RSS
Twitter
Recording Industry Apparently The New Master Of The German Police
from the we-are-in-charge-now dept
The IFPI, the international equivalent of the RIAA, has announced that German police have charged 3,500 eDonkey users with criminal copyright infringement for uploading files on the network, a charge for which they face the potential of five years in jail. It probably shouldn't be too surprising that the group has gotten the police to do its dirty work, since German lawmakers don't appear to be too different to their US counterparts in giving the entertainment industry exactly what it wants, but it is a little surprising to see the head of the IFPI using the terms "we" and "our" to describe the actions, giving the impression that he's also the spokesperson for the German police. While the RIAA's run around with its make-believe police force, why should the IFPI bother when it can get the German police -- who evidently have nothing better going on, like fighting actual crime, rather than protecting outdated business models -- to do it for them?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
fire up the ovens!
first!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Nazis
There, I said it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Question about site title
Hi, I'm curious as to the title in the banner image, which reads: "Techdirt: a free service from Techdirt Corporate Intelligence"
The use of the words "free service" suggests that you are doing people a huge favor that they should feel lucky not to be charged for. I have to say that sounds quite odd in light of the fact that you are basically just repurposing other sites content and adding some editorial opinion.
Also, the fact that you call it a free service suggests that it might not always be free -- are there any plans to eventually charge for the "free service"?
Thanks
Dave
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Question about site title
Techdirt charges for their corporate edition, the "free service" is one of the ways they advertise to nonsubscribers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Question about site title
how about the service of digging up revelant links to a current topic, giving you access to information you might have missed or forgotten, since most people deal with so much in a day.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Question about site title
Does anyone actually subscribe? I mean, no offense to the site owners, but most of the links are from mainstream sites like news.com that a 10 year old could compile in about 5 minutes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Back on topic!
Zieg Heil! Another victory for the Reich!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
...like actually fight crime?
Umm. Am I the only who thinks that stealing is already illegal? While I may dislike how the record companies handle things, this article really should read something like this: Pressure from IFPI causes police to crack down on large crime ring.
Think of what the newspaper Headlines would be if the Police busted a ring of 3,500 criminals in the real world. Just because something happens behind the computer doesn't make it any less illegal than breaking into a record store and stealing the cd's.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ...like actually fight crime?
"Just because something happens behind the computer doesn't make it any less illegal than breaking into a record store and stealing the cd's."
Except in the case of downloading/uploading files, no one looses anything. Everyone gains the data. The prolem is the idea that the RIAA is losing sales because of this, but the real reason they are losing sales is due to their shitty business practices and shitty products. File sharing is just their scapegoat.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Question about site title
Does anyone actually subscribe? I mean, no offense to the site owners, but most of the links are from mainstream sites like news.com that a 10 year old could compile in about 5 minutes.
Heh. Yes, we've got lots of subscribers and the business has been growing rapidly, but thanks for your concern.
A few points on this:
1. Our customers subscribe not for "links" but our ability to find what's important *and* to analyze the stories in terms of how they impact the customers directly. We're an analyst firm, that provides customized daily analysis for our clients.
2. What we post to the front page is quite different than what we write for our clients -- which is very targeted to how the news impacts them specifically. Also, if you look at the actual service page, you'll note we provide a lot more, including tools for managing the information and analysis.
3. Considering how happy our customers are with the service, it seems that what we do is a bit more advanced than what a 10-year-old could do in about five minutes. Otherwise, why would they hire us and keep renewing their contracts? They find value in the analysis.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question about site title
Well said.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Thanks Robbinsjr
Robbinsjr, thanks for having my back. My RSS feed provides just as much -- and probably a lot more -- insight as this blog. Just my opinion!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
value of Techdirt
"They find value in the analysis."
Human filtered aggregation of topical material is valuable in itself.
It's silly to pretend an RSS filter, even a really intelligent NLP parsing expert system could match the application of a human editor. Most RSS filters are just keyword matchers. Look at how badly spam filters still fail. Less chaff than Digg, less dupes than Slashdot, more focus on the technology stuff. Works for me.
Now, about those pesky Nazis - privoxy, Ants, Tor, nuff said.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: ...like actually fight crime?
"Except in the case of downloading/uploading files, no one looses anything. Everyone gains the data."
The matter of how one transports stolen property doesn't matter, it's still theft.
Stealing a car and using it yourself is just as illegal as stealing a car and having it shipped overseas via boat, or via air.
Stealing a CD from a factory and selling it is illegal. Stealing the CD from a record store is also illegal. Why should stealing the same CD from the internet be legal when the other forms of theft are illegal?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: ...like actually fight crime?
The matter of how one transports stolen property doesn't matter, it's still theft.
You've misunderstood. It's not about transport, but whether or not anything is missing. If something is stolen, it means something is gone. In this case, nothing is gone... so it's not stolen.
That doesn't mean it doesn't break copyright laws -- but it's not stolen.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...like actually fight crime?
Supreme Court has actually catagorically stated that copyright infringement is not theft...... thats how you got the NET Act, which has been used what ?six times?
copyright law is not the same as real property law; it is a limited monopoly right which has acceptions like fair use, first doctrine, idea/expression dicotomy and (ha ha ha)limited times....
I thoroughly agree with the sense of this article - it takes something like 5,000 downloads to displace one sale - they should get on with the real crime like domestic violence and child abuse - when they have that under control then let them help out the mass media corporations, until then, the police are meant to be serving the people...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Do the **AA trolls just watch this site like a hawk, or is it just a bunch of Morons who think that "Sharing" is equal to "Stealing". Or, maybe it's just a bunch of freaks playing Devil's Advocate to stir up the pot.
Whatever, Copyright Infringement is against the law, but it is NOT stealing!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I was the one who posted up above.
While the RIAA, and lawyers, may have to say that "Sharing" is not stealing. I don't. I work for no music company, no government, etc. To me the morality of it makes it stealing.
You are purposely taking something that doesn't belong to you. You didn't buy the song even though you know that is what you are suppose to do. To me that is STEALING. You can call it "borrowing" or "Sharing" or anything else you want, it's still stealing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ...like actually fight crime?
Except it isn't stealing no matter how many times industry trolls try to say it is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Real morality requires truthfulness.
Nope, it is still there.
I know no such thing.
Shouting won't make you right.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Inside the RIAA: "Let's brainstorm here, guys, is there any way we can just kill teenagers who download music?"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment