MAFIAA at it again - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

MAFIAA at it again

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby AussieDodger » Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:40 pm

Madison wrote:That's the thing though. You're giving something you don't own. You own the disk/MP3/record or whatever, but you do not own the rights to copy it and give it away. Can't do it with movies or video games either and those are the exact same things. Tavish is much better at explaining this part than I am though.


Well that's obviously what I have issue with, I don't think they should be able to police people giving stuff away to each other for no charge.
If I was buying from someone without authority then yeah that's bad.
But if they are going to let us have the technology to do it, and we are just sharing it around without $$$ involved, it should come under the tough titties category.

It's 4:30 am here, I'll argue/discuss more about this in the morning :-D

:-D
Image
AussieDodger
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 11338
(Past Year: 143)
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: What do you mean, Flash Gordon approaching?

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Madison » Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:48 pm

AussieDodger wrote:
Madison wrote:That's the thing though. You're giving something you don't own. You own the disk/MP3/record or whatever, but you do not own the rights to copy it and give it away. Can't do it with movies or video games either and those are the exact same things. Tavish is much better at explaining this part than I am though.


Well that's obviously what I have issue with, I don't think they should be able to police people giving stuff away to each other for no charge.
If I was buying from someone without authority then yeah that's bad.
But if they are going to let us have the technology to do it, and we are just sharing it around without $$$ involved, it should come under the tough titties category.

It's 4:30 am here, I'll argue/discuss more about this in the morning :-D

:-D


Get some sleep man. :-b

2 quickies from me:

#1. While you're not charging for the copies you make, it is stealing because that action takes revenue out of the pockets of those involved with providing the music, movie, video game, or whatever.

#2. The things you mention as to technology we have all have valid uses. Digital scales are legal, and have legitimted purposes, but some use them to weigh illegal drugs. Doesn't mean illegal drugs are legal just because the scales are out there. ;-)
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:23 pm

JTWood wrote:I think he meant 8th, not 18th guys.

Yep, I need to proofread a little better next time.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11066
(Past Year: 70)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:40 pm

AussieDodger wrote:Well that's obviously what I have issue with, I don't think they should be able to police people giving stuff away to each other for no charge.

They aren't policing file sharing. They are policing copyright infringement. Write a piece of music, put it out on Kazaa for everyone to share. The RIAA can't do a thing about it because it is completely, 100% legal.

If you are saying you don't think they should be able to defend their copyright protections then the law disagrees with you. I think I should be able to drive 90 MPH, but if I get caught my thoughts don't really matter. :-b
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11066
(Past Year: 70)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby wake » Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:19 pm

My feeling is that there's something completely different about stealing the cost of a product versus the potential revenue of it. If you take a CD from a store, you're not only taking any revenue the store might've made from the sale of it, you're also making the store and manufacturer lose the money they paid for it. In the case of downloading music, the only loss would be the revenue the music company would've made if you bought the song instead. If you wouldn't have even bought the song anyway, then no one loses anything.

File sharing is interesting because it seems to be the only type of this not-for-profit "revenue stealing" that is of questionable ethicality.

The library at my school has tons of copiers which I'm encouraged to use for copying parts of books for research assignments. However, if I copy part of a CD to use in my presentation, it's considered immoral.

It's fine to copy an entire season of a show on my DVR, but it's wrong to get an episode from the computer.

It's acceptable for a bar to profit over hiring a cover band that plays another artist's material. However, it's not okay to play a downloaded version of that song at your own party.
Image
wake
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1321
Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:57 am

wake wrote:My feeling is that there's something completely different about stealing the cost of a product versus the potential revenue of it. If you take a CD from a store, you're not only taking any revenue the store might've made from the sale of it, you're also making the store and manufacturer lose the money they paid for it. In the case of downloading music, the only loss would be the revenue the music company would've made if you bought the song instead. If you wouldn't have even bought the song anyway, then no one loses anything.

In both cases you are causing a loss of revenue. The store spent money to stock the item, the labels spend money to produce/promote the music.

File sharing is interesting because it seems to be the only type of this not-for-profit "revenue stealing" that is of questionable ethicality.

The library at my school has tons of copiers which I'm encouraged to use for copying parts of books for research assignments. However, if I copy part of a CD to use in my presentation, it's considered immoral.

It has nothing to do with morals, it is illegal. Books have a higher threshold of Fair Use, but going to the library and copying an entire book and taking it home to read is just as illegal as pirating a CD.

It's fine to copy an entire season of a show on my DVR, but it's wrong to get an episode from the computer.

It is a matter of distribution. The Betamax case that went to the Supreme Court was used to decide that time-shifting is legal Fair Use.

It's acceptable for a bar to profit over hiring a cover band that plays another artist's material. However, it's not okay to play a downloaded version of that song at your own party.

No, it is not acceptable for a bar to profit from hiring a cover band unless the permission for the use of those songs has been given. Bars can and have been sued over this.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11066
(Past Year: 70)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:37 am

More updates to the garbage of the MAFIAA.

The IIPA, an umbrella trade association of the RIAA and MPAA, has placed Canada (along with Russia and China) as the top violators of Copyright. Maybe in response Canada should point out that the US is a major violator of Canadian tax law (I personally have never paid any taxes to the Canadian government which I believe is illegal there).

The MPAA is now being forced to recant it's original study claiming that P2P was cause for 44% of the industry's domestic losses. The original study was done by a company hired by the MPAA and the actual study was never released for the public to see, but the MPAA had no problem throwing those stats out for lawmakers to see how bad copyright reform was needed. An independent study recently released put the number at 15% and the MPAA has conceded that there was an "isolated error" in the original report.

The RIAA is seeking to lower royalties paid to artists, mainly concerning online distribution. This isn't a complete surprise since the RIAA represents the labels and not the artists. But it will be interesting to see how the artists who have backed the RIAA's lawsuits so far respond to this.

In New York, another lawsuit defendant is attacking the RIAA's use of MediaSentry to gather evidence. This is similar to the complaint that the Oregon Attorney General has for MediaSentry. For those who have never heard of MediaSentry, they are a subcontracted company that places trojan downloads on the P2P networks in the hopes that they can lure someone into downloading them. They then use that trojan file to track down IP information and turn it over to the RIAA as evidence for prosecution.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11066
(Past Year: 70)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby StlSluggers » Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:19 pm

The people are fighting back.

slashdot wrote:"Angered at the RIAA's 'gamesmanship' in joining multiple 'John Does' in a single case without any basis for doing so, a Magistrate Judge in Maine has suggested to the presiding District Judge in Arista v. Does 1-27 that the record companies and/or their lawyers should be fined under Rule 11* of the Federal Rules, for misrepresenting the facts. In a lengthy footnote to her opinion recommending denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint (PDF, see footnote 5), Judge Kruvchak concluded that 'These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11*(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined.' She noted that once the RIAA dismisses its 'John Doe' case it does not thereafter join the defendants when it sues them in their real names. Arista v. Does 1-27 is the same case in which student attorneys at the University of Maine Law School, "enthusiastic about being directly connected to a case with a national scope and significance", are representing undergrads targeted by the RIAA."

slashdot wrote:"Remember those pesky student attorneys from the University of Maine School of Law's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, who inspired the Magistrate Judge to suggest monetary fines against the RIAA lawyers? Well they're in the RIAA's face once again, and this time they're trying to shut down the RIAA's whole 'discovery' machine: the lawsuits it files against 'John Does' in order to find out their names and addresses. They've gone and filed a Rule 11* motion for sanctions (PDF), seeking — among other things — an injunction against all such 'John Doe' cases, arguing that the cases seek to circumvent the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy rights, are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation, and are in flagrant violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders. If the injunction is granted, the RIAA will have to go back to the drawing board to find another way of finding out the identities of college students, and the ruling — depending on its reasoning — might even be applicable to the non-college cases involving commercial ISPs."


Wikipedia wrote:Rule 11 requires all papers to be signed by the attorney (if party is represented). It also provides for sanctions against the attorney or client for harassment, frivolous arguments, or a lack of factual investigation. The purpose of sanctions is deterrent, not punitive. Courts have broad discretion about the exact nature of the sanction which can include consent to in personam jurisdiction, fines, dismissal of claims, or dismissal of the entire case. The current version of Rule 11 is much more lenient than its 1980s version. Supporters of tort reform in Congress regularly call for legislation to make Rule 11 stricter.
Last edited by StlSluggers on Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby StlSluggers » Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:26 pm

Of course, the RIAA isn't without their own big guns.

They are trying to get legislation passed by Congress (see "College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007")to get schools to do their dirty work for them.
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby StlSluggers » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:15 pm

Wired.com wrote:The RIAA is planning to replace its "subpoena, settle or sue" process that has been expensive for the music industry. It requires the RIAA to go through the courts in order to pressure those it suspects of sharing music without permission.

Instead, RIAA agents will seek out those sharing music without permission (usually by conducting its own P2P searches), and will e-mail the music sharer's ISP alerting them to that activity. The ISP will then either forward the RIAA's e-mail or send the subscriber a warning e-mail telling them that music sharing is not permitted.

If they continue to share, the subscriber will receive one or two additional warnings, after which the ISP will slow their connection. If the allegedly infringing activity persists, the subscriber may find their internet connection stops working altogether.
...
Music fans may feel some relief that sharing music will no longer put them at risk of a lawsuit, assuming their ISP is one of those that has agreed to the plan. However, the biggest beneficiary of the new deal is the RIAA itself, which has seen its investigative techniques questioned and suffered key setbacks in court while paying extensive attorneys' fees to pursue cases through the normal legal channels.

I find this akin to asking car manufacturers to send out warnings to drivers if they get a speeding ticket.

Internet connections conduct all sorts of illegal activity, but beyond cooperating with investigations, they are under no obligation to police that connection themselves, imo.
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Frankieon, GeorgejeF and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Apr. 23
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Arizona at Chi Cubs
(12:10 pm)
San Francisco at Colorado
(2:20 pm)
Texas at Oakland
(3:10 pm)
Houston at Seattle
(3:35 pm)
Kansas City at Cleveland
(3:40 pm)
LA Angels at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Toronto at Toronto
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Baltimore at Baltimore
(7:07 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
NY Yankees at Boston
(7:10 pm)
St. Louis at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Minnesota at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Diego at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
Philadelphia at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact