<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on who is to blame -- riaa



Begin forwarded message:

From: John Bartas <jbartas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 19, 2006 1:03:51 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 19, 2006 11:38:34 AM EDT
To: Steve Lamont <spl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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