Still crazy after all these years
February 16, 2006 2:12 PM   Subscribe

The RIAA would like to remind you that copying purchased music to your iPod is illegal without first gaining permission from the copyright holder. Thank you.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome (88 comments total)
 
Pop will eat itself...
posted by dersins at 2:16 PM on February 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


The RIAA becomes less relevant with each passing day.
posted by MillMan at 2:17 PM on February 16, 2006


Nevermind that until now, the RIAA has routinely agreed that copying CDs for personal use, including on an iPod, is fair use. In fact the RIAA website still says that.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:17 PM on February 16, 2006


Says the RIAA. I'm pretty sure they are wrong.

Of course, that doesn't stop them from buying legislators, and getting it explicitly made that way.

Bought and paid for law, it's grand.
posted by teece at 2:18 PM on February 16, 2006


This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet.

Well someone's gonna get bitten in the ass.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 2:20 PM on February 16, 2006


Unlike the war on christmas. The War on Fair Use is very real.

Die. Dinosaur. Die.
posted by Dreamghost at 2:20 PM on February 16, 2006


The War on Natural Law
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2006


OK, just to kind of set things up here: the RIAA does not have the authority to pre-emptively declare what the law is in this way. Their declaration that "XYZ is not a fair use of our copyrighted material" holds no water at all -- that's a decision for a judge to make.

However, they are entirely within their right to make this be the case in the future. Fair use (and copyright overall, in fact) is just an initial allocation of rights; parties are free to negotiate or surrender some of those rights via licenses. Furthermore, given some recent federal court decisions (e.g. ProCD v. Zeitenberg) it appears valid to set forth terms in a blanket shrinkwrap license. Put these two together, and any record company could make it illegal, via binding contract, for you to rip music in any way not specifically authorized by their terms.

Left as a discussion to the reader is why this is supposed to appeal to their customers. My guess is, it's legal grandstanding they didn't figure anyone outside of the Copyright Office would actually ever read.
posted by rkent at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2006


Oh, and where they're going with this is obvious.

On the next iteration of DRM CDs (à la the Sony root kit CDs), the RIAA will explicitly say you don't have the permission to rip the CD. You must buy a separate copy for your iPod.

They're busy bribing legislators to get ripping labeled as non-fair-use, so they can make you pay twice.

It's time some legislators remember the point of copyright is the enrichment of society, not the enrichment of the RIAA.
posted by teece at 2:22 PM on February 16, 2006


By the way, you'll notice at the bottom of the page here it says

All posts are © their original authors.

If any of you just made a cached copy of this sentence on your hard drive, you're in deep shit. I will request IPs from Matt shortly. I'm gonna take you fuckers down.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 2:22 PM on February 16, 2006


Zeidenberg, sorry. 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
posted by rkent at 2:24 PM on February 16, 2006


teece: They're busy bribing legislators to get ripping labeled as non-fair-use, so they can make you pay twice.

Traditionally, determine of fair use is the province of the judiciary, though who's to say with all the buying of copyright legislation that's been going on in the past 7 years. Much easier to go the blanket-contract route I discribed above, though. That's already available, no bribing required.
posted by rkent at 2:26 PM on February 16, 2006


We should probably close this barn door. Say, has anyone seen my cows?
posted by fandango_matt at 2:28 PM on February 16, 2006


Why don't they just switch to releasing stuff on DVD-A ( ;) PotEoA ) can't they just sue the crap out of anyone who makes software which circumvents the "encryption" on it under the DMCA then? It's not like DVD players cost that much more to produce than CD now is it?
posted by public at 2:29 PM on February 16, 2006


Hasn't someone put a sword through the RIAA's heart yet? Oh yeah, they have none, just a black money sucking hole where a heart might be.

Oh well, they can go and suck my bitrate.

If you have to pass bad legislation to keep your business model plausible then perhaps you need to adjust your business model.
posted by fenriq at 2:30 PM on February 16, 2006


Why would you buy music from the big 5 anyway, unless it's Bloc Party (why the fuck did they sign to Atlantic?)
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:31 PM on February 16, 2006


If you have to pass bad legislation to keep your business model plausible then perhaps you need to adjust your business model.

Sadly, this applies to SO much of America's economy right now...
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:31 PM on February 16, 2006


Why the wink? ;)
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 2:31 PM on February 16, 2006


I guess I'm going to have to buy two copies of anything from iTunes now -- one for my computer, and a second copy for my iPod.
posted by Robot Johnny at 2:31 PM on February 16, 2006


Much easier to go the blanket-contract route I discribed above, though. That's already available, no bribing required.

Yup, you're right, I had forgotten about that. Although I do find the idea that purchasing a CD and opening counts as a binding contract, but that seems to be the way it is.

That is where they are going -- CDs with a EULA, stating no ripping allowed (or if it is allowed, only with their supplied DRM program).
posted by teece at 2:31 PM on February 16, 2006


No reason in particular...
posted by public at 2:32 PM on February 16, 2006


Damnit hit the wrong button: Although I do find the idea that purchasing a CD and opening it counts as a binding contract absurd.
posted by teece at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2006


Can a lawyer tell us how ludicrious a EULA would have to be before it couldn't be enforced? "By opening this package you surrender your home for use as a colobus monkey sanctuary" and so on.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2006


Well if the EULA constitutes an illegal contract then you have no obligation to abide by it. I'm not entirely sure what it takes for a contract like that to be deemed illegal though.
posted by public at 2:36 PM on February 16, 2006


Yeah, I'll take that under advisement.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:37 PM on February 16, 2006


So is singing songs illegal yet?
posted by iamck at 2:37 PM on February 16, 2006


Most cell phones are not legally the property of the folks who carry them; you only have purchased a license to use the phone.

If you screw with its innards, you are in violation of that contract.

Extrapolating the trend forward...
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:38 PM on February 16, 2006


From some random PDF I found

...contracts can be considered unenforceable if they are so unfair, harsh and oppressive that they can be considered unconscionable.

Their emphasis
posted by public at 2:38 PM on February 16, 2006


Pretty straightforward; Apple is just about making more money from iPods than Macs these days... RIAA's going ~~hheeeyy, that's OUR money on the table~~

I remember how cool I thought ripping was when I first discovered the tools 10 years ago... little did I know Apple would take it to the next level lo these past 5 years.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:40 PM on February 16, 2006


Great catch, monju_bosatsu!

DDraconian
Measures
Criminalize
All

Hah!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2006


Whoops, should've had one D.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2006


A more detailed look at what might make a contract unenforceable

Might be relevant, it's pretty interesting reading anyway.
posted by public at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2006


RIAA finds another way to screw over their legitimate customers, film at 11.

If you have to pass bad legislation to keep your business model plausible then perhaps you need to adjust your business model.

Too true. Of course, as long as it's so easy for them to buy legislators our government will be keeping them afloat.
posted by kosher_jenny at 2:47 PM on February 16, 2006


Can a lawyer tell us how ludicrious a EULA would have to be before it couldn't be enforced? "By opening this package you surrender your home for use as a colobus monkey sanctuary" and so on.

IANAL(yet), but the short answer is, it varies by state. The primary doctrine you'd be appealing to is unconscionability and it's a pretty high bar in most states. The paradigmatic case is one where a rent-to-own place stated that all items rented by a single customer could be seized if there was an outstanding balance on any of them (Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture). The much more common response by the judge is "if you don't like the terms, don't enter the contract."

Also of potential value is the doctrine of copyright misuse, which is very rarely applied, in part because of the remedy: the copyright is totally unenforceable -- against anyone -- until the "defects" in behavior are corrected. In the digital era... talk about barn doors and cows. Why they don't start applying copyright misuse with a scaled-back remedy, I don't know.
posted by rkent at 2:48 PM on February 16, 2006


FUCK THE PMRC!!!!



Oops. Sorry. Wrong rally!
posted by mds35 at 2:50 PM on February 16, 2006


Dersins wins, and in the first post to boot.
posted by davejay at 2:53 PM on February 16, 2006


Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use...

Sounds wrong to me. Sounds like a textbook illustration of the concepts of waiver & estoppal, which would dictate the reverse - that when permission is routinely granted (i.e., enforcement is waived), the rights holder is eventually estopped from selectively enforcing the right.

Then again, I'm a bit rusty... any thoughts from other lawyers?
posted by ab3 at 2:59 PM on February 16, 2006


So is singing songs illegal yet?

yes, iamck, yes it is.

(also confirmed at snopes.)

posted by ab3 at 3:04 PM on February 16, 2006


Does this mean that we don't have to pretend that Russel Simmons is cool anymore?
posted by 517 at 3:04 PM on February 16, 2006


(also confirmed at snopes.)

Wow! This law sucks so much there's a Snopes page because people can't believe it. Brilliant.
posted by rkent at 3:16 PM on February 16, 2006


This is a serious question, to which I need a serious answer.

Why should I even listen to new popular music?

I mean, I have Biob Dylan, I have the Beatles. But I also have Mozart and Beethoven and Bach and Wagner and Gilbert & Sullivan. I have 800 years of Western music to listen to -- and literally two months of twenty-four/seven listening all legally acquired on my hard drive. That's six months if I listen eight hours a day, and frankly, I like to repeat old favs.

I don't have the time to do justice to what I already have. Why do I need new music?

Admittedly, some small fraction of the new stuff will be great, but I can wait while everyone else separates that wheat from the avalanche of chaff, and listen to Bix Beiderbecke and Arlo Guthrie and John Dunstable now.

Why buy new music? Seriously, why?
posted by orthogonality at 3:18 PM on February 16, 2006


Why should I even listen to new popular music?
Why buy new music? Seriously, why?

These are two different questions. You should buy new music to support the artists who make new music, and don't enjoy the benefits of popularity.

I can't think of a compelling reason to listen to new popular music, though.
posted by Jairus at 3:22 PM on February 16, 2006


And this will affect countries outside of the US.. how? Sure, Interpol and all of that nonsense, but the way I see it, the more restrictive our stupid copyright laws get here, the more the activity flourishes overseas.

We're legislating ourselves out of our world position.
posted by drstein at 3:28 PM on February 16, 2006


Why should I even listen to new popular music?

Because you need to hear all about my humps. My humps my humps my humps. My humps my humps my humps. My lovely lady lumps.
posted by brain_drain at 3:28 PM on February 16, 2006


By opening this package you surrender your home for use as a colobus monkey sanctuary ...

Now I wish I had musical talent, just so I could put that on a CD case and convert the entire nation to a giant monkey haven.
posted by bcveen at 3:31 PM on February 16, 2006


Why do I need new music?

Admittedly, some small fraction of the new stuff will be great


YOUANSWEREDYOUROWNQUESTION
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 3:31 PM on February 16, 2006


Fine, you tell that to Karl Lagerfeld.
posted by deusdiabolus at 3:35 PM on February 16, 2006


Why should I even listen to new popular music? ...
I can't think of a compelling reason to listen to new popular music, though.


First of all, the same major labels that produce Beyonce own most of the back-catalogs for the acts you do like, so you'll probably still support the RIAA even if you only buy the classics.

Moreover, far be it for me to suggest you buy Beyonce albums, but there is an argument for action other than "this all pisses me off so I'll just boycott." The thing is, there will be people who like popular music: tomorrow's classics are being made today. If you don't dig them, that's an aesthetic decision that I would not try to sway. But there's a value in the propagation and evolution of music as an art, regardless of what you particularly think of any specific song or genre.

And the thing is, this crackdown by the RIAA has the potential to really impact that evolution. What if grandmaster flash wasn't able to scratch his records? Or if that doesn't grab you, what if record prices (due to DRM-enabled monopolies) were so high that Ella Fitzgerald couldn't find any jazz to sing along to and develop the scat technique? And on and on.

In the end I think art can be protected by copyright yet still continue to evolve because copyright has some play in the joints. Fair use is one example, and the first sale doctrine is another. When DRM becomes perfect, future artists will essentially become beholden to the terms laid down by present artists (or more precisely, the corporations who buy up their copyrights). Of course we would continue to have art, but it's legitimate to question the power structure produced by this situation, in ways other than personal withdrawal.
posted by rkent at 3:39 PM on February 16, 2006


And this will affect countries outside of the US.. how? Sure, Interpol and all of that nonsense, but the way I see it, the more restrictive our stupid copyright laws get here, the more the activity flourishes overseas.

We're legislating ourselves out of our world position.


Sort of, but check out the Berne Convention -- copyright is pretty standard throughout the world (in fact, Europe implemented "life + 50" before the U.S. did). And most developed countries have strong contract law.

However, some of the particular doctrines that really strengthen corporate bargaining position, like ProCD that I mentioned earlier, do not have an effect outside the U.S.; that much is true. I would love to see the E.U. come out differently on that issue.
posted by rkent at 3:43 PM on February 16, 2006


"Why would you buy music from the big 5 anyway, unless it's Bloc Party (why the fuck did they sign to Atlantic?)"

