Trespass law says that the law applies from the perimeter of the property down to the center of the earth and all the way up into the atmosphere.

Two farmers brought a case against the airline industry on the grounds of unauthorized use of their property. The judge in the case said that yes their property was being trespassed on, but that gaining permission from every property owner for every plane that flies over their property is impossible.

If the law were to honor trespass law as it applies to airline companies, then we couldn’t have air travel over land. That would be far worse for our society than property owners being compensated for their property rights.

That is what is going to happen with music and copyright law.

For more on this topic read Remix by: Lawrence Lessig

Artistes, are you deaf or stupid?
(Or am i too dumb…?)
Someone pls do some research and publish…

ICANHAZWHITEPAPER?

Why have the originators of art not objected unanimously to this “stealing” of their “copyrighted and intellectual property”? Why do some artists actually support and encourage file sharing?
Why should xxAA be allowed to use THE LAW (it hurts when anyone shouts…) against the sihes of the artists themselves?
THE LAW is for the people or are people for THE LAW?
THE LAW is, always was, and will most likely always remain, a total ass, unless legal types show some signs of character.
Those who find loopholes in this ass called THE LAW should therefore be called …..
xxAA are just that.
Actually, the law is such an ass that it contardicts itself – and therein lies opportunity for 1000s of lawyers and THE opportunity for all of us.
What if “we, the people” start contributing to Wikileaks-style expose sites which publish copyright violations and sue the xxAASSH…. back?
A nice table with the first column showing the xxAA name, the second, showing the $$ that they are currently claiming from Jon Doe in lawsuit number 123, and the third column where “we, the people” are about to file lawsuits based on their copyright violations of Jon Doe’s Holy Copyrighted Rights emanating from THE LAW are shown.
Fair use will be put to test and their massive profits will get neat LAW ASS pinches for unfair use. One HTML page listing one planned/current Jon Doe lawsuit for one xxAA lawsuit will be a good place of education for xxAA freshers and a real pain in the ass for xxAA xxx’s.
Methinks they only understand their own language.
So give it back to them, lock, stock and barrel of the smoking law.
“Class action lawsuit” sounds even better.
Call up the EFF and the UCLA, they’ll take it from there.
But, if you’re married and have kids and need to keep your job, you might be a soft target.
Tough nuts without these vulerabilities and with no legal chinks in their armor should give it a thought or two – maybe not your own art, maybe supporting someone with more courage or more resources – there’s plenty of them out there.
You could even log the Google searches of these assh…. and publish their attempts to target weak “culprits” – too many of these can bring about “class action” status to ordinary bullying and threats. This is why I said the law contradicts itself – they will have to screw the First Amendement to win.
I wish them luck when tens of their copyright infringements start getting exposed en masse. They have the money to pay, after all
Methinks xxAA should prepare to face the music once the piercing recession slows down enough to generate enough lawsuits against Jon Does to make them all class action candidates. If xxAA doesn’t back off, they could be in for really nice music later next year. Good luck guys, WE are coming for you….

Am I a fan of the RIAA’s tactics, not all the time.

Does the RIAA serve a regulatory purpose that seeks bolster and protect the income of bands. Yes.

Do digital mixtapes help spread music and make new fans. Yes.

Does this change the fact that bands need to tour, to make any money? No.

http://www.bett...rthanthevan.com

I wish there was a more clear equilibrium.

I’m sorry, but the problem is that in the eyes of the law it is a crime. It’s is naive and foolish to say that something should be allowed just because it is innovative.

Suppose I set up a create new web site that allows you to move money from record company’s bank accounts to your own account. And I give it a nice Ajax user interface. That would “innovate”. But it would be illegal.

File “sharing” is an abuse of the word “sharing”. Sharing implies that people are taking it in turns to use something. What you’re talking about here is file copying.

Do I think the record companies are great, honorable organizations? No, absolutely not. But copying music is no different to copying software. Strange that the technical community doesn’t have so many campaigns for Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, BEA, IBM, etc to make all their software free.

Some people have argued that music should be free. That would solve the problem. But I think we would all regret it, as the quality of music we get would decline. Or worse, become ad-funded. No thanks.

but this seems satement ignores reality – “sites that make it easy to create and share music in this fashion are shutting down left and right.”

I just read one of Michael’s posts yesterday on LaLa, can’t you do playlists/mixtapes there?

Aren’t imeem and LaLa and Myspace all digital mixtape services?

the digital mixtape is alive and well.