FunkyHiFi
02-11-2007, 01:09 AM
"White Plains Teen Sues Record Companies for Collusion" (http://www.stereophile.com/news/020507santangelo)
excerpt:
On January 30, Robert Santangelo and attorney Jordan Glass filed 32 defenses against five labels, counter-claiming that the suits damaged Santangelo's reputation, distracted him from his schoolwork, and impose a financial burden. Santangelo denies that he shared copyrighted material with others, claiming that the music detected on his computer was ripped from his sister's purchased CDs. He also claims that the record companies are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud US courts. Jordan Glass argues that the record labels, which are "ostensibly competitors," are actually "a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy" when they jointly sue individuals. The filing calls the suits "extortionate threats . . . to force defendants to pay." Go Robert go!
A related article (http://www.stereophile.com/news/020507cea/) from the same magazine (this is more to do with the gear we buy that plays the music we like......which more often can play it *less* because of paranoid music companies):
The CEA [Consumer Electronics Association] cautions that "home recording and piracy should not be confused," since home recording is not the same as re-broadcast or mass commercial distribution. The CEA also calls for warning labels on "copy-protected" media and a change in the Digital Millenium Copyrght Act's (DMCA) language, which makes circumventing copy protection a crime, even if no infringement occurs.
Why is the CEA so exercised over the erosion of fair use and sweeping claims of piracy? Essentially because "lawful innovators" (ie, consumer electronics manufacturers) "increasingly find themselves the target of lawsuits brought by the content community." This is a problem created by sweeping generalizations, such as the language of the DMCA, and the confusion generated by the content industry's deliberate use of the word "piracy" for personal copying.
FYI: to give one of the "Big Four" music labels some credit(EMI/Capitol, Warner, Sony and Universal Music Group) EMI is in talks to start selling a large chunk of their music in MP3 form with no DRM attached to it.
More fun stuff to read: "The Battle for Your Digital Media Devices" (http://www.eff.org/IP/fairuse/)
For more on the Fair Use law, go here. (http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php)
excerpt:
On January 30, Robert Santangelo and attorney Jordan Glass filed 32 defenses against five labels, counter-claiming that the suits damaged Santangelo's reputation, distracted him from his schoolwork, and impose a financial burden. Santangelo denies that he shared copyrighted material with others, claiming that the music detected on his computer was ripped from his sister's purchased CDs. He also claims that the record companies are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud US courts. Jordan Glass argues that the record labels, which are "ostensibly competitors," are actually "a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy" when they jointly sue individuals. The filing calls the suits "extortionate threats . . . to force defendants to pay." Go Robert go!
A related article (http://www.stereophile.com/news/020507cea/) from the same magazine (this is more to do with the gear we buy that plays the music we like......which more often can play it *less* because of paranoid music companies):
The CEA [Consumer Electronics Association] cautions that "home recording and piracy should not be confused," since home recording is not the same as re-broadcast or mass commercial distribution. The CEA also calls for warning labels on "copy-protected" media and a change in the Digital Millenium Copyrght Act's (DMCA) language, which makes circumventing copy protection a crime, even if no infringement occurs.
Why is the CEA so exercised over the erosion of fair use and sweeping claims of piracy? Essentially because "lawful innovators" (ie, consumer electronics manufacturers) "increasingly find themselves the target of lawsuits brought by the content community." This is a problem created by sweeping generalizations, such as the language of the DMCA, and the confusion generated by the content industry's deliberate use of the word "piracy" for personal copying.
FYI: to give one of the "Big Four" music labels some credit(EMI/Capitol, Warner, Sony and Universal Music Group) EMI is in talks to start selling a large chunk of their music in MP3 form with no DRM attached to it.
More fun stuff to read: "The Battle for Your Digital Media Devices" (http://www.eff.org/IP/fairuse/)
For more on the Fair Use law, go here. (http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php)