Oregon AG stands up to RIAA bullying
CB
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄ƷDer Millionendorf- Icrontian
For images, view on front page
Oregon's Attorney General has started asking some questions of the RIAA, citing 'undue burden' on some college students in the state.
Recently the RIAA sent subpoenas to 17 students at University of Oregon. As usual these Subpoenas claim that the RIAA has evidence of copyright infringement, and they are planning to hold the recipient financially responsible for the infringement.
The Attorney General, however, wants to know how exactly they got this evidence, since under Oregon law, one needs a license to 'conduct investigations' in Oregon, and the RIAA has no such license, meaning that if they do indeed have legally biding evidence, they may need legal help themselves.
The AG also wants to know exactly how much monetary damage these students have caused, and wants it broken down in a full report detailing exact losses and the time, date and cause of each lost penny.
Finally, the AG is not impressed with the subpoenas themselves, which seem to present the recipient with a flood of 'seemingly overwhelming evidence' while, in fact, not having solid evidence of anything. Which suggests that the subpoenas themselves are more scare-tactic than true legal concerns.
The RIAA's response to the motion essentially boils down the the age-old 'villain's argument': "You weren't a hero when I did it to others, why so suddenly concerned now?"
0
Comments
On one hand I think downloading music you don't pay for is stealing, just the same as if you slipped a cd inside your coat in a music store.
On the other hand I think the RIAA's tactics are shady and underhanded. On more than one occassion they have been guilty of going after the wrong person.
I'm 100% for what this AG is doing, as long as he follows the letter of the law for both sides.
Stealing by definition is "to deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use". Nothing was physically taken. That's why the RIAA sues instead of pressing criminal charges.
The RIAA in thier actions assume people who downloaded music, do it with the intent to resell. I personally don't know anybody that has but I do agree with law enforcement prosecuting people who do.
Just because people download something, doesn't mean they wanted to buy it.
So you think there is a difference beween downloading a song without paying for it, for you to listen to on your MP3 player, or walking into Best-Buy, slipping a CD with the same song into your coat and walking out. You didn't STEAL the CD for the plastic its made out of, you STOLE it for the music it contains.
1. Just because there is no physical asset, doesn't mean it isn't theft. If someone hacked into your bank account and took $500, would that be theft? Since the money wasn't a tangeable asset at that point, by your definition it wouldn't considered stealing, no different than a CD worth of songs stored on a computer, untill said songs were burned onto a CD, no crime has been commited, Right???
2. If you wrote the next blockbuster book, destined to rival the Harry Potter series in sales volume, but somebody STOLE it from you and put it up on the web to allow others to download it, therefore reducing the profits you would have made for your months/years of hard work, this wouldn't be stealing?
Saying since there is no physical asset, no crime was commited is a load of garbage people use to make them feel better about their actions.
The difference is that unless you found a way to copy those $500 instead of outright transferring, you deprived me (I love using that word. lol) of those $500.
Stole how? Unless the drafts were physically taken, I do believe that falls under copyright infringement, not theft.
Probably, but doesn't take away from the fact that it's the law. Technology is developed faster than lawmakers can make laws for it. You end up with judges trying to interpret laws in cases where they have no clue what is being talked about.
I must say again. In essence I do agree but I just feel like debating.
Aside from production, cd's have REAL COSTS. Digital files, once created (production costs) cost nothing to duplicate. Therefore digital content only has fixed costs and no variable costs to my knowlege. If I remember correctly all pirate materials account for ~$10 million of lost revenue. Now, assuming the multi billion dollar revenues of the record and movie industries, $10 million is piss in a bucket.
Furthermore, no one is being deprived of their property as nothing is actually being taken. It is merely being copied. If some person had a Porsche in his front yard and someone's neighbor walked over and made a copy of it, and drove off leaving the original would he be stealing the Porsche? I think not, sir.
It could be said that information has a natural tendency to be, or to want to be free. And unless the holder of that information can competently secure his information then the information cycle is just taking its natural steps. Creation, propagation, and then it is either archived or lost through the cracks. Information comes in many formats, books, newspaper, photos or pictures, and yes, even music.
Do I really need to change the key words to make it politically neutral?
So be it..
-drasnor
For sure.
China is basically xeroxing cars.. I think its quite funny.
-drasnor
yeah, me too! ........on the other hand I could mention that........... here in Canada they are planning the strictest and most banal/anal copyright bill at this very moment!..... it will be the most restrictive and prosecutable copyright law of the western world. Good work Mr Harper and the Conservative minority government...:sad2: