It seems that you think the search engine was designed for swapping
music and that people are just pretending that it had other uses.

Actually it was designed to search the campus for shared files
in Windows shares. I don’t think the major use was for music sharing.
The search engine certainly wasn’t specifically designed for such
purposes.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

And anyway, about the idea of liability for service providers,
would you support lawsuits against the University for providing
networks for sharing files? Against the manufactures of the switches
and routers that run that network? Do you see the problem with the
mafIAA’s idea of contributory infringement?

To clarify: I did not mean to say that technology should dictate EVERYTHING about laws that are a response to technology, just that changes in technology will obviously necessitate changes in these types of laws.

Safety and maintaining order are two universal reasons for laws about transportation, but the exact laws themselves must take the nature of the machine into account; we don’t regulate cars the way we do planes, and vice versa. Likewise, while the purpose of copyrights exists independently of changes in technology, the need to enact laws to preserve this purpose IS a direct result of the technology (if memory serves correctly, copyrights followed the invention of the printing press). The technology involved will therefore, in many ways, dictate the WAY in which that purpose is preserved.

This is after all, what the media companies themselves have been asking for, and gotten: new laws in reaction to new technology. The problem is that they, and congress, have used these laws to maintain the way in which “intellectual property” is defined (and their money is made), rather than realising that new laws are needed because new technology changes the very definition of what we consider to be “IP.”

It is easy to understand that being able to make copies of pictures as easily as one can make copies of books means that photography needs to be copyrightable. What people have a harder time with is the way that computers change the nature of copies themselves, most notabley blurring the line between creator/publisher/audience, thus changing the balance between the rights of the copyright holder and the user.

“…why not let firms choose whether to create products for your technologies, or the old ones, rather than forcing everyone to be part of the new technology?”

I’m not trying to force anyone to do anything (except maybe label their products accurately). I’m just pointing out the stupidity of people that, to paraphrase the best graduation speech I’ve ever heard, put a rat in a cage, put food outside of the cage, and then pretend to be shocked when the rat tries to get out.

The media industry keeps pointing to P2P as the reasons for their failing sales; they keep telling congress that they are losing money because I’m a thief. They either don’t see or don’t care that the reason I’ve bought a total of maybe three CDs in the past two years isn’t because I’ve been stealing it instead (I haven’t) it’s because I just don’t like their products or the price they’re selling them at.

They are welcome to keep selling their old products; they can even disable their old products so they won’t work with new third party technology – as long as they are up front about it, but why, exactly, do they feel that its ok to blame me when they realise that their old product isn’t as popular as it was when it was new?

“Why not some middle ground…we might say that new technologies need to show some balance”

mini-rant
Why, when I disagree with someone, do they always bring out the “compromise” trump card? Why must they always phrase it as if they expect me to be unreasonable and disagree with them? Is there something about the way I phrase things that makes them think that I am immune to the idea?
mini-rant end

Again, to clarify:

When I said this:

“new technology dictates that the products being offered change, and that laws should change accordingly”

I meant this:

the MARKET dictates that products being offered change, and policies that affect the market should acknowledge that. We should also change the laws to accomodate new technology when needed, and its usually needed when you are dealing with technology regulating laws like coprights.

Did you think I thought we should use LAWS to make RIAA members start selling MP3s (or whatever new format comes up)?

On a more positive note…I get DSL soon, which means that I will soon be making up for two dry music years by splurging at the Apple Music store. Woohoo!

See my blog entry Jesse Jordan, RIAA, and direct copyright infringement

I’d imagine most of the strategy is based on the idea that if they let some punk kids get away with piracy now, those kids grow up to be the next napster. Fine. But when the technology is fundamentally hampered by only working on RPI’s campus LAN, then it CAN’T grow up to be the next napster.

Presumably, even with an out-of-court settlement, the RIAA’s costs were far above the 12 thousand they got in return. Perhaps the plan is something as sinister as to strike the fear of god (or the RIAA) into potential pirates, but that seems a bit simplistic.

Pretty much the best I can come up with is that the RIAA truly feels piracy is responsible for declining sales and that even the small fish are dangerous. But this explanation just doesn’t really satisfy me. Anyone have any comments?

Thanks.

The RIAA has won most of its actions – Napster, Aimster. It did have one low-level loss, Streamcast/Grokster. But it’s not as if they’ve been losing regularly, with no “alternative” but to start beating-up, out of frustrated desperation, on college students who are very arguably NOT violating the relevant law.

I’m generally suspicious of anyone proposing a deal where neither of the deal parties have the slightest interest in it. Usually the proposer ends up telling everyone else what a great idea they have, overlooking the detail that nobody else wants it (no offense intended).

It’s not true that there’s nothing Sony could have done to
control allegedly infringing home recording. In fact, the
plaintiffs in Sony advocated a technological approach
in which VCRs would be built to comply with directions embedded by
copyright holders. My link includes a quotation from Lardner’s
Fast Forward on this subject. I’ve described it as a
precursor to the current MPAA broadcast flag proposal.

While most people used it for things like rental agreements I know one person who won several thousand in small claims court; and all the expenses were covered by the plan.

On another note, it is cases like these that are why pro bono work exists. If you happen to be a first rate attorney, maybe these donations could cover some of your costs as well. Nothing like a high profile case to earn a reputation . . .

The “had no choice” is just the idea that RIAA was running out of people to hold accountable. They tried Aimster/Napster first. But as that became unworkable thanks to the interpretation of Sony discussed above, RIAA had no one left to sue but some randomly selected person like Jesse.

I am on your side about this being a rotten position for someone like you to be in. I have been pushing for a different approach where RIAA gets to sue Aimster — and gets meaningful relief in terms of some help defending and transitioning copyright as we move into these new technologies — but then, in exchange, RIAA is not allowed to sue people like Jesse and you.

Wouldn’t that make more sense? Napster and Aimster have the resources, the public attention, and so on to fight this battle. They should not get to escape on a mere wink and a nudge.