Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lawyer Asks RIAA To Investigate Bush Twins

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the sauce-for-the-gander dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 529

tanman writes "After reading an article in the Miami Herald that said "[President] Bush's twin daughters gave him a CD they had made for him to listen to while exercising," a Florida lawyer calculated statutory damages of $1.8 million and has sent a letter to the RIAA asking that they 'display the same vigor in prosecuting this matter and protecting the rights of your rights-holders that it has displayed in enforcing those rights against other alleged violators.' From the letter: 'This is a serious violation of copyright. As you know, whichever of your member organizations that are right[s]-holders for the copied musical works may be entitled to statutory damages of $150,000.00 per musical work copied.'" Update: 06/22 18:55 GMT by KD : The lawyer in question has retracted his analysis and now says no laws were broken, probably.

cancel ×

529 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

pwned. (0, Offtopic)

oxidiser (1118877) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610577)

'nuff said.

The leftist revolution of the sub-humans continues (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610969)

Linux users are filthy and disgusting.

Let's put them in closed rooms and let them gas themselves with their own flatulence.

The disease must end...

Excellent (5, Funny)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610583)

It's about time the RIAA took a stand against these music thieves. A colleague at my work who is known for having copied music went on a shooting spree. If the RIAA had dealt with him, I would not have had to step over bodybags on my way to lunch.

Re:Excellent (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610691)

I would like to investigate the Bush twins' bushes

stampa stampa, daddy like

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610777)

you are right! look at the effect of the Music Piracy has had the same effect int he Whitehouse.
The VB shot a friend in the face with a shotgun, ALL BECAUSE OF MUSIC PIRACY!

(Btw, if you havent watched "lil bush" go torrent a copy. You'll piss yourself over the dick chaney kid.

Government moved fast (2, Interesting)

danbert8 (1024253) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610587)

Nothing to see here AND two of the three links are dead... Fastest I've ever seen the US government react.

Re:Government moved fast (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610615)

Better tell the guys at Gitmo to reserve a room for him.

Re:Government moved fast (3, Informative)

Nato_Uno (34428) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610797)

Re:Government moved fast (4, Informative)

Nato_Uno (34428) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610871)

Hold on - I think slashdot is b0rking them...

http://the_scrivener.blogspot.com/2007/ 06/copyright-is-dead.html
http://the_scrivener.bl ogspot.com/2007/06/copyright-is-dead-part-2.html

Yep, it is.  There should be an underscore between 'the' and 'scrivener'.  slashdot seems to be filtering that out for some reason, so I'm posting as "code" - you'll have to cut'n'paste links.

Re:Government moved fast (2, Informative)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610947)

Your reply is getting borked too, had to remove some spaces from the urls for them to work.

Re:Government moved fast (1)

Gription (1006467) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610909)

Links are still dead...

Re:Government moved fast (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610951)

Something in slashdot is getting rid of the underscore in the URL name. It should be

the_scrivener.blogspot.com/2007/06/copyright-is-de ad.html
the_scrivener.blogspot.com/2007/06/copyright-is-de ad-part-2.html

(seems it puts an extra space in 'dead' as well....)

Bush twins (-1, Troll)

chinaguy (1022547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610589)

Oh, great! Go after kids because you hate their Dad. Sad.

Re:Bush twins (1)

deadstatue (1004528) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610653)

its not about hating bush,its that he posseses the illegal music.nuf said.

Re:Bush twins (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610661)

Um... get real. The person is obviously more pissed at the RIAA than anyone, and just trying to point out that there is a privileged class in this country that the RIAA doesn't go after.

Re:Bush twins (2, Funny)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610669)

Dumbass. It's got nothing to do with hating President Bush, and everything to do with showing everyone how stupid the RIAA is and how awful they've been to their own customers.

The Bush part is just a bonus.

Re:Bush twins (5, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610673)

It's not about hated their dad. It is about whether the RIAA is selectively enforcing their copyrights; and the Bush twins are high profile collateral damage. I don't know about copyrights, but if you know someone is infringing on your trademark and you do nothing about it, you lose that trademark. The lawyer is letting them know about an infringement of copyright.

Re:Bush twins (2, Informative)

sricetx (806767) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610753)

Copyright and trademark are entirely different things. IANAL but I'm quite certain that at least in the USA you cannot lose copyright by not prosecuting cases of infringement. Trademark on the other hand, can be lost if it isn't "protected".

Re:Bush twins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610801)

Every single fucking discussion, this question comes up and it's been pointed over and over again that copyright does not work this way. Please try to read this site once in a while and you might learn a thing or two.
 

Re:Bush twins (3, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610807)

Copyrights don't work the same as trademarks in that they do not require an active defense to continue operating. But from a moral/political point of view, it is wrong/unwise for the **IA to be selective in their pursuits of 'violators' of their clients' copyrighted works, and doubly so in the public eye (as public officials are "role models", and also a generally privileged class).

Re:Bush twins (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610743)

Oh, great! Go after kids because you hate their Dad. Sad.

It has nothing to do with their Dad - it has to do with their visibility, due to their dad's station in life. If this were 10 years ago, he'd make the case against Chelsea Clinton.

It's about:
  • media attention
  • pointing out the absurd damages the RIAA claims
  • pointing out that they don't go after those who are likely to be able to defend themselves
This guy's on our side.

I'm curious - if the RIAA decides not to prosecute, does this somehow weaken their future cases or set them up for government sanction? (I know, copyrights aren't trademarks).

Re:Bush twins (2, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610879)

I'm curious - if the RIAA decides not to prosecute, does this somehow weaken their future cases or set them up for government sanction? (I know, copyrights aren't trademarks).

Maybe not under the law, but certainly in the public eye. The continued behavior of the **IAs requires legislative support for their preferred notion of how copyrights ought to work; if people get actively pissed off enough (and seeing el presidente and spawn get away with something that they can't is sure to do just that) the legislative support (and the favorable laws that accompany it) may evaporate. Of course, targeting politicans' daughters may make it evaporate as well. Oh well, guess they are screwed. If, you know, the media reported on media matters so that anyone would ever know about what is going on. Which will roughly be never. Hmm. I guess they aren't screwed after all.

Re:Bush twins (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610745)

So you're saying that 2 girls who share music and are reported to the RIAA should not be because of their dad?

They've been caught and reported, why shouldn't they be victimized like the rest of us?

Re:Bush twins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610907)

Um, mostly because there is 0 evidence against them? A completely random lawyer reported that they committed a crime, so you automatically assume that they're guilty, just because you don't like their dad? How would that lawyer know whether the CD ever actually existed? Or whether the music on it was copyrighted? Or whether they had permission to distribute that copyrighted material?

This has nothing to do with being treated "like the rest of us", because the RIAA has never prosecuted someone for this before. They prosecute people who they can prove illegally distributed music-- not people "reported" by random sources with 0 credibility.

Wow. (-1, Offtopic)

zstlaw (910185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610593)

First post and the links are already dead... That is faster than usual.

Re:Wow. (0)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610839)

it was on fark.com earlier... and probably digg, boingboing, etc.

Re:Wow. (1)

palewook (1101845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19611011)

nah they just accepted a story without checking the links.

I'm all for it (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610595)

As you know, whichever of your member organizations that are right[s]-holders for the copied musical works may be entitled to statutory damages of $150,000.00 per musical work copied.'"

After that, let's go for what's-his-sellout-bitch-ass from Metallica who admitted in an interview in the 90s making a mix take for a friend in the 80s. After the whole "napster bad" incident I lost what little respect I had for them after the black album, and would love to see them burn for their overall hypocrisy.

FIRE BAD!

Re:I'm all for it (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610891)

Does that mean you don't like them for the Black Album or for everything they produced afterwards?

While I seriously like their music I feel about the same amount of sympathy towards them as you do.

Re:I'm all for it (1)

Frigga's Ring (1044024) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610913)

Wow... that's a blast from the past. You magnificent bastard!

They control the Internet! (1)

PinkPanther (42194) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610597)

WTF? Blog pulled already??

[Searching for tinfoil, a wire hanger and some crazy glue (or duct tape)]

Re:They control the Internet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610759)

The summary here says that an independent lawyer suggested that the RIAA investigate the Bush twins, not that the RIAA is actually doing it.

Well, it's possible this lawyer doesn't like the RIAA, and wants them to go after the Bush twins for the combination of bad press and rift it will create in the minds of politicians. Some might think, "If they're going to go after the President's daughters, what's going to stop them from going after my kids too?" and withdraw support. That would be too perfect. Unfortunately, the RIAA probably has more brains than to ruffle the feathers of their primary support group, the ones who can actually make their big witch hunt easier.

this is WONDERFUL! (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610611)

now the politians can start to see this "Richards" for what they are

Capone and taxes (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610619)

It would be funny if the House of Bush got taken down by a CD-R and a copyright violation. After all, Al Capone got nabbed on tax fraud.

Re:Capone and taxes (1)

Serapth (643581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610963)

How dare you compare Bush to Capone!

I mean Capone was a killer criminal, while Bush is...

Oh wait, nevermind.

Must be a slow news day... (1)

Lookin4Trouble (1112649) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610621)

There is a common practice in law these days called "selective prosecution"...

While it would be amusing to see the Bushie twins dragged through a legal battle and would be a real "Nobody's safe" kinda PR for RIAA Member Companies, I doubt they would take the idea seriously unless those two got the tracks off Kazaa or some such shady means.

Inflation or greed? (4, Funny)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610623)

1.8 million dollars in damages for a 18 dollar CD? Methinks the lawyers calculators have too many places on the left side of the decimal place.

Re:Inflation or greed? (2, Informative)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610773)

$1.8M in potential damages
$150k/song

That comes out to 12 songs. Sounds about right (mathematically speaking, that is.....).

Re:Inflation or greed? (1)

slackmaster2000 (820067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610793)

This is a political statement. A sort of motivated joke.

Re:Inflation or greed? (2, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610889)

1.8million dollars is apparently how much money the RIAA loses when you pirate a CD. I'm guessing they only catch 1 in 100,000 people, so the one chump has to make up for those 99,999 other people. or at least that seems like how the math is supposed to play out, of course it's insane.

Re:Inflation or greed? (1)

slashbob22 (918040) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610905)

No, that's 12 tracks at RIAA's going rate of $150,000. Methinks that RIAA has a decimal place on the left side of their collective IQ.

Where is TFA (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610627)

The two blog posts are missing in action, and the first linked story just mentions 'a cd was made for him to exercise to' making no claim that the songs were even copyrighted, or that if they were there was no permission to copy them. Also, when twins do something, who takes the blame for it? Do they have to split the $1.8M fine? So many unanswered questions...

Re:Where is TFA (1)

Lookin4Trouble (1112649) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610737)

"making no claim that the songs were even copyrighted(sic)
Somehow I doubt Dubya is listening to Beethoven's 5th in D-Minor.

Re:Where is TFA (1)

jd142 (129673) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610817)

Even if he is listening to Beethoven, the individual performance of the piece is copyrighted.

Re:Where is TFA (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610819)

Just because the notes aren't copyrighted, that doesn't mean the specific performance is. I could make a recording of me playing the 5th and distribute it how I see fit. However, if I made an mp3 of the Boston Pops playing the same piece, that still falls under a copyright violation.

Hit that (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610647)

I would totally hit that. [miamiherald.com]

Re:Hit that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610945)

Yeah. He's pretty hot, isn't he?

Funny but nothing new (2, Informative)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610663)

This is like a while back President Bush said he had the Beatles on his iPod, when there was no legal way to get them on there. Sure, It's funny, but thats this isn't gonna change anyone's minds and there is no way the RIAA is gonna after him. Policians and celebrities don't have to play by the same rules as you and I, whats new?

Re:Funny but nothing new (3, Insightful)

mrscorpio (265337) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610725)

No legal way other than buying the CD and ripping an mp3 for yourself, you mean? Because that falls under "fair use" which is still law for a little while longer, last I checked.

Re:Funny but nothing new (1)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610845)

I screwed that up. I just double checked it. A while back the RIAA was claiming at one point that ripping CDs isn't fair use. So it should have been "according to the RIAA there was no legal way to get them there."

Re:Funny but nothing new (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610771)

I thought it would be legal to make mp3 copies of your purchased Beatles CD for the purpose of putting it on one's ipod. Am I wrong?

Re:Funny but nothing new (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610923)

If it were illegal to rip CDs for personal use then I guess iTunes and WMP would be DMCA violations, having aided you in your evil copyright violation schemes.

actually, yes, there is a legal way to do that (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610971)

it's called "fair use provision of the copyright act."

if the President owns his original licensed media, and maintains it in his ownership, he has the legal right to make a million copies if he wants for his own personal use, provided he uses only one of them at a time, and gives none away.

so the President has set a high moral standard for all Americans by copying his own music to his own iPod.

now, can YOU claim to have done the same? if not, time's a wastin', there are gigabytes to fill yet. start ripping today!

Missing data? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610667)

The blog postings seem to be missing, and I can't figure out how he reached a number as low as $1.8 million. If we assume an average of 5 minutes per song, and an 80 minute CDR, that comes to 16 tracks, which at $150,000/track comes to $2.4 million.

Re:Missing data? (1)

DNeoMatrix (1098085) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610897)

Who said the CD was full?

Re:Missing data? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19611029)

Exactly right- which is why I said missing data. The one article we CAN get to only says there was a CD, not how many tracks there were or the length of said tracks. But this is equal opportunity missing information- for the person who wrote the article summary also has no clue how many tracks there are; I'm just stating that $1.8 million seems rather LOWBALL given the other numbers.

I'm all for seeing Jenna and Tonic punished, but.. (1)

T_ConX (783573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610687)

...isn't this what we do ALL THE TIME? Downloading Music?

Or do we just want to see the RIAA back down because they don't want to pick a fight with people who have better legal resources...

Page Not Found (3, Funny)

mytrip (940886) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610711)

Oh my. This is hillarious. Get them off to dubai with the haliburton execs to avoid prosecution.

Awesome! (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610749)

This is so awesome! You know politicians typically bend the laws in their favor - Bush is certainly no exception to THAT.

I hope the RIAA attacks him and I hope that this forces Bush to fight the RIAA.

That wouldn't be enough for forgive him for everything he's done, but it could be a start.

Also, I'm getting a "page not found" from the Blogger links. Perhaps he was silenced?

RIAA vs Bush (5, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610755)

who in the hell do you pull for in this one?

Re:RIAA vs Bush (5, Funny)

CantStopDancing (1036410) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610885)

come on, it's like nude-female jello wrestling - you just hope it goes the distance.

Re:RIAA vs Bush (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610893)

Bush - he's gone in 2 years anyway, and if he spends those 2 years annihilating the RIAA, that's a win for us.

Re:RIAA vs Bush (1)

Marc Desrochers (606563) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610901)

I'd say Bush. If he fight the RIAA and wins, it sets a precedent. Anyone citing Pres Bush vs RIAA in the future has a pretty good shot in the future, no?

Re:RIAA vs Bush (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610959)

One could only hope they would both somehow lose.

Re:RIAA vs Bush (4, Funny)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 7 years ago | (#19611007)

I think this falls under the 'Aliens versus Predator' precept. "Whoever wins...we lose."

the American consumer (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19611023)

about time somebody did

Regular CD or MP3 CD? (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610767)

I didn't RTFA, but what if it wasn't a regular CD? What if it was an MP3 CD? Imagine what the "Damages" would be then! If they could cram 1500 songs on a CD, it would be $225,000,000.00 in damages! Seems fair to me....

Re:Regular CD or MP3 CD? (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 7 years ago | (#19611013)

At .5MB per song, those are some pretty crappy MP3's.

kdawson lost my pants... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610775)

...when he should have been editing a trollish article.

I want 45 million for pain & suffering & misspelling & dupes.

Great story! (3, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610785)

If there ever was a slashdot story/thread that would make the RIAA look like the, "good guys," ... yup, them going after President Bush,... that would do it! :-)

Page not found (1)

lexsco (594799) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610789)

Wow !

The http://www.secretservice.gov/ [secretservice.gov] is really quick to protect the President.

Is this the case? (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610795)

I'm sure the RIAA doesn't have any major problems with Mix-tapes, and have usually tolerated peopel giving these away. It's indiscriminate sharing of large numbers of files on P2P networks they sue over and the Bush Twins haven't been doing that.

And in later news (3, Funny)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610799)

The lawyer in question was found to be 'unreachable', although he did leave a forwarding address....in Cuba.

Made a CD (0)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610825)

Where in the Herald article does it say they used RIAA-owned music in this CD?
Is it impossible that one or both of them knows a local musician who thought "Oh, cool! The president will hear my music!" and authorized the copy?

Sounds like this guy is trying a wee bit too hard for publicity.

