What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
67 Comments
- MattJF317, on 04/02/2008, -1/+48More like "lube the asses" of future defendants.
- inactive, on 04/02/2008, -3/+21***** the RIAA and Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
- coheedcollapse, on 04/02/2008, -0/+17Like the wheels need any extra greasing. I hear the money of a thousand poor students is lubing those things up just fine.
- wynja, on 04/02/2008, -4/+17Well, I'm not in agreement with the posters. Granted this will have far reaching implications in the state in which this suit was filed, but there have already been contradictory decisions in previous cases.
This is a job for...... the most corrupt supreme court in history....... ***** we're boned. - Ajajadude, on 04/02/2008, -1/+10Oh...well...how ***** wonderful. Like the RIAA really needed any more encouragement.
- Amazetbm, on 04/02/2008, -0/+8I'm not surprised that they haven't started going after people who play their stereos too loud and saying it was an unauthorized broadcast.
- Persian5Life, on 04/02/2008, -2/+9***** the RIAA, i hate that organization with passion.
- Crisender111, on 04/02/2008, -2/+9***** the JUDGE
- Ebeach, on 04/02/2008, -0/+7***** you. .. er... I mean the RIAA
- hackertamer, on 04/02/2008, -1/+7***** the world.
- jun2san, on 04/02/2008, -3/+8I honestly believe that the music industry needs a major overhaul. This whole RIAA problem stems from money made from recordings such as mp3s and cds but most artists only see a small percentage made from those sales. It's the greedy corporate labels who see most of the profits. Also, if you notice, the largest complaints that come from artists are those who either own the record label or get a larger cut (Metallica, Dr. Dre, etc.). Nowadays there's so much crap filling the airwaves that its obvious that someone is out there to make a quick buck. This is especially prevalent in the hip hop community where it's easy to recycle a popular beat and rhyme over it. Nowadays its easy to get into a studio and lay down a decent sounding track (especially with technology such as pitch correction). This is where the problem lies. Musicians have gotten lazy. Here's one possible solution to the problem. All recorded music should be free. Then get out there and tour your asses off. Musicians make make most of their money from touring. If people like your music, they'll go out and see you. If all you can do is get in a studio and record but you can't sing live (ahem....Akon) then you don't deserve to make money. Wanna get rich and buy all your bling-bling? Then work for it! Anyways, that's just one solution. Either way, the music industry definately needs a major overhaul.
Oh, and ***** THE RIAA! - bherring, on 04/02/2008, -1/+6Sorry, but RIAA policy clearly states that vasoline is NOT included!
- bdbr, on 04/02/2008, -0/+5This is easy enough to avoid: (1) Use riaaradar.com (or whatever you like to determine if the music is from an RIAA label), (2) Don't download RIAA music. (3) Don't buy RIAA music.
Independent labels have never sued a downloader, and probably never will. They give better percentages to artists. They're making the best music now anyway. - bobbityjones, on 04/02/2008, -2/+7I'm sorry son but the vibrations coming from your stringed wood box seem to be infringing our copyrights.
- heavyal, on 04/02/2008, -0/+4Interesting, yesterday there was an article on slashdot about how this theory was REJECTED http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/04/01/1822246.sht ...
- astrotrain, on 04/02/2008, -0/+4Now just need to get the folks to stop forking over money to rent their music from iTunes. Thats another major
staple in the RIAA.
People need to simply be educated... 'taking the red pill' to be woken up on how the music industry has changed and how the RIAA is just abusing anyone who even spurts out something related to one of their clients (sometimes not even one of their clients).
There should be commercials made by the "Truth" team to wake people up to the RIAA's sleazy tactics. - plytheman, on 04/02/2008, -1/+5Yeah, just dont try to cover or play your favorite songs or ASCAP and BMI will be licking their lips. God forbid you try and find the tabs to your favorite song either...
- nvisn, on 04/02/2008, -3/+7***** the EFF..oops wrong acronym ***** the RIAA
- Vektuz, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3This is actually pretty inaccurate. I read the brief myself (yes, boring, I know) and the "making available = distributing" part was actually denied by the court. They decided that making something available is not soliciting it for distribution.
They denied the motion to summarily dismiss the case because the "making available" claim wasn't the only claim made in the case. The recording industries also alleged actual copying in the case, not just making available. - mciampa1214, on 04/02/2008, -0/+33 way... nice
- tehnico, on 04/02/2008, -1/+4So, it will hurt LESS?
- webefools, on 04/02/2008, -2/+5Boycott all comercially marketed pop music... support your local artists... go to their shows... make your own music...
- Dugly, on 04/02/2008, -1/+4Don't you mean "temporarily license it"?
- Rulz1234, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3im pretty sure there have already been cases like that
- bdbr, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2There are so many easier targets (mostly file sharers using Kazaa, it seems) that this really isn't a reasonable worry.
- astrotrain, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2"aw... broke another rubber band playing Stairway....."
- zeusthemoose, on 04/02/2008, -3/+5Haha you're a ***** moron dude.
- bdbr, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2True, but all the RIAA has to do is change the wording from "making available" to "offering to distribute", and they're nearly guaranteed a win from now on.
- Hermmunster, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2I don't think the law covers intent. I don't think there's a provision in the DMCA or any other that covers the potential intent. But there are several things one must keep in mind.
