Re: Re: Re: Settlement terms aren't completely known
Don't forget, this was a multi-national company with (B) Billions of dollars to spend on litigation against one individual who had perhaps .000000001% of the resources Sony had to bring against him, which was going to drag him 3000+ miles across the country to defend himself, make him pay his own expenses and legal counsel, and rip him to shreds. If others had not come to bat and contributed to his legal fund, he probably would not have had enough to pay his air fare to California.
This was Sony using a wrecking ball to swat a fly. Hotz saw a way out and took it. How can you blame him?
Yes, artists should get reasonable compensation for their work.
My quarrel is not with copyright itself. My quarrel is with copyright maximalists who want everything for themselves, and nothing for consumers. My quarrel is with corporate entities who want to make everything copyright for ever by way of endless term extensions. My quarrel is with those who have retroactively extended term of copyright on works that otherwise would have gone into the public domain in the 1970s when their copyrights expired, to where they will not expire in our lifetime. My quarrel is with those who want to reclaim copyright on works already in the public domain, and who abuse copyright in other ways. My quarrel is with those who seek multi-million dollar judgments against individuals who have uploaded or downloaded a few songs for others to listen to or for their own enjoyment and who have done little if any damage to those suing them, ruining them for life for an offense that is on the level of an overtime parking violation.
The original term of copyright, when copyright law first came about, was 14 years, with one extension to 28 years at the author's timely request. At the end of this term the work went into the public domain, and could be used legally by anyone for any purpose. Public domain is important because much of the works of today have been built on top of existing works from the public domain, and have been for all of history. With the term of copyright now life of the author plus 70 years, nothing copyrighted today will go into the public domain in our lifetime, and possibly in the lifetimes of our great great grandchildren. And if congress keeps passing term extensions at the whim of some congressman or corporation or other, there will be no more public domain because everything will be copyright for ever, unless the author himself donates his work to the public domain.
"So, while you can certainly download RHEL and even the source code for it, you then have to go through an onerous auditing process to scrub all of RedHat's (and other) trademarks out of the system before you can legally redistribute it."
If I recall correctly, that's only if you modify it. I could be wrong but that's the way I remember it.
I'm not saying copyright should be done away with. What I am saying is that there needs to be some exercise of common sense in the application of it. Copyright can't give all benefit and rights to one side and leave nothing to the other side, otherwise it loses its purpose for being.
I am in full agreement with your assessment of the modern attitude toward copyright by some copyright owners, but I would have liked it better if you had left out the profanity and vulgar language. A simple [...] in place of the vulgarity would have sufficed. It adds nothing to the article, and if anything degrades it.
That said, I think greed and arrogance have overtaken many so-called artists who are copyright owners, and especially corporate entities like record companies and the RIAA who I believe have found litigation to be a handy way to bring in even more money. To me, it is legalized extortion. It costs the record companies relatively little money to join a thousand or more unnamed defendants in a single lawsuit, find their identities in ex-parte actions, then ambush them with threatening letters stating they will be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, but offer to settle for a few thousand if they will act quickly.
The vast majority of those targeted by these lawsuits are individuals who have shared a few songs with others, and I seriously doubt the record companies have suffered any actual damage from their actions. In many cases this gives them additional exposure, and people if they like a shared song will go out and buy a copy of that CD for themselves, thus actually boosting sales. Others who download "pirated" music probably wouldn't have bought the CD regardless of whether the song they wanted was available through other channels or not, so again the record companies have suffered no real, actual damage.
Another problem is the record companies have used shady investigative techniques in their quest to identify infringers, and in many cases have identified totally innocent people, even infants, small children, elderly grandmothers, people who have never had computers, and even the dead, as offenders. And those who have opted to fight this unjust litigation have found themselves faced with totally outrageous judgments, out of all proportion with any actual damages. Case in point-Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Found to have infringed songs with an actual value of probably less than $50.00, she has been hit with a judgment well in excess of $1 million. In this case it is obvious the intent of the record companies and RIAA is to send a message to anyone they catch in their dragnet, Pay up now or we will destroy you.
What's wrong with this approach? For starters, while this may bring in some extra money in the short term, it is doing them serious damage to their good will long term, and ultimately will anger many who read of these atrocities and turn them away from the big labels responsible for them. And this is beside the point that most of their music (in my estimation anyway) is just pure garbage. Suing your potential customers is no way to bring in repeat business. (And then the music industry wonders why their sales are tanking.)
