sbw  04-08-2003
12:43 PM ET (US)
|
Thanks, Cory, for the pointer to an analysis of the RIAA complaint. The analysis concludes that the complaint of contributory infringement will be hard to prove.
The analysis explicitly does not consider the direct infringement also alleged, because it's "less legally interesting." If the defendendants did illegally share files themselves, that's just a matter of "fact finding."
I understand much better now why reasonable people should find RIAA's complaint objectionable. I only hope that the claims of direct infringement will also be found false, because operators of DMCA-protected search engines would look much less virtuous if it turns out they were infringing directly, too.
|
sbw 04-06-2003
03:11 PM ET (US)
|
Obviously, wiser heads than me see why RIAA's suit is an example of their extremism, as Professor Lessig calls it.
But I'm still trying to understand how this is not a straightforward infringement case that doesn't rest on "Bad Law" like DMCA.
Lessig goes on to propose a system of compulsory licensing that would, yes, make sharing legal while benefitting artists and our society. But the fact remains that under current law, even pre-DMCA law, infringing is illegal. So how is this action extremism?
I want to be clear: I assume I'm wrong here. I think Cory and Lessig ARE actually smarter than me. I really do want to understand.
|
Kid British 04-04-2003
07:05 PM ET (US)
|
Is the name "Napster" still a registered trademark? Can they use "napster" as an adjective like that?
|
sbw 04-04-2003
02:56 PM ET (US)
|
Re: /m7
Okay, fair enough. But the RIAA release seems to say otherwise:
"... each of the accused operators has seeded his services with ... copyrighted works. And ... have publicly bragged about it."
I haven't read the complaint, but it sure sounds like they're going after infringers, not just network operators.
|
Cory Doctorow 04-04-2003
02:43 PM ET (US)
|
These kids aren't being charged with infringement -- they're being charged with *abetting* the infringmeent by running hte networks.
|
sbw 04-04-2003
02:32 PM ET (US)
|
Wait, isn't pursuing actual infringers the right way?
Rather than, say, lobbying for laws that abolish fair use or mandate crippled technology?
Sure, RIAA won't get any money from students and wouldn't send any of the money to artists if they did. That's what we should be fighting.
I don't think fair use advocates do our cause any good when we seem to say that RIAA should just tolerate infringement.
|
__x 04-04-2003
02:20 PM ET (US)
|
Instead of spending those "limited resources" on lawsuits it would seem to me more prudent to pay the students as reps for thier boogie jive music.
|
JohnR 04-04-2003
10:29 AM ET (US)
|
Must've been a problem between me and them. I can get to them fine, now, too. Thanks for checking.
|
Wiley Wiggins 04-04-2003
10:06 AM ET (US)
|
Shocking, why would anyone want to attack the RIAA website. They have our best interests at heart, plus they're downright huggable.
|
Cory Doctorow 04-04-2003
09:55 AM ET (US)
|
I cna reach it find. Both .org and .com point to the same server.
|
JohnR 04-04-2003
09:49 AM ET (US)
|
Is that link right, Cory? When I search RIAA, Google comes up with www.riaa.org, but in fact I can't seem to reach the server whether I use .com or .org. Maybe they got hacked again.
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
529
(Unique:
421
) / Subscribers:
2 | What's this?