1) Intent is not easy to prove. A person that has files shared may not have intended to have them shared. Thus there is no intent. It would be up to the RIAA to prove intent before it could claim damages.
2) Damages from intent are in no way on the same scale as damages from actual distribution. So, even if they could prove intent they still can't prove distribution and that's where the law clearly shows damages. The DMCA provides such large potential damages because of potentially massive distribution. Proving intent doesn't prove massive distribution. So, damages may come more in line with the actual costs to purchase those tracks.
3) Actionable is different than winning. The judge simply said that you can't prove distribution without showing others downloaded, but intent to distribute is actionable. You still have to win the case and when someone brings a lawsuit against you with the words "you intended to distribute" most people will say "*****". Prove it.
4) Winning doesn't mean big damages. The RIAA still has to show that your intent would have damaged them and how much damage. Thus even proving intent may result in significantly reduced amount in damages over actual distribution.
It's like "I intended to ride my bike up the RIAA's spokes-ghoul's ass but I didn't actually do it, so where are the damages? Because potentially upset the ghoul by having that disclosed? I don't think they'll make much from that, and then there's the question of the amount of the intent. Was the intent a major intent or a smaller intent. Was it intended for one friend or for everyone. So, there are varying degrees of intent.
I'd say this pretty much puts the RIAA in a pickle. Not only that the judge that made this ruling isn't going to be the judge that rules on every other case and the degree of intent most likely will be whittled away over time. There will be some that are sued and give up big bucks, but honestly it is easier to defend intent than it is to defend against actual distribution.
And, on top of that the RIAA is dying. The member companies are dying. The loss of the control of distribution of albums or songs is a big blow to the RIAA. Once more artists start offering their own music and have control of the distribution chain, the RIAA's member company's power is greatly diminished. As has been pointed out,the RIAA had power because it had control of the distribution chain. This is no longer the case. Any artist can package and promote, then distribute their product without the help of the RIAA. Since it is no longer necessary to have a recording contract to distribute there are no more times when the RIAA will thieve the rights to a song from the artist in favor of the agreement to promote and distribute. In the next 5-10 years the RIAA is history because the member companies will become history. - Vektuz, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2If you read the actual legal brief you'd find that the judge in question here actually decided the exact opposite of what this digg article states. He denied the link between making available and publishing. Specifically. The case in its entirety was not itself dismissed simply because that the making available claim was not the only claim made, the recording industries had other evidence of actual copying by the defendant
- bdbr, on 04/02/2008, -1/+3I think one could reasonably argue that the not-so-technically-astute (e.g. the kinds of people who use Kazaa) may not even realize that they're sharing files. They may think they're just downloading, and are at most liable for the cost of the songs they download.
- Blue_Eon, on 04/02/2008, -1/+2Next thing you know, letting your friends look through your CD collection for something to borrow will be illegal...eh, it probably already is.
- Scheissen, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1haha libtards
- cliffski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2tough *****, the kids should stop stealing
- cliffski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2tough *****, they are still knowingly breaking the law. ***** em.
- Rulz1234, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1very true. also its handy to get the cd's from the bands when there new and before they get big.
- astrotrain, on 04/02/2008, -1/+2There is plenty of free legal music that you can emerge yourself into, and the RIAA can not do a damn thing about it:
www.ourstage.com
www.jamendo.com
www.cmj.com - bdbr, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1My experience is that most people simply don't care. The major labels exist for lazy listeners - the people who will just listen to whatever is spoon-fed to them by the radio, and whatever is conveniently available at Wal-Mart. These people really don't care about music, so they don't care about the RIAA.
- eyesmell, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1I thought this said 'grease the weasel' and I thought Polly Shore had written this headline....silly me...
- bdbr, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Vektuz, the legal brief states:
"Several courts (including the Supreme Court) that have wrestled with the Copyright Act
have generally found, relying in part on the statute’s legislative history, “distribution” and
“publication” to be synonymous."
"Defendant’s Motion still fails because Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that, in addition to making Plaintiffs’ works available, Defendant distributed Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works."
All the RIAA has to do is amend the complaint with the proper wording, and they're pretty much guaranteed a win. This means they're pretty much guaranteed a win any time they can show that the defendant distributed a song...apparently even if its just to their investigators. - Cerebral, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1You forgot to warn people to actually lookup a label to see if it is actually a non RIAA label. Some labels I THOUGHT were smaller/independent labels were actually RIAA. Do research... don't assume.
- Hermmunster, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Not true, they have to prove intent.
- charlie763, on 04/02/2008, -2/+3I had closed the tab for this story, but came back just to digg up your comment.
- bdbr, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Well, as effective as the RIAA has been in their campaign to make the world hate them, the EFF has been equally ineffective in subduing them.
- cliffski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2and you need to grow up and learn right from wrong you ignorant *****
- cliffski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1yeah because thats exactly the same as mass distribution of copyrighted material.
what a moron. - 3tcp, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1Tor > RIAA
- Apocrypha, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Sounds about right.
- 3tcp, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1How can anyone argue that that is any different than checking out a CD from the library?
- 3tcp, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1emerge: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emerge
immerse: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immerse
immerge: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immerge
sorry, couldn't help it -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is