The RIAA and the MPAA sues Monster Cable for copyright infringement.
December 8, 2006 on 8:03 pm
Hollywood –The RIAA and the MPAA held a joint press conference this afternoon to discuss their class action lawsuit against Monster Cable Products, Inc. and other manufacturers of audio and video cabling and wires.
The chief attorney in charge of the lawsuit, William Donaldson, stated that “it’s been clear for some time that when someone plays a CD or DVD that a copy of the content is being created and sent over wires. At no time has anyone from a wire or cabling manufacturer asked permission to make such copies. And to make it even worse, some manufacturers such as Monster claim to increase the quality of the picture or sound with the use of their cables. That would certainly be an unauthorized derivative work in direct violation of 17 USC 106 (2). It’s a simple fact that we have to sue these monsters to make them pay their fair share.”
Spokesman for the audio and video cabling industry, David Clark, said that the lawsuit is without merit. “Clearly the end-user who buys a CD or a DVD has the right to play the content and without wires, that’d be impossible.”
Donaldson responded by saying that there is no license in any DVD or CD sold which gives playback rights. “When a consumer buys a CD, for example, he’s licensing a single copy. That’s the copy he holds in his hands. Can someone show me any language in the packaging where the consumer has the right to play it back? I’m serious, that’s just ludicrous.”
While some in the cabling and wire manufacturing industry are hoping to work out a licensing structure similar to those imposed on cassette and blank CDs, it is felt by the copyright industry that such a system is not applicable here. Adds Donaldson, “With blank CDs you can only record one copy. Cassettes were only good for three or four copies at best. But with wires, they’ll copy millions of songs in their lifetime. Such an egregious infringement cannot be settled with a one-time licensing payment.”
The lawsuit will require all manufacturers of electronically conductive materials to bring their products into compliance with the broadcast flag. “After we succeed in our lawsuit,” continues Donaldson, “all wires will contain devices that track infringing content copying. These devices will wirelessly transmit information as to what content was copied to our headquarters. We’re not being greedy with this proposal, we’re only asking for a dollar per song, two dollars for each half and hour of television programming, and $10.00 for each movie. That is addition to the 433 trillion dollars we’re asking for in estimated past economic damages.”
Monster Cable founder Noel Lee was shocked by the gouging being perpetrated by the copyright industry. “Sure, we sell cables that cost us 5 cents for a hundred bucks. But god, expecting to get paid multiple times every time a song or movie is played is beyond greed.”
Donaldson stated that “anyone who thinks we do not have the right to compensation for this infringement is certainly a communist, as any God-loving American believes strongly in property rights. Except when a poor neighborhood needs to be torn down to make a strip mall, of course.”
I might be 100% wrong, but nothing you wrote explained how I might be wrong.
"If I have a copyright on something, I and only I have the legal right to copy that something or to confer that right on someone else."
Not true. There are fair use rights associated with copyrights. For example, it's not infringement for me to copy the CDs I bought and convert them to MP3 format. I can make legal back up copies of my software. I can make legal copies of TV shows and movies.
"you've not only denied me a single one of my ownership rights, but the most fundemantal of my ownership rights when it comes to copyright"
When I infringe your copyright, I agree that I infringe upon your copyright. But that does not make it theft. You've never explained how infringement is analogous with theft.
And one last thing, copyright is not an "ownership" right. it's a government granted monopoly right.
"But I didn't think it would be a controversial statement to say that infringement and theft are at least analogous. The two concepts are similar in enough key points that you can make a quite valid analogy"
Key points?
When I steal your truck, you're denied your ownership rights associated with your truck. You cannot use it, rent it out, or sell it.
When I copy your truck, you're not denied a single one of your rights of ownership. Which is exactly why copyright exists, to create monopoly rights where no property rights exist.
When you steal something, you necessarily deny the owner use of it.
When you infringe a government granted monopoly, the holder of the copyright is fully able to continue exercising his monopoly rights and collecting his statutory rents.
Simply put, if I steal your truck you can no longer use, sell, or lease out your truck.
If I make an exact copy of your truck, you're not harmed at all. As all of your ownership rights are intact.
"it accurately shows how people feel about having works infringed"
In that case, why not call infringement "rape"? Why not call widespread infringement "genocide"?
The reason infringement should not be called theft is because it is not theft.
Theft is simply a bad analogy. When you steal something you deprive the owner of its use. There is no deprivation in infringement. Only an infringement of a government granted monopoly.
But the real problem with calling infringement theft is that it perpetuates the false believe that copyrights are property rights. They are not. Once again, they're merely government granted monopoly rights.
Property rights operate in a free and open market. Government granted monopoly rights are contrary to a free and open market and should be granted in very limited circumstances.
"This is just a just a natural part of capitalism. It's simple competition and supply and demand at play. So, because he's against competition...he must be anti-capitalism, right?"
I've already wrote this up. The copyright industry does not compete in a free market.
I work in the criminal justice system and the vast majority of break-ins are done without any forethought by drug addicts.
The idea that there are master criminals around using social networking sites to carry out Ocean 11 styled break-ins in an attempt to steal your used TV is ludicrous.
I'm not saying it could never happen, I'm just saying you have a better chance of being struck by lightening.
"However, is it really against the law to sell a product with a few bugs and to to have really dismally crappy customer service? It seems like a stretch."
Ummm.... yes and then no. Selling a product that does not work as promised is against the law. Not criminal law of course, but civil law. And failing to get the product working as promised also is against the law.
Let me ask you this, when you spend a lot of money on something and it doesn't work. Do you just shrug your shoulders or do you take it back to either get your money or get it working right?
When that happens on a massive scale it's leads to a lawsuit. This is all really basic stuff. You should seriously consider law school, Mike.
Let's assume Righthaven sues some blogger. They get a default judgment. How do they collect? They'd have to file an action in the same state as the blogger to get collection proceedings started. They'd have to file debtor's exams to find out where his money is. Etc., etc., etc.
A much better way is to get the domain name as a part of the default. That's a huge leverage against the blogger. If he wants to continue blogging at the same site, he's going to cough up some money to Righthaven.
"That's going to look great on a campaign poster from a competitor in a future election..."
That's true for us. But there are plenty of right wing voters out there who think that the politicians should be helping businesses. Politicians run (and win) on pro-businessmen platforms all the time.
On the post: Why Are The Record Labels Demanding Money To Let People Stream Legally Purchased Music?
The RIAA and the MPAA sues Monster Cable for copyright infringement.
December 8, 2006 on 8:03 pm
Hollywood –The RIAA and the MPAA held a joint press conference this afternoon to discuss their class action lawsuit against Monster Cable Products, Inc. and other manufacturers of audio and video cabling and wires.
The chief attorney in charge of the lawsuit, William Donaldson, stated that “it’s been clear for some time that when someone plays a CD or DVD that a copy of the content is being created and sent over wires. At no time has anyone from a wire or cabling manufacturer asked permission to make such copies. And to make it even worse, some manufacturers such as Monster claim to increase the quality of the picture or sound with the use of their cables. That would certainly be an unauthorized derivative work in direct violation of 17 USC 106 (2). It’s a simple fact that we have to sue these monsters to make them pay their fair share.”
Spokesman for the audio and video cabling industry, David Clark, said that the lawsuit is without merit. “Clearly the end-user who buys a CD or a DVD has the right to play the content and without wires, that’d be impossible.”
Donaldson responded by saying that there is no license in any DVD or CD sold which gives playback rights. “When a consumer buys a CD, for example, he’s licensing a single copy. That’s the copy he holds in his hands. Can someone show me any language in the packaging where the consumer has the right to play it back? I’m serious, that’s just ludicrous.”
While some in the cabling and wire manufacturing industry are hoping to work out a licensing structure similar to those imposed on cassette and blank CDs, it is felt by the copyright industry that such a system is not applicable here. Adds Donaldson, “With blank CDs you can only record one copy. Cassettes were only good for three or four copies at best. But with wires, they’ll copy millions of songs in their lifetime. Such an egregious infringement cannot be settled with a one-time licensing payment.”
The lawsuit will require all manufacturers of electronically conductive materials to bring their products into compliance with the broadcast flag. “After we succeed in our lawsuit,” continues Donaldson, “all wires will contain devices that track infringing content copying. These devices will wirelessly transmit information as to what content was copied to our headquarters. We’re not being greedy with this proposal, we’re only asking for a dollar per song, two dollars for each half and hour of television programming, and $10.00 for each movie. That is addition to the 433 trillion dollars we’re asking for in estimated past economic damages.”
Monster Cable founder Noel Lee was shocked by the gouging being perpetrated by the copyright industry. “Sure, we sell cables that cost us 5 cents for a hundred bucks. But god, expecting to get paid multiple times every time a song or movie is played is beyond greed.”
Donaldson stated that “anyone who thinks we do not have the right to compensation for this infringement is certainly a communist, as any God-loving American believes strongly in property rights. Except when a poor neighborhood needs to be torn down to make a strip mall, of course.”
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I might be 100% wrong, but nothing you wrote explained how I might be wrong.
"If I have a copyright on something, I and only I have the legal right to copy that something or to confer that right on someone else."
Not true. There are fair use rights associated with copyrights. For example, it's not infringement for me to copy the CDs I bought and convert them to MP3 format. I can make legal back up copies of my software. I can make legal copies of TV shows and movies.
"you've not only denied me a single one of my ownership rights, but the most fundemantal of my ownership rights when it comes to copyright"
When I infringe your copyright, I agree that I infringe upon your copyright. But that does not make it theft. You've never explained how infringement is analogous with theft.
And one last thing, copyright is not an "ownership" right. it's a government granted monopoly right.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But nothing is taken. A government granted monopoly right is infringed upon. Government mandated rents are not paid. But nothing is ever taken.
Unless you steal a physical CD, which is not copyright infringement.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re:
Analogy: You're like a vacuum.
Reality: You suck.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re:
Key points?
When I steal your truck, you're denied your ownership rights associated with your truck. You cannot use it, rent it out, or sell it.
When I copy your truck, you're not denied a single one of your rights of ownership. Which is exactly why copyright exists, to create monopoly rights where no property rights exist.
Exactly how are they even remotely analogous?!
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re:
When you infringe a government granted monopoly, the holder of the copyright is fully able to continue exercising his monopoly rights and collecting his statutory rents.
Simply put, if I steal your truck you can no longer use, sell, or lease out your truck.
If I make an exact copy of your truck, you're not harmed at all. As all of your ownership rights are intact.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
In that case, why not call infringement "rape"? Why not call widespread infringement "genocide"?
The reason infringement should not be called theft is because it is not theft.
Theft is simply a bad analogy. When you steal something you deprive the owner of its use. There is no deprivation in infringement. Only an infringement of a government granted monopoly.
But the real problem with calling infringement theft is that it perpetuates the false believe that copyrights are property rights. They are not. Once again, they're merely government granted monopoly rights.
Property rights operate in a free and open market. Government granted monopoly rights are contrary to a free and open market and should be granted in very limited circumstances.
On the post: HDCP 'Master Key' Found? Another Form Of DRM Drops Dead
Re: Re:
On the post: HDCP 'Master Key' Found? Another Form Of DRM Drops Dead
There is simply no such thing as a perfect lock. It's logically impossible.
If one person can open the lock, then it's logically possible for anyone to open it.
On the post: Vandals' Bass Player Not A Fan Of The Public Domain, Thinks PD Recordings Will 'Destroy' Classical Music
Re: Communism
I've already wrote this up. The copyright industry does not compete in a free market.
On the post: Vandals' Bass Player Not A Fan Of The Public Domain, Thinks PD Recordings Will 'Destroy' Classical Music
Apparently he has not watched a Disney movie in the last several decades.
On the post: Police Claim Burglars Used Facebook To Target Empty Homes; Proof Lacking
The idea that there are master criminals around using social networking sites to carry out Ocean 11 styled break-ins in an attempt to steal your used TV is ludicrous.
I'm not saying it could never happen, I'm just saying you have a better chance of being struck by lightening.
On the post: Google Sued For Nexus One Suckiness
Ummm.... yes and then no. Selling a product that does not work as promised is against the law. Not criminal law of course, but civil law. And failing to get the product working as promised also is against the law.
Let me ask you this, when you spend a lot of money on something and it doesn't work. Do you just shrug your shoulders or do you take it back to either get your money or get it working right?
When that happens on a massive scale it's leads to a lawsuit. This is all really basic stuff. You should seriously consider law school, Mike.
On the post: Why Is Righthaven Demanding The Domain Names Of Sites It Sues?
A much better way is to get the domain name as a part of the default. That's a huge leverage against the blogger. If he wants to continue blogging at the same site, he's going to cough up some money to Righthaven.
On the post: Ancient Online Shopping Cart Patent Still Biting Retailers
On the post: Transparency Pea Soup: The USTR Planned From The Beginning How Not To Be Transparent On ACTA
I'm still trying to understand how that threat is a bad thing.
On the post: French ISPs Pushing Back Against Hadopi; Threaten To Ignore Requests
Actually, the final final hurdle will be the hardest. Getting people who were kicked off the net to magically start buying plastic discs again.
On the post: Does Steven Levitan Also Want A Cut Every Time You Buy A TV?
On the post: Turns Out You Can't Trademark A Circle Towel
Darn, there goes my trademark on toilet paper squares!
On the post: NC State Senator Admits Broadband Companies Wrote His Bill & Says He 'Carries Water' For Companies
That's true for us. But there are plenty of right wing voters out there who think that the politicians should be helping businesses. Politicians run (and win) on pro-businessmen platforms all the time.
Next >>