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

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

I'm missing the part were they negotiate _for_ the gov't.  They are the
gov't appointed negotiators for _all_ copyright holders (in the webcast
compromise law just passed), but that seems materially different from
negotiating for the gov't.  Nothing in the current laws seems to include
any gov't interest (such as the public good) even as a consideration of
the negotiation of royalties and fees.  The gov't just has required the
webcasters to (a) pay royalties and (b) pay whatever the RIAA
specifies.  

Or am _I_ missing something? (It certainly wouldn't be a first.)

.002

"Few grammatical errors are as embarrassing as not finishing a" 
	-- .002

Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> Sorry ... the RIAA does represent copyright holders,
> so in negotiating both _to_ and _for_ the government
> they have a substantial conflict of interest.
> 
> The fact that they have _additional_ conflicts
> is secondary ;-)
> 
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:dcs@lumbercartel.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 8:43 PM
> > To: DVD-Discuss
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 11:59, Glendon M. Gross wrote:
> > > It's almost as though the RIAA would become like a
> > "Department of Art"
> > > or "Department of Copyright Enforcement."  I find it
> > strange that there
> > > is not more resistance to their point of view in the courts, but I
> > > suspect that except for the EFF very few people are actively
> > > representing the opposing view.
> >
> > Maybe the best thing to do is accept the RIAA's status as
> > a quasi-governmental agency.  There are any number of laws
> > regulating the conduct of such agencies, and the Courts
> > seem quite willing to apply them strictly.  Wouldn't it be
> > fun if the RIAA's meetings were covered by sunshine laws?
> >
> > > The RIAA often seems to win these kinds
> > > of cases by "default."   Content creators may need some kind of
> > > representation in government but it should be an impartial
> > > representation, not a partisan representation.  Ultimately
> > I don't think
> > > the RIAA helps artists as much as they do mechanical reproducers of
> > > music [and copyright owners] who often don't compensate the
> > artist at all.
> >
> > Actually, the RIAA doesn't represent artists at all.  (You're
> > thinking ASCAP or BMI)  The RIAA represents *publishers*, and
> > on several occasions has represented them *against* artists.
> > The RIAA, for instance, was behind the notorious "work for
> > hire" law.
> >
> > --
> > | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. |
> > | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.                |
> > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
> >
> >