<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: All Eyes on Duluth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/10/04/riaa-duluth-lawsuit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/10/04/riaa-duluth-lawsuit/</link>
	<description>Information, Law, and the Law of Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:08:14 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Info/Law &#187; Should Congress Cap Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement at 100x Actual Harm?</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/10/04/riaa-duluth-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-65477</link>
		<dc:creator>Info/Law &#187; Should Congress Cap Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement at 100x Actual Harm?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:33:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/10/04/riaa-duluth-lawsuit/#comment-65477</guid>
		<description>[...] reading the news that the trial judge in the Jammie Thomas file-sharing case (previously covered here) has ordered a new trial. The core legal issue on which the new trial order turned isn&#8217;t the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] reading the news that the trial judge in the Jammie Thomas file-sharing case (previously covered here) has ordered a new trial. The core legal issue on which the new trial order turned isn&#8217;t the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Riddick</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/10/04/riaa-duluth-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-21870</link>
		<dc:creator>George Riddick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/10/04/riaa-duluth-lawsuit/#comment-21870</guid>
		<description>Good morning, William

I realize that the majority of your readers are probably upset with this news from Duluth.

I read an article this morning in the New York Times and thought I&#039;d share my response with you.

I understand both sides of this debate (I really do). I have a 20-year-old son and a 16-year-old daughter who have been taught that many copyright holders are evil and greedy.

And some are. I&#039;ll grant you that. 

But the vast majority of us are just out here trying to make a fair and honest living. And what we do is license our hard earned works to others for their personal enjoyment, productivity, and/or education.

No one has forced anyone else to take our works. The sytem works fine. There just isn&#039;t any room for piracy. Piracy is wrong. Piracy is stealing.

Thanks for taking the time to listen to all sides of this argument.

George

***********************************************************

Good morning, Jeff
 
You did an excellent job of simplifying one of the most significant business events in quite some time. You see, my small graphic arts development company presented the exact same issue to the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2003, about the same time as the Recording Industry began their legal assaults. Our case was rejected. Many of the judges had no idea how significant this issue really was at the time.
 
I understand why so many people think the tactic of suing almost 30,000 people is unjust and unfair ... especially as they watch Spector wandering around in his mansion in LA with money falling out of his pockets. But these suits aren&#039;t just for the middlemen and recording labels. They are also for the artists as well. They get paid based on the legitimate licensing of their hard earned works.
 
These labels have actually been given little or no choice. Many of the anti-copyright crowd have simply taken the approach of &quot;you can&#039;t stop us&quot; or &quot;we&#039;ll steal anything we feel compelled to steal ... online or offline.&quot;
 
And for a select group of copyright defense lawyers, these folks are easy prey. Do you think they expect to be paid win or lose? They mislead their vulnerable clients into thinking they can outwit the law. It is shameful in my view.
 
The answer is simple. The tide has turned. Copyrighted works can now be obtained legally online for very, very reasonable prices. I think I read recently that a popular song can be obtained from Wal-Mart for 85 cents. Come on. Why would someone choose to steal it instead?
 
Movies, videos, clipart illustrations, photographs, short stories, poems, cartoons, magazine articles, books ... the whole lot has seen the light and realized the potential of this wonderful new worldwide distribution system we call the Internet. Digital distribution is, indeed, the wave of the present, and the future. Arguments that we, members of the copyright industries, simply are behind the times is old news ... and no longer applicable.
 
And even people behind the times don&#039;t deserve to be robbed by the masses who think they are &quot;in the know&quot;.
 
I believe these rulings by a judge and jury will do more to curtail rampant copyright infringement in this country than almost anything I&#039;ve witnessed in the last 4-5 years. When I hear folks say the recording companies strategy is not working because there are more music infringements now than there were 4 years ago when the lawsuits first started, I have to cringe.
 
They are ill-informed. Our industry (electronic graphic arts content - clipart illustrations, design templates, digital logos/symbols, and animations) has seen a 20 fold increase in Internet piracy since 2003. For every 1 pirated clipart illustration or photograph in 2003 there are 20 today! That&#039;s one of the few negative aspects of the world&#039;s switch to broadband.
 
To see that the music industry has only increased by 5-10% is phenomenal and proves to me that this strategy is, indeed, working for all of us.
 
Congratulations, Capitol Records, Sony, and Warner Brothers. I know you have taken a lot of heat over the past few years. But for the 400,000+ of us in the electronic graphic arts industries, who depend on honesty and fair play to make our livings, we want to deliver to you a great big &quot;Thank You&quot;.
 
Keep up the good work.
 
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good morning, William</p>
<p>I realize that the majority of your readers are probably upset with this news from Duluth.</p>
<p>I read an article this morning in the New York Times and thought I&#8217;d share my response with you.</p>
<p>I understand both sides of this debate (I really do). I have a 20-year-old son and a 16-year-old daughter who have been taught that many copyright holders are evil and greedy.</p>
<p>And some are. I&#8217;ll grant you that. </p>
<p>But the vast majority of us are just out here trying to make a fair and honest living. And what we do is license our hard earned works to others for their personal enjoyment, productivity, and/or education.</p>
<p>No one has forced anyone else to take our works. The sytem works fine. There just isn&#8217;t any room for piracy. Piracy is wrong. Piracy is stealing.</p>
<p>Thanks for taking the time to listen to all sides of this argument.</p>
<p>George</p>
<p>***********************************************************</p>
<p>Good morning, Jeff</p>
<p>You did an excellent job of simplifying one of the most significant business events in quite some time. You see, my small graphic arts development company presented the exact same issue to the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2003, about the same time as the Recording Industry began their legal assaults. Our case was rejected. Many of the judges had no idea how significant this issue really was at the time.</p>
<p>I understand why so many people think the tactic of suing almost 30,000 people is unjust and unfair &#8230; especially as they watch Spector wandering around in his mansion in LA with money falling out of his pockets. But these suits aren&#8217;t just for the middlemen and recording labels. They are also for the artists as well. They get paid based on the legitimate licensing of their hard earned works.</p>
<p>These labels have actually been given little or no choice. Many of the anti-copyright crowd have simply taken the approach of &#8220;you can&#8217;t stop us&#8221; or &#8220;we&#8217;ll steal anything we feel compelled to steal &#8230; online or offline.&#8221;</p>
<p>And for a select group of copyright defense lawyers, these folks are easy prey. Do you think they expect to be paid win or lose? They mislead their vulnerable clients into thinking they can outwit the law. It is shameful in my view.</p>
<p>The answer is simple. The tide has turned. Copyrighted works can now be obtained legally online for very, very reasonable prices. I think I read recently that a popular song can be obtained from Wal-Mart for 85 cents. Come on. Why would someone choose to steal it instead?</p>
<p>Movies, videos, clipart illustrations, photographs, short stories, poems, cartoons, magazine articles, books &#8230; the whole lot has seen the light and realized the potential of this wonderful new worldwide distribution system we call the Internet. Digital distribution is, indeed, the wave of the present, and the future. Arguments that we, members of the copyright industries, simply are behind the times is old news &#8230; and no longer applicable.</p>
<p>And even people behind the times don&#8217;t deserve to be robbed by the masses who think they are &#8220;in the know&#8221;.</p>
<p>I believe these rulings by a judge and jury will do more to curtail rampant copyright infringement in this country than almost anything I&#8217;ve witnessed in the last 4-5 years. When I hear folks say the recording companies strategy is not working because there are more music infringements now than there were 4 years ago when the lawsuits first started, I have to cringe.</p>
<p>They are ill-informed. Our industry (electronic graphic arts content &#8211; clipart illustrations, design templates, digital logos/symbols, and animations) has seen a 20 fold increase in Internet piracy since 2003. For every 1 pirated clipart illustration or photograph in 2003 there are 20 today! That&#8217;s one of the few negative aspects of the world&#8217;s switch to broadband.</p>
<p>To see that the music industry has only increased by 5-10% is phenomenal and proves to me that this strategy is, indeed, working for all of us.</p>
<p>Congratulations, Capitol Records, Sony, and Warner Brothers. I know you have taken a lot of heat over the past few years. But for the 400,000+ of us in the electronic graphic arts industries, who depend on honesty and fair play to make our livings, we want to deliver to you a great big &#8220;Thank You&#8221;.</p>
<p>Keep up the good work.</p>
<p>George P. Riddick, III<br />
Chairman/CEO<br />
Imageline, Inc.<br />
griddick@imageline2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
