Supreme Court Rejects RIAA Appeal 447
An anonymous reader submits "Recall that the RIAA originally used to directly send DMCA-laced supoenas to ISPs to obtain information about a P2P user. Then recall how Verizon and other providers balked saying the RIAA had to file John Doe suits first. It ultimately reached SCOTUS, with the RIAA appealing a decision that was in Verizon's favor. SCOTUS has declined to hear the case, effectively casting the Verizon opinion in stone. Wahoo! Part of DMCA shot down!"
yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Premature? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is this simply until the RIAA frames their arguments differently. Those of us old enough and who read some history books in school remember the SCOTUS sometimes reversing decisions or simply throwing it back in the plaintiffs face and saying, "You didn't cross all your T's and dot all your I's, we'll be here if you'd like to have another go later on." The ball is merely in the RIAA's court while they choose another tack.
For now, it's certainly good stuff, but be wary.
Re:Premature? (Score:5, Informative)
That's happening right now, but in the Legislative branch of the government. You probably already know this, but the **IA are pumping bills into Capitol Hill that are essentially restating proposed new law that was already shot down in the form of the INDUCE ACT.
It's all a continued, concerted effort to emasculate the Sony/Betamax decision. Shameless.
see the previous
Re:Premature? (Score:5, Insightful)
If businesses feel that operating in the USA means they've going to get sued by one of the old companies, they're either less likely to start up, or will operate from a freer environment.
As a country, the USA could end up in deep trouble in about 20 years - an ageing population, crippled with debt and little innovation because of markets controlled by a few players.
Try these bills first (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Premature? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Premature? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure (95%) that's right.
Re:yay! (Score:3, Funny)
I think this decribes it best (Score:2, Funny)
Thank goodness, they chose not to stifle innovation, because the RIAA thinks their product desreves more money.
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless of course, you were just joking.
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:4, Insightful)
If SCOTUS let the RIAA sue the software companies, then it may open the door for similar lawsuits in other industries.
I could be wrong, anybody have examples to prove otherwise?
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were "stealing" misic for stuffing into your iPod, the RIAA can file a John Doe lawsuit, subpoena your personal data from your ISP, correct the personal data in the lawsuit to reflect this, and sue you, or settle, as they see fit.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Q: What do you need when you've just shot down part of the DMCA?
A: More bullets
KFG
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
At least one group already has (Webcaster Alliance), Findlaw has lots of good info on laws and cases, including a whole section on our good buddies, the RIAA:
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/riaa/ [findlaw.com]
I recall reading at one time about a group of lawyers who theorized that the mass lawsuits against large groups of people who were unlikely to be able to afford legal representation, while offering a "settlement" less that the likely costs of defense, amounted to extortion. I can't find any source for it now, though.
Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Funny)
Thankfully, the Supreme Court is at least knocking down the RIAA. Maybe now they'll realize litigating teenagers is actually a money-losing endeavor.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:4, Insightful)
Will it end piracy? Of course not. Are those p2p networks helping with album sales for obscure artists? Probably. Will it drive down the sales of the next pop artist's album? That's debatable. The thing is the RIAA is seeing less money and it's scared. In turn, they had to react the best way they knew how. "Trade songs online and we'll sue you."
As scummy as we think they are, they'll find a way to exist. It's just unfortunate that the first reaction to adversity is to strike fear amongst the population.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus they paint the picture of the starving artist whom we are defrauding. Nevermind the t-shirts and concert ticket sales where artists actually get most of their cut.
Then they equate it to stealing which is easier to grasp than copyright infringement. After all, Joe Sixpack and his kids usually don't deal with copyrights much but they definitely have STUFF that can be stolen. They can relate and stealing is bad.
I do believe the ultimate solution is more quality content. My latest purchase was Manson's "Lest We Forget" with the DVD (can't seem to play it in MDK 10CE, though so I'm not too thrilled). If I believe a band makes good music (and this is definitely personal preference), I'll spend money for their work. I'm also in favor of having bonus content -- videos, pictures, behind-the-scenes footage, etc.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Interesting)
Worked like a charm on me. I was afraid to download music and I haven't thought of a single CD I want to buy since then. If I hear it on the radio I know they're going to play it every 15 minutes until I scream so I don't bother buying those.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but have they caused those people to start buying music? I'd say no, so the whole legal adventure is/was a waste of time.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Informative)
No, they didn't.
The Court simply declined to grant cert to the case and consider it. They have said multiple times that their refusal does not convey anything about the merits of the case:
STATE OF MD. v. BALTIMORE RADIO SHOW , 338 U.S. 912 (1950) [findlaw.com]
"Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated."
Unless enough justices have a personal interest in the case, the Supreme Court rarely considers a case except to resolve conflicting decisions among the US Courts of Appeals.
We need a way to moderate original postings "uninformed".
Re:Whew, for awhile there - DON'T GET HAPPY YET! (Score:3, Insightful)
All that the RIAA has to do now is get another US Court of Appeals to decide differently, and we're right back here again.
Does anybody believe that this is beyond their abilities?
reasoning behind rejecting the appeal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:reasoning behind rejecting the appeal (Score:4, Funny)
They can't hear any whining, they've got their MP3 players cranked up. Rumerhazzit Clarence Thomas listens to Dick Cheney singing.
Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John Doe (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor does it make trading music files online "stealing" no matter how much they want the world to believe that it is.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus, re-distributing the physical CD that you purchased as your property would be legal (though you would no longer own the right to digital reproductions you might have made as you no longer "own" the content), but re-distributing the protected works contained therein remains illegal.
Not that that was the point of *this* case...
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Insightful)
Those of us who make a living in intellectual property have learned to do it the right way: keep your mouth shut. If you don't want something to be redistributed, don't put it in an easily redistributable form!
The other people (*AA) who are zealouts about IP ri
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Interesting)
That has never been proved, and indications are as strong that copying leads to increased sales or has no measurable effect as they are that it reduces sales.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Informative)
No, that is not what this sez. Not even vaguely. It is about whether you can go on a fishing expedition to find someone who MIGHT be stealing vs. KNOWING that someone is stealing. Altogether different.
But, hey, what do I know. IANAL.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, I was always under the assumption that the legal definition of stealing was:
The basic legal definition of theft is 'the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it'.
But I guess legal dictionaries and my own recollection are wrong. If you are trading music online you aren't depriving the owner of anything unless he can no longer sell the product.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Informative)
Laws can chage and acts like the NET act have changed the definition.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely. Some other examples:
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:4, Insightful)
What is copyright violation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Illegally copying music is not strictly "theft" or "stealing", but that's symantics. It is still illegal, it is still a tort. You are still depriving someone.
Who, of what? Easy... you are depriving the copyright-holder of the right to distribute the copyright-bearing work as he/she/it sees fit. Copyright grants that right exclusively to the copyright holder -- if you deprive them of that right, you are acting against the law.
If you feel that copyright has no place in our society, then add your voice and pocketbook to the fight to legislate it out or reform it. Simply deciding to commit criminal and civil copyright violation is not some noble protest -- you want a copy of something you don't have a right to, or to provide a copy to someone else that they don't have a right to.
And yes, I'm well aware that there are cases where P2P and filesharing are not copyright infringement, and I support those technologies. I'm just so sick of people arguing about whether the terms "theft" or "piracy" are accurate.
I repeat: you are depriving someone of their rights when you download copyright-protected content without permission (through fair use or otherwise).
Re:What is copyright violation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Semantics. Yes. It's a comment on what the words mean. Like:
Person A : "hey, look at my pet hippopotamus"
Person B : "that's not a hippopotamus, it's a parrot"
Person B's comment certainly concerns semantics. Is it therefore somehow wrong for him to say it? Or irrelevant to the conversation? Semantics matter.
It is still illegal, it is still a tort. You are still depriving someone.
Copyright infringement is indeed illeg
Re:What is copyright violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mine was that there are contexts where words have *very* specific meanings, such as laws, and that while discussing within such contexts misuse of such words is even more irritating than nitpicking. If you discuss illegal copying with your friends, call it what you want. If you
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
If you go online and DOWNLOAD a DVD, that could cost you up to $250,000.
Not quite, you'll get the $250,000 fine for making copies available to others (e.g. uploading), not for downloading. The suits filed by the RIAA are all about people who are allegedly sharing files on P2P, not people who are downloading. Of course it goes without saying that a $250k fine is ridiculous for non-commercial copyright violation.
Downloading (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Downloading (Score:3, Informative)
It's a fairly common sense rule, especially given that the reproduction occurs on the downloader's end.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Informative)
this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans
However it is a major victory for due process. No corporation should be allowed to issue their own 'supoenas' to force a third-party to turn over personal information without proper judicial oversight. That part of the DMCA was WAY over the line.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the difference between junk mail and spam. Filing a law suit costs more time and money than putting a few details into a boiler-plate letter. Also, you can get in trouble for filing frivolous law suites, in a way you can't for sending silly letters.
I'd say this is a victory. Not the victory in the war, but certainly one avenue of harrassment that's been closed to them.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...
So? Swiping copyrighted music was *always* illegal. What's fantastic about this is that ISPs don't have to give up personal information to anyone who can make up a "Yeah, I own the copyright on something that this guy has" email. It means that only people concerned enough about something being stolen are going to get involved with requesting personal data. This means no more RIAA/MPAA mass-mailings generated by bots (well, unless they figure out how to have a bot produce lawsuits).
There was a serious privacy issue, as demonstrated recently on Slashdot by people making up bogus copyright-claim letters and sending them out and getting personal data without the ISP even researching the problem (not that I think that the ISP should be expected to do research on the basis of a bogus email). If you're upset enough to want someone's personal data, you're upset enough to file a lawsuit.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Funny)
Bots...Producing...lawsuits...hmmmmm...SHEER GEINUS!
I think I have just hit upon the mysterious solution to step number 3 that has eluded many business plans over the last few years...
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a lot more paperwork (and legal fees) if you have to do everything inside the legal framework instead of being able to say "Pay us $5000 or we'll sue you and your lawyer's bills will be more than $5000." Now they can't use that tactic, and people are more likely to fight back and force a court battle over copyright laws (which the RIAA does not want, as they currently control the copyright situation in congress so any loss of this control to the courts is undesirable.)
They are well aware that one of these cases making it to court could be more damaging than the alternative. It may not make downloading music legal, but this ruling does make it a lot harder for the RIAA to play the role of "enforcer." I'm sure they'll figure out something else, but I doubt they'll be sending out any more mass-subpoenas.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Insightful)
The decision asserts that due process is still a requirement of the constitution and the Judicial branch.
Who has ever implied it would render copyright infringement (not stealing, you can't steal something you bought, you can only infringe on
SCOTUS being... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCOTUS being... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCOTUS being... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCOTUS being... (Score:3, Funny)
The Supreme Court of USA for those of you who (like me) didn't have a clue at first.
AKA (in casual parlance) "The Supremes" whose work is available for free [findlaw.com].
Not to be confused with The Supremes(TM) whose works are not so free or so easily available for download.
more reasons to love the supreme court (Score:3, Interesting)
Shot down? (Score:5, Interesting)
More like still up for debate. Unless I'm mistaken, status quo remains and this can continue to be repeatedly brought up until the issue finally does get ruled on by the court. Correct?
Re:Shot down? (Score:3, Informative)
Not final yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they'd heard it and decided against the RIAA, rather than just refusing to hear it, it would be final.
Re:Not final yet. (Score:3, Informative)
If they'd heard it and decided against the RIAA, rather than just refusing to hear it, it would be final.
Judges have a sort of gentlemens' agreement to honor each other's rulings. They don't have to. Another judge could certainly rule differently in a separate, yet related case. But as soon as one of the cases comes up, the lawyer should say,
Look at the ratio ;) (Score:4, Funny)
Almost there... (Score:4, Interesting)
Shot down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wahoo! Part of DMCA shot down!
Not really. What the RIAA was doing was never really in the DMCA, a fact noted by the D.C. Circuit when they overturned the District Court's decision on a pure statutory analysis. This leaves us where we started, minus only a dubious construction atop the DMCA, an RIAA gamble that didn't pan out.
Re:Shot down? (Score:3, Informative)
"Wahoo! Part of DMCA shot down!" (Score:5, Funny)
Misread summary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Misread summary (Score:4, Funny)
It's a sad day... (Score:2, Funny)
DMCA borders on Unconstitutionality (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand fully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand fully... (Score:3, Informative)
before they would just fire off a letter to the ISP who may or may not capitulate and send them your info
not they have to file a lawsuit against John Doe @ 65.67.883.212, and get the name via a legal process which has oversight and protection for the accused.
hope that helps
Re:I don't understand fully... (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, it's like this. Verizon gets a subpoena for your IP as part of RIAA V. John Doe 1e+38. Verizon then informs you that they have a request to turn over the records. You can then hire an attorney to fight the subpoena, while your John Doe-ness is protected.
The big benefit is judicial oversite into the activities of RIAA. If RIAA wants to run roughshod over you, they need to hire a local lawyer and file a lawsuit in the correct venue.
Local ju
Re:I don't understand fully... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing.
and why does having john doe lawsuits make it better than if they knew your name? Who's fielding those lawsuits?
It means if some random company asks your ISP for your billing information, your ISP isn't required to give it to them. If the RIAA wants to sue you for copyright infringement, they must first file a lawsuit with a court, then the judge has to issue a subpoena which gets presented to the ISP, and THEN the ISP has to turn over your name/addres
human rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair use rights (Score:5, Insightful)
First, copyright shouldn't last nearly as long as it does -- it goes well beyond the Consititutional mandate. Furthermore, copyright should not depend on the date the author dies -- why should the work of the author last longer because an author happens to be healthier than another? Why should the willingness of a publisher to fund an artist depend on whether they have leukemia or not? Have a fixed number of years (I'd like to see the 14 plus an additional 14 if the holder chooses to renew the copyright -- the copyright term shouldn't exceed fifty years, at the longest. Let copyright serve its goal of being an incentive to authors to create work so that they can make money.)
Second of all, I want to see fair use vastly strengthened. The main thing I'd like to see allowed -- the use of characters and settings in derivative works. I think that use of characters and settings from a work should be *always* allowed (obviously, aside from old grandfathered-in works) in new works. This would supersede trademark protection (i.e. if you don't want someone to be able to use your trademark, don't trademark a character). If taking advantage of this fair use exemption, one would be responsible for ensuring that one's derivative works cannot be confused with the original work, and would be liable (much in the same manner that we are currently liable for trademark infringement) for making a derivative work that can be confused with the original. Why do I want to see this? I want to see fan fictions and alternate series plot branches made legal. Currently, fan fictions aren't legal. Companies often turn a blind eye and simply choose not to exercise their protections, but every fanfic author must live constantly in the knowledge that he could be nailed by a copyright-holding company if that company feels like applying legal pressure at some point. I don't think that discouraging the production of fanfics helps society at all. Also, there are times when I read a book series that I like -- but I dislike a particular event that happens, and wish that the plot had gone in another direction. For example, what if Jar Jar had been killed off early on in Star Wars Episode 1? (Though this is more useful for books -- creating alternate movies is hard because of the expense involved.) I want to see someone be able to say "That sucked. Here's *my* interpretation on how things should have gone!" That's also illegal -- but if characters and settings could be used in derivative works (as long as those derivative works are clearly marked as "unofficial") I think we'd see a lot more by way of interesting ideas.
An explanation of the SCOTUS rulings (Score:5, Informative)
Not nessasarily. Usually once the Court refuses to hear something the lower courts will honor that position as law. This is what is called a Stare Decisis ruling. Now this ruling is now only pertinent to the district court in which it occured. Other juristicions will usually look to a juristiction that has already ruled on a similar case before issuing its ruling. (The fact the Court has stare decisised this one is gonna do wonders to advance this on other juristictions as well.
The RIAA could theoretically file again in another juristiction, but may be denied by the Court on grounds that there is a SCOTUS ruling in place on the matter (stare decisis does not carry the same weight as a Court ruling). For examples sake, the Pro-life crowd is reluctant to challenge Roe v. Wade until the Court is firmly in conservative hands. If you have a case before the SCOTUS you usually can not be heard again for decades (seperate but equal 1890's; brown v. board 1954... long ass time). So in short.... the RIAA is effectively REAMED.
I always knew mixing political science and computers could be fun :)
Re:An explanation of the SCOTUS rulings (Score:3, Informative)
There is no such thing as a stare decisis ruling. Stare decisis is merely "the doctrine that, when a court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain set of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to future cases where the facts are substantially the same." Here, the Supreme Court did not lay down any principle of law.
(The fac
Re:A [corrected] explanation of the SCOTUS rulings (Score:5, Informative)
Stare decisis (actually, the full latin phrase is "stare decisis et quieta non movere" meaning "to stand by things decided and not disturb settled points") only applies to actual court decisions -- the decision of the Supreme Court not to hear the case does not mean that the issue is decided. It simply means that the Supreme Court didn't want to hear this case at this time. While people often analogize this to mean that the Supreme Court is leaning one way or the other, that's just a guess. It can mean any number of different things and predicting Supreme Court vote counts is always a risky business.
In the meantime, the fact that the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case means that the DC Circuit court case stands. It would constitute binding precedent (meaning stare decisis would apply) within the DC Circuit. However, it would only be persuasive authority in other circuits. (Here's a quick run down on the different circuits: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html [uscourts.gov]. Even though the DC Circuit is tiny -- it is given jurisdiction over many of the most important cases and is considered (by some) to be the most influential of the Circuits.)
But. And here's the kicker -- the disappointed litigant (in this case the RIAA) now will travel throughout the country and raise this same issue in other circuits, hoping to find a panel of judges (these things are heard by 3-judge panels at the first appeal level) that will disagree with the reasoning of the DC Circuit. Then they will likely appeal to the Supreme Court again. A split between the circuits (ie., two circuits saying the law means two different things) is the surest way to get the Supreme Court to review your case. While still not a guarantee, it's likely the Supreme Court will revisit this issue once the RIAA finds a sympathetic circuit to agree with it.
Again, the parent didn't do a bad job explaining, just not entirely accurate. With due respect, the difference between binding precedent and persuasive authority is a subtle, but huge, point. Stare decisis applies to binding precedent, not persuasive precedent.
can someone explain..... (Score:5, Insightful)
am i the only one?
Re:can someone explain..... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to quote Van Halen songs, but (Score:3, Funny)
It didn't shoot down the DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
The DMCA quite clearly states that the ISP is neither responsible nor liable for material stored on customer computers over which they exercise no control.
In other words, they are upholding what the DMCA says, not how the RIAA wants to interpret that section.
Not a victory... (Score:3)
In the meantime, another ridiculous bill will be proposed and approved that will allow organizations such as the RIAA/MPAA to bully consumers around in a different manner while the bill itself takes years to travel to the right courts to be struck down... only to have the whole process repeat.
A victory would be changing the system so that the very threats to personal privacy (like this) are moved to the VERY FRONT of the queue and are taken care of immediately instead of years after the fact.
What about those who have already been bulled by the RIAA's tactics that were just struck down? Do they get any kind of compensation?
"I'm not a lawyer but I play on on /." (Score:4, Insightful)
So let's not celebrate yet. For these things to be truly dead and gone, it must be either a Supreme Court ruling, or it must be done legislatively. Let's hope that our legislature will take some steps to reset the balance between protecting creative authors and protecting the free flow of information. Disney wouldn't be where it is today without the public domain (expired copyright) contributions of the Brothers Grim and many others. This means vote! [badnarik.org]
Re:"I'm not a lawyer but I play on on /." Disney ! (Score:3, Interesting)
In some cases, not even expired copyright. For Rite of Spring in Fantasia, the composer (don't ask me to spell that name properly) didn't like Disney's offer. Disney then discovered that the copyright was not valid in the United States (so much for respecting rights of other countries and composers) and went ahead anyway. I wonder to this day if Fantasia can legally be s
Not really. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:great! (Score:2, Insightful)
They want to try legally protect an outmoded business practice, and create an artificial scarcity. Kinda like DeBeers. Both are wrong. The more of this that happens, the better.
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now see, I know what you meant to say but you didn't say it correctly. What difference does it make that it is an "outmoded business practice"? So what? What matters is that they are a monopoly and have the power to keep people buying their music at artifically inflated prices.
The more people trade music online the more draconian laws will be presented to those that have the power to make them. The more
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing food because the government only gives food to certain groups is a valid trigger for civil disobedience. Stealing music is stupid.
If you want the music industry's garbage, give them their asking price. If you suspect illegal cartel behavior, file a lawsuit. Stealing is not an option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Civil disobedience is when you commit the crime and then except the punishment in the hopes that it will seem unjust to those watching. It is not committing the crime and then hiding. If you want to perform civil disobedience, download a bunch of illegal MP3s and then turn yourself in. Don't plea-bargain, get your day in court and use it to explain your position of how you think that people should work for free (or what ever twisted logic you use to justify takin
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, is that 'all' we have to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
A large quantity of incompatible DRM technologies that don't work well together is hardly an 'alternative'. Buying music encoded at 128 Mbits instead of something less lossy is again, not optimal.
The RIAA/MPAA will need to embrace the promise of PtoP or continue to suffer it's wrath. And before you get on the high horse of morality, let's examine the types of 'music' being sold to kids both visually (MTV - when they show 'music'), and audibly; then note it's impact.
When the recording industry glorifies and promotes criminal activity, sex and violence, why shouldn't the kids follow that simple example? They can be gang-bangers and that's 'ok', but heaven help them if they download a song? Something's very wrong here...
Re:Gee, is that 'all' we have to do? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one thing that started this mess. The music industry saw a spike in shoplifting with certain CDs that promoted shoplifting. However, going in front of higher management and saying "I picked an artist that told listeneres to steal his new CD, and they did, and we're getting lots of complaints from retailers and our profit margin on this item sucks.", won't let you keep you your job.
Saying, "It's a new kind of problem, it involv
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:great! (Score:3, Informative)
It's a nice thought, though - just a shame it doesn't hold water.
You can thank their subscribers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sean D.
Re:Upset about the RIAA? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not a Bush fan, but the TV/Movies/Music Industry [opensecrets.org] seems to have higher rate of donations to Democrats than Republicans, so I don't thin that it will get any better under Kerry.