Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues Nearly 500 New Swappers
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the story. " U.S. music industry group says it has sued 493 more people for copyright infringement as part of its campaign to stop consumers from copying music over the Internet.
The Recording Industry Association of America has now sued nearly 3,000 individuals since last September in an attempt to discourage people from copying songs through peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa and LimeWire." "
The trade group, which represents the five largest recording companies, has settled more than 400 of those cases for around $3,000 each.
I know that file sharing of unlicensed copyrighted works is illegal, but the practice of threatening lawsuits left and right still bothers me. As many of you are aware, a number of the people already sued did not have the financial ability to fund a lawyer even if they wanted to. The question is, what happens if a company (like DirecTV mentioned here) starts blanket suing for something that is not necessarily illegal? These corporations have deep pockets, and they could threaten to sue the crap out of you for looking at them cock-eyed, to which many people would have to settle out of court (I'm not being literal). If you can't afford a lawyer then what do you do? 'Admit' to wrong-doing you didn't committ? Again, I realize that a lot of file sharing IS illegal, but the whole blanket lawsuit thing does raise some interesting (or scary?) questions.
I don't like "John Doe" lawsuits. Today it's your IP address, what is it tomorrow? Your street address? Your DNA? Is there going to be a story on the news about shopkeepers who are suing a set of fingerprints for theft damages?
I know that this is a civil case, not a criminal case, but I think you should still know who you are suing before you can do it. If the RIAA can't figure out who say, 66.35.250.150 is, they can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. Figure it out and come back, or don't, and drop it. And while you're at it, don't use our criminal justice system to go fishing for you.
the riaa tends to be trying to kill a swarm by swatting at individual bees. for every one they swat, a new one is bred. they'll have to sue for a long time for them to get their desired results, and by that time people will have moved on to better distribution channels.
So, where is the listing of IP address they are suing this time? I want to know if I'm on it. :)
Sorry for being pedantic, but LimeWire is not a network. It's the name of a Gnutella client. Since Gnutella is an open protocol, there are numerous clients for it.
I think 95% of us are wondering, day and night, when the RIAA is going to come after me next. But I'll breathe a small sigh of relief for now, and single a little diddy to the tune of "Another One Bites the Dust." It's called, "Another One Makes the Cut".
Incidentally, if I worked for the RIAA, the original song would suffice.
how do these people get caught? and what options for filesharing eliminate this threat?
5,997,000 to go. Or thereabouts....
Quick math tells us that the last user will be sued in January 3335.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Is the RIAA going to be allowed to practically steal from these people? They're doing the exact same as the accused (innocent until proven guilty) by suing people who can't afford to fight it, then they have to settle which usually costs thousands. This simply results in hundreds of miscarriages of justice.
Can't these people apply for legal aid or something, or doesn't the US have anything like this?
So neurologists often compare the brain to a hard disk, storing data, etc. So how long until you think we get sued for listening to music and remembering it (illegal copying to another media). God forbid we try and hum a bit of it to a friend, or playing a song for a friend, because then we're guilty of transferring an unlicensed copy to another party. "Dude, you gotta listen to this song." "Sorry, my brain uses Media Player 9... damn DRM!"
You know: Su-su-sudio!
This is not a link to a description of his battle against the RIAA. This is a link to some strange war/battle/game thing. Don't clik on the link.
I'm interested to see what happens when the RIAA sues a downloader who happens to have already purchased the CDs of the songs he is downloading -- which, in my opinion, would give him a right to those songs since he's already purchased them.
For me personally, I've sometimes downloaded songs from CDs I because 1) it's sometimes faster than ripping it myself, 2) the CD is scratched or broken, or 3) I still have the case but the CD itself was stolen. Would downloading an MP3 of a song from a CD I rightfully purchased make me a pirate?
Who is the RIAA trying to represent? They say that they are representing the five major music labels. And in turn the music labels say that they are representing the artists themselves. But even the artists don't agree with the RIAA's methodologies.
"According to the study, 60 percent of those surveyed do not believe the RIAA's efforts to halt file sharing through lawsuits will benefit musicians and songwriters.
Additionally, 35 percent believe free downloading has helped their careers, 37 percent believe it has not had any effect and only 5 percent believe it has exclusively hurt their careers. Of those interviewed, 83 percent have provided free samples of their music online."
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Lose money thru file-swapping and spend money on law suits. LOSE-LOSE!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
SO hear is my harebrained scheme. I want to catalog every CD I legally own. With reciepts in hand, I will download every song on them from every user I can. I will not share any files. Waiting for the RIAA to attempt to sue me, even though I never downloaded an MP3 illegally (the quality pains my ears, cd's are bad enough).
I make them look like an ass when they ATTEMPT to sue me, and they lose.
