|
Author
|
Topic: Score one for the file swappers [judges decision]
|
|
|
Ferquin
Farting Nudist
Member # 3269
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-26-2003 05:00 PM
Woah. That's some major shit there. I sense some major copyright law revisioning around the corner.
- - - - -
Ferquin N.C. Root
The Ferquinarium
From: Renton, WA, USA | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 04-26-2003 05:01 PM
The judge made the right choice. You don't ban video cameras because they can be used the wrong way.
Now artist will be more into the music part of making music, and not the money part. But there is always endorsements, advertisements, and movie deals.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-26-2003 05:02 PM
"Appeal."
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferquin
Farting Nudist
Member # 3269
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-26-2003 05:10 PM
True. The drawback is that the record companies have the money to make things turn around. Hopefully some sensible judges will see this from the artists' point of view and rule against the companies. I'm all for businesses making money legitimately, but if you listen to the quality of music out there (just listen to any top 40 radio station), it's painfully clear that all the real artists are on the web putting out their music freely on MP3s. Lots of record companies now are just cranking out poor-quality music and sucking out the livelyhood for up-and-coming talent.
[ 04-26-2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Ferquin ]
- - - - -
Ferquin N.C. Root
The Ferquinarium
From: Renton, WA, USA | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-26-2003 09:52 PM
I'm curious about how you avoided any reference to legality in your opinion.
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 04-26-2003 10:01 PM
His opinion doesn't have to be based around the law if he doesn't like the law. Or is there a rule that opinions must be within the guidelines of the law?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-26-2003 10:01 PM
What's morally right don't necessarily involve legalities.
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-27-2003 02:12 AM
His opinion doesn't have to be based around the law if he doesn't like the law.
If you're referring to the judge, then it most certainly does.
Or is there a rule that opinions must be within the guidelines of the law?
I would certainly hope so! A judge's job is to interpret the law, not create it. Unfortunately, many judges seem to think otherwise...
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 04-27-2003 12:39 PM
I was referring to Ferquin's opinion, becuase Rolken told him "I'm curious about how you avoided any reference to legality in your opinion."
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-27-2003 01:46 PM
Way to miss the point, yet again.
Hopefully some sensible judges will see this from the artists' point of view and rule against the companies.
White Cat is criticizing the implication that the judges should rule based on similar reasoning to his opinion, which is based on "righteousness" rather than rule of law. This is a dangerous concept because it throws all that "separation of powers" stuff out the window.
This is why we find you annoying. You should be able to get the point without having to bend over backwards explicating it for you.
The world would be a better place if people would reserve judgment on issues until they actually understand them.
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferquin
Farting Nudist
Member # 3269
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-27-2003 02:48 PM
Oh man! You guys sure nitpick a lot.
I was just making a commentary. Yeah, judges interpret the law, but when they make their ruling, then people have to abide by that ruling. Ever watch Night Court? Yeah, it's a fictional show, but judges do have the authority to rule in either direction. They're judges. They make decisions; that's what they're paid to do.
In this case, if the judge rules in favor of the record companies and rule that the file-swapping software was harming their profits, then up-and-coming artists wouldn't have a venue to promote their music freely online and would be stuck having to whore themselves out to said record companies who'll reap the profits from their music, and give them a share which could be big or small depending on how smart they are in negotiating a contract.
If the judge rules in favor of the people who own the file-swapping software and decides that it's within the bounds of copyright law (which the judge deems it is since it's just like a VCR or photocopy machine), then the artists get their free online venue to distribute their music, and the record companies... well, they still have a lot of money anyway 'cause they probably already have a large stable of talent to draw money from. But of course they'd be mad 'cause they wouldn't be getting more money.
In my opinion, they've already got enough money, and I'm hoping other judges who rule over similar cases will see that it's not really hurting the record sales, and (like this other judge previously ruled) that file-swapping software is harmless. Of course, this will not stop record companies from appealing the decision and they have the money and power to take this back into court as many times as they can and hope that a judge will rule in their favor.
The exact same thing happened years ago when the VCR first came out. Major networks took VCR companies to court because they said that if people just taped shows, then their ratings would drop. Similarly, movie companies sued because they said people would bootleg their films on videos. But, here we are, decades later, networks and movie companies are still very much in business and millions of VCRs are in households across the world. I think the judges made the right decision then, and they're making the right decision now.
So, did you get all that? That was my reasoning behind my earlier post. I hope we're all on the right page now.
[ 04-27-2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Ferquin ]
- - - - -
Ferquin N.C. Root
The Ferquinarium
From: Renton, WA, USA | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-30-2003 02:03 PM
Judges do have the authority to rule in either direction. They're judges. They make decisions; that's what they're paid to do.
Yes, but their authority to make decisions is very explicitly limited to carrying out what the other branches of government have deemed right or wrong. It's not the judge's place to contemplate whether such-and-such decision would result in more or less profits for whomever. Congress provides a framework of what is good/bad, and the judge's role is to determine whether or not the defendants acted within that framework. You're essentially suggesting that they take up the role of creating the framework as well.
Judges are supposed to have limited discretionary power. That's why we have a Congress in the first place; if they decide on some sort of Truth that the rest of us think is wretched, we vote them out. If judges start deciding things like "well, people'd benefit from such-and-such decision so it must be good," as you suggest, who's to stop them if they're wrong? (Well, they'd get stopped if they were flagrantly abusive, but through much less democratic processes [except in Texas, where for some inexplicable reason we elect judges].) It's worth sacrificing a few (perhaps) moral victories to maintain rule of law.
I don't think it's nitpicking to debate such things because it circumvents the issue; if anything, it's of paramount importance, because it affects all issues.
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zerot
I pay schoolgirls to verbally abuse me.
Member # 1295
Member Rated:
|
posted 04-30-2003 08:44 PM
One step foreward, two steps back.
From: Lizton, Indiana | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
posted 04-26-2003 04:53 PM
Printer-friendly view of this topic