more on who is to blame -- riaa

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Bartas <jbartas () speakeasy net>
Date: August 19, 2006 1:03:51 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on who is to blame -- riaa

Dave: For IP, if you will.

   Keep in mind that organizations like the RIAA have spent millions  
of dollars and many decades progressively hijacking the copyright  
laws. The Founding Fathers wisely set the duration of U.S. copyrights  
to 15 years. The music and movie vendors, via corrupt politicians,  
have now bloated that up to a century. Now they're attacking our fair  
use rights via the DMCA and broadcast flags.

   The original intent of copyright law was to reward the people who  
create copyrightable works - music, movies, books, software. I make  
my living doing this, and 15 years is more than enough time for me to  
get my reward. Boosting it to 100 years does not make me (or any  
other creator) work any harder. Just ask your favorite creator.

   So even if the RIAA did stick to legitimate legal channels, their  
conduct is still reprehensible.

-JB-


David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Edward Almasy <ealmasy () axisdata com>
> Date: August 19, 2006 11:38:34 AM EDT
> To: Steve Lamont <spl () ncmir ucsd edu>
> Cc: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on who is to blame -- riaa
>
> On Aug 19, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Steve Lamont wrote:
>
> > Reprehensible conduct?  Those are pretty strong words.
> >
> > All I see are companies defending their own legal property rights,
> > just like a homeowner might defend their own property rights  
> > against a
> > neighbor taking a chunk of their land.
>
>
>    The reprehensible conduct isn't the RIAA and
>    company going through legal channels to defend
>    their property rights;  it's the RIAA using their
>    size and bankroll to intimidate people into
>    capitulating to their demands without a legal fight.
>
>    Almost all of the people the RIAA has gone after
>    have never had their day in court to test whether
>    the rule of law really is on the RIAA's side
>    in their case, because they can't afford the legal
>    costs to do so.  While it could be argued that the
>    RIAA is still following the letter of the law in
>    flexing their legal muscle, I think it's clear in
>    most cases that their approach is rendering the
>    spirit of the law moot.
>
>    Ed
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as jbartas () speakeasy net
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/