|
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-979...g=2547-1_3-0-5
They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. Karl |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
Jon Elson writes:
If they actually ARE holding a bunch of copyrighted material in their newsgroup archives, then they do have a liability. Define "holding". The DMCA specifically allows it. Usenet continues. Napster was instantly destroyed. All based on the illusion of "communication" versus "storage". Ultimately, the government is not going to enforce the Mafiaa's right to control invisible magnetization patterns secreted in your computer, any more than they did the invisible magnetization patterns on VHS tapes secreted on your 1980s bookshelf. Or photon bundles in fibers or electrons in cables. It will just be painful to expire the litigious ownership of antique media, but expire it must. Copyright only works in tangible, expensive media trafficked in public. Intangibles and private actions can't be controlled. That's why there's no copyright enforcement of your memorizing copyrighted works, or the images inside your eyeballs. RIAA has no means and no right to control how the air vibrates inside a private home. Or the MPAA how the LCD pixels flip. De minimis non curat lex The law does not concern itself with trifles. Bit patterns are the *ultimate* trifle. Absolutely arbitrary arrangements of the intangible, in limitless quantity. We all can own terabytes of them. Inconceivable that the government will assert sovereignty there. |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
I am dreaming about a world where all movies and songs would be
available for free. In this world, obviously, there is no place for overpaid actors, fat middlemen, dull similar movies etc. I am not sure how this industry would be financed. I am sure that there would be less stuff produced. The worst possibility would be proliferation of product placement/advertising like "honey, you were so great in bed tonight.. Yes, that's because I bought Viagra from buyviagra.cn". The better possibility is that the cost of shooting movies would go down a lot and they would be made because people want to make a statement and can afford it. But I am looking forward to the day when we do not pay for privately viewing content. I do not mind that movie theatres live under the copyright system, though. i |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic thisis a newsgroup
....
They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. "a provider" (usenet.com), not "the usenet". Usenet is distributed, with hundreds (thousands?) of providers. A successful suit against one would affect the others by establishing precedent, but it would hardly "... take down the usenet ...". You trying to stir up trouble, Karl? 8-) Bob |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
On Oct 16, 10:39 pm, "
wrote: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-979...ss&subj=news&t... They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. Karl The thing is RIAA does have a case against usenet.com because the provider is using ALT Binaries and copyrighted material as a selling point for the service. Riaa Could likely sink usenet.com but not the hundreds of other usenet providers RIAA and MPAA and all those guys havent managed to shut down youtube. and the distributed nature of usenet protects it as well. If memory serves a provider allowing its users to post needs to put in place a process for removing "inappropriate" material once it has been flagged as copyrighted. but the onus is on the COPYRIGHT HOLDER to flag the material as violating. in theory all the servers would need a process to remove inappropriate files when contacted by riaa. I believe that it already exists? but riaa would need to send EVERY provider on usenet a daily or weekly email asking them to remove the following files it really isnt a big deal and RIAA is way behind the times if they are only griping about anyone in usenet now |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic thisis a newsgroup
Brent wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:39 pm, " wrote: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-979...ss&subj=news&t... They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. Karl The thing is RIAA does have a case against usenet.com because the provider is using ALT Binaries and copyrighted material as a selling point for the service. Riaa Could likely sink usenet.com but not the hundreds of other usenet providers RIAA and MPAA and all those guys havent managed to shut down youtube. and the distributed nature of usenet protects it as well. If memory serves a provider allowing its users to post needs to put in place a process for removing "inappropriate" material once it has been flagged as copyrighted. but the onus is on the COPYRIGHT HOLDER to flag the material as violating. in theory all the servers would need a process to remove inappropriate files when contacted by riaa. I believe that it already exists? but riaa would need to send EVERY provider on usenet a daily or weekly email asking them to remove the following files it really isnt a big deal and RIAA is way behind the times if they are only griping about anyone in usenet now Binary downloads in newsgroups is a little difficult for a lot of people. |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
On Oct 17, 8:25 am, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
... They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. "a provider" (usenet.com), not "the usenet". Usenet is distributed, with hundreds (thousands?) of providers. A successful suit against one would affect the others by establishing precedent, but it would hardly "... take down the usenet ...". You trying to stir up trouble, Karl? 8-) Bob They just **** me off. They've been screwing artist for the last 80 years or so and are upset when people do the same to them. Check this: http://www.tauzero.com/Rob_Tow/Rante...anteur000.html http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/09/u...ery-zune-sold/ Karl |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
