Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Settles Suits Against Students
wo1verin3 writes "Cnet's News.Com has reported that the RIAA has settled the suits with four students accused of sharing songs. The settlements will see each student making payments to the RIAA totaling between $12,000 and $17,000, split into annual installments between 2003 and 2006."
... that's fucked up.
I think the RIAA should sue all of us, and then we'll all turn to buying CDs! Brilliant!
OUCH!
Serious cash to a college student. But unabashed chump-change to the RIAA.
Nice to see that they're morally "flexible" (read BANKRUPT) enough to make this sort of accomodation though.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
...they got off cheap.
but geez, poor scapegoats, I could be next...and school leaves me broke enough already.
So when are we gonna start raising money for them?
Unfortunately, this is the way it had to end-- the RIAA would lose face to the public if they went for criminal charges, and the $12-17k is a realistic warning to other file traders. If they suit had been for a hundred million trillion dollars (or however must Hilary--err, the RIAA-- estimated as damages), it would have also been a defeat in the public's eyes. $3000 a year, hmmm $300 a month for "unlimited" MP3 downloads? Sounds like a marketing campaign!
Actually, that does sound pretty good, would you pay, say $59 a month or something for unlimited mp3s? I might...
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
and how much does the artists get?
they sure caught a break
I'll never buy another CD from these creeps, ever. Ever, ever, ever. They used to see my money. Now they wont. I vote with my dollars. They think they are making a statement? They sure are. "I was a 20 CD a year guy.. until.."
I bet these kids ended up paying more than 99 cents a song.
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
slashdot should put a great big ole button on the front page so everyone might donate a doller to help pay these fines off for these guys, as probably just about everyone here could afford a doller to say fuck the riaa.
The RIAA's intent is to set a precedent by making poor student downloaders suffer financially. So who wants to set up the paypal account to accept donations to make this as painless as possible?
I'd be happy to contribute the first $20.
...goes to the artists that "missed out on income" or to RIAA ? Or is it evenly split ?
12000 - 17000 songs they could have downloaded from apple's site ;)
...and kind of ridiculous. Having been a fulltime student, I had to work 40-60 hour weeks in the summer and part time during the academic year to make the cash for tution books and rent. And that was with help from the bank of mom and dad.
What is the logic behind these damages? Were the students in question getting rich of sharing files? Even if they were before (doubt it) they certainly aren't now.
Vote Nader in 2004.
Why don't you go bash your stupid head against the wall.
"Though morally I must admit that I wish this suit would have been fought, (I'm not sure of the implications of a settlement legally if similar cases arise in the future) I'm sure all of these students are MUCH happier with the debts they owe now instead of the massive lawsuit that could've cost them their futures.
Does this set a precedent in the RIAA's favor for further cases that are similar to this one?
OK, that was cruel.
I was looking forward to them being sentenced to 200 million years hard labour at Burger King to pay off the initial amounts that were being bandied about.
Still 17K is not funny when you are still in school
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
How do we send these poor scapegoats some cash? Paypal? Personal Checks? Cash money in tin foil like grandma?
If SaveKaryn got her money, these guys are worthy for sure.
So my question is, are services that find copywritten material on networks Illegal? Since this case never went to court, it doesn't shed any light. Can Google be sued for direct links that liable for direct links?
This seems to me like the RIAA is trying to kill two birds with one stone. On one hand, they really think they've sent some sort of message to the millions of people downloading music. And now because they've decreased the damages from such a HUGE amount, they're hoping that it'll make them look better to the public.
"Oh, the RIAA isn't so bad, they decreased the amount of charges from a billion dollars to a few thousand..." is what they're hoping the public will say.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
I'm not surprised that this case didn't go to trial -- there was too much risk for both sides. Even if the students could afford to defend themselves, there is no way they could risk losing millions of dollars. On the RIAA side, they would be in trouble if the case went to trial whether they won or lost. If they lost, they would not be able to use the threat of lawsuits as effectively in the future. If they won, the bad publicity from getting such an obscene judgement might cause people to question current copyright laws. With this settlement, the RIAA maintains the status quo.
Was Daniel Peng the same student who was threatened with the $98 billion lawsuit? Because after reading Joseph Barillari's analysis of the lawsuit it seemed like Dan would have had a pretty good defense to either have the case dismissed or to be acquitted.
Was paying the $17,000 really in the end the wiser decision? It just seems like he had a solid argument, especially given the recent development with Morpheus and Grokster.
Weren't these the people who were running completely legal Google-like indexes of all files on their local networks? Why would they agree to pay $thousands to the RIAA? Was this like the Cyber Patrol case where the lawyer made an unfavourable settlement and the defendant decided to live with it?
IF I were one of the students, I'd open a website called www.FtheRIAA.com and raise some funds to screw them over. Then I'd leave some flaming poo on their door stop...
I think they got off rather light. What those kids were doing was illegal and they knew it. They could have gotten much stiffer fines, or even time in jail.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Peng said in a statement. "... I hope that for the sake of artists, the larger issues can soon be resolved."
Somehow I have a hard time believing that someone willfully hosting a music-sharing service cares for the sake of artists or any issues larger than free music.
That would sure buy alot of top ramen. Chalk one up another one for the RIAA.
-r
it sounds suspiciously like a record contract. :-p
. . . that their songs are worth about one tenth of one percent of what they said at first? Or merely that to make a profit, they only need 0.001 times as much money?
No, make that $30,000. I added $1,000 for "punitive damages" against the RIAA.
Both sides? Obviously the kids probably couldn't afford attorney fees and the RIAA would have dragged it out forever, but doesn't this just make the RIAA look like they were in it for the money instead of a lesson? Going after poor college students for nothing more than downloading music? I hope the RIAA is happy because of this they probably lost a couple hundred customers and everytime they do it they'll lose more.
You would have settled also. A student at a university is trying to build a future. The loss of all cash resources would make that goal much harder. They settled, for the simple reason that the fees must have been way too high.
It's costly to defend yourself. This suit might have had no meaning what so ever, but that has little meaning.
We all might be so luck as these guy to stare down the double barrelled laywer weapon being unholstered from deep pockets.
Do what you will, ignore companies which bring these suits, or whatever. No matter. I see a generation ripe for a new non-RIAA/MPAA market.
Someone will step in. And people who were willing to take it up to a point will move on.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Will this money go to the artist who's songs were pirated? NO, the money will most likely go back into enforcing piracy laws.
...this decision bothers me. A lot. Back in the late 1990s I may have worked in a technical department at an unnamed university, and during exams, the admins and I may have ground the ISDN line we may have had to a halt by downloading music in this nifty new format called "MP3". Hypothetically, we could have downloaded about a gigabyte or two in a barbeque and beer fuelled session (and we didn't have Napster kids, oh no... we had to hunt through search engines for .mp3 extensions). In theory it would have been possible for my administrative amigos to open up the directory on the RAID array to certain other parties of similar muscial taste. Having a (then) mammoth MP3 collection could have made studying in the "multimedia enabled" lab a lot better.
So, theoretically still, had we undertaken this diversion back then, and been pinched (for downloading music of artists that we either:
A) Were interested in checking out, and whose CDs we later purchased (we would have, really) or
B) We already owned a copy of the material and just wanted to have it on hand when working the help desk / studying / goofing off in the CS offices; then
We would suddenly owe the RIAA mad cash?
Damn. Good thing that was just a hypothetical situation when I was a a student. After reading that decision I am now I'm afraid to make tapes for the car...
Wow, they will have to start downloading MP3's, burning them to CDs and then selling them at car boot sales to afford those fines.
In some ways it is unfortunate that this was settled so quickly. I'm sure it is best for the students themselves but it would have been nice to see something like this go thru the legal system. It might have cleared up some of the questions about what the RIAA & MPAA can really get away with.
From the article:
"...said Howard Ende, a Drinker Biddle, and Reath attorney representing..."
How do legal firms wind up with names this stupid? There is the oft-mentioned Dewey, Cheatham and Howe but maybe in this case they should have gone for Bendham, Ohver and Quick.
Besides, in my book if your last name is "Biddle," you're automatically an asshole.
My
Limekiller
Yeah, knowing that FOUR our of what, 40 million, got nailed is *really* going to deter me from sharing my music online. Yes, I know it's illegal. Yes, I know it's "wrong." I'm still not going to stop with those odds.
Please comment on this idea.
It is legal for me to listen to a CD and then sell it to a friend, buy it back, etc, over and over.
Let's say that we form a Co-op with 100 members. Each member kicks in $100, giving us a budget of $10,000 with which to purchase CDs. $10 from each member is reserved. The CDs are ripped and encoded.
Let's say I want to listen to a CD. My $10 on reserve buys that CD from the Co-op. While I own the CD, I get to listen to the encoded music (I do not take physical possession). During that time, no other Co-op member may listen to the CD (unless there are additional copies available for purchase due to popularity).
Essentially, a locking protocol would maintain a 1:1 relationship between the listener and physical media.
Once I am done listening, I sell the CD back to the Co-op and my $10 is freed for the next selection.
Is this legal? Has it been tried? Thanks!
That *I* will never get caught. /me swaps more music
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
ghey!
So I'm going to get their money's worth. Starting now.
I guess that Hillary Rosen can finally get that cute little Miata that she's had her eye on. /nod to Norm MacDonald and Weekend Update
If I had to pay that amount of money, do I now own those songs and can use them just as if I've bought the original CD?
And the RIAA won't pound your door down.
They might invite you over to eat froot loops out of a dogbowl, but that would be purely consensual.
with a canary.
Seriously - let's set up a fund to help them pay off their debts to RIAA. I'll put in a buck for that.
Anyone?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I think I would be hesitant going to this attorney's office, though he is a college student
The answer: -$1000. The RIAA will bill them all for protection money for protecting their copyrights of course.
Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
There's got to be someone who knows how to set up something like this who will do the work gratis. The fund could help these guys and then anyone else who gets nailed by the almighty RIAA. If anyone sets up something like this, LMK.
1) There will be tons of lawsuits filed.
2) Million-dollar lawsuits are unpayable for the "common people," but $15,000 is well within reach. That means those sued will _have_ to pay it, and no judge will dismiss the settlement. It's feasible and doable to pay $15,000 over five years. Chump change to the RIAA, yes -- but most importantly: This will be a self-supporting business. Settlement money will fund new lawsuits. The RIAA is not after the money, they're out to threaten and terrorize anyone who uses file-swapping, and literally, the lawsuits will "pay for themselves."
This stinks... If you thought the Microsoft tax was bad, get ready for the RIAA tax!
And once again, thank you for supporting your American Recording Industry.
The Kingdom of Retarsia
that sure hurts the RIAA. If the students didnt stop paying in 2006 they'd still only make up for the $96 billion they lost in about 1.6 million years. But they're not. I guess the Evil Employee of the Year Fund is going to take a cut.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
The RIAA cannot continue prosecuting their customer base for long, lest everyone will pack up their things and stop buying CDs outright. Especially for reasons that arent even legally clear.
It appears as if these students didn't make any of the copywrited material available to anyone other then themselves. This is step one in prosecuting the individual music downloader. In addition, the practice of selective enforcement, also referred to as "making an example," is hugely detrimental to everyone involved. The few unlucky saps that get caught will be screwed to the tune of thousands of dollars while their buddies are snickering away clicking "find more sources." It just isn't right.
Also, the media HAS to cover these stories! Atrocities to students such as this should be on the front page of every newspaper. The worst thing that can happen to these kids is this story gets forgotten in a few days and they are stuck with their ass up paying three grand a year. How much are the artists getting from this settlement?
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
"Don't know where this is going, but I'm afraid it might get significantly harder for humble college students such as myself to sample an artist's music before going out and buying a disc... my speed across the network is ridiculously faster than when I try to access outside sources."
Most of the various online music sources (Amazon, BN.com, Borders.com and friends) all let you listen to 30 second clips of almost every track on a CD. You can also go to the band web site which will probally have at least one or two full length songs and more samples. Additionaly there are sites like Launch.com that have music videos and music. After all that if you aren't convinced then go the music store and listen to the CD. Most of the decent music stores allow listening before buying. If none of that is enough to help you make your decision I really have to wonder if by "sampling" you don't mean "stealing"
You can also find further coverage here and coverage on a seperate settlement with a Princeton student here.
Time to expand my musical tastes.
independent-artists.com
boycott-riaa.com
Why RIAA Keeps Getting Hacked
RIAA Affiliated Labels
Hmmm. Can't seem to get to the RIAA site right now...
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
How about Hillary Rosen with appropriate Borg attachments?
Both the students and the RIAA, actually. The RIAA is going to have to make some drastic changes if they want the music business to remain viable. The students, on the other hand, can wait for the paperwork to be finalized and immediately file for bankruptcy. It's very doubtful they have anything at all of value for the bankruptcy court to make them sell in order to pay off creditors, and it's even more doubtful that the RIAA will pay their lawyers to show up at the bankruptcy hearing for that small an amount. The students won't have to pay them a cent.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
Has anyone from the RIAA or the students themselves made any effort to contact the artists regarding all this? If the students could contact some of the artists of the music in question, perhaps they could negotiate directly with them to pay the cost of each "pirated" CD directly to the artist, completely sidestepping the RIAA. The artists should have no qualms, since they are being payed back for "damages" incurred to them, and the total cost would probably be considerably less than the $17k they are paying presently. I wonder what the artists themselves think... especially if they won't see any of that $17k and the damage is supposedly done to them, when the students are already paying enough to be schooled. I wonder too, how the artists would be viewed as per popularity if they took a stance on the piracy issue. Perhaps they would declare the RIAA itself the pirates for hoarding the better portion of CD sale profits for material that technically belongs to the artists themselves?
...
What really sucks is it's not like those guys made any money off of sharing mp3s. Im sure that extra 17,000 on top of their student loans will really help make them become finacialy stable members of the new work force. GOD DAMN, FUCK AMERICA! HOME OF THE FREE! Because our judicial system actualy lets this kind of dumb ass shit happen to people. WOW!
If I were those kids, I'd just file bankrupsy, and tell em to shove it. >:P
-makoffee
Every time I see stuff like this I laugh. The record industry is So incredibly fucked. I quit buying CDs two years ago and left them all behind when I moved; I just about have replaced every CD I ever owned with MP3s downloaded from usenet, and my collection is more diverse than at any time since my teens - with music from France, Russia (lotsa russian stuff), Spain, Mexico...
At least Hollywood has the movie studios to save it; I can see Nashville in 2020 now... hmmm, it looks a lot like Detroit in the 80's.
The goal of the student loan system is to keep intellectuals who aren't already part of the upper classes from having too much free time and fomenting revolution. This might work even better!
Maybe they should just make it one big agency, the "Federal make everything worth living for way more expensive than it needs to be" department or something.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Id be willing to chip in 5-10 bucks.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Geez...somebody mod parent down
"I think that when you become a Republican, you don't get to score any more." -- Butt-head
After the Verizon descision and this settlement, prepare to see people sued on a regular basis. Call it the Copyright Lottery. Continue to steal and maybe your number is next.
Well, the RIAA didn't like their indexing service because it allowed/facilitated illegal file sharing.
Hmm... well, ok, what made it possible for him to create this indexing service? Well, Windoze and MS Windoze File Sharing protocols.
So by extension they should be suing M$.... who -does- have the gazillion dollars in damages they were originally asking for.
Of course they also have the gazillion lawyers these college student didn't, so I don't think the RIAA has the balls to continue with their little twisted chain of logic.
Trolling-putting a rubber c0ck down your pants and cutting it off with a chainsaw: noisy and it makes you look d1ckless
Say a P2P System broke a file into X bit chunks each with a unique id.
Then, instead of two people making a transaction of a copyrighted file, they just trade the "recipie" for assembling this file off the distributed system.
So in this case nobody distributes an actual copyrighted file, just small chunks that could potentially belong to any number of files...
How would you prosecute somebody for hosting a chunk that somebody else happend to include in his recipie for a file?
In the other direction, how could you proove that somebody was downloading a specific file from you?
In this case would the recipies become property of the copyright owners??? I dunno.. very strange.
and how much does the artists get?
I don't know, but I'll do the calculations and figure it out... Now, what's the exchange rate between flying pigs and snowballs in hell these days?
~
If you need me, I'll be hanging my computer from the
The universities could have rallied their own legal team on behalf of the students, making it more costly for the RIAA, or done some behind the scenes negotiation threatening to make the fight unpalatable (having a student sued for billions of dollars is bad press, they probably wanted to make it go away).
This smells and not just the settlement. As several posters have already mentioned, the RIAA is going after small targets precisely because they wants settlements and not a court decision that could go against them. Obviously this shows that the courts and the justice system in general are not about justice. The fact is justice is out of reach of the average person. How can anyone possible say the justice system works when a person is forced to settle precisely because the cost of "defending" oneself will destroy you financially. Whether the students are really guilty is beside the point now. Guilt is irrelevant.
I could probably afford to pay the fine for at least one of these students and if I was more of a humanitarian I probably would just because I'm so pissed. But then hell... the RIAA would get their money. No. I strongly suggest these students strive to finish their educations as soon as they can. Make no money far as long as they can. And declare bankruptcy just to spite the RIAA.
I for one will NEVER buy another CD. Piss off RIAA. You're alienating the people you depend upon for your livelihood.
Before you all flame me, please read the whole post.
I think this is close to a reasonable settlement and outcome of the situation.
There, I've said it.
These kids will still be able to go to school, their families will not be put in the poor house, and they will learn a big big lesson.
In addition, I feel it is significantly risky that I no longer will use online file sharing of the 'free' variety. Now that there is a legal option - iTunes Music Store for the Mac, I see the first ray of hope for an alternative.
Please Read: I know that iTunes is not out for Windows, and that the alternative is not yet here for Windows users - however I think the RIAA and related companies will soon get it that what many people want is not simply free music, but instant music.
I am happy to purchase music online and Apple's new service (although I don't have a mac!) is the first to offer a non DRM solution that allows for instant transfers and fair use.
All that said - as much as I dislike the RIAA, and have posted many a post against their kind (and the DMCA), I'm glad that they settled in a manner that will allow these college kids to have decent lives and not be *too* affected/ruined.
In a game of Poker the students would probably loose their shirts. RIAA was looking for a patsy to show the other patsy's what could happen to them. The RIAA was the only group in any risk of actually loosing anything.
If you are poor and somebody sues you then you can march into court and fight them to the cows come home. Sure you won't win. That's not the point. Even if the RIAA wins to the tune of millions of dollars per student they will never collect.
On the other hand, the student then now own a stool to stand on and talk to the media. "Look at what these guys did to me." The RIAA on the other hand has a card that says, "Hey, we sued a student who couldn't afford a lawyer and we won. Aren't we great?"
The real RIAA press release would probably read something like: "Now people who steal music know that they are going to end up paying for it."
Realistically then the RIAA now needs to go out and spend money and time suing every eighteen year old in the country.
It's like a self inflicted fatal paper cut.
Beware the wood elf!!!
What they should have done is not bothered hiring attorneys at all, appeared pro se, and then taken it to a jury trial and turned it into a circus. Believe me, that scenario would have the RIAA shaking in their boots. There would be massive publicity, the RIAA would have been completely trashed before it was over and no one would have cared who won in the end. This is their nightmare scenario, and if anyone else out there gets sued, don't take the easy road with settlement. Go in there and humiliate the RIAA.
IAAL
Start a porn site -- naked codeds! Tell them your sad story of woe and watch them cream their jeans! (And don't forget to have the webcams running...)
Want to post anything else encouraging kids to commit crimes?
It'll be funny when those four show up here to get their money back, won't it.
If you are sued by the RIAA, let it go to tiral... Then subpoaena all of thier financial and album sales records (find some legal reason to do this, lets say you need them to intend to prove that you did, in fact, pay them, even if you didn't). Make sure the records you ask for are the same ones that the artists are not allowed to audit or see becuase of the rules in the contract they signed. Then watch the case dissolve right before your eyes... Or, worst case, lose big time and delare bankruptcy and then watch the RIAA topple as the artists who they are very much stealing real money from start to sue.
if all evil men do nothing, good will dominate. if everyone does nothing, nothing will dominate.
the reason why the RIAA is going after college students is because there is no way to track them if they share files on their own network (the songs never leave the school). with other ppl, that use a conventional isp, they can be tracked easily.
Why is it that we all argue the file-sharing news based on how we personally use it, rather than on how the accused used it? According to the article, the four accused students did more than one thing -- they set up a system to search their college network for song files, they made that search engine available to others outside the college, they downloaded song files they did not purchase, and they turned around and made those song files available to anyone who could find them, not to mention that they did this with hundreds of song files.
Every time I see someone compare downloading a file to making a tape recording of a song off the radio, I wonder if the person really knows how apples-to-oranges that comparison is. First off, radio songs are notoriously difficult to get a good recording of - between DJs who talk through the beginning and end, abbreviated (even edited) versions, and signal noise. Second, recording a song off the radio was usually only done to get a copy of a few favorites for the listening pleasure of that individual and some known friends and family. In contrast, song files can be ripped at extremely high quality levels from the original media - giving a close to exact replica. Also, that song file is typically shared with a large number of unknown people through some network.
A very simple replacement for P2P networks - the older FTP and IRC methods. These take it back into the realm of known peers. Consider: Who would the RIAA be able to go after if I ripped the contents of a CD I bought, then burned 500 CDs which I set out with a sign "Free! Take One!"? With digital footprints (IP address, content scans, etc.) they can follow P2P network sharing, but simple hard copy sharing isn't quite the same.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
foreach (Lawyer l in Lawyers) {
kill(l);
}
I really would've liked to see another good precedent like the one that came out of the grokster/streamcast suit, especially since from the descriptions I've heard these cases don't seem to be about actual copyright infringement but yet more dubious "contributory" infringement by people running search services. I think when people hear the words "student" and "file sharing" together in a sentence they think something illegal must be going on - and it is, but the illegal activity isn't running the Phynd service. I hate to rehash the same old slippery-slope argument that appears in every YRO-type article, but what's really the difference between the Phynd service and Google? The practical argument is that almost all the indexed shares were illegal, whereas most things found on the web are legal these days - but that's a function of what protocol is popular for what. If people had discovered that it was easy to set up a web server on their own personal computers, share what they wanted, and have it indexed on google in among the rest of the web, and if HTTP rather than SMB/napster/kazaa then becamse the biggest file sharing medium, the RIAA would have to prosecute individual sharers rather than indexers. (Instead most people put websites on ISP servers or Geocities/etc. where they are shut down quickly if they have illegal content.)
Basically there's yet another line being crossed when a general-purpose search service - whatever its scope and whatever the protocol it uses - is called a piracy tool and shut down. Was Phynd more akin to Napster or Google, and why? Questions like that aren't lately being determined in a reasonable or even legalistic way, but rather by way of intimidation.
Ever seen the movie Willard (lots of rats), I tried finding the quote, couldn't so I'm going to paraphrase it. This happened after Willards mom died and his deceased fathers business partner fires him from the company that still bears his fathers name.
Willard: You can't fire me! You and my father had a contract!
Business partner: Then you take this severence check downtown and get yourself a $250@hr lawer and SUE ME! Then i'll tell my $500@hr lawer to keep your $250@hr lawer tied up in court until YOU RUN OUT OF MONEY!
Willard: Well that's not fair! You know I can't afford that!
I think the business partner goes onto to say something about how that's life, tough shit, ect, after which Willard launches an attack of rats at the business partner which overwhealm and consume him.
This just brought me to an interesting side junction of thought... Perhaps the method of everyone contributing to class action and other large type suits is moot. If the current legal tactics of class action were compared to a network, it would basically be a T1 line trying to DOS. It's not that hard for the RIAA to defend on just one front.
On the other hand, hundreds of thousands legally filed nasty attorney letters filed by peoples private lawers for a fee of $100 bucks could overwhelm the RIAA because legally, they have to respond to them.
So you have 10,000 people spend $100 to have their attorney send it off. Cost. 1,000,000
Now the RIAA responds with their $500@hr lawers. Cost $5,000,000.
So basically, for 1 packet, we recieve 5. Since it's a distributed system, they cannot really focus their defense against 1 paticular individual.
Bah, mod me how u want. This is my first post in days.
> With this settlement, the RIAA maintains the status quo.
Yep, but I bet the working equation was more like this:
At what price can we get them to pay out and scare everyone else without the students going into bankrupcy and making us look the fool?
A few grand nailed it. No one goes to court and the students can look forward to dreams of home ownership. The RIAA has a nice propaganda win and everyone else goes home sad.
Divest in RIAA artists if you don't like it. I did. I goto 8-12 dollar concerts, hear great music, and pay 10 dollars per CD at shows. And the best part is that no one gets sued at the end of the day.
This probably isn't the best advice in the world (being under 21 really sucks for indie music fans) but I can't imagine walking into my local Best Buy and picking up 'Today's Hot Artists!'
Okay... I'm really confused about the legality of everything now...
;)
If I buy a CD, I am legally allowed to listen to it. Correct?
Am I legally allowed to play it for a friend while I am present? I would think so.
Am I legally allowed to lend it to a friend for his sole listening? I should think so.
Now... Can I listen to a CD with a friend via the telephone? Doesn't seem illegal to me? Is it?
What about streaming a CD via a webcast to a friend and myself? This is very similar to listening on the telephone... Probably not legal... Why? Is this considered a "public broadcast"? What about the telephone version? Nobody would consider a telephone conversation to be a public broadcast would they?
The line between illegal and legal seems to be very arbitrary, and rather contrived.
Maybe they should follow the Open Source model and give the music away and make money on concerts, t-shirts, etc.
This would also be similar to the way Art sells... $$$ for an original painting, $$ for a limited print, and next to nothing for a poster. I figure it's just a case of particular industry that has become over-inflated in comparison with other industries and is facing a market correction... You can see the panic in their eyes!
Why is this even a question? Why is this even up for debate? Let me take a stab here. All music should be free. Besides the "law," artists shouldn't be compensated for their music. Do we compensate picasso everytime someone looks at a digital version of his paintings on line? Even if his family is, WHO CARES?! They say, there will be no incentive for artists to make music. Well damn, if money's the incentive behind the music I have, I'd rather not listen to it. The idea that money is the source of art stinks. The idea that money is the way to get access to art stinks. - philipd
Philosophistry
The problem is students often have student loans. And you can't declare bankruptcy if you have outstanding student loans.
So, I suppose we could help them pay off those loans so they could then file for bankruptcy... but it owuld make a lot more sense just to pay off the fine for them.
By settling with the RIAA, are the students essentially creating a precedent that spiders and search engines are responsible for filtering out copyrighted works ? This could be really bad if it were true. Well, the situation is really bad either way, because the RIAA has shown that they can crush anyone they want regardless of the law... This ruined my day.
>|<*:=
All I can say is. I'm not going to buy any music from any of the big labels. Only small indepedent labels. RIAA can take all the junk they're spewing out and shove it.
The one where they admit no wrong-doing, Can't be sued again, and give them lots of money. Then the details are sealed so other lawyers can't use the case in other courts.
I don't think they did, but maybe? After all, the court was leaning to throw the file sharing program out as it was legit. But, Each of the kids had large troves of MP3s on their personal machines set up to share [and actually sharing] on the network so they were fried anyway. The settlement was the best the RIAA could get away with. And probably cheaper than the legal fees for all involved.
That shit is hysterical. IMHO! :{
hi2imp2k3.
Freenet is an anonymous, completely free (free speech and free beer) Internet world. It's nearly impossible for monster mega-corporations or oppressive governments to find out your IP address.
They should send the RIAA the annual payments in pennies.
In at least some of the cases (haven't looked into all of them), the students themselves sharing files wasn't the issue. See this for details. The guy was running an SMB share indexing service; a search engine, more or less. Nothing was indexed that people weren't already sharing. Of course most things indexed were probably illegal for the individual students on the network to be sharing, but they were shared independently of the existence of the search engine. The slippery-slope argument of course goes directly to Google being responsible for the same sort of contributory (rather than direct) copyright infringement.
The good news of this decison is now RIAA can nolonger throw around false numbers..
You will find in further cases that RIAA will only be allowed to get $17500 as upper limit in damages per file sharer..
But in the long term RIAA has lost because it cvost them $350,000 to get less than $100,000 in damages..
Given the numbers of file shares out there..it woudl be easy to bankrupt RIAA through civil disobedience actions..
Is this clue of a plan? What do you think?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I am ashamed that the student's pussed out and settled just for indexing. For the sharing they themselves were doing, yes, but for the indexing, no.
barzelay.net
No pun intended
I hope those students apply themselves now to fucking the RIAA out of as much money as possible!
greedy rich bastards RIAA motherfuckers!
I don't know about you but those places hardly every have any clips of the albums I am thinking of getting. Plus the 30 seconds are hardly a good indicator to tell if I would like the album or not.
Sure some places allow listening, but they are not usally of much help. How I can sample say a techno album in a store that consists of kiosks containing what ever crap the music industry is shoving on us? There is also the problem of trying out older albums. I sure am not going take a chance and plunk down money on a unknown $18+ cd.
Thankfully I can usually find streams to listen to a few tracks of the ablums before I buy. When that fails I end up trying to find a few tracks, and remove them after listening.
Even if they provided really crappy real audio sample of tracks I would use it to try befoe I buy.
The RIAA has decided that money talks. How about boycotting the RIAA music companies for a month? That might make the music companies think about wooing us instead of suing us. Let's make June "RIAA month". Buy ONLY Indie music CDs this June.
If you they'd been able to wait for Apple's iTunes Store, none of this would have been necessary.
--Richard
"Actually, that does sound pretty good, would you pay, say $59 a month or something for unlimited mp3s? I might..."
I was watching CNBC earlier today and they had a quick forum about p2p with the ceo of wippit.com and a few others. The ceo claimed your very concept with his product. However, I was not able to find any pricing information at their site, other than references of needing a subscription for the service to work in the faq.
Here's my new idea that I intend to use when I become ruler of the universe. (haha).
;)
I'd make ripping stuff off like CDs, books, games etc AND THEN SELLING IT illegal, punishable by fines (no prison).
Then I'd make copyright infringement where no profit is made (you can still charge for media, shipping etc.) NOT AGAINST THE LAW AT ALL.
I think it should be the responsibility of content providers to secure their material against copying with whatever protection methods they like. If you can copy it, you can legally copy it and also give it away, share it etc.
It's just so stupidly easy to copy DVDs, CDs, games, apps etc. that you have to make a conscious effort to NOT break the current law, and I think anything that is against the law should at least be difficult to do...
graspee
First thing i did apon reading this is kill my smb search engine. i guess the threat of being one of the ones that stands out is too much.. if anylawyers wanna represent me in court, i'd be willing to put it back up and take a gamle that i'd win against the RIAA. after all bankruptcy only means a couple bucks in my case...
seams a shame that the best tool for finding files in my friends(and frequently my own) computer is soo dangerous to my welbeing.
-and occasionaly a giant moose.
Wow! If they sue a million file traders each year for $12-17K each that's $12-17 Billion per year! Much more profitable than selling CDs!
yup. especially when i can (and do) go to kuro5hin/osnews/daily daemon news and see it even earlier (usually by a few days).
I admit I was disturbed and uneasy when I first heard of the settlement, and it made me think twice...now that I've thought twice I've decided on Coffee ice cream instead of chocolate, as coffee is good for a chamge. I will now double my p2p activity and watch the Flyers and continue to not give a shit 'bout that...sucks for them kids though.
It works on so many levels...
Well done.
Why not just start a fund to help these poor guys defray the settlement costs? I'd be willing to pay $1/yr to help these guys out. I think an outpouring of financial support would go a long way to deflating this "victory" by the RIAA.
Did a search for 01-Sunday Bloody Sunday.mp3 on
that had the actual song.
www.google.com, and came up with at least one
site (http://www.crowdedplanet.co.uk/MP3s/u2_war.htm)
So isn't goggle as liable as these students, for
indexing other folks mp3s (amongst other things)?
Reason is getting harder to find.
dumb. They should have fought this and won. The united corporations of america is really starting to turn into a not-so-great place to live.
In essence, the 97-odd billion dollars the RIAA was suing for was moot. I know some of the people involved in this -- the suit was a FEDERAL civil suit. This means that they could not be sued for assets they would make in the future - but only for assets they currently posessed.
So poor college students with 0 net worth due to student loans might at worst have their car and their computer taken away but nothing more.
That is all they would be able to sue for. Frankly tho, the kids did not want to have to deal with the situation and it was easier to get out easy than for a bunch of seniors in college to have to deal with the matter.
-- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
Ok... I have a good idea. Let's make a charity that bails out students from unfair attacks from the RIAA (everyone i know pirates mp3's). If everyone pays 5-10 bucks a year, this will be EASY. We'll even be able to hire a few lawyers to try to get some of these fuct up laws overturned. I hope this news gets a lot of publicity and the media spins it into a story about the RIAA financially ruining a few students who were just doing what everyone else was also.
Ok.. here's the issue and I'm serious on this. You can't have laws that everyone breaks because then the person who is in charge of enforcing that law has almost dictatorial powers over everyone who is breaking it. Meaning they can ruin them at their discretion. Either abandon copyright law for music on the internet and let people trade whatever they want legally (people would still buy cds) or prosecute 25% of the population of the US. Since if 25% of the population suddenly faced lawsuits, they would probably vote for any politician who was willing to stand up against the RIAA meaning things would change for the better.
The overall fact is the RIAA does NOT need copyright law to make money. They have the content. Even if people can get at it illegally, if they set up webstores and sites like apple's, people would use it. But they'd have to charge MARKET prices which obviously they dont like.
I'm not against copyright laws. I'm against ones that fail miserably as music copyright laws have. Software pirating is rampant but not to the point of mp3 trading so theres not an argument yet to abandon those laws and most of the people being procecuted for warezing are the mass distributers and the people trying to make money off it.
Anyways.. I urge someone with a little more ambition than me to set up a charity for RIAA victims. I'm sure it will get a lot of support from many internet organizations along with the slashdot population.
And until then... keep pirating music. Fuck the RIAA.
-Anonymous Coward
(libertarian... not liberal)
I'm not a lawyer, but I do know something about this. (Consult a lawyer before giving any thought to a Chapter 7 or 13 filing...)
A bankruptcy filing has the option of including or excluding specific debts in the filing- whether or not it's a Chapter 7 or 13. It's called re-affirming a debt; you're telling a specific debtor that you're able and interested in continuing with that debt as agreed upon. In this case, I could see them being able to re-affirm the debts of the student loans because they are students and the loans are liable to be smaller than the debt of the settlement. It may make it a little harder for them at the hearing of the creditors, because of the reaffirmations- leaves it open for a RIAA lawyer to challenge a discharge of the debt by the court handling the filing.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
What's more, he recently wrote a whole memo about how he didn't like the direction that online music distribution was going. This would be a way for him to make a strong statement about that.
-renard
Now they're extorting from students? How low will they go? More importantly, how long is it going to take before these bastards get what's coming to them?
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
I want to start a fund for these people. What should I do to start?
Sorry for the AC...
Strictly speaking, a lot of college students would do well to afford $17k by their lonesome, even if it's over a three year period. They HAVE to pay the settlement or other nasty things can be done to them. Facing that, one might well give consideration to a Chapter 7 or 13 filing against the debts in question. Furthermore, the severity of the credit ding is dependant on what you do after the bankruptcy is completed. It will not preclude purchases of things like a car or a house after a year or so after the bankruptcy is concluded. (And in at least some of the cases, you get really good interest- because they know you can't cut-and-run with another filing for 7 years afterwards...)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I thought it was a settlement, which is a different beast altogether.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
But, we all knew this was going to happen. It's a shame that there isn't a great pro bono lawyer out there that would love to take a case like this. A free lawyer that would fight tooth and nail for the common man. Wishful thinking again.
eh, this sucks, I am going back to bed....
I think people should set up a legal defense fund. Something to help these poor kids pay their settlement. Wouldn't you make a tax deductible donation? It would also be a pretty good PR move... Most people think those who pirate music are selfish bastards. It's sad that all the fat programmers with fat salaries who have dedicated mp3 serverzz running ignore their plight.
Sure, you get the flukes--but they're one-offs--the next one costs big time.
Imagine you own a top-3 radio station in a tier-1 or tier-2 market and you are slamming the latest "it" band 40-something times a day and the label is selling ten-thousand CDs a week ... are you going to be satisfied with the advertising revenue that generates? That ad revenue going to pay the salary (or syndication costs) of some whiney morning show? Not even close.
That's why CD's cost so much: it's expensive getting the lemming to all jump off the cliff at the same spot.
While you might not yet be seeing dramatic effects of file-swapping on label's gross sales, you're seeing a dramatic decline in major labels taking chances on new bands.
One used to criticize major labels for throwing band after band at the wall instead of artist development. At least in them good ol' days, a band could get signed and thrown ... up hill ... both ways ... in the snow ...
Brootal
From Rob Goldman Legal Services' website (Found with a quick Google search...):
(The bold emphasis on criminal in the above quote is mine...)
Since this is a civil restitution, that would concievably (I am not a lawyer, so I can't be sure about it...) put it outside of the exemption it appears you're thinking of.
Furthermore a Chapter 13 can extend the period of time and lower the payments if it were excluded- the exclusion merely covers the ability to discharge the debt in question. For example, IRS back taxes can be lumped into a Chapter 13 filing with 0% interest owed on the money in question.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I wonder how much of this money the artists will ever see?
# fuser -v
#
>Actually, that does sound pretty good, would you >pay, say $59 a month or something for unlimited >mp3s? I might...
We already do. It's called a Broadband connection.
The community supports these martyrs so quickly that the terror is blunted: "If it happens to me, at least I'm not on my own." This might encourage the next targets to stand for a trial, or attract enough attention for some high-profile legal funds to step in. The RIAA cannot turn this into a revenue stream. They have a brief window of time before case law starts getting written, and decisions get made.
Incidentally -- are Mike Hawash's friends and supporters all terrorist sympathizers? There is a legal fund for him.....perhaps contributors should be held in suspicion as well?
----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
why didnt the students settle for $10K each NOT to go to court?
stupid kids.
I am already a member of such a co-operative. I already check out music (and movies!) and return them when I'm done. Anyone in my vicinity is free to join. Here's the URL:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/library/default.htm
The way I see it, I think the students and the RIAA made a deal, something like this. RIAA we get to say that you had to pay us $17K a piece, but we won't make you pay as long as you don't disclose anything about the case. Reason being, is that the RIAA knows that they are wrong, but the students are scared.
You people just don't understand what their doing. The RIAA is merely trying to show the citizens of the world that the prevalent system of hierarchy (i.e. government and incorporation) is utter bullshit and can be bought and sold at a whim regardless of whether their intentions benefit said citizens or not. The highlight of their show is obvious injustice.
I'm convinced that Bush and Co. are operating under the same premise by using flamboyant military actions and much of the same obvious injustice mentioned above.
The consciousness of the beast (the id, a.k.a. figureheads) has realized the error in the ways of hierarchy and is making an active attempt to snuff itself. Being sentient and live it shuns the pain of a slow suicide by doping itself heavily with mass quantities of patriotism and religion.
But some members of the beast's unconsciousness (the lower functions a.k.a. you & I) are resilient to the dope and go on feeling the pain regardless. Take comfort in the fact that you who are immune the effects of patriotism, religion, consumerism, et al will be awake and part of the generation that watches civilization fall.
Enjoy the show!
Regards,
Smokin_Juan
Let's see. $14,500 divided by $15 per CD. That comes out to 966 CDs. Those kids had to have been aweful busy to pull that off. When did they find time to go to class?
Fuck the RIAA. I hate those commie baaastards.
It seems like this is one more reason to go to strong encryption and rings of trust for P2P applications. Then if the RIAA cracks the ring they will be in violation of the DCMA.
The key to winning this war is to use their own laws and tools against them.
Azurite is fine covellite is mine.
This is always the question on my mind too. When the RIAA settled with MP3.com and Napster.... how much of that money did the artists get? If I were on a label, I'd be sitting in Hilary's office waiting for my cut of the check.
best reply and analysis of the problems. Copyright (and sub section sister idea of "patents") started as a limited time period service. Back in the barely into press days it was considered long enough. Now with automation and various advanced technologies to take advantage of this granted copyright service, even 17 years is way too long to "make money" with your "IP" property. It should be about 3 years, max, then public domain. If you can't sell and make money by then, you probably won't.
They put the limit to stop monopolies and to allow the advancement of knowledge and culture,that ideas, concepts, evolutions in the arts and sciences would be "good for all", and it was balanced with the thought the inventor/artist needed a fair shake to garner some coin. Back then with how slow things went, they thought 17 years was more than adequate. so if anything, that number should be steadily dropping. Seemed like a reasonable and logical idea. Now it's just nuts with the extended copyrights.
Another point is unlimited time period corporations with no review as to public benefit. When first established under US civil law, they were more limited, and being of the public good and benefit was JUST as important as the corporation's "profits". That point is totally neglected now, forgotten about, only the "profits" angle is given any cred.
Nice, but I want to obtain them electronically.
Since going SliMP3, I don't do CDs.
And keeping copies of what you borrow from the library is not legal.. And they probably don't have the Zappa and Tull that I want.
Now that they've sued one search engine at RPI, another one, funded by the student union, has been taken down at RPI's request.
I wonder how much more they would have paid their lawyers to fight this. I think this was an attempt to save face by the RIAA-- they can say "look we settled" while the defendents can say "we did nothing wrong" and pay less money to the RIAA than they would have to their lawyers.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I guess American Honda corporation will sell 4 less Honda civics this year!
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Piracy these days is like liquor during prohibition. It may be illegal, but that's not stopping the masses. I wish the RIAA would just accept that and stop wasting their money busting harmless college kids who just want to listen to music. The RIAA is fighting for a lost cause.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
50% to the kids for their fines, 50% to fund a REALLY GOOD pro active defense in advance so next time they can kick butt in court. Let law students and interested paralegals take part, their pro bono is valuable. You need a cartel that can fight back against the RIAA. The music lovers and sharers cooperative or whatnot. Hey, "buy" all your music therough the co-op. Everyone is a member of the co-op. they own the music then?? Perhaps, I am not sure on that, but you can do it with say a company car or computer, correct??? A book, a company can buy a book, share it, different employees may read it?? Yes I know you can't copy it, but still, another angle to look at.
Total aside,I mean completely, I am just musing now a little, just taking advantage of being a neo geezer phart and reflecting on culture, wish this had happened back in the 60's,a lot more righteous indignation and booty kiking got done back then. Now it's too polite...ya, I know some examples where it's just as gnarly, it was beaucoups bigger then though from my recollections. Not sure if that is good or bad, but we did manage to do something about voting and the draft after a few suits got woken up better. And yes I know this isn't a life and death issue either. I just look at it in total, with all the other weird stuff going down lately, it's a package deal where the entire package just sucks....
Ok, everyone who is about to suggest a boycott, or state they are never buying a CD again, I say wait. I can't offer a suggestion that is better so this post is only a small step above the boycott posts but I am asking the right question here I think. Follow me:
1.We need to stop these guys.
2.We still have no way to really put the hurt on, the boycotts won't work and they won't ever work because we havent the numbers. There are to many pre-teens outthere to young to really uderstand what freedom is and why they should protect it. There are to many stupid adults with the same problem and even more apethetic ones.
3.Our not so little community of Geeks here on slashdot need to put our heads into a new question and that is "What can we do to make RIAA/MPAA/Curpt Politicans/Record labels/Complacent(sp?) Artists/ and all the rest actually feel some pain?"
4.Where pain is most keenly felt is the pocket book but we need to do more the small time boycott, how can we take the most cash away from these people and I do think we need to take it away slowing the inflow is not enough these people won't reform untill a quarter or two goes by where the bottom line is red, and or they have lost some elections.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
If memory serves, only a court, in the form of a ruling, may create a precident. And even then, additional rulings must not necessarily follow the precident, though they usually do.
First off, we do -not- buy CDs from record labels that align themselves with the RIAA. This is a no-brainer.
Second off, we do -not- download music by bands that are the larger whores of the industry - Britney Spears, Creed, Eminem, etc. (My question to you is, why do you want to? They suck and are horribly unoriginal).
Third, any music that we download that is under the mandle of the RIAA, we pay for - by mailing, paypaling or handing the musicians we like money for the downloads. You will likely get a large degree of personal grattitude from someone when you hand them 15$ and say, "I downloaded your albums online, so I wanted to pay for them, because they were good." $10, even, would speak more than buying their stuff. You paid for it because you liked it.
<b><i>More importandly still</i></b>, however, is that we must support our <a href="http://www.wipeyoureyes.com</a>local bands, or our local 'scene'. You can do this by going to shows, buying their CDs, t-shirts and other merchantdise, and just giving them a good ol' pat on the back. (Might not want to try this with some guys, they'll snap your neck if ya do... crazy hardcore drummers) If we don't do this, then all traces of good music will soon disappear, due to discouraged musicians trying to feed themselves, and there being a decreasing pool of 'indie' artists from which the larger msuic industry can choose their whores from.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Hey, check out this post from a few weeks ago.
:P)
:)
Notice how I called the 10k-100k and the installment plan. (Ok, except for admitting guilt...but they did pay the money and I doubt that they'll do it again.
Now, all we have to do is wait for them to defeat Verizon, and then they can send out tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or millions of letters to beat down everyone.
Heck, 159.95 per month for 4 years is about 8k...I wasn't even too far off on the monthly payments. Damn. Sometimes I scare myself.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Don't forget about you local music scene. Unsigned artist can entertain us too. We can use our technology to create our own Radio stations (commercial free), make and distrubute CDs for local musicians, and create an environment for real music, not the corporate rock crap that currently fills our FM stations.
Plus Apples got a great idea. Do the math. For me, I have 11520 tracks I had to rip off my store bought CDs into digital format (avg 12 songs per CD, thats 960 CDs!) In the Stores, I spent about $15360 dollars on music (avg price 16 bucks). At Apples prices I would have saved $3955.2 bucks. I could have stared my own broad cast station for that.
Looks like it is time to replace your Personality Module. You are a bit to clingy, guess I better replace your fuser to
you know exactly what's going on. Count me in, as another pseudo-anonymous supporter. even though at the moment i don't have a computer that can stand p2p/and have no mp3s...as soon as my skillset+Cashflow amount to being able to provide a p2pserver/some files online...i will...and continue to do so until i'm killed. fuck the riaa! arrrr! *raises fist*
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
PLEASE someone with a connection to these guys throw up a site for their fund. I WILL help pay, if there is method of doing so.
but i am dissagreeing at this point : remember these aren't for the most part regular nose-ring-hicks we are talking about...these are software developers - for every one in the subset of software developers who are going to be actively frightened off from making p2p apps...there is going to be another 3 or 4 who get either pissed off and write one in spite, or do it because they think they have to to save the world or something.
like censorship - preventing specific types of programs to be written is just not practical...unless you are willing to kill a lot of people...
i do however see this is as a possibility...so who knows you may be on the ball anyways.
[appologies to formatting: woo lynx]
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The only thing that really concerns me about the RIAA and MPAA is copyright protection technology.
I buy a CD, I rip it and store it on my PC, I put the CD in a binder. I then listen to it via my PC (which has much higher quality stereo components than anything else in my house). If I want to listen to that CD in my car, I burn it to a CD-R so I don't have to worry about damaging it and I listen to the CD in my car.
AFAIK this all falls under fair use. So copyright protection would essentially force me to either A) spend more money and buy a new CD everytime I damage one and have to lug thousands of CDs around or B) force me to circumvent those measures so I can use fairly a product I've legally obtained.
Copyright protection is illegal.
I wonder what Apple charges people to simply index their songs? For all we know, they could have pointed to ALL of Apple's music for free.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
All that.... and smarmy too.
"If Andrew gets up....we'll all get up. It'll be Anarchy!"
Yes, a face-saving solution was important to the RIAA. But,when one considers the Filesharing decision last week that let Streamcast and Grokster off the hook, Does anyone think it is possible that the settlement reached is NOT to pay $17000, but to say they have agreed to pay $17000 ?
Just a thought.
White power, black power, yellow power, red power, woman power, girl power, gay power, fuck you ALL. Your causes are OLD and TIRED. Find something new to be angry about, and leave the rest of society the FUCK alone.
This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
If that's really the message this would send, put me down for ten bucks.
It's a free market economy. The sooner they go the way of the buggywhip the better off we'll all be.
Its called a library. You can even get music there. Videos too. (And copyright holders aren't terribly happy about that either, but the copyright law encourages it.) If you want to "share", perhaps you should encourage funding of your local library. Or lie-berry, if you prefer.
Couldn't this cast suspicion on the motives of the RIAA? I mean wouldn't you think some judge the next time they file for billions of bucks from some poor bastard would say "I think this is a bit frivolous seeing as how you just settled for so little before."
I've been known to be naive before.
No sig for you!!
Mmm-Kay! (Mr. Mackie style)
I downloaded every song that Michael Jackson has ever written. I am sending 2 twelve year old boys to his house. RIAA, please accept this as "payment in full".
Signed,
Richard Simmons
As much as I'd want people to help me out if I were in the same position, I don't think paying the fine for these guys is a good idea. First off, they didn't have to settle. If they had just stonewalled and let the RIAA get all puffed up, then it would have gone to trial at some point. Then maybe the RIAA could have had their asses handed to them, along with that waste of human space Hilary. Second, by paying the fine the RIAA gets their extortion money, just that much quicker. As many have pointed out here, perhaps this could really be the start of a new revenue stream for them.
I own appx. 4000 vinyl lp's, hundreds of tapes, & mostly used CD's, and I have dozens of hours of my own music to wade through. I stopped buying new CD's when I realized what it cost to produce them as compared to their ridiculous retail price. It didn't help to understand also how the artist's almost always get screwed too. OK, maybe every once in a while I just have to have the new Steve Morse, Duke Robillard or Elvis (Costello), or maybe something from an independant label but generally speaking, the 'music industry' has lost my thousands of discretionary entertainment dollars. Forever.
So if you can live without most of the crap that passes for innovative music these days, simply don't buy their product. It's that easy. Fsck them and their greedy pinhead lawyers. It's a simple war of attrition. HEY - and pick up an instrument. Learn how to make your own damn music. Why buy the milk when you can own the cow? That'd really piss em' off heh heh.
And don't listen to the radio either. Clear Channel and it's cult mentality sucks worse than rehashed disco.
that to work off their debt the RIAA would exploit these students in media campaign where they confess theirs sins against the recording industry and warn how P2P file swapping can ruin your life.
Probably wouldn't impact other kids, but scare the bejesus out of some parents who would have all the more reason to further restrict little Johnny's and Jane's Internet access.
I used to think the Dixie Chunks represented country music. But now, they are a bunch of red diaper doper babies (a-la Michael Savage). Go back to texas and hump some cows. THE DICK-ME CHICKS ARE A BUNCH OF WHORES!
Signed,
Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Rosie O'Donnell, Oprah Winfrey, and Ike Turner
Ken Lay is chilling in his Aspen mansion right now not paying anyone ANY money. Isn't the American justice system great?
All opinions aside, this is a devastating fine for these kids. We should start some sort of paypal donation jar for them. In fact, wouldn't it be neat if the Kazaa people added a new button that said, "Donate here" so that way, we could all band together, make a donation, and essentially nullify the RIAA's fines, rendering them useless. That would be a BEAUTIFUL smack in the face to the RIAA... :)
You haven't even begun thinking about what a gramophone is. A gramophone is a purely mechanical device -- it does not use electricity at all. Have you actually ever listened to one, in excellent shape, with an excellent pressing? It is a truly amazing device.
You will need to work through and rationalize every stage of the electro-mechanical reproduction system, from the microphone to the flapping cardboard. Remember gramophones even use a mechanical recording system. And with all the math you will still never get it right. It is easier just to listen. And out of the gramophone horn you will hear something amazing, perhaps not so full or rich, but somehow more real.
For what its worth, I'm a signal processing engineer with 20 years of experience. I really do like those electronic thingys.
you have a point. sampling at 44kHz will save the exact waveform of all audible frequencies (most people can't hear much above 10-12k anyways, let alone the 20kHz people supposedly can hear.
but, there is another facet to digital recording of audio, and that is quantizing. as they work now, cd's sample at 44kHz and quantize that sample to 2 bytes, or 16 bits, or 2^16=65536 levels. records are also limited to a certain number of levels, which is determined by the number of atoms. and you can get a crapload more than 65536 levels of atoms in the groove.
records have been surpassed, yes. they get scratched up, you can't skip right to different songs, you can't fit them in your pocket, etc. but, they do have their place. and the sound quality can be better than cd's, especially if they are taken care of and they are played with (very) high quality equipment. the difference is smaller and smaller compared with dvd-a and stuff, but they still have their place.
These kids had a choice: settle for $12,000 or be hauled through courts for legal bills in the $100,000 range. They had to settle although they did nothing wrong.
It's very clear from reading the various analyses of this case that there's no way the RIAA would have won in court. Their Napster references were completely baseless, and judges aren't buying their attempt to tie Napster to everything anymore (see Grokster).
We need the EFF to have lots of cash as a defense fund to stop these obvious bullying tactics.
Off to donate...
RIAA receives little to no money from concerts. The artists get the money from the concerts.
RIAA and the like are nothing more than PARASITES, leeching and feeding on fear and threats.
The fact that modern society tolerates parasites and organizations like RIAA is a shame.
They benefit NOBODY! Their entire purpose is to generate MORE LAWSUITS and MORE LAWS to enable them to SUCK MORE BLOOD out from the healthy society, giving RIAA LAWYERS ever fatter pay-checks.
NOTHING costs more to the US economy in lost productivity than the PARASITIC CULTURE OF LAWYERS we are feeding.
No you won't, you'll keep taking forever just like the perp you are.
they've screwed themselves over, as well as us. they use music piracy as means to jack up prices (saying that it hurts sales, but artists continue to get Gold and Platinum records (i.e. sell insanely well), so it's just pure BS. next piracy takes hold because the price is too much, i sure as heck am not gonna pay $15-$20 for a CD with two or 3 songs i actually like (if that, out of the ten or so). bring back the single (i.e. mini-CD) and sell em dirt cheap... then the RIAA jack up the price again... Movies arn't much better, though i still go to the cinema because watching a bad quality video sucks balls compared to going to see the thing on a 40-50ft screen. DVD's are actually reasonably priced, no more than $20 and some as low as $15 (same as many CDs) i buy em gladly, unlike music, where i download the few that i like rather than burning money, i'll spend $20 on a 2 hour movie that i like (the whole damn thing) not the same $20 on a 1 hour CD and paying the same for 15 minutes of music i want to hear... pure BS this is.
Logistical Chaos Officer http://www.slagg.org - LAN Gaming in Sarasota FL,USA
2-inch reel-to-reel analog tape is THE BEST recording medium money can buy, hands down, period. Granted, it's stll 5 figures for a well-used Ampex, but i dare somebody to try and argue with me on this :P
The limitations of vinyl that you point out are all imposed by the physical pickup system; a really good tape head will have no problem picking up 50kHz harmonic. It's not even that tape is inherently superior, it's just that with that much sheer space, you can store a LOT of audio information. And yes, musicans and audiophiles
While i'm at it, the high-res DA formats you mention are all fine and dandy, but IIRC most studio masters these days are ADAT (I could be wrong, it's been a few years since ive been in a studio), which at the best offers 20-bit/48kHz, 20-20,000Hz response. Better than CD, but half SACD/ADVD, with no way whatsoever to recover the lost data. Are there any multitrack professional-level 24/96 recorders, or are we going to be seeing an upswing in analog recorder sales?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Apparently, thus far, the legal system disagrees with you.
This is why this whole issue has gotten so silly. We live in a society that has a legal system. If you don't like the way something works, the correct answer is to act to get the legal system changed, and then to act within the changed legal system to prevent the behaviour you find objectionable, whether it be complex monopoly abuse, intellectual property theft or whatever.
However, as of right here and right now, our legal system provides for the concept of intellectual property. It has sound reasons for doing so, however dubious the results when faced with the ??AA at present. These guys knew damn well that they were breaking the law, and now they're damn well going to have to face the consequences, and so they should.
Copyright breach is not a victimless crime. You may not like the current legal system and the fact that it says the copyright holder is entitled to compensation if you want to copy their work, but that does not give you the right to put yourself above the law and ignore that system.
If you want to see what the world would be like without copyright, write to your representatives, use your vote, campaign for change, and make it happen. If everyone who ripped CDs voted for candidates who stood on an anti-copyright platform, you'd soon see the law changed to match.
Until then, you and your ilk are breaking the law, and you are the people who deserve whatever punishment the legal system deems appropriate.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's what the RIAA people are saying right now. A free $15,000 bled from the people for a product that wouldn't have sold otherwise!
Sure, they spent way more than that on the lawyers, but it sets a precedent, so now it'll be easier to get others to cave in and not go to court (where they might actually win).
Can you tell me how this is different from a mafia boss sending "Vinnie" out to club people in the knees if they don't "pay up"?
Ohhhh, they were "stealing". Just like you when you drive down the street with that CD loud enough for me to hear on the sidewalk (Hey, *I* didn't buy it!). Hmmmm, get the RIAA to go after all the people with jacked-up stereos in their cars... maybe they aren't pure evil at that.
Given that the settlement apparently didn't involve any admission of guilt -- and that this didn't go before any judge -- did they in fact do anything of the sort? It seems more like a clear signal that they can successfully threaten college students into giving them thousands of dollars, and are fully willing to do so.
that the RIAA's losses were completely artificial. Didn't the judge notice that the RIAA was claiming billions of dollars in damages, then settled for a couple thousand? That makes no fucking sense. This is a terrible injustice -- it's pathetic that it could even get started in the first place.
Join Tor today!
People I know who were caught with illegal drugs in college weren't fined anywhere near this much.
The drug producers probably didn't feel the need to press charges, and they probably paid the dealer straight up.
Actually, that makes perfect sense to me. A couple of joints or pills is hardly in the same league as high volume copyright infringement.
If so, any large corporation that wants the law changed need only sue people for huge amounts of money and then settle, thus creating "case law".
I never do, it's too easy for the enemy to nail you like these kids. I just hit ftp sites whenever I want a song. Sure it takes longer and it's much more hit and miss, but that's what I like about it. I only have to be lucky once, the RIAA has to be lucky all the time. And yes, I am a criminal. And if the RIAA thinks hitting one form of theft will stop everybody, I beg to differ. I'm smart and immoral enough to get what I want and not get caught. [-)
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
It seems to me that this is a very bad move on the RIAA's part...
Now they have two more enemies that will tell others around them the terrible tale for the rest of thier lives... If my friend got sued I would boycott.
And all the bad PR... The RIAA are middlemen trying to prevent thier obsolescence via lawsuits.
Also I want to know where they got those bogus figures for resitution... I hope the students just decalre bankruptcy and don't pay a cent.
While I violently disagree with the outcome, the RIAA did not go after Microsoft. Usually, the RIAA attacks makers of devices, software or technology. In this case they went after online music swappers. That said, RIAA is attacking the hand that feeds them in the worst way.
The question is how long will RIAA be able to do this before college students fire back. What the RIAA needs to see is a bunch of students returning CDs, not buying their stuff and generally making a lot of noise. Of course, it will take a few cases before people realize that they could be next. When that happens, the RIAA is going to learn something about people: they don't like their security, future and finanacial well being threatened over trivial pursuits.
$G
-- $G
I just need to vent about this a little bit. The student from michigan tech is not some one that I know or can claim comradery with even, but we are the same major at the same school and this pisses me off. The idea of sueing him (and the other students) for the likes of $69+ billion dollars is totally assinine (sp?). Check out this link if you haven't seen it before:
freejoe.servemp3.com
Did a bit of digging... One of the RIAA's victims was:
Daniel Johnathon Peng
An undergrad, due to graduate in 2005, at Princeton's Dept. of EE. Couldn't find a physical address for Daniel, so I'm going to send my $1 donation to the dept in care of him - they'll likely forward it...
Here's the info I was able to dig:
Princeton University,
Department of Electrical Engineering
Engineering Quadrangle, Olden Street
Princeton, NJ 08544
609-258-3500 (dept phone)
emails: dpeng@princeton.edu
webmaster@peng.dyndns.org
His princeton voice mail address is: 37317 (at least according to a directory on Princeton's site it is...).
I'm gonna mark my buck "The RIAA is wrong... Don't Buy CD's EVER AGAIN!"
See The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red. htm
The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
If the RIAA ever makes disappear someone, you will not see it on the news.
--- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
I think I'm going to start my own RIAA (RIAA is the Recording Industry Against Artists, right?) in Canada.. then I can just randomly sue people, and get free money.. seems like one of those Slashdot things:
1) Form local/regional RIAA
2) Sue anyone who has mp3s
3) Profit!
I'd moderate you up as funny and insightful (I also happen to agree with you), but don't have any moderation points, and you can't moderate the same post twice anyway, and so will have to settle for maniacal laughter in a follow-up message :)
Salocin.com