What I find amusing is people who believe in free markets don't REALLY believe in it when their outdated business models are at risk. Then they need government protections and laws to save them and lobby to do whats best for their corporations and not what is best for citizens.
If people really believe in free markets...
That said, NOBODY should be making money off an artist works without them paying in some form. But the idea that you would sue individuals for personal use is crazy.
The fact that the RIAA tries to get people to settle before any form of proof has been made just shows this is nothing different that the mob running a racketeering deal.
Something tells me Rock would be the first guy saying everyone is stealing from farmers if some sort of replicator like in Star Trek was invented giving everyone free food.
I always tend to think of what Lawrence Lessig wrote in the beginning of his book Free Culture.
"On December 17,1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a heavier-than-air, self-propelled vehicle could fly. The moment was electric and its importance widely understood. Almost immediately, there was an explosion of interest in this newfound technology of manned fight, and a gaggle of innovators began to build upon it. At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American law held that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface of his land, but all the land below, down to the center of the earth, and all the space above, to ???an indefinite extent, upwards.??? For many years, scholars had puzzled about how best to interpret the idea that rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean that you owned the stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and regular trespass? Then came airplanes, and for the first time, this principle of American law deep within the foundations of our tradition, and acknowledged by the most important legal thinkers of our past mattered. If my land reaches to the heavens, what happens when United flies over my field? Do I have the right to banish it from my property? Am I allowed to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth? In 1945, these questions became a federal case.When North Carolina farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens because of low flying military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently flew into the barn walls and died), the Causbys filed a lawsuit saying that the government was trespassing on their land. The airplanes, of course, never touched the surface of the Causbys??? land. But if, as Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to ???an indefinite extent, upwards,??? then the government was trespassing on their property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys??? case. Congress had declared the airways public, but if one???s property really extended to the heavens, then Congress???s declaration could well have been an unconstitutional ???taking??? of property without compensation. The Court acknowledged that ???it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe.??? But Justice Douglas had no patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph, hundreds of years of property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court, [The] doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim.
???Common sense revolts at the idea.???
This is how the law usually works.Not often this abruptly or impatiently, but eventually, this is how it works. It was Douglas???s style not to dither. Other justices would have blathered on for pages to reach the conclusion that Douglas holds in a single line: ???Common sense revolts at the idea.??? But whether it takes pages or a few words, it is the special genius of a common law system, as ours is, that the law adjusts to the technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were as solid as rock in one age crumble in another."
What I find amusing is people who believe in free markets don't REALLY believe in it when their outdated business models are at risk. Then they need government protections and laws to save them and lobby to do whats best for their corporations and not what is best for citizens.
What I find amusing is people who believe in free markets don't REALLY believe in it when their outdated business models are at risk. Then they need government protections and laws to save them and lobby to do whats best for their corporations and not what is best for citizens.
If people really believe in free markets...
That said, NOBODY should be making money off an artist works without them paying in some form. But the idea that you would sue individuals for personal use is crazy.
The fact that the RIAA tries to get people to settle before any form of proof has been made just shows this is nothing different that the mob running a racketeering deal.
Something tells me Rock would be the first guy saying everyone is stealing from farmers if some sort of replicator like in Star Trek was invented giving everyone free food.
I always tend to think of what Lawrence Lessig wrote in the beginning of his book Free Culture.
"On December 17,1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a heavier-than-air, self-propelled vehicle could fly. The moment was electric and its importance widely understood. Almost immediately, there was an explosion of interest in this newfound technology of manned fight, and a gaggle of innovators began to build upon it. At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American law held that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface of his land, but all the land below, down to the center of the earth, and all the space above, to ???an indefinite extent, upwards.??? For many years, scholars had puzzled about how best to interpret the idea that rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean that you owned the stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and regular trespass? Then came airplanes, and for the first time, this principle of American law deep within the foundations of our tradition, and acknowledged by the most important legal thinkers of our past mattered. If my land reaches to the heavens, what happens when United flies over my field? Do I have the right to banish it from my property? Am I allowed to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth? In 1945, these questions became a federal case.When North Carolina farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens because of low flying military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently flew into the barn walls and died), the Causbys filed a lawsuit saying that the government was trespassing on their land. The airplanes, of course, never touched the surface of the Causbys??? land. But if, as Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to ???an indefinite extent, upwards,??? then the government was trespassing on their property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys??? case. Congress had declared the airways public, but if one???s property really extended to the heavens, then Congress???s declaration could well have been an unconstitutional ???taking??? of property without compensation. The Court acknowledged that ???it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe.??? But Justice Douglas had no patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph, hundreds of years of property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court, [The] doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim.
???Common sense revolts at the idea.???
This is how the law usually works.Not often this abruptly or impatiently, but eventually, this is how it works. It was Douglas???s style not to dither. Other justices would have blathered on for pages to reach the conclusion that Douglas holds in a single line: ???Common sense revolts at the idea.??? But whether it takes pages or a few words, it is the special genius of a common law system, as ours is, that the law adjusts to the technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were as solid as rock in one age crumble in another."
The other interesting aspect of the Wright Bros invention is that they sued anyone who attempted to make an airplane claiming rights to any and all flying inventions.
The development of airplanes was stunted by lack of competition. Finally congress had to step in and allow others to build on the Wright patents.
"The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers were greedy and unfair, and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly. Supporters said the brothers were protecting their interests and were justified in expecting fair compensation for the years of work leading to their successful invention."
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
Some people have already helped clarify.
Let me expand on what they said. When making a book or recording was difficult and expensive anyone who bothered to make a copy was almost certainly doing so for profit.
Because of computers, anything that is uploaded, a news story, a picture or a song, can be easily copied. These copies have no market value.
Above you see a copy of a $20.00 bill. Feel free to copy it in your reply. No one will be mad at you.
If you choose to print it out for your own enjoyment, you will be doing no harm.
If people were copying mp3s and attempting to sell them they would be as foolish as someone trying to print out that $20 bill and passing it at the store.
Not to come down on you or anything, but I was talking about the constitutionality of copyright laws. Currency is covered by other laws.
There is a difference between a copy of a $20 bill and a copy of a book or album. The $20 bill can never be used as a substitute for the real thing, where the book (pdf) or album (mp3) can be. Anyone who downloads the $20 bill you posted won't be able to skip an hour at work as a result, they still need to make money. If you download a book or album, you no longer need to buy it because it's a very good substitute. I'm not suggesting I side with the RIAA, but I don't think comparing a jpeg of money to an mp3 is apples to apples.
Something tells me Rock would be the first guy saying everyone is stealing from farmers if some sort of replicator like in Star Trek was invented giving everyone free food.
Lets remember that Rock also said that taco trucks were stealing from restaurants.
A better analogy would be to say "Rock would be the first guy saying everyone is stealing from agribusiness if the president encourage people to grow their own corn."
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
Some people have already helped clarify.
Let me expand on what they said. When making a book or recording was difficult and expensive anyone who bothered to make a copy was almost certainly doing so for profit.
Because of computers, anything that is uploaded, a news story, a picture or a song, can be easily copied. These copies have no market value.
Above you see a copy of a $20.00 bill. Feel free to copy it in your reply. No one will be mad at you.
If you choose to print it out for your own enjoyment, you will be doing no harm.
If people were copying mp3s and attempting to sell them they would be as foolish as someone trying to print out that $20 bill and passing it at the store.
Not to come down on you or anything, but I was talking about the constitutionality of copyright laws. Currency is covered by other laws.
There is a difference between a copy of a $20 bill and a copy of a book or album. The $20 bill can never be used as a substitute for the real thing, where the book (pdf) or album (mp3) can be. Anyone who downloads the $20 bill you posted won't be able to skip an hour at work as a result, they still need to make money. If you download a book or album, you no longer need to buy it because it's a very good substitute. I'm not suggesting I side with the RIAA, but I don't think comparing a jpeg of money to an mp3 is apples to apples.
"FREE CULTURE is available for free under a Creative Commons license. You may redistribute, copy, or otherwise reuse/remix this book provided that you do so for non-commercial purposes and credit Professor Lessig."
I believe I followed both things Lessig asked for. So no, you would be wrong on a call of "clear-cut instance of copyright infringement."
All this is just a distraction from the fact that the major labels game is weak sauce. They havn't adapted to change in media formats and also arguably release some shitty product. Also the lost revenue figures they always talk about assume that everyone who DLs was going to buy that product anyway which i think is a false pretense. Im all for artists getting paid but i don't think fining people for illegally DLing stuff is the way to go.
I can't believe people are still using kazaa, soulseek and all the napster style p2p file sharing applications.. dangerous as a motherfunk!
There are many far safer methods out there i.e. torrents.
I think the majority of people have taken to downloading youtube vids as audio via keepvid etc haven't they ?
Even safer still, just straight record the audio as it streams.
Also... surely the law takes into account that people can only be fined what they can actually viably afford to pay. Otherwise there's no point in suing them cause they'll never be able to pay it back right ?
"FREE CULTURE is available for free under a Creative Commons license. You may redistribute, copy, or otherwise reuse/remix this book provided that you do so for non-commercial purposes and credit Professor Lessig."
I believe I followed both things Lessig asked for. So no, you would be wrong on a call of "clear-cut instance of copyright infringement."
Damn, I got PWNED for trolling!
Seriously though folks, what do you think of the emerging concept of Voluntary Collective Licensing[/b]? Under this type of plan, you would pay a small amount of money per month, probably to your ISP, in exchange for nearly unlimited access to songs to download. Monies collected would be distributed according to artist popularity/hits, sort of like how ASCAP and BMI have dealt with publishing performance rights with radio and TV play.
The prime manifesto for this idea can be found in the paper "A Better Way Forward" at the Electronic Frontier Foundation website:
You might think the labels wouldn't touch this, but there is a Warner-related VCL plan called Choruss that's in negotiations for Fall 2009 on a handful of college campuses. If the plan seems to work out in the University setting, they may try to implement it on a wider scale.
A few Pros: 1. A market solution is better than government intervention 2. All sides save money on court costs
Cons: 1. If it's truly voluntary, then some labels or artists may not participate 2. If we become accustomed to a monthly flat fee for music, then will the movie studios, book publishers, photography owners, etc. try to stack on their own monthly fees?
i don't think fining people for illegally DLing stuff is the way to go.
It's the only way to go, but the fine should be something like $10/song and enforced like a parking ticket.
As a crime, downloading a song for personal use seems a lot closer to shoplifting than copyright infringement. The logic of making these into copyright infringement cases could be pursued to all sorts of extreme ends. Should every redneck who puts a decal of Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes praying to a cross on the back window of their truck be sued for copyright infringement? Should everyone who downloads a youtube clip of a Saturday Night Live skit to watch later be sued for copyright infringement?
Interesting read and perspectives. The article at top is inaccurate. She was found guilty of uploading 24 songs, not downloading. She made the songs available for everyone else to download.
Not really. The fact that she didn't make any money to me makes a difference.
If I was an recording artist. The last thing I would ever want is having a corporation sue one of my fans or a possible future fan in my name.
But then, most artist don't own their music in the first place...
Maybe suing Kazaa or anyone that was possibly making ad money or whatever off users is a better idea.
The fact remains the way we look, use, consume, etc etc etc media in the world has changed. Suing people for 2 million bucks or 100 million makes no difference. The only ones to benefit are law firms in the end.
Interesting read and perspectives. The article at top is inaccurate. She was found guilty of uploading 24 songs, not downloading. She made the songs available for everyone else to download.
Change anyone's viewpoint?
Well, and actually she didn't only upload 24 songs but a thousand something but the case only focused on those 24. I think if people are going to comment on this that they need to understand that downloading and uploading are vastly different in nature and penalties and also that there aren't any really good physical good comparisons.
f*cking backwards ass shit. I'm sure no one would object to smaller increases over a period of time but instead yeah let's just demand 10000% more in fees.
Terrible looks all around. And here are some more juicy details. KVH is right. The woman was represented for the second trial on a pro bono basis by a Filipino-American lawyer named Kiwi Camara. Apparently, Kiwi graduated Harvard Law at the age of 19 - making him the youngest graduate of that hallowed institution. Dude has no particular copyright experience and his legal strategy was really a campaign against the "unconstitutionality" of statutory penalties under the copyright laws. Here's what he said in another one of his copyright cases:
"Armed with the threat of $150,000 in statutory damages per illegal download (a $1.5M judgment in a small, 10-song case, where the actual damages are about $10, the price of 10 songs on iTunes), the recording industry has obtained more than $100M in settlements from individuals like Brittany. We are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these -- 150,000:1 -- are unconstitutional and that the RIAA's campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAA's unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign."
As an aside, young Kiwi was previously known for referring to African Americans as "nigs" in one of his lawschool outlines that was posted on the Harvard Law webite.
The record labels should hire some techie to make a lock on there audio files so they can't be distributed... either that or sell there albums exclusively online with the lock. or start to make good music
The record labels should hire some techie to make a lock on there audio files so they can't be distributed... either that or sell there albums exclusively online with the lock. or start to make good music
f*cking backwards ass shit. I'm sure no one would object to smaller increases over a period of time but instead yeah let's just demand 10000% more in fees.
Comments
If people really believe in free markets...
That said, NOBODY should be making money off an artist works without them paying in some form. But the idea that you would sue individuals for personal use is crazy.
The fact that the RIAA tries to get people to settle before any form of proof has been made just shows this is nothing different that the mob running a racketeering deal.
Something tells me Rock would be the first guy saying everyone is stealing from farmers if some sort of replicator like in Star Trek was invented giving everyone free food.
I always tend to think of what Lawrence Lessig wrote in the beginning of his book Free Culture.
"On December 17,1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a heavier-than-air, self-propelled vehicle could fly. The moment was electric and its importance widely understood. Almost immediately, there was an explosion of interest in this newfound technology of manned fight, and a gaggle of innovators began to build upon it. At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American law held that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface of his land, but all the land below, down to the center of the earth, and all the space above, to ???an indefinite extent, upwards.??? For many years, scholars had puzzled about how best to interpret the idea that rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean that you owned the stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and regular trespass? Then came airplanes, and for the first time, this principle of American law deep within the foundations of our tradition, and acknowledged by the most important legal thinkers of our past mattered. If my land reaches to the heavens, what happens when United flies over my field? Do I have the right to banish it from my property? Am I allowed to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth? In 1945, these questions became a federal case.When North Carolina farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens because of low flying military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently flew into the barn walls and died), the Causbys filed a lawsuit saying that the government was trespassing on their land. The airplanes, of course, never touched the surface of the Causbys??? land. But if, as Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to ???an indefinite extent, upwards,??? then the government was trespassing on their property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys??? case. Congress had declared the airways public, but if one???s property really extended to the heavens, then Congress???s declaration could well have been an unconstitutional ???taking??? of property without compensation. The Court acknowledged that ???it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe.??? But Justice Douglas had no patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph, hundreds of years of property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court, [The] doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim.
???Common sense revolts at the idea.???
This is how the law usually works.Not often this abruptly or impatiently, but eventually, this is how it works. It was Douglas???s style not to dither. Other justices would have blathered on for pages to reach the conclusion that Douglas holds in a single line: ???Common sense revolts at the idea.??? But whether it takes pages or a few words, it is the special genius of a common law system, as ours is, that the law adjusts to the technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were as solid as rock in one age crumble in another."
The other interesting aspect of the Wright Bros invention is that they sued anyone who attempted to make an airplane claiming rights to any and all flying inventions.
The development of airplanes was stunted by lack of competition. Finally congress had to step in and allow others to build on the Wright patents.
"The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers were greedy and unfair, and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly. Supporters said the brothers were protecting their interests and were justified in expecting fair compensation for the years of work leading to their successful invention."
There is a difference between a copy of a $20 bill and a copy of a book or album. The $20 bill can never be used as a substitute for the real thing, where the book (pdf) or album (mp3) can be. Anyone who downloads the $20 bill you posted won't be able to skip an hour at work as a result, they still need to make money. If you download a book or album, you no longer need to buy it because it's a very good substitute. I'm not suggesting I side with the RIAA, but I don't think comparing a jpeg of money to an mp3 is apples to apples.
Lets remember that Rock also said that taco trucks were stealing from restaurants.