On Oct 16, 10:39 pm, "
wrote: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-979...ss&subj=news&t.... They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. Karl You think that is bad! Here is an article from the UK. A place is being sued because the employees have a radio playing and the music may possibly be heard by the customers. Kwik-Fit sued over staff radios Kwik-Fit had called for the case to be dismissed A car repair firm has been taken to court accused of infringing musical copyright because its employees listen to radios at work. The action against the Kwik-Fit Group has been brought by the Performing Rights Society which collects royalties for songwriters and performers. At a procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh a judge refused to dismiss the £200,000 damages claim. Kwik-Fit wanted the case brought against it thrown out. Lord Emslie ruled that the action can go ahead with evidence being heard. The PRS claimed that Kwik-Fit mechanics routinely use personal radios while working at service centres across the UK and that music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers. It is maintained that amounts to the "playing" or "performance" of the music in public and renders the firm guilty of infringing copyright. The Edinburgh-based firm, founded by Sir Tom Farmer, is contesting the action and said it has a 10 year policy banning the use of personal radios in the workplace. Playing music The PRS lodged details of countrywide inspection data over the audible playing of music at Kwik-Fit on more than 250 occasions in and after 2005. It claimed that its pleadings in the action were more than enough to allow a hearing of evidence in the case at which they would expect to establish everything allegedly found and recorded at inspection visits. Lord Emslie said: "The key point to note, it was said, was that the findings on each occasion were the same with music audibly 'blaring' from employee's radios in such circumstances that the defenders' [Kwik- Fit] local and central management could not have failed to be aware of what was going on." The judge said: "The allegations are of a widespread and consistent picture emerging over many years whereby routine copyright infringement in the workplace was, or inferentially must have been, known to and 'authorised' or 'permitted' by local and central management." He said that if that was established after evidence it was "at least possible" that liability for copyright infringement would be brought home against Kwik-Fit. But Lord Emslie said he should not be taken as accepting that the PRS would necessarily succeed in their claims. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...st/7029892.stm |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message .. . Jon Elson writes: If they actually ARE holding a bunch of copyrighted material in their newsgroup archives, then they do have a liability. Define "holding". The DMCA specifically allows it. Usenet continues. Napster was instantly destroyed. All based on the illusion of "communication" versus "storage". Ultimately, the government is not going to enforce the Mafiaa's right to control invisible magnetization patterns secreted in your computer, any more than they did the invisible magnetization patterns on VHS tapes secreted on your 1980s bookshelf. Or photon bundles in fibers or electrons in cables. It will just be painful to expire the litigious ownership of antique media, but expire it must. Copyright only works in tangible, expensive media trafficked in public. Intangibles and private actions can't be controlled. That's why there's no copyright enforcement of your memorizing copyrighted works, or the images inside your eyeballs. RIAA has no means and no right to control how the air vibrates inside a private home. Or the MPAA how the LCD pixels flip. De minimis non curat lex The law does not concern itself with trifles. Bit patterns are the *ultimate* trifle. Absolutely arbitrary arrangements of the intangible, in limitless quantity. We all can own terabytes of them. Inconceivable that the government will assert sovereignty there. Really? The government does what interests lobbying it want. It's pay to play. The recording industry pays a lot so they have a lot of influence. When it comes to money, and that is what this is all about, the side with the ability to influence government, and that means the laws, will come out the winner. Arrangements of intangibles aside, the government can do whatever it wants. If it decides that some intangibles are property then those who have the "rights" to that property will prevail in court. History shows this to be true. How many times does David triumph over Goliath in US courts? We know it's rare. Goliath usually comes out on top and in this case the RIAA is Goliath. Figure that out. Hawke |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
how about we the buying public get smart and ONLY buy music directly from
the artist, never ever from a music company - that way the artist gets some $$ and the RIAA goes belly up. "sparky" wrote in message ps.com... On Oct 16, 10:39 pm, " wrote: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-979...ss&subj=news&t... They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. Karl You think that is bad! Here is an article from the UK. A place is being sued because the employees have a radio playing and the music may possibly be heard by the customers. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
Hawke writes:
The government does what interests lobbying it want. It's pay to play. The recording industry pays a lot so they have a lot of influence. Yes, of course. But the whole reason for existence (tangible, expensive media trafficked in public) has vanished, and so will the business and income. It can't be magically rebuilt on charging money to alter intangible states of matter that people already own. The record business sold records. Records are gone. |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic thisis a newsgroup
In article ,
Bob Engelhardt wrote: ... They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. "a provider" (usenet.com), not "the usenet". Correct. Usenet.com advertises uncensored and unlogged downloads. Their ads are all about how you should use their services now that the RIAA is shutting down the file-sharing sites. -- -Ed Falk, http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/ |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message .. . Hawke writes: The government does what interests lobbying it want. It's pay to play. The recording industry pays a lot so they have a lot of influence. Yes, of course. But the whole reason for existence (tangible, expensive media trafficked in public) has vanished, and so will the business and income. It can't be magically rebuilt on charging money to alter intangible states of matter that people already own. The record business sold records. Records are gone. Records are gone, that's true. But CDs and DVDs aren't and any configuration of electrons, magnetism, or whatever they come up with next will be called intellectual property. This will be sold and the industry will find a way to protect this property and to profit from it. If you think "music" or "entertainment" won't be sold in one way or another you're mistaken. No matter how clever people are at coming up with new ideas other ones are just as good at finding ways to make a profit off of it. In that I do have confidence. Hawke |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
On Oct 17, 4:33 pm, Rex wrote:
Brent wrote: On Oct 16, 10:39 pm, " wrote: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-979...ss&subj=news&t... They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. Karl The thing is RIAA does have a case against usenet.com because the provider is using ALT Binaries and copyrighted material as a selling point for the service. Riaa Could likely sink usenet.com but not the hundreds of other usenet providers RIAA and MPAA and all those guys havent managed to shut down youtube. and the distributed nature of usenet protects it as well. If memory serves a provider allowing its users to post needs to put in place a process for removing "inappropriate" material once it has been flagged as copyrighted. but the onus is on the COPYRIGHT HOLDER to flag the material as violating. in theory all the servers would need a process to remove inappropriate files when contacted by riaa. I believe that it already exists? but riaa would need to send EVERY provider on usenet a daily or weekly email asking them to remove the following files it really isnt a big deal and RIAA is way behind the times if they are only griping about anyone in usenet now Binary downloads in newsgroups is a little difficult for a lot of people. RIAA doesn't need to take down Usenet- it is going down by itself. For a couple of years many ISPs no longer carry or support it. Google provided a web interface, but still many old time groups are slowly dying away. I have noticed a lot of problems lately with the Google Groups interface, so it looks like even Google is not doing a great job with it. The reason I have heard is that there are too many new web based discussion groups. They are far easier to set up- you don't need to set up a newsreader. Just use your normal web browser. So new folks gravitate to these groups, the longtime Usenet folks are dying out and not being replaced. I think the web based discussion groups are a far bigger threat to the music industry than Usenet. |
Riaa trying to take down the usenet. and yes it's on topic this is a newsgroup
On Oct 17, 4:33 pm, Rex wrote:
Brent wrote: On Oct 16, 10:39 pm, " wrote: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-979...ss&subj=news&t... They're actually after binaries but they're going after a provider. Karl The thing is RIAA does have a case against usenet.com because the provider is using ALT Binaries and copyrighted material as a selling point for the service. Riaa Could likely sink usenet.com but not the hundreds of other usenet providers RIAA and MPAA and all those guys havent managed to shut down youtube. and the distributed nature of usenet protects it as well. If memory serves a provider allowing its users to post needs to put in place a process for removing "inappropriate" material once it has been flagged as copyrighted. but the onus is on the COPYRIGHT HOLDER to flag the material as violating. in theory all the servers would need a process to remove inappropriate files when contacted by riaa. I believe that it already exists? but riaa would need to send EVERY provider on usenet a daily or weekly email asking them to remove the following files it really isnt a big deal and RIAA is way behind the times if they are only griping about anyone in usenet now Binary downloads in newsgroups is a little difficult for a lot of people. RIAA doesn't need to take down Usenet- it is going down by itself. For a couple of years many ISPs no longer carry or support it. Google provided a web interface, but still many old time groups are slowly dying away. I have noticed a lot of problems lately with the Google Groups interface, so it looks like even Google is not doing a great job with it. The reason I have heard is that there are too many new web based discussion groups. They are far easier to set up- you don't need to set up a newsreader. Just use your normal web browser. So new folks gravitate to these groups, the longtime Usenet folks are dying out and not being replaced. I think the web based discussion groups are a far bigger threat to the music industry than Usenet. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter