RIAA Threatens More Music-Lovers

Xenographic writes "According to this article at SFGate, the RIAA has warned 204 more people that they are pursuing legal action against them. After the uproar over the last batch of lawsuits, however, they're not (yet) suing the people in question, but intend to allow them to settle out of court, first."

Comments

Music Lovers

[peterprior]

I love music, and I've not been threatened. Maybe they're going after people who violate copyright law. *shocker*

Re:Music Lovers

[tomstdenis]

SHHHH! You want to upset the /. hordes?

Tom

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

2003-10-18 17:23:50 RIAA Pursues 204 More (articles,doj) (accepted)

I left it with an assumed subject; I guess the editors prefered it this way.

Re:Music Lovers

[segment]

What he meant to say but didn't was, More music lovers who post a shitload amount of songs on p2p networks then state they aren't contributing to the once prosperous notion of file "SHARING" not file "DOWNLOADEVERYCATALOGFROMTHEWORLDANDWHOREITFORNORE ASON" are being sued. Hey I understand that's a hell of a long subject line.

mode -1

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's not a justification, but when I read this, which was posted on slashdot on thursday, I decided the RIAA can stuff themselves, everyone copy what (s)he wants. The RIAA members and their lawyers should all die a painful death. Only then will the world be ready for a fair trade.

PS : I buy, on average, 1 CD/year, but I don't copy music. I just listen to the radio a lot (I live in a country where good and varied music can be heard on the radio). So don't go calling me a pirate ('cause my eyepatch is just in the laundry and my parrot has a case of the runs, so I don't dare put him on my shoulder. Try not to think of the coincidence of my parrot having the runs and my eyepatch being in the laundry - you don't want to go there).

posted anonymously because soon the RIAA probably will go after people who only listen to the radio without buying their crap.

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

The file-sharing debate is not about what is or isn't illegal. It is about what should be illegal.

Nobody disagrees that these people violated current law. But many people here believe that they did no wrong, that rather, it is the law that is wrong.

This country was founded on the principle that people should choose to fight or protest laws they don't agree with, and try to get them changed, rather than quietly obeying them. Deliverately violating a law you don't agree with is called Civil Disobedience, and has a long history as a valid form of protest.

Re:Music Lovers

[NanoGator]

"Maybe they're going after people who violate copyright law. *shocker*"

That would be coincidental. They're really going after the people that are threatening their lucrative business model thus insuring that you never have a fair digital music service.

You should have more appreciation for what's really at stake here, especially if the RIAA comes after you in error.

Re:Music Lovers

[nsingapu]

Perhaps If you were to read the artical and familiarize yourself with the past behavior of the RIAA (instead of spouting as much rubbish as you can and still have a shot at first post), you might understand that the reason this so pisses alot of us off is exactly because we are music lovers. The issue is not necessarily one of piracy, nor lawsuits, but one of a blatent monopoly acting in their own interests and screwing their audence

Case in point:
"Our objective here is not to win lawsuits; it is to foster a business environment where legal online music services and bricks-and-mortar retail stores can flourish.''
That might be true, but five years ago this was anything but the case. The RIAA in the past not only has done nothing to promote MP3s or any other "free" type of file (free as in containing no or few restrictions on use), but rather went out of their way to denounce the mp3 as a tool whose use was limited to piracy, and sunk money into proprietary, loosy formats which were time, play, or copy limited. They missed the uprising of online music by blatently persecuting those involved in it, legally or otherwise, and as such have had no monitary interest in it until Napster brought mp3s away from campuses and onto the computers of the common man...when they realized that it would not and could not be stopped.

Additionally the RIAA has gone out of its way to manipulate both facts and figures. MP3s are a perfect digital copy they say, and therefore a much different beast then an analog VCR tape. Make sense to me, BUT, they use an argument that directly counters this at other times. Lets say one owns a CD and wants to make MP3's...its legal. Wants to find MP3's (corresponding to the CD in question) online...nope, the RIAA says that each CD pressed has minute flaws unique to a given CD and therefore the MP3's I create and those created by somone else are different entities, in effect that the MP3 is not so perfect a digital copy. Quite frankly I see little point in reporter even asking questions that demonstrate inconsistancies such as this (if you cannot afford a $15 cdrom drive or cannot figure out how to use one of the many available ripping tools then by definition your much too stupid to be finding music online). The point here is not that its a viable situation, rather that the RIAA tends to interpret law, or figures, in the way which is most convient at the time.
Take this one:
The lawsuits are the record industry's reaction to a 31 percent decline in CD sales in the United States in the past three years, a sharp drop that coincides with the rise of popular file-sharing networks like Kazaa and Gnutella, used by millions of people around the world to swap free copies of songs.
What is ommited is this period also coincides with an economic slump and lossed by companies accross the board. It also coincides with the price of DVDs, a digital copy of a movie which took say $100 million to produce, falling below $10, and that of compact discs, which take perhaps $50,000 to master rising above $20. It also coincides with behaviors from the RIAA that have caused a handful, such as myself, to cease buying CD's. So while its nice to throw a big figure out there and omit all the other stuff, even nicer is to analize that figure in a historical perspective.

To me a music lover is someone that buys a nice set of speakers, and listens to music. In contrast to this is those such as yourself who like to support the RIAA by giving the Spice Girls and N-Sync there day in the spotlight and dollar per disk, and could care less that the other $19 is used for suing 12 year olds and other worthless causes that do nothing to further music

Re:Music Lovers

[Fancia]

If you don't approve of their music, then just simply don't listen at all; I wouldn't advocate piracy, but rather listening to music by independant artists or from alternative record labels, more actively helping the downfall of the RIAA labels because you're aiding their competitors.

Re:Music Lovers

[pvt_medic]

well going after people that threaten their lucrative business, will basically ensure that they never buy a cd again (doesnt that hurt them in the end).

but you touched upon the bigger and more important point what if they target you in error. They did it once, and the fact that from the article doesnt mention that they provide any specific evidence about their illicit activities, the RIAA is bullying them into a settlement. I mean how many people dont have something on their computer or even in their home that doesnt violate a copyright law.

So what if you settle because you think one thing and they were going after you for something else?

Re:Music Lovers

[blincoln]

You're forgetting that this is Slashdot, where media pirates are brave freedom fighters trying to liberate music and movies from the hands of the wealthy and very wealthy and give it to the only moderately wealthy.

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

What he meant to say but didn't was, More music lovers who post a shitload amount of songs on p2p networks then state they aren't contributing to the once prosperous notion of file "SHARING"

Look, whether you like it or not, sharing is illegal. I've made sure that every one of my friends and family gets it across to their children that sharing is WRONG. If someone asks you to share something you should run and tell an adult immediately so they can assist you in making sure the person in question is punished.

Re:Music Lovers

[tftp]

You still may love apples, but hate the only store where you can buy them.

Re:Music Lovers

[js3]

I cracked a smile when I read "music lovers". That's like calling pedophiles "child lovers" or bank robbers "money lovers". I just jacked your car but don't sue me I'm a "car lover"

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha, so I see were this is headed.

Even though I don't download mp3s as an adult, I did used to make cassette recordings of LPs and Radio when I was a child of 12. I traded them with my friends at the private school I attended.

And you are now going to lump me in with pedophiles, bank robbers and car jackers.

you are a real piece of work. as a hard working architect(real buildings asswipe), who happens to have my ccie as well, if a person like you ever walked into my office, with that, quote "cracked smile" of yours...

i'd break your fucking face. contact my lawyer, if you intend to sue for damages.

Re:Music Lovers

[yourmom16]

Really? In kindergarten I was told sharing is good.

Re:Music Lovers

[God! Awful 2]

The point here is not that its a viable situation, rather that the RIAA tends to interpret law, or figures, in the way which is most convient at the time.

Unlike most /. readers. ;-)

It also coincides with the price of DVDs, a digital copy of a movie which took say $100 million to produce, falling below $10, and that of compact discs, which take perhaps $50,000 to master rising above $20.

I don't suppose you would be deliberately misinterpreting facts and figures now, would you?

What percentage of movies do you think actually cost $100 million to make? 1 percent? 5 percent? And can you get any DVD you want for under $10, or just the crappy ones? Could you get say Lord of the Rings (a movie that actually did cost $100 million to make) for that price? Have you even tried looking for CDs under $20? (You don't have to shop at Wal-Mart, you know.)

Here's a little test: Go to amazon.com right now and compare the average price of their 10 top-selling DVDs to the average price of their top 10 CDs. I have performed this experiment on several occasions, and the price of the CDs is consistently $5 cheaper. So my advice to you is before you go off accusing everyone else of spewing propaganda, you might want to take a closer look at what is coming out of your own mouth. (or fingers)

-a

Re:Music Lovers

[Overly Critical Guy]

That is so lame.

Yeah, they're going after people not because they're illegally getting their product for free but because it's an evil conspiracy against "a fair digital music service."

In actuality, going after illegal file-traders makes people MOVE to fair digital music services, like the awesome iTunes.

Next.

Re:Music Lovers

[Overly Critical Guy]

All that blame against the RIAA and you ignore two things:

1.) The artists who are getting screwed by people like you.

2.) That no matter how much you despise the RIAA, think they missed the ball on mp3s, etc.--pirating their product is still illegal, immoral, and wrong. We live in a "pay money, get product" system when it comes to this industry. I don't know about you, but I kind of respect artists enough not to fuck them over by taking their albums without paying them.

Besides, your entire rant was moot since iTunes is out and it rocks. $0.99 for a song in AAC format, and $9.99 for an album. So things are there. It's just that people wont't get their asses off Kazaa because they want free shit.

That's another thing morons like Slashdot editor michael ("Music-Lovers"...ha!) and other blinded Slashbots don't get--this isn't about free speech for 95% of downloaders. It's about free beer. You guys love to ignore that in order to make some idealistic stand that just falls flat because even the downloaders themselves know what they're doing is wrong.

Next.

Re:Music Lovers

[NanoGator]

"In actuality, going after illegal file-traders makes people MOVE to fair digital music services, like the awesome iTunes."

If that were true, we would have had iTunes years ago. Instead they prefer people pay for $15 albums of garbage instead of buying only the songs they want. I'm glad that you're satisfied with being ripped off, though.

Next.

Re:Music Lovers

[Ageless]

Yea. This ain't kindergarten any more. Grow up.

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Yeah, they're going after people not because they're illegally getting their product for free but because it's an evil conspiracy against "a fair digital music service."

Not sure I totally agree with it, but NG has a point. The RIAA has fought tooth and nail to keep their business model of selling overpriced CD's for years. They were even busted for price fixing, insuring that you always pay a premium for music. Back to NG's point, they surely would have provided this service as soon as they discovered that people were willing to spend 15 minutes to an hour to download a single song. They didn't even try until the cat was out of the bag. Even after Napster, they still resisted like mad.

Like I said, I don't think NG is entirely right, I'm sure there was some concern over piracy etc. However, it is pretty darn clear that if a more responsible entity were in charge, we wouldn't have had to have waited until 2003 for a decent music service.

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Artists are getting MORE screwed by the RIAA members.

2) Artists get a SHIT proportion of iTunes revenue, compared to either the record companies or Apple.

Re:Music Lovers

[S.Lemmon]

I always wonder about this. ISPs reuse IP addresses and often I'll get left-over P2P traffic from whoever had my IP before me. It would be very easy I'd think for the RIAA enforcers to finger the wrong person if their log time stamps were off (and I'd hardly put much faith in their accuracy) or the P2P network had stale data.

Re:Music Lovers

[Frac]

If that were true, we would have had iTunes years ago. Instead they prefer people pay for $15 albums of garbage instead of buying only the songs they want. I'm glad that you're satisfied with being ripped off, though.

What an idiotic statement. What? You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? Holy fucking shit!

Re:Music Lovers

[Rallion]

The artists make their money by touring, putting on concerts. RIAA gives them practically nothing. The biggest contribution the RIAA gives is promotion. Which is accomplished much better by free distribution.

Granted, some artists really don't want their music stolen. Obviously, Madonna. But a lot (from what I've personally heard, it SEEMS to be the majority) don't really care. I remember reading an interview with the members of Offspring a few years back where they said they were just ecstatic that they were one of the most shared bands, because it meant people liked their music. I heard similar things from other bands, including a few who actually spoke in favor of filetrading.

Sorry I have no real, hard information. If you don't believe me, look for it yourself. I've seen it, don't care if you believe me, and don't really care to search it out again.

Re:Music Lovers

[NanoGator]

"What an idiotic statement. What? You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? Holy fucking shit!"

Hypocrite. You know damn well that if Microsoft started charging $500 per license that you wouldn't be saying "You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? What an idiotic statement!"

Re:Music Lovers

[hamster foo]

nope, the RIAA says that each CD pressed has minute flaws unique to a given CD and therefore the MP3's I create and those created by somone else are different entities, in effect that the MP3 is not so perfect a digital copy

If each CD is different (has unique flaws), then each digital copy of that CD, assuming their contention that it is perfect, will be unique to that CD, which means that it will be different from your neighbors perfect copy of his CD. They aren't contradicting themselves at all by saying that. Their claim might be inaccurate, but it's not contradictory or counter as you put it.

Re:Music Lovers

[Kierthos]

I don't know whether these will meet your standards of "good movies", but I routinely go to Best Buy and get DVDs for $9-$12. Here's a few I've bought recently, which I obviously consider good, otherwise I wouldn't have bought them:

Ronin ~ $12
Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels ~ $10
Bulletproof Monk ~ $10
Casablanca ~ $10

So, if a movie is available for $10 on DVD, which, when you include the outrageous prices for snacks at the theaters, is less then the cost of going out to the movies, AND it's less then a CD, of which I might listen to 4 or 5 songs (I don't buy any tape or CD unless there are a minimum of 3 songs I like on it).... so clearly, even the the paranoid assholes at the MPAA are indeed paranoid assholes, they are much less of a paranoid asshole culture then the paranoid assholes at the RIAA.

As for "we're giving you the chance to settle out of court", frankly, I want some of these to go to court, especially if they are "oops, we picked on the wrong person again".

Kierthos

Re:Music Lovers

[nsingapu]

1.) The artists who are getting screwed by people like you
The artists are not getting screwed by people such as myself, I did not address piracy in my previous post. Personally, I dont feel the need to lower myself to downloading the latest played out radio crap, and as such, there is little or nothing on this computer which should not be here. I buy CD's, quite often really, but in recent years have chosen to do so at small shows from the actual artists who are not affiliated with the big 5, or at sites such as mp3.com where the artist are fairly compensated for their work. The artists are benifiting from my purchase in that they are making say 50% of the price I pay, I am benefiting in that I dont have to listen to some guy who shows of his 50 Bentlys on MTV sing about how miserable his life is.

2.) ...pirating their product is still illegal, immoral, and wrong...
Illegal yes, immoral and wrong, thats a personal decision, and in my instance I dont find it to be such, atleast not arbitrarily so. For instance where do bootlegs fall into this paradigm, recordings from specific concerts which are not a viable commercial product, but which are an invaluable musical commodity to those who collect them.
Are their instances where piracy is wrong, I think most certainly so, but unfortunately for the artist, at times it serves as an effective means to an end. Luckily the MPAA tax is so heavy that when one downloads an entire album they are generally denying the artist less then a dollar.

As for iTunes, if you could kindly direct me to the version for linux I would love to check it out....oh whats that you say, it requires a thousand dollors worth of cheap mac or agreement with windows EULA. Hmmm, real viable option for those who disagree with exploitation at the hands of commercialism.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly "idealistic stands" do not necessarily indicate an affinity for free as in beer. I dont claim to dislike the RIAA because they make music proprietary, rather I dislike them (and the MPAA, and Microsoft, and the policy imposed by George W, and a great deal of other stuff) because they discourage choice and declare that "this is the way it is, and fuck your idealism." You mention kazaa, I do not use it because it suffers from the same platform limitations as iTunes, is associated with spyware, and recently has been directed exclusively towards commercial interests. To me, there are more viable options out there, and the same stands with music produced by the big five. I refuse to contribute funds to institutions that treat me like a peice of shit with no rights simply because they can, and I do this specifically because I think America would be a better place if the people were able to contribute half as much to congress as corperate interests do. It would truly be for the people, by the people, and unfortunately institutions such as the RIAA prevent this and make it look like a warped version of reality.

Re:Music Lovers

[Frac]

Hypocrite. You know damn well that if Microsoft started charging $500 per license that you wouldn't be saying "You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? What an idiotic statement!"

You're right, I wouldn't say that. Instead, I would say "NanoGator is dense enough to compare apples to oranges. And he thinks by twisting RIAA vs Microsoft into some sort of valid comparison he can call others hypocritical."

Windows and Office are compulsory taxes for some businesses and individuals, simply because their clients or customers demand the compatibility that's not offered by alternatives like OpenOffice. Even in that case, if Microsoft tries to charge too much, it can backfire and cause customers to NOT PAY THEM, as evidenced by their new corporate annual subscription program.

Music is a LUXURY product. No one is forcing you to buy an album if it's not worth the value you're willing to pay. Few people lose jobs or business because they didn't buy an album.

That said, I take back my words when I said your statement is idiotic. It's the poster (you), not the statement, that's idiotic.

Re:Music Lovers

[nsingapu]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =3355761848&category=2298 LOTR, Fellowship BIN $9.95 (open box from first page, im lazy tonight)

In answer to your question, no not just the crappy ones are available for $10. The point is not the price that it takes to produce films, rather that films cost so much more to produce then CD's and yet retail for comparitively so much cheaper. Even if the films are $5 more on average for new releases, their production cost 200* more, and the media which they are distributed on is also more expensive to master and produce.

A compact disk might take a band a week in a recording studio with a crew of 10, a film might be a year with a crew of 50, and yet these media are comperable in price. Logically, there is something very wrong with that picture

Perhaps the thing that most irks me is not the new releases (I dont listen to a whole lot of new artists) but the fact that older dvd's are sold cheap whereas older cd's tend to be more expensive.

Re:Music Lovers

[ScottSpeaks!]

...to which the response has been a litany of the sins of the RIAA. OK, the RIAA is evil. I've been saying that for years. But it doesn't make the people who "share" recordings they didn't actually create, or who download recordings without the permissions of the people who did, right.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, and both parties are wrong.

Re:Music Lovers

[Safiire Arrowny]

All sources of music on CD aren't members of the RIAA. For an example of music I listen to which is not, clicky.

It is a huge monopoly, but not a complete monopoly.

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference in copying music for personal/private use and advertising to the world that you are sharing one of Britney Spear's songs. Copying music privately may or may not break the law, but if you don't want to get caught violating copyrights, then DON'T FUCKING TELL THE WHOLE WORLD WHAT YOU ARE DOING! Otherwise the RIAA just might catch on.

Slashtwat.

Re:Music Lovers

[Jim Nugent]

This country was founded on the principle that people should choose to fight or protest laws they don't agree with, and try to get them changed, rather than quietly obeying them. Deliverately violating a law you don't agree with is called Civil Disobedience, and has a long history as a valid form of protest.

Most all ideolgical groups warn their members, when they propose civil disobedience as a form of protest, that doing so implies that one is willing to suffer the defined penalties.

For example abortion protestors who chain themselves to parked cars, etc. blocking entrances or roadways ARE PREPARED to be arrested.

Re:Music Lovers

[God! Awful 2]

Quoting eBay is hardly a fair comparison. The link you posted didn't work, but I found another LOTR DVDs for $10. Of course it was used. You can't compare the retail price of a new CD to the auction price of a used DVD.

The cost to make a product is only one of many factors that determines its price. I assume you're being deliberately ignorant about this. Your comment that movies take 200* more to produce is unsubstantiated. (I assume you're including marketing costs for the movies and excluding them for the CDs.) In any case, movies have a wider appeal and they can be performed cheaply in many locations at once. Most movies break even at the box office, so DVDs don't have to recoup the production costs.

As to your last point, that's just tough. Music just seems to depreciate less with age.

-a

Re:Music Lovers

[Sj0]

Ooh! A sarcasm detector! That's REAL useful!

Re:Music Lovers

[NanoGator]

"Music is a LUXURY product. No one is forcing you to buy an album if it's not worth the value you're willing to pay. Few people lose jobs or business because they didn't buy an album."

Doesn't matter, the RIAA has a monopoly. So whatever you buy, it is at their good graces.

"That said, I take back my words when I said your statement is idiotic. It's the poster (you), not the statement, that's idiotic."

I'm not the one who thinks it's okay for the RIAA to have monopoly/oligopoly status. In light of that, you do understand that you calling me an idiot has like 0 effect on me, right?

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonvmous Coward]

"No one is forcing you to buy an album if it's not worth the value you're willing to pay. "

Demand for music is there and the RIAA's the only real source of it. You buy from them, or you don't buy at all.

It's nice that you think that situation is okay just because music is a 'luxury'. However, the reality is that there is demand out there, but your only source is trying not to supply it. Since they are in control of it all, they have no competition that'll make them lower prices and provide competing products.

"Few people lose jobs or business because they didn't buy an album."

The artists come to mind. They only have the RIAA to go to, and as such they get really awful contracts where they get paid very little, but the executives get bags of cash.

I wouldn't be so quick to describe NG as 'idiotic'. He's got a point, and you're dismissing a monopoly as okay because it's a luxury.

While we're on the topic of luxuries, anything besides food and water can be considered a luxury. Your Windows example could be disputed, computers in general could be disputed, etc. Again, I wouldn't be calling NG idiotic here.

Re:Music Lovers

[Frac]

Since they are in control of it all, they have no competition that'll make them lower prices and provide competing products.

No. Music is not something that can be commoditized. The opinion of what's good music or not is highly subjective (unlike software, of which you can partially evaluate the products based on performance metrics).

An army of shitty garage bands with free downloads, mp3 downloads, lower costs isn't going to change the world.

And customers aren't idiots either. NG is trying to paint this sob story where customers are being leeched dry of their hard earned income by the RIAA. Huh? CD Sales are down because the prices are too high. Apple has sold 13 million songs because there are enough people that believe the price is right for them.

They only have the RIAA to go to, and as such they get really awful contracts where they get paid very little, but the executives get bags of cash.

Obviously they get bags of cash. They need to offset the hundreds of failed artists that they invest in each year. Do you think making an quality hit album is as easy as firing up your microphone in your garage and mailing out burned CDs to the music stores? How do you think the record companies recoup the lost investments? From the hit artists of course. Like I said, music is highly subjective, it's not like you can run it through a wave file analyzer to determine whether the song is going to be a hit or not. The average rate of return on investment is much lower than people assume it to be. You seem to have this notion that the RIAA has a crystal ball that sifts the good bands from the bad, and extort ridiculous fees from them.

The premium the artists pay toward the record companies come from the production of the album, the promotion of the album, and the connection of the record company with suppliers of music stores. Music stores don't have an infinite amount of time to negotiate product placement with ten thousand different record companies.

I'm sure the top groups like U2 and REM negotiate a much better deal for their contracts (after they became famous). And the record companies are fine with that too.

While we're on the topic of luxuries, anything besides food and water can be considered a luxury. Your Windows example could be disputed, computers in general could be disputed, etc.

Like I said, Windows is a tax for some corporate environements. Your company might lose business if you don't buy Windows or Office. Simple as that. Companies don't lose customers because they didn't buy some music album.

Re:Music Lovers

[Frac]

Doesn't matter, the RIAA has a monopoly. So whatever you buy, it is at their good graces.

Of course it matters. You don't have to buy their albums!

I'm not the one who thinks it's okay for the RIAA to have monopoly/oligopoly status.

I didn't said it's ok for them to be a monopoly. I just said it's idiotic for you to assume that it's a valid comparison to the Windows monopoly.

In light of that, you do understand that you calling me an idiot has like 0 effect on me, right?

I don't care if it has an effect on you. It's just a reminder for me to treat you with the same patience as people do with the kids at the Special Olympics, that's all ;)

Re:Music Lovers

[NanoGator]

"Of course it matters. You don't have to buy their albums!"

*Shrug* There are millions of people buying CD's out there despite their high price tag and low quality. It's the only source of it so there is no choice.

"I didn't said it's ok for them to be a monopoly. I just said it's idiotic for you to assume that it's a valid comparison to the Windows monopoly."

What I said was that you'd be singing a different tune. It's not okay to have a monopoly just because it's a 'luxury' item. If they are the only source of a highly sought after product, then they are not in the clear.

"It's just a reminder for me to treat you with the same patience as people do with the kids at the Special Olympics, that's all ;)"

Next time, can ya at least make it funny or insulting? Right now, your comedy level is right around Bob Saget's level. Gonna call me a dingleberry next?

Re:Music Lovers

[Frac]

*Shrug* There are millions of people buying CD's out there despite their high price tag and low quality. It's the only source of it so there is no choice.

Tsk tsk.. People like you with no sense in economics shouldn't run around talking about monopolities. Just because you don't consider it a value doesn't mean others feel the same way. I would never buy or listen to any Country songs, yet the genre still survives because plenty of people buy those kind of songs. Who do you think you are to judge what's a good value for everyone, and what's not? If those people have "no choice", why do you have a choice? Are you even from a capitalist country like the most of us here?

What I said was that you'd be singing a different tune. It's not okay to have a monopoly just because it's a 'luxury' item. If they are the only source of a highly sought after product, then they are not in the clear.

No, what you said was "Hypocrite. You know damn well that if Microsoft started charging $500 per license that you wouldn't be saying "You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? What an idiotic statement!"". Which means you were trying to compare the RIAA monopoly to the Microsoft monopoly. And that's idiotic of you to do so.

It's not okay to have a monopoly just because it's a 'luxury' item.

Actually, monopolies are perfectly legal. Price-fixing in monopolies are illegal, and the RIAA has already been punished for that. Also, some record companies are reducing prices because more and more people aren't willing to buy their albums. I believe you should crawl out of your cave once in a while so you can update your outdated arguments against "The System".

Next time, can ya at least make it funny or insulting? Right now, your comedy level is right around Bob Saget's level. Gonna call me a dingleberry next?

Uh, right. Great comeback there, NanoGator ;)

Of course, you again try to elevate yourself above Bob Sagat or people that appreciate his humor, even though he's made more money than most of us, and America's Funniest Home Videos was one of the more popular shows for the longest time. Of course, this is in line with your behavior in judging those that actually bought CD albums. Do you have a hard time convincing other people that your taste in everything subjective is above all? Poor thing.

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

You listen to free music on the radio? Thief! Theif! I bet you read free books using libraries, too. Pirate!

Re:Music Lovers

[NanoGator]

" Who do you think you are to judge what's a good value for everyone, and what's not? If those people have "no choice", why do you have a choice? Are you even from a capitalist country like the most of us here?"

Yet again, you misunderstand me. I can't help but think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Didn't bother reading past that. Show me that you're willing to discuss instead of argue, and I'll go back and read it. I'll even cool my jets and have a reasonable discussion with you. Deal?

I'm serious, I really don't feel like arguing, but I would appreciate a good discussion.

Re:Music Lovers

[uncoveror]

Strange, I don't see them going after the counterfeit disc dealers at flea markets, or on street corners. They are only trying to kill the new radio, file trading. Why? Because it is a new thing they don't control. The horse-and-buggy industry tried to kill the automobile industry too. It didn't work! Buh-bye RIAA. Enjoy the dustbin of history!

Re:Music Lovers

[rootyard]

arrested? that's fine with most of us, but what about being sued? No one tried to take Rosa Parks' money and/or property.

Re:Music Lovers

[Frac]

Yet again, you misunderstand me.

No I didn't. Your quote:

There are millions of people buying CD's out there despite their high price tag and low quality.

What's a high price tag? What's high? What's low? What's good quality? What's low quality? The same boy band album you despise, hence you wouldn't consider even if it costs 30 cents for the entire CD, will probably be bought by a teeny bopper even if it costs 30 bucks. Likewise, I'm sure whatever music you like is considered "absolute crap" by someone else on this planet.

That is exactly what I mean when I said you're imposing your own music taste and economic values on the everyone else. Just because a consumer product is worthless to you doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else. Maybe those millions are being forced down the music store aisles with their hard earned dollar bills yanked out of them for awful albums. Or maybe they just find it to be a good value to them. Ever thought about that?

I'm serious, I really don't feel like arguing, but I would appreciate a good discussion.

Did you feel like arguing when you called me a hypocrite, despite the fact that you have absolutely no clue what my views towards Microsoft were? Or the fact that it wasn't a valid comparison to begin with?

If that's your idea of a good discussion, no thanks, I think I'll pass.

Re:Music Lovers

[NanoGator]

"Did you feel like arguing when you called me a hypocrite..."

You mean when you said this:

"What an idiotic statement. What? You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? Holy fucking shit!"

Yep. We got off on the wrong foot. You didn't like what I said, and I didn't like what you said, and I wanted to correct that. It would seem as though you'd prefer to argue. Oh well. At least you proved my point. Good night.

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonvmous Coward]

"If that's your idea of a good discussion, no thanks, I think I'll pass."

Uh, you started it dude.

Re:Music Lovers

[Greg W.]

What is ommited is this period also coincides with an economic slump and lossed by companies accross the board. It also coincides with the price of DVDs, a digital copy of a movie which took say $100 million to produce, falling below $10, and that of compact discs, which take perhaps $50,000 to master rising above $20. It also coincides with behaviors from the RIAA that have caused a handful, such as myself, to cease buying CD's.

It also coincides with (or follows closely after) the deregulation of the US radio industry. Prior to about 1996, the number of stations in a given "market" (that's "city" to you and me) that a single company could own was restricted by federal regulation. Now, it's an open playing field, and the big companies (like Clear Channel) are gobbling up the little folks.

Have you heard anything worth buying on the US commercial radio stations lately? Maybe a song or two in a year, if you're lucky. The rest is watered-down regurgitated formulaic pap.

It's hard to imagine why they think people would want to buy crappy music. Sure, there's the pre-teen market (10-year-old girls buying Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears with their parents' money), and I'm sure that'll continue to earn money for a good long time. But what's the motiation for the rest of us to go spend money? Are they playing anything on the radio that adults would be interested in hearing?

Just another piece of the puzzle. (Or "another brick in the wall", for those of us over 30.)

Re:Music Lovers

[Greg W.]

I don't know about you, but I kind of respect artists enough not to fuck them over by taking their albums without paying them.

Buying a CD does not pay the artist. It only pays the companies who distribute the plastic. You want to pay the artist? Go to musiclink (formerly Fairtunes) and pay them. Directly.

(I used to be an extremely active Fairtunes community contributor, but when they dropped the bulletin-board style forums and started using Slashcode, in which you couldn't start new "threads" without getting them approved by moderators, it fell flat on its face and died. Then it got taken over by this "musiclink" group, etc. The new site doesn't seem to have any sort of community or forums at all; in fact, it looks like it isn't even done yet. Where's the list of contributions? Where's the "top X artists" lists, etc.? I hope they're still doing some good work.)

Re:Music Lovers

[jo42]

/. suffers from yellow journalism:

s/Music-Lovers/Music-Thieves/

Re:Music Lovers

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking pussy.

Honestly.

[Anonymous Coward]

How long are they going to do this? Do they eventualy plan to sue every user in america?

Re:Honestly.

[Anonymous Coward]

How long are they going to do this? Do they eventualy plan to sue every user in america?

No, only the 90% or so that share files. The other 10% will all be working for the RIAA, serving writs full time.

Re:Honestly.

[AKnightCowboy]

How long are they going to do this? Do they eventualy plan to sue every user in america?

Only the ones that are sharing music they don't own. Why is it so hard for everyone to understand, the jig is up. It was great while it lasted but, like the dot-com stock market bubble, we all knew it had to end sometime. I liked stealing music as much as the next guy, but it's just too risky these days. Last year you could get away with it and have relative anonymity, but today they're going after people with the gusto normally reserved for people that piss off leaders of Colombian drug cartels.

Re:Honestly.

[SatanicPuppy]

Yea, and look how effective it's been against the drug cartels. Regardless of whether it's legal or moral, the reality of the situation is that people love it, and that their efforts so far to stop it have done little but stir up a huge wave of ill will and bad press. A new paradigm will come out of all this crap, and, the way it looks right now, it isn't going to be coming from the RIAA.

204?

[OwlofCreamCheese]

204? how did they ever decide THAT was the number they should go after? what a weird number. did they start a clock and say "you have 5 minutes to catch all you can.... GO!"? or did someone sit down and say "boy, we should catch 204 people today"

Re:204?

[NTmatter]

204? That number sounds familiar...how many people signed those amnesty forms a while back?

Re:204?

[Narphorium]

Senario A:
One of the RIAA members crashed their Benz, so they figured they'de need another 4 settlements to put them back on track.

Scenario B:
The original target was to sue 200 evil-doers, but then they found 4 crippled orphanes with macs and the couldn't resist.

Scenario C:
They switched over to the same crack dealer that SCO is using.

Re:204?

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 800, if memory serves. It was certainly more than 204, however.

Not that I'd put it past them, exactly...

Re:204?

[acidrain69]

They probably picked those out of a larger list based on what evidence they had at the time, and what records they could get from ISPs. It's probably completely arbitrary.

Re:204?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very simple explanation: The RIAA lawyer approving the subpoenas reached an ejaculatory orgasm after the 204th one.. currently they're looking for a replacement while he rests.

Just like porn sites have women edit the pictures and erotic stories, the RIAA *really* should get a cook or a teacher or something to do this kind of "sensitive" work...

legal?

[drivelikejehu]

"they're not (yet) suing the people in question, but intend to allow them to settle out of court, first."

is that legal? can you say extortion?

extortion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-storshn)
n.

1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

Re:legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, since the fines are $150,000 per song, which is probably more than the people have.

Re:legal?

[HBI]

When you do it, it's extortion.

When a lawyer does it, it's presenting a claim and making a good faith attempt to settle it before litigation.

Re:legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't that have to be a law inforcement agency in order for it to be exortion?

Re:legal?

[tomstdenis]

Extortion would be like "pay up or I'll tell people you're gay" or something like that.

Telling people "you violated my civil rights and I'm going to sue you. Either settle or pay up bigger in court" is not only perfectly legal but totally humble.

Let's not forget these are people who are listening to music from artists without paying for it first.

If it happens some of them were on P2P networks but sharing allowable Indy stuff or whatever than fight it in court, countersue, etc. But if you happen to be "sharing" pirated audio then you screwed up.

Tom

Re:legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

$150,000 per song. They're talking crap, no way does someone allowing uploads cause that much economic loss. I share 10 songs, they claim about as much as I'm gonna earn in a lifetime? Bullshit!

Re:legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but I don't think having my car parked in an illegal zone for 5 minutes was worth an $85 ticket either.

Re:legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget these are people who are listening to music from artists without paying for it first.

I do that all the time. Legally. It's call radio.

Re:legal?

[Dot.Com.CEO]

YOU might not pay, but the radio station does. They pass on the cost to you through advertising.

Re:legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"pay up or I'll tell people you're gay" is one kind of extortion known as blackmail. But extortion is also the act of abusing one's authority in order to force people to pay. Extortion is typically considered illegal in the US, but that never seems to stop anyone, because people in authority don't want to set any precidence over what is considered abuse of authority.

Re:legal?

[Yartrebo]

It works the other way around. The radio station gets paid to play the song (payola), and it gets even more profit from the advertisements.

Re:legal?

[tomstdenis]

If you really think you're in the right fight it and then counter-sue, big-time. If the RIAA loses a couple million to a 23 yr old computer nerd fresh out of college [or whatever] that will be a huge blow to their public rampage [because really all these lawsuits are a private matter anyways].

Tom

Re:legal?

[Aeiri]

[i]Let's not forget these are people who are listening to music from artists without paying for it first.[/i] Oh... okay... sorry. I'll tell my friends to stop using credit cards to pay for CDs or anything for that matter anymore, since they are committing a civil offense.

Re:legal?

[tomstdenis]

Troll much?

When you pay by CC you are promissing to pay it later. So you are paying for it.

The difference is you're committed to buying it before you try the CD out at home. See if you just allow anyone to try the CD out at home they're not likely to actually pay for it at all.

Tom

Re:legal?

[portnux]

Extortion? I prefer to think of it as state sponsored terrorism. Oooops, does that make America a terrorist state? Huh, I guess it does. :/

Re:legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't pay (for the downloaded MP3), the uploader did. They paid $$ for the CD, and $ for the internet connection.

What's your point?

Re:legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the going settlement rate is $5000, unless you contest the charges, at which time the settlement raises to $50,000.

Re:legal?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Extortion would be like "pay up or I'll tell people you're gay" or something like that.

That's not extortion, at least legally, I don't think. I think extortion requires some sort of violence, like "Pay me this protection fee and my guys won't tear up your shop." That said, I heard a story once about a shop owner in New York who paid his dues to the mob so they wouldn't tear up his shop. Then, one night someone broke into his shop and stole some shit. The shop alarm went off, so the cops were notified by the security company. Or something like that. Anyway, the mob somehow found out about it (either the guy called them, or one of their guys just saw it) and had the perpetrator in their hands by morning, asking the shop owner what he wanted them to do with him. Interesting stuff.

Anyway, "Pay up or I'll tell people you're gay" sounds more like blackmail than extortion. I realize that morally it's the same thing, pay me or I'll do something to you that you won't like, but law has never been much of a representation of morality.

Let's not forget these are people who are listening to music from artists without paying for it first.

So are we supposed to go into a music store and just buy random shit without ever listening to it first? How are we supposed to filter all the crap (and there's a lot of it) so that we can spend our hard-earned money on the music that we really like? Listen to the radio? Oh my, then we have to listen to the commercials, to pay for the music. Remember, the RIAA tried to shut down music stores that provided listening booths. If the RIAA had their way, nobody would listen to a single musical note without paying their royalty to a record company. Is that the world you want to live in?

Re:legal?

[gl4ss]

maybe in special cases(with specialised deals between stations and recording companies, ever wondered how the radios seem to play just crap the recording companies want to push? anyways, these need special deals and are not the norm and more often than actually receiving money they just give the songs to be played for free and arrange blowjobs to the dj's).

however, in MOST CASES the radio station pays to play the songs(how much they pay are calculated somehow, and differ from country to country of course, but afaik/iirc around here, in finland, they pay by potential listeners). this makes it preferrable for them to have dj's rambling about coffee prices rather than play music, and much more preferable to play short(under 15s or so and they don't have to pay) clips of songs and the station name for minutes per hour.

around here this is where the local long term rock/pop musicians make their everyday money too(they don't make shit in long term from records, gigs and the local 'teosto' money is where they make their money, only very big stars can make enough money from records).

Help out those who have been sued.

[gricholson75]

Downhillbattle.org, a music activism site, has set up a defense fund to help those who have been sued pay their legal bills. Slashdotters are always saying that more people should fight the suits, help out those who are.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see..

I go out of my way to not buy RIAA CDs, even to the point of selling CDs on eBay from any label that's an RIAA member (selling my 4AD CDs was pretty tough I must say, but since I kept lossless AIFF's of all of them, it's not too big a deal)...

Now I'm supposed to (indirectly) GIVE the RIAA money? FOR NOTHING???

No way, let the RIAA rot, and let these losers who still listen to RIAA music rot along with 'em.

(Every time you download a song and play it for your friends, you're giving the RIAA free advertising, don't forget that!)

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Evil Adrian]

From the site:

"Desperate to end filesharing, the major record labels have singled out 261 people and are trying to make examples out of them. Without warning, families and individuals are being slammed with enormous lawsuits that they can't possibly afford to defend themselves against."

Well, they shouldn't have been pirating music now, should they? It's hard to feel bad for people (let alone want to give them money) when they've been breaking the law, and know they've been breaking the law.

"We've created this Fund so that everyone who thinks the RIAA lawsuits are callous and unwarranted can donate to support the people who are being sued. Rather than collecting donations centrally like a traditional defense fund, our system lets you give money directly to someone who is being sued. More about the contribution system."

Callous and unwarranted? Well, call it callous if you want, but you can't dare say unwarranted -- people are pirating RIAA member companies' music, it's clear as crystal.

As I've said a thousand times, if you don't like RIAA, don't support them, but the moment you start pirating things, you've broken the law, and I don't feel sorry for you.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[jbs0902]

Just remember, any money you get from that legal defense fund is taxable.

See this article/comment Democrat tax cut (self-service).

Wonder if they set it up so a contribution is deductable? Probably not.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[thales]

When the RIAA was suing Napster, Kazaa, and others, Slashdot was full of posts claiming that these programs had legitimate uses, and the RIAA should go after people pirating copyrighted works instead of the companines offering P2P software.

Now the RIAA is following the advice that so many Slashdotters offered in the recent past, so why are so many of y'all bitching?

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Saint Nobody]

it's because of the draconian policies that the riaa has been using. $150,000 per song is at least three orders of magnitude too high. with that much to lose, they have assured that almost everybody whom they decide to target will settle. (which is probably even the smart thing to do if you look at it from a game theory perspective) so their patterns of abuse of the public are reinforced. plus, i've seen reports of at them suing at least three innocent people, and in one of those cases, they even refused to drop the charges.

oh, and go find any of the millions of rants about how slashdot is not a single entity, and is actually a group of people with diverse opinions. you seem to need to read it.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Alright, Evil Adrian, let's go at it again. :) You're my new flame war partner since TheBungi hasn't appeared recently to flame about Windows/Linux.

Well, they shouldn't have been pirating music now, should they? It's hard to feel bad for people (let alone want to give them money) when they've been breaking the law, and know they've been breaking the law.

Hmm, where do I start? You're assuming they know they've been breaking the law. I do agree that not knowing isn't a valid defense, but it should be taken into consideration, IMO. The reason it's not a valid defense is because then everybody would say "Oh gee, I didn't know" and get off the hook. The reason it should be considered, though, is because if someone really didn't know they were screwing up, they can't really be responsible for it. To be responsible for your actions, you have to first know that they're wrong, right?

Second, I'm sure you've seen this question before, but how exactly does making a copy of someone's file on a computer compare to sailing on the high seas, firing cannons at everything that moves, raping and pillaging and generally destroying everything you come across? Come now, piracy is truly a destructive, evil thing. Copyright infringement doesn't even compare to what piracy really is.

Callous and unwarranted? Well, call it callous if you want, but you can't dare say unwarranted -- people are pirating RIAA member companies' music, it's clear as crystal.

Any time a company resorts to litigation without trying to resolve the issue in a more peacable fashion, it is unwarranted. It's morally comparable to you copying the fancy gnomes in my yard for your own yard, and me sticking knives in your side until I'm satisfied. Cease and Desist letters, however annoying they might be, are the first proper course. First, identify the perpetrator. Second, send them a letter telling them what you think they did, and that you'd like them to stop. You also inform them that you would like to resolve the issue peacably, but that you will defend your "intellectual property". If they don't stop, you will pursue further action. It's really very simple. How many letters should a person receive before they get served? Depends on how nice you want to be about it. But when someone attacks someone else without warning, that means they don't want to resolve the issue, they want to conquer and own.

As I've said a thousand times, if you don't like RIAA, don't support them, but the moment you start pirating things, you've broken the law, and I don't feel sorry for you.

I agree, actually. I don't think it's appropriate to feel sorry for these people. Pity is a useless feeling, in general. Want to help? Help. Don't want to help? Don't. But pity doesn't help at all. I would add to the statement about not supporting the RIAA by pointing out that supporting the artists that record under RIAA-"protected" labels in any way, including file sharing and attending performances, will ultimately support the RIAA in some fashion or other. For the reasons you shouldn't copy Windows you shouldn't copy RIAA-protected music.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, and go find any of the millions of rants about how slashdot is not a single entity, and is actually a group of people with diverse opinions.

What? I thought you were all just a bunch of bots.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[thales]

If it was four orders of magnitude smaller the whinning would continue.

If it was a compamy violating copyright law by distrubiting GPLed software in binary only form the whinning would continue even if the sum was four orders of magnitude higher, despite the fact that the company was doing exactly the same thing the "file sharers" are doing, distrubting copyrighted works in a manner against the wishes of the copyright holder.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I thought you were all just a bunch of bots.

They are, there are just a few different kind of bots.

The Mac Zealot, the Right wing I'm-30-so-I'm-smarter-than-you idiot, the Linux zealot (nothing wrong with Linux, but they need to be a little less closed minded), the rights advodacy people (go guys go!), and last but not least the fucking stupid masses by far the most common entity on slashdot.

They are all just bots, and the only thing worse than the posters is the mods. I just lerk here for the occasional insightful post that is actually insightful (as rare as water in a desert) and have a special account for only reading Trolls and Flamebaits for the entertainment value. Also every now and then I post AC to try and piss more people off and watch they rustle their feathers and cluck like the chickens they are. It's hilarious because they really don't know how stupid they are.

So there you have it.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Anonymous Coward]

This money goes to people in general who have been sued, even those who settle. I'd rather donate money to someone who's actually FIGHTING THIS IN COURT. Better yet, perhaps there are lawyers who want to take P2P cases pro bono.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[LX.onesizebigger]

There is quite a difference between (a) attempting to profit economically or gain reputation by putting your own name and your restrictions on something that others produced out of good will for the benefit of all while giving you the benefit of choosing to adhere to common copyright or gain additional rights by embracing an optional license and (b) sharing a good foolishly marketed by a cartel of oligopolistic profiteers as an economic good despite the product having no characteristics to place it within the realm of economics.

The music distribution industry needs to grow up and realise that (1) entertainment is a service, not a good, (2) production and distribution of physical media is a manufacturing industry, which is legitimate, but entirely separate from the provision of the data stored thereon, and (3) music 'licensing' is a nonsense concept indicative of a need for those who engage in it to go back to Economics 101.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[thales]

ROFLMAO,

No You need to grow up and realize that entertainment isn't some god given "right", it's a luxauy. That committing a crime to obtain luxury goods and services places you in the exact same class as the Enron exeecutives in intent, differeing only in scale. You also need to take a course in ethics if you think this is just Economics 101.

I Won't dispute that the RIAA are a bunch of jerks, but that dosen't give you the "right" to take part in an economic lynching via mass piracy of thier products. If you don't like the RIAA, then boycott thier asses. That sends a clear message of disapproval, while the mass piracy sends the message of "I'm too cheap to pay for music"

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[GigsVT]

That comment uses some weird logic. I don't think the IRS is going to consider the nebulous political benefit "consideration". That's the foundation of that argument, that the funds can't be considered gifts because the people donating were expecting this consideration in return.

What's next? Revoking United Way's tax exempt status because the people donating money get a better community in return?

The way I understand it, the gift laws are written so that you can get up to $10,000 from any person each year and have it considered a gift, exempt from taxes. So long as no one person gives more than $10,000, and the defense fund is set up in a way that it's not legally the "giver", then I think everything is alright.

Of course, I'm not a tax pro, but I think your link it more politics than it is sound tax advice.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[LX.onesizebigger]

:) Relax, mate. I haven't bought or downloaded RIAA's dumb-pop in ages, and I can't argue with the fact that we do have laws against copyright infringement, even though my personal view is that those laws try to enforce something that can't be enforced (which is why expression is not an economic good, or conversely, because it is not, intellectual property rights cannot be enforced -- chicken, egg, egg, chicken).

Firstly, you might want to leave out discussion of crimem, though, as the RIAA has yet to lay criminal charges. They know they have less to win and a whole lot more to lose (not to mention a lot more to prove) in a criminal case.

Secondly, my statements are not so much normative with respect to what these people are doing or what the RIAA is trying to do, but a reflection on the positive facts.

Music is not an economic good. People never wanted to buy the right to listen to music; they wanted to buy a convenient means of listening to music, a service which was, for a few decades, brought to the public by the likes of those represented by the RIAA.

When a more convenient way surfaced, the industry refused to provide that service, thus failing to reap the benefits. Legal or not, other people now provide that service (in both legal and illegal fashions).

For a good to be an economic good, it has to be possible to exclude people from using it. The provision of military and law enforcement protection is not an economic good; nor is street lighting or free-to-air television. If visual or musical art was ever exclusive in this fashion, it certainly isn't with today's technologies, Q.E.D. And since it's not an economic good, it can't be a luxury good, since that is merely a reflection on an economic good's price-elasticity of demand.

Thirdly, if you think this has anything to do with ethics, you need to take an introductory law unit. Law and ethics sometimes overlap, but that is more coincidence than anything else. Law, while interpreted subjectively, is objective and absolute. Ethics is a largely subjective area.

In my own, personal view, I think the RIAA's business practices are unethical vis-a-vis its customers, its artists, and the world at large. The RIAA has done far more damage to artists and to music than filesharing ever will, regardless of who is on which side of the law.

Fourthly, I resent the vocabulary pushed by the RIAA's mutant vampire lawyers and perpetuated by most everyone in the world, including you, aiding them in distorting the severity of the [crime|civil wrongdoing]. Copyright infringement != shooting, slashing, raping, physical theft, pillaging, and mutilating. (Nor is it stealing.)

I can't and won't condone crimes or civil wrongdoings, but we must all be realistic about what can actually be enforced practically and in a manner that promotes equity.

That having been said, I wholeheartedly agree that there are better sources for better music than the RIAA members, and I believe new artists who are serious about music will choose those alternative paths. I've made a bit of music myself, and I would never dream of profiting from it by restricting access to it, even if I thought it was "good" enough to do that. I personally enjoy free sources of music because I believe making and listening to music is about sharing a gift, which is neither a luxury nor a right, but an enrichment of society that we as human beings can choose to give to each other, and I believe that to make truly enjoyable music, you need to have that element of altruism in your mind.

Before you reject me as a hippie, I'm not against people making money from things involving music, but some ways are better than others, and you need to distinguish economic goods and services from free goods in an economic sense. The money is all in the services. If the RIAA fails to realise this, they will perish. I don't think they have failed to realise it, but I think they are not satisfied with it; they want to make money from the services and from the free goods. That can't be done. Sucks to be them.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Evil Adrian]

The reason it should be considered, though, is because if someone really didn't know they were screwing up, they can't really be responsible for it. To be responsible for your actions, you have to first know that they're wrong, right?

You cannot plead ignorance to the law. It is a citizen's responsibility to know, be aware of, and obey the laws of the country.

Not to mention, with the media covering this as much as they have been, you cannot possibly be unaware that piracy is illegal.

Second, I'm sure you've seen this question before, but how exactly does making a copy of someone's file on a computer compare to sailing on the high seas, firing cannons at everything that moves, raping and pillaging and generally destroying everything you come across? Come now, piracy is truly a destructive, evil thing. Copyright infringement doesn't even compare to what piracy really is.

You are taking something being offered for sale, without paying for it. So you are ripping companies off, which affects their bottom line, which affects their employees. When you are affecting someone's livelihood and potentially taking their job away because you want free music, that's pretty fucking selfish and borders on evil.

Any time a company resorts to litigation without trying to resolve the issue in a more peacable fashion, it is unwarranted.

Really? So if someone stole a 911 from a Porsche dealership, the dealership should send cease and desist letters, and have a talk with them?

But when someone attacks someone else without warning, that means they don't want to resolve the issue, they want to conquer and own.

The argument can be made that the pirates fired first -- they don't want to resolve the issue of paying for things they took, they want to conquer RIAA and own. I'm not naive enough to think that all of these music pirates sent letter to RIAA companies to complain about high prices, because let's be honest here, they haven't. Most of them said "Oh, I can get music for free online? Cool!" and then did so.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[jbs0902]

The comment isn't political. Jack is a Democrat.

Your theory was advanced in the 2nd comment to the article and addressed in the 3rd comment (see bottom of the page).

An interesting theory, that these are "gifts," and I'm sure that's what the Clintons would say if audited (which will never happen). But the IRS and the experts disagree.

In order for a transfer to be a "gift" for federal income tax purposes, the transeror's motive must be "detached and disinterested generosity." It has long been held that gratuities collected in the course of one's employment -- such as the tip you leave at the Tube Bar or the Tunnel Dinner (gosh, I miss that place) -- are not "gifts," and are taxable income to the recipient.

Most of the people who have donated to the Clinton legal defense fund have no personal connection to the Clintons. Their relationship with them is only as constituents -- as people whom the Clintons have affected in their business of being politicians. That means the transfers are highly unlikely to be properly treated as "gifts" for income tax purposes.

It's not like my friends and family paying for my kid's medical needs. It's more like I was the CEO of a large company whose suppliers and customers chipped in to pay them. That's income, folks.

The one thing I'd add to that "detached and distinerested generosity" standard is that there is an exception to that if you are within a close circle of family and friends. And, "Most of the people who have donated to the Clinton legal defense fund have no personal connection to the Clintons." So, they aren't within the IRS category of close family and friends.

So, to not be considered income to RECEIVER, the DONOR must give from either (a) "detached and disinterested generosity", or (b) be in a close circle of family and friends. The Gift Tax provisions hit the DONOR with a tax (a gift tax, not an income tax) if the gift is more than $10k per person, per year. (I think the $10k is indexed for inflation in $1k increments, but not sure). The gift tax is really a loophole closer that prevents people from avoiding the Estate tax and the income tax (you can't turn every piece of income into a gift).

The United Way example works like this. The United Way is a qualifing charity (I assume. I haven't looked at those Regulations in many a year). You (DONOR) get to deduct the contribution as a chairable contribution, because of UW's charity status. UW doesn't pay taxes because they are recognized by the state as a non-profit charity (Once again, I assume).

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[GigsVT]

Your point seems valid, but wouldn't "detached and disinterested generosity" be the situation here?

If it isn't, then what could possibly ever qualify under that standard? This is about as detached and disinterested as it gets.

No one is just going to randomly give money without some interest, even if that interest is mostly altruistic.

What about the jars at the cashier's counter to pay for local kids with cancer's medical treatment. That surely isn't within the circle of family and friends. Is that taxable too?

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if someone stole a 911 from a Porsche dealership...

That still doesn't give that Porsche dealer the right to walk into a random Peugeot dealership and steal a 409 to make good...

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[thales]

I Suggest that you peruse the laws on theft of services and copyright.

Producing music is a service, and one that the people performing it have a right to recive payment in lieu of those services. If you download a mp3 without paying for the services when the person providing the services expects a fee, then you have comitted theft of services, and are a thief. If you distrubit the files then you are both violating copyright law and aiding and abbetting theft of services, which also makes you a thief.

"Filesharers" are also aiding the executives at the RIAA, because they are giving them an excuse to give to the stockholders for plummitting CD sales. They are blaiming it all on piracy, when a large part of the problem is they have a large portfolio of lame crap that no one wants to buy, and that they have managed to alienate many thier customers by palming off over priced lame crap on them for years.

Two wrongs don't make a right, a basic premise of ethics. The RIAA's wrong doing dosen't give anyone a "right" to break the law. Boycott the RIAA. Don't buy thier crap. Don't see concerts by RIAA bands. Don't listen to it on the radio, and most of all Don't "fileshre" RIAA garbage. Have nothing to do with them, that is what they fear more than anything else.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Evil Adrian]

People steal from RIAA, RIAA sues them.

Someone steals from a dealership, the dealership sues them.

The 2nd dealership doesn't factor into my argument at all, and you didn't really make any attempt to explain it -- what are you talking about?

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Anonymous Coward]

People steal from RIAA, RIAA sues them.

First, people don't steal from the RIAA. They may infringe the RIAA's copyrights, but they don't steal from the RIAA. You see, unlike a car, the RIAA (or their chain of distributors) still has the original recordings.

RIAA sues them.

The RIAA sues not only "them", but also everybody standing in the general vicinity! You see, if you just participate in Kazaa, but only download legal (indie) songs, you'll be a target of the RIAA's wrath too, especially after IPE passes.

You have to wonder whether this is really only collateral damage, or rather the real (hidden) goal of the RIAA: punish those music groups that have the nerve to do without the RIAA!

The 2nd dealership doesn't factor into my argument at all

Very often, the RIAA's over-eager enforcement impacts innocent bystanders, such as old grannys who couldn't even tell a computer from a fruit, or 12-year-old honor students who thought they had paid for the right to listen to the songs!

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[fucksl4shd0t]

You cannot plead ignorance to the law. It is a citizen's responsibility to know, be aware of, and obey the laws of the country.

Not to mention, with the media covering this as much as they have been, you cannot possibly be unaware that piracy is illegal.

Actually, I've run into quite a few people who don't know that filesharing copyrighted material over P2P networks is illegal. Not exactly a statistical representation of anything, but there are people who are unaware. In any case, I agree that it is a citizen's responsibility to know and obey the law. I just think that in many cases, like this one, it's harsh to punish someone who didn't know the law with the same penalties as someone who did. As a point of fact, many judges (most, I'd say) are lenient against first-time offenders in minor cases like shoplifting, traffic tickets (if you actually challenge it, which I have) and so forth. But if someone really didn't intend to break the law, a slap on the wrists is probably better than suing them into oblivion, because they will stop. If the RIAA isn't just trying to stop people, then what are they trying to do?

You are taking something being offered for sale, without paying for it. So you are ripping companies off, which affects their bottom line, which affects their employees. When you are affecting someone's livelihood and potentially taking their job away because you want free music, that's pretty fucking selfish and borders on evil.

I'm also talking about people ripping off companies who have ripped off consumers, musicians, and just about everyone else throughout their entire history. The music industry hasn't exactly shown itself to be friendly in any way, and they expect us to be friendly now? At what point does the Golden Rule get enforced?

Really? So if someone stole a 911 from a Porsche dealership, the dealership should send cease and desist letters, and have a talk with them?

No comparison. While both are against the law (copyright infringement and car theft), car theft is a criminal case. That means the dealership doesn't sue them, usually, they report the crime to the police and the police try to catch the guy and prosecute him. The dealership isn't likely to recover the loss, even if they did sue the thief, but they can get something called "justice".

The argument can be made that the pirates fired first -- they don't want to resolve the issue of paying for things they took, they want to conquer RIAA and own. I'm not naive enough to think that all of these music pirates sent letter to RIAA companies to complain about high prices, because let's be honest here, they haven't. Most of them said "Oh, I can get music for free online? Cool!" and then did so.

The argument can be made, but when it comes down to it, it's not reasonable to argue with "he hit me first!". At least, I don't take that from my kids, I won't take it from the RIAA either. If they want to claim the moral high ground over filesharers, they need to behave accordingly.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd dealership doesn't factor into my argument at all, and you didn't really make any attempt to explain it -- what are you talking about?

The Peugeot dealership is Saddam, you dumbass! You must be American, to not have noticed!

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[LX.onesizebigger]

Producing music is a service, and one that the people performing it have a right to recive payment in lieu of those services. If you download a mp3 without paying for the services when the person providing the services expects a fee, then you have comitted theft of services, and are a thief. If you distrubit the files then you are both violating copyright law and aiding and abbetting theft of services, which also makes you a thief.

Enkh. Wrong. The crime of theft is to

• fraudulently
• take and carry away
• anything capable of being stolen which belongs to another
• without a claim of right in good faith
• without the consent of the owner
• with the intent at the time of taking to permanently deprive the owner of it

...but you knew that.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[thales]

Maine is the first state law that comes up under a google for "theft of services"
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes /17-A/title17-Asec357.html

1. A person is guilty of theft if:
1.

A. The person obtains services by deception, threat, force or any other means designed to avoid the due payment for the services that the person knows are available only for compensation. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime; or [2001, c. 383, 42 (new); 156 (aff).]

B. The person violates paragraph A and:

(1) The value of the services is more than $10,000. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class B crime;

(2) The person is armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of the offense. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class B crime;

(3) The value of the services is more than $1,000 but not more than $10,000. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class C crime;

(4) The value of the services is more than $500 but not more than $1,000. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class D crime; or

(5) The person has 2 prior Maine convictions for any combination of the following: theft; any violation of section 401 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the structure is theft; any violation of section 405 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the motor vehicle is theft; any violation of section 651; any violation of section 702, 703 or 708; or attempts thereat. Section 9-A governs the use of prior convictions when determining a sentence. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class C crime.
[2001, c. 667, Pt. D, 7 (amd); 36 (aff).]
[2001, c. 667, Pt. D, 7 (amd); 36 (aff).]

2. A person is guilty of theft if:
2.

A. Having control over the disposition of services of another, to which the person knows the person is not entitled, the person diverts such services to the person's own benefit or to the benefit of some other person who the person knows is not entitled to the services. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime; or [2001, c. 383, 42 (new); 156 (aff).]

B. The person violates paragraph A and:

(1) The value of the services is more than $10,000. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class B crime;

(2) That person is armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of the offense. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class B crime;

(3) The value of the services is more than $1,000 but not more than $10,000. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class C crime;

(4) The value of the services is more than $500 but not more than $1,000. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class D crime; or

(5) The person has 2 prior Maine convictions for any combination of the following: theft; any violation of section 401 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the structure is theft; any violation of section 405 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the motor vehicle is theft; any violation of section 651; any violation of section 702, 703 or 708; or attempts thereat. Section 9-A governs the use of prior convictions when determining a sentence. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class C crime.
[2001, c. 667, Pt. D, 8 (amd); 36 (aff).]
[2001, c. 667, Pt. D, 8 (amd); 36 (aff).]

3. As used in this section:
3.

A. "Deception" has the same meaning as in section 354; [2001, c. 383, 42 (new); 156 (aff).]

B. "Services" includes, but is not limited to, labor; professional service; public utility service; transportation service; ski-lift service; restaurant, hotel, motel, tourist cabin, rooming house and like accommodations; the supplying of equipment, tools, vehicles or trailers for temporary use; telephone, cellular telephone, telegraph, cable television or computer service; gas, electricity, water or steam; admission to entertainment, exhibitions, sporting events or other events; or other services for which a charge is made; and [2001, c. 383, 42 (new); 156 (aff).]

C. "Threat" is

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[LX.onesizebigger]

Fair enough, so some countries and states do have very strange definitions of theft. What little law I've studied, I studied in WA, and perhaps these people would be found guilty of theft (depending on the jurisdiction) if prosecuted.

Technically, though, this part of the thread should perhaps be moderated as offtopic, as the RIAA is not, wisely, filing a report of alleged criminal charges. They are suing for an alleged civil wrongdoing.

Re:Help out those who have been sued.

[binarybum]

"You need to grow up and realize that entertainment isn't some god given "right", it's a luxauy"

if that's what growing up is, I'm running off with Peter Pan.

you paint a picture of a cold sterile world where entertainment is something rationed to only those that can afford to pay for it.

if there is anything left of your imagination, close your eyes and picture an alabama plantation in the early 19th century. Hear the songs of slaves, singing for power, and singing to ease their pain. These people knew no luxury, but they created and shared their own entertainment nonetheless.
I staunchly disagree that entertainment and especially music are not God given rights. hapiness should not be a luxury.

So stop listening to their illegal tunes

[MacDork]

iRate, not piRate :-)

Cut off their revenue stream by listening to bands that they don't own! You know, bands that would love for you to download their music.

Re:So stop listening to their illegal tunes

[pHatidic]

If I had some points I would mod this up. Everyone who hasn't yet tried iRate is seriously missing out, so please, mods, spare a point on this and spread the word about iRate!

Re:So stop listening to their illegal tunes

[zecg]

Also, bands most of which would sell to the industry in a heartbeat, given half the chance. That is not the solution to the problem.

And there is a problem.

Recording industry is basically government sanctioned organized crime - crime against both music and consumers. They overcharge their role as the middleman dramatically and choke creativity by force-feeding the public with sterile, expresionless pop junk in order to maximise their profits. It was made possible because people not only love, but need music - and in the recent music was more expensive to make and distribute. However, that is not the case anymore. They are not really all that needed anymore. RIAA is an industry which will have to be cut down to a fraction of its current size and that is the bottom line.

Re:So stop listening to their illegal tunes

[Anonymous Coward]

iRate is perhaps the post potentially useful response to this whole mess I've seen. Unfortunately, it seems to be rather lacking as a program/system itself.

While this is one of those things were everyone has a solution, here is what I'd suggest for such a project:

1) Standardize the database format in which songs are stored. Such a database of free songs is far more important than any particular client software.

2) Enable more granularity in how songs are selected. Right now, it appears that the only thing to do is to listen to large numbers of songs at random. I'd say this is less than effective. What should be done is provide the following options:

a) The random streaming. Obviously, this has to be done if new content is to be evaluated, but make it random within categories rather than totally random. Having someone evaluate a western is meaningless if they hate westerns. All for i) totally random and ii) random by category. Also, make an incentive for people to rate new songs instead of going for ones already evaluated - put the songs that have been evaluated by less than x number of people in the "random play" setup, and put the random play setup on the fastest, most bandwidth rich server. Once they have been evaluated, move them to the "safe" server with their evaluation.

b) Record the opinions of individuals who volunteer to be "public rankers" and make playlists, but also allow for playlists like "highest rated". The more options the better. Databases are good at this kind of stuff.

c) Make clean, platform native clients with intuitive interfaces. This is critical to the wide usage of the system.

d) Setup a distributed server system, preferably with some kind of load balancing algorithm used to disperse download requests from a central server.

e) Get the word out only AFTER the software and infastructure are in place. Like sourceforge, if the product is really good it will snowball as the word gets out. But the tools have got to be there first.

f) There should be no reason for competing systems to spring up, but maintain everything in an open fashion anyway in case anyone wants to try. Don't tie the database and userbase to any one system.

Perhaps if this actually works, there can even be a "commercial" option - allow for plugins created by commercial providers in some way that if people want to pay them to have their commercial offerings added to their download options, they can be. But first and foremost, the core of the system must remain free.

Re:So stop listening to their illegal tunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you wasting your time on telling slashdot this? Send your suggestions to the guy who maintains iRate: ajones@clear.net.nz

Re:So stop listening to their illegal tunes

[iamacat]

While the music may be decent, iRate music selection algorithm is too primitive to be really enjoyable. If you rate a song high, it keeps playing it way too often, until you are tired of it. Also, there is no way to specify a genre, so you get death metal right next to classical.

I would fix it if I had time. But for now its a nice thought but not a very enjoyable experience.

Maybe I'm confused, but...

[kevinatilusa]

I fail to see the difference between the old way ("We've filed a lawsuit against you. Either settle with us or we'll take you to court") and the new one ("Either settle with us or we'll file a lawsuit and take you to court")

Is there some sort of long-term difference legally between a settlement reached before or after the lawsuit is filed?

Re:Maybe I'm confused, but...

[g00set]

The difference is they don't want to sue anyone until they find out who they actually are first. Basically they don't want to get burned suing another 12 year old living in the projects again.

Re:Maybe I'm confused, but...

[Erick the Red]

In this case, the RIAA is saying "give us a small amount of money (like $2000) or we'll sue you for a lot (like $200 000), and even if you win the case, you'll still need to pay your lawyer $2000 anyways." If any innocents get sued, they'll get shafted no matter what they do. I don't mind the RIAA suing people who infringe copyright law, but I'm worried about the "innocent untill proven guilty" thing not occuring in this case.

Re:Maybe I'm confused, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

That 12-year-old keeps coming up in all these discussions. And it seems that people jumped on the chance to give her legal support. I never heard one word in any news item on the subject, that explained that a 12 year old has absolutely no standing in the US to be an independent party to any lawsuit. There IS NOT legal aid that she needs, because there is no issue. Perhaps her guardians can file a harassment suit or something if the people suing didn't immediately desist and withdraw the motion, but I can't imagine much more than that. There is no way such a case could proceed.

Now if someone has persuaded the State to accuse the 12 year old girl of a criminal offense, that's another matter. But this is a lawsuit. And no matter how bad someone wants to file a suit against an unemancipated minor, there is no way the motion will get through the first step of procedure.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This isn't a troll, it's not funny, it's the truth."

I dunno about trolls, but I think it's both funny and not true.

"COMMITING A CRIME"

Copyright infringement is a civil issue, and does not hold the status of "crime."

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

COMMITING A CRIME ENFORCABLE BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

I live in the UK, what they gonna do?

(Note to lameness filter: I know so many caps is like yelling, blame the original fuckwit poster).

Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the responsibility of copyright holders to seek out and eliminate infringement. More importantly, the symbolic act of punishing these few pirates should have an impact on the much larger number of IP thiefs who are going unpunished.

But I think they should devote more energies to rooting out the real source of piracy: The criminals who run peer-to-peer file sharing systems. Lets face it, there are too many people right now pirating music for a policy of individual punishment to be effective. The only 100% effective solution is cutting off the piracy at the source. An important component of this should be the building-in of DRM technology to internet protocols, so that copyrighted information cannot be sent over the network without permission from copyright holders. This ultimate solution would make piracy, if not possible, at least unavailable except on private networks, which since they would clearly exist only for the purpose of piracy, would be easy to shut down legally. With these and other steps, I think it will be possible for a succesful monetization of electronic media distribution, which is the best thing for consumers and corporations alike.

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

You dick, those who run the filesharing systems are the users themselves.

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll...

Re:Good for them!

[dek2000]

"An important component of this should be the building-in of DRM technology to internet protocols, so that copyrighted information cannot be sent over the network without permission from copyright holders."

Yup, sounds like a great idea - great, that is, until you realize that you have to pay M$ 300 bucks just to post a plain html/text page on your website in the proper DRMed format...

Putting DRM into every internet protocol would kill the internet as we know it. Enforcing your copyrights legally against infringers is one thing - punishing the entire world with a crippled internet is something else entirely.

Re:Good for them!

[freeweed]

Heh. That's one of the most brilliant posts I've ever seen on Slashdot.

Too bad there's no (+1, wicked sarcasm) moderation.

Re:Good for them!

[fishbowl]

As a copyright holder myself, I must say your proposal steps on MY toes.

See, I want to reserve the right to distribute my music.

I do not want to have to make a choice between distribution and copyright.

Your scheme would put an unreasonable burden on the artist. Some system would have to be put in place so that a copyright holder must take some action in order to specifically allow his work to be distributed or consumed.

That just plain won't work, and such a plan is a dreadful violation of my rights as an artist. Today I enjoy both the right to copyright my work while at the same time allowing that work to be freely distributed, without it costing me anything. Your proposal would certainly have costs associated with it, if it were even manageable at all.

I hope you don't get your way. It would be the end of legality for distribution schemes like the one the Linux kernel uses.

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is more important here?

- The right of an author to have their legal rights respected
- The right of an author to grant additional priveleges beyond those conferred by copyright

Now, I'm not trying to imply its a zero-sum game here, but there is a clear difference: In one case, we are talking about exercise of a fundamental right of a content producer, which is conferred by copyright law. In another, we are really talking about exercise of a privelege by users. In my view, user freedom does not become an issue until the rights of authors to prevent illegal distribution is already firmly protected. Today that isn't the case.

Ideally, any DRM scheme should have an option to mark data as "unencumbered", and data with that tag should be freely passed without the legality of the transfer having to be verified. But the problem with this is that it requires a whole new layer of protection in client software, because if such a tag exists, any pirate can just change the tag on a copyrighted file and then copy it illegally without end. The operating system and file system would have to have protections, preferrably at the hardware level, to ensure that this data couldn't be modified. So it is much simpler today, to simply require all transactions to be managed. This should properly be seen only as a step towards the ultimate solution, which will become viable once more advanced DRM-enabled hardware and operating systems become available.

Re:Good for them!

[Lonath]

I don't know if you're trolling, but you want to take away computers. That's a big nono. The same ability to modify and copy copyrighted materials is the same power that lets computers perform computations. And it's the same power that lets computers promote the progress of science. You can't use IP to hinder the progress of science. Since I don't see how to have strong DRM and computers, I have made the decision to not give the copyright industry money. I won't and don't steal things, but I won't be giving you all my money because you're going to try to take away something that's been a great boon for this country and the whole world. Ask yourself this: If you had to choose between strong protection for computers or copyright, and you couldn't have both and you couldn't split hairs when answering this question, which would you choose? Computers or copyright?

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus I hope you throw that computer you're using away.

The firmware/BIOS is proprietary software, you know. Its copyrighted as hell. You have to pay lots of bucks to get even access to the source code, much less redistribute modified binaries. And your computer won't work without it. You're using proprietary software, which you've paid for implicitly, right now. So throw the goddamn thing out, or stop being a hyprocite, delete your pirated music, and pay your SCO licensing fees.

Re:Good for them!

[Lonath]

I don't steal music. I never have used Napster or P2P. OTOH, I do think this is a shakedown racket because they're willing to settle instead of bankrupting people and destroying them. Also, as for SCO, please. If they win a lawsuit and Linux is deemed to be tainted and the courts say that there's no way to remove the infringing code, then I'm willing to go back to whatever the last ok version of linux is.

And as for the BIOS comment, ok you got me on a technicality Mr. Smartypants. But while I'm at it, I also paid for a copyrighted linux distro earlier this year. So you got me, I will give the BIOS industry money when I buy a computer and I will give Linux distro companies money when I buy distros. But I won't be giving the movie or music industry any money. I will also buy real books. And I also won't be stealing or sharing or whatever euphamism people use for stealing their stuff either.

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

hey stupid he means "use ip" in the sence of creating and distrubuting

Re:Good for them!

[Reziac]

I agree -- putting the burden on the artist is unreasonable -- but the proposed scenario could very well be *calculated* to make it too difficult for independents to make and/or distribute their works. (BTW, where can we find yours?)

And I think I smell the phrasing of an industry lawyer in the parent AC post. Or someone with experience in political arenas at the very least.

Re:Good for them!

[00420]

An important component of this should be the building-in of DRM technology to internet protocols

Hmmm... perhaps Verisign and Microsoft could team up on this project.

Re:Good for them!

[Artifakt]

The US constitution defines a quid-pro-quo arrangement. Artists get copyrights, then the public gets the work released. With the quid extended from 14 years to 28, to 56, to life plus 20, to life plus 70, what happens to the pro quo? You personally are meeting the requirement by electing to release work freely. What about the creator who reaps all the financial benefits of the extended period, but makes no effort to make sure copies of his or her work survive until the period when they become public domain. Hasn't that creator taken the extra money that comes with extended copyright, but given negative value for that extra? Why doesn't extended copyright give the public some rights here, such as (for just one example), requiring a creator to write a codicil to his or her will, directing the heirs to either retain original masters in a safe location, or go ahead and release works? You are to be applauded for doing what is not only the right thing, but a reasonable, rational thing - but please remember, the ideal goal is to balance creator's rights with everyone else's rights. As long as many copyright holders are busy taking the quid and passing the pro-quo obligations on to someone else, any scheme to correct that will have costs. I agree with you that the proposal you're responding to is terribly flawed, but not because it has costs, rather because people like you already seem to be paying appropriate costs, and a good system would target the people who want all the benefits without any of the obligations.

if not, how not?

[yerricde]

How is offering to retroactively license privileges under a copyright (called "offering to settle" here) unlawful?

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you trying to convince... us or yourself?

Music lovers are getting shafted anyway.

[sebi]

There must be some other way to handle this situation. I know that I was one of those crying "foul play" when the RIAA started (or was rumoured to have started) sabotaging various peer-to-peer services with faked files. But looking back I must admit that that was a rather cool tactic to use. They entered the game and adapted to the existing rules and exploited them. The coolness stopped there, however.

Lawsuits are, in circumstances like these and my opinion, the unfair way out. Using a measure that is not available to both sides. More or less exploiting the legal service because you cannot (or don't want to) compete in any other way. And don't let me get started on copy-protection. Hardly anything has pissed me off as much as when I bought a CD that I couldn't rip and put on my mp3 player. Incidentally that was the last CD I bough. I remember seeing a discussion featuring Chuck D. and Lars Ulrich at the height of the Metallica/Napster controversy. Ulrich's favourite word was "control". And that is the way it is, huh? It's all about control where it should be about respect.

Fans don't agree with the way things are going anymore. Instead of adapting to their wishes you decide to sue them. That is what living in a free country with a free market is all about. The need to adapt is gone when you have the courts on your side.

Re: Music lovers are getting shafted anyway.

[gidds]

Much as I agree with most of what you say, the RIAA does have one undeniable fact in their favour: they people they are suing did (in most cases) break the law.

We can argue over whether it's a just law in today's circumstances, whether distributors should be providing legal alternatives, whether the RIAA's motives are selfish, and many other issues, but that doesn't change the fact. It may be immoral for the RIAA to sue, but legally speaking they are right to do so. What music sharers do (in general) is illegal, and (again in general) they known this.

Surely instead of arguing for the law not to be enforced, perhaps we should be arguing for it to be changed?

Re:Music lovers are getting shafted anyway.

[HermanAB]

Hmm, I haven't yet met a CD that CdParanoia can't rip...

Re: Music lovers are getting shafted anyway.

[jedidiah]

It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. The people in question violated a statute that basically originally covered both armed robbery and jaywalking. However, certain interests (RIAA, MPAA) have perverted that law such that the line is blurred between the simply jaywalker and the nefarious bank robber.

Juries should be actively nullfying this crap.

Waiting for congressmen with obvious interest conflicts is not our only option.

Re:Music lovers are getting shafted anyway.

[TheSpoom]

It's interesting how all these issues coming up nowadays seem to correlate to one another. SCO vs. FSF / IBM, RIAA vs. P2P, Verisign vs... ummm... everyone. Is the internet really going to eventually come to a war between the business world and the rest of us like Mr. Scalvos has said? Irunno. I used to figure that things would keep working themselves out, but businesses seem to see the internet strictly as a way to shuck their wares (no pun intended) at us, and that it should be made to work strictly for that purpose, because as we all know, everything that a corporation does is OBVIOUSLY the best way of going about things. Consumerism = idiocy.

Re:Music lovers are getting shafted anyway.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Ulrich's favourite word was "control".

I find that ironic coming from the man who cowrote the following lyrics: (quoted under FAIR USE RIGHTS)

Freedom of choice is made for you my friend
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend
Freedom with their exceptions

That fucking hypocrite. I haven't given Metallica any of my money since the Napster crap started, and I've even refused to play it on my guitar when people ask me to. Fuck 'em.

IANAL but ...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

wouldn't it be cheaper for them to threaten/subpoena/sue the whole US population as an entity (since everybody with a computer and a little experience does P2P)? who's the US people's representant again, isn't it the govern..... oops, nevermind.

Re:IANAL but ...

[rudabager]

That is interesting. According to the declaration of independance if infact the majority of americans decide to share these files that arent theirs then it is technically legal. All we need to do is vote.

Re:IANAL but ...

[gooman]

Personally, I don't use P2P software. I have several computers and a lot of experience. Anything I want, software or music, I buy.

That said, I haven't bought major label music in years - on principle - because of the RIAA's actions. I've written letters to my favorite artists who are with major labels and informed them of my decision. Will it make any difference? Probably not. But who knows? Maybe some artist with enough respect and clout will speak up in behalf of the fan.

The way things are going, the RIAA will eventually sue everyone with an ISP account regardless of what they use it for. (Perhaps a tax, like on music CDRs. Given enough money, I'm sure our elected officials will agree to that.)

Their business model is doomed. They even see it. The question now is how long can they hold out and how many people's lives can they screw up before they go? (Sounds almost like SCO's plan.)

Re:IANAL but ...

[earlbecke]

The Declaration of Independence doesn't say anything about legality, more about the rights of people to rebel against unjust laws/government. (Just because they wrote a document saying that they should have the legal right to rebel didn't mean the British government had to listen to them.) Interesting how that only applied in the Revolutionary War and not the Civil War or any modern conflicts. :P

Re:IANAL but ...

[Mike Hawk]

You are quite presumptuous there Rosco. I am quite skilled in using a computer, yet I don't use p2p software. There is no need for it. There are uses for it, but there is no need. Anything I can legally copy, I can receive from another source. But go on telling yourself everyone is doing it, that is sure to stand up in court when your number is up.

Re:IANAL but ...

[blibbleblobble]

"wouldn't it be cheaper for them to threaten/subpoena/sue the whole US population as an entity (since everybody with a computer and a little experience does P2P)?"

It's known as compulsory licensing. The canadians have it, the english pretend to have it, and the EFF seems to be advocating it (weird, huh?)

Re:IANAL but ...

[gmhowell]

Sounds like a reverse class action lawsuit.

As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I read a story about the RIAA, I go download a few gigs of mp3s.

Whew! Running outta HD space.

I'm sharing it all with people I know (friends & family), and I'm not gonna get caught. They're happy, I'm happy... we all save money, and no one can do a thing about it!

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great! I think this should be publicized as an anti-RIAA measure! Imagine if EVERYONE did this?

"Today, at 3:30pm, the RIAA sent legal notices to another 150 song swappers following a public statement. In a related story, at 3:32pm today Internet Service Providers saw a nearly crippling surge in traffic, the vast majority being related to p2p programs."

Re:As usual...

[Jugalator]

That's great! I think this should be publicized as an anti-RIAA measure! Imagine if EVERYONE did this?

"Today, at 3:30pm, the RIAA sent legal notices to another 150 song swappers following a public statement. In a related story, at 3:32pm today Internet Service Providers saw a nearly crippling surge in traffic, the vast majority being related to p2p programs."

Quick!

Someone has found out an efficient way to combat our anti-piracy actions! Someone find out how to make that CowboyNeal guy delete this thread on Slashdot!

John Smith
RIAA Spy

Re:As usual...

[HermanAB]

I prefer CD Baby: http://www.cdbaby.com

Real CDs, from real artists, with no RIAA strings attached.

The search and prelisten features of CD Baby are great.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

I might not download a few gigs anymore, but I do download a few songs. I already have around 30 gigs. I have them all burned onto CD and have 2 sets of them on 2 different hard drives.

I wish more people would trade with their friends though through local area networks. At college before Napster, that is the way it was done, and was very efficent at increasing the amount of songs we had.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmm slashdotting something that isn't even http.

ph33r teh l33t p0w3r!

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll get around to buying off your politicians too. Don't worry.

someone go to court!

[austad]

Why doesn't someone just go to court? When I was in college, I had literally nothing they could take from me except for a waterbed and a shitty 486. No way in hell I would have settled. I would have looked for some kind of free representation, or failing that, just represent myself. Even if I lost it would cost them money, and say I had 100 songs they were suing over at $150k each, that's $15 million. How in the world is a broke college student going to pay a $15 million dollar fine? Surely everyone would see it as ludricrous that downloading 100 songs would incur a $15 million dollar fine.

Fucking RIAA. Looks like they've figured out that bullying people under the threat of litigation is a lucrative way of doing business. Reminds me of SCO and those companies that exist solely to buy patents and then try to sue the pants off of people. Isn't there some sort of law against using the threat of expensive litigation to get people to just give you some sort of money? I know settling out of court is legal and all, but it just seems like this is blackmail.

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there some sort of law against using the threat of expensive litigation to get people to just give you some sort of money? I know settling out of court is legal and all, but it just seems like this is blackmail.

I believe it's called "abuse of process" or in some jurisdictions can fall under a limited form of "barratry."

Re:someone go to court!

[bigsexyjoe]

When I was in college, I had literally nothing they could take from me except for a waterbed and a shitty 486.

Well, they can garnish 15% of all your future earnings. How does that sound? I don't think fines for illegal acts are dischargable in bankruptcies either.

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

Earn your dough under the table, or leave the country while giving them the middle finger. Head to Canada where the laws haven't yet reached insanity.

Re:someone go to court!

[AArmadillo]

It would cost quite a bit of time and money for someone to take the RIAA to court -- in fact, the RIAA is probably well aware that no single person has the resources to fight them, and is exploiting this to the fullest. First off, you would have to hire a lawyer. Representing yourself, unless you happen to be a laywer, would just make you look like a fool in front of the judge and you would get torn apart by the RIAA's legal staff. The public defender is an option, but it is doubtful they have the time that would be necessary to put together a good defense. The sheer expense of hiring a lawyer to fight the case for you is enough to chase off pretty much everyone.

Secondly, on what premise would you hope to win the case? You would have to either prove that (1) somehow, your sharing of copyrighted material was lawful or (2) you were not sharing any copyrighted material. Neither of these objectives are feasible. Although IANAL, it is possible you might be able to challenge the extremity of the $150k penalty, and with a good enough defense you might be able to win this. You would still probably be worse off financially than if you had just settled, however.

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they tried that shit, I'd never work another day of my life. I'd go on fucking welfare, and the RIAA (thru taxes) would pay ME!

Re:someone go to court!

[fishbowl]

>When I was in college, I had literally nothing
>they could take from me

When I was in college, being called as a defendant in court would have caused me to fail a term for attendance reasons alone. That would have cost my financial support for the following term, which would have ruined my acadmeic career.

When you're in college, there IS something that can EASILY be taken from you, and that is the opportunity to continue going to college.

Re:someone go to court!

[/dev/trash]

Ever hear of having your wages garnered and attached?

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, well, it would pretty much ruin your college life you know.

It's not like it would get cleared up in an afternoon or something. It would be hanging over you, probably for a year or so, and you'd have to pay a lawyer the whole time, or the judge would just make judgements without you being there.

The RIAA just assigns LegalDrone#731928392 to the case and the RIAA executives sleep fine at night, but you don't have that luxury.

Re:someone go to court!

[Jesrad]

The copyright law was made so that a corporation couldn't rip off an artist, by taking his/her work and selling it in their place. The $150,000 fine per infringement should only be applicable as a punishment for the WHOLE infringement, as in for ALL the illegally distributed copies of one particular song.

Applying it to each and every filesharer is not even double-dipping, it is n-dipping, and an awful abuse of the law.

It is about time trivial copyright infringements be free of punishment / fine.

Re:someone go to court!

[wmspringer]

What makes you think the RIAA pays taxes?

After all, according to them, they're losing millions..

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that easy to emigrate. Being under a court order like that in the US might easily get you turned away at the border.

Re:someone go to court!

[anthony_dipierro]

Isn't there some sort of law against using the threat of expensive litigation to get people to just give you some sort of money?

Not if those people you are threatening expensive litigation against are breaking the law!

Re: someone go to court!

[gidds]

It is about time trivial copyright infringements be free of punishment / fine.

So (playing Devil's Advocate here), it's not okay for one corporation to deny an artist his or her dues, but it is okay for thousands of people to do so, a bit at a time?

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of living abroad :)

Re:someone go to court!

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

I'd call that grounds for a counter-suit.

Re:someone go to court!

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

For the most part, they aren't breaking the law.

Copyright violation is a contractual issue, not a criminal one. RIAA protestations to the contrary are baldfaced lies. It's not theft. It's a violation of copyright. You cannot be arrested for violating copyright law (yet). You can only be sued.

And the law he was looking for is an offence called "Barrartry" which is "using the threat of (baseless) legal action to induce a party to comply with your commands without actually intending to bring the case before a judge (because you know you're wrong) Lawyers can lose their right to be lawyers for pulling that kind of shit, if the "defendant" is clued in enough to file the proper complaint.

Costing a shark his means of earning obscene amounts of money: priceless.

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

Arr, but are they actually suing college students proportionatally to their level of file sharing - i.e., if 90% of sharers are college students, are 90% of the people being sued college students.

I don't think so. However, they do seem to be suing kids with parents so scared that something *could* happen to their poor little children they'd be prepared to settle for any kind of figure. Also, suing older people with money is not a good idea for the RIAA because people with money have influence.

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they tried that shit, I'd never work another day of my life. I'd go on fucking welfare, and the RIAA (thru taxes) would pay ME!

Do you understand how stupid you sound? You'd condemn yourself to a life of poverty so you can listen to their crapified pop music? Are you fucking insane? It's not worth it anymore. I wouldn't pay them $20 for a CD, much less $150k for a single fucking putrid song.

Re:someone go to court!

[terrymr]

It's not a fine for an illegal act it's civil damages awarded. Generally most judgments are dischargeable ... except for child support, student loans etc.

Re:someone go to court!

[terrymr]

You can't use a public defender in a civil suit. They also can't take what you don't have. Students who seem to be the main targets are basically judgment proof ... they have no assets which can be taken.

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they tried that $#%@, I'd never work another day of my life. I'd go on #%$@!$% welfare, and the RIAA (thru taxes) would pay ME!
That is, until the Libertarian/Republican Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival of the fittest idiots get rid of welfare

Re:someone go to court!

[alsta]

I don't like RIAA and I don't have to do business with them, so I don't. But it is quite amusing to see a Slashdot crowd all up in arms over this stuff.

A few years ago, when Napster was under fire from RIAA lawyers it seemed to me that everybody on Slashdot thought it was awful that poor Napster was sued. After all, it was the users of the P2P network that committed crimes, not Napster.

Here we are in 2003, almost 4 years later and it seems people got what they wanted. But now there's something wrong with RIAA doing exactly what people called for... So is the real answer that RIAA should just lay down and die? I doubt it will ever do so. It's a dog eat dog world.

And you are right, settling out of court is legal and it saves YOU and ME money.

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

make a list, of people who actually "called for it".

take your time, use slashdot to research your answers. use google. make it good. make it accurate. it's only your reputation.

a little generalization does no harm...right?

"slashdot called for it" right?

hurry on...go get your facts.

we'll be waiting.

you fucking ass tard, i'd crack your skull if you were within arms reach.

Re:someone go to court!

[acceleriter]

Copyright violation is a contractual issue, not a criminal one.

Unfortunately, that's no longer correct. The intellectual property cartels bought a "No Electronic Theft" act that criminalizes copyright violation with an amazingly low threshold. Google for it.

Re:someone go to court!

[Reziac]

I've noticed that the RIAA's targets have been people who have just enough to have something to lose, but not enough to defend what they have.

I still find it quite miraculous that they managed to pick four college students who all had over $10k in the bank (what's the odds against that, if you pick four random filesharing students? Millions to one??) I've concluded that the RIAA is running credit reports on their potential targets, to pre-determine who falls into the RIAA's desired "something to lose, but not enough resources to defend themselves" class.

Re:someone go to court!

[clambake]

If they tried that shit, I'd never work another day of my life. I'd go on fucking welfare, and the RIAA (thru taxes) would pay ME!

Do you understand how stupid you sound? You'd condemn yourself to a life of poverty so you can listen to their crapified pop music? Are you fucking insane? It's not worth it anymore. I wouldn't pay them $20 for a CD, much less $150k for a single fucking putrid song.


No no, do you understand how stupid American society sounds that it's willing to sacrifice a hard working member of thw workfore and shrink it's economy by the amount it takes to pay for him so that a few media fat cats can sit in thier opium haze of content distribution business models for a few more hours?

Re:someone go to court!

[cpt kangarooski]

Ever hear of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy? Sure, it's not a trick that works frequently, but for people without assets, it's great.

Re:someone go to court!

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, what people were saying was that it was inappropriate to sue Napster for facilitating infringement. That doesn't mean that it's an incompatable position with not wanting ordinary people sued for infringing P2P activity either.

E.g. perhaps some of the /. crowd feel that copyright infringement ought to be a remedy available only against commercial infringers.

Re:someone go to court!

[cpt kangarooski]

The $150,000 fine per infringement should only be applicable as a punishment for the WHOLE infringement, as in for ALL the illegally distributed copies of one particular song.

It is, but also per-infringer. I.e. whether you infringe on a single copyright once or a million times, the statutory damages don't multiply.

Re:someone go to court!

[clambake]

You would have to either prove that (1) somehow, your sharing of copyrighted material was lawful

That one is easy if they were played on the radio or at a concert near me! I've got an EULA on my body that reads, roughly, "Ownership of copyright of all radio and sound wave traffic through this body will be transfered directly to the Owner of the body thereof, namely, himself. If the previous owner of the copyright does not wish to transfer ownsership, then said party shall not transmit through this medium."

Re:someone go to court!

[mad_dog3283]

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Juries can also nullify any law they choose to. Meaning, even if the jury believes that the defendant is guilty, and the evidence points this way, they can acquit for any reason, most often because the jurors feel the law is unjust. If a file-sharing case ever made it to court, especially if the RIAA was asking for $15 million, I think the jury would acquit the defendant regardless. If 20% of Americans use file-sharing software, then at least two of the jurors would have, and I'll bet over half of them would know someone who has. Only thing is, judges are not required to inform the jury of this little power the Wise Old Dead White Guys gave them, and the average potential juror doesn't know of it either.

And that's also assuming that the judge doesn't issue a summary judgement, where, if the Plantiff and the Defendant agree on the facts of the case (i.e. Did you infringe or did you not?), the judge issues a ruling based on the facts of the case, which, in a suit like this, would be in favor of the Plantiff. In this situation, the suit would never go to trial, and you'd be SOL.

Re:someone go to court!

[Monkelectric]

The right you're talking about is called "Jurry Nullification" and there has been a conspiracy in the last 50 years to keep people ignorant of this right. Judges used to be obligated to INSTRUCT jurries of this right, now adays Ive met law students who don't know about it, and a man was actually threatened with jail time for passing out fliers about it infornt of a court house. (I'm not kidding). http://fija.org/

Re:someone go to court!

[DiveX]

I cannot believe that this the post was modded\ +5 insightful. There is nothing insightful about it in the least..merely guesswork and incorrect assumptions.

Why doesn't someone just go to court?

Some people just might go, but cases cost a LOT of money and take a lot of time. Even winning a case of this level will cost you thousands of dollars.

When I was in college, I had literally nothing they could take from me except for

This shows a complete lack of the legal system. Any settlement can easily turn into a garnishment of future wages. A judgment can remain in effect for a long time, so as soon as you get anything, such as inheritance, then that will be removed. A public judgment against you makes you a risk to a business. What do you have right now in your home? Look around, since if you lost large, you wouldn't have any of that now.

Even if I lost it would cost them money

Again, proof of any understanding of the legal system. This kind of case easily has lawyer's fees included in the judgment. Again, there is the forfeiture of anything you own now or garnishment of anything you own in the future until the judgement is satisfied, with interest.

bullying people under the threat of litigation is a lucrative way of doing business

They have tried other methods, unfortunately this is going to be the most effective method to combat the problem.

ludricrous [sic] that downloading 100 songs would incur a $15 million dollar fine

Where do you draw the line. Some people would think that a judgment of $500-1500 for sending a single junk fax is harsh, but that is legal. It is difficult to quantify damages. This action is being taken as a deterrent, and it seems to be decently effective.

Isn't there some sort of law against using the threat of expensive litigation to get people to just give you some sort of money

This lack of knowledge is completely pathetic. Blackmail is the extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information. RIAA isn't the ones publishing identities of anyone. Someone violated the law and the company is saying, we're willing to settle for less than the statutory damages already owed. When I send demand letters to companies that violate telemarketing laws, 7 times out of 10 someone makes a claim of blackmail or extortion, however once we get to court or they talk to a lawyer, it never comes up again.

Instead of sounding off on something that you obviously know so little about, why don't you pick up even the most rudimentary law book so you do not go around quite to ignorant anymore about a system that has a substantial effect on your life.

Re:someone go to court!

[nathanh]

A few years ago, when Napster was under fire from RIAA lawyers it seemed to me that everybody on Slashdot thought it was awful that poor Napster was sued. After all, it was the users of the P2P network that committed crimes, not Napster.

Here we are in 2003, almost 4 years later and it seems people got what they wanted. But now there's something wrong with RIAA doing exactly what people called for... So is the real answer that RIAA should just lay down and die? I doubt it will ever do so. It's a dog eat dog world.

There are 500,000 registered Slashdot readers. A popular story receives 1000 posts, if that. So when you say "everybody on Slashdot thought it was awful that poor Napster was sued" what you really mean is "the 0.2% of people doing the talking". I thought Napster got what was coming to them but I didn't care enough to say anything back then. People typically only write about stuff they care about.

Re:someone go to court!

[penginkun]

Give that man/woman/being from another dimension of indescribable whatever a cee-gar!

If even ONE of these cases went to trial they'd get their collective ass handed to them on a silver platter, plus they'd probably be ordered to pay the defendant's legal costs.

There's your reason for why they're offering to settle-it's not munificence-it's outright fear.

Fucking bastards. Think I'll fire up my news reader and download a couple dozen albums right now!

Re:someone go to court!

[penginkun]

If this were illegal-as in CRIMINAL, they wouldn't be wasting peoples time with lawsuits. They'd be pressing charges.

Re: someone go to court!

[nathanh]

So (playing Devil's Advocate here), it's not okay for one corporation to deny an artist his or her dues, but it is okay for thousands of people to do so, a bit at a time?

Let me play it a different way. Should penalties for copyright infringement be determined purely by the act, or by the intent, or by the actual damages incurred?

Re:someone go to court!

[Overly Critical Guy]

Fucking RIAA. Looks like they've figured out that bullying people under the threat of litigation is a lucrative way of doing business.

I'm sorry, but people like you sound so moronic.

"Fucking RIAA! They're going after the people who are pirating their music!"

Uh, yeah. Of course they will. They're PROTECTING their business. If you ran a company that produced product, and you discovered applications devoted to trading that product freely all over the net, wouldn't you do things to stop that?

I don't see how anybody can possibly defend the copyright infringers who are freely trading the music those bands made. Especially when we have iTunes now, and people are raving about it. $0.99 a song, and $9.99 an album.

Get your asses of Kazaa already and buy music. Those artists aren't making it for you to freely trade all over the net. They make a living on this. You guys were all whiny when Valve got hacked and their source code and game content was leaked. Why is this different? Because Valve was a game company, but this is the RIAA? People love to forget the bands that are making this music you're pirating. They don't get money and they don't see sales stats when you don't purchase their album.

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they are not breaking the law. Remember INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. As much as people like to ignore this dying practice, it is still the way it works (at least it is supposed to be).

Re:someone go to court!

[anonamussone]

And that's also assuming that the judge doesn't issue a summary judgement, where, if the Plantiff and the Defendant agree on the facts of the case (i.e. Did you infringe or did you not?), the judge issues a ruling based on the facts of the case, which, in a suit like this, would be in favor of the Plantiff. In this situation, the suit would never go to trial, and you'd be SOL.

IIRC, you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. arent summary judgements only issued if you give up that right, either in person, through a duly appointed representative, or by failure to appear? or does that not apply to civil cases?

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Remember "welfare reform?"
It means living in a shelter, eating in a soup kitchen and working your ass off on every dirty, miserable, little part-time job that Social Services can find for you.

Re:someone go to court!

[fucksl4shd0t]

E.g. perhaps some of the /. crowd feel that copyright infringement ought to be a remedy available only against commercial infringers.

Bingo, Captain! Copyright exists to allow the creator (or the company that forced the creator to sign over their rights to their creation, which is what actually happens in the music business) and only the creator to exploit the commercial value of their creation. If I made a thousand copies of the newest Metallica album and sell them without having a prior agreement with Metallica to do so, THEN I am infringing on their copyright. Only then am I infringing on their copyright. If I copy the newest Metallica album for a thousand people and give it to them free, without intending to use it to promote my own commercial business, then I am not infringing copyright.

For example: if I make an advertisement for my big-dick serum, and I use one of Metallica's songs (say, Whiplash) to advertise it without having an agreement, then I am committing copyright infringement. But if I tell someone I have a big dick, and then give them a copy of Whiplash, I am not committing copyright infringement.

Re:someone go to court!

[cpt kangarooski]

While this is an interesting position, bear in mind that what I said was that "perhaps some of the /. crowd feel that copyright infringement ought to be, &c."

As it stands now, however, infringement is typically infringement regardless of whether it's a commercial use or not. There may be specific statutory exemptions that rely on a commercial/noncommercial distinction, e.g. 1008 (though n.b. the definitions in 1001 are critical to properly reading 1008), but on the whole your statement is erroneous given existing law. (I assume US law here)

That doesn't mean you can't feel that copyright law ought to be changed to fall in line with your wishes though.

Re:someone go to court!

[fucksl4shd0t]

You're absolutely correct, and I was never trying to change what you said. Quite the contrary, I was quite surprised to see you sum up the situation so well and wanted to respond and add to it. I wasn't trying to make out your position, because you hadn't offered one of your own, just an answer to the parent post. :)

That doesn't mean you can't feel that copyright law ought to be changed to fall in line with your wishes though.

I talk about it so that people will hear me and read what I say. I vote in that direction with my political right to vote as well as with my wallet. Yes, I want copyright law to be changed to better fulfill the intent of the law. I don't think copyright law was created to prevent people from copying original stuff over P2P, and I think that it's wrong to apply the law to the existing P2P situation. So, I seek to get my point of view across to as many people as possible in as many ways as I can. Like most people, though, I have limited resources to do so. If someone wanted to sponsor me without censoring me, I'd be happy to go further. :)

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Italian - I'd just join the mob. They operate about the same as the RIAA. Except the RIAA is less honorable. Look at what you can do:

- threaten businesses and people, and make them pay you "protection" money
- keep the government in your pocket
- never pay taxes again

Oh and they both have pretty good legal teams. Who needs bankruptcy?

Re:someone go to court!

[in7ane]

I call bullshiat - only criminal charges have any influence on immigration/entry.

think of it this way: you got taken to court for a parking fine but still refused to pay - so now no coutry will let you in?

Re:someone go to court!

[Alsee]

If this were illegal-as in CRIMINAL

Actually pretty much everyone who has made any signifigant use of P2P has in fact committed a felony. Try looking up the NET act. If there were to actually enforced against every violator they would need to arrest TENS of MILLIONS of Americans and build TEN TIMES as many prisons overnight.

If they were to fully enforce the NET act and imprison tens of millions then a hundred million friends and family members would overthrow the government overnight.

It is a rarely enforced law they pull out when they want to smash some poor shmoe with a sledgehammer. It is also commonly used to intimidate people into settling civil lawsuits. The RIAA can "helpfully" point out a conviction could lead to the government taking an interest and initiating a criminal case against them. Simply agree to the RIAA's settlement terms, pay a few thousand dollars, and "we can sweep the whole thing under the rug" before the government takes an interest.

-

Re:someone go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking college students. Think they can get everything for free.. and when they get caught.. they claim blackmail.

Slashtard.

Re:someone go to court!

[anthony_dipierro]

For the most part, they aren't breaking the law.

Copyright violation is a contractual issue, not a criminal one.

Violating a civil law = breaking the law.

And the law he was looking for is an offence called "Barrartry" which is "using the threat of (baseless) legal action to induce a party to comply with your commands without actually intending to bring the case before a judge (because you know you're wrong) Lawyers can lose their right to be lawyers for pulling that kind of shit, if the "defendant" is clued in enough to file the proper complaint.

There's nothing baseless about these threats. That's my point.

Re:someone go to court!

[BlueCodeWarrior]

"They make a living on this." But they don't. It's the labels that make money from CDs. Artists make their money from tickets and t-shirts.

Re:someone go to court!

[Phantom_newbie]

Quote from austad. "Even if I lost it would cost them money, and say I had 100 songs they were suing over at $150k each, that's $15 million. How in the world is a broke college student going to pay a $15 million dollar fine? Surely everyone would see it as ludricrous that downloading 100 songs would incur a $15 million dollar fine." It has been a money making industry, it has been and always will be. I heard claims saying that singers who have their cd published gets $2 for every cd sold. I do not know how true is that but if that is true, it would be a total rip job. Paying for AUD$30+ for a cd when it costs less when comparing with the materials used. It is totally shocking...

They don't want to actually sue.

[Erick the Red]

After the uproar over the last batch of lawsuits, however, they're not (yet) suing the people in question, but intend to allow them to settle out of court, first.

The intention was always to make people settle out of court. Even the RIAA knows people won't stand for hundreds of lives ruined finacially, so they just want to scare some into settling, and more into abandoning p2p.

Oh, and here's a comic on the subject.

Re:They don't want to actually sue.

[shark72]

"so they just want to scare some into settling, and more into abandoning p2p."

Slight clarification... more into abandoning copyright violation. P2P is a fine and noble concept, but we all know that Kazaa's business model is based on copyright violation. If all the copyrighted material magically disappeared from Kazaa tomorrow, so would the users.

If the RIAA's search mechanism (whatever it may be) finds you and determines that you're only sharing files for which you are the rightsholder or you have the rightsholder's permission (that is, shareware, unsigned indie bands, and the like), then they have absolutely no motivation to take legal action against you. I think they were sufficiently embarrassed by the "Usher" goof-up.

On a side note, if anybody would like to avoid having their life "ruined financially" (if you can call writing a check for a few thousand bucks ruining your life), the best way to prevent this is not to distribute copyrighted material without the owner's permission.

Music Lover?? You mean thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking copyrighted music us STEALING!! Music Lovers must = thieves in this story.

If they had read this first

[tytyty]

Wired had this story regarding warning letters vs. supoenas.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, anybody that has sex outside of marriage is COMMITING A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY DEATH BY STONING UNDER SHARIA LAW AS INSTITUTED IN SEVERAL NATIONS INCLUDING NIGERIA, IRAN, AND SAUDI ARABIA Just because there is a law against it somewhere does necessarily make it a bad thing, and that's the truth.

Quit being cheap little whores. When you engage in sexual relations without benefit of clergy, you're doing so illegal and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction, and you deserve to be killed for it!

By the way, if downloading music is illegal, how many people have been arrested for it? You appear to be confusing the civil proceedings brought by the RIAA with actual criminal cases, which can only be prosecuted by the government. Fact is, in the US anybody can sue anybody for anything -- I could even sue you for being an asshole. The fact that a person has been sued does not in and of itself prove any wrongdoing.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blow me.

A kinder, gentler RIAA

[pantsmonkey]

Some time next week, they'll be forced to resort to: "Pretty please, with sugar on top".

Why do they bother?

[DroopyStonx]

Seriously... they aren't gonna stop music pirates or people who share music.

It is so obvious that music sharing has absolutely no impact on CD sales. If you want proof, look at Outkast who recently released their double CD. Sales SKYROCKETED. That CD was in circulation weeks before it was released.

Look how long the industry's been trying to stop warez and how they claim it hurts the industry. Almost everyone I know has a pirated copy of Windows. Doesn't seem to hurt MS.

Yeah yeah, the hardcore anti-pirates on slashdot will probably keep posting "Good, these criminals deserve it," but in all, even if they do deserve it, it's not going to sway public opinion or fix the problem.

Re:Why do they bother?

[Vint Cerf]

Yeah, and cops should just give up. Seriously... they aren't gonna stop rapists and murderers.

Re:Why do they bother?

[DroopyStonx]

Please... we're talking about downloading music, not violence against other humans.

I hate when people try to use analogies totally inappropriate to the situation...

Re:Why do they bother?

[tomstdenis]

Doesn't hurt windows.... That's why windows costs 400$ [non-oem] and 85% of that is towards profit.

Tom

Re:Why do they bother?

[psykocrime]

Yeah, and cops should just give up. Seriously... they aren't gonna stop rapists and murderers.

They don't even really try. Police exist to create a (mild) deterrent effect, and to respond AFTER a crime, and take a report. Trust me, I used to work as a 911 dispatcher... police simply do NOT stop crime "in progress" on any kind of regular basis, and when they do it's dumb, blind luck.

Re:Why do they bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think copying music is the same as rape and murder?

Wow, which music label do you work for, and how did you figure out how to operate a computer?

Re:Why do they bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, because the RIAA wants to encourage the development of decentralized encrypted wireless "sharewebs" which are non-internet-routed mesh networks spanning the globe and which offer lossless copies of all music ever recorded available for download in a variety of formats, automatically encoded on the fly by a distributed audio analyzer which takes advantage of publically available computing resources and uses a sophisticated peer-to-peer trust rating system to maintain only genuine copies and are accessed through wristwatch-sized storage terminals which are attached to the sides of buuildings, the tops of trees, inside of trash recepticals, and in other diverse public places, thus ensuring that no piece of music will ever be more than a few minutes away no matter where you are on the planet?

That's the only reason I could think of, anyway.

Re:Why do they bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look how long the industry's been trying to stop warez and how they claim it hurts the industry. Almost everyone I know has a pirated copy of Windows. Doesn't seem to hurt MS.

Are you kidding? Microsoft is hurting badly. The recent trend of switching to open source software has put the software giant into a huge tailspin. Microsoft programmers are being let go left and right to try and control the bleeding cashflow from the company's coffers. Within 2 years the company that we know as Microsoft today will cease to exist and will be nothing but a clearinghouse for GNU software. The greedy corporate power-mongers in the industry are waking up to the fact that there is a better way of doing business... a clearer, stronger, more wholesome way. The GNU way.

- Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf
Director of Public Relations, Free Software Foundation.

Re:Why do they bother?

[toddestan]

Actually, I'm almost certain that Microsoft would rather see people running a pirated copy of Windows than Linux any day, which is why I don't think that Microsoft will try to eliminate piracy of the OS, atleast for now. Look at it this way, if tomorrow, Microsoft could magically stop all pirated copies of Windows, *A LOT* of people would switch to Linux. And that would hurt Microsoft far more than the lost revenue from all those pirated copies of XP floating around.

However, this only applies to people that don't want to pay a lot for their OS. Businesses generally have plenty of money and a lot more at stake, so Microsoft doesn't hesitate to stick the BSA on them.

Re:Why do they bother?

[Mike Hawk]

Inappropriate? That is totally appropriate. The comparison was not between the action intended to be stopped, but the fundamental impossibility of stopping it from happening at all. There will always be rapes and murders and there will always be copyright infringement. The comment highlighted that just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you should try. But I guess that concept was too much for you, slashbot.

Re:Why do they bother?

[shark72]

"It is so obvious that music sharing has absolutely no impact on CD sales."

Indeed. The fact that the tremendous drop in CD sales over the past few years (and the subsequent layoffs in the music industry) and the utter explosion in online music piracy at the same time is just a huge coincidence of the most astronomical proportions. Why, look at the fact that a leaked Outkast album sold well to nullify all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary!

File-sharing enthusiasts like to use the argument that it's actually due to the fact that music sucks and that CDs are overpriced, perhaps to avoid thinking about the fact that their music piracy might be costing somebody, somewhere, their job. Well, music has always sucked at more or less the same level it has now, and music prices have stayed about the same over the past thirty years -- I remember that $9.99 was a decent price for an LP in 1984; that's $17.32 in 2002 dollars.

There are enough intelligent arguments to make in favor of changing copyright laws; coming out with silly things like "It is so obvious that music sharing has absolutely no impact on CD sales" isn't really helping.

Re:Why do they bother?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Inappropriate? That is totally appropriate. The comparison was not between the action intended to be stopped, but the fundamental impossibility of stopping it from happening at all. There will always be rapes and murders and there will always be copyright infringement. The comment highlighted that just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you should try. But I guess that concept was too much for you, slashbot.

Quite the contrary, slashbot. There is no comparison between making an exact copy available to thousands of downloaders and forcing your dick into a woman, violently if necessary. In the first case, the worst that you've done is cost the creator of the work a few bucks (or a lot). In the second case, you've exposed the woman to countless diseases, some of them deadly, as well as put her at risk for a pregnancy (I used to know a guy who's mother was raped, and that's how he was conceived), and given her some serious emotional trauma. Some women never recover emotionally from being raped. There's no comparison. If you really want to make your point, pick something that makes a bit more sense. I'll do it for you, so you don't have to think that hard.

Shoplifting costs the company money, but doesn't hurt anybody in any other way, and it can't be stopped either, so why bother trying?

Re:Why do they bother?

[tomstdenis]

I seriously doubt that. Most people who pirate windows aren't the linux type. Specially since pirating windows is generally not that hard.

And what you seem to fail to recognize is that Linux isn't always the alternative. For instance, for my job I code windows software. If I ran a pirated copy of windows and was shut off....I'd go out and buy a copy of windows. [Fortunately my laptop came with windows *and* the cds].

Tom

Re:Why do they bother?

[Mike Hawk]

Still missing the point brainless. #1 It wasn't my point. Reading is hard, but dont give up. #2 The point still isnt about the crime commited but the choice of trying to prevent it. Again, I know reading is hard, but don't give up.

Re:Why do they bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but did your laptop also come with instructions for CANNING THE MANHAM and BOTTLING THE MANGOO? Or, did you have to type those up yourself?

Re:Why do they bother?

[tomstdenis]

Four days? Fuck, hey asshole if you want to be a 1st grade troll you can't wait four days between posts. I was almost happy to read /. again.

You let me down.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll get around to buying off your politicians too. Don't worry.

Right. Tony "Lapdog" Blair just hasn't been given his marching orders yet.

The United States of America is also a Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the majority of the people want to download copyrighted music, then it is the will of the masses to do so. It is the majority that decides what is a crime, not you.

Yes, it probably is.

[Xenographic]

You have to give people some notice of a lawsuit, even if it's right when you serve them with it. There's nothing wrong with settling out of court, either, so this is almost certainly legal in that regard, unless they find some way to accuse them of barratry (disclaimer: IANAL).

There are some interesting bits in this regard in the article (yeah, I know, no one reads those, so here are the best bits:)

--
"Our objective here is not to win lawsuits; it is to foster a business environment where legal online music services and bricks-and-mortar retail stores can flourish."

[ ... ]

The RIAA's letter warns that "ignorance of the law is not a defense. What that means is that it does not matter whether you knew it was illegal. Whether or not you intended to infringe does not matter. If you violate the record companies' copyrights, you will be held liable for damage as a result."

The letter also warns the recipient that deleting infringed songs would be considered destruction of evidence "now that you are aware that a lawsuit may be filed against you."
--

That last bit is particularly interesting. What if they've misidentified people (yet again...) and there AREN'T any files to destroy in the first place? Would they take the non-existance of the infringing files to mean that the person had destroyed them?

Re:Yes, it probably is.

[Xenographic]

One last interesting tidbit: this story has also been picked up at LawMeme here which makes sense since it's on Reuters, as you can see from the Google News page over here.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[TyrranzzX]

Why can't people like you get it through your heads that the only way to change the law is through civil disobediance? If we let them take music away because it's the law then we don't deserve the music, do we?

What does this accomplish?

[bigsexyjoe]

It is only illegal to upload copyrighted songs. So people in the US just have to stop uploading. In Canada it is legal to upload copyrighted songs! So everything the RIAA is doing is for naught as our neighbors to the north can provide us with all the music we need and they can't do damn thing about it.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you say that!!!????

Uploading AND Downloading is COPYING a COPYRIGHTED material. You do not have the right.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the right simply because I say I do and if I don't feel like buying a CD, then I don't have to. There's really nothing anyone can do about it.

Preaching to people won't change their mind. People need to learn and understand that very carefully.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[beebware]

Acutally that's quite a good point: if you have a "licence" to listen/use that music, I doubt you'll be breaching the "licence" by offering it for download. But if somebody were to download it who doesn't have the licence - then it'll be them breaking the law and not you. It's a bit like a shop with shelves full of goods - they're offering you the chance to buy the goods but if you decide to walk out the day without paying (i.e. "getting a licence") then it's you that broke the law and not the shop.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[fishbowl]

>It is only illegal to upload copyrighted songs.

If only it were so black and white. If you were correct, it would not be possible for something like sourceforge to exist. It is only illegal to upload copyrighted works if the owner of those rights has not given permission.

Just because someone owns a copyright, does not automatically make it illegal to copy or distribute that work, but it does put the control of that decision in the hands of the holder of the copyright.

My music is copyright, but I'd consider it perfectly ok for it to be distributed however and by whomever would be interested. When the RIAA folks swing their fist, they hit my nose: I do not want to be forced to take some action just to make it OK to distribute my works. If the media folks get their way, it will be that much harder for the person whose work isn't worth much to anyone besides himself. God forbid if I had to pay a fee or register with the State or something, just to make it okay for people to maybe listen to my music. The RIAA would like it that way -- to redefine copyright in a way that everything not expressly permitted is forbidden and severely punishable.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try again. You do not have the right to broadcast copyrighted material without authorization.

However, as evidenced by the existence of the radio industry, you can receive an unlimited amount of copyrighted material without express permission. It's the broadcaster that is responsible for what you recieve.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[acidrain69]

Uh, WRONG. It's illegal to download as well, but it's too hard for them to catch you. It's easier to get file lists from people who UPLOAD than it is to wait for someone to download copyrighted works from you. And even if they tried that, there is the whole issue of seeding networks with illegal content, which could be construed as entrapment.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[swillden]

It is only illegal to upload copyrighted songs.

If only it were so black and white. If you were correct, it would not be possible for something like sourceforge to exist. It is only illegal to upload copyrighted works if the owner of those rights has not given permission.

I think you placed the emphasis on the wrong word, and missed the poster's point. The key word is "upload" not "copyrighted", and the point is that it's the uploading, not the downloading, that is illegal, because it's the act of producing the copies that is protected, not the act of receiving them. So, if a bunch of friendly canucks would offer to host all of the files, the RIAA probably couldn't do anything.

In actuality, it's probably not that simple. A good lawyer might be able to argue that the downloader is also making a copy when he/she copies the bits off the wire and onto a hard drive, or that the sharer and downloader are cooperatively making a copy. Also, it might be possible to argue that knowingly downloading illegal copies should be illegal, in the same way that knowingly purchasing stolen goods is illegal.

At present, the RIAA doesn't have to test those arguments, because it's much easier to argue that the sharer is distributing infringing copies (that argument is pretty much irrefutable) and, anyway you only have to stop one side to shut the whole thing down, and sharers are easier to discourage, since one doesn't benefit, as directly, from sharing.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[shark72]

Everybody references that Jay Curry article, but it doesn't make it true. He's a blogger, not a lawyer, and he has his facts wrong. For what it's worth, people tried a similar argument back when Napster was in its heyday. The ninth circuit court of appeals disagreed.

If it were true, don't you think you'd see the P2P companies locating their businesses in Canada? Or, why not dispose of P2P altogether and set up a Canada-based FTP site with all the music you could fit onto it? By Jay's misinterpretation of the law, that would be legal as well.

Remember, Canada is a signatory to the Berne Convention like most other western countries, and intellectual property is a large chunk of Canada's GNP. They're no piracy haven.

Re:What does this accomplish?

[gordgekko]

In Canada it is legal [techcentralstation.com] to upload copyrighted songs!

I don't give a flying fsck what TCS says, uploading copyright material in Canada is not legal. Listen to these people at your own risk but use this defense in court and be prepared to pay damages plus legal costs for being so stupid.

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually its the law that decides what a is crime. Not 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

Appealing to the geek community I guess

[CrystalFalcon]

204 decimal is CC in hex. We often talked about cans of 204 at my last work...

Re:Appealing to the geek community I guess

[rudabager]

ok but what is cc or cans of 204? probably a dumb question sorry/.

Re:Appealing to the geek community I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably Coca-Cola.

Re:Appealing to the geek community I guess

[ditto999999999999999]

I had to check acronymfinder... CC = Coca Cola

CC

Re:Appealing to the geek community I guess

[heapacreep]

or carbon copy...

Re:Appealing to the geek community I guess

[Vargasan]

CC = Canadian Club?

Re:Appealing to the geek community I guess

[rudabager]

See now thats what I thought but I have never seen a can of carbon copy.

Re:Appealing to the geek community I guess

[Digital11]

Whats funny is that CC also stands for Clear Channel... As in one of the biggest media conglomerates in the US... One of the biggest companies to have a stranglehold on radio. Weird.

Re:Music Lover?? You mean thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fuck? It's not like the WTA screwing poor countries in favour of rich ones. So some borgeuise artists might have to get real jobs? Boo fucking hoo.

Re:Music Lover?? You mean thieves

[BorgDrone]

Yeah I know, don't feed the troll's

but I can't resist :-P

If copying is stealing, then why are there seperate copyrights laws ?

Besides, I don't mind this kind of stealing, if a 'thieve' comes into my house, makes an exact duplicate of my stereo system and takes that home leaving the original in place I really wouldn't care.

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you don't mean 3 megacorporations and the workers deciding what's a good law?

Re:Music Lover?? You mean thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

Try again.

You by definition have not stolen something if the owner still has it.

Now, granted, you're still a violator of copyright, which is illegal...but don't confuse the issue.

What's the point?

[aynrandfan]

Quote:"We are counsel to a group of companies that intend to file a lawsuit against you shortly for copyright infringement," according to a sample letter provided by the RIAA."

If I am going to get sued, what the hell is the point of sugercoating it with some warning?

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[segment]

I live in the UK, what they gonna do?

We could start by getting some more forgeries from you guys (Blair) then starting another war... yay!

Response

[Raul654]

A) Laws aren't made in heaven.

B) If everyone thought like you do, we would still have seperate-but-equal, India would still be under British control, and abortion would be illegal everywhere.

Re:Response

[Anonymous Coward]

>>abortion would be illegal everywhere.

you start out good and then bull this shit.

hippies...

Re:Response

[Istealmymusic]

abortion would be illegal everywhere.

Yeah...and that's not a worthy goal. What if the father is sick with sniffles and the mother has tuberculosis (TB). They have had four children. The first is blind, the second did not survive infancy, the third is deaf, and the fourth has TB. The mother finds she's pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you consider recommending an abortion?

If YES...

Congratulations, you have just MURDERED Ludwig Van Beethoven.

Re:Response

[Anonymous Coward]

Please change the criteria to "child will be an idiotic asswipe" and then we can change the tag line to:

Congratulations, you have just MURDERED "Istealmymusic"

You make an EXCELLENT case for abortion.

Re:Response

[Istealmymusic]

Thank God for suicide.

Re:Response

[Anonymous Coward]

well RIP

Re:Response

[Overly Critical Guy]

How do you "murder" a lump of cells? Always more rhetoric from the conservative wackos. Hitler was almost aborted. So what's your point?

Re:Response

[arevos]

Murder? At the stage when a foetus is aborted it is not sentient, nor conscious. Technically it's just a parasite. It does, however, have the potential to become a human being, which is important.

But your example is plain idiocy. Lets say that you noticed this woman, and invited her around for tea a month or so before your example, and recommend that she not stress herself in the bedroom. She listens, there's no frolicing, and you have just MURDERED Ludwig Van Beethoven. That little sperm cell of genetic information quietly expires and your actions have exactly the same result as if you advised abortion.

In fact, how many people have you "murdered" in your lifetime? How many potential lives of geniuses or artists are snuffed out because the genetic data is lost forever. Hell, your existance is probably screwing up the far flung future in all kinds of ways.

You can't call abortion murder. The thing you've destroyed is not a sentient life. Abortion may be wrong, but it's not murder.

Re:Response

[TooManyNames]

I'm not embracing or condemning abortion in this comment; I simply want to get one thing straight. People are nothing but a lump of cells. How do you "murder" a person?

Note that I'm not using this as an argument for or against abortion; this is just what I was able to derive from your comment.

Re:Response

[Anonymous Coward]

it didn`t help the american indian... what good is a treaty if your not going to live up to it?

Re:Response

[darkharlequin]

>Technically it's just a parasite
as far as I can see, most parasites are violently rejected by the host, where as a mother goes out of her way to feed and protect the child--physiologically--in the womb. There, that is all i am going to say.

Re:Response

[arevos]

Parasite: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host.

Whilst one could argue that a foetus will benefit the mother in future, if we just take the foetus as-is, then it is, technically, a parasite. Only in the long term, if the foetus survives, is it not a parasite. Or if the mother actually wants the child, and gains psychological reassurance for it, I suppose. Then again, if the mother wants an abortion, then the foetus does not provide reassurance nor does it have a future to grow into something sentient.

That all said, I hope that many, many more foetuses continue to parasitically feed off their parents for many years to come :)

Publishers?

[yerricde]

But don't a few RIAA member labels' parent companies also own music publishers? You know, the kind that can sue you if you record and distribute a cover of a popular song or even if you subconsciously copy a motive from a popular song when writing your own song?

No

[bigsexyjoe]

Uploading is copying and is illegal. Downloading isn't illegal. It's funny but that's how the law works.

Re:No

[nattt]

But on P2P you're not uploading and you're not broadcasting. You're making available for copying, just as inviting a friend around to listen to music is making your CD collection available for copying. Under Canadian law it is legal to make a copy for your own use. With P2P you, the downloader are making the copy for your own use.

Re:No

[cpt kangarooski]

Boy are you wrong.

First, file serving is not copying. File serving (at least in this context) is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive right to _distribute_ copies of his work.

Downloading is copying (i.e. making a copy of data from a master stored on the remote server), and and is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive right to _make copies_.

This is all terribly clear in 17 USC 106, and I suggest that you take a look at it. If you persist in arguing that downloading isn't infringement, please show something to support this claim. But you might want to read the Napster decision by the 9th Circuit, which points out that Napster was liable as a contributory and vicarious infringer for the infringements of its users, which the court says were distribution by uploading users and copying by downloading users.

Just because it is a little harder to go after downloaders, and just because they haven't gone after downloaders yet, that doesn't mean that it's legal.

Re:No

[keith.bronstrup.com]

First, file serving is not copying. File serving (at least in this context) is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive right to _distribute_ copies of his work.

What about my right to control access to my own hard drive?

Does the RIAA now own and control those sectors which contain data for files representint songs by thier artists? I think not!

I own those sectors, as well as the rest of the drive, and the computer, for that metter, and may do with it what I wish.

If I will to give the whole world read-only privelages part (or all) of my hard disk, that is my right -- regardless of the data it contains.

The minute a law comes into effect limiting ones right to allow or disallow access to thier hard disk (or any other computer-usable medium) via a network (or local access on a user-account basis) is the minute people quit using computers to store data.

OEMs, take note. Stop this insanity because it will kill your Business!
ISPs, take note. Stop this insanity because it will kill your business.
RIAA, take note. Stop this insanity because if you kill the OEMs and ISPs by forcing such a law into the books, they are likely to hire hitmen to come after you.
MPAA, take note. Stop this insanity because if you kill the OEMs and ISPs by forcing such a law into the books, they are likely to hire hitmen to come after you.
MICROSOFT, take note. Stop this insanity because it will kill your business; then you will hire hitmen to come after you. (IRONY : Dual meanings for "corporate suicide"?)

Most of all...

AMERICAN PUBLIC, take note. Stop this insanity because it will kill us all.

Re:No

[Alsee]

the court says were distribution by uploading users and copying by downloading users.

Interesting, that is the first refference I have ever seen anyone present of a legal refference indicating that the downloader is infringing. However that refference is actually extremely weak. The problem is that no one involved in the case had any interest in the question of who it was that was infringing the reproduction right. Since the issue was never argued, it was never actually decided.

It is impossible to create a reproduction of something without having a original to copy. Only the uploader is in possesstion of the original, only the uploader is capable of creating a reproduction. The Uploader creates a copy and distributes that copy to the downloader.

If Tower Records makes 10,000 copies of a CD without permission and they hand you one for free as you walk past the store, it is Tower Records that has committed copyright infringment. You are not infringing by receiving a copy from someone else who chose to infringe.

-

Re:No

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, the issue was in fact looked at.

The District Court in the Napster case, 114 F. Supp. 2d 896, 911 (2000), concluded that there had been a prima face showing of infringement by users as an element in a contributory or vicarious infringement analysis. At that point that court did not differentiate between uploaders and downloaders, but it did say that "virtually all Napster users engage in the unauthorized downloading or uploading of copyrighted music." Additionally, Napster's rebuttal did tend to focus on downloading being fair use, though this was rejected. Id. at 912.

In the appellate Napster decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that Napster did not appeal the holding of prima face infringement. 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (2001). The court there examined the issue anyway, as it was still a threshold issue that governered the need for the remainder of the contributory and vicarious infringement analyses, and pertinent defenses.

The district court further determined that plaintiffs' exclusive rights under 106 were violated:" here the evidence establishes that a majority of Napster users use the service to download and upload copyrighted music. ... And by doing that, it constitutes--the uses constitute direct infringement of plaintiffs' musical compositions, recordings." The district court also noted that "it is pretty much acknowledged ... by Napster that this is infringement." We agree that plaintiffs have shown that Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, 106(1); and distribution, 4229 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights.

Id. at 1013-14 (internal citations omitted, emphasis mine).

As for getting into the nitty-gritty details of who's making the copy, the end result of the process results in a new copy residing on downloader's drive. Even if additional incidental copies were made along the way, downloader still used those incidental copies to create a copy on his own machine. It'll be enough for a court, which at any rate is somewhat more interested in using their common sense than they are in denying it.

Re:No

[Alsee]

The defendant's only interest in the case was whether reproduction infringment occurred. I do not dispute that reproduction infringment occurred. Napster had absolutely zero interest in showing that it was not the downloader who was doing it.

The question was never answered because the question was never raised.

copy on his own machine

I do not dispute that the downloader is in possesstion of a copy. But possesstion of a copy does NOT constitute infringment.

more interested in using their common sense than they are in denying it.

I agree. The claim that the downloader is infringing violates common sense is THREE ways.

(1) Given two situations where the same things are done and the results are identical, the legal result should be the same whether or not a computer happenes to be involved. If Tower Records makes infringing copies of music and gives you one of the disks for free it is Tower Records that has committed infringment. You are now in possession of a copy, but YOU did not commit infringment.

(2) The ordinary act of websurfing is not copyright infringment. Many items placed on the web were infringingly placed on the web, for example every time someone reposts a full article here on Slashot without permission. The moment YOU happen to come across that page YOU have just downloaded it. If downloading is infringment then EVERYONE who ever surfs the web is guilty of innumerable counts of infringment, including YOU.

(3)The uploader in possession of the file has a legal resposibility to know or to determine whether his acts will be infringment before acting. It is in general impossible for a person receiving a file to know or to determine whether or not the uploader is licenced to to make and distribute copies. It is in general impossible for the person to know the actual contents of the file before receiving it.

If the uploader is making and distributing copies then things can by placed on the web when the copyright holder grants the required licences to the person putting it on web. However, if the sender requires a distribution licence and the receiver requires a reproduction licence then it is essentially impossible for the web to exist at all. Every person browsing the web would require an individual licence from the copyright holder of each and every icon, image, sound, and peice of text on every webpage. If you must receive an individual licence a grant from the copyright holder first then all communication becomes impossible. You can't even download a text file to receive, or be informed of, such authorisation because the that initial text file could be copyrigthed.

Your interpretration equals the total destruction of the internet.

I am a programmer and I see it is common sense that the uploader is duplicating the data and sending that duplicate to the internet stream. I see it is common sense that the downloader is moving the data from the internet stream to the harddrive.

-

Re:No

[cpt kangarooski]

The defendant's only interest in the case was whether reproduction infringment occurred. I do not dispute that reproduction infringment occurred. Napster had absolutely zero interest in showing that it was not the downloader who was doing it.

No, plaintiff alleged two types of primary infringement: infringement of the reproduction right and infringement of the distribution right. Defendant Napster would therefore have desired to attack both branches, either claiming that no infringement occurred, or that the infringement was permissible due to other portions of the copyright law such as the fair use defense. This is because if any of Napster's users were infringing, this could support the contributory and vicarious infringement claims.

(2) The ordinary act of websurfing is not copyright infringment. Many items placed on the web were infringingly placed on the web, for example every time someone reposts a full article here on Slashot without permission. The moment YOU happen to come across that page YOU have just downloaded it. If downloading is infringment then EVERYONE who ever surfs the web is guilty of innumerable counts of infringment, including YOU.

Yes. This line of reasoning is based on the MAI v. Peak decision in the 9th Circuit that held that the making of a copy of information on a computer, even merely a copy to RAM that was necessary in order to use software, constituted infringement, all else being equal.

There HAVE been cases where web browsing of improperly accessible material was held to be an infringement upon which a contributory infringement suit could be brought. Utah Lighthouse, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (1999) instantly springs to mind.

The court there held:

The first question, then, is whether those who browse any of the three infringing websites are infringing plaintiff's copyright. Central to this inquiry is whether the persons browsing are merely viewing the Handbook (which is not a copyright infringement), or whether they are making a copy of the Handbook (which is a copyright infringement).

"Copy" is defined in the Copyright Act as: "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." "A work is fixed' . . . when its . . . sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."

When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. n5 See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that when material is transferred to a computer's RAM, copying has occurred. Additionally, a person making a printout or re-posting a copy of the Handbook on another website would infringe plaintiff's copyright.

n5 Although this seems harsh, the Copyright Act has provided a safeguard for innocent infringers. Where the infringer "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages. . . ."

(Some internal citations deleted for clarity).

It is in general impossible for a person receiving a file to know or to determine whether or not the uploader is licenced to to make and distribute copies. It is in general impossible for the person to know the actual contents of the file before receiving it.

Knowledge isn't necessary for copyright infringement. It's a strict liability statute. If you do it, no matter how innocent you are, it doesn't change that you did it -- you're still liable.

Your interpretration

Re:No

[Alsee]

You missunderstood my point about Napster. Napster had an intrest in arguing that no infringment occurred, and they failed. Fine, the dispute over whether reproduction occurred was decided.

I grant that reproduction occurred.

My point is that the RIAA has an interest in painting the downloader as being the one violating the reproduction right. Napster had absolutely no reason to waste time arguing about who was reproducing. Since the issue was never raised it was not decided.

The RIAA can go into court and say the sky is green, that doesn't make it law just because Napster doesn't care to argue. That is exactly why the courts refuse to hear a case and decide an issue unless there is an actual controversy between parties with standing.

Utah Lighthouse

This case has the same problem as the Napster case. The defendant is not the downloader. The defendant doesn't care who is infringing, he's simply stuck with the fact that someone is infringing. Nobody has yet been able to point to a case where infringment was actually brought against someone for downloading.

MAI v. Peak decision

Yes, this decision is based on the wonderful [sarcasm] neoclassical copyright view of interpreting all grants to copyright holders in the broadest possible sense and as natural rights in property, and interperting everthing else in the narrowest possible sense as an exception seized away from copyright holders. That, and the fact that computers are mystical to most non-programmers.

Fine, MAI v. Peak is "the law of the land". That means 106 comprehensively restriction ordinary computer function and the narrow 117 exemption only applies to PROGRAMS. Any time you "copy" anything other than a program into RAM you are commiting copyright infringment. The result is stupid, you may as well make computers illegal.

(Then there's the program "owner" mess, but that's a whole 'nother matter)

There HAVE been cases where web browsing of improperly accessible material was held to be an infringement upon which a contributory infringement suit could be brought.

And my point is that every single person who innocently comes across a webpage with an infringing graphic or text on it is then guilty of infringment for downloading a copy. Hell, under MAI v. Peak they are guilty even if the image/text on the website was NOT an infringement itself. Each image/text on every webpage you view then carries a minimum $100 penalty. A single webpage (which is not itself infringing) can contain dozzens of copyrighted elements, thousands of dollars in MINUMUM statutory damages.

Knowledge isn't necessary for copyright infringement.

I think aknowledged that, I mentioned people are legally responsible to have or obtain such knowledge before distributing or reproducing. The uploader has the file, he knows where he got it, he knows or can determine if he has or needs a licence. You argues common sense, it is common sense that he is the one legally responsible.

However it is IMPOSSIBLE for the person receiving the file to know what the uploader is actually going to send, it is impossible for him to know ehere the uploader got it. It is impossible for him to know if the uploader is licenced. It is common sense that the downloader cannot POSSIBLY be legally responsible for things he cannot know or control.

I am not trying to argue away responsiblity for reproduction infringement. I am simply saying it lies with the person who sent the file.

To be fair, this isn't _my_ interpretation. ...being used by the courts

Nod. If I were to argue _my_ interpretation, copyright was never intended to be applied to non-commercial activites at all, chuckle.

-

Re:No

[cpt kangarooski]

My point is that the RIAA has an interest in painting the downloader as being the one violating the reproduction right. Napster had absolutely no reason to waste time arguing about who was reproducing. Since the issue was never raised it was not decided.

Well, I don't know. It has to be a Napster user to serve as a foundation for the contributory and vicarious infringement analyses. While it might not have to be the downloader, that leaves the uploader, of whom the same argument could be made. I'm not sure whether later courts would hold that the 9th Circuit didn't decide the issue, but I do agree that issues that don't have to be decided to resolve a case are not.

This case has the same problem as the Napster case. The defendant is not the downloader. The defendant doesn't care who is infringing, he's simply stuck with the fact that someone is infringing. Nobody has yet been able to point to a case where infringment was actually brought against someone for downloading.

No, I think that Utah Lighthouse does in fact decide that downloaders are infringing. No one else is accused of doing so in a way that could support the contributory claim.

According to plaintiff, after the defendants were ordered to remove the Handbook from their website, the defendants began infringing plaintiff's copyright by inducing, causing, or materially contributing to the infringing conduct of others. It is undisputed that defendants placed a notice on their website that the Handbook was online, and gave three website addresses of websites containing the material defendants were ordered to remove from their website. Defendants also posted e-mails on their website that encouraged browsing those websites, printing copies of the Handbook and sending the Handbook to others.

The other people posting weren't at issue, since defendants in that case didn't have anything to do with that reproduction. They encouraged downloading only, and were successfully sued for it on the grounds that the downloading specifically was illegal.

Any time you "copy" anything other than a program into RAM you are commiting copyright infringment. The result is stupid, you may as well make computers illegal.

Well, the infringement might be mitigated against by implicit permission granted by the copyright holder. But yes, I agree that MAI is a stupid decision. And that downloaders shouldn't face so much liability, at least not innocent downloaders.

Re:No

[Alsee]

It has to be a Napster user to serve as a foundation for the contributory and vicarious infringement analyses... that leaves the uploader

Exactly what I've been saying.

Utah Lighthouse
encouraged downloading only

Every event of downloading is by definition linked to an event of uploading. Are they any less guilty under the view that transmission is both reproduction and distribution than under the view that transmission is distribution and reception is reproduction? In either case they encouraged both reproduction and distribution.

Napster and Utah Lighthouse they only cared whether infringment occurred. As far as I know there has never been a case of anyone defending themselves against a downloading charge because no one has ever brought a case against someone for downloading. A person accused of downloading is the only person who has any interest in arguing that that liability lies with the sender.

by implicit permission granted by the copyright holder

Let's look at that. I go to an ordinary and completely non-infringing website. All elements of the website are copyrighted, but I have the legal expectation that I am not guilty of infringment because I have implicit permission from the copyright holder. The only basis I have for reaching that conclusion is the very fact that someone is offering to send them. If one element is infringing I have no way to know that. I still have the legal expectation that I have been granted implicit permission by the copyright holder. I have that reasonable legal expectation because it is the sender's responsibility not to offer that file without permission. The sender has deceived me with a false grant of implicit permission. Downloader is innocent, uploader is guilty.

I hadn't considered the "implicit permission" argument before, thanks. :) I think "false grant of implicit permission" could be a a srong argument if courts reject the uploader-reproduction view.

-

Re:No

[cpt kangarooski]

In either case they encouraged both reproduction and distribution.

Well, aside from that that doesn't seem to have been raised, forcing the entire argument to rely on the downloader, the uploader's infringement is one of distribution. Distribution AFAICT is illegal regardless of whether there is actual distribution, that is, plaintiffs do not have to wait until someone actually transfers a copy illegally, since the standing offer regardless of whether anyone takes infringer up on it, is sufficient. Since the Utah Lighthouse uploaders were uploading _already_, i.e. distributing already, defendants were not contributing to that.

Instead defendants merely encouraged downloading.

The sender has deceived me with a false grant of implicit permission.

And if copyright weren't a strict liability statute, that might mean something. Perhaps you'd have grounds for a counter-suit against the sender for his having deceived you, but that doesn't bar your liability to the actual copyright holder as things stand now.

Re:No

[Alsee]

uploader's infringement is one of distribution

I am arguing the uploader's infringment is distribution AND reproduction.

defendants merely encouraged downloading

The allegation is not encouragement of "downloading", the allegation is encouragement of "reproduction infringment". Every case of downloading is by definition linked to a case of uploading. So again, your argument has zero bearing on the position that it is the uploader who is commiting all of the infringment and that the downloader is entirely innocent.

grounds for a counter-suit

GAhhhhhhhhhhh! Party C is guilty so you have copyright holder A sue innocent websurfer B for X dollars, and then have innocent websurfer B sue the actual guilty party to get that X dollars back.

You are suggesting that tens of millions of ordinary innocent websurfers are each guilty of numerous infringments EVERY DAY. As opposed to a far far smaller number people who ARE responsible for putting putting infringing material up.

-

Re:No

[cpt kangarooski]

I am arguing the uploader's infringment is distribution AND reproduction.

Okay. I don't think that it makes a real difference, however.

The allegation is not encouragement of "downloading", the allegation is encouragement of "reproduction infringment".

Which is what downloading is.

Every case of downloading is by definition linked to a case of uploading. So again, your argument has zero bearing on the position that it is the uploader who is commiting all of the infringment and that the downloader is entirely innocent.

That in the computer world all distribution is closely tied to reproduction is irrelevant. They're still two related but seperate acts of infringement, and downloaders are necessarily reproducing several times -- to d/l the work, to store the work, to view the work -- all of these involve copying to RAM or HD in some way.

Under MAI, that's enough.

A lot of this might be fair use, but that would have to be alleged, and won't always work.

GAhhhhhhhhhhh! Party C is guilty so you have copyright holder A sue innocent websurfer B for X dollars, and then have innocent websurfer B sue the actual guilty party to get that X dollars back.

No, not really.

More likely you'll have Alice, a copyright holder, Bob, a distributor, Carol, a facilitator, and David, a downloader.

Alice isn't made of money, and is impatient. She wants her lawsuits to stop infringement to be as effective as possible. Thus she's going to target whoever has the most impact on infringement.

Initially, Alice might have sued Carol. Carol runs a P2P service, but might not be using it illegally herself. Nevertheless, she's contributing to infringement by Bob and David, who use her service, and might even be a vicarious infringer.

But lately Carol's figured out how to avoid liability, or her system has effectively taken a life of its own and couldn't be stopped by Carol. So she's out.

Alice will next probably target Bob. He's easier to catch than David is, and there can be a lot of Davids leeching from each Bob. (though many Davids will themselves be distributing, and therefore be a Bob too)

David is the most annoying person of all to sue.

Thus while it's POSSIBLE, that Alice will sue David who will counter-sue Bob, which is the situation that you expect, I honestly doubt that Alice will bother to go after David until going after Bob is for some reason quite impractical.

Which is why we aren't seeing suits against downloaders yet. RIAA et al COULD sue downloaders. But it is far more efficient to sue uploaders at the time being. And they'd really prefer to sue facilitators above all else.

You are suggesting that tens of millions of ordinary innocent websurfers are each guilty of numerous infringments EVERY DAY. As opposed to a far far smaller number people who ARE responsible for putting putting infringing material up.

I am suggesting that this is the absurd position that is the end result of the MAI and Utah Lighthouse decisions.

I think it's asinine, and a clear example of why we need to burn copyright to the ground and then rebuild it to actually benefit society as a whole.

But I think that as it stands now, the law of the land is that yes, there are tens of millions, if not many, many more infringments every day. Many will be fair use, but not all of them, and that's a defense of last resort anyway.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[number11]

When you download copyrighted music, you're doing so illegally and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.

Have you ever sung "Happy Birthday" in a public place like a restaurant or school? Then you've conducted a public performance of a copyrighted work, probably without permission of the copyright holder, Time Warner. If you turn yourself in now, and give them the names and addresses of everyone else who was singing, they'll probably let you off lightly, if it's your first offense.

The Law vs. The People

[pipingguy]

Keep in mind that most laws were written hundreds of years ago. Back then, there was no feasible way to catch law-breakers, so the punishment was extreme in order to deter others from doing the same thing.

Now it is becoming possible to track individuals via purchasing habits. Who thinks that terrorists and causers of violent chaos use valid credit cards and real ID?

Re:The Law vs. The People

[Jesrad]

Keep in mind that most laws were written hundreds of years ago. Back then, there was no feasible way to catch law-breakers, so the punishment was extreme in order to deter others from doing the same thing.

The copyright laws, as they were written originally, did not aim to punish filesharers, since it was considered fair-use (you were only physically capable of share with friends and family at the time) and only became illegal through the lobbying of united agents in the 90s.

They aimed at preventing a corporation, or someone with enough power or money, to take a song from an artist, put his name on it and sell it for a profit and not paying anything to the author. This is why the punishment is so high, because it is sized after the profit one would expect from large-scale sale of the intellectual work.

See where we are now... Artists are forced to resign their rights to labels or they're left out of the spotlight, with little to no chance for fame, and even in the best cases their agents make an order of magnitude or six more money than they do.

Re:The Law vs. The People

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

Who thinks that terrorists and causers of violent chaos use valid credit cards and real ID?

I guess I do

Mohamed Atta
Abdulaziz Alomari
Wail M. al-Shehri
Waleed M. al-Shehri
Satam M. A. Al Suqami
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Marwan Al-Shehhi
Mohald al-Shehri
Khalid Almihdhar
Nawaf Alhazmi
Salem Alhazmi
Hani Hanjour
Majed Moqed
Saeed Alghamdi
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
Ahmed Alnami
Ziad Samir Jarrah

Re:The Law vs. The People

[anthony_dipierro]

The copyright laws, as they were written originally, did not aim to punish filesharers, since it was considered fair-use (you were only physically capable of share with friends and family at the time) and only became illegal through the lobbying of united agents in the 90s.

Where are you getting that from? Filesharing was made criminal in 1997, but you could be held liable in civil court and an injunction could be granted against you since music was first protected under copyright law.

Re:The Law vs. The People

[angle_slam]

The current copyright laws were written in 1976.

Re:The Law vs. The People

[Anonymous Coward]

The current copyright laws were written in 1976.

You seriously overstate the case. Most current copyright law pre-dates 1976, and several changes have been made since 1976.

Muisc lovers respond with boycotts.

[Yoshitoshi_ABe]

This is the only way to handle the RIAA, we boycott. I refuse to buy another RIAA product, lets drive them out of business.

Re:Muisc lovers respond with boycotts.

[DirkDaring]

You got that right. I used to buy music all the time, now I refuse to buy any. I have not bought a single album in 2 years as a direct result of the RIAAs actions in this time.

Re:Muisc lovers respond with boycotts.

[DroopyStonx]

Same here. I haven't purchased a CD from an RIAA associated record label in over 2 1/2 years.

It kinda sucks because I want to support my fav. bands, but I can't... so I just gotta download it and support them by going to their concerts.

Re:Muisc lovers respond with boycotts.

[Yoshitoshi_ABe]

Your fav bands prolly dont make a dime if you buy their CD anyway so dont waste your money.

Filing fees?

[yerricde]

Is there some sort of long-term difference legally between a settlement reached before or after the lawsuit is filed?

Difference number 1: Under the "new way," the court doesn't get the initial filing fee that the plaintiff would pay under the "old way." Conspiracy theorists, take this as you may.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[yoder]

Probably because this country's history is filled with similar situations where large numbers of people had to break the law in order to change the law. When laws are initially created by corporate money in complete disregard for the rights of the people, those people are sometimes left with very few ways to make their voices heard. 60 million people breaking a law does not mean that 60 million people are criminals who should be thrown in jail. It means the laws that make these people criminals should be thrown out and rewritten.

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[El]

Damn straight! If the majority of people are in favor of slavery, then slavery should be legal! If the majority of people are in favor of exterminating the Jews, then I say "Fire up the ovens!"

Fortunately, Mob Rule is NOT the basis of law in this country...

Jack?

[Sebby]

Is that you?

Re:Jack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack who?

Re:Jack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably Jackbeard.

Re:Jack?

[Anonymous Coward]

His last name is Off ok, mod me down, someone had to say it :)

Re:Jack?

[Sebby]

Valenti (or is it Jerk Valenti?)

They'll sue, they just want to avoid embarassment

[sam_handelman]

For suing children, feeble little grandpas, etc.

They'll screen these people they've threatened (giving "generous" out of court settlements to the bad PR cases,) and then sue whoever they think they can get away with - or, their target demographic.

I'm no hypocrite, so I support unrestricted file sharing. However, even with my eyepatch on, I can see that the RIAA members are fighting for their economic survival. P2P may not have had a significant impact on CD sales *YET*, but it absolutely *WILL*. On top of that it will fragment the market and seriously weaken their distribution monopoly, etc. etc.

These are all good things for our culture but bad for the livelihoods of the people in the biz.

Can sombody break it down

[rudabager]

Can sombody tell me just exactly what is legal and what isnt. Is it legal to have them on your comp but not share them? Or is that illegal, but they just cant catch you? Is it illegal to just share or to download as well, or both?

Re:Can sombody break it down

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all legal as long as you don't get caught.

You can download all you want, but technically you can't share them. No one will ever come after you for downloading the music (nor could they even if they wanted to).

If you want to share the files, just encrypt your shared music folder (EFS on Windows XP). That way if you get "caught" you can ask them to prove it and they won't be able to by verifying file contents since they are encrypted. This will work because you could have a .txt file named "Metallica - Enter Sandman.mp3" with 5 megs of crap in it... and they'll try to get you on just sharing it by name, not by content.

Re:Can sombody break it down

[davmoo]

Insert the usual "I am not a lawyer here", but I can fairly easily answer your question.

If you did not legally obtain the right to use the music (as in purchased the CD, purchased the music from a legitimate online music service, etc) and you do not have the permission of the copyright holder to otherwise obtain the music (as in a band says "here's our music, download it for free"), then it is illegal to download it.

Likewise, if you do not have permission of the copyright holder, or are not the copyright holder yourself, to share the music, in most cases it is illegal to make it available to others.

If you legitimately obtained the music, it is legal for you to make copies for the car, make mix CDs for your own use, etc etc.

Personally, having worked in both the photorgaphic and video industries, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who get busted for making material available for download by others without permission. I also have no sympathy for anyone who gets busted for downloading that material. And I have very little sympathy for those who get busted and yell "but I didn't know my kids (grandkids, aunt, uncle, etc) were doing that!"...just like the owner of a car can be held responsible for how others use it, if you can't maintain control of your own computer and be aware of what's going on with it, you're too damned stupid to be allowed to own one.

Re:Can sombody break it down

[rudabager]

ohh :) how do i enable EFS on winXP

Re:Can sombody break it down

[Anonymous Coward]

Right click on the folder, go to properties, then in the General tab, click the "Advanced..." button. Check "Encrypt contents to secure data" and click OK.

Re:Can sombody break it down

[morelife]

I'm saying the same thing here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82727&th re shold=2&commentsort=3&tid=123&tid=141&tid=188&tid= 99&mode=thread&pid=7250774#7251136

I'm amazed at how confused everyone is - it's not a copyright issue, it's a distribution issue. It's not a god-given right to make "the music" available globally at will. Even if there was no law against this redistribution, I'd consider it immoral.

The artist themselves however, have to get a clue. They are the ones feeding the monster. At the bottom of the chain is the music distribution industry. When that changes, so will the world.

Re:Can sombody break it down

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a god-given right to make "the music" available globally at will.

I agree! Damn those radio stations!!

What? You mean they don't count?

Re:Can sombody break it down

[Anonymous Coward]

its ILLEGAL not to bend over and take it up the ass

Re:Can sombody break it down

[morelife]

Huh?

Radio stations keep playlists. They pay based on airplay. You didn't know that? So do data network based streamers like somafm.com - read their site, and contribute to their costs if you enjoy that music.

Sadly, under the current system, the artists get screwed. They get painfully little of any airplay royalties anyhow. They tolerate this in the hopes of becoming famous :)

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! Here in the US, we REALLY LIKE Mr. Blair! He may be a "Lapdog", but he's OUR lapdog!

Cans of 204

[CrystalFalcon]

0xCC for Coca-Cola.

No, I don't think that was the reason, but it struck me as the only thing being special about 204...

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[lightspawn]

Quit being cheap little theives

Quit calling us thieves (or even theives), you child abuser.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[SeniorDingDong]

Say rather than the RIAA is within their rights, not justified.

Claiming they are justified because there's a law that allows them to do so it merely an appeal to authority and specious.

I wont mince words; although, like others, I welcome an acceptable middle ground, I reject the notion that the RIAA has an absolute right to resort to any tactic to prevent themselves being put out of business.

how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[idResponse]

I have well over 55gb of mp3's on my system at the moment, and most of them are either albums i currently own, my friends own, or i have onced owned at one point in time or rented from the library. How does the RIAA claim who is stealing and who is not?

The only reason that I don't own a lot of the alb ums are that they are either NOT a major label album, not a REAL album at all but live bootlegs, and also because I am very poor and cannot afford 10,000$ of cd's!

so what's the problem with me having a "wish list" i can listen to until i can afford the album?

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[rudabager]

so you cant afford CD's but you can afford a computer and an internet connection. Whats next trading milk and eggs for a tablet pc?

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

Even if most of those albums are ones which you have never owned, what you do is your business and no one else's.

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

you can get an internet connections for about $15 a month. Last time i looked, the average cost of a cd was more than that.

do you think that giving up your internet connection (and everything that comes with it e.g. news, communication, etc) in exchange for 1 cd a month is fair deal?

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a loser

"Fair" doesn't mean you get what you want whether you can afford it or not. It's perfectly "fair" that if you don't have the bucks you don't get the toys. Get off your ass, make some money and buy the stuff you want - or - accept responsibility for the fact that you haven't and stop whining. Wish list my ass - how many of the CD's have you ever bought?

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[Stonehand]

As it happens, having your own collection of music is not a right.

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, they're not.

All of the suits filed to date are against people (rather the IP addresses of people) whom they have been successfully able to view, download and verify (via MD5 hash) from the public Internet. People who are downloading the songs or ripping their own songs are not on their radar.

Copyright law is fairly ambiguous about music downloading, and is explicitly permissive about media transfer, but is quite clear on it's position about making copyrighted works available in full verbatim to the public. It even explicitly covers the case of the infringement being done unintentionally (i.e. installed Kazaa and had personal music files automatically shared) by providing a (slightly) lesser penalty.

Music "fans" can fight on, but it does appear that the RIAA has done their homework prior to swinging and a case that makes it to court will likely not last for very long. Even in the cases where the person who was responsible for the Internet connect was not responsible for making the material available the result will likely be the same (afterall, we're supposed to have control over our computers, right?)

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose the computer was donated, People that can't afford a computer are given one with a p1/k5 or p2/k6 processor, and an old monitor. Also, there are dial-up ISPs that cost around $10/Month. Not everyone has to have the latest and the greatest. Oh, that's right, you're a Libertarian/Republican Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival of the fittest troll. You believe if you don't get at least a few hundred thousand a year, you are lower than dirt and deserve nothing.

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

so what's the problem with me having a "wish list" i can listen to until i can afford the album?

It's illegal, that's what's wrong, you jackass.

Now, the RIAA could do about a million times better than they are doing, but regardless of what kind of jerkoffs they are, copying songs without the copyright holder's permission is illegal.

So I admit I break the law. I don't pretend that I'm not. I can say, however, that if I were able to download lossless audio (no crappy MP3s, Vorbis, etc, if I'm paying money) with no DRM (don't tell me how I can use something I bought, if I want it on my 3 computers and ipod, that's my fucking business, I can only listen to one at a time), for a reasonable price (the equivalent of $18 for an album is not reasonable), I would pay for more songs. Until then, I download and when I feel like it, I buy used CDs. No new CDs for me.

I'm just so fucking sick of the people who pretend it's perfectly OK to violate copyright.

Re:how are they persuing people not using P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like a total dork ass to me. Hypocrite. Making excuses for your theft, that sounds a lot gayer then saying it's "ok".

btw being able to copyright ideas, music etc, is bullshit and stops progress.

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only because there was sufficient popular support that the abolition of slavery was possible. On your temrms, yes mob rule decides the law in this country.

Or even better, check out some real record labels

[ShatteredDream]

Like Century Media and Projekt which aren't members and have a lot of great bands.

Cost!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if they just lowered the prices of CDs to $5/cd I think people would start buying more of them!!!

That is my price point, as I used to get CDs for about $3/each from the BMGMusic Club service. I NEVER bought from record stores as $18-20 a disk is just not worth it to me....and never will be.

Re:Cost!?

[HermanAB]

$5 would still be a massive rip-off.

If they would be satisfied with 50% margin like other industries, then a CD should cost about $1 in the shops.

Re:Cost!?

[shark72]

"If they would be satisfied with 50% margin like other industries, then a CD should cost about $1 in the shops."

CDs are sold at about a 50% margin. I think you've mixed up gross margin and net margin, and you have a misunderstanding of the costs required to produce, distribute and market a CD.

CDs are sold into the channel for about $10, I believe. The rest goes to distributors and retailers, who use the profit to do things like pay their employees and other overhead expenses.

Of that $10.00, after the production costs are paid, the record company is left with about $5 gross profit. Not net profit. That's your 50% gross margin there. The difference between gross and net is calculated differently by different people, but the remaining $5 must be used to cover additional marketing expenses (channel programs, and the like) as well as covering returns and price protections.

This is why most CDs lose money, why the record industry has always been generally a shitty one to be in, and why massive layoffs are happening due to the huge drop in sales. Record companies generally run lean.

The whole "the music industry is nothing but greedy executives in Hugo Boss suits who light cigars with $100 bills" notion that you and others perpetuate surely makes music piracy go down smooth and easy, but it's still not the case.

What a headline

[Moridineas]

I love it!

"RIAA Threatens More Music-Lovers"

And people say Fox news is biased...

Re:What a headline

[NanoGator]

"And people say Fox news is biased... "

How would you write the unbiased headline? "The RIAA Politely Asks More People to Pay Several Thousand Dollars in Lieu of Being Sued for Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars"?

Re:What a headline

[Moridineas]

How would you write the unbiased headline? "The RIAA Politely Asks More People to Pay Several Thousand Dollars in Lieu of Being Sued for Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars"?

E for Effort ;)

If I had to write a headline, and my goal were to write it as unbiased as possible how about "RIAA Serves Up More Notices." "RIAA Seeks Further Litigation." "RIAA Seeks Pre-court Settlement in 204 More Cases" (if you want to summarize the whole story in the headline). So yes, it IS possible to do a better job than Slashdot is doing at editorial integrity (which, to their credit, I don't think they've ever claimed).

You'll notice how my headlines avoid terms such as "Music-Lovers" -- Who could hate music lovers?! THey're just doing what they love.. as well as the opposite end of the spectrum -- pirates. RIAA sues more pirates? Well alright, pirates are bad, everyone agrees on that!!

Re:What a headline

[Anonymous Coward]

a for asshole

if i had to write a headline it would be EVIL RIAA MICROSOFT GWB TRINITY conspires to sue iraqis for downloading music to sell for food and then sodomizes them with microsoft products.

but i guess that wouldnt fit. well i was never good with headlines. you sir are a looser for your comments and i challenge you to a duel.

now go back to your fox news you love and love defending so much you facist.

Re:What a headline

[NanoGator]

Fair enough. Guess I'm just a little too close to the issue. Frankly, I wish the general media would do more to report the crappy side of what the RIAA's doing. For now, all you catch on CNN is that they are going after pirates, as opposed to overstepping their boundaries and busting innocent people.

Re:What a headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell said pirates are bad? Pirates are teh shit. They float around in boats, raping pillaging, and carrying swords and muskets. Sounds pretty bad ass to me. Maybe you should crawl out of your hole and watch Pirates of the Caribbean. I think everyone would agree the opposite of you, that pirates are cool.

Re:What a headline

[HeghmoH]

The difference is slashdot never prentended to be unbiased. Everybody who reads the site knows that they have a very strong bias, and what it is. The editors do nothing to hide that.

Compare this with "fair and balanced" FOX News. I wouldn't care if they simply admitted to being biased, or even if they just stopped claiming that they weren't.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Qzukk]

Quit being cheap little theives. When you download copyrighted music, you're doing so illegally and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.

Yeah, I go to the store and shell out $1,500,000 for every cd I buy (thats for a 10 song CD at $150,000 each). What, you mean music doesn't cost that much? Thats funny, thats how much the RIAA is charging...

Copyright law as it stands is absurd. Why not "let the punishment fit the crime". You download the latest Britney Spears album, you pay the cost of the album. That would be the most logical thing to do. None of this suing people for billions of dollars.

Oh and <insert copyright infrigement is not theft and is not a criminal offense rant here>

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Bryan_W]

"Why can't people like you get it through your heads that the only way to change the law is through civil disobediance?"

True civil disobediance is one way to change the law. You can also write to a congressman or even become one if writing doesn't help. Civil disobediance should only be used as a last resort and as a method to raise awareness about an issue.

US Constution

[nurb432]

Show me where its explicitly forbidden in the constitution, or the FIRST 10 amendments, then ill agree.

Until then, it doesn't mean anything and the RIAA ( and anyone else ) can kiss my ass.

Re:US Constution

[Anonymous Coward]

what's your point? the constitution doesn't forbid rape, murder, and homemade meth production either.

Re:US Constution

[shark72]

"Show me where its explicitly forbidden in the constitution, or the FIRST 10 amendments, then ill agree. Until then, it doesn't mean anything and the RIAA ( and anyone else ) can kiss my ass."

Slavery was outlawed by the 13th amendment. Black people must love you.

I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here...

[dupper]

...but automatically labeling these newest caught music sharers "music lovers" when we know nothing about them is like calling anti-war demonstrators anti-troop or anti-american. Some of them may actually be music lovers, some casual listeners who downloaded from the worng place at bthe wrong time, but this is Slashdot, for god's sake, not Fox News. We have our biases, but assumptions like this make political propaganda out of what should, by definition, be news. If you want to state an opinion, come out and say it, give it it's own words in the main body text, but don't use doublespeak.

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[Izago909]

Actually mob rule is the basis of law in america. It just happens to be based on the christian mob. Since we all live in a country that is run by christians it's not considered mob rule, it's just the way it should be. There is a reason things like sodomy, adultery, abortion, and many other non-christian behaviors were (and some still are) illegal for so long. For some reason forcing women to wear cloth from head to toe in a muslim society is backward and wrong but sticking a man in jail for sodomy in texas is the good christian thing to do. The one constant in society is mans intolerance for people not like him. Get enough like minded people together and it stops being wrong and starts being 'just the way it is'.

You want an answer to the piracy problem: Meet half way. It's obvious people want more choices than the century old album, and it's just as obvious that the record companies want to keep their iron fist wrapped around peoples musical outlets as well as their wallets. Neither side is totaly right or wrong. In fact, I'd say both sides are just as stubborn and closed minded. There is some common ground.

Okeey

[Anonymous Coward]

If that girl that I gave my number to yesterday doesn't call me within the next half an hour, I am going to see Kill Bill by myself.

Re:Okeey

[Anonymous Coward]

You can download the workprint/telesync (good quality) from alt.binaries.movies.

Re:Okeey

[Nintendork]

Dude, don't even worry about it. Girls are really good at being wimps and taking the easy road by standing guys up. After breaking up with my second girlfriend after nearly five years, I got stood up a few times before I actually went out on a date. It still happens to me occasionally, but I don't take it personally. Of course, sometimes you'll be surprised. The other night, I called a girl at a predetermined time to confirm our second date and I got her answering machine. I knew I was stood up and decided to just shrug it off. I fell asleep about half an hour later then fifteen minutes or so into my nap, she called. Second date went well and we would be going out tonight for a third date if it weren't for a bout of strep throat she got. Also, Wednesday I got the phone number of a bombshell waitress, newly employed at a poolhall. I played it cool by waiting until today to call her (The other girl's out of play this weekend, so why not?). She told me she works tonight, but not tomorrow. She's carving pumpkins tomorrow, but I gave her my number and she promised to call after she's done so we could go on a date. Telling by how she was blushing and nervous when I asked for her number on Wed. and by how nervous she sounded on the phone today, I think she'll call tomorrow afternoon/evening, but you never know. Point of the story is that girls are weird beings and you can't count on most of them to be sincere and honest. I still don't know if girl number 1 really is sick and I really don't know that girl number 2 has work tonight. It's all a big game to them and they don't feel bad when they lie because they think they're sparing your feelings.

If you want to better your chances of scoring a date, play it cool and leave them guessing as to how much you want to see them. Instead of giving them your number, take control by getting their number. Then wait a few days to call so they're surprised and happy when you do call. We hate when girls play games like that with us, but girls seem to find it exciting and mysterious. Suddenly they feel like they need to put some effort into raising your interest. They see you as a challenge.

-Lucas

Re:Okeey

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, no shit. I got stood up once, too, but she simply forgot that day and we've been dating for a while. Actually, it was a good cause, after having dated for 3 months I figured I'd get no sex from her, since she was a Christian with hardcore beliefs and all. So I kinda made a deal of being stood up, and just broke off with her, but it was pending anyway.

Well, a different one now didn't call, but I kinda suspected she didn't like me on our first date either.

Re:Okeey

[fucksl4shd0t]

If you want to better your chances of scoring a date, play it cool and leave them guessing as to how much you want to see them. Instead of giving them your number, take control by getting their number. Then wait a few days to call so they're surprised and happy when you do call. We hate when girls play games like that with us, but girls seem to find it exciting and mysterious. Suddenly they feel like they need to put some effort into raising your interest. They see you as a challenge.

Offtopic, but...

Is this how you wind up with a girl that you break up with after 5 years? You know, I don't put up with these bullshit games, and I've been married for almost 8 years now, and still going...

Re:Okeey

[Nintendork]

Actually, with that girl, I never played games. When I met her, I had been out on my own for two years and she was a freshman in college. Keep in mind that the age difference was only about eight months. During the course of our relationship, she was struggling to find herself and more and more I discovered that the person she became was someone I could have no respect for. I think it was largely due to sorority influence, but I just don't know. Maybe it was the fact that she was still depending on her parents for financial support and still hadn't entered the workforce. Maybe I changed. In any case, we drifted apart tremendously and the two years of sustaining a long distance relationship didn't help us grow together either.

-Lucas

Let's turn the tables!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't someone (or lots of people) make a claim under the same laws the RIAA is using against us, and charge _them_ with holding some of OUR Copyrighted works? (With the appropriate IP logs, etc- the exact same 'evidence' they have against us.)

Let's send THEM a letter threatening a lawsuit if they don't settle. And remember the implied threat of 'if they delete the files, it's destroying evidence'. Etc, etc, etc.

In other words, fuck them like they are fucking us.

Re:Let's turn the tables!

[c4ffeine]

THat's a great idea! If we win, we get money and piss them off. If we lose, then the people they're suing have a legal precedent to go on! Methinks they'll settle... At least we'd get money then

Re:Let's turn the tables!

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks they'll settle... At least we'd get money then

If they settle, they leave themselves W I D E open for each and every other person in the USA dto do they same thing. Heh heh.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the RIAA is really on top of this one with their brilliant solution, I'm surprised the CDs just aren't flying off the shelves after all these lawsuits.

I guess the potential buyers haven't heard your amazingly effective explaination!!

PS: turn that radio down, sharing is a CRIME!

Instead of suing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA really need to establish some sort licensed P2P network w/ unlimited content on a monthly subscription basis. Get the MPAA invloved, charge like $5-15 a month & I'm pretty sure that people will flock to that network. It's not free, but it sure beats paying crazy amounts of money for one song or even purchasing only one song of off iTunes. The RIAA needs to change w/ the times...Since P2P isn't going away, they should utilize & run w/ it, instead of bashing it...Just my $.02.

An open letter to idiots

[VAXGeek]

Remember, "you're" is a short form of "you are". "Your" is possessive.

Good: You're an idiot.
Bad: Your an idiot.
Worse: Your a idiot.

A good way to remember this is that the "'" is just a substitute for "a" in "you're".

So, one last time:

Good: You're a good person.
Bad: Your a good person.

If you keep these two words from being misused, you will easily add 5 IQ points to your posts.

Re:An open letter to idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

VAXGeek, Consider seeing a therapist.

Re:An open letter to idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have anything important to say, why do you open your fat mouth?

Re:An open letter to idiots

[fucksl4shd0t]

So, one last time:

If you really want to enforce rules of grammar, then you should use proper grammer yourself. No sentence fragments, and proper punctuation (there shouldn't always be a comment after the word "so". Your sentence would have been a misused comment if it had been a complete sentence, but it wasn't)

Note: I don't give a shit if people screw up their grammar during a discussion, so I don't expect to be held to the rules of grammar in my own posts.

Re:An open letter to idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you made a mistake in you're post, you ment comma and not comment. If u want to correct other people, write correct you're self!

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI Many, I would say a Majority, people in America did NOT support slavery, however the people in power did and it took a war to stop them!!!!!

Question about law

[Anonymous Coward]

I've purchased many hundreds of CDs in the past ten years. I also have quite a collection of MP3s; some ripped from the CDs that I own, some downloaded online but from CDs that I own; some that I've never owned, or plan to own the CD. I am also an amateur musician. Because I disagree strongly with the RIAAs tactics, I want to put some versions of popular songs online on my webpage. What are the legalities associated with making my own interpretations of existing songs (my own voice, musical accompaniment)?

In other words, I want to put completely legal and freely distributable music online in order to bait the RIAA. I want to make sure that I am competely, 100% legal when I do this.

I'm doing this because I feel the RIAA has grossly overstepped its bounds by suing and extorting money from people. Whether or not the RIAAs targets have infringed copyright is at this point irrelavant. They are setting a precedent that would allow any corporation to demand fees and extort money from anyone.

For example: I own a laptop that originally shipped with Win2K. I no longer have the original DELL install disks but I do have backup software from a similarly configured IBM laptop. If I install these backup copies I will be breaking MS' EULA.

Or: I bought U2's "Rattle and Hum". I still have the CD case but the disk is missing. If I download the tracks and burn them to CD I'll be guilty of copyright infringement. (No, this is not the reason that the RIAA is going after the file sharers, but their ability to go after them at all is a very bad precedent.)

Re:Question about law

[raju1kabir]

Because I disagree strongly with the RIAAs tactics, I want to put some versions of popular songs online on my webpage. What are the legalities associated with making my own interpretations of existing songs (my own voice, musical accompaniment)?

While I strongly support what you intend to do, within the realm of interaction with the RIAA (I've always found this sort of baiting perversely satisfying as either a participant or observer), you should know that you're trading one adversary for another.

When you perform music that was written by someone else, you have to deal with the owner of the copyright to the lyrics (as opposed to the copyright on a specific performance, which is represented by RIAA). In most cases that's a member of ASCAP.

Re:Question about law

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be an interesting tactic to circumvent the RIAA, as they wouldn't be / couldn't be involved. Granted, they could probably still sue you for something if the purpose seemed to be to undermine their product and spite them in the process.

Anywway, don't listen to the above poster. 'Copyright on Lyrics?'-- that's part of it, but not ASCAP. The concept of the music, that is- the melody, structure, chords etc, along with the lyrics, are owned by what's called a Publishing Company. When songs are recorded, (even by the original artists), a portion of the profits are directed toward that rights holder.. which in the case of an original artist recording, is usually the same person. It gets interesting as Publishing deals are usually independent of record company deals, which is to say while you may have to sell alot of records to recoup the label's outlay for your recording- you typically are earning income from the beginning when you own your songwriting credits.. but with some of the record deals floating around, even this can often be wrapped into the label's deal.

You may find it interesting to note that for your project, you could most likely license the songs you had in mind via just a flat fee. I've never done it, however, and I know that most of the parameters for licensing publishing apply to tangible CDs, not neccesarily downloads- how that would have to be set up is beyond me. The Harry Fox Agency exists to set up flat fee licensing, last I checked it was around a dime per song. That would be for every copy you'd distribute. It could get expensive.

ASCAP, and their competition, BMI, are RIAA-like organizations that track musical rights in a performance (broadcast, live events, and now, restaurant background music!) capacity. Once you belong to one or the other ($100 a year or so) you are issued payments that supposedly reflect compensation for the use of your music on the air/live. TV/Radio Stations, and due to the music industry shakedown on a much more inside scale, Restaurants and Boy Scout Campfires are subject to often large fees that then feed these payments to the artists. How exactly, these figures as to airplay and exposure of the music are computed is somewhat arbitrary, much like Neilsen ratings.

Re:Question about law

[fucksl4shd0t]

In other words, I want to put completely legal and freely distributable music online in order to bait the RIAA. I want to make sure that I am competely, 100% legal when I do this.

You're gonna be short out of luck with this. You're going to have to settle with someone, and it's likely going to be the copyright owner, which is usually the business the RIAA is trying to protect. Your best bet, in my opinion, is to record your own music and make it freely available.

If you really want to bait the RIAA somehow, I would suggest intentionally writing music to be poopular, and writing the music to specific targets (like 12-year-old girls). Then promote it as much as you can, but give it away. If the point is to provide alternatives to the RIAA-protected music, then you need to provide it in the genres that are the biggest money-makers for the RIAA's members, and in such a fashion that people won't care if you're signed with the label or not.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[NanoGator]

"Quit being cheap little theives."

Cheap little theives are spending $400 for iPods and buying music at iTunes.

Copying Not Stealing

[heapacreep]

...and then there is the issue of the RIAA and those that have opinions in agreeance with them that say that one might be "stealing" music as this implies that one is taking property from someone else, where the someone else does not have the property any longer. As we all should know, this is not true as computers and files contained therein have the abilty to be copied. The RIAA seems to be putting the act of copying music off as one would a DNS attack, that being that the RIAA seems to think that "stealers" (person who steals) are preventing the use of goods or services to be used by others than oneself, as in the case of a DNS attack (in this case a webisite.) I would hope that they come to their senses and realize that the sharing of mp3s probably has much less effect on cd sales than they currently believe as I am sure everyone has bought a cd or two (or online from the itunes music store or the like...GO APPLE!) just because of the fact that they heard or got a copy of an mp3 of the same song or a song contained on the cd. Change is definately needed, and unfortunely, the RIAA is heading in the wrong direction.

Re:Copying Not Stealing

[poofmeisterp]

By that rationale (and I want to preface this by saying I totally agree with you), the RIAA would *BENEFIT* if people stole recorded works.

By copying, people can distribute copies to other individuals and retain the ability to use them themselves at the same time.

If this were truly stealing, the original holder would lose the ability to play the song and the new holder (the one who stole it) would have use of it.

Isn't that the kind of fair use that the RIAA has no problem with?

For instance, I buy a CD from Jam Master R, I get sick of it and I give it to my friend. I no longer have use of it, and my friend now does. They don't have a problem with that. Why should they have a problem with people stealing music?

LOL

Re:Copying Not Stealing

[azadrozny]

It's a matter of semantics. The theft occurs when you take the song from your friend and not pay the author/producer/distributer of the work for their efforts. No matter how little actually makes it back to the author it's wrong. Think of it from this example. I walk into a book store with my laptop and a scanner. I proceed to copy the latest best seller. I then put the book back on the shelf and walk out. Has a theft occured, absolutly. I have taken a work created by another person and not paid for it. I may have just stolen the actual book and saved myself the time.

Re:Music Lover?? You mean thieves

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Your grasp of copyright law amazes me. You have IN TWO LINES, mind you, reduced tens of volumes of law books into an aphorism that is short, heavily worded and impressive. And wrong.

DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[obsid1an]

Looking at this weeks Best Buy ad you can find the Matrix Reloaded movie on DVD for $14.99, or you can buy the soundtrack for $11.99. Anyone but me see a problem with this? The music, which probably costs less than 10% the cost of the movie to actually make, costs just $3 less in the stores. Also, most of the songs on the soundtrack were already released on the respective band's album.

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy solution to that: download the DVDRip from alt.binaries.dvdr and the soundtrack from alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.soundtracks.

Let the suckers pay for overpriced entertainment!

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[Rebel_Princess]

The DVD content has usually already been paid for by the movies box office. The DVD's a great value because you get so freakin' stuff in addition to the 2 hour movie (vs a 35 minute cd).

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[wmspringer]

Of course, you'll probably listen to the CD a lot more than you'll watch the movie.

I dunno about you, but I don't watch the same movie over and over....I might listen to the same CD quite a bit, though.

(Although I always buy my CDs used anyway...cheaper)

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[Aeiri]

Ahem...

I was just at BestBuy earlier today and was thinking the exact same thing... until I saw this:

You can buy the Matrix CD for $14.99... and buy the whole movie for... $14.99....... say what?

Even worse... You can buy the Animatrix CD for $14.99... or buy the movie for........ $9.99??????? WHAT????

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[fishbowl]

>Matrix Reloaded movie on DVD for $14.99, or you
>can buy the soundtrack for $11.99. Anyone but me
>see a problem with this?

What problem? The soundtrack CD and the motion picture DVD are two completely separate products. I don't doubt they had totally separate product management teams, and it would be surprising if the business groups even appeared on the same org chart. There are different production and distribution considerations for a soundtrack as for a video. There is usually material on the soundtrack that is not on the DVD, and vice versa. The demand curves are different.

Do the prices add up from the consumer's point of view? Maybe not, if the consumer believes as you do, that the soundtrack CD is somehow just a subset of what's on the DVD.

I'm not trying to justify anything, just maybe hoping to dispel the notion that the prices are shocking in some way. This is more a picture of the overhead of distribution of an entertainment product, than a representation of the production costs of the product.

I think the Matrix folks are also hoping that people are fanatics enough that they buy *both*, together with anything else that has their trademarks and gets shoved under their noses. I don't know if the Matrix franchise is that popular, but I can think of plenty of other products that should have no problems, such as the Remains of the Day action figures and the Remains of the Day lunch box.

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[loraksus]

I don't have the dvd, but isn't the CD actually part of the movie? (i.e. credits roll?) Should sound a wee bit better than the cd too, given that nifty dolby sound. (Although I suppose they could just run 2 of the 6 channels) /shrug

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[cryptographrix]

What I love, is how the "industry", and pretty much the "industry," only, makes money off of artists who have been long dead. As a descendant of a popular musician, you'd only recieve 20% of what the musician was granted by the "industry," even if you were sole descendant, even though the price of the actual cd hasn't really changed...i.e. - if yr father got $1/cd from the RIAA maddogs, you'd only recieve $.20/cd(at most)/cd they sell now, which A) doesn't amount to much, and B) doesn't do justice to the fact that they're STILL selling the CD at a similar price to what they did when the artist was alive.

btw...I'm sure many other people noticed that, for packaging and materials, total, it costs about $3/cd to make a CD AND have it represented by a competant legal figure, at a quantity of 2,000 CDs sold?(i.e. - $1.00/ for a cd/plastic packaging, $1.00(max) for artwork/CD printing, and ~$1.00/cd for lawyer fees for a copyrighted work(max))?...

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[fishbowl]

I don't really know about the Matrix in particular, but usually sountrack albums are a different mix, sometimes even with different arrangements.

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[Anonymous Coward]

You my friend are an idiot.

Re:DVD, $14.99, CD, $11.99

[fishbowl]

Yep, I'm an idiot. The smart ones are making money hand over fist marketing things like DVD's and CD's. Idiots like me don't even know those things exist until someone comes around complaining about the price. When someone complains about the price of an item, it tells me they're buying it anyway. Meanwhile I'm ignorant of the price, which ought to tell you something.

So I didn't spend my money on this crap, someone else did, and that makes ME the idiot? Fine with me.

surpirsed...

[seriv]

I am surpirsed that the Music forces hasn't joined forces with the MPAA and software companies like Microsoft in a sort of "axis of evil" to sue together. They could send out their joint forces of gestapos to destroy computers of file sharers like Orrin Hatch wants. I hope that nevers happens (obviously I got a little carried away).
Anyway what ever happened to fair-use?
-Seriv

Re:surpirsed...

[fucksl4shd0t]

They could send out their joint forces of gestapos to destroy computers of file sharers like Orrin Hatch wants. I hope that nevers happens (obviously I got a little carried away).

Ironic that Styx sang about this years ago. (Ironic because Styx is one of the worst sellout bands in history) Rush also wrote to this storyline, iirc.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dont you bite me you holier than thou unfunny troll?

Ive been taping the top 40 to play in my car for over 15 years...like millions have been doing.
I also tape movies on my VCR like even more millions do every day. Only difference, DLing is faster if you have high-speed. This is not a new phenomenon, just a different format and distribution method.

And I will NOT buy another copy of Dark Side of the Moon after having an LP and a CD because the formats are wear out.

I will also lend my 2 brothers the latest Tom Petty and Ben Harper cd's and will make the MP3's available to my sister who lives 2000 miles away.

Go back to your fscking pledge of allegiance, wrap yourself in the flag and remember that not too long ago, your 'laws' said that negroes had no rights.

zack

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[Anonymous Coward]

but this is Slashdot, for god's sake, not Fox News.

You're right on that; one is a biased, unprofessional, ranting and raving disguised as news, and the other is Fox News.

I know this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

who will remain nameless, and shares over 11,000 songs. Not to mention various videos and software titles. So doing the math it is possible that this individual could infact be ordered to pay any where from $8,250,000 to $1,650,000,000 in songs alone. Yes that last figure was 1.65 Billion Dollars. I can hear Dr. Evil over at the RIAA now "MUHAHAHAH MUAHHAHAHAHA."

Not exactly

[acidrain69]

I honestly think that the only one winning anymore is the lawyers. If there weren't so damn many of them, it'd be the perfect career. $2000 from that 12 year old girl probably covered the lawyer team costs and whoever is gathering the evidence.

Re:Not exactly

[LinuxHam]

"$2000 from that 12 year old girl probably covered the lawyer team costs and whoever is gathering the evidence" emphasis mine.

You have absolutely no idea how much corporate lawyers make. None whatsoever.

Re:Not exactly

[TopShelf]

Well, it at least covered lunch for them, during which I'm sure they joked about the case!

Re:Not exactly

[acidrain69]

Silly me, I forgot the IANAL disclaimer. I thought it had become so pervasive that it was unnecessary. Ok, Maybe it paid for ONE of the lawyers to do the paperwork for THAT girl.

Re:Not exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers are capitalisms answer to Stalin's bureaucrats.

Just uploaders still?

[Unregistered]

Are they going after downloaders or just uploaders? They have no case against downloaders (show ne the copyright on my songs), but if they just go for downloaders, they'll just make is slower without seriously hurting the userbase. They'll just piss off the people who now have to wait 10x instead of x mins to download a song.

Re:Just uploaders still?

[Stonehand]

It's probably uploaders.

After all, it's a LOT easier to find them -- those making files available for searching by any significant number of people, for instance, are necessarily opening themselves to detection by that same audience.

To be noticed downloading, either some ISP along the path has to notice the bandwidth spike (possible if you're consuming a disproportionate amount and they get curious as to why) or the ISP specifically checks network traffic for the relevant protocol (*shrug* but most probably wouldn't even when their ToSes ban copyright infringement; they want satisfied subscribers, so long as said users don't abuse bandwidth too much), or the downloading has to be done from an RIAA-controlled server, or a server gets seized and the logs (if any) get processed.

Re:Just uploaders still?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same reason the police goes after drug dealers rather than nickel and dime (no pun intended) merely drug users- tho often both, they'll tend to cut deals with people that can become informants.

They have every case against downloaders, but lets say you were sued for downloading a certain cd. If you produced a copy of that cd in your posession, guess what? Fair use. This isn't martial law- even if you bought the cd the day before you went to court you have it in your posession. I know I download stuff I have already on CD just to make for easy mixing and ipod transfer. Going after uploaders is because they know who owns the distribution rights- which is noone on Kazaa, etc.

Re:Just uploaders still?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot to mention that the absence of a copyright notice doesn't cancel out copyright- which is created instantly, with or without notice, whenever an individual, creative act is undertaken. Even stuff like your signature. Proving that such-and-such label originally owned the copyright on an mp3 file from a cd with clear copyright notice would be pretty trivial in court.

as compared to Marijuana?

[Anonymous Coward]

The [US Government] is jusitied in pursuing litigation.. everyone that shares [marijuana] and those that [smoke it] are committing a crime enforceable by the laws of the united states of america.

Quit being cheap little [potsmokers]. When you [smoke pot] you're doing so illegally and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.

In both circumstances, I ask you, who are you really hurting? In the case of music, you're hurting a huge corporate entity that has made billions by exploting musicians for their hard work, and overcharging consumers to no end. In the case of marijuana, you're hurting the governement, who has made billions in tax dollars on things that the average consumer can't produce (booze, cigarettes) while making illegal something that any doofus can grow in their back yard for free (remember, there's a reason why they call it WEED.)

What's my point? My point is, umm, shit, I forget . No seriously, my point is that just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. It just means that the powers that be couldn't figure out a way to profit from it, and bought legislation that supported their old (dying) model of business.

I wish you could moderate a post "+1 Common Sense" because shit man we really need it.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Jesrad]

The laws in my country don't make this a crime nor even illegal at all. I find it very wrong that in the US, 60 million people are left stranded in a situation where, basically, a corporation can (and IS) extort a crazy amount of money, for no more reason than doing what is trivial to me. Laws have been wrong before.

Re:Music Lover?? You mean thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

HA HA you are easily amazed.

You mean to tell me that "Taking copyrighted music us [sic] STEALING!!" does a better job of capturing the nuance of copyright law than pointing out that there are separate laws?

Cuz, you know, there ARE separate laws, did you know that? In fact not only are they separate, they are different too! Did you know that copyrights expire, but I have possessions that have been in my family for generations? Crazy huh?

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[qtp]

those that download it are COMMITING A CRIME ENFORCABLE BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Really? What law is this?

I was certain that copyright law only covers publication rights, not the recieving of copyrioghted material published by an unauthorized source. Perhaps you could educate me.

I'll agree that those who are making other peoples work available (in any form) without permision are breaking the law, but I doubt that the law also covers the downloaders. Perhaps they could be charged with aiding and abbetting the comitting of a crime, but if that is the case, then why has no-one been charged with this?

Why has no-one been charged with a crime at all? Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?

Has the outcome of any of the RIAA lawsuits actually been determined in court? Or have they all been settled out of court? Is it possible that the amount of damages the RIAA is claiming is so large that it would be difficult to substantiate in court? Or that there is no reasonasble method for determining the actual damages? Or possibly that any reasonable method for determining the actual damages (such as the number of actual downloads times the potential revenue from the potential sale of a copy of that particular song) would show that the actual damages are not enough to justify going to court in all but the most extreme cases?

When you download copyrighted music, you're doing so illegally and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.

Again, I'll agree that uploading music that you do not have distribution or publishing rights for is and should be illegal. But this emphisis on downloading seems a little disengenuous. Could it be that the RIAA wishes to scare people away from the idea of downloading altogether? What about all of the music that is freely available for download or redistribution? Do not the artists who are using music downloads and P2P networks for advertising thier (non-RIAA) music on CDs and thier performances deserve the right to use this means? Is the RIAA perhaps worried that the free distribution of music could impact negatively on thier ability to controll the marketing and distribution of music to the extent that musicians who have not contracted to RIAA studios and labels might be able to win away a portion of the market?

Is it possible that with P2P technology, the web, and with other network technologies (internet radio) that the RIAA and thier associated companies (ClearChannel) might be obsolete and no longer needed by the artsts who wish to make a living from thier art? That sounds like a win for everyone except the RIAA.

Advice to filesharers: Do not distribute the crap purveyed by the RIAA. Use P2P to promote music by atrists that you know, artists that do nott share the product of thier creativity with the RIAA member companies, andartists who are knowingly distributing thier music in this manner in order to promote thier own, privately funded CD sales and performances. There is no longer any need for the media conglomerates, and unless the flow of money into thier coffers is lessened, they will buy congress to ensure that they and thier parent companies (Time-Warner, Disney, CBS, ClearChannel, the other RIAA members and the members of the MPAA, and the Network Broadcast Association) are given the right and the power to own and regulate the internet and networked communications in general. Use the technology to change the culture of music (and other media) consumption.

Wean yourselves and other listeners off of the corporate teat and you'll find that there is sweeter milk to be found elsewhere.

Do not allow the RIAA to spread the idea that all P2P downloads are illegal.

off?

[SweetAndSourJesus]

Valenti?

Wrong *AA, I guess.

I've tried iRate...

[rsilvergun]

and it's way too much trouble. The default servers (can you set up others?) are slow, there's no genres (yes, I know it's a feature, but I don't want to wade through 20 hip-hop and grunge songs to get to one decent power metal tune), and there didn't seem to be anyway to download one song while listening to another (although I only played with it a few minutes before dropping it). OK, to be fair I'm running it on linux. Maybe the windows client is easier to set up, more convient to use, etc. Plus, I know it's probably not exactly a finish product. All I'm saying it, it's not the next Napster. That said, I wish it was. On the surface it's a really great idea.

Also, did anyone ever stop to think what would happen to iRate if the masses ever really did flock to it? It'd become full of exactly the same crap people on these forums complain about (boy bands and slutty female singers). Of course they could fix that real easy with genres but...

Re:I've tried iRate...

[Saeger]

I've used iRATE on both WinXP and linux, and can tell you that the Java client sucks equally on both platforms. Still, I use it, because the player is integrated, and the music is Free & free, but most importantly, because collaborative filtering is much more convenient than wading through piles of major-label crap in stores, or on kazaa, gnutella, or suprnova, or on ShareReactor, or eMule's Jigle, etc.

This kind of "amazon-like" filtering will get a lot more popular in the future, IMO.

--

alternatives

[mabu]

Every time these stories come up, people should focus on promoting sites and services that allow P2P and download of non-restricted material. Slowly-but-surely, we'll turn people towards artists that are grateful that their work is being heard instead of hoarded by the copyright mafia. Most artists don't make squat off of publishing royalties anyway, so 99% of most artists would actually benefit from more distribution of their material. We need to encourage artists to release material in an unrestricted manner and introduce more to the less-mundane music that is out there that Clear Channel and other monopolies are ignoring.

Re:alternatives

[Stonehand]

...so long as they don't need any "formal" marketing campaigns. That is, word-of-mouth would need to suffice, since that's about all they'll be able to get. Just putting up a web page doesn't help if nobody knows about it; likewise, spreading .MP3 samples won't help unless people stumble upon them or know to search for 'em.

In addition, without a publishing company, all the initial costs of touring, first presses of CDs, et al, will fall on somebody else -- either the band, or some other entity willing to lend them money.

Risks and benefits -- *shrug* it's up to the artists (well, the ones not locked into contracts already) to decide.

Re:alternatives

[fucksl4shd0t]

Every time these stories come up, people should focus on promoting sites and services that allow P2P and download of non-restricted material. Slowly-but-surely, we'll turn people towards artists that are grateful that their work is being heard instead of hoarded by the copyright mafia. Most artists don't make squat off of publishing royalties anyway, so 99% of most artists would actually benefit from more distribution of their material. We need to encourage artists to release material in an unrestricted manner and introduce more to the less-mundane music that is out there that Clear Channel and other monopolies are ignoring.

Heh, I post in every one of these discussions because my sig has a link to stuff I make available with no restrictions. I realize it's not he greatest stuff in the world. But if enough people wrote me email to tell me it was good enough to pay money for, I'd kick it into high gear and finish all the recordings and put an actual studio album together. I just need to know that people will pay for it for me to make it a priority over other things, otherwise it's at my own priority when it gets done.

Re:alternatives

[fucksl4shd0t]

In addition, without a publishing company, all the initial costs of touring, first presses of CDs, et al, will fall on somebody else -- either the band, or some other entity willing to lend them money.

*sigh* I always wind up posting this link in these discussions:

Courtney Love does the math

Fact is, Artists pay ALL of that. When you sign a record contract and get your million dollar advance, that's to pay for the tour. The record company charges you (later on) for the presses of the CD, production of the CD (including post-production, of course), marketing (including payola), and so forth. And they won't give you *any* of your earned royalties until you've paid up your debts, i.e. the million dollar advance+publishing costs+marketing & promotion costs.

You don't just give up your music when you sign with a major record label, you give up your freedom and spend the rest of your years toiling to satisfy the label. Previously, Americans defined that as slavery. Now it's called "business".

Mob rule

[pseudochaotic]

Technically, the majority were not in favor of exterminating jews, but were pressured. And most disliked slavery, but the supporters saw it as an economic necessity. So wrong on both counts.

If we didn't have mob rule, who would we listen to? The people making the laws are imperfect, just like the rest of us. They're SUPPOSED to base the laws on the majority.

This isn't necessarily such a bad thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of abuses by the RIAA will eventually cause someone in Congress to wake up. They've already made some mistakes, and word made it back to Washington. Making these sorts of threats and trying to scare people into settling will only bring attention to the abuses that the DMCA allows and perhaps eventually get it overturned. Only through abuses such as this can attention be brought to the problems with copyright law, and especially with the DMCA.

If the RIAA keeps this up, someone in Congress will eventually take notice and will demand limits on the powers granted through copyright law. This is exactly the kind of abuses needed to get evil laws such as the DMCA overturned. The DMCA is gay and hopefully won't be around much longer.

offtopic

[SolemnDragon]

not only is that offtopic, it's irrelevant- hitler's mum considered abortion, too.

hindsight..20-20... oh, never mind.

sol

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give a damn what the law says. Eat that.

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Casual listeners???

Thus far the RIAA is targeting people who share 1,000+ songs, that's not someone who just fires up KaZZa every couple of weeks to check out the latest hit.

I have the copyright owners permission!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Grateful Dead have given me (along with everybody else, of course) permission to download, without charge, certain recordings of their live performances and distribute them to my peers as long as I'm not collecting money for the privilage. Other musicians allow similar free (beer/speech) downloads too. See http://www.etree.org for more details.

Also, not all copyright violations are criminal offenses. Some forms of copyright violation are civil offenses. Of course, IANAL, but then again neither are you! Quit spreading FUD!

In any event, I haven't done anything wrong from a legal or ethical standpoint, so you can bite me you overzealous, authoriarian, RIAA appoligist.

Nanotech

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought- in 40 years, when nanotechnology enables us to cheaply copy physical objects with little effort are we going to see the same kind of tactics from producers of material goods? In other words will I get sued for copying my friend's laptop? I know it seems silly now but we need to think ahead.

Re:Nanotech

[Saeger]

Just a thought- in 40 years, when nanotechnology enables us to cheaply copy physical objects with little effort are we going to see the same kind of tactics from producers of material goods?

There will be an ultra-selfish few, sure, but for most the answer will be NO, because the base reason that some people are in support of artificial scarcity of "intellectual property" is so that they can trade it for REAL scarcity in a dog-eat-dog world, like putting food on the table, and clothes on their back.

But when you can make "copies" of ANY object given free energy (sunlight) + freely available, and infinitely recyclable molecules in the environment, a lot of the incentive to be selfish evaporates into thin air.

--

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[Stonent1]

Damn straight! If the majority of people are in favor of slavery, then slavery should be legal! If the majority of people are in favor of exterminating the Jews, then I say "Fire up the ovens!" Fortunately, Mob Rule is NOT the basis of law in this country...

That reminds me of a quote from the British TV show "Yes, Minister". (from spotty memory) "Our job is not to do what is popular, it is to do what is right."

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Kenja]

Do you even know what civil disobedience is? Its not breaking the law and then acting shocked when you get arrested/sued. Its not breaking the law and then bitching about it on slashdot. Its when you break the law and are willing to pay the consequences in the hopes that you're position will be recognized by the general public who will then work to get the laws changed.

You want to protest copywrite laws through civil disobedience? Great, then here's what you do. Share gigabytes of songs, get sued, refuse to pay and go to jail. Do not bitch about how unfair it is, you knew what you where doing and you knew the consequences. Just go quietly to jail and your supporters on the outside can start making "free TyrranzzX tee-shirts".

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[pvt_medic]

i bet you dont have anything in your home that is in someway violating a copyright law. now that wasnt in any way ment to debunk your statement. Yes it is breaking the law... the USA laws... but one other consideration you must think about, many countries dont have such laws.

Isnt it legal in canada for me to make a copy of your music (but not me to make a copy for you)?

So how about we start looking at this in a global perspective instead of a egocentric view point that the USA is the only spot where this could be problematic.

Like Grandma

[freeweed]

Maybe they're going after people who violate copyright law. *shocker*

You must be referring to the senior citizen who didn't even own a computer, and the 12 year old who only owned a Macintosh. I probably got those 2 mixed up, but you're right, taking legal action without proof did in fact shock me.

Re:Like Grandma

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did the 12 year old get the credit card to pay for the online service, her parents? I find it highly unlikely that her parents are completely unaware of their daughter's activities. And if they are unaware, they shouldn't be. So we're talking about one or two lawsuits thrown out from thousands. That's less than one percent! It's not like everyone sued by the RIAA will lose.. that's why we have courts.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[kramer2718]

I'm not cheap. I pay good money to my favorite bands to see them live. Best part? The RIAA sees little to nothing from that. The record companies can suck turds out of my ass, but that's all they're getting from me.

What are they going to do to me if I use freenet, Anonymous Coward? Please, I'm deathly afraid of an RIAA supoena. I'm shaking in my boots.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[orthogonal]

Copyright law as it stands is absurd. Why not "let the punishment fit the crime". You download the latest Britney Spears album, you pay the cost of the album.

I figure if you actually listen to a Britney Spears album, that in itself should be punishment enough in anyone's book.

Were Dante Alighieri alive today, perhaps he'd replace the Lake of Fire with an eternal duet by Britney Spears and Celine Dion.

Re:Music Lover?? You mean thieves

[Jesrad]

Remember that, in the case of 'intellectual property', you'd only be given a temporary right to keep the stereo in your house before returning it to the public domain. It'd not even be yours, technically.

Re:Music Lover?? You mean thieves

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Dunno if "taking copyrighted music is STEALING or not mate", but it is illegal. It's worthless to talk about this subject beyond this point in slashdot.

On the same topic

[freeweed]

It's ridiculous, not rediculous.

And "speach" isn't a word folks, even when it's free, unless perhaps it's a British thing.

There, I think we just cleaned up 3/4 of Slashdot's english problems :)

Re:On the same topic

[Anonymous Coward]

omg your post was full of errors.

it should have read " n' "speach" iz nahtta wrd evn pon it beh no tax. yo u bri'ish foo?"

can i have some free weed?

Re:On the same topic

[kimgh]

The other 1/4: there/their, to/too, loose/lose.

Re:On the same topic

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't, we spell it speech. Remember, it was our language before America fucked it up.

Re:On the same topic

[Anonymous Coward]

You brits are so cute, trying to be just like your french neighbors with your silly spurious "u"s in your words.

Good: color
Bad: colour
Worse: coleur

Re:On the same topic

[loraksus]

you're new here, aren't you?

Re:On the same topic

[Reziac]

No, no, no. It should be "Your GNU hear, arnt you?" ;)

Re:On the same topic

[DrDNA]

Rediculous is used so much here I thought it was some inside joke thing.

Can you stop kissing corporte ass--

[Anonymous Coward]

--for even a second?

Please?

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[plugger]

We give you forgeries, you give us cover. Bah, they make me sick.

If things get crazy.

[ratfynk]

I play classical guitar, I also write my own arrangements of various pieces. To copyright an arrangement of non PD music is a process that the RIAA to date has nothing to do with (thank God). The problem is that I can record myself, rip the recording to an inet friendly format and send my recording to who ever I chose.

The process of getting permission to arrange a work by someone who might not be living, but is still not PD irks me. It is the reason why good arrangements are hard to come by. Piracy of music by musicians has always been a gray area and cannot be eliminated.

If in future the DMCA makes the legal re-arrangement of music even more difficult than it already is then it spells the death nell to great music. Traditionally it was once a great honour for one musician to pay homage to anothers work! This must continue. The reality of today is that the business aspect of todays POP and SCHLOCK is killing great musicianship.

If the RIAA and ASCAP, BMI etc, etc have their way it will not be too long before they are out in small clubs and concerts looking for people to sue. Here is an example; I take a great tune by the Duke and do a classical guitar arrangement then perform and sent it over the net as an MP3 or OGG or whatever. If this is one of his obscure non mainstream tunes, what is wrong with me popularising this tune?

Obtaining permission to do an arrangement of tunes is so time consuming that it is not even worth trying anymore! It has become a royal pain in the ass. Why? The recent changes to copyright and the fear of God that has been put into orgs like ASCAP etc!

Great music is dying and this is the reason, let us pray.

Re:If things get crazy.

[earlbecke]

You know, I feel the same way, but about my writing. In the past, authors would use characters from old stories and update or alter them (this is also the way that myths and legends change over time). Was Dante using the character of Ulysess in The Divine Comedy copyright infringement? I certainly hope not! Are authors making reference to Shakespeare's characters or writing updated versions of Romeo and Juliet copyright infringement? For that matter, does the fact that Shakespeare himself basically stole other people's plotlines and made them better mean he was some sort of terrible criminal?

Obviously, no one would support the branding of all classic literature (all of which contains some reference to either the Bible and/or classical myth) or derivative literary works "copyright infringement," but I fail to see the legal difference between re-writing The Iliad from a different character's point of view (perfectly acceptable, mind you) and deciding to write epic Harry Potter fan fiction. You have a lot of authors (Anne Rice, notably) who threaten fan fiction writers with legal action much like the scare-tactics of the RIAA, when the desire of a fan to use the author's characters/setting and expand upon them should be considered a high form of flattery, at least in my mind.

Personally, I'm not really very into fan fiction (used to be), but that an author can claim to own a derivative work itself disturbs me as an author myself. (I have often seen, in debates about the subject, ominous questions posed such as: "Who owns this fanfic? J.K. Rowling or the writer?" The obvious answer would be the author of the story, since they, uh, created it.) What worries me more is the way the publishing industry monopolizes things very much like the RIAA, but doesn't get as much attention because it affects fewer people. :(

Re:If things get crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your examples are flawed because they make a false analogy.

Copyright law in the USA has changed dramatically over a very short time. The examples you point out all remain outside the spectrum of what's covered under these new rules. US copyright law has NOT withstood the test of time.

Under the present scheme, it would have been completely illegal say, for Mozart to make his derivative works on the music of Mahler.

Fortunately or unfortunately, today's society does not encourage individual creativity anyway. People are encouraged to CONSUME entertainment works, not produce their own.

Re:Why can't you get it through your head?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Police are completely justified by pulling over %100 of the population... everyone that drives on the roads that goes 1 mile over the speed limit are COMMINTING A CRIME ENFORCABLE BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This isn't a troll, it's not funny, it's the truth.

Quit being impatient little speeders. When you speed, you're doing so illegally and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.


Oh yeah, going over the speed limit has a bit higher consequence than downloading music (namely killing someone). But I remember that one time when those bits flew through the internet so fast, it cause a telephone pole to fall on a car and kill someone.

Just out of curiosity, are there people that don't break the speed limit? That's cool if you don't.

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[plugger]

'Yes Minister'? Hah, you're showing your age there ;-)

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[morelife]

No, civil disobedience is not the way to change the law, and makes you look like an irrational fanatic whose only mode of operating within your society is to break its rules. Acts of civil disobedience will only give the RIAA more firepower against the little guy and more credibility in the House and Senate.

The right way to do it is to destroy the recording industry by not buying the products they spoon feed us. It's a complicated situation because the very artists we want to hear are on those lables. These artists should get off those labels. They see no dollars from the publishing royalties anyway, and it's debatable whether P2P is actually killing CD sales. Didn't hurt Metallica, and they were against P2P/napster, but the last effort they put out was a real giving affair with more than just 10 tunes. I don't even like them musically but have to respect their flexibility.

Stand up for your civil rights, fight monopolies. But don't distribute music that isn't yours to distribute: that's actually stealing; if you want to burn a CD under fair use rights for backup to play in the car, or let your kid play, fine. But if you make a hifi copy of music available through your computer systems to anyone who can connect with technology x/y/z over the Internet, you've crossed the line.

No, I don't like the system. But I support the artists I like by buying their recordings and videos, and then not giving copies of these away.

Claim ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

The letter also warns the recipient that deleting infringed songs would be considered destruction of evidence "now that you are aware that a lawsuit may be filed against you.' -From Article

Ok, so what if, for some reason, the files did disappear(say a defrag gone horibly wrong (yes, I I killed a system doing a defrag, ended up reformatting the system after saving what files I could, Window's dir was almost entirely hosed), or you take it in to be repaired and they "accidentally" formated the system to make it clean and failed to backup the data on there), as well as the software and other files on the system they were monitoring. Could you claim that you have never used said software and then try and make them look bad(not very likely, I don't they are as stupid the 2nd time arround after the Mac using person, and the non-spanish person with the 5000 Latin songs)?
Or how about overwriting the files with an equal amount of random data? You aren't "deleting," but it will like kinda suspicous if the files have nothing but random data in them (of course some of us might be doing that already)

(Ok, quick Google shows that you might be in trouble if you go knowingly destroying evidnce when you are aware of posible litigation, depends on the laws of where you are as to how much trouble)

(I may be ignorant, so correct me if I am wrong maybe even point me to correct legal definitions, because I am sure not a Lawyer, and haven't talked to one)

Re:Claim ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

(Ok, quick Google shows that you might be in trouble if you go knowingly destroying evidnce when you are aware of posible litigation, depends on the laws of where you are as to how much trouble)


They would have to PROVE you had the files to begin with. Log files saying that a certain IP address had a certain file available at a certain time are not proof. Anyone could change an IP address, or a timestamp, or even make the logs up completely.

They would also have to PROVE you were "aware of possible litigation". Again, no way to prove that.

So fuck em.

Nothing Lost-Nothing Gained

[Kurt Russell]

Irc, Http, and remember those ratio ftp servers.
I 56k'd a whole lot of tunes back then.

Bamm..Napster the mother load of music arrives.I got a cable connection because of napster. The "broadband" people know music is their cash cow.
I bet ISPs will stop all this lawsuit bullshit soon.
There is not one single track in my collection I would have paid for in the first place.
No sale here.

Re:Nothing Lost-Nothing Gained

[fucksl4shd0t]

In other news, Actor Kurt Russell has been sued by the RIAA. A spokesperson for the RIAA said "It's pretty obvious what he did. Unfortunate that he went and bragged about it on a piracy advocate web site, but we caught him."

Ask any cop

[Crashmarik]

What do you think the odds are you catch a criminal on the first time they commit a crime ?

The laws are harsh to serve as deterrence. Take for example if the penalty for shoplifting was the value of the goods you got caught with. This would make shoplifting an attractive profession. The only way you could come out behind is if you got caught everytime.

Harsh prison sentances are even more needed in the case of violent crime. There is no such thing as reforming criminals. In rare instances they will reform themselves but don't bet that way. The only thing that can be done is to keep them away from the opportunity to commit the crime.

Even if you could have a hypothetical beaureau of precrime, or history viewer to catch every criminal, would you really want to let these people out on the world ? Unless you can actually reform people, prisons and harsh sentances are the best that can be had.

The above said, It doesn't apply to copyright or the DMCA laws. These are laws that were by and large bought and written by the people they benefit. They are travesties of justice and bring the fitness of our legal system into question. I have no doubt that if the full process of how they were generated was made public more than a few congresspeople and lawyers would be up on charges.

Going to court...

[Jugalator]

"After the uproar over the last batch of lawsuits, however, they're not (yet) suing the people in question, but intend to allow them to settle out of court, first."

Wow, what an improvement!

Now they aren't saying "we're going to sue your 12 year old for listening to Britney", but "we unfortunately have to take your daughter to court, since she's hurting our failing business model".

How pathetic. I'm glad to see all those actions taken by RIAA and losses in income though. That's evidence they'll die a slow and painful death. Since their business model has no real future, at least not in the state it's in today. Maybe CD's bought in a store and given as gifts perhaps, since they look better packaged, but casual purchases seems far better done on the Internet to me. Why visit a store, pay $40 for two music CD's which in total have 7 songs you're looking for, when you can buy the 7 songs on iTunes for $7?

Re:Going to court...

[fishbowl]

>we unfortunately have to take your daughter to
>court

They aren't saying any such thing. A 12 year old has no independent status that would allow the motion to get through the first step of process.

You CANNOT sue a 12 year old unemancipated minor.

Maybe you can hold their parents responsible for their damages in some cases, but then, that's taking your complaint to a whole new level.

Mod Parent Up!

[Jesrad]

Joe Haldemann has tried to predict what would happen in such a situation, in The Forever Peace. Basically, he depicts a world where developed countries have gotten ahold of technology (nanoforges) that can produce any object given some very raw materials - put in sand, some metal scraps or ore, some oil or oily plants, along with some digitalized blueprint, and get a computer out. He describes how this technology would completely turn the occidental world into a neo-communist society with some capitalist principles still applied (everyone gets a weekly set of tickets that are used at state-controlled nanoforges).

In such a society, brands don't exist anymore, but there's still a form of intellectual "property": for example one character uses up some leisure-tickets to buy what would be an expensive jewel ring to us. The design belongs to some association of jewellers.

But also of importance is that the nanoforges are very, very closely controlled by the State so that the technology doesn't get leaked to the third-world. In your example, you wouldn't be able to copy your friend's laptop, you'd have to get an official authorization in exchange for a hefty number of "nanoforge tickets". This resembles the type of laws the RIAA/MPAA want to impose on copyrighted works, with them granting the authorizations in exchange for money.

Please excuse the long rambling, it's late here.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone gets a weekly set of tickets that are used at state-controlled nanoforges

Can I make my own nanoforge? If I can, why does everyone have to go to "state owned" ones?

one character uses up some leisure-tickets to buy what would be an expensive jewel ring to us. The design belongs to some association of jewellers

What if just looked at a ring, then programed the nanoforge from memory, claiming it to be his own design? Do the nanoforges cross-check the requested item against all similar items, looking for copyright violations?

you wouldn't be able to copy your friend's laptop, you'd have to get an official authorization in exchange for a hefty number of "nanoforge tickets"

Could I replicate laptop PARTS?

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Can I make my own nanoforge? If I can, why does
>everyone have to go to "state owned" ones?

Can I make my own nuclear reactor? If I can, why does everyone have to get their electricity from "approved" sources?

Copyright is bad, unless it's mine...

[anthony_dipierro]

[16:57:45] Alterslash is illegal.
[16:57:52] <hemos_> And is violating copyright.
[16:57:56] <CmdrTaco> Oh, this is a real site?
[16:58:02] <hemos_> And unfortunately, under the way US copyright law works
[16:58:11] <hemos_> they will probably get a cease and desist soon.
[16:58:21] <hemos_> Becuase if we don't - then we give up the right to defend ourselves.
[16:58:26] <hemos_> So, I don't want to be hostile
[16:58:33] <CmdrTaco> oh geezus, yeah.
[16:58:35] <hemos_> but because of the law, we have to.
http://www.slashnet.org/forums/Slashdot-20020 306.t xt

Hey, be fair!

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, if they are committing copyright infringement, characterising them as 'music lovers' is like characterising rapists as 'sex lovers'. I disagree with the copyright laws in the western world, but I dislike propaganda even more. Sort it out!

Boycotts

[SoupaFly]

I always see the comments about boycotts whenever there is an article about the RIAA strong-arming its "customers". Then a couple of other posts of support saying that they too are boycotting. Now don't get me wrong here, I fully support that! While I haven't been boycotting, I have bought a lot less music over the past couple of years.

I do think the time has come to boycott, but I think previous comments on the subject are valid. A boycott by a limited segment of the market can not succeed. There must be mass appeal!!

If you're going to boycott, you have to tell your friends, your relatives, your cowokers. There should be posters and information in a concise, bulletized format that is easy to understand. Rallies where people trade in their old CDs for MP3/AIFF/OGG versions -- or just smash the damn things all together. The media doesn't give a shit if 100 or 10,000 computer dorks (I'm one too), or any narrow specialized group of people, are tired of the RIAA and their Gestapo tactics. They *DO* care when their brother, sister, cousin, aunt and next door neighbor get in on it.

Re:Boycotts

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that I don't know anybody that still buys CDs. I teach everybody that doesn't know how to burn CDs of the songs they want to download them and burn them though.

wrong argument, Re:Response

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

>Given the extreme situation, would you consider recommending an abortion?

Heh. How about letting the parents choose?

Your false argument is similar to saying "Downloading music without permission is illegal. Would you recommend someone download it?" You're simply irrelevant.

The question being raised about the RIAA is "should it be a ridiculously highly punished crime", not 'break the law, man! do it!'.

Frankly, your point of view is as bad as the RIAA-- they want to force their opinion of what people should do on others, and use the law for bullying. You seem to want to force your ideology on others, and make them do what you want. The real issue is "is the law, or the ruling, fair?"

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[Stonent1]

Yeah, considering there are so many teens on slashdot, someone who is 25 is an old man... heheh

There is a big difference....

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact: The RIAA has now sued the wrong people in a couple of cases.

Legal signifigance: They have been put upon notice by the above fact that their methods of identifying defendants prior to suit are flawed.

As a result, if they sue anyone else that is similarly misidentified, they can't plead ignorance that their system is flawed... and thus if they sue the wrong persons AGAIN, they are much more likely to be on the receiving end of a countersuit for it. The first couple of people wrongly sued don't have nearly as strong of a case for a counterclaim as the "hypothetical" future wrongly sued people.

Legally, if you know something you have control of is flawed, and you let the flaw remain and someone is injured by that flaw, you are on the hook for the injury.... if an appartment complex manager was told that the railing was weak, and doesn't fix it, an person later injured by the weak railing has a much better case than if the weakness in the railing was unknown.

Spamradio

[HermanAB]

Maybe somebody should make a system that will call RIAA and Telemarketeer board members at home and play them www.spamradio.org...

Gee, I would pay to subscribe to such a service!

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[aardvarkjoe]

By calling loading up Kazaa and bitching on Slashdot about paying a few bucks for entertainment "civil disobedience," you insult the people who have truly sacrificed their time, their money, their livlihoods, and in some cases, their lives, while engaged in true civil disobedience against unjust laws.

My plan on how to get sued

[KU_Fletch]

I have a lengthy collection of "legal" mp3s. Living in a college town, I have a lot of access to bands who freely distribute music on their websites, plus a lot of other crap i've accumulated over the years. Right now, my "legal" collection is around 1000.

Now if my memory serves me right, these RIAA guys are goingafter the people with the most mp3s. So the plan is simple. First of all, copy and paste all my "legal" mp3s so i have 2000. Then, run a quick renaming batch script to rename all the mp3s to songs and bands covered by the RIAA. Then log onto Kazaa and wait for my lawsuit to happen.

Re:My plan on how to get sued

[Winterblink]

That's intelligent. Up until a certain point there you were doing nothing wrong at all. Suddenly you've put your legal copies of the music you've bought out there for others to take freely. In case you hadn't noticed, the RIAA isn't making a point to go after people with the most MP3s, they're going after those with the most that are being shared.

Re:My plan on how to get sued

[herrvinny]

That's not his point. His 'legal' songs are free, stuff downloaded freely from the internet, with the BAND'S FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT. He's not making RIAA covered stuff available, he's renaming his stuff so it LOOKS like it's RIAA.

Re:My plan on how to get sued

[EvilSporkMan]

His legal stuff also contains other crap accumulated over the years, which COULDN'T have been legally downloaded from the Internet, oh, say, pre-1993, give or take.

Re:My plan on how to get sued

[lurker412]

IIRC, the RIAA uploads stuff from the purported infringers to confirm that they are indeed sharing copyrighted material. This would break your method.

More to the point, I am not sure what you hope to accomplish. At best, you might get a headline here or there because the RIAA would lose their lawsuit against you. You, in the meantime, would still be stuck with the legal bill for your defense. Seems like a bad investment to me.

Re:My plan on how to get sued

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are an idiot.

Re:My plan on how to get sued

[fishbowl]

What's really important here, is that all that LEGAL and freely downloadable stuff is, presumably (hopefully!) ALSO *copyright*.

So it's protected by the same copyright laws as all the RIAA material. Which means an attack on the distribution network (P2P) itself actually is an assault on the rights of these independent artists.

The entertainment industry has largely succeeded into making people believe that they somehow obligated because they have enjoyed some entertainment product. So the industry manages to put people into the mindset that for any creative work that is copyrighted, they should feel guilty for listening to it. They've succeeded pretty well -- people are already saying things like "because a work is copyrighted, then it's automatically a *crime* to distribute it."

Sometimes that's true, sometimes it is NOT true.

The entertainment industry bastards would like to make it so you have two choices: Have your copyrights and distribute your work through us, or distribute your work but surrender your copyrights.

I see the attack on P2P as part of a larger game with much higher stakes. They don't want the small fish to stop trading pop music: They want to make it impossible for independent artists to keep control of their creative work. Or rather, you can keep control of it, as long as that means nobody will ever hear it.

Re:Why can't you get it through your head?

[Anonymous Coward]

are there people that don't break the speed limit?

No,not that I can think of.

It's really not the lawyers, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's businessmen, sleazy unreputable businessmen doing whatever they want in the pursuit of profit, this has the side effect of creating a market for sleazy lawyers with no professional ethics, but again, this results from businessmen. Get rid of them, by taxing them into submission, and the problem goes away completely, they should have to pay dearly for being allowed to extract a living from the work of others, as they add nothing to the process. Businessmen are vermin, literally, and should be regarded, and treated, as such. Society's problems today result from allowing them live, much less to gain power.

Ever see the dilbert cartoon (animated) where he gets a job at an ancient and respected company that has no marketing department, just engineers creating things? Dilbert asks why they have no marketing department, and before realizing what he's doing, explains what that is. The company collapses within days.

Re:It's really not the lawyers, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Businessmen are vermin, literally, and should be regarded, and treated, as such.

College students are scofflaws, literally, and should be regarded, and treated, as such.

That's a mighty wide brush you have there.

the other 1/4...

[rokzy]

English, not english

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[Joe the Lesser]

You have a good point, but there really isn't anything negative about the term 'music-lover' like there is with 'anti-american.' Moreover 'lover' itself is such a broad term, the author's logic likely assumed that someone who takes the effort to download music will like have an affinity for it.

Of course, this is neither here nor there.

Hey look, free music! ...

Literally?

[Anonymous Coward]

Businessmen are vermin, literally

Why do people think that adding "literally" to a metaphor makes it a better metaphor? It just makes you looke stupid. Literally means "not in a metaphorical sense." That's not at all the same thing as "and I feel that very strongly."

Re:Literally?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people think that adding "literally" to a metaphor makes it a better metaphor?

Because literally means it isn't a metaphor?

Old UN-releases

[westies-from-hell]

Here's the argument I never hear anyone mention, including the RIAA.

I have a lot of old vinyl records, probably close to six hundred. A lot of those are records from the sixties and seventies, and are very unlikely to be released ever again. Believe me, I think I'm he only person in the world who still owns records of "Burns & Schreiber" (extra points to those who know who they are); they are not likely to re-release those recordings.

So, eventually, I'll get down to ripping them from my turntable (not used in about eight years) to MP3s, and then I'l have the choice to put them on a CD, an iPod, whatever. I paid the artists, these are my archives.

So, let's say I come across one of these songs that are not available to the public anymore because they're not released. I download this song because it's much easier than doing the ripping myself. Have I committed a crime? I paid the artist, I have an original pressing. But my expert friends tell me that I have now violated the DMCA because I did not make the copy myself. But who could tell? An MP3 is a copy of a song, and (all technology aside) it would be indistinguishable from any other copy of itself; that's the crux of the whole problem, isn't it? So if my copy and the downloaded copy are the same, then haven't I really just acquired my "archive" copy? I paid the artist before, who cares how I "generated" my archive?

When all old recordings are available online from the fat-bastard recording companies, I will then pay them their due. But until that time, I will find copies of the music I already own, whether it's downloaded, ripped, or sent to me from a time warp.

Not a simple matter at all

[HermanAB]

Last time I read it, the audio copyrights are described in physical terms in the act. In other words, you may not duplicate a vinyl LP onto another vinyl record - you may not copy a CD onto another CD.

The case of reading a CD and not making anything physical from it, is not covered, since this is a halfway situation. You have read the data, but you have not written it back to a CD. This is similar to looking at a painting - you may look at a painting or a sculpture, but you may not make a copy thereof.

You may read a CD, since that is necessary in order to play the CD - all you are doing by reading a CD onto a hard disk is delaying the playing thereof. You are not violating the copyright, since you are not making a CD from it.

These issues will only be dealt with if a case goes to court and only if the defendant has a smart lawyer.

The RIAA knows that they are treading on thin ice, so they will try their utmost to keep these cases out of court, while extorting as much money as they can.

Re:Not a simple matter at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, your logic doesn't hold up when meeting the fact that Audio CD-Rs include a tariff to accomodate the fact that they'll often be used for (FAIR USE) CD copying. For personal use, this is legal. Storage/Retrieval system in use is irrelevant.

Re:Not a simple matter at all

[TooManyNames]

I guess hard drives aren't physical then, right?

Everything currently involved in copying music (through a P2P network or just by ripping a CD) still involves a physical medium. Therefore, the copyrights still affect you in the exact same manner as before (though nothing has really changed).

RIAA

[Detritus]

If the RIAA is going to hold the average citizen to such a high standard, I propose that a new law be passed that subjects everyone in the music industry to a mandatory annual IRS tax compliance audit. A tax compliance audit is the audit that requires you to provide documentary proof for every item on your tax return.

Re:RIAA

[Evil Adrian]

Oh, where do I begin?

If the RIAA is going to hold the average citizen to such a high standard

Much laughter. First of all, RIAA isn't going after everyone. They're going after people that are pirating large volumes of music. And they have evidence.

I propose that a new law be passed that subjects everyone in the music industry to a mandatory annual IRS tax compliance audit.

Unlike the RIAA -- which has evidence against people -- you have no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the music industry is cheating on their taxes.

And instead of finding out specifically which music industry employees are cheating on their taxes (which, by the way, is what RIAA did, they found out which people were pirating insane amounts of music) you are arguing in favor of auditing all of them.

So I have to ask you -- what is this "high standard" that you're talking about?

Re:RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like the US government's war on drugs, the RIAA is fighting a battle they cannot and will not ever win. Society has tasted the sweet nectar of free music, and it will never give it up. People like you are simply in denial; the rest of us will see you and the RIAA in Hell.

Re:RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll

Re:RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Adrian, you are truly evil!

I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Nintendork]

...But many people here believe that they did no wrong...

Since when is stealing (Copyright infringement) not wrong?

-Lucas

From the same text log, you moron

[Anonymous Coward]

[17:05:20] But the main problem with Alterslash is that he's not granted permission to use it.
[17:05:27] And while I can grant him permission to use our stories, if I want.
[17:05:31] Not the comments.
[17:05:35] I cannot grant him permission to repost the comments.
[17:05:39] We don't have the right to give people permission to repost comments.
[17:05:43] And as soon as one user complains, BOOM we're legally liable.
[17:05:48] WELCOME TO THE US JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
[17:06:03] Believe me.
[17:06:08] I spend hours per week dealing with this.
[17:06:45] It sucks that we have to deal with stuff like this.
[17:06:55] If this guy was a big list of links, I'd say rock on.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

listening to a song on the radio is not copyright infringement, and neither is recording that song.

downloading an mp3 is the exact same thing.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[jedidiah]

When your actions have no real impact and are logically and morally identical to actions that are already consdered perfectly legal.

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[placeclicker]

but this is Slashdot

No, this is a story posted by michael

Time to brand music

[Jenova]

Looks like with the onset of compulsory licence obedience, its time to define all these "music" under:

"RIAA music"

Hopefully it will create a negative impression enough to put people off from buying them anyway.

Re:BANKS THREATEN MONEY LOVERS!

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't want the money, i just want to listen to it, asshole.

Regardless of legality...

[earlbecke]

What disturbs me about the RIAA is that they seem to think that they are the enforcers of copyright law. The RIAA is not, contrary to popular conception, a law enforcement agency. If they really wanted to punish "criminals," they would let it be handled by legal authorities. As it is, I see these kind of lawsuits as sheer vigilante justice. This has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of downloading music. It has to do with corporations enforcing the law, which, at least, as far as I know, is not the way that criminals are supposed to be dealt with.

Re:Regardless of legality...

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, copyright is both a criminal and civil issue.

For example, suppose I hit you on the head with a bat. The police might, or might not, arrest me, and the state might prosecute me for hitting you. If they won, they could put me in prison.

However, that has no bearing on whether you could independently sue me for battery. You couldn't get me thrown in jail, but you could get money damages to compensate you for your injuries, and perhaps even additional damages to deter me from hitting other people.

The former is criminal, the latter is civil.

RIAA and its members are bringing civil suits against people to compensate them for the damages that particular instances of copyright infringement have caused them. They're not getting people thrown in jail -- the Department of Justice decides whether or not to prosecute copyright infringers criminally.

Re:Regardless of legality...

[azadrozny]

You are absolutly correct, and this is something a lot of people miss. The member companies of the RIAA feel that they have been wronged and are taking individuals to court. Any one of us would do this if we took the time to develop something and then had a large corporation take it away from us.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's time to change the laws

Changing the Law

[Alethes]

The only way to change the law is to stop giving the RIAA more power by proving they're relevant. You prove they're relevant by downloading RIAA artists that you know about as a result of RIAA marketing. You want the RIAA to go away? Download music from independent artists who want you to share their music and demonstrate that the RIAA is no longer needed.

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its wrong if you are a "music-lover" and pirate.

However, i'm indifferent to casual listeners who only pirate a few songs.

RIAA Lawsuit triggered boycot coalition

[Entropop]

www.stopRIAAlawsuits.com proposes mass boycot triggered by each set of laswsuits. It utilizes a system similar to those blue ribons from the communication decencey act days of yore. If you want your webpage to participate then check it out.

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[Dave2 Wickham]

Yup, I could automatically tell this was a Michael story the second I saw the headline...

I'm just waiting for "Your Rights Online: FSF Threatens More Linux-Lovers" with regards to Linksys et al... of course, that'll never happen :-/ /me heads to his profile to banish Michael stories

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[plugger]

35 years old myself, wtf am I doing posting on a Saturday night? :)

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[oolon]

Well the great thing about laws is they can be changed. If enough people believe they should be able to download music in the fashion.... Already more people in the US use P2P than voted for bush, if the level were say to rise to 80%, it would not matter how bought the politicans were, they would have to side with the people because the people can voite, not companies.

James

nice subject

[Anonymous Coward]

it should actually read "riaa threatens more people stealing music online"

WOO HOO!!! I Have 3,201 CD's of MP3's

[Anonymous Coward]

say an average of 10 albums per cd, that gives me 32,010 albums that i've downloaded and archived.

and you know what? i've only listened to about 10 to 20 of them! woo hoo!

sampling through this morass of inanity all i have to say is music sucks, i'm so disappointed.

can all corporate music artists do me (and the rest of the world) a favor and shoot themselves? please?

thanx

I'd be interested in finding out...

[KillerBob]

I'd be interested in finding out the results of the countersuit filed by Sharman Networks against the RIAA before I pass off on this batch. As I see it... Sharman's case is upheld, all of RIAA's suits are illegal. Sharman's case is rejected, precedent is set that can be used against the RIAA in their suits. Anybody with a background in law care to comment?

Re:Old UN-releases

[Anonymous Coward]

Know what I mean?
Yea
Huh?
Yea
Huh?
Yea
Huh?
YEA!

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't waste finger energy replying to that idiot.

to him, the whole world is black and right, right and wrong.

as long he's on the right side, he'll confidently proclaim "I'm confused, stealing isn't wrong?"

I'm sorry he put key words in caps...like he's Dr. Phil or something.

Little Yellow Bellied Pussy Who Thinks He's One Of The Good Guys.

fuck off(the parents parent that is)

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Nintendork]

Converting your CD collection to mp3 isn't illegal either, but that's not what the RIAA is suing for. They're suing because it's illegal to distribute those mp3s. It's the same story with recording from TV or radio. It's legal for personal use, but not for distribution.

-Lucas

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[ssstraub]

FYI, the Texas anti-sodomy law has just been repealed this June.

Free. Legal Music

[magores]

SomeoneElse(tm) has probably mentioned this, but I'll mention it just in case SomeoneElse(tm) hasn't gotten around to it yet....

There is alot of free AND LEGAL music on the internet.

Examples...

1) www.epitonic.com - Lots of Electronica, Techno, Garage, Folk, and Punk... Supplied by the bands themselves and/or the labels.

2) Nugs.net - Only of interest to people that like the Dead, Phish, WSP, and bands like that. Live shows. If you like music like this, and recordings of live shows, its good.

3) eTree

4) Fan Sites - Pick a band. Find their site. Hang out for a day. You'll find out about stuff.

---

Granted, the majority of the stuff I listen to is the "damn dirty hippie crap", and those "damn dirty hippies" are particularly good about sharing the music. I guess being a hippie isn't that bad after all?

---

No matter what the genre of music is, the point still stands....

The music is out there, and if you really like it that much, you will find it. If you don't care enough to actually look around for it, is it really big of a loss if you can't leech it?

(BTW> I think the RIAA is crazy, so don't bother calling me names that won't apply.)

Re:Free. Legal Music

[fishbowl]

>There is alot of free AND LEGAL music on the
>internet.

One problem is, all that free and legal music on the internet is protected by the same copyright law as all the titles that the RIAA wants to go after people for.

So I just laugh whenever I see someone explaining why it's illegal to copy or transport "copyrighted" works simply by virtue of the fact that they are "copyrighted."

Clearly there are copyrighted works which are legal to distribute, and clearly there are copyrighted works which are not.

Solution? I don't have one. I don't really think we need one. I'm afraid any solution is just going to put MORE power into the hands of the large players in the entertainment industry, and will end up making it even HARDER for independent artists, maybe even going as far as to make it legally impossible for someone to keep a copyright while allowing free distribution at the same time.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Nintendork]

Too funny. Someone posting as AC calling me yellow.

-Lucas

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's illegal to distribute those mp3s

Then the whole thing comes down to the definition of 'distribute'. If I leave my CD collection on my front porch, am I "distributing" it? WHat if I have a sign that says "don't take these".

What if I FOR MY OWN USE ONLY decide to make my MP3s available over the internet. If other people connect to my machine and download the files, am I guilty of "distribution"?

Ah, right.

[Uhlek]

Lets get this straight.

When it's *their* [RIAA] copyrights, it's a bunch of evil corporations persecuting innocent music lovers.

But when it's *our* copyright [GPL] at stake, then we're all for legal action against the infringers.

Give me a break you bunch of hypocrites.

Re:Ah, right.

[abomb77z]

I'm no hypocrite. I work in a university, and everything I do I publish freely and without copyright. I am of the opinion that any information released to the public is public property. If I every come up with a profitable idea, I may try to make money with it. But I won't stop others from using it.

Re:Ah, right.

[fishbowl]

I assume you realize that unless you explicitly surrender your work to the public domain, in writing, that you DO have copyright?

Do you understand that you can currently "publish freely" without necessarily foregoing the protections given by copyright?

Unfortunately this grey area is part of the problem in the whole P2P question.

How to stop distribution of works where the author does NOT want such distribution, while still protecting the rights of the people who DO want free, uninhibited distribution, but without surrendering copyright?

Re:WOO HOO!!! I Have 3,201 CD's of MP3's

[magores]

Why waste the bandwidth downloading songs you will never listen to, when you could be downloading porn instead?

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is making a couple thousand mp3s of questionable origin available to a few million of your closest friends considered logically and morally identical to anything that is already legal?

Re:Music Lovers (karma killer)

[r_j_howell]

The issue is not necessarily one of piracy, nor lawsuits, but one of a blatent monopoly acting in their own interests and screwing their audence
.
.
. To me a music lover is someone that buys a nice set of speakers, and listens to music. In contrast to this is those such as yourself who like to support the RIAA by giving the Spice Girls and N-Sync there day in the spotlight and dollar per disk, and could care less that the other $19 is used for suing 12 year olds and other worthless causes that do nothing to further music This makes me think about something I've been wondering about since I first heard the filesharing argument on slashdot (that has only been four years, and It's not really a topic that interests me, so I'm sure I've missed a lot BUT...) When I first heard this argument, seeing as this was then and still is an Open Source Friendly sort of crowd, I expected an Open Source type solution to this problem. The obvious answer to this (to me) would be to simply stop listening to bands that were contracted with RIAA afiliated record labels (presumably all of them). And ONLY listen to groups that release their music freely. (GNU-type Music, as it were). And I expected /. to become a great place to go if you were looking for tips on good indie bands. But I NEVER hear talk like that around here.

Now, I'm NOT a music lover by any serious stretch. I'l listen to the radio in the car, if there is no one to talk to. I have, in my life bought exactly two concert tickets and two albums. Neither of which could I locate right now. So I don't claim to understand either the record industry OR what makes good music.

But, from the outside, it seems that the RIAA isn't really a monopoly. There are thousands of bands out there who do not have record deals, and who jump at any chance to be heard they can. I know that a lot of these bands have music available for download. I alo know (even me) that at least 90% of these bands really suck.

The way I see it, then there are a few possible reasons why people who hate the RIAA still listen to music they at least claim to own.
1. All the good bands are signed to record labels.
2. There are good bands out there but it so much work to find them that it isn't worth doing.
3. Despite what people on /. say, there really IS not way for a band to make money outside the record companies, and so bands either go there or die. 4. I'm completely incorect about the nature of the RIAA, and they also own all of the music produced by people who have never signed a contract with any record label.
Yes, I know that I left out "Intelectual property is inherently wrong. but that's not the way the people who make the laws around here (here being the U.S. in my case) see it. And the arguments that are floating around on /. don't seem to be the kind that will make them change their mind. Even if Valid, it seems better to fight the RIAA by boycott than by just downloading their songs.

If number 4 is the case, then the RIAA and it's members really are a big bunch of bad guys and we need to get rid of them. the best way would be for indie bands to get together and sue them for stealing their music.

But, if 1. or 2. are correct, then the record labels are actualy earning their money. not by being musical geniuses, but by doing the work that no one else seems to be doing. Which is to sort out the good bands from the crap. And look, if your mp3 directory is filled up with label bands, wherether you like it or not. that is what you are saying.

If number three is the case, then the record lables are performing the service of being the only financialy effective patrons of the arts out there.

I'm sure that good answers to these points have already been brought up. Like I said, I haven't been following closely. But it would seem to me that, even if they are stupid for doing it, the artists making this music have signed on with the

lame

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is

Re:lame

[Anonymous Coward]

die

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, i wish i could do the same, but michael's dirty cock-stroking hand touches so many slashdot stories, that blocking him would be cutting off the slashdot nose to spite the face.

I just try to laugh at his stupidity instead. It comforts me know there are people dumber than even me running around.

Ok...

[Aldric]

Since when do you have to prove yourself innocent in court? The burden of proving it lies on the accusing party. Anyway, naive ideas about an America where the government is bought and paid for by big business aside, the only way the RIAA are going to be challenged is when they slip up and sue the children of someone powerful.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Taco-MenTaL]

where have you read that distribution of recorded tv shows is illegal? Please link me. This is not sarcastic at all I am thouroughly interested on any articles about how the industry dealt legally with the advent of VHS recordings.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you are a good, law-abiding citizen. I guess I am not. I share music and even smoke a little pot. I usually drive about 10 mph over the speed limit and I don't always cross at the crosswalk. The point is, some laws are a bigger problem than what they were designed to protect you from. The RIAA is out of control, the law is flat out wrong and I choose to disobey. Got It?

Lets make it a mass boycott.

[Yoshitoshi_ABe]

The boycott is going mainstream. Here is a URL Http://www.downhillbattle.org http://downhillbattle.org/

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you missed this post?

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82727&ci d= 7250720

That was NOT the original title, although it might be somewhat clearer in some respects than the other one.

Isn't this cute? But is it enforcable??

[Nom du Keyboard]

The letter also warns the recipient that deleting infringed songs would be considered destruction of evidence "now that you are aware that a lawsuit may be filed against you.''

Isn't that cute. Not even certain that the lawsuit will be filed. Just may be filed against you.

Is it even enforcable. It sounds like the cops knocking at the door announcing, "We about burst into your house with an arrest warrant for illegral drugs. And if you flush them down the toilet we'll get you for destruction of evidence.

I thought the RIAA amnesty program wanted you to delete all your "illegal" files and destroy the CD-Rs you burned them on. Can't these people make up their mind?

Threatened people include:

[Molina the Bofh]

An 11 year-old girl who is dying of leukemia

A priest, who rules an organization that, by teaching homeless children to dance, tries to keep them away from drugs. Unfortunatelly using music from the Internet

A 9-month old baby from the orphanage

A disabled 80 year-old male, partly deafed and blinded in a explosion at war, who uses a computer with speech recognition to browse the web

The Pope. Hey, nobody is above the law, right ?

RIAA Is P2P worth it?

[Tiger041]

With all the stuff going on with the legal issues,not only that but the quality is p2p really worth getting involved in?

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the only reasion he know aboot it

Re:The United States of America is also a Democrac

[richardmilhousnixon]

The US is NOT a democracy . . . it's a representative republic. A democracy is a terrible and dangerous thing. In a true democracy, whatever 50% or more of the population wanted would be the law. In the US, there are (in theory) limits on what you can and can't do to someone else (even through legislation). The Constitution specifically prohibits the subjugation of the minority. The truth is, the law is not the bottom line, there are rights that supercede the law, some of them are outlined in the Bill of Rights, others have been established on a case-by-case basis, but to say that the US is a democracy is to say that 50% of the population can do anything they want and if 50% of the population could do whatever they wanted, Carrot Top would be already be a rotting corpse strung up by his short-hairs on public display.

Most RIAA music

[ShadowRage]

should be deemed illegal and should be sued..
music shouldnt sound that bad.

We are all getting shafted anyway?

[Mike Hawk]

Lawsuits are, in circumstances like these and my opinion, the unfair way out. Using a measure that is not available to both sides. More or less exploiting the legal service because you cannot (or don't want to) compete in any other way.

Ok, but let keep apples apples here. Along this same line of thinking, lets get rid of police. That way you dont have to worry about people using the legal system to protect themselves who cant compete in any other way. I mean, murder is only murder cause the government has said it is. So if you cant compete, defending your home, person, and family, any other way, why should the courts help you?

Oh, wait, thats exactly who the courts are there to defend.

Trivial

[Mike Hawk]

Your choice of the word trivial is interesting to me. See, for many decades, music sharing went on offline and noone got sued. In that time the amount of copyright infringement going on could be, and was, considered trivial. Hell, it was probably good free advertising. One would have to be an idiot to call the amount of illegal filesharing going on at any given time today trivial. Does it mean the best thing to do is sue? Probably not. Did your comment expose a lack of perspective? Oh yes.

Re:Trivial

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, ur a stupid head.

Re:Trivial

[fucksl4shd0t]

Your choice of the word trivial is interesting to me. See, for many decades, music sharing went on offline and noone got sued. In that time the amount of copyright infringement going on could be, and was, considered trivial. Hell, it was probably good free advertising. One would have to be an idiot to call the amount of illegal filesharing going on at any given time today trivial. Does it mean the best thing to do is sue? Probably not. Did your comment expose a lack of perspective? Oh yes.

So, what proof is there that there is more copyright infringement going on today than ever before? I ask because I've noticed that I don't exchange CDs with my friends anymore. If I hear something they've got that I like, I ask them what it is, and then I go P2Ping for it. That way, my friend isn't troubled with loaning/copying the CD for me, and I still get to hear more from the artist. In the old days, this would've led to me ultimately purchasing an album or three. In the new days, of course, I don't give any of my hard-earned money to the legal mob of gangsters that is the RIAA.

I realize it's very easy to look at the numbers and think "Oh boy, this guy's sharing 15,000 songs! What a pirate!". But how does that mean the total amount of copyright infringement is any greater than it was 10 years ago? (Accounting for population increases, of course, and normalizing accordingly) So what if people are always lined up in his queue to download? WHY are they downloading it? WHERE did they hear it? And WILL THEY BUY IT? As before, music sharing among friends was the #1 method people heard about new bands and heard new music. How has that paradigm changed, exactly?

Re:Trivial

[Mike Hawk]

Wow, that worked perfectly. I predicted anyone who would call the amount of filesharing today trivial an idiot and sure enough one showed up! Thanks slashbot, prophesy fulfilled!

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[JamesOfTheDesert]

Since when is stealing (Copyright infringement) not wrong?

Copyright infringement != stealing

Copyright infringement != piracy

It's hard enough to discuss this without the bogus euphemisms and false comparisons.

Music lovers?

[beaverfever]

RIAA Threatens More Music-Lovers

Music lovers or culture addicts? Please, let's keep things in perspective, that mass-marketed entertainment is mostly about cultural inclusion and has little to do with art - good art just makes it easier to sell the culture, but the culture will be wrapped and shipped no matter what.

Besides, a true music lover, especially one who actually performs, would understand how expensive it is to be an artist and how important being paid for your work really is.

Having said all that, the RIAA has the almost the worst tactics I could imagine.

Re:Music lovers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a misconception that being paid for your work is "really important."

Sure everybody would like to make money for everything they do, but plenty of music gets made for the price of beer or simply because there isn't anything else to do.

I wish we didn't have the equivalent of a State in charge of music distribution. Everybody in the US seems to hear the same music. That's really unnatural. I wish more people would just make music themselves, and focus on the arts as a means of expression and not just as a means of income.

I'm a musician, and I never expect to make a dime at it. Yet I have no problem with the knowledge that my piano cost me $15,000. I don't think it's possible to recoup that cost, and I certainly don't think it's necessary.

Many of the arguments that get raised surrounding copyright and sharing, lead to a conclusion that it should be made possible to control distribution of ANY copyrighted work. That leaves independent artists out in the cold.

The best music is made by people who don't give a fuck about the politics or the business of it. So they have to work day jobs.
Nothing new under the sun.

Re:Music lovers?

[beaverfever]

It's a misconception that being paid for your work is "really important."

It's not an issue of being paid for everything you ever do. It's one thing to have a day job and be a musician as a hobby. Indeed, I think it is a shame that there isn't more focus on local musicians or just music in the home with friends and family. That is why i don't believe it's correct to automatically label file sharers as 'music lovers'. The demand for big industry entertainment is huge, and the scope of the fight over copyright protection is proof itself of how desperate is the craving for cultural stimulus and entertainment, however meaningless that entertainment may really be. it's quite sad, really.

As for the point about paying musicians, when it comes to professional musicians or writers, or such artists with professional aspirations, the costs and amount of time which must be commited to even modest projects are huge, and expecting to get 'music for free' is just idiotic.

If someone wants music for free and they claim to be a music lover, then they should be getting together with their friends and playing guitars, spoons or pots and pans and enjoying it, and if they want mass-produced entertainment (and even 'alternative' or independant acts are part of the mass-production environment) then those people should fork over their money for the product and shut the fuck up.

Many of the arguments that get raised surrounding copyright and sharing, lead to a conclusion that it should be made possible to control distribution of ANY copyrighted work. That leaves independent artists out in the cold.

How would this leave independant artists in the cold? If anything stronger and fairer payment for use of copyrighted materials would benefit independent artists the most, and they are the ones who need every penny they can get. Anyone who wants to release their copyright or sell it is free to do so, regardless of the scope of their sales figures. Besides, when it comes to sharing of music files through p2p or whatever means, copyright of intelectual property is only part of the issue. There is also the problem of recouping recording costs (whoever may pay those, usually the artist), advertising and marketing costs (which is what makes the artist famous in the first place - music is secondary), and logistical costs involved in running a label, which would be similar to costs involved in any business; paying phone bills, paying salaries, paying for the office rent. Again, independents would benefit the most from a fair payment system because proportionately their investments and risks on return are greater than with major established entertainment companies, and the proof is in the huge number of famous bankrupt indie record labels or artists who tried to go it alone.

I wish we didn't have the equivalent of a State in charge of music distribution. Everybody in the US seems to hear the same music. That's really unnatural. I wish more people would just make music themselves, and focus on the arts as a means of expression and not just as a means of income.

Unfortunately most people are lazy and/or unaware of the potential they have to take control of their own lives. Marketing has a firm grasp on almost everything all of us do, from the food we 'choose' eat to the colour shoes we 'like' to wear, and the firm denial of this control by most people is nothing more than amusing. Instead of people playing harmonicas and singing themselves we have people who will let governments and (especially) corporations tread all over them, yet become outraged because suddenly the free entertainment (which they didn't have two or three years ago) might be taken away from them. There is a twisted sense of 'want' and 'need' in our western culture, as well as a pathetic attitude towards what is worth fighting for, and unfortunately that is just the way it is. Culture is being driven more and more by one thing - entertainment - and people are spoiled rotten for it.

Typical Slashdot bias

[Overly Critical Guy]

Michael will post an article about the RIAA going after copyright-infringers--EXACTLY what Slashdotters were saying the RIAA should do when they were targetting p2p not long ago--and call them "Music-Lovers."

Could he spin it any further? Can michael justify the copyright infringement going on and his implication that the RIAA should shrug it off?

It's amusing since I remember Jamie mentioning that the infamous Slashdot daily summary website that used to be up (may still be) was an infringement.

You can even go later in this thread and see people trying to justify it all. "But that's why we're angry, we copyright-infringers ARE music lovers! That means the RIAA should ignore illegal copyright infringement!"

I don't get someone who thinks so irrationally, but at the least Slashdot could stop stooping so low as to spin it as "RIAA Threatens More Music-Lovers." It's a loaded headline reminscent of propaganda techniques Nazis and other groups use (note: I'm not comparing Slashdot to Nazis, merely pointing out that this strategy is typical of a weak position that needs to stoop to spinning facts to make a point).

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Reziac]

Likewise, artists whose music is freely redistributable should ID3tag it both with their own website URL (to make it easy to find them in the event that listeners feel an urge to buy a CD or whatever), AND with a statement in so many words: "Distribution permitted" or something like that. Make it clear which side of the legal line your files are on, so your fans can't be attacked by the RIAA.

Yeah, anyone can add any ID3 tag to any MP3, but all it takes is a file comparison to the original download site, and you can readily see which ones are legit -- and therefore none of the RIAA's business (unless they want to get sued for unfair restriction of trade... hmm, now there's a thought...)

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[kardar]

Transparency - never understood what that means until we were discussing it at work r.e. credit card processing.

OK... Imagine that the internet is a library, but you don't need a library card. What's wrong with that?

Ever hung out with record industry execs? Any idea what these folks are like as people? What do they imagine the internet as?

So actually, the internet as someone who thinks it is a library is not completely correct, it's a little more complicated than that. But on the other hand, the way the music industry folks see the internet is not completely correct either.

What does harm? An individual person that downloads (the personal computer) a file, or the internet as a whole? Neither? Litigiousness? Well, we can't get rid of the internet, because the internet is not the problem. We can't get rid of personal computers, but can we get rid of litigiousness? It's hard enough to spell the darn word.

Litigiousness is the problem. Plain and simple.

I was listening to this album that I like today. Cat Stevens - Foreigner. When I was really young I bought that album at a used record store for 50 cents. It was one of the first albums I ever bought. So of course, I had to buy the CD when I saw it at the record store about two years ago. It's not always available.

Anyway, the CD is almost completely white, with a silver edge around the outside, and the words "Cat Stevens" in missing white so the CD silver shines through, and the name of the album in smaller black letters. A simple, cool look. At the bottom there is this trumpet in a rectangle with the letters A&M beneath it. And just today I thought -- that's kind of silly - such a simple look, but you can't keep the darn label off the artwork. Imagine a Picasso or Jackson Pollack with an art gallery logo stamped on it. It's crazy.On the automobile side, there are engines like the 351 Cleveland - named after the factory it was made at.

It's a "dark" thing - the label the artist is on is AS important as the name of the album, perhaps even more so. The label is the next important thing besides the name of the act. That's why we have this problem. We don't have the "factory logo" stamped on the designer clothes. Just where the clothes were made or where the fabric was imported from. What mill was that cotton made at? Who knows? Who cares?

Popular music is about the labels, to some extent. And our culture is litigious. What we need to do is free music, and we free our culture. When I, as an artist, write a song, I have to worry if maybe I subconciously heard that song somewhere and instead of writing that song, I have to try to make sure that everything I compose is original according to some algorithm. It's extremely crippling - I've tried it. You just have to forget about it. Folk songs, for instance, other cultural treasures, are "open source". Public domain. Row row row the boat. Swing Low. But these things they are suing the people for, it's a different story altogether. That's the problem. It's a closed industry, and the industry is excessively litigious. The ultimate solution to the remaining problems is freedom of speech and a willingness to cooperate.

It's unfortunate that these things are going on. Too many people have died, too many people have suffered, sacrificed, and some very evil people have gotten rich.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[TooManyNames]

I'm also confused as to whether you're being serious or just sarcastic. If you are serious, then you must be incredibly ignorant of current events or you just don't believe that the RIAA actually exists.

No matter how evil they are, companies generally don't enjoy spending money on lots of lawyers to go sue people unless they are losing out due to the impact of something.

I'm not going to refute your claim of corrupt practices in the business world because these things happen every day, news breaking or not. However, if you're trying to establish this as a reason to support your own wrongdoing, then I wouldn't be talking of logic. My point is basically this: if big business jumped of a cliff, would you jump too?

Without spending much time on the piracy of intellectual property (yes I consider music to be IP), as it is one very abstract and loosely defined concept, I'll try to present my own opinion of why it's immoral. The fact is this; you can argue that piracy of anything intellectual isn't wrong at all. In fact, you can make a rather convincing argument that copying isn't even close to stealing. You can also make the argument that murder isn't at all wrong and the idea was only perpetuated by those in power seeking more control. Basically, I believe that some moral issues just have to be established in order to be compatible with the society in which we live.

Note that I'm not claiming to be a saint... I've downloaded my (more than) fair share of stuff, but I don't think that you can make a valid argument supporting piracy while fitting it within the constraints of modern society.

Just my $.02

Re:They'll sue, they just want to avoid embarassme

[DrDNA]

even with my eyepatch on, I can see that the RIAA members are fighting for their economic survival.

What they are fighting for is not their economic survival, but to maintain the economic state they have grown accustomed to. They could survive perfectly well for the foreseeable future if CDs were reasonably priced, but that would mean far fewer fat cats at the top and fewer cushy perks.

What they currently have is a monopoly. If I want They Might Be Giants music and don't like the price, there is no competition I can legally get it from at any price.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[moncyb]

What are they going to do to me if I use freenet

They will probably decide to sue everyone on Freenet, and we can thank you for it. Why don't you post some child pr0n and plan terr0r attacks using Freenet as well. Then you can make sure the fascist regimes will hunt every Freenet user down. The RIAA doesn't care if they sue or screw over innocent people, so broadcasting their crap on Freenet will just end up screwing everyone on the entire network.

Freenet works if the users are just criticizing politicians/companies or doing things which are considered mildly unacceptable, but when many users go into things which are blatantly illegal or does things which pisses off an entire government or factional group, then the network is screwed. They'll just track down every Freenet user and mow them down--at least within countries they operate.

The "entertainment" cartel is smoking some serious SCO crack. They are so bad, for a minute, I thought this story was real. At this point, it wouldn't be suprizing if the story was true.

How do you people think...

[Danomatic2k]

With only half a brain? The reason no one is buying CDs is not because of piracy. The reason no one buys CDs anymore is because NOBODY HAS MONEY TO SPEND ON CDS!!!! We have lost so much of our tech industry to over-seas out sourcing, that the people who were making money before and buying CDs no longer have jobs and refuse to spend anything on music. Perhaps we should get the economy back on track and then worry about piracy.

Re:They'll sue, they just want to avoid embarassme

[shark72]

"However, even with my eyepatch on, I can see that the RIAA members are fighting for their economic survival."

Well said. So many people around here seemed shocked that record companies aren't willing to simply crawl into a hole and die. It's the whole "die on your feet or live on your knees" philosophy. Anybody here who runs their own business would fight pretty damn hard for their economic survival, as well.

"On top of that it will fragment the market and seriously weaken their distribution monopoly, etc. etc."

What distribution monopoly? Anybody with the means and the talent can record, produce, and distribute a song. That's why there are hundreds, if not thousands, of record companies in the United States alone. Some have chosen the RIAA, many have not.

What one cannot do is take somebody else's work and distribute it without their permission. That is against the law.

If you write a piece of software and you choose distribute it on your web site on a permission basis (rather than, say, releasing it as shareware), you have a distribution monopoly on the software. If you contract a software publisher to handle distribution and advertising for you, then you and the software publisher have a distribution monopoly on your software. If somebody puts your software on a warez site without your permission, they're not valiant heroes breaking your evil "distribution monopoly." They are software pirates.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[TooManyNames]

"We don't have the "factory logo" stamped on the designer clothes."

I don't think that a record label is referring to a factory in which a CD was made, but rather the fact that it is distributing that particular album. I understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't try to use an analogy involving clothes. I buy Nike, Reebok, whatever clothes all the time. All of these clothes are labeled; in fact most of them involve the company as the main label.

Just a minor problem I had with your otherwise interesting post.

Re:Music Lovers (karma killer)

[fucksl4shd0t]

When I first heard this argument, seeing as this was then and still is an Open Source Friendly sort of crowd, I expected an Open Source type solution to this problem. The obvious answer to this (to me) would be to simply stop listening to bands that were contracted with RIAA afiliated record labels (presumably all of them). And ONLY listen to groups that release their music freely. (GNU-type Music, as it were). And I expected /. to become a great place to go if you were looking for tips on good indie bands. But I NEVER hear talk like that around here.

There are difficulties in this.

• As a monopoly, the RIAA has successfully suppressed a great deal of music. One thing they conveniently leave out of their sales figures is the fact that indie labels have been breaking sales records, more or less across the board. (Sorry, I don't have a link right now to show this)
• Social conditioning at this time is that in order to become successful you must:
  1. Learn to play an instrument (optional)
  2. Perform publicly
  3. Record a demo tape
  4. Send demo tape to record company, knowing it'll get thrown in trash
  5. Wait to be "discovered"
• Musicians tend to be conservative where technology is concerned. This makes them late adopters of new technology. Many musicians still prefer analog recording technologies, and its digital recording that has made it possible to record cheaply
• Due to the fact that musicians are still addicted to analog recording, many still don't realize that digital distribution is possible through services like Mixonic, and others.

All that said, consider that I am a musician who is attempting to work within a new paradigm for music promotion, but I'm not professionally-oriented. I'd be happy to offer help to any musician who is professionally-oriented.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[ajax0187]

Just because everybody does it doesn't make it right. When Mao Tse Tung instituted his "Great Cultural Revolution," he did it with the full approval of millions of enthusiastic subjects. Those millions of enthusiastic subjects then went on to kill about 20 million of their countrymen. Now, should we consider murder a good and noble means to political reform, simply because everybody was doing it (or at least not attempting to stop it?). Of course not. Murder is still murder, whether it's one person doing it or a million. And in some cases, if it's 60 million people breaking the law, then I have no sympathy for whatever happens to them.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[shark72]

"Why has no-one been charged with a crime at all?"

They have. The RIAA and the Secret Service have teamed up on raids. Additionally, the government's "Operation Buccanneer" program went after music pirates, and got one.

"Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?"

Not hardly. You're spreading incorrect information. Here's what the law says.

"Do not allow the RIAA to spread the idea that all P2P downloads are illegal."

Who told you that the RIAA is trying to spread the idea that all P2P downloads are illegal? Do you have a citation?

Please -- there are enough credible arguments for straightening out copyright laws; no need to resort to spreading FUD or just making shit up.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[iamwahoo2]

It's really pretty obtuse to use murder as a metaphor for copying songs.

I used to agree with you on most of this, but there are to very important reasons why I support copyright infringement for music specifically:

1. Copyrights have been extended again and again. You would think that if this was happening that it would be because artists were selling less, when in fact exactly the opposite has happened. So if anything copyrights should have been shortened. This is clearly a case in which the industy has bribed the lawmakers to further their interests. Since the copyright extensions were not made in the interests of the people, it is invalid and should be ingnored. Feel free to share anything that has been copyrighted for ten or more years. (In fact the mere fact that copyright is temporary illustrates an important fact. That copyrighted material is not OWNED and therefore cannot be stolen, the temporary right to distribution is all that is given to the copyright holder)

2. Clearly the penalty for copyright infringement is far to severe. In fact, considering that no damage is done and nobody or property is even put in danger (as with a traffic ticket) the fines should logically be trivial. So small that it would not even be worth wasting money on to pay lawyers and judges. When the RIAA took action against the university students I began my boycott of purchasing their products (or anyone affiliated with them). Those students were not even sharing files, they created search engines for the networks of their respective universitys and the RIAA used them as an example, basically pressuring the poor students into turning over their life savings. I may not know a lot about law, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and good and evil. If somebody wants to damage the RIAA, whether legally or illegally, I for one support it. The people behind these lawsuits are the scum of the earth and don't deserve to live. If we truly lived in a just world, people like this would be hunted down and killed just like the US has done (or at least is trying to do) with Bin Laden and Hussein

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[rossifer]

Right and wrong have only a passing relationship with legal and illegal. In the case of copyright law, they passed each other about forty years ago, waved once, and have never even visited since then.

You are correct that all of us are subject to the laws of our jurisdiction, but those laws are (ideally) subject to reactions of moral outrage from the populace on whose authority those laws are hopefully based. Right now, copyright laws are *way* out of whack from reality, but reality has a way of occasionally imposing itself. Even in a country with laws as fucked up as those in the US of A.

Regards,
Ross

Why on earth is this modded up?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Nobody owns "Happy Birthday." It's public domain.

Even so, you can sing copyrighted tunes. You can even play them as a cover band. As many cover bands do.

What the heck was your point, and who were the crackheads who modded you up?

Re:Why on earth is this modded up?

[sabaco]

Nobody owns "Happy Birthday." It's public domain.

Why would you assume that? Just 'cause you've heard it sung your whole life?

Did you think that song "just happened"? (SportsNight Reference)

It IS copyright protected - it is NOT in the public domain and now never will be (since Disney has ensured that copyrights will now never expire so they don't lose control over Mickey Mouse). "Happy Birthday" is owned by the estate of Mildred and Patty Hill.

This is also discussed this on the DVD commentary of Futurama - they make up a birthday song to sing at Nibbler's birthday so they don't have to pay to use "Happy Birthday"

If you sing "Happy Birthday", royalties are due (for commercial uses of the song) This is rarely enforced, but that doesn't make it not true.

see http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm
fo r more info

Re:Why on earth is this modded up?

[hankaholic]

"Happy Birthday" certainly is owned, which is why most restaurants (especially chains with large corporations behind them) don't sing it to their patrons, instead concocting some stupid other song.

Furthermore, ASCAP long ago decided to force the Girl Scouts of America to pay for the right to sing copyrighted songs around campfires, "Happy Birthday" included. A huge fuss was raised, and rather than stand their ground and continue to ask for the normal, full-priced licensing fees, they decided to lick their wounds and settle for a small token fee (something like $1 per year).

The Girl Scouts of America now pays the protection money to keep ASCAP's lawyers off of their backs, and ASCAP gets to say that even teenage girls with braces and an acoustic guitar have to pay to keep the thugs away.

The long and short of it, though, is that "Happy Birthday" is not public domain. A quick Google search would have told you that.

For an example of the effects of this, go to the Olive Garden (or some other chain restaurant) with someone and tell the wait[er|ress] that it's your friend's birthday.

Re:Why on earth is this modded up?

[number11]

you can sing copyrighted tunes. You can even play them as a cover band

Only in private. In public you need a license. If your band is lucky, the venue has paid for a license that covers you. Try putting those copyrighted tunes onto your CD without a license, and see what happens.

What the heck was your point, and who were the crackheads who modded you up?

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of intellectual "property".

Re:We are all getting shafted anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

The courts defend us? Since when? God, I must have been asleep the last time the government actually helped anyone. And god this would be a better world without police, all they are is skulking thieves hiding in the shadows trying to steal your money.
The RIAA is the biggest thief since the US government, and they have been stealing from people for years, now they are pissed because people are stealing back? If you can't take it, don't dish it out. They are only getting a fraction of what they deserve. And don't start with that bull crap about "well the laws say they can do this and that" who gives a shit? At one time it was lawful to own slaves. So back then if you freed a slave, who is evil? you or the slave holder? THINK ON THAT before you spout stupid crap about unjust trashy laws.

Well, it's okay when it's not Slashdot...

[Overly Critical Guy]

[16:57:45] <hemos_> Alterslash is illegal.
[16:57:52] <hemos_> And is violating copyright.
[16:57:56] <CmdrTaco> Oh, this is a real site?
[16:58:02] <hemos_> And unfortunately, under the way US copyright law works
[16:58:11] <hemos_> they will probably get a cease and desist soon.
[16:58:21] <hemos_> Becuase if we don't - then we give up the right to defend ourselves.
[16:58:26] <hemos_> So, I don't want to be hostile
[16:58:33] <CmdrTaco> oh geezus, yeah.
[16:58:35] <hemos_> but because of the law, we have to.
http://www.slashnet.org/forums/Slashdot-20020 306.txt

Speaking of bias

[Overly Critical Guy]

[16:57:45] <hemos_> Alterslash is illegal.
[16:57:52] <hemos_> And is violating copyright.
[16:57:56] <CmdrTaco> Oh, this is a real site?
[16:58:02] <hemos_> And unfortunately, under the way US copyright law works
[16:58:11] <hemos_> they will probably get a cease and desist soon.
[16:58:21] <hemos_> Becuase if we don't - then we give up the right todefend ourselves.
[16:58:26] <hemos_> So, I don't want to be hostile
[16:58:33] <CmdrTaco> oh geezus, yeah.
[16:58:35] <hemos_> but because of the law, we have to.
http://www.slashnet.org/forums/Slashdot-20020 306.txt

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Overly Critical Guy]

If you steal it, you don't deserve music the artist is selling, period.

What part of this extremely simple concept of "pay money, get product" do Slashbots not understand? Or is every media pirate a brave freedom fighter against the evils of the RIAA conglomerate?

Meanwhile, artists get screwed. But that doesn't matter, because the RIAA threatens "music-lovers" and mp3-trading is just a "culture movement!"

As were a lot of other wrong, silly things in our history, by the way.

Re:Music Lovers (karma killer)

[iamwahoo2]

In addition to indy bands we should also be allowed to listen to anything with with a copyright over 28 years (and 14 years if the artist is deceased). That was the original length for copyright which was changed despite the fact that it clearly was not in the public good and was unconstitutional. Anybody interested in listening to those oldies that qualify should feel free to download them because they should be part of the public domain, and if it went to court and was fought, it would be a pretty much open and shut case. The constitution is pretty straight forward when it comes to making a decision on copyright extension.

A good read on the subject:
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives /000565.ph p

Um...moron?

[Overly Critical Guy]

You just showed that Slashdot stated that Alterslash can't distribute someone else's copyrighted works, just like michael's "Music-Lovers."

Next.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[TooManyNames]

I realize that the murderer was somewhat of a horrific metaphor, but I was merely trying to illustrate my thoughts on the absurdity (my opinion of course) of considering piracy to be moral (or at least not immoral). However, I'd like to thank you for pointing it out in a manner other than a simple you suc, as this seems to be commonplace.

While it is true that copyrights are temporary, that's not really the issue at hand. The problem is that a vast amount of copyrighted material was and is pirated within the time restrictions. Thus, those who own the copyrights can react however they see fit. However, I'd like to say that I agree that the steps taken to punish those involved with piracy are far too severe. Regardless of the punishment, I simply believe that sharing music against the explicit wishes of those responsible for making it available, though perhaps not stealing, is immoral.

Anyway, thank you again for your courteous and informative rebuttal.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is completely justified in pursuing litigation

You think so?
do you also think that their $100k fine for each copyrighted song been shared is also justified?

A guy steals a car, he's in real bad luck if he gets more than a year of probation, maybe a couple weeks in prison, but anyway..

A normal college student shares a couple of sound waves with the world, it's not like he stole the CDs from a store or anything, and he could be spending the rest of is WHOLE life paying a debt to an organization who sells a product of often poor quality? plus his reputation gets completly damaged, etc etc

I mean, a lot of people here have also been saying this but I'll just emphasise : Why don't the RIAA spend their court fees in something else like hiring people to come up with a good plan for the future, like making their crappy CD's worth the 20 bucks? And if they really wanna solve the problem, they'll have to come to accept that today, the internet exists, and people now can communicate and share their knowledge and belongings like never before in our history. Either people stop sharing their stuff or THE organization will have to embrace the technology or otherwise go flip burgers at Mcdonald's. And be assured, people won't stop, they didn't kill no one, they didn't take the bread from the mouths of the artists, they didn't harm their neighbour.

Most importantly, we all pay $30 or more each month for internet service, I wouldn't mind paying an extra buck to shut their mouths, but if they could just go down it would be even better.

Alright, listen up folks...

[NanoGator]

I skimmed the posts here and it would seem that some feel that MP3 trading is defended so people don't have to spend money. If that's true, if it's as simple as the price tag, then answer a few questions for me:

- Why would anybody buy an iPod? Who'd spend $300-400 if they're too cheap to spend $15 on music they want?

- If 'billions' of songs are being traded every month, why is the RIAA only seeing a small hit in their income during these hard economic times?

- Why is iTunes even in business, let alone thriving?

- Why are music stores even in business today? Everybody can get on the net.

- Where are the highly anticipated albums that didn't sell?

The answer is deceptively simple: It's not simply about the price tag. People want the service. You cannot oversimplify Mp3s down to free. There are so many more things you get out of them. Portability, organization, backups, you only get the music you want, yadda yadda yadda. So please, spare us the "You all just want to steal music" rhetoric, it just plain is not as simple as that.

Re:Alright, listen up folks...

[CashCarSTAR]

Actually, if you want to know of the real impact of MP3s and P2P, where it has really hurt.

Radio listenership is down by a vast amount. People are choosing to make their own playlists when able.

In essence, that is what we are talking about. Creative "meme" control.

Re:Alright, listen up folks...

[petermdodge]

This is the entire way a lot of artists even get exposure... by giving their mustic for free. And some of them are quite good: Justin Durban AKA Edgen (here), Scott Buckley (here), and Heather Dale (here), to name a few. Of course they still sell CDs, but it's not a matter of buying their CDs to listen to the music, it's a matter of buying the CDs to support the artist. And that's something I have no problem doing.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Half my family was stoned to death under the Sharia law... ARRRGGGG!!

You inconsiderate clod!

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[kardar]

Yup. I see what you are saying. Bad analogy. I was actually thinking afterwards that the clothing label is sort of like the record label - that would be much closer, actually. It's up to the clothing label / designer to make sure that they aren't using sweatshops / exploiting people - that sort of goes to the heart of the matter, too, with the percentage cuts that the artists get, which is too low.

I suppose if an artist starts their own record label, then they would have some more control over that.

But yes, we've got some big problems on our hands here.

Re:Music Lovers (karma killer)

[God! Awful 2]

Good comment.

-a

Avoid em all

[Psychotic_Wrath]

Just download music videos :).

Just buy downloaded records?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it help, if people who are being sued, just bought records, which they were sharing?

$7 is still too much...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I visit a store, pay $40 for two CD's which have 7 songs that I'm looking for, OR buy the 7 songs for $7 on iTunes?

How about charging me $0.25-$0.50 per song on /whatever service/? Maybe $0.75 for a song that's new, less than 6 months old...

That's my price point.

$1/song is what they are charging NOW. 16 songs, $16 bucks... I give a shit whether any of them are good or not - $1/song is what it is now... I'm doing the work to get the song. I'm burning it on MY CD, storing it on my hard drive, paying for the bandwidth, and electricity - why the hell should I pay a premium price as if they were stamping the CD, packing it, and shipping it to me?

Re:$7 is still too much...

[Jugalator]

Regardless how good the deal is, someone is always going to whine.

Never buying music again...

[Anonymous Coward]

All this bullshit with the RIAA and the jacked up pricing of CD's has produced several effects:

1) I'm NEVER buying music again. I'm done. Got everything I want already. Getting more neat stuff off the Net - stuff that's free, and sounds much better than that lesbo crack whore - ummm, Brittney?

2) My parents are never buying music again. Same deal as me. What they don't have and want, they borrow from the library...

3) Brother - same thing...

4) Friends - same thing...

In fact, none of us have bought a new CD for at least 6 years... The economy has provided me with even less discretionary funds to play with, and those go to DVD's...

Bye bye RIAA... You signed your own death warrant by filing lawsuits against your customers... morons

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[kramer2718]

You are displaying your ignorance of the law.

A recent court decision upheld Kazaa's right to ditribute their product even though it is being used for illegal purposes (GO ILLEGAL PURPOSES!).

The key is that the intended use is legitimate. The same holds true for freenet (not that it matters, freenet is open source and has already been ditributed; any law can't make it disappear).

The RIAA can't track down the users of freenet or various other anonymous P2P networks. Too bad! You're shit out of luck!

I would just like to say in closing, fuck you RIAA!

Fools

[Kent Recal]

When will they learn that their time is over and
the music industry has become obsolete by evolution?

All these lawsuits against them evil "copyright violators" (which usually are just kids!) and
the whole surrounding "intellectual property" bullshit makes me angry whenever I read about it.

What we have is a bunch of old men (and their fellow "youngster" managers) that became rich over the last 30 years via often critized and IMHO generally dubious practise. Just the way monopolies go. Now they begin to realize that their time has come and, worse yet, that nobody really gives a fuck about a small circle of media-millionaires failing to keep up with time and therefor going down.

So what do they do?
Take three steps back, sit down, think really hard and try to come up
with something new, something that makes SENSE?

No, they publicly admit their complete lack
of clue and send their stinkin' lawyers...

The only positive aspect about these lawsuits is
that they keep showing how clueless the RIAA-guys really are thus giving everyone faith that they
will hopefully run out of $$$-fuel within some years.

And once they are out of money really no one will
be listening to their crap anymore. (pun intended)

Re:I Hate The RIAA's Action As Much As Anyone Here

[JSmooth]

Wow. Such anger.

Funny thing was until I read your post I didn't even give the headline more than a 2second glance.

Why don't youtake your political correctness, non-biased opinion and go sit in the corner for a time out.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[thynk]

2. Clearly the penalty for copyright infringement is far to severe.

Since Itunes has set the value of a digitial copy of a song at $0.99 I think it would be fair and reasonable to fine anyone caught $0.99/song for any music they copied outside of their fair use rights, and only if it's a perfect copy.

Re:Music Lovers (karma killer)

[Are We Afraid]

Eldred, the case discussed in the your link, was anything but an open and shut case. Would that it had been; the public domain would be sitting much prettier now. Instead, Eldred was decided on 15 January, 2003. The Supreme Court found against the petitioners, using some crazy logic. Unfortunately, the Constitution is very unclear on the issue, and Congressional precedent is given more weight at this point than whatever the original intent might have been.

Amusing thoughts

[werdna]

The issue is not necessarily one of piracy, nor lawsuits, but one of a blatent monopoly acting in their own interests and screwing their audence

In what way is suing someone for infringement "screwing their audience?" If they are using music they purchased, there is no risk whatsoever. If they are not using they purchased, how are they RIAA's audience?

Oh, you mean the audience of persons who like the music but won't or can't pay for it? Tell you what, I agree with you. Tell you another thing, who cares? You want to defend freeloaders and free-riders, fine. But here's the deal, this is their right -- it is also very much the right thing to do.

For years, we have been excoriating RIAA for seeking dumb-as-dirt laws to try to circumvent technology with specialized regulation that would hurt every person for every purpose. Those of us who opposed the legislation fiercely on the ground that it is anticompetitive and will compromise innovation prevailed, but one of the things we noted to do so was this: we observed that the bill isn't necessary because there are ALREADY laws to protect RIAA against music freeloaders, the Copyright Act.

So here is your choice, let them sue the wrongdoing infringeers and let them be, or suck up the fact that your computers in the future are going to have mandatory DRM of a kind that will make you unable to use your own music. One of these is inevitable -- and fighting the RIAA suits against real infringers (other than on grounds of noninfringement or true fair use) is not only irrational, its tactically quite dumb.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[qtp]

They have. The RIAA and the Secret Service have teamed up on raids.

Inapropriate example. The raid in question was recording from images of pre-release CD's and from actual CD's (mostly pre-release also) which clearly does not indicate filesharers, but does indicate the participation of music industry insiders. The same can be said for most of the high quality counterfit DVDs on the mrket (hence the "screener ban").

The RIAA is targeting those who are sharing MP3s, with these lawsuits, not the people making and selling counterfit CDs. They should be cleaning up thier own house, not chasing after children with poor taste in music.

"Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?"

Not hardly. You're spreading incorrect information. Here's what the law says.

First of all, it's a question, not a claim.

Second of all, I'm addressing the parent posts claim that downloading is illegal, as I do recognise the illegality of unauthorized redistribution.

Third, most of the cases do not stand the test of the law as is written in your link

506. Criminal offenses5

(a) Criminal Infringement. -- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either --

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

(1) How is someone making MP3s available online recieving "personal financial gain" from that act.

(2) Is the person who is downloading making the copy? Or is it the person who is making it available the copier? According to the law, if you only make 1009 copies in 180 days, then you haven't broken the law. If you are alleging that the downloader is guilty of making copies, then anyone who downloads fewer than 1010 songs during any 180 day period (assuming the retail value of an electronic copy of a song is $0.99, in keeping with most industry aproved online music services) that person has still not broken the law you presented as your argument.

and (from the same link):

For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

I think that speaks for itself.

perhaps you should be more careful about accusing people "making shit up". Also, you shopuld read the material carefully before you provide the link, it might not actually say what you want it to.

Nice...

[qtp]

Good post. Good idea.

I wish I had some mod points.

Re:Nice...

[Reziac]

Thanks. Does make you wonder why when this is so obvious to half the people here, it doesn't occur to more musicians too!

Then again, in my observation the average musician is just as technologically challenged as any average user, so it's up to us to educate them in the methods and benefits of internet distribution. :)

Anti-RIAA: P2P spoofing as a force for good?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it like this. You know when you get the occasional search results even in Kazaa Lite K++ that for some reason are always remotely queued, and the host disappears, or might not even be publicly routable or a transient BGP? You know that strange traffic between supernodes?

That's us. We are direct action anti-RIAA activists, using vulnerabilities in the Fasttrack protocol to poison the Kazaa network's results just enough to throw doubt into the mix. We may or may not be doing the same for Gnutella, though we hear Shareaza's G2 is good.

While not really affecting the users of the network, try asking Overpeer, Mediaforce and so on why they've been getting all these bogus results. In fact, try asking where the hell Mac Granny came from, how, and why.

The doubt isn't usually enough to impinge on a civil case, sadly, they don't actually need proof for that just a preponderance of evidence, it could probably never be unless we flooded the network into oblivion... (the Mac Granny was, we feel, us getting lucky or the RIAA slipping up) but ask yourself why the RIAA aren't using the NET Act for criminal prosecutions? Because they can't PROVE anything. They don't even download the files to check; if they did, they'd find they were garbage, but apparently shared by a legitimate user who's turned off sharing. And remember: "For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement." - 17 U.S.C. sub.sec. 506(a)(2)

The P2P networks' greatest weaknesses and vulnerabilities, in the absence of anonymity, can be their strength. They seek to drive the pirates underground, back into their little blacknet cells... but today's blacknets are tomorrow's release groups in training.

And once a good anonymous p2p system eventually comes along (obviously not Freenet, and even more obviously not ES5), one that hits critical mass like Napster and Kazaa did, with the peak speed of BitTorrent but virtually firewall-proof, highly attack-resistant and virtually untraceable... what will be our enemies' recourse then, now that their tactics have trained new cells of hardcore pirates releasing even more quality material impossibly early for the masses to leech anonymously?

What are they going to do? Sue themselves for, by litigation, finally evolving a p2p network they can't fight? No, they're going to threaten the users, whether they know they're sharing or not. That's where we come in again... and where I sign out.

extortion anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

forgive me if i'm wrong but isn't this extortion?

they use the dcma to circumvent the courts, force the isps to provide names with ip numbers, then with that information go after that person and tell them that they can either face tens of thousands of dollars in fees and $11K punitive damage award per alleged infringment, or you can just give a couple of thousand dollars and we'll go away.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[giveuptheghost]

Civil disobedience doesn't involve speaking about it and/or organizing publicly?

Apparently folks like Gandhi and the EFF had/have it all wrong?

RIAA should be concerned about countermeasures

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA isn't going to win the war this way, because their strategy only works so long as it is possible to equate the presence of shared files on a machine to choices made by its owner.

Eventually, a cracker will feel strongly enough about this issue, and he or she will write a virus which, upon infecting the host computer, automatically begins sharing (and mirroring, from other randomly-chosen machines) music files. The existence of such a virus would mean computer owners could no longer be assumed to know about sharing from their own machines, and large numbers of innocent (possibly negligent, but otherwise innocent) people would end up in the dragnet.

At best, this is a stopgap measure.

Deleting the songs - catch22

[Bonewalker]

The letter also warns the recipient that deleting infringed songs would be considered destruction of evidence "now that you are aware that a lawsuit may be filed against you.''

Too funny. They don't want you to listen to the songs, but you also cannot delete them, because they are evidence in a lawsuit that doesn't exist. These people are playing every angle and don't seem to realize there is no winning angle for them, except to listen to the masses.

So, until they physically remove your PC or songlist, you are required to continue sharing those same songs. Have fun now sharing with impugnity now that you 'may be the recipient of a lawsuit.'

EXTORTION

[AnalogDiehard]

The RIAA wants to frighten us into coughing up dough as a "settlement" when it forgets:

1) precisely zero percent of the settlement money will go to the artist who created the music,

2) that said settlement money falls under the IRS definition of "earned income",

3) since none of the money goes to the artist who is contractually entitled to percentages on earned income, that constitutes violation of contract against the record label,

4) precisely zero of the copyrights in question are owned by the RIAA,

5) as a third party representing the labels who are the actual copyright owners, the RIAA cannot claim copyright infringement, cannot sue for damages, and thus cannot collect monetary settlements,

6) the DMCA's purpose of bypassing judicial intervention, namely delegating power to sign subpoenas from a judge to a lowly court clerk, was a move to reduce massive legal expenses in the RIAA's favor,

7) by sending the letters of intent to sue, the RIAA saves itself more money by deferring the cost of filing suit papers in an attempt to frighten the offender into submission. That means they get better returns on your settlement!

Wake up people. This is extortion. Despite the scare tactics, the RIAA has no teeth. They do not own the copyrights, the labels do. Let the labels do their own dirty work. The RIAA is just a front company to shield the labels from damage to their public image.

And to the RIAA: don't waste your time coming after me, for I am a working musician and I do not participate in P2P. Do us all a favor, and hurry up and die.

Re:EXTORTION

[Anonymous Coward]

So just because the record labels are big evil companies that means we can steal from them?!? Any way you slice it, the people distributing songs using P2P are doing it with out the permission of the artist or any other individuals who own the rights to the music. It is not extortion to sue, when the individuals being sued knowingly did this and are continuing to do this despite all of the law suits.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Alsee]

How is someone making MP3s available online recieving "personal financial gain" from that act.

The NET act (No Electronic Theft) redefinded "finacial gain" to include the receipt, or expected receipt of other copyrighted works.

Due to this law virtually everyone who has ever used P2P is technically guilty of a felony. If this law were to be fully enforced and tens of millions of people were thrown in prision, the public would rise up and overthrow the government overnight.

-

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I'd hate getting sued for having my personal MP3's (of me singing I might add) just because they are named similarly to some joke ass popstar.

First 10 only.

[nurb432]

I don't acknowledge anything above 10. This includes the 13th..

As far as I'm concerned they are all ( 11+ ) a desecration of the document, and an insult to our founders. Those people that were involved in their creations should have been hung for treason

Home made meth...

[nurb432]

Sure, if you wanna blow your head out of your skull, you should be permitted. Personally i feel that using drugs such as this is stupid, but hey.. its your right...

I agree, its not prohibited by the construction.

Theater Revenues are different.

[nurb432]

Part of the cost differential is that before you even see a DVD the movie has grossed several million in revenue..

This helps pay the initial outlay of funds to create the movie, and helps keep the DVD/VHS at a reasonable level.

The music industry doesn't have this, since the band gets the $$ from the concerts minus expenses.. ( currently )

Don't get me wrong 11 bucks is still too much for a CD, but you cant compare Movies to Songs.. Its not an equal comparison..

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Nintendork]

When it comes to the topic of making copies of a copyrighted work, it all depends on what the court decides is "Fair Use".

Here's some information, straight from the EFF.
Under "Fair Use", it says, "A use will be less likely to be fair where it replaces or supersedes the demand for the original work, or a foreseeable derivative product (a product based on the original)."

Free copies floating around on the net obviously hurts demand for the original CD. Anyone who argues otherwise is only kidding himself. Hell, I'll admit that I have copied a CD whereas I would have purchased it if copying weren't possible.

Here's an article that covers what's allowed in regards to the radio.

-Lucas

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[qtp]

Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.

The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.

If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.

It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?

Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Nintendork]

Upon further research, I stumbled upon this. Apparently, it's illegal to record copies (TV included), even for personal use unless the copyright holder gives explicit permission. Most companies give permission for customers to record for personal use.

-Lucas

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[Alsee]

Any lawyers out there?

IANAL, but I think I can clear up a bit.

For the criminal code to apply the first criteria is that you must commit civil infringement in any manner, and know that you have done so. Secondly you either (1) need to profit or (2) download one thing or (3) upload $1000 worth. So yeah, your buying/selling drugs example is about right.

Now an interesting point. I will freely admit that some people disagree with me here, but I do not think that only downloading is actually infringment. The person uploading the file is the one violating the distribution right, and I believe he is also the one violating the reproduction right. He is the only one in possession of the original, thus he is the only one capable of duplicating it. The uploader makes a duplicate and passes it to the downloader.

If the downloader were in fact infringing then anyone who ever surfs the web is guilty. For example when someone posts a full story here on slashdot without permission, then the instant you view that page you would have downloaded it and committed infringment.

-

Re:Old UN-releases

[fishbowl]

I used to be an avid record collector, right up until a big fire destroyed everything.

Among lots of other things, I had a nice comedy collection. I had the Watergate record, but I'm pretty sure that was all from Burns & Schreiber.

Weren't they on at least one of the Johnny Carson records too?

Now, if you can come up with Pendulum Records' "Reverend Mule and Dr. Arrowhead", I'll be simply amazed :-)

Hummer dealers, watch your M1025s!

[EyesOfNostradamus]

I've heard, next weekend there will be a major heist!

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[moncyb]

You are displaying your ignorance of how the court system is abused. Any idiot can file a lawsuit against anyone for any reason. The RIAA will just file lawsuits random people because their Freenet node happened to transmit a mp3 file. Even though their case may have no merit, they will offer to settle out of court for less than their victim's lawyer fees with an "easy" payment plan, and many people will take the offer because they can't afford the lawyers in the first place.

The ones who don't settle, the RIAA sue and drag out the court case as long as possible--perhaps winning on some minor technicality or because their victim ran out of money for lawyers. All the while saying in the press "we'll sue every 'pirate' Freenet user because their nodes transmit music files." Have you not been paying any attention for the past few years? They want to harrass every P2P network out of operation. They don't even care if a P2P user isn't breaking the law, they'll label the bloke a criminal anyway.

The RIAA can't track down the users of freenet or various other anonymous P2P networks. Too bad! You're shit out of luck!

Ummmm....do you know anything about how the internet and Freenet works? There is this thing called an IP address. Others need to have it so they can send you packets. In fact, last time I checked, Freenet uses TCP which guarantees the IP address can't be spoofed for an active connnection, and you have to have an active connection to send data. So at bare minimum they can find out who is running nodes.

It shouldn't be too hard to find out if a node is routing unlicensed mp3s. All they have to do is figure out which keys apply to the cartel's music, and start requesting those keys. The RIAA will then attempt to sue anyone who routes the crap, and the average user won't be able to keep their node from routing such content.

Firewall blocks against RIAA and known collaborators may work some, but it's not as if they're going to reveal what IP addresses they're using to investigate. They can just run a connection through a residential cable modem or DSL line.

I doubt a case against a Freenet user assisting copyright infringement in this manner would be thrown out immediately. The RIAA may even win. The Aimster case was similar, and they lost.

There are also potential holes in the anonymity of Freenet users. From their FAQ:

Freenet does not offer true anonymity in the way that the Mixmaster and cypherpunk remailers do. Most of the non-trivial attacks (advanced traffic analysis, compromising any given majority of the nodes, etc.) that these were designed to counter would probably be successful in identifying someone making requests on Freenet.

On Freenet, whatever you do, your identity is still revealed to the first Freenet Node you talk to, and even if you limit yourself to talk only to trusted nodes (a feature that will be implemented in the future), they will have to talk to the rest of the network at some time or another. The anonymity that Freenet offers is really just obscurity in the fact that it is hard to prove that your node wasn't proxying the request for or insert of data on behalf of somebody else (who might also just have been proxying it).

The problem is that the only way that you can offer true anonymity is if the client can directly control the routing of data, and thus encrypt it with a series of keys of the nodes it will pass through (a la Mixmaster). Freenet's dynamic routing cannot offer that, so to attain true anonymity you have to send the message through an external network of anonymous remailers first (a future SMTP->Freenet bridge would make this possible). There are also plans for doing mixmaster-style injection of requests over the "standard" protocol, however this probably won't be implemented

Clarification

[Raul654]

I think the idea is that a person is more than the sum of his/her parts. If you took a human being, or a colony of bacteria of equal mass, which is the higher life form? They both are made of equal numbers of cells, but the human being is sentient, while bateria are not. Murder, as we usually thing of it, refers to destroying sentient life. A fetus is not sentient.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fill a bushel basket with what was stolen if it was stealing. Copyright infringement and stealing are not the same. I can make a copy of something you have without depriving you of it. If I deprive you of something, that is stealing.

Re:Music Lovers (karma killer)

[uncoveror]

Soon, only historians will even know what the public domain was. They don't need to violate the constitution to create perpetual copyright. They can pass another extention every 20 years, and the U.S. Supreme Court won't do anything about it. If I can't express an idea that has been expressed before without getting permission and possibly paying a fee, then I don't have freedom of speech. So much for the First Amendment. Copyright,the new censorship, has trumped it.

Re:I'm Confused. Stealing isn't Wrong?

[macdaddy357]

Amen! File trading is the new radio. Old radio and MTV dropped the ball. Napster picked it up. To hell with the RIAA. Don't Buy CDs.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[shark72]

I apologize; I interpreted your "Is it because...?" question not as an honest request for somebody to tell you if it was correct or not, but as a way of conveying information as part of the question. I've seen that tactic before; it's called "begging the question" in rhetorical circles (although that term is widely misused). I thought you were begging the question. Here's more info on that tactic. Again, if you did not intend to beg the question, I apologize.

To give you a more direct answer to your question, then, the RIAA, like most entities, wants to act as efficiently as possible. It's a lot easier to take civil action in the form of a hailstorm of subpoenas than to try to arrange criminal prosecution of the same number of people.

I was going to point out the NET act to answer your other question but it looks like somebody beat me too it. For what it's worth, although the NET act is currently being applied to music pirates, one of its original intents was to close the loophole used by software pirates who were providing free warez FTP sites.

Also for what it's worth, sadly, I have read the material carefully. However I acknowledge how that "private financial gain" can easily trip up people who aren't familiar with the NET act and its implications.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[shark72]

You're correct on all three points and you've given a very astute description on why possession of copyrighted material without the owner's permission is not automatically against the law.

Re:Music Lovers (karma killer)

[shark72]

How is the RIAA a monopoly? They're a trade organization representing record companies. There are hundreds if not thousands of record companies in the USA alone. Anybody can start a record company (or an online music distribution company, if they'd rather not deal with hard goods), and whether they choose to join the RIAA is up to them.

If you're an unsigned performer or band, you can try to get signed by a big, huge, successful record company which might want to pay you less per CD and might drop you at any moment. Or, you can sign up with a small indie label, perhaps get paid more per CD, and enjoy greater security but fewer sales. This "big vs. small" choice is how many things work. Work for Microsoft, or join a small code shop? Big university with the prestigious name, or small school where you'll really get to grow? The choice is yours. This is a tough decision to make, but it's not due to a monopoly.

If you want to cry "monopoly," a better target might be Clear Channel, which (as you know, I'm sure) owns far too many radio stations for its own good and thus is a major force in what people get to hear. But, Clear Channel != the RIAA.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[yoder]

Spin doctor are we? Quite a jump from making a statement against laws purchased by corporate dollars and ethnic cleansing.

Re:Music Lovers (karma killer)

[fucksl4shd0t]

How is the RIAA a monopoly?

Pardon me, monopoly was the wrong word. I apologize. I'm still not entirely sure what the right word is, so a little verbiage and maybe I'll get my point across. :)

Members of the RIAA--labels--dominate the recording industry completely. Sure, you can sign with small labels, but there are many risks. After recording Volume 8, the label Anthrax was with went under. The label before that (Epic, I believe) failed to support them, preferring the Seattle scene to an established money-making metal band. Anthrax is now with Sanctuary, and doing better, but for quite awhile it looked like it might be the end of Anthrax. The risk? The small label. The large label screwed them, looking for the golden needle in the haystack. The small label screwed them because they couldn't stay in business, for whatever reason. They had some friends in a few bands (Megadeth, Judas Priest, Kiss) who helped 'em out with touring, to raise money. They recorded their most recent album without even having a label! They basically took a complete album to Sanctuary and said "Don't fuck us and you can distribute this". Point is, Anthrax is a well-established band with millions of fans the world over, and because of problems with record labels they almost sunk into bankruptcy. I don't actually know how close they came.

Why is this important to the discussion? When Anthrax was on a major label (Island), they had all kinds of label support. The problem was that they were also stuck on the treadmill. They wanted off the treadmill and went to Epic, who did them much better than Island--for one album. For the second under Epic, they were screwed, as I mentioned. They didn't own the music, and they didn't collect royalties until all the stupid debts were paid to the label.

People sign to major labels because they want to be rich and famous--not because they want to make a decent living as musicians. That's what the major labels do for them (actually, an ever-shrinking percentage of their total musicians), and the major labels spend a lot of time and money trying to convince people that the only way they'll ever make money is to go with a major label, and that being rich and famous is what playing music is all about. Then they have this trade organization out picking fights with all the indy labels trying to drive them down, shut down the distribution chain for indy labels, and so forth. This same organization does periodically target larger indy labels and the bands that record under them. They also lobby congress, I understand, for laws that benefit the recording industry but screw musicians and consumers. Why do you think their standard 6-record rape contract is still legal? All the time they're doing this, they cry about how so few of their signed bands ever make it, how they invest so much money into every band signed, and how 5% of the bands signed support the other 95%. They don't support most of their bands (can't, judging from the amount of unique material I hear on the radio, there's not enough time in the day!), and then drop them when they don't make any money. This is contrary to their position that a major label provides distribution, marketing, and promotion for the band.

It's probably not possible to become rich and famous without a major label. Indy labels don't have the pure cash to do what a major label can do for you. But the major labels are very conservative with their investments. That's why we wind up with Britney Spears who's not all that different from Paula Abdul, and it's been this way for decades. If you're a woman, you have to be a Madonna-look-alike-and-sound-alike to be a star. Thanks, Madonna. There's payola, which probably gets pulled with Mtv also. There's a matter of getting onto a tour with a band that's already hit it big--not possible if you're not on a big label. (There are probably exceptions to this) Payola's the big thing, because it's the key to getting played on the radio. No amou

And, in a related story. . .

[LifesABeach]

Carmen Electra Unveils 'Striptease' DVD

i'd love to get a download copy of the court procedings on this p2p inditement.

You, Sir, are an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please go off quietly to your Gulag and die, and 'civily disobey' that.

Ghandi is probably doing 45RPM in his grave right now.

Moxzart Mauhling Time Trouble?

[ratfynk]

"Mozart to make his derivative works on the music of Mahler"

"Under the present scheme, it would have been completely illegal say, for Mozart to make his derivative works on the music of Mahler"

WOW I am in a time travel causality, Mozart was 18th century, Mahler lived into the 20th. The best example of derivative work is Brahms Variations on a Theme, certainly something that would be hard to write today!

"People are encouraged to CONSUME entertainment works, not produce their own"

Anonymous Coward should CONSUME less pot while using /. and listening to pirated mp3! Mozart Mahler and other composers thought nothing of using melodic ref to other composers, it was a game. Just Mozart was so prolific he did not need to quote others, except in jest. Gustav Mahler on the other hand was a genius that managed to avoid a dive into a-tonal systems. He was one of the last great composers to be able to use traditional harmony of the romantic era.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads?

[TyrranzzX]

First off, when I say civil disobedience, I'm talking about everything from bombing politicans cars to sending them letters. The only difference between them is how extreme you want to go, I prefer the appropriation system; if they're being annoying, I send them letters. If they're being mean, I don't go along with the system. If they're ready to hold a gun to my head, I wig out and bomb their car or rape their pets.

I actually buy stuff when it isn't from the corperations I don't like and when I feel it's quality. Unfortunatly, people by large seem to lose repect for the 1% of a market when the monopoly that owns 99% of a market becomes abusive , as they lose respect for all laws when 1% of them are abusive.

Another thing you people assume is everyone has money for the luxury that is music. Not everyone has that luxury, some people like college students are real tight and P2P apps are a great way for them to get good music without needing to pay. The people who do spend the little money they have being ripped off by major music labels are the ones who loose respect and with it, don't buy music anymore. The people who are rich and can afford the exuberant pricing are the ones who don't complain and moreso, take offense when other people say it's too expensive. Everyone has a different motive; mine just happens to be because I'm poor, and because I don't like the RIAA/MPAA. If it weren't for P2P technologies, a lot of media; books, movies, manuels, pictures, music, etc would be lost forever and that's also something I want to support.

Re:someone go to court! sugarbitch cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

what kind of a fucking fag are you? id fucking let you hit me. then i would wait. i would wait while you think you struck me down and taught me a lesson, i would let my rage and hate toward you and your family simmer. then i would fucking chloroform your ass and torture you to fucking DEATH AND BURN DOWN YOUR FUCKING HOUSE. you fuck with me cunt. you fuck with me. go ahead and try. ILL FUCKING GO NUTS, BASTARD.

Sound quality?

[sn0wflake]

I was reading an article on CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/10/27/file.swa pping.ap/index.html]

The following sentence made me wonder if RIAA really can sue people with MP3's: "...the upside is that because the copy isn't exact, the licensing hurdles are lower."

MP3's are NOT exact copies, so how can RIAA justify suing people?