●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byI'm a racist. ( 631537 ) writes:
That's all well and good, in North Carolina. But, how is it going to play as a precedent in other courts? Particularly of interest is the federal level. I haven't kept up on the various decisions lately, but I believe other court rulings have supported the MPAA/RIAA.
I sincerely doubt that a judge in California [opensecrets.org] will see things the same way. Of course, I've been wrong before.
Additionally, what's the motivation for organizations (schools or ISPs) to fight for privacy versus just rolling over? I don't hear much of an outcry from the public over this bullshit, so it's not like they're really trying to protect their images. And, we all know that corporations don't go to much effort just on priciple (schools are a bit better in this regard).
In terms of "selling piracy", the MPAA/RIAA have won. The public really buys into the idea of it being stealing (as opposed to copyright infringment), and doesn't seem to get too pissed off over the draconian punishments that have been handed down. Even people who are fairly technically literate, or well versed in law, often don't see the distinction between theft and infringement. It's pretty sad. Who else is up for forming a non-profit [dontbuycds.org], whose mission is to educate the public on intellectual property issues?
Lastly, if the public doesn't understand the issue all that well, can we really expect much better of the judiciary? In an ideal world, the judiciary represents the populace (of course, I'd hope them to be much smarter than the average asshole on the street though).
twitter
facebook
byTravelsonic ( 870859 ) writes:
The public buys into the idea of it being stealing because they realize that copyright infringement is immoral and is similar in terms of morality to stealing.
They didn't realize it, they were influcned to believe this using illogical analogies and examples which were presented in a way that appeared to make sense. The people that influenced this were the RIAA, BSA, and MPAA. I certainly do not see the logical and legal similarities, and believe this line of thinking goes against what I was personally
● threshold.
bySpecBear ( 769433 ) writes:
"Additionally, what's the motivation for organizations (schools or ISPs) to fight for privacy versus just rolling over?"
Money. Students pay tuition. Students become alumni who donate. ISP customers pay for connectivity. Though they won't admit it, they indirectly make lots of money off of piracy. Being able to boast that you won't roll for the RIAA (feasible if you're a big ISP) will become a increasiblgy desirable as the lawsuits keep ramping up.
Don't think of it as "fighting for privacy rights."
byScentCone ( 795499 ) writes:
Even people who are fairly technically literate, or well versed in law, often don't see the distinction between theft and infringement.
Oh, I think people understand it better than you're giving them credit for. The real issue is that they don't care that there's a difference, because, at a gut level, they know (and you should) that the issue is the same: somebody wants something, and doesn't want to pay what the owner is asking for it. This has zero, nothing to do with the legal distinction between infri
byScentCone ( 795499 ) writes:
OK, so you've got complete contempt for artists that use large companies to take care of their business dealings (gee, so they can worry about making music, not chasing down $0.85 on every CD that's sold... which, by the way, means that in your example, we're dealing with someone who sells 20 CDs per quarter - I think it's safe to say that a lot of people, including Metallica, do a lot better than that). So, with all that contempt for stupid artists, why would you want to listen to their music? Why would yo
byMacWiz ( 665750 ) writes:
So, with all that contempt for stupid artists, why would you want to listen to their music?
Some of us have stopped listening to major label artists altogether, especially since Clear Channel came along.
I only download non-RIAA music, I only share indie music, and then only with the artist's permission.
Why would you want to watch their stupid movies?
The day the MPAA started suing people, I cancelled HBO, Showtime, tore up my Blockbuster card and have not been to the theatre since.
I actually like movi
byChordonblue ( 585047 ) writes:
I think one of the larger issues is the extreme power of the industry. ClearChannel controls the most obvious form of 'free' music - radio. This is where most of the kids get their ideas of what music is all about.
Except it's not free after all. Most of the time, we're talking about kids when we talk about music sharing. To be sure, there are plenty of adults doing it, but for the same reason you don't see a lot of 80's music selections at Fry's, the push, the demand is in teen-based music.
And we all know
byChordonblue ( 585047 ) writes:
Look, the U.S. also has the highest per capita prison population. Wouldn't you agree that you can take the whole criminalization thing a bit too far? Using your example you'd make it an imprisioning offence to do 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. Hey! That speeding bastard is breaking the law! Kick his ass!
Seriously, isn't part of the justice system's purpose to be reasonable when considering punishment? Besides, I wonder if your example of breaking a window is relevant here.
Music piracy isn't so much about destro
● threshold.
bystdarg ( 456557 ) writes:
I'm not sure you're right about the public idea of piracy. Even though most people accept "steal" in place of "infringe upon the copyright of" or whatever, the actual effect is that people think "well who cares." Kind of like if a person "steals" like, a pen from the grocery store. I mean you know those dumb commercials in movie theaters? Nobody I've seen takes them seriously, and on several occasions people have laughed.
bycivilizedINTENSITY ( 45686 ) writes:
Additionally, what's the motivation for organizations (schools or ISPs) to fight for privacy versus just rolling over?
I'm glad you asked. We went over this in my SysAdmin class and my MIS class last semester. It is called the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) [ed.gov]
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an appl
bynilius ( 637512 ) writes:
The Open Secrets link you post deals with election contributions to public officials. ELECTION contributions. Judges are appointed... and better informed apparently.
I'll have to agree with you about the music industries war on perception though.
-n
●t threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...