Secondly, there are other, much more amicable ways this situation could be dealt with. I have no doubt that most of those sharing files would gladly pay a small monthly fee for a license to share files legally, and if enough would participate the record companies could probably bring in much more even than they get with their senseless litigation, and without making enemies of their customers.
Commercial pirates are another matter altogether. These are people who mass produce and sell for money counterfeit CDs and DVDs without a license from the copyright holders. The record companies have every right to go after these mass infringers, as they do real damage to them, not only by taking away money that should rightly go to them, but in reputation as in many cases the counterfeit copies are of poor quality which those buying them may equate with the actual source.
But to sue individuals who upload or download a few songs for their own enjoyment, or for others to hear, for 10s of thousands of times any alleged actual damages? Give me a break!
**... And put up a little banner saying "this was taken**
**down for child pornography." Really smearing them.**
Ice taking down websites and publicly accusing them of child porn, just on suspicion? If it's not true, this is libel. At least that's the way I understand libel.
Just got done reading the above linked stories on copyfraud.
Seems like the public domain is headed the way of the dodo bird if something isn't done to stop copyfraud. With the recent change in copyright law (1980s I think) recapturing copyright on all unexpired copyrights about to expire, I believe, back to about 1917, and the new term of copyright of life of the author plus 70 years, it will be past mid century before anything new at all is added to the public domain, other than things voluntarily donated by the authors. If congress continues its practice of extending the term of copyright every time Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire, nothing more will ever fall into the public domain unless donated. Now with outfits like Google and museums snapping up what are now public domain works and asserting their own copyright on them, soon there will be no public domain left at all.
Unless congress does something to correct the situation.
I once stopped at the birthplace of Pearl Buck in Mill Creek WV. They had a sign outside the house prominently stating that no cameras or camcorders were allowed inside.
I refused to go in.
Can you copyright the entire interior of a house? Especially a historical site?
Anybody that's going to be that fussy about copyright I flatly refuse to do business with.
Trying to fight back to the recording industry would be about like David trying to fight the entire Philistine army (not just Goliath) armed with nothing but a pea shooter, and without any help from God.
Did it ever occur to the movie industry and the record industry they could make a mint simply by licensing filesharing? I'm sure the vast majority of people who share files would be willing to pay a few dollars a month to make it legal. What's 50 million people times $5 a month? Go figure.
But apparently these industries would rather to stick to their rickety old worn out steam engine business model, tie down the safety valve, then wonder what happened when the boiler blows up. They get what they deserve.
Apparently Blockbuster didn't know how to deal with competition. In the USA we have such rental options as Red Box where you can rent a DVD for a dollar a day, or Netflix, which for a flat rate will rent you as many DVDs in a month as you want. You just can't charge triple to quadruple what others are charging and expect the world to beat a path to your door.
Apparently the movie industry doesn't want to. they're totally paranoid that somebody might get some benefit out of something they've produced without having to pay a mint for it. Same thing with the record industry. They'd rather stick to their ancient steam engine business model, tie down the pressure release valve and wonder why the boiler blew up, rather than let off some steam and attract some business.
You reap what you sow. But you gotta sow before you can reap, or all you'll get is weeds.
To add another element to the mix: DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). Most ISPs use DHCP to connect to user accounts. DHCP assigns an IP address automatically from a pool of addresses whenever someone logs on. Whenever that user logs off or his lease on that address expires, that address is returned to the pool to be reassigned to another user logging on. When that first user logs on again, he will almost certainly be assigned a different address from the time before, and someone else will be using his previous address. Thus the only way a particular IP address could be linked to a particular user is if the investigator logging that address has an accurate record of the exact time that address was in use and the ISP has an accurate record of who was using what address at exactly what time, or if that user has a fixed IP address. If either is off by even a minute there can be no certainty of who was using what address at what time.
I suspect some if not all of the RIAA investigators are just plain sloppy in their work, grab the first IP address they see and either don't log the time accurately (or at all) or the ISP doesn't have an accurate log of who was using what address when, and the investigator just assumes he has the right user, grabs it and goes with it.
As for these investigators tagging people who don't even have a computer, all I can call this is sloppiness cubed and raised to the hundredth power, or just plain malice. It's like they're just picking names and addresses out of a phone book at random and sending them notices.
I think there should be a way for those who have been falsely accused to gain legal redress in the matter. Problem is, those accused most likely don't have the money or the resources to defend themselves against such accusations, and so settle rather than risk the RIAA and their juggernaut legal machine bankrupting them and ruining them for life.
Note to the RIAA and record companies: Stop fighting P2P file sharing and license it, you idiots! It's going to happen anyway regardless of how much you fight it and how many people you bankrupt in the process. Think of all the money you could bring in if you could make it legal by licensing it for say $5 a month and you could get several million people to go for it. And look at all the exposure your music would get, and all the good will you would create.
Or, you can just go on spending $millions suing and bankrupting your potential customers, driving them away, and wondering why your record sales are tanking!
Photoshop for 200 baht... "Sort of a no brainer, right?"
I can go you one better, and it's as legal as apple pie.
Switch from Windows to Linux. It comes with the GIMP for free, and the Gimp works about the same as Photoshop and is just as powerful. In fact the whole OS is free, and you can set it up to dual boot Windows or Linux at will if you want.
On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony
Re: Re: Re: Settlement terms aren't completely known
This was Sony using a wrecking ball to swat a fly. Hotz saw a way out and took it. How can you blame him?
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
My quarrel is not with copyright itself. My quarrel is with copyright maximalists who want everything for themselves, and nothing for consumers. My quarrel is with corporate entities who want to make everything copyright for ever by way of endless term extensions. My quarrel is with those who have retroactively extended term of copyright on works that otherwise would have gone into the public domain in the 1970s when their copyrights expired, to where they will not expire in our lifetime. My quarrel is with those who want to reclaim copyright on works already in the public domain, and who abuse copyright in other ways. My quarrel is with those who seek multi-million dollar judgments against individuals who have uploaded or downloaded a few songs for others to listen to or for their own enjoyment and who have done little if any damage to those suing them, ruining them for life for an offense that is on the level of an overtime parking violation.
The original term of copyright, when copyright law first came about, was 14 years, with one extension to 28 years at the author's timely request. At the end of this term the work went into the public domain, and could be used legally by anyone for any purpose. Public domain is important because much of the works of today have been built on top of existing works from the public domain, and have been for all of history. With the term of copyright now life of the author plus 70 years, nothing copyrighted today will go into the public domain in our lifetime, and possibly in the lifetimes of our great great grandchildren. And if congress keeps passing term extensions at the whim of some congressman or corporation or other, there will be no more public domain because everything will be copyright for ever, unless the author himself donates his work to the public domain.
And we will all be the losers.
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
If I recall correctly, that's only if you modify it. I could be wrong but that's the way I remember it.
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Copyright trolls
That said, I think greed and arrogance have overtaken many so-called artists who are copyright owners, and especially corporate entities like record companies and the RIAA who I believe have found litigation to be a handy way to bring in even more money. To me, it is legalized extortion. It costs the record companies relatively little money to join a thousand or more unnamed defendants in a single lawsuit, find their identities in ex-parte actions, then ambush them with threatening letters stating they will be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, but offer to settle for a few thousand if they will act quickly.
The vast majority of those targeted by these lawsuits are individuals who have shared a few songs with others, and I seriously doubt the record companies have suffered any actual damage from their actions. In many cases this gives them additional exposure, and people if they like a shared song will go out and buy a copy of that CD for themselves, thus actually boosting sales. Others who download "pirated" music probably wouldn't have bought the CD regardless of whether the song they wanted was available through other channels or not, so again the record companies have suffered no real, actual damage.
Another problem is the record companies have used shady investigative techniques in their quest to identify infringers, and in many cases have identified totally innocent people, even infants, small children, elderly grandmothers, people who have never had computers, and even the dead, as offenders. And those who have opted to fight this unjust litigation have found themselves faced with totally outrageous judgments, out of all proportion with any actual damages. Case in point-Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Found to have infringed songs with an actual value of probably less than $50.00, she has been hit with a judgment well in excess of $1 million. In this case it is obvious the intent of the record companies and RIAA is to send a message to anyone they catch in their dragnet, Pay up now or we will destroy you.
What's wrong with this approach? For starters, while this may bring in some extra money in the short term, it is doing them serious damage to their good will long term, and ultimately will anger many who read of these atrocities and turn them away from the big labels responsible for them. And this is beside the point that most of their music (in my estimation anyway) is just pure garbage. Suing your potential customers is no way to bring in repeat business. (And then the music industry wonders why their sales are tanking.)
