RE: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Since the RIAA already represents some of the
artists, isn't giving them the negotiations
responsibility for the government a direct
conflict of interest?


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 8:34 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > HOw about a good old fashioned Anti-Trust lawsuit from the 
> DoJ of the type that
> > Teddy Roosevelt and Wm. H. Taft did about 100 yrs ago 
> against the sugar trust,
> > Standard Oil etc....you know, exercise a little ecomomic 
> and political
> > conservativism by letting ones self be guided by history
> 
> Troubling is that the congress essentially made the RIAA the official
> gov't organization for negotiating licenses with all copyright holders
> (regardless of their membership in the RIAA).
> 
> I wonder if that can be challenged on constitutional grounds, 
> that it is
> a grant of monopoly power not allowed by the constitution -- 
> or whether
> one can bring suit for "universal service" sorts of restraints against
> terms and conditions that favor the RIAA members over the independents
> they now represent.  The Congress in passing legislation 
> authorizing the
> American Red Cross included language requiring response to *all*
> disasters (where disaster is defined down to the level of a house
> fire).  That certainly was needed to avoid Constitution discrimination
> issues (imagine if the local K^3 were in charge of disaster 
> response...
> eek!) .  I cannot see that a gov't authorized negotiating arm has any
> fewer Constitutional "equal representation" implications.   The RIAA
> foxes certainly cannot be hand the keys to the independent 
> chicken coop
> without first being fitted with a muzzle.  If the muzzle is missing,
> perhaps the court can (a) invalidate the "keys" or (b) require the
> fitting of one.
> 
> .002
> 
>