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

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

Oh ... so _noone_ is negotiating on behalf
of the government, the copyrightholder's agent
just gets to set whatever terms they want?

Oh. Ok. That's _muuuuuuch_ better.

	:-\


-- 
-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 3:01 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
> 
> 
> "What we have is a failure to communicate."  -- Cool Hand Luke
> 
> I was unclear in what I posted.  In the recent webcasting bill SounEx
> (essentially an arm of the RIAA) was specified to set royalty fees. 
> Since these royalty agreements will have the force of law 
> behind them it
> puts RIAA in a meta-gov't role.
> 
> Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > 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>
> > > --------------+
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> 
>