Secondly, there are other, much more amicable ways this situation could be dealt with. I have no doubt that most of those sharing files would gladly pay a small monthly fee for a license to share files legally, and if enough would participate the record companies could probably bring in much more even than they get with their senseless litigation, and without making enemies of their customers.
Commercial pirates are another matter altogether. These are people who mass produce and sell for money counterfeit CDs and DVDs without a license from the copyright holders. The record companies have every right to go after these mass infringers, as they do real damage to them, not only by taking away money that should rightly go to them, but in reputation as in many cases the counterfeit copies are of poor quality which those buying them may equate with the actual source.
But to sue individuals who upload or download a few songs for their own enjoyment, or for others to hear, for 10s of thousands of times any alleged actual damages? Give me a break!
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Challenges IP Czar On Legality Of Domain Seizures
Libel on ICE
**down for child pornography." Really smearing them.**
Ice taking down websites and publicly accusing them of child porn, just on suspicion? If it's not true, this is libel. At least that's the way I understand libel.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Challenges IP Czar On Legality Of Domain Seizures
ICE putting innocent websites on ice
down for child pornography." Really smearing them.
On the post: Growing Concern From European Officials Over ACTA
Re: Online Petition for ACTA transparency:
ACTA sucks.
On the post: Google Music Blog Mess Highlights Why Three Strikes Will Not Work
Copyfraud
Seems like the public domain is headed the way of the dodo bird if something isn't done to stop copyfraud. With the recent change in copyright law (1980s I think) recapturing copyright on all unexpired copyrights about to expire, I believe, back to about 1917, and the new term of copyright of life of the author plus 70 years, it will be past mid century before anything new at all is added to the public domain, other than things voluntarily donated by the authors. If congress continues its practice of extending the term of copyright every time Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire, nothing more will ever fall into the public domain unless donated. Now with outfits like Google and museums snapping up what are now public domain works and asserting their own copyright on them, soon there will be no public domain left at all.
Unless congress does something to correct the situation.
On the post: Google Music Blog Mess Highlights Why Three Strikes Will Not Work
Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
I refused to go in.
Can you copyright the entire interior of a house? Especially a historical site?
Anybody that's going to be that fussy about copyright I flatly refuse to do business with.
On the post: Google Music Blog Mess Highlights Why Three Strikes Will Not Work
Re: other things ( and this gets complex quick )
It's a very one-sided battle.
On the post: Google Music Blog Mess Highlights Why Three Strikes Will Not Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
On the post: Blockbuster Blames 'Piracy' Rather Than Bad Strategy For Bankruptcy In Portugal
Re: Re:
But apparently these industries would rather to stick to their rickety old worn out steam engine business model, tie down the safety valve, then wonder what happened when the boiler blows up. They get what they deserve.
On the post: Blockbuster Blames 'Piracy' Rather Than Bad Strategy For Bankruptcy In Portugal
Re: downloading
Go figure!
On the post: Blockbuster Blames 'Piracy' Rather Than Bad Strategy For Bankruptcy In Portugal
Blockbuster busted
On the post: Indie Filmmaker Hits It Big With Free Film Online
Anybody ever heard of free exposure?
You reap what you sow. But you gotta sow before you can reap, or all you'll get is weeds.
On the post: Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement
DHCP
I suspect some if not all of the RIAA investigators are just plain sloppy in their work, grab the first IP address they see and either don't log the time accurately (or at all) or the ISP doesn't have an accurate log of who was using what address when, and the investigator just assumes he has the right user, grabs it and goes with it.
As for these investigators tagging people who don't even have a computer, all I can call this is sloppiness cubed and raised to the hundredth power, or just plain malice. It's like they're just picking names and addresses out of a phone book at random and sending them notices.
I think there should be a way for those who have been falsely accused to gain legal redress in the matter. Problem is, those accused most likely don't have the money or the resources to defend themselves against such accusations, and so settle rather than risk the RIAA and their juggernaut legal machine bankrupting them and ruining them for life.
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Re:
Or, you can just go on spending $millions suing and bankrupting your potential customers, driving them away, and wondering why your record sales are tanking!
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Re: Re: Seriously, where is the link between laws and changing peoples habits?
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Re: Re:
I can go you one better, and it's as legal as apple pie.
Switch from Windows to Linux. It comes with the GIMP for free, and the Gimp works about the same as Photoshop and is just as powerful. In fact the whole OS is free, and you can set it up to dual boot Windows or Linux at will if you want.
Next >>