PDA

View Full Version : RIAA Attacks the Free Software Foundation...



solitaire
April 22nd, 2009, 03:31 AM
It looks like the RIAA is about to "jump the shark" big time!

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/21/2041241


RIAA Brief Attacks Free Software Foundation


The RIAA has requested permission to file a response (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html#8985078307713769404) to the amicus curiae brief (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/20/2129208&tid=123) filed by the Free Software Foundation in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum (http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents.htm#SONY_v_Tenenbaum), the Boston case against a Boston University grad student accused of having downloaded some song files when in his teens. In their proposed response, the RIAA lawyers personally attacked The Free Software Foundation, Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawyer), and NYCL's blog, 'Recording Industry vs. The People'. The 9-page response (http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090421PltffsBriefRespondFSFBrief.pd f) (PDF) 4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs', and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies. They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site' and stated that NYCL 'is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/08/2041255&tid=123) for his conduct in representing a defendant' (without disclosing that plaintiffs' lawyers were 'subject to a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html#6420342518754596429) for their conduct in representing plaintiffs' in that very case).


This is the quote that's really interesting


termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs', and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies.

That is *NOT* what the Free Software Foundation is all about.

http://www.fsf.org/about/

MaxIBoy
April 22nd, 2009, 03:39 AM
This is basically what the FSF has been hoping for for a while. How they handle the opportunity will be interesting. I think they could potentially use this to gain some fantastic PR. These days, if you ask some random person about the RIAA, the response is going to be either "what is the RIAA?" or "I hate those guys!" You're not going to get many positive responses.

LookTJ
April 22nd, 2009, 03:41 AM
That is *NOT* what the Free Software Foundation is all about.

http://www.fsf.org/about/
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/about

That's what DBD is about, I thought.

SunnyRabbiera
April 22nd, 2009, 03:45 AM
Go FSF!
Too bad the RIAA has so much power we wont be able to blink without having to pay them a million dollars.

zmjjmz
April 22nd, 2009, 03:51 AM
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/about

That's what DBD is about, I thought.

It's about freeing people from the tyranny of DRM, so something like that.

Tomosaur
April 22nd, 2009, 01:08 PM
That's because the RIAA is trying to make a profit from something with unlimited supply and limited demand: music in the digital age can be copied as many times as one desires. The RIAA wants to charge for each copy, while keeping the price the same as if the supply was limited.

Until they realise that infinite supply should mean 'free', then people will hate them. Nobody is arguing that artists don't deserve to be rewarded for their work, but what most people have a problem with is understanding why the RIAA even exists any more. They should forget about this 'charge per copy' business model because it just won't work in this day and age. Once the master copy is made, no extra labour is required. DRM needs to die, and all restrictions regarding how we copy and transfer and remix music must be removed. Only then will subscription based music really take off. I don't want to subscribe to say, Spotify if I can't keep a copy of the music and put it on my mp3 player or whatever.

frup
April 22nd, 2009, 01:14 PM
I suppose I'll be making some more donations soon.

Methuselah
April 22nd, 2009, 03:02 PM
The FSF does not encourage the distribution of proprietyary programs against their copyright terms.
Rather, they encourage people NOT to use restrictive proprietary software by providing free alternatives.
In a sense, they seek to destroy restrictive copyright/usage terms BUT by providing better free/libre options NOT by piracy which is what the RIAA's diatribe is suggesting.

I have NEVER bought a record of music.
It helps that much of the music I enjoy is readily available.
Maybe that's part of what draws me to classical music.
It feels like part of a shared legacy rather than something anyone owns anymore.