Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Music Industry Sues ISP Over Filesharing
An anonymous reader writes "In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the world, the Australian music industry has listed an Internet service provider (ISP) as a respondent in a court case involving music piracy. The ISP is being sued for 'profiting' (by hosting it) from a site which distributes copyright-infringing material."
And here I was thinking that only in the US did we have asinine shit like this being flung... I don't know whether to be encouraged or discouraged to see that we aren't alone.
#define DRM chmod 000
I hate to do this, but I'm biting the bait...
WTF does that have to do with this case? I mean, the ISP isn't actively going to pirates and saying "check out my MP3s!," but rather passively host the content without any regard for it. In contrast, Ford would have had to have actively worked to sell to that specific group of customers. Besides, isn't the ISP better off if the site remains unpopular, and consumes less bandwitdth?
#define DRM chmod 000
But look: "[Com-cen] stands to benefit economically from the increased consumption of bandwidth that would result from an increase in the flow of traffic to the Web site and an increase in the number of sound recordings downloaded by visitors to the Web site due to the large size of music files" Does that sound like direct profitability to you? IMHO, this sounds more like an attempt by Aussie media giants to sue left and right, not unlike similar examples we have seen in the US (case: suing 12 year olds who live in housing projects)
Auto manufacturers profit when their cars are bought by drug dealers for the purpose of smuggling drugs. Handgun makers profit when someone buys their gun and uses it in a murder. Gardening stores profit when a customer buys large quantities of fertilizer, makes a bomb, and blows up large federal buildings in Oklahoma City.
Should the auto manufacturer, handgun maker, and gardening store be legally liable for the crimes of their customers? Should they even be responsible for following their customers around to make sure they do nothing illegal?
Amen.
Getting lucky or just plain selling your soul to get kids to buy your horrible record -- well, that shouldn't even be an industry.
People argue that the industry will die without ripping off people... well, that's plain BS. Like the parent posted, an industry survives on using new technology that people are not able to reproduce themselves.
Sticking with 18 dollar CDs is like sticking with overpriced vinyl lps and casettes. The technology has a use, but trying to sell outdated technology for tremendous amounts of money has passed. Why don't they try to offer something new so they actually produce more technology instead of milking something 20 years old?
The recording industry could survive off of billions of electronic song payments instead of forcing people to buy millions of overpriced CDs. Perhaps record stores could become burning shops where they'll burn very high quality individual recording tracks themselves in wav format (ie the guitar and voices on seperate highqual wavs) onto a dvd, and the compressed mp3 version will be given with it on a normal CD -- you get to personally choose which songs to add to your discs and only pay per song.
Paying 18 dollars just to listen to one song I like from a whole CD is superfluous. Paying 10 dollars to get highqual split tracks from a song so I can create my own remixes would be awesome.
Consumers have passed up RIAA in technology. So what exactly are they doing with all those millions? Why can't they think of anything better than suing families?
I once bought a pirated CD in a pub, can the landlord be sued?
Actually, thinking further... if I didn't work then I couldn't afford to buy the pirate CD so surely my employer is ultimately responsible, after all they gave me the money to commit this foul act... I'm going to sue my employer for making me a criminal!!!
Or, should I quit my job, become unemployed, claim state benefits, buy a pirate CD and then sue the government?!?!?
When will people learn, the internet is neither inherently good nor evil... it's just a new medium... if kids weren't inside on their PC's pirating CD's they'd be out in the playground trading CDR's stuffed full of music... you gonna sue the school at that point?
That's what _you_ think - ever tried asking the musicians ?
This is a bad argument anyway. It's an undisputed fact that digital age makes it easier to copy, but that's not the point. Copyright is protecting the action of whether to copy or not (irrespective of how easy it is to make that copy), and therefore also protecting the investment placed in the creating the world.
Just because it's digital doesn't mean that there was no time and effort gone into its production. The fact that it's digital just changes the economics of distribution, not the economics of production.
It is common opinion that the major labels produce music according to formula that they believe will make hit records. Its all about the money. Its also true that many many record labels have come and gone trying to focus on the music. There is usually just not enough money available to promote as successfully as the big labels can.
It is also common understanding that for many bands now days that even after they get noticed by a large label, the large label will BILL THEM for recording time. Many bands end up in debt to the studios for their first album(s), thus further permitting preasure from the producers to make whatever music the label wants them to.
Isn't it about time that the public at large begins to seek music as art and not as commodity products? I sure hope so. And I personally see the Internet as the opportunity to deliver what the public wants, rather than what the industry wants us to have.
Let me buy singles! I hate paying $20.00 for one song and 10 fillers!
Let me preview any and all music -- This is starting to happen. I went to a large new Border book store and found a device in the back of the room that let me sample (small low rez 30 second clips) any song from any current published work!
And let me buy it in the form I want it in. MP3s may be fine for sampling, but when I want to listen to music, I want lossless formats.
All of the technology exists to make it happen, from home with broadband, or from a store like location if I don't have great broadband. Go there, select the tunes I want by sampling, put in my CD/DVD/SD/MC/etc.,swipe my credit card, choose a format (MP3,Ogg,Lossless, etc.), and boom, I have what I want.
Would I pay for that? You bet! Will it ever happen? Not until the RIAA goes away and the major labels understand what killed them, and that means never. :(
Just because 50 million people decide that what they're doing is right and justifiable doesn't mean that they're right and justified.
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
RMS is right. I found it very easy to copy GNU source code into my company's $10K/CPU product.
"Just because 50 million people decide that what they're doing is right and justifiable doesn't mean that they're right and justified."
Yes, It does.
What defines 'right' and 'justified'? Its all objective, so the only thing you have to go by is either personal oppinion or majority, and if the majority is doing something because they think its right and justified, it becomes so.
The boston tea party wasnt 'right' or 'justified' in the eyes of brittain. Neither was Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus. Whats Right and Justified is constantly evolving, and this is just one of the fronts.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Just because 50 million people decide that what they're doing is right and justifiable doesn't mean that they're right and justified.
That is a remarkable statement. Has a certain ring to it. I think I'm going to print it out and pin it to my wall.
What do you think makes something "right and justified"? Even if you're religious, it doesn't mean you don't have to make these decisions for yourself. As far as I am aware Jesus never said anything about the morality of downloading Madonna's greatest hits off the 'net.
Tough luck! Sell up and move on to a new career. The general population has been told for long enough that they "own" the music they buy.
"Sorry Son, you scratched the record, you'll have to buy it again for full price - no discounts for scratches or breaks"
"Sorry Son, you may have bought the vinyl twice, the cassette and the 8 track, but that doesn't entitle you to a discount on the CD"
"Sorry Son, you melted the CD when you left it on the dash of your car, you'll have to buy it again for full price - no discounts for melted CDs. "
If we had bought a media licence then a new physical copy should come at a massive discount. You just try getting a new media for your melted CD!!
Next they are told that music is free - because it doesn't cost anything to listen to the radio (to the end user anyway).
And finally they know music is free because it costs them nothing (practically nothing - they pay for their internet connection and blank media) to download over the internet.
People are saying that they don't rightly care if it puts musicians out of jobs, or that they get no new music because there's no profit motive to make it. They just don't give a shit.
There's no "profit motive" for many jobs that people do. There are plenty of jobs that give a living wage, but put the worker under great stress and even danger to their own lives. Nobody gets filthy rich being a public school teacher, but they do it anyway.
Who want's to work hard all day and sit down to some relaxing music and see the frivolent lifestyle of the person who made it. To ignore the "class" issue behind the copying of music is wrong.
And best of all, nusic now costs practically nothing to make! A home studio can be bought for little more than the computer it runs on, and the abundance of free music distributed over the internet by such creative people who go this route shows that there doesn't need to be a profit motive to make music.
Basically - music is free, it costs bugger all to make, doesn't need a profit motive, and who wants to support the lifestyles of the rich and famous anyway?
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
psst... thats why he said we dont see this sort of thing
Copying songs isn't the subject of the music industry law suits. Distrubiting copyrighted material by allowing others to make a coppies of material that you are offering is.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est