Let us consider: There is only one copyright law (copyright Act 17, in the USA) and the scmooks who wrote were and changed it were too lazy to analyze the need and actual workable options to promote the creation o music, movies, poems, photography, paintings, etc. All they have done is react to the lobbies from the music and the movie industries, while not recognizing that music, poetry, movies, etc. cannot fit into one law.

It is absurd that with one law you can promote the creation o poetry and architectural designs. This no more possible than making a factory to produce airplanes and guitars in the same production line. Only odd balls (politician / lawmakers fit the description very well) would attempt it as they have.

To the point: Many new copyright laws are required. Each laws should have licensing and payment programs that primarily benefit the people (consumers) and then the creators.

Recently a secretary level government official requested from my firm a public performance license for using a poem whose copyright we own. The license was asked without really knowing if the poem was in the public domain. The purpose was to read the poem during the inauguration if a new large sports stadium. While we issued the license, I asked the government official, why can we not have a system so that to read a poem in a public place or a school, no permission is required? Of couese, I know the answer…. the current copyright laws do not allow it – as a way to kill culture and poetry, all because there is no poetry copyright law.

This proposed plan is far outside the scope of a judge presiding over the Napster lawsuit, whose judgement (mandating a complete absence of infringement) was not just technically impossible for a user-interactive network, it was so Draconian that it would have been impossible for any company such as Youtube to avoid shutting down to stay in compliance.

What about protecting science, technology, and innovation from crippling lawsuits and other abuses by the music industry? Patel appears to be either ignorant of this or just doesn’t care that these sue-crazy record labels will do everything they can to stifle any new emerging technology. Digital Audio Tape was tied up in lawsuits for so many years, it became an outdated technology by the time it was all over, and never even made it to the market. The first portable MP3 player, the Diamond Rio, was sued into the ground. Any new technology can expect a similar fate.

What about protecting ordinary citizens from crippling lawsuits by the music industry? Unlike Judge Michael Davis, who questioned the RIAA’s scorched-earth tactics when he vacated his own ruling, the recording industry’s abuses apparently sit just fine with this judge.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel has always been a tool of the recording industry. The RIAA chould consider making her their next president in recognition of her record of loyal service.

Quote:
The Alliance should then name a very small group to brainstorm how p2p can be made to work for them…

Lets not even talk about those that don’t download and what a clamor that will be over paying for someone else to do so.

This is our plan and we are not waiting for anyone or anything to execute. This plan is in progress right now.

Then we can talk about this with those left who are not terrorists.

Does this Patel lady knows that in the US we never negotiate with terrorists?

This is “digital hardware imprimatur”.