Sure thing... (1)

jseeley (151004) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610829)

...and they'll send out the supoena via flying pig...

Thecorrect URL is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610843)

Re:Thecorrect URL is: (1)

Cocoronixx (551128) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610911)

The URLs you posted, as well as others in this discussion AND in the summary are all dead. If you go to the guy's main blog page http://thescrivener.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] the article doesn't even show up in his archive. I believe it is safe to say the post has been pulled.

The songs may not be from RIAA artists (1)

boguslinks (1117203) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610859)

The attention-whore Florida attorney seems to have made the assumption that the songs were from RIAA labels, and of course here on Slashdot we love to point out that not every song on the face of the earth is under RIAA jurisdiction. The CD may be composed of recordings of the beloved "local bands" I alway hear about. I would verify this if the damn links in the article worked.

What a CRAPPY Gift (2, Funny)

madsheep (984404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610867)

So these are the daughter's of the president and their gift to him is a home made mix CD? Looks like someone forgot about Father's Day and had to think fast! In any event, while most the links are dead, how do we even know what was on the CD? Who said the music on it was actually copyrighted?

Re:What a CRAPPY Gift (1)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610991)

On the other hand, their dad is the President. What could you give him that he didn't already have access to?

Obligatory Simpson Quote (1)

geantvert (996616) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610883)

Ha Ha!

BS argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610895)

Name one case the RIAA has prosecuted involving 1 burned CD given to only one person. There is a difference between burning a CD, and sharing a song on a p2p network.

2 words.... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610931)

Presidential Pardon

I'm confused... (2, Funny)

wooden pickle (1006975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610949)

Can't Gonzales just fire this guy for "performance reasons"?

Site links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19610955)

Here's the actual links:

http://the_scrivener.blogspot.com/2007/0 6/copyright-is-dead.html
http://the_scrivener.blo gspot.com/2007/06/copyright-is-dead-part-2.html

The '_' happens to get killed in the URL when posted as HTML or Text... Can't even put %5F to replace it...

Oh noes! Hope they leave them alone! (1)

Tatisimo (1061320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610957)

My brother once recorded a song that might have been copyrighted for my mom on mother's day. If they do sue for this, the song writers might come after him next! And he also sang a song for my father on father's day. And I don't believe he paid preforming rights. He's got it all against him!

The really funny thing... (3, Funny)

ajenteks (943860) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610967)

Burning a mix CD? For a Father's Day gift? Isn't that the college equivalent to macaroni art!?

Re:The really funny thing... (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19611021)

Actually it is. Right up there with plaster handprint ashtrays.

sure you laugh (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610977)

but these poor women have had poor parenting. these teenaged girls have had poor parental guidance and roll models. it's easy for YOU who have had parents that imbued you with some intelligence, a sense of decency... would you laugh so hard if YOUR dad was GW Bush? i don't think so

God! (0, Troll)

ericdano (113424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610983)

This has to be the most petty thing I've seen. How many millions of other people would be guilty of this as well?

I know there are people who hate Bush, but really, this is insane.

Re:God! (2)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 7 years ago | (#19611025)

Think deeper!

Not hate Bush, hate RIAA.
It's like handing someone a pizza and telling them to deliver it to someone living in a van in the middle of an auto salvage yard, filled with dobermans and other junkyard dogs.

Yeah... (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610987)

Yeah, like that's going to ever happen.

Maybe they'll be let off, like that record exec's son, with a stern talking to by their daddy. Any other person sued by the RIAA that wants to take that option too?

Burn! Burn! (1)

Bob-taro (996889) | more than 7 years ago | (#19610997)

He turned me into a newt!

Entertainer exemption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19611001)

This case will never go to court.
The Bush clan is considered as members of the professional entertainers community and such, they are exempt from copyright violation prosecution. This particular legislation is called the "clown clause".

Home Audio Recording Act? (2, Interesting)

WaxParadigm (311909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19611009)

It's a non-issue if they used a "Digital Audio Recording Device" [wikipedia.org] and the CD-R was a "Digital Audio Recording Medium." I have such a device and use the slightly-more-expensive "music" CD-Rs when I make CDs for friends/family/myself (i.e. to have copy in car). I am exempt from infringement actions (I can't be prosecuted/sued for copyright infringement) for such activities. If they, like me, acted within the Home Audio Recording Act there is no story here...just FUD.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>