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

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

Perhaps I misunderstood what you said then, here:

[blockquote]
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).
[/blockquote]

That sound like congress has given the power to negotiate
terms for the government to the copyright holders; while 
the RIAA already has the responsibility to negotiate
terms _for_ the copyright holders _to_ (whoever wants
the rights).

Since the RIAA would be acting as agent _for_ both
parties, this would be a conflict of interest.

You are the one who said this, and now you are saying
you missed it ... did I just misunderstand what you
had said?

-- 
-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: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:33 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
> 
> 
> 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> 
> --------------+
> > >
> > >
> 
>