Now IANAL, but any of you lawyers out there wanna tell me if this is worth attempting. I would consult a lawyer first, but do you think I have a case for any kind of damages? I have money to front for a lawsuit if it means a good chance of decent return.
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
This has obviously just become another cash cow for the recording industry.
The days of them being able to sell people 9 tracks of crap because they're bundled up with the 2 good tracks on the album are coming to an end. A different economic model is taking shapem and the pigopolists are just trying to skim as much money off the current system as they can.
It's not about performer's rights to be fairly paid for their work - it's about producer's rights to snort finest peruvian coaine off the breasts of supermodels.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
the riaa tends to be trying to kill a swarm by swatting at individual bees. for every one they swat, a new one is bred. they'll have to sue for a long time for them to get their desired results, and by that time people will have moved on to better distribution channels. ...one of which is right here:
www.allofmp3.com completely thwarts the RIAA while still paying the artists a modest sum (probably comparable to what the RIAA pays them).
$0.01 / megabyte download (pennies per song, less than $0.50 per album), perfectly legal (all RIAA propoganda and misinformation aside), and none of the money goes to fund these lawsuits. Even better, a portion goes to the actual artists directly -- a requirement of Russian copyright law.
Legal, so cheap it is almost free, and it absolutely thwarts the RIAA's ability to even think about suing anyone.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I wonder when they are going to realize nobody is going to stop downloading. I know i wouldn't. Is anybody else getting really sick of them and the negative news that they seem to genereate. It seems like every time i come back from the weekend there's another story about them sueing another chunk of people. Anyways, that's just my two cents.
-Pizentios
Regards,
John
Falling You - beautiful
This may seem mean, but this is a sort of good thing for us file sharers. The majority, that is.
The more people that get sued, the greater the need for truely anonymous clients that can share these files without worrying who's tracking them.
No amount of alliances with ISPs etc can stop this if it's done right.
Necessity is the mother of invention - and evolution.
Try DC++
No spyware, no adware - pure bliss of peer-peer networking. Kiss Kazaa, Limewire good bye.
This use to be a big IRS tactic. Go after the guys without the funding to take you on. If the recording industry sued someone with the money and the inclination (sp?) to take them on through a significant series of appeals, then I think that the laws would be changed.
Also, Congress needs to hold hearings on this. The General Accounting Office [GAO], the investigative brance of the Congress, helped get the IRS inline. Now, my personnal feeling about anything being done is that it would be unlikely. (I mean, come on, we call them Congress instead of Progress.) But, just maybe, someone will get a clue.
The RIAA is trying civil court because they know that they can use the 'perponderance of the evidence' to thier own advantage. If they think they are right, let see some criminal charges. Gutless wonders
In God we trust, all others require data.
I know kazaa lite has some protections form being tracked.But now with more lawsuits being files, im wondered if that even matters.
The problem with lawyers is that 99% of them give the rest a bad name.
The trade group, which represents the five largest recording companies, has settled more than 400 of those cases for around $3,000 each.
I cannot imagine that the cost to figure out your name, hire a lawyer to write you a letter and serve you with papers then settle the case is less than $3000. Seems to me that the RIAA is letting people off for the cost of being told they did something wrong. I can't really see a problem with this.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
I'm interested, how do they figure out who is downloading music from Kazza and Gnutella? I mean, do they just get IPs? How would they know who was using the computer at the time etc?
-t
Brilliant! These folks know that the RIAA doesn't want to actually take anyone to trial, just scare the bejeezus out of Mommy and Daddy so they don't let their kids use Kazaa. The risks are much too high for the RIAA if they should lose, and IMHO it's too much for them to prove, particularly in a college dorm-type setting, that the person they sued was actually the one doing the infringement. What about the wide-open Wi-Fi defense, or the zillion other instances where you just can't prove who was using a specific IP at any given time?
First off, this is hardly news. They're going to keep doing this. If the RIAA gets lucky with lobbying the price of swapping will increase and they're hoping to make it less worth it. The RIAA will continue to defend its member companies. Whether or not its good business practice is a question, but people are giving away their members stuff for free (Yeah I know copywrite is only temporary.. look up ASCAP for the artists/composers lobby)
//e games from friends (I'm not to proud of this looking back). But back then it wasn't swapping/sharing/trading it was pirating because you got to keep your copy. I don't see how this is different, except for instead of doing it privately with your friends you let anyone anywhere copy off you.
Its the terminology is what gets me. When I was in middle school I used to copy apple
subpoena - search for riaa subpoena
I got nothing to say that's not already being said in my sig -- the coolest sig ever if I might add!!!
/. get you more sig space? If not, it should....
Oh, and I would have love to put in it, "Al Pacino, The Devil's Advocate" but, wouldn't fit which makes me ask at this point, does paying for a subscription to
Der sig
|
|
\/
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I wish people would stop publicising the fact that the RIAA are suing people. It is the media who are now responsible for stopping file sharers, not the RIAA. The RIAA can only catch a small handful of people to set an example, if the media outlets just ignored the cases then they would most likely have to stop these heavy handed scare tactics.
me (playing #66.155.230.25):I am not a number. I'm a free man.
RIAA: muhahahahahahaha
Okay, so the people being sued can't afford the legal fees. However, they wouldn't be sued if they weren't performing illegal file sharing. The people they are going after aren't sharing private files, they are distributing, for free, the hard work of others. This is the risk that one takes when using file-sharing, and those users accepted that when they began the swapping. The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it. They are more likely going after large-scale file distributers. People who have hundreds of songs, movies, games, and other copywrited works. They left their server on too long, and got caught. I'd feel no more sympathy than I would for a pawn shop that got busted for fencing stolen goods.
Now before the hate replies come in, I should mention that I'm all for file-sharing. I think RIAA are a bunch of corrupt bastages who overcharge for their products and services, and underpay the real talent--the entertainers.
I think game design companies charge way too much for a product, which is not neccesarily a corruption, but a misunderstanding of market forces. They feel they have to correct for piracy by charging $50/game, when in fact, there would be a lot more copies sold if they offered the same product for half. But then, that's been said for years.
I think the movie industry...is still quite fair. They churn out movies, $5-8 is a reasonable price to pay for a couple of hours of entertainment. If one does not like what they watch, then at most, an hour's minimum wage is lost. If it happens repeatedly, then they should take advantage of the local library.
Does this mean I'm anti-piracy? No. If you got something for free, and you enjoyed it, then you should then pay for it. Because in America, votes are determined by dollars, not by voices. If you vote (aka "buy") a legit copy of that game/CD/movie that you loved, then you have just voted for more of the same genre/artist/director to be produced. Same goes for everything. Feel free to sample, if you feel you need to. But if you like it, and continue to use it, you have an ethical obligation to buy.
That said, free sampling aside, piracy and distribution of copywrited material is still illegal, and those who participate in it take that risk willingly. The piper may be a total arsehead (read: RIAA), but that doesn't mean they don't have legal right in this matter.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
-The Libra
"Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
I believe it was Maxim that printed a breakdown of where the money from a $20 CD goes. According to the blurb, about 50% goes to the retailer with another big chunk going to the executives/producers/management and something like 5% actually goes to the artist. Courtney Love, in one of her rare coherent moments, said something along the same lines. DMX is leaving the music business because he hates the fact that the recording companies own his music and he can't so much as use his music without their permission (even DMX would be guilty of piracy for downloading his own MP3s).
If you ask me, the biggest pirates are the executives. Litigating consumers is just a way of deflecting attention from the fact that consumers are tired of getting ripped off for buying $20 CDs worth only $2 and that the studio executives are worried about losing their profits. The real victims in the litigation are the artists.
There are plenty of independent labels around that care to every thinkable (and unthinkable) type of music, except perhaps for Britney-type teenybopper acts.
The RIAA radar can be a good place to start looking.
The powershouse of defeating illegal p2p is on its way.... http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040525/sftu061_1.html
Fark the RIAA. Support Indepedent music.
Shamless Plug.
So neurologists often compare the brain to a hard disk, storing data, etc. So how long until you think we get sued for listening to music and remembering it (illegal copying to another media). God forbid we try and hum a bit of it to a friend, or playing a song for a friend, because then we're guilty of transferring an unlicensed copy to another party.
... never mind that the radio station has not only paid for the CD, they've also paid for the right to "broadcast" it -- that's twice the RIAA has now been paid for the legacy work, now the restaurant gets to pay then a third time for the same medium, and the restaurant down the road a fourth time, etc. ad nauseum!
Copyright law is completely out of touch with physical reality, technology, and our culture (and indeed it actively stifles the latter two).
An example of how rediculous copyright law is, and how artists as well as the industry have grown used to double dipping. It isn't enough to cell the CD, they want to get paid every time it is played in a restaraunt or bar. It is even illegal to play the radio in a restaurant or bar
But, what is often unremarked about these absurd laws, is that a person humming a copyrighted tune as they walk down the street is technically breaking the same law, giving a "public performance" without a license. As is the busker on the corner, the teenage garage band when they perform at their local high school, etc.
It really is past the time when we as a society should have repudiated the very notion that one can "own" ideas (patents) or their expressions (copyright). A far less draconian mechanism for reimbursing artists for their work needs to be devised, something that insures them a portion of the profits made without imposing restrictions on how the work may be incorporated into other aspects of our culture, but most of all, unlike copyright a mechanism that favors artists and culture rather than publishers and middlemen.
A quick example of one of the many such alternatives that have been proposed: a tax on works sold, with a set percentage (say 50%) going directly to the original artist. Anyone can publish your book (and you can't stop them) but you get half the proceeds. As an artist or author you have no control, but you are generously compensated financially.
It really is time we as a society started thinking outside the box on this issue, if we wish to have any kind of viable, free society left in the information age, and wish to do so in a manner that benefits artists and fans, rather than consortia of parasitical middlemen such as the RIAA (and more to the point, their attorneys).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I always wonder, what would happen, if all filesharers start to denunciate themselfs ?
I think it could escalate to some kind of DDOS against the courts
The RIAA has lost a multitude of 3000 paying customers FOREVER.
Would you *ever* *consider* buying another Britney Spears (RIAA-represented) cd if a member of your family, a friend, or a neighbour was sued?
I for one welcome our new free music overlords and only listen to alternative music: trance, rock, whatever. It's there, just as good (even better!) and ready to be explored. I have over 30 GB (!) of mp3's in my shared folder, and run 30+ radio webcast stations, with solely music not represented by the RIAA. I'm still waiting for the subpoena so I can countersue for battery or slander!
...is a boilerplate defense.
"I what? I was sharing songs? From my computer? But that's illegal! Wait, you mean the songs were in my 'My Music' folder? But it says they're *mine*! What? Kazaa? I installed that to download pictures of Lizzie McGuire. What? It keeps running in the background even though I clicked 'close'? I never pushed an 'upload my music' button!
So all this happened automatically?
Fine. Sue my computer."
Every article that I read on the subject seems to have it wrong. They aren't suing downloaders. They're suing uploaders. You're only committing copyright infringement if you distribute something. If you're not sharing or "distributing," you're not infringing. Downloading is not a crime... yet.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Is the RIAA watching certain p2p networks more closely than others? The name Kazaa gets tossed around a lot -- but how closely are they watching eMule? Or more specifically, is there a p2p they tend NOT to look at for any reason? (i.e., more difficult to snoop, etc)
"I got sued by RIAA, and all I got was some low-quality NSync tunes."
There seems to be nothing open and shut about this sort of thing, especially since most people infected by the bagel virus have no idea that they are spammers, will they be prosecuted under the CANSPAM Act?
~ there are 10 types of people in this world, those that can read binary and those that can't
It's from the RIAA!!
I am not sure why anyone would give in to them.
If they sue someone who has no money, it can
only cost them money - they won't get anything
out of it. Were they to sue me and win, they
would just have to jump behind all the other
creditors trying to get my money.
Just read about a night time search of cars in one of Holland's night-club districts, where the police searched for weapons (mainly knifes), drugs (mainly XTC) and last but not least they confiscated lots of illegally burnt CDs. It really surprised me that regular police was going after that. But I think it is a way more appropriate method to go after illegal music, then through these RIAA lawyer threats. And these people will probably just be ticketed and not extorted of 3000k in a "civil" (what a word, nothing civil about that) court of law.
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
Tonight's top story: The shocking truth about a legitimate trade body taking legitimate legal action to defend legitimate businesses. Story at eleven!
Maybe someone just needs to shout really loud and really clearly to make me understand why it's wrong to sue people who are stealing from you. Because so far, I'm just not getting it.
We can move somewhere else? For example Canada is a great nation but this might affect your relations in the U.S.A. in a negetive way(they may think you gone gay or become a full fledged hippie.). Then we got europe --far enough) most of southern europe are getting laws for filesharing while northern europe is pretty much okay. Here in Sweden it's pretty easy, the internt is fast and cheap. But most important of all they only send you a letter with a warning, they do nothing else after that, maby they'll just send another one^^ but nothing more. Oh, remember all in sweden are either named inga,ingrid or something similear. All the girls wear viking bikinis and are blonde, what more can you ask for?.
God,root what's the difference? I read slashdot, there for I errr... am stupid?
This whole internet song-swapping debacle reminds me of the old pirate radio stations of Britain, like Radio Caroline, Radio London and Radio City.
Whilst publicly denouncing the broadcasters as pirates, stealing money from the musician's union by playing songs and not paying the needletime; the industry were actually sending free copies of their latest releases in order to benefit from the coverage. Eventually, the marine offences bill was drafted and although some stations like Radio City opted to keep paying the ever-increasing fines, and continue broadcasting, they all eventually shut down. It did make way for modern commercial radio stations, and saw the launch of Radio One (which is the UK's 8-24yrs radio station), playing 'popular' music. I think a similar thing is going to happen in the end with file-sharing. The industry will have to acknowledge that they do, in fact benefit from having people able to easily download music, but they will want some sort of payment. Start buying shares in Napster-type services now. As ever, it'll take the music industry a while to figure out what's going on and to stop making fools of themselves, but they'll get there eventually and yesterday's truth will no longer exist. Double-plus good, I say.
Personally I'm pleased to read that some have decided NOT to settle out of court.
Also on Monday, the RIAA said it had sued 24 individuals by name after discovering their identities through John Doe suits.
Those sued by name had declined offers to settle out of court, the RIAA said.
This should settle (hopefully) the issue of copyright and fair use rights. Perhaps we could even use the ruling to push back the broadcast flag (which prevents people from recording TV broadcasts).
When push comes to shove, people ultimately will decide with their check books. If they (the courts/government) make consumer unfriendly decisions, take the ball back and go home.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Why can I check out an album or movie at the library and watch/listen without paying, but not download it off the internet?
I just want an answer to that. With the state of todays copyright, why are libraries still legal?
Last time I went the local library had a movie selection rivaling Blockbuster and an audio section larger than Tower records.
Will video games, or other pieces of software ever be legal to borrow from the local library?
What gives? Are libaries legal only if run by the government? Are only non-profit libraries legal? Could I open my OWN library and let people borrow my CDs and books?
Please no IANAL responses, I want to know the distinction.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Just because I leave my car unlocked in my driveway with the keys in it doesn't make it right for anyone to come along and steal it.
If I leave 1000's of files on my computer and make them available to others it doesn't make it right for those people to take them.
I don't see that there is really anything here to react to. What are the charges and from what kind od activity are they stemming from? There are big differences between the casual trading of a few songs and going into a CD distribution of entire collections. Having been a working musician I am against the duplication and mass distribution of someone's work but there is also a benefit at another level of getting a sampling of work into free distribution because it's great advertisement and public relations. This Wired article says nothing other than 493 people have been sued for copyright infringement. There is nothing here to react to, from whatever side you are on regarding this issue, since there is no reference as to the extent of the charges.
Screw the RIAA, download songs legally for pennies from Allofmp3.com. Download 'em in whatever format you like, as well, from WMA, MP3 (Lame), MPC, Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, Monkey's Ape, etc. Cheap. Legal (or at least currently safe from any worry of legal prosecution). No DRM. And they even have artists you'll find nowhere else online (legally), like The Beatles.
See what happens when a few employees at a restaurant chain sing "Happy Birthday" to a customer or two... If the RIAA finds out, that restaurant will immediately get a bill for royalties and/or a lawsuit. Face it, they own our culture already, and charge us to use it.
Bork!
Of their garage band jam sessions. I'd rather listen to a terrible-but-human garage band play than another RIAA-induced plastic Brittney cyborg clone.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The song lyrics are listed HERE
If you would like to settle, please mail a check for $5000 plus lawyers fees.
Aw-crud... sorry about that... I got interrupted mid-sentance and neglected to proofread my comment enough before posting.
It should have read "However, they wouldn't be sued if there wasn't an IP address performing illegal file sharing linked to them."
My apologies for the mistake.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
-The Libra
"Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
.06% (assuming there are only 5 million p2p users)
/sarcasm
Wow, scary!
Way to go, RIAA, you're well on the road to removing the pure evil from this world.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Copyright infringement is not theft. If you write something and someone makes a copy of it without your permission. You still have whatever you wrote. It has not been stolen from you.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
If i take a song, represent it in binary (create a file out of it), and then just call it a number, can't i tell the court that all i was doing was sending a number to my friend? It's not my fault if the number can be decoded into sound. An artist can't possibly own all the numbers his song could be digitized into!
I can't seems to figure out what is considered an artist's property and what is not. If i walk down the street and sing a tune to myself, can i be sued? Is it different if someone else hears me sing the tune, and then starts singing it themselves?
If i get a song stuck in my head can they do a brain scan and sue me over and over again?
All along the watchtower contains the chord progression Am, G, F, G, Am, and so does Stairway to Heaven (and many other tunes), so what's the deal with this?
Last several months, I started to download music clips. Although I am sure it is illegal, is RIAA going after people who download music clips as well?
Don't forget to use: Freenet, Mute or I2P.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Of all the justification attempts for copyright infringement, this one grates on me the worst.
If you want to listen to a certain song, you currently have several LEGAL options:
A. Buy the album (or single if available) on CD.
B. Purchase the song from an online distributor like iTunes.
C. Listen to it on the radio.
Having no intention to buy the music is NOT a valid defense for copyright infringement. There are lots of people who ARE willing to pay for it, and do so. What makes you so fucking special that you shouldn't have to?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Actually neofunk answered perfectly in his reply to wmarcy.
Wmarcy was mostly playing with words, because the good that would be stolen, even while being a copy, would be taken away, thus, the store would be deprived of it.
However, if you made a copy of that good (even if it was itself a copy), the store loses nothing and can't sue you for theft, though it may still be copyright-infringement.
It is surprising how few people actually see the difference between those two things. Maybe they just swallowed all that 'it's the same as stealing a CD in a shop'-crap of the RIAA.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Nobody likes lawsuits (except, perhaps lawyers). But in all likelyhood, they will remain part of the response to unauthorized file-sharing.
Even the EFF acknowledges this. Not so long ago the EFF suggested that the RIAA should be suing infringers and in the EFF's more recent file-sharing solution "white paper" they continue to suggest the same. (under "What about file sharers who won't pay?" you'll see "Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against 'free-loaders.'"
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it.
You are assuming too much here
Perhaps you are right, and they are only suing people that are doing something illegal. I'm not trying to bash you here, or discount what you are saying, but I have not seen any of the evidence in any of these cases (and I'm not talking about the press info, I'm talking about evidence admissable in court)
Cases are brought, and settled everyday because one party or the other feels it would cost less to settle than to pay legal fees. It may very well be that all of these people are doing something illegal & probably most are, but what about the couple that might not be. Only a court can determine legality, and if someone settles solely due to their financial situation, there is no way to know.
I was always under the impression that if you do something in numbers, that was the safety mechanism. This is a huge concept in nature for survival. 3000 out of millions! My chances of winning the lottery are only slightly worse than my chances of getting sued by the RIAA!
How can the RIAA expect to thwart something that is so widely accepted, and internationally practiced? This is the equivalent of a strike or a boycott. Obviously these lawsuits aren't working very well, and even so, the sharing networks will just end up switching to a closed system like Friendster where 'known parties' will use strong encryption to transmit data.
I don't download music anymore. But I don't buy music anymore, either. I've more than enough old CDs that I'm never left wanting for something to listen to. And if I DO want to hear something new, I just stream it.
Plus, going through my back collection only reinforces how crappy todays music is compared to the music of the 60s and 70s.
I really have no interest in supporting an industry that treats people like criminals first and customers second.
Artists would be wise to jump from the RIAA ship before consumer alienation reaches epic proportions.
If they are going after uploaders, I wonder how long it'll take before a network where all files are being hosted on zombie computers over a hijacked home DSL connection. Call that Bot Torrent or something ;p
;)
K3v|N B14cKh47 wins. Joe Sixpack loses. Later on, as the trick gets widely known, people use the "crackers ate my homework" defense until either RIAA/MPAA or Microsoft get burned real hard.
I for one know that the friend who's providing me with the latest movies did not pay for his FTP server
However, in both these cases - the producers downloading, and the CD-owning user downloading - the person uploading is guilty of copyright infringement, since they do not have distribution rights. Thus, the uploader, provided they aren't the distribution house or the artist, is committing a crime, and it's the uploaders that the RIAA is going after.
Now, it so happens that to prevent leeching, Kazaa, Gnutella, Limewire, etc. all put your downloads into a "shared" folder for uploading... so if you download something, you're uploading it too. The RIAA uses this to publicize that they're going after "downloaders" rather than "uploaders", but the truth is that they can only find uploaders.
To be safe, leech. It's not nice to the rest of the community, but 'no honor among thieves' and whatnot.
Not that I do either.
-T
So much for due process.
"However, they wouldn't be sued if they weren't performing illegal file sharing."
Well, all I can say is that the act of being accused by the RIAA hardly carries the weight of guilt. We've already seen Granny being sued for downloading fiddy cent (which it is unlikely).
All that aside, sharing music for no money is hardly the height of lawlessness. Its no more a crime than watching porn.
Great way to kill your business, between directly ending a relationship with a customer, and bringing bad press to your company.
Morons.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Can't we just kill the RIAA in their sleep?
Listen to my experimental-industrial-techno!
I hope they sue the pants off of the crooks who offer for copying works which they have no right to so offer. I just wish they would get a few things straight.
Copying music is not a crime; if it were, every record company employee would be in jail. Copying music is what record companies do for a living. Copying a creative work *without the owner's permission* is the crime, and soliciting criminal behavior is also a crime (and, I would argue in this setting, the greater of the two).
It's the "everyone who owns a crowbar must be a burglar" argument that falls on its face.
In order to protect myself from the lawsuits, I have deleted my swap partit [CARRIER LOST]
Unknown host pong.
I've notice that a lot of hubs running Direct Connect auto-kick DC++ users.
Don't know if this is due to the hub Admin or the program itself.
Still, Direct Connect/DC++ kicks ass.
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
Does that mean that they actually sued 50 people with high-speed CD burners?
Be an elitist - read Slashdot at +4.
