If there were a fine, even a small one, say $25 for invalid notices (paid to the real owner, perhaps a 50/50 split with google/youtube/etc) they'd start clearing these lists. If we bumped it up to the $750,000 they think their content is worth, I guarantee those lists would be checked and re-checked.
Basically, as long as mistakes are painless there is no reason for them to correct them. Google oughta charge 'em. Wouldn't need a court order or new law or anything. Just bill 'em for invalid notices.
Let's see - no copyright infringement, no theft. He has defrauded SOMEONE, or so they tell us. No.. that's not right he DIDN'T defraud anyone. He conspired (with whom?) to defraud someone.
I may just be old-fashioned or simple-minded, but in my day when you practice fraud on someone you trick them out of their money. For example, if I came up to you and said "Hi, I'm priest and I'm collecting for the poor orphans" and you give me money, but I'm NOT a priest and I spend it on beer you've been defrauded!
If I sit down with a friend and plan to get money from you that way, I have conspired to defraud you.
Who, exactly got defrauded out of what? Where was the deception? What was the valuable thing he got?
It seems to me that he's a criminal that's committed no crime.
That's the key point. On this issue the RIAA and the MPAA have already won. Megaupload is off the net and other lockers have changed/degraded their service or just plain closed.
I think, at this point, the MAFIAA and their puppets in the DOJ don't CARE whether Kim Dotcom wins, loses, comes to America or heads off to Antarctica. They DO want to scare him, to burn thru his resources (or lock 'em up where he can't get them.) His value to them is as scarecrow.
And on that issue; the battle is over and the bad guys won.
The only way the bad guys lose is if Megaupload rises from the dead. If he manages to get back online AND gets a judgement against his persecutors then he becomes a hero to the other lockers and a trailblazer in 'how to profit from getting arrested'. If he just gets out clean, then the chilling effect on other business will still exist.
I expect this won't stop cyberlockers from starting up. It will just stop 'em from offering their services to the US.
The CEO of HBO made a valid point. At the moment, they do not have a user-level customer service/tech support area. I am a Support Tech for an ISP and I guarantee they would get calls.
That would be a big call center, lots of people, lots of phone lines, etc. A not inconsiderable expense. Add that to the loss of income from cable and the (smaller, probably) income from streaming and I don't know if I'd make a different decision right now either.
On the other hand, tossing the episodes to iTunes, a year after they show, could bring in a few bucks without much real cost.
Let's face it: this is a transitional time and some companies will be ahead of the curve, and some will be behind. Being too far ahead will put you out of business just as surely as being too far behind.
I think I'm just really glad it isn't my decision.
Just for the record, at one time, the US Constitution WAS a Governmental Disruptive Technology. Heck, it was Version 2.x (how do you count the Bill of Rights? ) as the Articles of the Confederacy was version 1.
And remember how much fuss-and-bother there was getting ver 1 installed?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
If I swear out a complaint about my neighbor being a drug dealer or bank robber or some other criminal, and the police arrest him, he can sue me for defamation of character.
Isn't there anything similar here? SOMEBODY, somewhere at the RIAA had to be the one to say "They did an awful thing officer, lock 'em up!". That person is liable for their actions.
Yes, I know it will be a low-level peon. Yes, I know s/he was 'just following orders'. But it might make it a little harder to hire peons if a side effect to employment is a long, painful, expensive lawsuit.
Bottom line - the RIAA lied, dajaz1 business and reputation got hurt as a consequence. Isn't that actionable?
Senator Smith and Minister Jones can download movies day and night and they will not get cut off. They are INSIDE. We are OUTSIDE. The RIAA and the MPAA for all the arrogance will not bitch-slap a senator.
The Senator (Minister, etc) needs to be able to say, with a straight face, "I have never been kicked off the net for infringement. It's not a problem, just pay for your music and movies!"
You think ISPs and the MPAA don't understand this game? If the Senators, et al, got kicked off for downloads they would change the law.
You don't think the teams in conflict are Creators and Consumers, do you? Heck, we're all on the same team. Creators want to create and get paid for it, Consumers want to consume and support the creators. The conflict is between the powerFUL and the powerLESS. Note: the RIAA, the MPAA and the Senate are ON THE SAME TEAM.
No, I'm not suggesting back room deals or vast conspiracies. They are simply all from the same socio-economic class. The rest of aren't. It really is that simple.
Both Richard and out_of_the_blue seem convinced their statements are correct, yet they are in direct opposition. Can anyone offer any evidence to support either theory? A city that experimented with "no limits" cab driving?
Are there other industries with low entry requirements and high incentives that could be used as an example?
What about a city where unlicensed cabs are commonplace, do they push the price down until cab drivers are forced to work at McDonalds?
I want Richard to be right. I THINK Richard is right. Capitolism is based on the idea that Richard is right. Can we prove Richard is right?
This is post-20th century america. We no longer concern ourselves with such petty issues as 'the law'. You simply let the rich and powerful (after all if they weren't smarter than you and me, they wouldn't be rich and powerful, right?) do things as they like.
To make the history books and newspapers look better, we'll keep the two-ring circus called congress in session and occasionally throw a big party called an election.
Really, isn't is simpler to just let the king...er..CEO...er PRESIDENT do what he wants?
But my bank trusts my ATM, and I trust it because it generates a paper receipt. If I deposit a check and the bank says I didn't, I can bring in the receipt and say, "yes, I did". If they refuse to honor it, I can call the cops, or the newspapers or just tell everyone I know.
I know that.
The bank knows that.
The ATM company knows that. (they also know that the bank will make their lives difficult, if I make the bank's life difficult.)
So the ATM folks make verifiable ATMs that work right. I trust the bank and the bank trusts me. Mostly.
It ain't perfect, but it's pretty good.
Some of the voting machines we're using in this election would have to be improved a lot to make it up to 'unacceptable'.
I've finally become convinced the record company execs AREN'T that brain-dead. They may not completely "get the internet" but Napster, and itunes and allofmp3.com etc are too loud to ignore. They must see the writing on the wall.
When the dust clears, there won't be record companies or record company execs. These guys are simply trying to squeeze the last drops of money out of the system. They'll keep suing customers (which they figure they are going to loose, anyway) until it stops working. Then they'll sue the artists (who are jumping ship like rats from a doomed ship). Heck, they'll probably sue Walmart before the show is over.
That's the real problem. For them, the show is ALMOST over. It's sad to see 'em thrash around like that.
If the RIAA was a horse, I'd shoot it.
Just my 2 cents, wait 20 years and see if I was right.
The RIAA is just another pre-digital dinosaur. Their business model is failing, fast. They see the money going away and decided to try to suck the last dollar out of the current model. It's a short-term problem.
As the indie bands and web sites grow, they take market share away from the RIAA. At the moment, artists still like the idea of 'getting signed'. In a few years, nobody will care if some record company exec likes you or not. It will be important to get good numbers on some web site that measures downloads. Or to get good reviews. Or something like that.
In the meantime, the RIAA is thrashing around, stepping on people, suing them, and generally acting like a T-Rex with the blind-staggers. Sooner or later, they will pass into history.
Of course, the SMART execs will be gone before then.
Watch for the execs to jump ship.. That will be the clue that the RIAA lables are just about gone.
just my 2 cents,
take it for what it's worth.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dave Reed.
It's simple, really.
If there were a fine, even a small one, say $25 for invalid notices (paid to the real owner, perhaps a 50/50 split with google/youtube/etc) they'd start clearing these lists. If we bumped it up to the $750,000 they think their content is worth, I guarantee those lists would be checked and re-checked.
Basically, as long as mistakes are painless there is no reason for them to correct them. Google oughta charge 'em. Wouldn't need a court order or new law or anything. Just bill 'em for invalid notices.
Re: Criminal got caught
Interesting?
Let's see - no copyright infringement, no theft. He has defrauded SOMEONE, or so they tell us. No.. that's not right he DIDN'T defraud anyone. He conspired (with whom?) to defraud someone.
