__________________

Libertarians: Trying to get people to
mind their own business since 1971.
The Freedom Files

(wouldn't a Scientologist be a "Xenuphile", not a "Xenuphobe?")

Anyway, yes, the RIAA is on a completely out of control witchhunt, suing schoolchildren and families into oblivion.

But hey, it's not the government's place to interfere, right?

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

No. Xenu is the villain in their story.

Absolutely it is. The RIAA is asking the courts to redress their grievance, so it is clearly within the court's realm to admonish their legal tactics.

- R

__________________

Libertarians: Trying to get people to
mind their own business since 1971.
The Freedom Files

Sker, the process of suing is an inherently governmentally-intensive process (what with the whole court thing).

We need to change copyright laws. If I buy a CD with data on it, that CD and all of the data now belong to me.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

I agree, however, some argue that courts should take the place of any preventative governmental regulation, which I think isn't terribly proactive.

Agreed, also. Wholeheartedly.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

They should. If I sell you a house you can't afford, but give you all of the appropriate information, the deal is your fault. If I tell you your interest rate will be 6% and then it turns out to be 12%, then the courts need to find me guilty of fraud and award you a decision in whatever civil action you undertake. Regulation is not the answer.


If you discuss enough issues, eventually you have to find common ground.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

I disagree, based on the general stance that it's better to prevent likely issues, rather than mitigate after the fact, which is how I view what regulation is supposed to do.

Doesn't make sense to make road widths or traffic control any old which way, then sue and fight about it after all the accidents happen. I tend to think it's best if all the players involved know the rules of the game beforehand, and that helps determine objective criteria for determining fault and harm. Anyway, that'smore of a generic argument.

In the RIAA's case, we do need a big, bold, landmark decision from the courts on this, hopefully setting (regulatory?) limits on them.

If I sell you a truck I bought from Ford, why in the world would Ford be entitled to double dip, and be paid afresh? I could see the RIAA going after CD burning companies, but not 12 year old kids with iPods. That's just bullying.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

But in this case the 12 year-old kid is stealing your Ford truck because he's not paying for the privilege of putting the music on his iPod.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

That's certainly how the RIAA sees it.

Once I buy a CD, I may burn a copy and sell/give it to whomever I choose, and I owe the RIAA nothing further. (In my example, Ford getting paid again for my resale of the truck to you is double-dipping, yes?)

I am a bit surprised you are on the RIAA's side on this issue, as a big property-rights guy.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

What is to stop people from simply not buying things anymore and giving away freebies if you can do whatever you will with it?

Ethics? Yea. Uhuh.

Unlike the truck analogy, you can infinitely copy one song and give it away, still keeping your copy. You can't do that with the truck. You need to buy a new one, eventually once you give yours away. You cant clone it and give everyone a free truck while keeping yours. You can with digital stored information.

Would you buy songs you already have free copies of neatly packed onto your high quality mp3 player?

I wouldn't. That would be economically retarded.

Is the RIAA a good organization? No. It's gone way too far into mafia land tactics, but endlessly copying songs so none of your friends buy legit copies shouldn't be thought of as 'ethical' behaviour either. Your screwing over businesses, and hence people whose jobs rely on sales, just because you are cheap.

You should be allowed to copy it as many times as you want for your OWN USE, though, yea. I have no problem with that.