Well this is the crux of the problem. The people that you're accusing of *cheering the thieves on* are of the opinion that exchanging information non-commericially is not thieving. Your opinion is value laden and you can choose not to see that, but you can't prevent others from pointing that out.
Wow, those are some expensive Britney Spears nudies..
3000k = 3,000,000$
;)
feh. stuff.
But I don't see the big deal with P2P anyway. Just scan through some of the alt.binaries.sounds newsgroups on Usenet and there's no shortage of stuff posted in there, far more than on any P2P networks I've seen and if you pay a few dollars/euros/pounds for a good Usenet provider, that seems a much more reliable source.
Added to that the RIAA would have to start suing ISPs and Usenet providers which is by no means a cheap or easy task.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Musicians would make money off live performances and concert paraphenelia like t-shirts. Good artists would be heard, as their music could spread on the Internet legally like wildfire, and their concert demand would go up, without having to sign their rights, freedom and profits away to a label. Artists that can't actually sing would die by the wayside without the countless millions to give them the pop star image, replacing low quality music with modern Mozarts.
If you could vote on a referrendum for this, would you vote yes?
Open Standards Portal
Meh, I think part of the problem here is that most of the people being sued really are guilty of the crime. It's hard to mount a defense when you're well aware that you're guilty of the crime and there's clear evidence. *wry grin* Not that it stops people when they get speeding tickets or get caught driving intoxicated...
That said, I remember that when the first suits came out, there were some clear-cut cases where the RIAA was entirely off base such as with that one elderly grandmother who didn't even own a computer, but got accused of file-sharing. Were those case dropped immediately upon protest or did those people have to go through the legal rigamorale to get the charges dropped? (And were the RIAA fined for wasting the time of the forces of justice?)
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
It's a steady income for more then the next 1000 years!
I guess it's time to start bridging those WiFi networks around the world. If you can't beat em, fuck em. I start file sharing over WiFi networks. I look forward to the days of local BBSes again. (WiFi BBS?)
No, they don't really. If they scare enough people off of uploading files, what will happen is that all these people will uncheck the "Share Files" option. It won't make an impact when a few people start doing it, but as the trend grows, people will find that suddenly they can't find files as people withdraw from offering. Sure, there will always be a few people who figure they'll get by with it, or cover their tracks peroperly, but the question is, can those few people support the infrastructure? And if people are suddenly unable to find the songs they want, or simply unable to download them in a reasonable amount of time, I'd wager that they'll switch to some other method.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I heard a great thing on the radio today. They had a writer that contributes to Rolling Stone and has been on VH-1 quite a bit. He was talking about how the recording industry just doesn't get it and how every download does not equal a lost sale. His analogy was how when you go to a supermarket and they have the free cheese samples. When someone takes a piece of cheese, that doesn't mean there is a lost sale of cheese.
I thought it was a great analogy. I wonder if/when the RIAA will ever get it.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
We are *ALL* indivi...ermm...special! ;-)
Apart from the philosophical aspect, you missed my point entirely. I was argumenting that what the RIAA says; that sharing a file is the same as stealing a CD from a shop, is pure nonsense. If you read my post, you would have seen I also said it still might be regarded as copyright infringement.
Another question entirely, is whether copyright on digital online media should exist. In my view, copyrights on data without physical carriers is, indeed, absurd in this day and age. And what's more, history proves that whenever a considerable populace continues to 'infringe' on obsolete laws, there are only two reactions: draconian measures, primarely of the companies that stand to gain on the old methods (often accompagnied by the government/law that has been lobbied), or a gradual acceptance that it's a tide that can't be turned.
Trying to hold on to outdated models/views/laws are very seldom succesfull, and cause a lot of harm (enough examples in the past where companies tried to hold on to their powerbase and obstruct new technology). Even draconian laws don't change that fact.
Laws are not absolute, and while it's far from me to entice anyone to do something illegal, me thinks I still have the right to speak my opinion about these things (as yet), though no doubt the RIAA would like me and others to shut up with our viewpoint as well. The fact is, if enough people realise that copyrights in cyberspace are completely obsolete and shouldn't be used to try to criminalise people, then ipse facto what is illegal today could as well be legal tommorow. It's not carved in stone, you know.
And no, you don't necessarily have to wait before the law changes for not abiding and accepting a nonsensical law, IMHO. If women had done that, they still wouldn't have had the right to choose for an abortion or not. In fact, if people hadn't broken all those laws in the past, we still would have medieval laws untill this day. Why, the USA wouldn't exist today if people hadn't broken the law.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
If every person utilizing these networks were to voluntarily pay a $5 per month fee towards a special account to fund these settlements then we would never have to worry. I personally would welcome the opportunity to buy the little bit of extra security that the $5 would bring.
