Media Wonk

You know, I have never agreed with folks at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, or other groups who seem dedicated to changing the long standing laws of copyright protection in this country. But I have noted one thing. Their allies seem to include some of the brightest young minds in this country. From the law professors and students at Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Duke, and others ... to the lawyers at some of the most prestigious IP firms in the land ... to the engineers and scientists at some of our leading technology companies in this country ... the intellectual brainpower in this self-described "new wave" group has been impressive. How this group could allow a strategic blunder like what we've just seen come out of Duluth is beyond me. Why these organizations didn't get involved, study the case thoroughly, and encourage Ms. Thomas, and her obviously inexperienced attorney, to surrender is phenomenal. This is not the individual, the attorney, the forum, or the time I would want a precedent such as this established. What a strategic blunder! Maybe these people are not nearly as smart as I gave them credit for. Apparently, they all sat back and naively thought (make that "wished") that Ms. Thomas would somehow end the RIAA onslaught forever. Don't get me wrong. I applaud the decisions made by both the judge and jury in this precedent setting case. The anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time. Our economy will be strengthened. And these decisions will do more to help curtail widespread Internet Piracy than all the politicians, copyright industry executives, and lobbyists in this entire country put together. I thought good lawyers advised their clients of the downside of their attempts to "change the law of the land" and could be sanctioned if they chose to pursue only "the big payday" or their personal "15 minutes of fame" instead. Read the copyright laws. Displaying and downloading copyright-protected works owned by others without their permission is illegal. It has both civil and criminal consequences. And, as in the case of Ms.Thomas in Duluth, they can be severe. She will have to pay back nearly $500,000 by having her pay check garnished for the rest of her life. But she doesn't get any sympathy from me. If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now. And owe back a like amount of money. None of us - right or left - want to live in a lawless society. It's interesting to debate legal principles and consequences, but fearing to go outside for a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is not something we have had any experience with in this country. Thank goodness! And if you don't think organized white collar crime families are behind much of this Internet piracy epidemic, you'd better think again. COUNTERPOINT: Here is the one issue I have discussed with my 20-year -old son and I do have "conflicts" with. Google infringes more legitimate copyrights every single day than Ms.Thomas could do in a lifetime. Do we now have a country that has completely different standards for the billionaires than we do for the normal working folks? If so, I sure hope this is short-lived as well. I think I'd rather give up the coffee and the bread than have to worry about Google stealing from me every single day. What's your opinion? George P. Riddick, III Chairman/CEO Imageline, Inc. griddick@imageline2.com

Persecuting US citizen in the exercise of their constitutional right is a crime with consequences. If I was an RIAA parasite I will start running now!

her client was counting on a royalty stream because that's how she supports herself? so was he referring to the artist or the manager? and you're not simply giving away these MP3 things, you're selling the music in an unencumbered format

-->Griddick: There are so many things logically and/or factually wrong with your post, I hardly know where to begin. Off the top of my head: First, there are indeed many bright people who support the EFF, but what makes you think they were all sitting around studying this _one_ case and then consciously deciding to keep quiet? I've read any number of analyses (the coverage over at ArsTechnica comes to mind) that correctly concluded this case was a very weak one for the defendant, and that it would have been far wiser to accept the settlement offer instead of going to trial. Next, you state "[t]he anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time." Is that a broad enough brush you're painting with there? The reality is that the people opposed to the RIAA's legal tactics span a very wide range of viewpoints--from legally conservative strict constructionists (who may believe, for example, that the Constitutionally prescribed doctrine of "for limited times" was long ago rendered meaningless by the recently exponential extensions to copyright's breadth and depth) to extremists who believe that all intellectual property should be abolished, and many other philosophical positions in between. Lumping all of these people together under the "anti-copyright crowd" banner as you have is wildly overbroad, not to mention intellectually lazy. Oh, since you counsel everyone to "[r]ead the copyright laws," then perhaps you can enlighten me on one of the more controversial points of this ruling. Please specify, with reference to an established legal precedent not including this case, exactly which one of the six exclusive rights in copyright works defines "making available" (which appears nowhere in the statute) as being equivalent to "distributing." The last-minute change in the jury instructions on this point is, by itself, an obvious point of appeal. Finally (not because there isn't much more to respond to, but rather because it's late, I'm tired, and this post is already too long): you write, "If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now." Repeat after me: copyright infringement is NOT theft. Stubbornly equating the two means that you are either incapable of viewing the digital world for what it is, rather than trying to shoehorn it into something it's not by means of an ill-fitting analogy to tangible goods; or, again, that you are simply intellectually lazy. Want to dismiss me? Fine. Thomas Jefferson put it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." So, once again, repeat after me: copyright infringement is NOT theft. Intellectual property certainly has value and is worth protecting, but asserting that every illicit copy equates to a lost sale is simply at odds with reality. Oh, and Google "stealing?" Umm.. have you ever been to your local library? Rumor has it you can borrow books and other copyrighted works there, take them home, and read them... *without paying for them*. If you really believe what you write, surely your local library is at least as deserving of your umbrage. And as for the Library of Congress, well... I'd scarcely imagine the "conflicts" you must feel toward that particular institution. /Davis

"But again, what's the alternative?" How about using the fact that anyone in the world connected to the internet can get instant music distribution to your advantage rather than trying to stop the inevitable? From piano rolls to radio, the music industry has always resisted change, sometimes literally with brutality, by sending thugs into the streets to stop it. This is just the latest. Instant music distribution is the most amazing thing to happen to music since the first wax cylinder. And what's the Recording Industry's response? Sue their customers. I am a musician, and I've been amazed at who the RIAA calls a thief. That is what I call a new fan.

Hi mister! Cool website and nice content!!! Thanks!!!

Experience an easier way of shopping for bespoke suits & shirts at Euro Tailors Kenny Surtani