard Prang
YES!!!
Coming '07 from Rockstar/Take2:
Grand Theft Auto: Jack Thompson
In this exciting new installment of GTA, you play as Jack Thompson... A Florida idiot... we mean lawyer, who's had enough of playing by the rules. Now he's playing by his rules. And he's going to deal out justice his way... through the barrel of his gun*.
*all pedestrians in this game are actually conspirators in the gaming industry's quest to corrupt children and no innocent civilians are harmed. And since all the cars are owned by Big Gaming, no innocent civilians are being car-jacked.
hehehe... "carjack", "jack thompson"... there's a pun in there, but I'm going to let it go.
This doesn't suprise me on either count. Has patent bickering gotten so bad that companies are now publicly clamoring for dibs on who can screw us best?
"Doesn't this seems like spying to you? It's interesting how no one seems to care for the Bill of Rights. Meh, $5 a month seems fair enough to give up something everyone takes for granted anyways!"
-Constitution?
Nope... not spying at all. This is something that you would choose to carry. Not something that you would be arrested for not carrying.
And that's the difference, as someone above pointed out. You can choose to give up any of your rights any time you want. When you stop talking about your opinion, you just temporarily gave up your right to free speech.
As long as you are carrying this thing around by choice, they're not spying. You're informing.
I live in St. Augustine, Florida (where street musicians are now outlawed), where we used to have a guy with a guitar and money jar on every corner. What about them?
They are publicly performing, not just humming a tune, and they are doing so for money (they hope). Yet we've never heard of one being harassed by a association rep saying that they need to stop or to pay up.
Do they have to be licensed and are just lucky? Or is there some loophole that clears them?
"I'd need to research this incident in Oregon further, but I'm guessing that ASCAP had already had discussions with the club owner about performance fees. "-OperaFan
I'm not so sure, OperaFan...
Dorr says a rep from the American Society of Musicians and Publishers paid an unannounced visit to his restaurant one night and heard covers of the songs performed by local band "Black Notes."
Because his place features local musicians and covers are rare, he didn't think he had to pay the musicians and publishers group an estimated $2,000 to cover performances of copyrighted tunes.
Sounds to me like he didn't know about the licensing issues. If a rep had talked to him about it before and this is the infraction after "your last warning" kind of thing, then he would have already known about it and the article would have been different.
Now... I know that ignorance of the law is not a defense, but Mousky was right. They could have said "here's what you owe. Kindly pay us or face legal action."
Now to advocate the devil... It could be said that if one of these associations was aware of the actions and did not stop those actions, it would create an implied license for the playing of covered songs (or at least those songs that the association knew about). It could be that the association was avoiding this potential situation by making it publicly known that they are not allowing this to happen uncontested. Kind of a rude and callous way of doing it, in my opinion.
I think that the general consensus of those here that are siding with the club owner (excluding the anti-##AA fanatics) is that while the association is probably right in demanding to be paid, they started out by resorting to the most extreme solution available.
I'd be interested to know if this guy was warned before or something, because it does seem like an ##AA tactic to sue first and ask questions later.
"Remove the friction tax of piracy (it takes work to find what you want and then steal it), charge a fair price that encourages broad use, and the millions willl flock to your legitimate, well-organized, easy-to-use media service.
"-
Eric
Thank you. This has been what we were trying to get across to these fools throughout this whole thing.
Piracy began as an objection to the status quo of the media empire. Now it's doing what needs to be done: shaking up the media monopolies and forcing innovative change.
Re: Re: Re: Headlines that pose a question are not
"You're completely retarded"
-AC
And you're having to resort to ad hominem attacks. Go you.
All of your little "speculative sensationalist" headlines are still news. Those headlines would be used for stories that have further information regarding the situations. For example: "Will N. Korea Nuke the US?" could be a story about new intelligence that shows N.K. making plans to attack us. Yup. That'd be news.
"Will Google buy [company]?" would be a story about Google entering into talks with [company] to discuss acquisition. Hey... looky there. That's news.
"Will Russia shut down allofmp3.com?" What about a new statement issued by the Russian government that says they're considering it. Since that would be a change of mind for them... well shit-damn, I guess that'd be news.
Holy crap. There's news all over the place.
The news in all of these examples may not be surprising or even breaking news. But that doesn't mean that it's not news.
Yes the headlines are sensationalist... but that doesn't make them not news. As long as the headlines are applicable to the story contained therein, I'd say that's good use of rhetoric in getting a point across.
So I have two questions for you:
1) Why does a story have to be breaking and heretofore unheard of before you consider it news? What about additional information that's newly discovered?
2) Why does this bother you so much that you have to come onto a forum and start flaming people?
Rhetoric anyone? And did you even read the article? It is news. The headline is simply stating the question that is generated by these events.
Now that you're done unnecessarily attacking a news site (anonymously, I might add), go back to "boom, headshot"-ing in counterstrike. The grownups are talking here.
"Truth is album prices are so high because of the fact that so many people download them for free... but its kinda like pollution, just because *I* stop using my car, air pollution isnt going to get any better... we ALL need to stop driving, and thats just silly. Same with albums, if i start buying albums they're not gonna get any cheaper, we'd ALL have to start buying them... even then they wouldnt get cheaper... if demand was higher prices would increase too."
-John J
No, no and No. CD prices haven't increased since this whole piracy thing started back with Napster. CDs were still ridiculously priced back then. That's one of the arguments against the RIAA's claims... the fact that there has been no observable impact on album sales or price by piracy.
And, without going into a long lesson in economics, higher demand does not mean higher price. Higher demand without an increase in supply would mean higher prices. I seriously doubt we'd see an increase in prices if "we all started buying albums". Especially when you consider that most of us do already buy albums... as we've argued before. We "pirates", more often then not, go buy the album anyway. The number of people who would "start buying cd's" is much less than you think.
"You're confusing civil and criminal illegality."
-Frank
No, I'm quite familiar with the difference. I deal with liability all the time and I know how that works. My point is that illegal is illegal. Shouldn't matter if it's criminal or civil. The RIAA and you believe that downloading is illegal. I disagree.
"The court's language makes it clear that file sharing copyrighted music violates copyright laws, and is thus illegal (not criminally, though)."
-Frank
But that excerpt wasn't the court's language in regards to the legality of file sharing. That excerpt was an opinion expressed in the denial of an appeal of an injunction. That opinion does not speak to the final legality of sharing. That injection was to stop the defendant from operating while the copyright case was being heard. Such an opinion expressed in that copyright case would be more along the lines of court-stated law.
"And you are wrong about the law of the land. The Supreme Court does not have to issue a ruling for a law to become final or enforceable. The law is enforceable as written, unless a successful challenge is raised."
-Frank
And again, your last sentence there is exactly my point. Not to wax-Schrodinger's with you, but as long as it can be appealed, I hold that it is not a final law. Yes, along that line of thinking, there are very few "final laws". But my point is that while I may not be 100% correct currently or yet, I am not wrong. While that enforceable law means that someone could be accused and "tried" (criminally or civilly) does not mean that they are guilty of a wrong-doing (again, criminal or civil). That's why the appeal system is there. So the innocent can protect themselves from false or incorrect accusations. Otherwise, the RIAA, or anyone in a similar position, would be able to just accuse their competition out of the picture.
"Finally, while your terminology is again confused (civil defendants are not found "guilty"), I point out that every default judgment taken against a defendant in the RIAA cases constitutes a finding of liability and a violation of the copyright law."
-Frank
I may not be on the same page with the whole "guilty" terminology, but I would like to point out no RIAA cases have gotten to the point of a judge saying "you're wrong, pay up", which is what I meant by "being found guilty". They have all been either settled before that point (those RIAA extortion settlements), or they are still getting to that point. So until those cases are heard and decided, I'd not state so easily that they are definitely guilty or in violation of copyright law.
"...and since pirate bootlegs are against the law, it makes sense to me that that industry's organization would work with the feds to enforce the law."
-just (r)idiculous
Yes. All well and fine. let them work with fed's to enforce the law.
Now, the article honestly doesn't say who would be doing the searching. So, here's two posibilities:
1) The MPAA is searching the items
This is not "working with" law enforcement. This is vigilantism. There would be no difference between this and me seeing someone put a bag of a white, powdery substance into their pocket and then going over and searching the guy.
One, I'd probably get my ass kicked, and two, I'd get arrested.
The MPAA going through the possessions of another private entity (be it a person of a shipping company or a vendor) without that entity's permission is illegal. It doesn't matter (as one stated earlier) if they are stopping pirate copies coming in, good copies going out to be pirated, or any combination thereof. It's illegal. Period.
2) The feds are doing the searching
This is a little better, since the people with the athority to do so are the ones doing the searching.
The big problem with this is (and it's been pointed out) does two dogs owned by a private company, who have not been trained by the aformentioned authroities, constitue just cause? If not, then it is a violation of the 4th Amendment to search me based on "evidence" presented by these two dogs.
In my above example of seeing a bag of powder going into a pocket... If I saw that and told a police officer, that officer would be able to do nothing more than thank me and go ask the guy if he has drugs. The police officer cannot search someone just because some private citizen says they witnessed a crime. That is not just cause.
"I STILL can't understand how you can spend so much effort attempting to justify what you all know is theft. Wouldn't it be easier to just say (as some have on this board): 'Yes, I'm stealing, but the risk of getting caught isn't a big enough deterrent to make me stop.'"
-Frank
I'll reiterate my previous point, and expand:
"I don't understand why you would so blindly hide behind the justification of 'it's the law'. Not all laws are just and not all wrongs are illegal. I'm not saying that copyright laws don't have their purpose and that they don't serve to protect... they do. But, I don't think this is an appropriate application of those laws. And I'm not going to accept it 'just because it's the law' or, as you put it: 'so clearly against the law'."
-Me
1) Who says its theft? Show me the court case that backs up your interpretation of copyright law that says downloading copies of digital music files is theft. Show me the court case that has been closed and is no longer being appealed and reviewed.
2) If we disagree with a common interpretation of a law, is it not our right to stand up and say so? Isn't that what our whole legal system of appeals and precedence based on?
3) Who says we have to share your view of what is and is not theft? Who says your interpretation is any more or less correct than mine? Now, if you are an official of the Judicial branch of our government, and you have signed off on a case that sets the precedence, making your interpretation the interpretation, then fine. I'll stop downloading. Until then, I believe I am right and I will continue acting in accordance with my conscience.
I appreciate your coherent argument (as opposed to some of the lunatics on this board), but I think you're making a distinction that doesn't exist. Protecting the intellectual property necessarily means protecting the distribution of that property."
-Frank
Thanks for the nod. It's nice to see that honest, good-spirited debate is still appreciated.
No the distinction does exist. The point I was making is that the ##AA doesn't care about the intelectual property. They know that if they lose that property, the can go clone some more. What they don't like about this is the loss of control over the distribution. It's a power, trip. Plain and simple.
"If I make a somewhat blurry photocopy of the newest bestseller and passes it out to anyone and everyone so they won't have to actaully pay for it, the copyright violation doesn't go away just because it's a little harder to read than the printed book."
-Frank
Uh... google books? Wasn't it decided that that was not copywrite infringment?
As to the rest of the quality... yes, mp3's aren't that bad. But the RIAA has the resources to produce a product that is so far superior in it's value through features that they would be worth it to buy. They just don't.
"I don't understand how you can attempt so strenuously to justify what is clearly against the law. Is it really so important to be able to listen to the newest Eminem single for free?"
-Frank
I don't understand why you would so blindly hide behind the justification of "it's the law". Not all laws are just and not all wrongs are illegal. I'm not saying that copyright laws don't have thier purpose and that they don't serve to protect... they do. But, I don't think this is an appropriate application of those laws. And I'm not going to accept it "just because it's the law" or, as you put it: "so clearly against the law".
I had this whole soap-box speech on a previous thread about giving up your little liberties. I think it applies here as well: Enjoy
"the reason they drop cases when defendants fight back is because they know (i hope) their "evidence" wont stand up to scrutiny and above al else, they dont want a ruling not in their favor that would set precendent for all the judges that cant think for themselves"
""The market for music has changed" only to the extent that it has become easier for halfwits like DREi to get what they want for free. How would you have the RIAA and MPAA adjust, genius? Do you expect them to say, 'Oh well, I guess we should just let the consumer have our product for free and we'll just eat all of the costs of production.'"
-Frank
It has been said time and time again, ad nauseum, that you can compete with free. The market has changed so that copies of music are available for free to those who can find them. Here's the point... those copies are crappy. It's poor recording at sub-cd quality. It's not the cost, it's the value. I've stated before here
"And that's what the recording industry has failed (miserably) to do: provide a value. Since all you can download is less than CD-quality MP3's and substandard video, the ##AA is in the enviable position to put out a product that is so much better than these crappy copies. But, instead of doing that, they pump out over-priced garbage that's laiden with DRM and other henderances (and risks... remember Sony?). They have made it (or kept it) to where the drop in recording quality is an acceptable trade-off for easier-to-use product."
-Gabriel Tane
I'm not saying that they shouldn't protect thier product. I'm saying they should use tacitcs other than an extortion racket.
And as far as "Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner."...
You're right. It is (possibly) a violation of copyright laws. I could throw out a bunch of what-if's but that's not what I want to do.
What I do want to do is keep the focus on where it belongs. On the fact that the RIAA isn't trying to protect intelectual property. They are trying to protect thier monopoly on the distribution of that intelectual property.
First: I despise the RIAA and it's tactics. They are underhanded and unethical. They rely on the financial inability to defend ourselves to browbeat us into doing things thier way.
Second: The RIAA is right to enforce the copyrights they impose. But, has it been decided by law that P2P is violating those copyrights? Serious questions here, I don't remember if anyone said a definitive "yes" or "no"
Third: it was said that the RIAA is a bit overboard. Ya think? Seriously. I don't have the link, but a previous TechDirt article pointed to an article written by a defense lawyer that was helping one of the moms that was fighting back. The article explained the RIAA's tactics and how questionable (but not quite illegal) those tactics were.
Basically, the RIAA gets a list of songs that it "knows" were downloaded and a list of IP addresses that it "knows" facilitated the downloads. The resultant John Doe's are subpoenaed and are found to be in default when they don't show up (nice loophole, huh?).
Once that happens, the RIAA gets court orders to scour those IP addresses for names, then hits each individual up for every one of the songs on that list, without proving that the individual downloaded any of the songs at all. That's why the RIAA drops the cases that start to fight back. They know there's no proof of their allegations. They are relying on the belief that we lowly pirates won't be able to afford to lose the fight, and therefore won't risk it. We'll take the definite loss of the settlement in exchange for the possible higher loss.
So, that's the process some in this thread were coming damned close to defending.
Now, all that said, let's look at points from the posts:
-do something by contacting you representatives-
and this will help how? The law is already in place. The Legislative branch has done its job. Now it's time for the Judicial side to interpret that law and decide how it is to be enforced (i.e. precedence). Unfortunately, they've done a cock-up job of it so far.
-The RIAA is protecting artist who would starve otherwise-
You know, I almost gave this a pass until I realized you were serious.
How much of those extortion-like settlements that the RIAA has bullied from consumers has actually been paid to the artists? How many artists have seen one single red cent from that? Yeah. Thought so.
-American Idol is/isn't a way for our voice to be heard-
Uh... American Idol is entertainment... well, for some anyway. Hate it myself.
AI comes out with one new "idol" per season. That's hardly enough to say "there's our voice changing the music industry". The point is that our way of changing the music industry should be our purchasing power. If a band is well-liked, people will by the albums. If not, the band won't go anywhere.
Now the choke-point of that is through distribution. If no one hears of you, how can they buy your stuff. That's where the RIAA still holds its control. We're seeing things change as more and more artists are doing small, local releases and telling fans to spread the love. Also, the MySpace music thing is a step in the right direction.
But I hardly see American Idol really doing anything about the Cookie-Cutter-Crap-Pop problem now-a-days.
"My point: American Idol is not perfect but it is a place to express "our" opinion over the record companies. If you don't VOTE and express your opinion - THEY (the record companies) WIN. If you want things to change, do something that makes a difference - get involved!
"
-Charlie - Fab 4 Drummer
Given what I said about how miniscule an effect AI has on the music industry, I'd go so far as to say that the voting and opinion-voicing ability delivered by AI is a token at best.
So, it's there for a reason. One could argue that it's a way for the record companies to placate us by giving us something that will make us say "finally, a way to voice my opinion!". If that's the case, then you are letting the record companies win by voting.
My final penny:
If you want to help; if you want to stop one of the meanest and biggest bullies in the market... stand up to them. If the RIAA bully wants our lunch money, we all band together and say "no". Support those who are currently going toe-to-toe with the RIAA (that mother that was wrongly accused, Limewire, all the other defendants who challenged the accusations). Through a determined and unified defiance of these tactics, we can put a stop to anything.
Remember, it was over 200 years ago that a determined group of colonists told a king "no more" to what they considered unfair taxing practices. (sure, there was a lot more to it, but it gets my point across).
I seriously doubt that TD's mission is to report soley on mechanical technology. And while this thread has certainly skewed into the realm of gossip, this article did start out talking about how Copyright and Trademark law applies to a website. That sounds like an applicable story to me.
On the post: Judge And Jack Thompson To Play Bully -- Will It Convince Them To Shoot Up A School?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisance?
Actually, it was about $10,000 and someone already made the game. And Jack refused to pony up the cash, saying his offer was sarcastic. So, Penny Arcade paid the money themselves and wrote on the check's memo line: "For Jack Thompson, Because Jack Thompson Won't".
Bottom line: Jack is a two-fisted coward who backs down everytime someone calls his bluff. Why all these companies continue pandering to this little boy is beyond me.
On the post: Judge And Jack Thompson To Play Bully -- Will It Convince Them To Shoot Up A School?
Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisance?
-Wizard Prang
YES!!!
Coming '07 from Rockstar/Take2:
Grand Theft Auto: Jack Thompson
In this exciting new installment of GTA, you play as Jack Thompson... A Florida idiot... we mean lawyer, who's had enough of playing by the rules. Now he's playing by his rules. And he's going to deal out justice his way... through the barrel of his gun*.
*all pedestrians in this game are actually conspirators in the gaming industry's quest to corrupt children and no innocent civilians are harmed. And since all the cars are owned by Big Gaming, no innocent civilians are being car-jacked.
hehehe... "carjack", "jack thompson"... there's a pun in there, but I'm going to let it go.
On the post: Forget In-Game Ads, Burger King Makes The Whole Game An Ad
I have one question...
Sorry, that creepy f***er needs to die.
On the post: Making Sure You Don't Get Your Rebate Money: Patented!
Wow
sweet jeebus.
On the post: FCC Gives Arbitron The Thumbs Up To Track Your Every Move
Re:
Nope... not spying at all. This is something that you would choose to carry. Not something that you would be arrested for not carrying.
And that's the difference, as someone above pointed out. You can choose to give up any of your rights any time you want. When you stop talking about your opinion, you just temporarily gave up your right to free speech.
As long as you are carrying this thing around by choice, they're not spying. You're informing.
On the post: Enjoying Live Music Is Expensive
What about...
I live in St. Augustine, Florida (where street musicians are now outlawed), where we used to have a guy with a guitar and money jar on every corner. What about them?
They are publicly performing, not just humming a tune, and they are doing so for money (they hope). Yet we've never heard of one being harassed by a association rep saying that they need to stop or to pay up.
Do they have to be licensed and are just lucky? Or is there some loophole that clears them?
On the post: Enjoying Live Music Is Expensive
Re: Re: There was another solution...
I'm not so sure, OperaFan...
Sounds to me like he didn't know about the licensing issues. If a rep had talked to him about it before and this is the infraction after "your last warning" kind of thing, then he would have already known about it and the article would have been different.
Now... I know that ignorance of the law is not a defense, but Mousky was right. They could have said "here's what you owe. Kindly pay us or face legal action."
Now to advocate the devil... It could be said that if one of these associations was aware of the actions and did not stop those actions, it would create an implied license for the playing of covered songs (or at least those songs that the association knew about). It could be that the association was avoiding this potential situation by making it publicly known that they are not allowing this to happen uncontested. Kind of a rude and callous way of doing it, in my opinion.
I think that the general consensus of those here that are siding with the club owner (excluding the anti-##AA fanatics) is that while the association is probably right in demanding to be paid, they started out by resorting to the most extreme solution available.
I'd be interested to know if this guy was warned before or something, because it does seem like an ##AA tactic to sue first and ask questions later.
On the post: Stop The Press: Entertainment Industry Exec Acknowledges That Piracy Is Competition
Re: Driving on the Right Side of the Road....
Thank you. This has been what we were trying to get across to these fools throughout this whole thing.
Piracy began as an objection to the status quo of the media empire. Now it's doing what needs to be done: shaking up the media monopolies and forcing innovative change.
On the post: Will Spamhaus Get Shut Down Over Dispute?
Re: Judge may not understand
Wait... ICANN has control over something?
On the post: Will Spamhaus Get Shut Down Over Dispute?
Re: Re: Re: Headlines that pose a question are not
And you're having to resort to ad hominem attacks. Go you.
All of your little "speculative sensationalist" headlines are still news. Those headlines would be used for stories that have further information regarding the situations. For example: "Will N. Korea Nuke the US?" could be a story about new intelligence that shows N.K. making plans to attack us. Yup. That'd be news.
"Will Google buy [company]?" would be a story about Google entering into talks with [company] to discuss acquisition. Hey... looky there. That's news.
"Will Russia shut down allofmp3.com?" What about a new statement issued by the Russian government that says they're considering it. Since that would be a change of mind for them... well shit-damn, I guess that'd be news.
Holy crap. There's news all over the place.
The news in all of these examples may not be surprising or even breaking news. But that doesn't mean that it's not news.
Yes the headlines are sensationalist... but that doesn't make them not news. As long as the headlines are applicable to the story contained therein, I'd say that's good use of rhetoric in getting a point across.
So I have two questions for you:
1) Why does a story have to be breaking and heretofore unheard of before you consider it news? What about additional information that's newly discovered?
2) Why does this bother you so much that you have to come onto a forum and start flaming people?
On the post: Will Spamhaus Get Shut Down Over Dispute?
Re: Headlines that pose a question are not news.
Now that you're done unnecessarily attacking a news site (anonymously, I might add), go back to "boom, headshot"-ing in counterstrike. The grownups are talking here.
On the post: Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
Re:
No, no and No. CD prices haven't increased since this whole piracy thing started back with Napster. CDs were still ridiculously priced back then. That's one of the arguments against the RIAA's claims... the fact that there has been no observable impact on album sales or price by piracy.
And, without going into a long lesson in economics, higher demand does not mean higher price. Higher demand without an increase in supply would mean higher prices. I seriously doubt we'd see an increase in prices if "we all started buying albums". Especially when you consider that most of us do already buy albums... as we've argued before. We "pirates", more often then not, go buy the album anyway. The number of people who would "start buying cd's" is much less than you think.
On the post: Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons (#110 & 111)
No, I'm quite familiar with the difference. I deal with liability all the time and I know how that works. My point is that illegal is illegal. Shouldn't matter if it's criminal or civil. The RIAA and you believe that downloading is illegal. I disagree.
But that excerpt wasn't the court's language in regards to the legality of file sharing. That excerpt was an opinion expressed in the denial of an appeal of an injunction. That opinion does not speak to the final legality of sharing. That injection was to stop the defendant from operating while the copyright case was being heard. Such an opinion expressed in that copyright case would be more along the lines of court-stated law.
And again, your last sentence there is exactly my point. Not to wax-Schrodinger's with you, but as long as it can be appealed, I hold that it is not a final law. Yes, along that line of thinking, there are very few "final laws". But my point is that while I may not be 100% correct currently or yet, I am not wrong. While that enforceable law means that someone could be accused and "tried" (criminally or civilly) does not mean that they are guilty of a wrong-doing (again, criminal or civil). That's why the appeal system is there. So the innocent can protect themselves from false or incorrect accusations. Otherwise, the RIAA, or anyone in a similar position, would be able to just accuse their competition out of the picture.
I may not be on the same page with the whole "guilty" terminology, but I would like to point out no RIAA cases have gotten to the point of a judge saying "you're wrong, pay up", which is what I meant by "being found guilty". They have all been either settled before that point (those RIAA extortion settlements), or they are still getting to that point. So until those cases are heard and decided, I'd not state so easily that they are definitely guilty or in violation of copyright law.
On the post: Do Counterfeit DVDs Smell Different From Regular DVDs?
Re: don't make me pull the car over
Yes. All well and fine. let them work with fed's to enforce the law.
Now, the article honestly doesn't say who would be doing the searching. So, here's two posibilities:
1) The MPAA is searching the items
This is not "working with" law enforcement. This is vigilantism. There would be no difference between this and me seeing someone put a bag of a white, powdery substance into their pocket and then going over and searching the guy.
One, I'd probably get my ass kicked, and two, I'd get arrested.
The MPAA going through the possessions of another private entity (be it a person of a shipping company or a vendor) without that entity's permission is illegal. It doesn't matter (as one stated earlier) if they are stopping pirate copies coming in, good copies going out to be pirated, or any combination thereof. It's illegal. Period.
2) The feds are doing the searching
This is a little better, since the people with the athority to do so are the ones doing the searching.
The big problem with this is (and it's been pointed out) does two dogs owned by a private company, who have not been trained by the aformentioned authroities, constitue just cause? If not, then it is a violation of the 4th Amendment to search me based on "evidence" presented by these two dogs.
In my above example of seeing a bag of powder going into a pocket... If I saw that and told a police officer, that officer would be able to do nothing more than thank me and go ask the guy if he has drugs. The police officer cannot search someone just because some private citizen says they witnessed a crime. That is not just cause.
On the post: Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
I'll reiterate my previous point, and expand:
1) Who says its theft? Show me the court case that backs up your interpretation of copyright law that says downloading copies of digital music files is theft. Show me the court case that has been closed and is no longer being appealed and reviewed.
2) If we disagree with a common interpretation of a law, is it not our right to stand up and say so? Isn't that what our whole legal system of appeals and precedence based on?
3) Who says we have to share your view of what is and is not theft? Who says your interpretation is any more or less correct than mine? Now, if you are an official of the Judicial branch of our government, and you have signed off on a case that sets the precedence, making your interpretation the interpretation, then fine. I'll stop downloading. Until then, I believe I am right and I will continue acting in accordance with my conscience.
On the post: Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
Thanks for the nod. It's nice to see that honest, good-spirited debate is still appreciated.
No the distinction does exist. The point I was making is that the ##AA doesn't care about the intelectual property. They know that if they lose that property, the can go clone some more. What they don't like about this is the loss of control over the distribution. It's a power, trip. Plain and simple.
Uh... google books? Wasn't it decided that that was not copywrite infringment?
As to the rest of the quality... yes, mp3's aren't that bad. But the RIAA has the resources to produce a product that is so far superior in it's value through features that they would be worth it to buy. They just don't.
I don't understand why you would so blindly hide behind the justification of "it's the law". Not all laws are just and not all wrongs are illegal. I'm not saying that copyright laws don't have thier purpose and that they don't serve to protect... they do. But, I don't think this is an appropriate application of those laws. And I'm not going to accept it "just because it's the law" or, as you put it: "so clearly against the law".
I had this whole soap-box speech on a previous thread about giving up your little liberties. I think it applies here as well: Enjoy
On the post: Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
Re: Re:
-Anonymous Coward
My point exactly.
On the post: Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
It has been said time and time again, ad nauseum, that you can compete with free. The market has changed so that copies of music are available for free to those who can find them. Here's the point... those copies are crappy. It's poor recording at sub-cd quality. It's not the cost, it's the value. I've stated before here
I'm not saying that they shouldn't protect thier product. I'm saying they should use tacitcs other than an extortion racket.
And as far as "Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner."...
You're right. It is (possibly) a violation of copyright laws. I could throw out a bunch of what-if's but that's not what I want to do.
What I do want to do is keep the focus on where it belongs. On the fact that the RIAA isn't trying to protect intelectual property. They are trying to protect thier monopoly on the distribution of that intelectual property.
On the post: Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
First: I despise the RIAA and it's tactics. They are underhanded and unethical. They rely on the financial inability to defend ourselves to browbeat us into doing things thier way.
Second: The RIAA is right to enforce the copyrights they impose. But, has it been decided by law that P2P is violating those copyrights? Serious questions here, I don't remember if anyone said a definitive "yes" or "no"
Third: it was said that the RIAA is a bit overboard. Ya think? Seriously. I don't have the link, but a previous TechDirt article pointed to an article written by a defense lawyer that was helping one of the moms that was fighting back. The article explained the RIAA's tactics and how questionable (but not quite illegal) those tactics were.
Basically, the RIAA gets a list of songs that it "knows" were downloaded and a list of IP addresses that it "knows" facilitated the downloads. The resultant John Doe's are subpoenaed and are found to be in default when they don't show up (nice loophole, huh?).
Once that happens, the RIAA gets court orders to scour those IP addresses for names, then hits each individual up for every one of the songs on that list, without proving that the individual downloaded any of the songs at all. That's why the RIAA drops the cases that start to fight back. They know there's no proof of their allegations. They are relying on the belief that we lowly pirates won't be able to afford to lose the fight, and therefore won't risk it. We'll take the definite loss of the settlement in exchange for the possible higher loss.
So, that's the process some in this thread were coming damned close to defending.
Now, all that said, let's look at points from the posts:
and this will help how? The law is already in place. The Legislative branch has done its job. Now it's time for the Judicial side to interpret that law and decide how it is to be enforced (i.e. precedence). Unfortunately, they've done a cock-up job of it so far.
You know, I almost gave this a pass until I realized you were serious.
How much of those extortion-like settlements that the RIAA has bullied from consumers has actually been paid to the artists? How many artists have seen one single red cent from that? Yeah. Thought so.
Uh... American Idol is entertainment... well, for some anyway. Hate it myself.
AI comes out with one new "idol" per season. That's hardly enough to say "there's our voice changing the music industry". The point is that our way of changing the music industry should be our purchasing power. If a band is well-liked, people will by the albums. If not, the band won't go anywhere.
Now the choke-point of that is through distribution. If no one hears of you, how can they buy your stuff. That's where the RIAA still holds its control. We're seeing things change as more and more artists are doing small, local releases and telling fans to spread the love. Also, the MySpace music thing is a step in the right direction.
But I hardly see American Idol really doing anything about the Cookie-Cutter-Crap-Pop problem now-a-days.
Given what I said about how miniscule an effect AI has on the music industry, I'd go so far as to say that the voting and opinion-voicing ability delivered by AI is a token at best.
So, it's there for a reason. One could argue that it's a way for the record companies to placate us by giving us something that will make us say "finally, a way to voice my opinion!". If that's the case, then you are letting the record companies win by voting.
My final penny:
If you want to help; if you want to stop one of the meanest and biggest bullies in the market... stand up to them. If the RIAA bully wants our lunch money, we all band together and say "no". Support those who are currently going toe-to-toe with the RIAA (that mother that was wrongly accused, Limewire, all the other defendants who challenged the accusations). Through a determined and unified defiance of these tactics, we can put a stop to anything.
Remember, it was over 200 years ago that a determined group of colonists told a king "no more" to what they considered unfair taxing practices. (sure, there was a lot more to it, but it gets my point across).
On the post: Don't Ask Oprah To Run For President; She Might Sue You
The "Tech" in Techdirt
Next >>