mdlbear | Entries tagged with riaa

Some good news, for once, from the front lines of the Intellectual "Property" wars:

Techdirt: Big Guns Come Out In Effort To Show RIAA's Lawsuits Are Unconstitutional.

In the past, it's been noted that the RIAA has curiously avoided suing any Harvard students, with one of the theories being that Harvard had made it quite clear to the RIAA that it would fight back hard. And, with Harvard law school at its disposal, and various professors there indicating that they had serious legal problems with the RIAA's strategy, the RIAA simply decided to ignore any file sharing going on at that prestigious university.

However, for RIAA critic and well known law professor, Charles Nesson, waiting around for the RIAA to sue someone at Harvard was getting boring, so he went out and found a case to participate in. Along with two third year law students, Nesson has hit back hard on the RIAA's efforts in a court filing, where it's noted that the very basis for many of the RIAA's lawsuits is very likely unconstitutional.

Groklaw: The Bilski Decision Is In: Buh-Bye [Most] Business Methods Patents - As text & updated 3Xs

Pop some champagne! The Appeals Court decision is in on Bilski: I'm still reading it, but on first quick reading, one thing is clear: it's a win! Eligible patent matter just got smaller. Here's a snip from the opening:

Some additional analysis on Techdirt:

I don't say this often, but it looks like the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) -- or "the patent court" -- got a big one mostly right. In the rehearing of the Bilski case concerning the patentability of software and business method patents, CAFC just came out with its ruling that will significantly limit software and business method patents, bringing the rules way back towards what they were years ago, and effectively rolling back some of the earlier, dreadful, CAFC decisions that opened the barn doors towards tons and tons of software and business method patents.

This news cheers me greatly, though not enough to make up for the jump in the interest rate on my home equity line of credit. Ouch!

(7:35 locked in a significantly lower interest rate than the one I saw on the web and panicked over. May have been a bit of an overreaction, but I'm glad I did it anyway. I'd been putting it off for too long.)

Mood: indescribable
Location: ssh from 95025

A couple of days ago, one of my CD customers asked me to confirm that it was OK for him to have put one of my tracks on a mix CD that he'd sent to 20 friends for Christmas. I assured him that it was perfectly OK, and told him, "fair use is free advertising." And besides, it's not even fair use, but explicitly authorized under the Creative Commons attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license , extracts of which are actually printed inside the jewel case.

It has come to my attention that the RIAA is now trying to claim that ripping songs from a CD and putting them on your hard drive is "unauthorized copying" and strongly imply that it's illegal. Here's another article. filkertom mentions it in this post -- he apparently got a similar query in email from a fan. He replied, in part,

I think the RIAA is full of shit on this. It's yet another avenue they're trying to close, another way they're treating customers like criminals.

My position is very simple: If you got the music from me (or an authorized dealer, e.g., Bill & Gretchen, Juanita, CD Baby, one of the digital distro sites that carry a few albums) legally, for your own use, you can do what you want.

I ask that you do not copy them and pass 'em around to people [...]. I insist that you do not copy them and sell them to people. I do not allow you to pass off my work as yours, or to sample it without permission for profit.

I go a little farther, because 20 friends with a copy of High Barratry on a mix CD are 20 more people who have my name and can easily figure out where they can buy my CD.

It's particularly appropriate that the song in question is about SCO, another company that had the brilliant idea of suing their customers when their business model started failing because of competition from free goods on the Internet. They're currently in Chapter 11, and their stock is now worth about a dime a share, on a good day. It's an open question whether they'll make it to 2009.

Computerworld's IT Blogwatch posting yesterday points to a prediction that the RIAA won't make it to 2009, either. BoingBoing points out that, like SCO (which used to be a Linux distributer called Caldera), the RIAA has changed its tune about the legality of fair-use copies. In any case, SCO and the RIAA appear to be headed down the same road, in matching handbaskets.

I have an idea: let's help. If you ever get a letter from the RIAA claiming that making personal copies of my CD, Coffee, Computers, and Song, is "unauthorized" or "illegal", send me a copy. Because I would just love an excuse to sue their ass for product disparagement, slander of title, unfair business practices, barratry, and anything else a clever lawyer can cook up.

Mood: defiant

Let's start with the links:

Major Canadian artists reject suing fans and crippling CDs (at BoingBoing, pointing to the Canadian Music Creators Coalition:

1. Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
2. Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
3. Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists

Consumer Electronics Association ad campaign slams RIAA, again at BoingBoing, pointing to this page at the EFF. You really have to see the image to appreciate it.

Finally, two LJ articles, here (tigertoy) and here (billroper).

I'll probably throw my own hat into the conversational ring at some point. And don't even get me started on software patents.

Mood: thoughtful

The Mandelbear's Musings

Entries tagged with riaa

Profile

Page Summary

Active Entries

Expand Cut Tags

IP Wars: news from the front

Go ahead, make my day!

Random links about copyright

Links

Syndicate

Style Credit