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

wrote:
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

Well, yes, and we can stop car thieves cold by digging 6-foot
deep trenches across all major streets, too. How about stopping
wire fraud by ripping out the phone wires, and stopping mail
fraud by firing all the postal employees? Hopefully, usenet.com
has good legal counsel. If they actually ARE holding a bunch of
copyrighted material in their newsgroup archives, then they do
have a liability. Proving they do NOT have such material is a
bit harder, but there probably are ways they could have their
archive audited. If they can show, by independent audit that
their archived do NOT contain more than an occasional infringing
file, then they have good grounds for a countersuit of malicious
prosecution. From what I hear on NPR, they are sure asking for
such a suit, and going after an outfit that might have the funds
to strike back should be very interesting.

They have been countersued by individuals who were misidentified
as file sharers. In some cases the accused didn't even HAVE a
computer. Try sharing MP3's on your FAX machine!

Jon

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.

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

"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

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.

"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

....
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

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

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/

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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