Why would you buy an album from Bloc Party?
posted by klangklangston at 3:48 PM on February 16, 2006


all i gotta say is, "Ahoy ye scallawogs, YAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!"
posted by Doorstop at 3:50 PM on February 16, 2006


there is an argument for action other than "this all pisses me off so I'll just boycott."

No, boycott is exactly the right thing to do.

Let the label system die. Production is increasingly cheaper and more accessible, the internet is a vastly superior distribution mechanism, webs of trust will be better at driving popularity, and even if that never pans out, niche is better than broad anyway. That way everybody gets exactly what they like instead of most people getting something close to what they like.

Kill the labels. Make them die as soon as possible. If anybody truly likes music at all, buying a record from a band that is on an RIAA member label is like slitting your own throat. Slit theirs, not yours.
posted by willnot at 3:50 PM on February 16, 2006


Somebody should make a form email generator to send to bands that says something like "I dig your music and really wanted to buy your latest album, but I can't because your record label is a member of the RIAA."
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:18 PM on February 16, 2006


So what the RIAA is telling me is that I might as well just download everything via bittorrent after all!
posted by adamrice at 4:19 PM on February 16, 2006


yeah, they should...because it's not like artists aren't getting screwed over enough by their record companies...we should stick it to them as well
posted by troybob at 4:19 PM on February 16, 2006


Welcome to Australia, where this is the law. We don't have "fair use" rights to make back-up or other copies of CDs. It's the law. In fact, until recently when the Australian iTunes music store opened, there were very limited uses of iPods here.

Personally I believe they can try and enforce this if they want. It's just a matter of them putting a 2" x 3" sticker on the front and back of every CD case that says THIS MAY NOT BE COPIED TO YOUR iPOD and see how their profits improve. . .
posted by Jimbob at 4:20 PM on February 16, 2006


The solution is simple -- don't buy CDs. Or anything that crapfest of an industry produces.
posted by clevershark at 4:33 PM on February 16, 2006


Protocols of the Elders of Awesome writes "Why do I need new music?

"Admittedly, some small fraction of the new stuff will be great

"YOUANSWEREDYOUROWNQUESTION"


That's a bit like eating a pile of crap in the odd chance that there might be lobster in it, no?
posted by clevershark at 4:36 PM on February 16, 2006


Dear RIAA,

Suck it, haters.

Yrs trly,

loq
posted by loquacious at 4:38 PM on February 16, 2006


clevershark: no.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 4:42 PM on February 16, 2006


That's a bit like eating a pile of crap in the odd chance that there might be lobster in it, no?

Theres these things like word of mouth, reviews, etc... which help a little.
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on February 16, 2006


I guess I'm going to have to buy two copies of anything from iTunes now -- one for my computer, and a second copy for my iPod.

I guess I'm going to have to continue what I've been doing, which is buying normal CDs and ripping them for use on my iPod, and downloading copy-protected CDs instead of supporting their right to preemptively treat me like a criminal. I'd encourage everyone to do the same; they can't sue every single one of us, and a law is nothing without effective enforcement.
posted by chrominance at 4:44 PM on February 16, 2006


Now I wish I had musical talent, just so I could put that on a CD case...

You're in luck, bc. Restrictions on talent were lifted years ago. You can record a CD without any at all.
posted by QuietDesperation at 5:20 PM on February 16, 2006


Buy music from indie & unsigned bands. CD Baby has a great selection and you're not supporting the big labels when you buy from them.
posted by mike3k at 5:35 PM on February 16, 2006



If any of you just made a cached copy of this sentence on your hard drive, you're in deep shit. I will request IPs from Matt shortly. I'm gonna take you fuckers down.


*Clears cache, zeroes HD, jumps out window*
posted by squirrel at 5:37 PM on February 16, 2006


Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it.
-
John Lennon
posted by any major dude at 5:41 PM on February 16, 2006


"Why should I even listen to new popular music?"

Because you need to hear all about my humps. My humps my humps my humps. My humps my humps my humps. My lovely lady lumps. - brain_drain

*grey matter drips out of ears at the catchy inanity*

Another name-appropriate post.
posted by raedyn at 5:41 PM on February 16, 2006


This would make me want to download and burn as much music as I could if I didn't give up listening to music when the whole industry went to shit in the late '90s.
posted by my sock puppet account at 5:48 PM on February 16, 2006


...it's not like artists aren't getting screwed over enough by their record companies...we should stick it to them as well

I get so sick of hearing about the poor artists! Screwed by the labels, ripped-off by the file-traders. I don't get it. Were Bon Jovi dragged away from their Pizza Hut jobs and forced at gunpoint to record shitty power pop? Did they have no alternatives? I'd say that the thriving independent music scene in YOUR city proves that there ARE alternatives to RIAA labels. I don't think that recording a tune that the industry pushes up the charts entitles anyone to millions of dollars. And I hear you complaining, "what about the millions of dollars that the sales of that tune generate? Who should get that?" My answer is that the consumer should get that... which is to that that if the music industrial complex were decentralized, music wouldn't cost nearly as much as it does.

Try to imagine for a moment a world without the RIAA, without entertainment oligarcs that fix prices and bust music fans for sharing music. Musicians will always be able to make money playing for people, no matter ow ubiquitously their recordings are distributed. And Apple is making billions because a buck a song is a reasonable price.

It's time for people to take their music back. The RIAA should die, and fast.
posted by squirrel at 5:53 PM on February 16, 2006


First: Fuck the RIAA.

Second: thanks, rkent, for the awesome comments.

I just don't understand why these fuckers (the RIAA) would want to be so belligerent toward their customers. What do they gain from this retarded behavior? All they're doing is guaranteeing that I will engage in unlawful behavior even though I've done and will do nothing any reasonable person would consider as such. I buy DRM music and abide by the license. I buy CDs and don't pirate them. I don't use P2P. I use all the music I buy for my own entertainment. Why would they want the law to classify me as a violator? If they hope to get a few extra purchases out of me, well, it ain't gonna happen. I'm not stupid. And though I have no study to demonstrate this, I think my behavior is representative of a large swath of music consumers.

The only thing I can conclude of them considering the above is that they are simply assholes. Given that, I repeat: Fuck the RIAA.
posted by effwerd at 6:06 PM on February 16, 2006


So there were a couple of kids at the bus stop today busking Pearl Jam and Paul Simon. They were getting paid for a public performance of copyrighted material, so I suppose according to the RIAA fuckwads, they're criminals too.
posted by slatternus at 6:48 PM on February 16, 2006


you know, perhaps it is good that they will build a fence along the southern boarder, hell let's build one along the top too. With razor wire and floodlights. They way things are going pretty soon 100% of Americans will be criminals of some sort, might as well just turn the whole friggen country into a jail. Pretty soon there will be 3 types of Americans, the inmates, the guards, and the wardens. (inmates and guards can rotate positions under certain circumstances).
posted by edgeways at 7:29 PM on February 16, 2006


Now you know why I make my own music. Seriously.

The music industry is a big fat whore that needs to go out of business. Fortunately there are indie labels and there is the internet, and it's only a matter of time.
posted by konolia at 7:45 PM on February 16, 2006


Can someone explain to me if, and how, this could possibly be enforced, and how is this different from back in the days of yore when I'd make tapes for my Walkman and my car stereo? Nowadays I'm putting songs on my iPod, and I don't see how the RIAA is going to stop me. Seriously, I don't understand what the RIAA's position is. Can someone explain?
posted by fandango_matt at 7:52 PM on February 16, 2006


The music industry is a big fat whore

Nah, it's more like an old stingy pimp. Still needs to go out of business in it's present form though, yup.
posted by zarah at 7:56 PM on February 16, 2006


F_M: HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC.
posted by klangklangston at 8:46 PM on February 16, 2006


Yeah, y'know... I know you're being sarcastic, but that whole "COPYING_METHOD_HERE is killing music" is such utter stinking horseshit it's not even funny.

Music/art is an ecology. The more music there is - and the more freely it flows - the more music there is.

Starving artists, kids and adults and both get to hear and study music they couldn't normally afford. They get to study and analyze that music. They get to learn that music. Then expand upon it. And then write their own.

How many people that play any sort of instrument at all started out by playing popular tunes? How many popular, financially successful musicians and artists are there alive today that owe their heritage to copying or borrowing music? Listening to free broadcasts? Taping them? Hearing music covered by artists that weren't the original artists?

Fuck you, RIAA. Fuck you and the lame high horse you rode in on. Fuck your be-suited, whoremongering fatcats, fuck your sleazy A&R reps, fuck your cheesy "HITS Magazine", fuck your lame one-note acts and your shrill, wrongheaded bellyaching. Fuck your profits, fuck your bottom line, fuck your whole model of sustainability. You blew it years ago, and you've been given almost a decade to adapt and prosper or fail and perish. I will never willingly pay the RIAA or any member company one red cent - and will avoid products like "Music CD Rs" with your illegal taxes on them. I will relish the day I read the headline: "THE RIAA IS NO MORE!" Fuck you. Die. Go to sleep. Good riddance. Etc.
posted by loquacious at 11:27 PM on February 16, 2006


RIAA doing double standards - what a surprise.. NOT. They just have no idea. Headless chickens.
posted by pancreas at 12:19 AM on February 17, 2006


I would like to take this time to remind the RIAA that it can kiss my ass.

Thank you, and have a good day.
posted by rand at 6:09 AM on February 17, 2006


Buying a CD is just way too much effort. If you factor in opening the shrink wrapping and my ability to snap every crystal hinge I have ever touched they just are not a good investment.

To be honest when I moved 8 months ago I left my CD binder at my parent's house. I had realized that I hadn't cracked it open in three years before then.
posted by srboisvert at 6:45 AM on February 17, 2006


The day the RIAA actually gets something done on Capitol Hill will be the day that I read more than a paragraph in articles like that before laughing at their stupidity. If Washington doesn't give them credence, I don't see why I should.
posted by charmston at 8:45 AM on February 17, 2006


Has the law changed since Sony Betamax vs MPAA case? If not then it would seem pretty clear that time/media shifting of copyrighted works is permited despite whatever wishful thinking is wafting out of the offices of RIAA members.
posted by Mitheral at 8:52 AM on February 17, 2006


You could always move to Sweden and vote for the Pirate Party in the next elections.
posted by funambulist at 11:53 AM on February 17, 2006


Mitheral: yes, but remember the private-law option.
posted by rkent at 12:15 PM on February 17, 2006


"On the next iteration of DRM CDs (à la the Sony root kit CDs), the RIAA will explicitly say you don't have the permission to rip the CD."

And, 10 years from now, you'll need to buy RIAA-approved drugs which will re-wire your brain to hear the scrambled sounds of official RIAA popmusic™.

I've heard ripping CDs is "not legal" already in Germany and here in the UK. As far as I'm concerned the "small, convenient sound-carrier units" are to music as the cardboard box is to my OGG player.
posted by Auz at 12:37 PM on February 17, 2006


"I've downloaded my own music just to tweak the nose of the RIAA. Are they going to sue me for illegally downloading my own music? I hope they do."
-Moby
posted by charmston at 1:06 PM on February 17, 2006


And if you think the industry was giving anyone a free ride enforcement-wise, posters to Get Your Bootleg On can no longer link directly to new songs -- only to their sites. Of course, this suggests that next on the recording industry list is the individual mashers.

That's literally, in the course of a few years, going from obscurity to "we'll rip this idea off for awards shows and Linkin Park/Jay-Z" to legally threatening the hub of the art form's universe. Literally, they're taking a new form of art created by people and distributed for free and hijacking it for commercial use only. Incredible.
posted by VulcanMike at 8:30 AM on February 18, 2006


elcapacito, I have no idea what you're raving about. Read disclaimer's post above.
posted by cillit bang at 3:47 PM CET on February 21 [!]


Well if you don't have an idea, get some.

This just illustrates the absurdity of "licensing" copyrighted material, rather then going by copyright law.

This line by delmoi suggested me that there's more to licensing than regulating the ways one could use copyrighted material.

We recently talked about RIAA and rkent linked in this comment
the Procd vs Zeidenberg court opinion 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) which held that

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are un- conscionable).

I guess some fine printing on the box that contain an OEM PC would probably make a shrinkwrap licence of Windows conscionable. While user superficiality or ignorance isn't a legal excuse, I think the salesman wouldn't exactly let the user concentrate on the fact he needs to change Windows if he changes motherboard or some other component.

Arguably the consumer bought a computer with a preinstalled operating system for the purpose of using it as a sophisticated domestic appliance ; yet he could decide to change a component of the machine even if that means voiding the warranty..or may decide to do so after the expiration of warranty, so to extend the useful life of the computer. By doing so, Windows would stop working thus rendering the PC unoperable : that's the practical equivalent of having the copyrighted good Windows make your glasses inoperable.

All the software (other copyrighted materials) on your computer would become unreadable/not usable because Windows decided you must pay them for the privilege of changing motherboard.

I guess that is using shrinkwrap licencing + copyright for the purposes of taking control of the machine.
posted by elpapacito at 8:06 AM on February 21, 2006


« Older Zen and the art of Presidential usurpation   |   Jumping up and down on one foot would be more fun... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments