RIAA crosses a line
 

I am sure that everyone is familiar with the RIAA's actions in the fight against "music piracy," actions such as shutting down Napster, copy-protected CDs which won't work in PC CD players, etc.

Like MANY people who swap music online, the whole reason I do it is to prescreen bands and music which are new to me... if I like a band's stuff, I go buy the CD. If I don't, I delete the file. So for me, and those who use p2p networks the way I do, online music swapping creates more CD sales. I have dozens of CDs I'd never have purchased if it weren't for my ability to give the songs a listen online.

I've kept an eye on the RIAA's activities as they sue p2p networks and big-time "music pirates," with mixed feelings about it. I can see their point of view, but they go too far much of the time, and they don't realize the long-term impact of being a perpetual asshole. Karma can be a harsh mistress.

Recently, the RIAA sued a teenaged college student because he wrote software called ChewPlastic that allowed students to search for and download files from inside the campus network. This software was used for dowloading papers, articles, research materials, and naturally it was used by students to swap music files as well. Because he couldn't afford the legal battle, the student settled, and the RIAA took his life savings. All of it. $12,000. This is a student whose heinous crime was writing search software for a network, he's not even accused of music piracy himself. Scary.

As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA went WAY too far this time. I have purchased my last large-label CD until I am satisfied that the RIAA has backed off. There were several CDs I planed to buy this week, and now I won't buy any of them. Dirty rotten bastards.

You can make a Paypal donation to help the kid get his life savings back.

And here is an interesting article on the whole thing, with an RIAA rep addressing questions posed by the Lehrer News hour and SlashDot readers.

The Grateful Dead is an excellent example of sharing builds fan base and by extension, profits. They allowed and even encouraged recording their concerts and distributing those tapes widely. By doing so they built a huge loyal fan base that continues long after the band.
The recording industry puts out so much garbage and expect us to pay big bucks to find out what's good. I don't think so.:rattat:

Considering a federal judge has already ruled in a similar case that makers of a product with a significant non-infringing were not liable, the kid did have an almost sure win.

Unfortunately, as he pointed out, it would have cost $250k to fight the case with nothing to win.

That being said the EFF or some other group should have backed him.

This is very similar to the spate of SLAPP suits that afflicted the country a while back. The theory behind SLAPP suits was that if we dump lawyers on an individual or small group with a case we would not normally consider winnable, they would have to withdraw and it would send a message to others. This would be the "chilling effect" you see mentioned in a lot of Supreme Court cases.

They had to pass special laws and enforce existing ones to deal with SLAPP suits. Public policy and the constitution aside, courts are overworked anyway and judges hate having their time wasted.

I hope someone slaps the RIAA - hard. They might actually have a laudable goal, assuming you really believe that they care even the tiniest bit about artists. But their tactics are pure economic and legal terrorism.

If they continue to push this hard and alienate this many people, it might be worthwhile to start lobbying Congress for a copyright rollback, more towards the 14 years originally given by the framers of the Constitution and away from the 95 year or 70 from death of author that is the current standard.

Nothing would piss them off more. And with all of the free press and awareness the RIAA has been responsible for, this would be a nice public (can't bribe your congressman in the dark) kind of debate about corporate greed, artists rights, stifling of competition, etc. If we include the strong-arming of the rest of the world to use US copyright formulas internationally, we can really bring up some excellent issues. If we can make the public aware that by extending copyright, Congress has been taking away free stuff that should have been theirs, we can really get it going. I'm sure the Library of Congress would love to discuss copyright and its recent abuses with its congressional patrons.

We are talking about a political and legal forum on a topic that was briefly tossed around during the Kazaa trial but which has never taken center stage.

Public domain - what was once ours but was taken away because someone figured it was still worth money and influenced politicians to take it away from us.

I'm ready for that debate. Hilary Rosen, the head of the RIAA has never really addressed it. She's all about adherence to the law, but not how the law got where it is and who pushed it there and why. I'd like to discuss that with her.

So, put on a nice dress Hilary, I'm ready to dance!

Another fool heard from.

The blgging world is attacking Hatch on this one... they've latched on like a pitbull, and are about to shake. The last time they did this was with a guy named Harold Raines. The time before, with a guy named Trent Lott.

http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/archi...06.html#000149

[Mr]Excellent[/Burns]

Damn, that's messed up. There are more things wrong with this plan and this way of thinking than I care to list. And silly me, I was under the impression that our legal system was to presume innocence until guilt was proven. Even more sad, I live in Utah, and this moron is my senator. At least I didn't vote for him.

And don't try to tell me that the entertainment industry isn't somehow making this crap very much worth lawmakers' time, otherwise they'd be proposing this sort of thing for problems more treacherous to society. But even if this sort of action were suggested as a measure against somethnig truly evil-- such as swapping child porn-- it would still be a Very Bad Idea. Apparently the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" is lost on the good senator.

A comment from Slashdot:

Funny.

There ya go: Amish Tech Support finds that Hatch's web site is built with unlicensed code.

Take on the net at your peril.

Remotely destroy someone's computer?!

Jeezus tapdancin' Christ, the level of retardation of some people is mind-boggling. Maybe they have a copy of that Good Times virus to put your computer in an "nth complexity infinate binary loop" to burn the CPU. Guys like this who a) have no clue about technology, but b) potentially have immense power to control it, are frighteningly dangerous.

If there were any possible way whatsoever to do this, you can bet some 14-year-old wizard would have found it before Orrin Hatch did.

I think the point is that the RIAA wants to buy legislation to require copy-protection measures to be included with all new computers, and among those measures could be the ability to render the computer useless. And/or they want protection from lawsuits if they develop worms that will destroy data and OSes on machines which contain music files which they deem to be "pirated."

Even scarier than the ability to do it is that they won't be liable for damages. "Oh, you bought that CD, and just ripped the tracks to listen to them on a portable player, and never swapped them with anybody? Well, shucks. That's too durn bad. Hayuck! Have fun reinstalling everything, and thank you for supporting the RIAA!" I have about 12 gigs of music I have on the PC just for my own listening pleasure, I ripped it all from CDs I own, and share it with no one. But wold I be a target? You bet.

I hate those dirty rotten fucktards.

I feel your pain! I grew up in North Carolina, and I felt the same way about Jesse Helms. I only regret that I was only old enough to vote against him in one election before I moved away.

No, you're confusing two separate measures here. No one would buy a computer with a self-destruct switch that the RIAA could activate remotely at their whim. Hatch is asking about whether it's feasible to write software that would somehow remotely destroy a computer.

The bill you're referring to, if I'm not mistaken, was defeated. It would have required any device capable of playing digital audio to have anti-piracy hardware. There was a big deal made over how it was way too broad, covering everything from MP3 players to computers to those flapping, singing fish.

Ah. That's a relief, but there's no reason they can't try again with a slightly different approach.

Well, if the word "destroy" is used broadly enough to include destoying software and the OS, then this is extremely feasible. If it refers to hardware, then naturally it's impossible without the cooperation of hardware manufacturers, which won't happen witout legislation.

It's just discouraging to think that people with such moronic ideas are the ones who are making laws which can so dramatically affect our lives. I mean, a company having no liability for destroying a user's computer because that company suspected that the user was swapping illegal music files? Automatic presumption of guilt?

Maybe next the MPAA will want to be free from liabilty if they set someone's house on fire when that person is suspected of letting friends come over and watch the MPAA's intellectual property, when those friends haven't explicitly purchased the right to see it.

It's bad enough that it's 2003 and we don't have flying cars yet, now this. What a shit sandwich.

Not to mention virii are considered illegal for the rest of us!!!