I may just be old-fashioned or simple-minded, but in my day when you practice fraud on someone you trick them out of their money. For example, if I came up to you and said "Hi, I'm priest and I'm collecting for the poor orphans" and you give me money, but I'm NOT a priest and I spend it on beer you've been defrauded!
If I sit down with a friend and plan to get money from you that way, I have conspired to defraud you.
Who, exactly got defrauded out of what? Where was the deception? What was the valuable thing he got?
It seems to me that he's a criminal that's committed no crime.
Re: Re: Re: Closing Megaupload
That's the key point. On this issue the RIAA and the MPAA have already won. Megaupload is off the net and other lockers have changed/degraded their service or just plain closed.
I think, at this point, the MAFIAA and their puppets in the DOJ don't CARE whether Kim Dotcom wins, loses, comes to America or heads off to Antarctica. They DO want to scare him, to burn thru his resources (or lock 'em up where he can't get them.) His value to them is as scarecrow.
And on that issue; the battle is over and the bad guys won.
The only way the bad guys lose is if Megaupload rises from the dead. If he manages to get back online AND gets a judgement against his persecutors then he becomes a hero to the other lockers and a trailblazer in 'how to profit from getting arrested'. If he just gets out clean, then the chilling effect on other business will still exist.
I expect this won't stop cyberlockers from starting up. It will just stop 'em from offering their services to the US.
don't forget Customer Service
The CEO of HBO made a valid point. At the moment, they do not have a user-level customer service/tech support area. I am a Support Tech for an ISP and I guarantee they would get calls.
That would be a big call center, lots of people, lots of phone lines, etc. A not inconsiderable expense. Add that to the loss of income from cable and the (smaller, probably) income from streaming and I don't know if I'd make a different decision right now either.
On the other hand, tossing the episodes to iTunes, a year after they show, could bring in a few bucks without much real cost.
Let's face it: this is a transitional time and some companies will be ahead of the curve, and some will be behind. Being too far ahead will put you out of business just as surely as being too far behind.
I think I'm just really glad it isn't my decision.
It's not about sales!
See.. It's not about "sales" - you freetards, always wanting things for free?..
Hmmm? that doesn't sound quite right.
It's really about piracy! These pirates are SO sneaky, they'll even PAY FOR an album to hide their piracy?.
Hmm?. That's not quite right either?
Think about the children!
Heading back to cave to work on this one?
Disruptive Technology
Just for the record, at one time, the US Constitution WAS a Governmental Disruptive Technology. Heck, it was Version 2.x (how do you count the Bill of Rights? ) as the Articles of the Confederacy was version 1.
And remember how much fuss-and-bother there was getting ver 1 installed?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
no legal remedies?
If I swear out a complaint about my neighbor being a drug dealer or bank robber or some other criminal, and the police arrest him, he can sue me for defamation of character.
Isn't there anything similar here? SOMEBODY, somewhere at the RIAA had to be the one to say "They did an awful thing officer, lock 'em up!". That person is liable for their actions.
Yes, I know it will be a low-level peon. Yes, I know s/he was 'just following orders'. But it might make it a little harder to hire peons if a side effect to employment is a long, painful, expensive lawsuit.
Bottom line - the RIAA lied, dajaz1 business and reputation got hurt as a consequence. Isn't that actionable?
It's a class action suit
If this flies, UMG is in a world of hurt. 2 Billion dollars? Do they HAVE $2B?
Apple? Google? Wanna buy a music library, cheap? I got a feeling there might just be a fire sale sometime soon.
I laugh!
Senator Smith and Minister Jones can download movies day and night and they will not get cut off. They are INSIDE. We are OUTSIDE. The RIAA and the MPAA for all the arrogance will not bitch-slap a senator.
The Senator (Minister, etc) needs to be able to say, with a straight face, "I have never been kicked off the net for infringement. It's not a problem, just pay for your music and movies!"
You think ISPs and the MPAA don't understand this game? If the Senators, et al, got kicked off for downloads they would change the law.
You don't think the teams in conflict are Creators and Consumers, do you? Heck, we're all on the same team. Creators want to create and get paid for it, Consumers want to consume and support the creators. The conflict is between the powerFUL and the powerLESS. Note: the RIAA, the MPAA and the Senate are ON THE SAME TEAM.
No, I'm not suggesting back room deals or vast conspiracies. They are simply all from the same socio-economic class. The rest of aren't. It really is that simple.
Re: Supply and Deman isn't straight-forward.
Both Richard and out_of_the_blue seem convinced their statements are correct, yet they are in direct opposition. Can anyone offer any evidence to support either theory? A city that experimented with "no limits" cab driving?
Are there other industries with low entry requirements and high incentives that could be used as an example?
What about a city where unlicensed cabs are commonplace, do they push the price down until cab drivers are forced to work at McDonalds?
I want Richard to be right. I THINK Richard is right. Capitolism is based on the idea that Richard is right. Can we prove Richard is right?
How Naive
This is post-20th century america. We no longer concern ourselves with such petty issues as 'the law'. You simply let the rich and powerful (after all if they weren't smarter than you and me, they wouldn't be rich and powerful, right?) do things as they like.
To make the history books and newspapers look better, we'll keep the two-ring circus called congress in session and occasionally throw a big party called an election.
Really, isn't is simpler to just let the king...er..CEO...er PRESIDENT do what he wants?
/end sarcasm
Short Sighted = Out Of Business
It's not a problem. Not in the long term, anyway. The business that treat customers like an inconvenience will soon find that they have no problem.
No customers, no inconvenience.
Don't let me stop you from railing and ranting, though. Cafe owners need to know WHY everyone is at the coffee shop across the street.
Geren, you're right.
But my bank trusts my ATM, and I trust it because it generates a paper receipt. If I deposit a check and the bank says I didn't, I can bring in the receipt and say, "yes, I did". If they refuse to honor it, I can call the cops, or the newspapers or just tell everyone I know.
I know that.
The bank knows that.
The ATM company knows that. (they also know that the bank will make their lives difficult, if I make the bank's life difficult.)
So the ATM folks make verifiable ATMs that work right. I trust the bank and the bank trusts me. Mostly.
It ain't perfect, but it's pretty good.
Some of the voting machines we're using in this election would have to be improved a lot to make it up to 'unacceptable'.
That's my two cents, anyway.
Re: Who Cares
It *IS* old news.
And that's the scary part.
milking a dead cow
I've finally become convinced the record company execs AREN'T that brain-dead. They may not completely "get the internet" but Napster, and itunes and allofmp3.com etc are too loud to ignore. They must see the writing on the wall.
When the dust clears, there won't be record companies or record company execs. These guys are simply trying to squeeze the last drops of money out of the system. They'll keep suing customers (which they figure they are going to loose, anyway) until it stops working. Then they'll sue the artists (who are jumping ship like rats from a doomed ship). Heck, they'll probably sue Walmart before the show is over.
That's the real problem. For them, the show is ALMOST over. It's sad to see 'em thrash around like that.
If the RIAA was a horse, I'd shoot it.
Just my 2 cents, wait 20 years and see if I was right.
Just dinosaurs thrashing around
The RIAA is just another pre-digital dinosaur. Their business model is failing, fast. They see the money going away and decided to try to suck the last dollar out of the current model. It's a short-term problem.
As the indie bands and web sites grow, they take market share away from the RIAA. At the moment, artists still like the idea of 'getting signed'. In a few years, nobody will care if some record company exec likes you or not. It will be important to get good numbers on some web site that measures downloads. Or to get good reviews. Or something like that.
In the meantime, the RIAA is thrashing around, stepping on people, suing them, and generally acting like a T-Rex with the blind-staggers. Sooner or later, they will pass into history.
Of course, the SMART execs will be gone before then.
Watch for the execs to jump ship.. That will be the clue that the RIAA lables are just about gone.
just my 2 cents,
take it for what it's worth.