Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA

slashdot.org ^ | March 22, 2009 | timothy

[KevinB]

These people stealing intellectual property, whether kids or not, whether culturally correct or not, should be tried on criminal charges and if convicted, imprisoned.

Unfortunately, conservatism tends to leave the room when it comes to RIAA threads. I always thought conservatives were supposed to respect private property rights - in this case the rights of the artists and record companies - not trample them. Conservatives also like to portray themselves as defenders of the Constitution. The founders believed that copyright was so important that they specifically provided for it in the Constitution. Unfortunately, conservatives are just as capable of hypocrisy as our "friends" on the left.

[BlazingArizona]

These people stealing intellectual property, whether kids or not, whether culturally correct or not, should be tried on criminal charges and if convicted, imprisoned.

A real property owner has to be content with shooing the kids off his lawn. Imaginary property owners, on the other hand, can fine kids their life savings for a first offense, thereby making themselves exceedingly rich. They get to arbitrarily make their lawns 100x larger every few years without having to buy any more property from anyone. They can make all lawn mower owners pay taxes to them, even for mowing their own lawns. They can even force lawn mowers to be designed to only operate in one city at a time. Don't you wish you, as a real estate owner, had powers like that?

[supercat]

The founders believed that copyright was so important that they specifically provided for it in the Constitution.

They did provide Congress some limited power in that regard. Given, however, that the Founders were certainly aware of reproducible forms of expression other than the written word (lithographs, e.g.), I would think they would have mentioned artists along with authors and inventors if they thought copyright protection of non-written artistic works was important. That isn't to imply that the copyright power might not extend to some non-textual media, but nothing in I.8 would suggest that it was a priority.

Certainly I see nothing in I.8 that would justify copyright provisions which substantially interfere with technological development, or which serve to extend people's "exclusive use" periods indefinitely. The lack of authority doesn't deter Congress, however.

[Mariner]

"A real property owner has to be content with shooing the kids off his lawn. Imaginary property owners, on the other hand, can fine kids their life savings for a first offense, thereby making themselves exceedingly rich. They get to arbitrarily make their lawns 100x larger every few years without having to buy any more property from anyone. They can make all lawn mower owners pay taxes to them, even for mowing their own lawns. They can even force lawn mowers to be designed to only operate in one city at a time. Don't you wish you, as a real estate owner, had powers like that?"

Specious argument, at best.

These tools we use to access the internet...computers, switches, routers, Fiber-optic repeaters, likely the software you're using to access...all of it is protected by Intellectual Property rights. Most music and published writing, automobile design, aircraft design...nearly every invention created by mankind in the last 100 years is the result of the economic incentive provided by intellectual property rights.

I won't even mention the 1000's of artists so protected in addition to the Beatles, Stones, Doors, Boccelli, The New York Metropolitan Opera and Clint Eastwood.

The very foundation of Western Civilization rests, in addition to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, on Intellectual Property.

You would undermine this foundation so you don't have to pay for the latest Metallica record? Have you no respect for the artist you're stealing from?