A better analogy would be to say "Rock would be the first guy saying everyone is stealing from agribusiness if the president encourage people to grow their own corn."
Talk to Rock not me.
Rich, can you please point to an example of "blind justice" in this thread?
I had never heard that, thanks for posting. Great read.
^^^^^
A clear-cut instance of copyright infringement.
Two paragraph quotations = no. If so every textbook in the world would be infringing. Fair use.
But you took the heart of the work!
A bell once rung, cannot be unrung.
I think if the beginning of the book is the heart of the work then that author has some major problems. woot.
Graf, you can download the book for free as a PDF. It's a great read.
http://free-culture.cc/freecontent/
And as far as infringing goes...
"FREE CULTURE is available for free under a Creative Commons license.
You may redistribute, copy, or otherwise reuse/remix this book provided that you do so for non-commercial purposes and credit Professor Lessig."
I believe I followed both things Lessig asked for. So no, you would be wrong on a call of "clear-cut instance of copyright infringement."
Also the lost revenue figures they always talk about assume that everyone who DLs was going to buy that product anyway which i think is a false pretense.
Im all for artists getting paid but i don't think fining people for illegally DLing stuff is the way to go.
There are many far safer methods out there i.e. torrents.
I think the majority of people have taken to downloading youtube vids as audio via keepvid etc haven't they ?
Even safer still, just straight record the audio as it streams.
Also... surely the law takes into account that people can only be fined what they can actually viably afford to pay. Otherwise there's no point in suing them cause they'll never be able to pay it back right ?
It's the only way to go, but the fine should be something like $10/song and enforced like a parking ticket.
Damn, I got PWNED for trolling!
Seriously though folks, what do you think of the emerging concept of Voluntary Collective Licensing[/b]? Under this type of plan, you would pay a small amount of money per month, probably to your ISP, in exchange for nearly unlimited access to songs to download. Monies collected would be distributed according to artist popularity/hits, sort of like how ASCAP and BMI have dealt with publishing performance rights with radio and TV play.
The prime manifesto for this idea can be found in the paper "A Better Way Forward" at the Electronic Frontier Foundation website:
http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing
You might think the labels wouldn't touch this, but there is a Warner-related VCL plan called Choruss that's in negotiations for Fall 2009 on a handful of college campuses. If the plan seems to work out in the University setting, they may try to implement it on a wider scale.
A few
Pros:
1. A market solution is better than government intervention
2. All sides save money on court costs
Cons:
1. If it's truly voluntary, then some labels or artists may not participate
2. If we become accustomed to a monthly flat fee for music, then will the movie studios, book publishers, photography owners, etc. try to stack on their own monthly fees?
As a crime, downloading a song for personal use seems a lot closer to shoplifting than copyright infringement. The logic of making these into copyright infringement cases could be pursued to all sorts of extreme ends. Should every redneck who puts a decal of Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes praying to a cross on the back window of their truck be sued for copyright infringement? Should everyone who downloads a youtube clip of a Saturday Night Live skit to watch later be sued for copyright infringement?
Interesting read and perspectives. The article at top is inaccurate. She was found guilty of uploading 24 songs, not downloading. She made the songs available for everyone else to download.
Change anyone's viewpoint?
For sure, but I still believe the punishment should fit the crime, and I doubt she uploaded each song to 80,000 people.
Not really. The fact that she didn't make any money to me makes a difference.
If I was an recording artist. The last thing I would ever want is having a corporation sue one of my fans or a possible future fan in my name.
But then, most artist don't own their music in the first place...
Maybe suing Kazaa or anyone that was possibly making ad money or whatever off users is a better idea.
The fact remains the way we look, use, consume, etc etc etc media in the world has changed. Suing people for 2 million bucks or 100 million makes no difference. The only ones to benefit are law firms in the end.
Well, and actually she didn't only upload 24 songs but a thousand something but the case only focused on those 24. I think if people are going to comment on this that they need to understand that downloading and uploading are vastly different in nature and penalties and also that there aren't any really good physical good comparisons.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86460/aussie-record-labels-demand-5-pmember-gym-tax/
LOL, Punahou grads in the news.
Impossible at this point.
More awesomeness.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/ascap-wants-be-paid-