How many people are using these networks?
493 people X $3,000 = $1,479,000
$1,479,000 = $5 X 295,800
My guess is that 295,800 is but a tiny fraction of the number of sharers who would be willing to pay $5 per month.
Any extra proceeds raised by the fund could be used to purchase better search/index nodes.
In general, filing a John Doe lawsuit doesn't expose the unknown defendnat to any adittional harm or danger compared to not filing a lawsuit until you know the person's identify. The defendant is still protected by statue of limtitations, and the plainitff still needs to investigate the identify of the defendnat and amend his complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations in order to keep the unnamed defendnat in the case.
In general, a plainitff is allowed to amend a complaint for errors in the complaint, and have those amendmends reach back to the orignal filing date for SOL purpose. Courts (at least in my Circuit), however, have ruled that the practice of naming John Does for unknown defendnats is not an "error", and therefore, ameneding the complaint with the person's name does track back to the filing date for the SOL--See Aslandis v. US Lines Inc or Barrow v. Wehtersfieddl Polic department. (I just had to research this -IANAL, IAA paralegal on his way to law school)
So, you break the law, either by trading copyriighted files or rapig someone. You are i danger of a lawsuit until your SOL expires. Wether they figure out who you are first and sue you, or sue forst and then figure it out, you still have the same exposure to litigation. In these RIAA cases, I'm guessing the RIAA goes ahead and files anyways to make it easier to obtain subpoenas, plus they get publiciity.
a virus will be created that spreads content autonomously and randomly over infected computers. From this day, the riaa will have big problems trying to prove that users actually intended to download any of the content that resides on their harddrives, perhaps even if their systems were not infected. How about that?
and every.damn.one. of them was used!
SWING OUT SISTER -- Kaleidoscope World
White Zombie -- Astro-Creep 2000
Alice Cooper -- the eyes of...
GRAVITY KILLS -- Gravity Kills
SNAKEFARM -- Songs From My Funeral
AMANDA GHOST -- Ghost Stories
EVERCLEAR -- Songs From An American Movie
RICKIE LEE JONES -- FLYING COWBOYS
ELECTRIC SWING -- Big Band Crazy
NO DOUBT -- Return Of Saturn
Various Artists -- HOUSE OF BLUES SWINGS
BIG BAD VOODOO DADDY -- This Beautiful Life
CHICAGO -- Night And Day (Big Band)
DUKES AND GANNON -- SIX SHOOTER
PHIL COLLINS -- NO JACKET REQUIRED
DUKE HEITGER AND HIS SWING BAND -- RHYTHM IS OUR BUSINESS
VARIOUS ARTISTS -- THE UNPLUGGED COLLECTION
DON HENLEY -- THE END OF THE INNOCENCE
ANGEL CITY -- Face To Face
XFILES SOUNDTRACK
VARIOUS ARTISTS -- SKA WARS
take that RIAA!!!!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Take it even further and beat them at their own game using their tactics.
;)
Make your 10,000 static-filled songs and make them available. [Sure, it's just noise, but who are they to judge your "art?"] Include in the MP3 markup tags a *VERY* restrictive EULA which prohibits distribution in all cases without your advance written agreement, public AND private performance (in effect, no one may listen to your music without your permission), etc. If you want a stronger argument, include the spoken EULA at the beginning of the song. "By listening to this song, you signal your agreement to this end-user license agreement. You agree that..."
In order for them to sue you, they must produce the songs in some format to the court as evidence. At that point, countersue them for "theft" (since they so like to use that word) of your IP and violation of your extremely restrictive EULA. Then offer them the chance to settle out of court for $20,000 -- the "value" of your songs at $2 each. Plus legal fees, pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc. of course.
Someone needs to take them to court. I share copywrited music (about 400 songs), and i really hope that they get around to suing me. Why you may ask? Because i have the means (well my parents do) for a lawyer, my dad, working in the music industry understands the issue, and lastly i'm not sharing their music. This is why i hope i get sued. Every single one of the bands whos music i share is local and in fact a few have given me the OK. Most of the MP3s i got from the old MP3.com and some ripped from cds that i've double checked to make sure the label isn't a subsidiary or connected to the RIAA in any way. Hell, the bass player from one band messaged me after he saw i was sharing their music and offered to put me on the guest list of their show that night. Lets see the RIAA make the misstake of fighting for something they dont have the rights too. Besides, i need something to do this summer...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
This just hit me. Suppose we put our music files up, but then we either encrypt the files or encrypt the connection or something, and use a really shitty "encryption" algorithm like ROT13 or something. This should have two effects. Number one, one could claim that he had his files up for his own personal use and he had them encrypted so that nobody else could access them. Number two, if the RIAA broke the encryption to see that you are sharing files, then *BAM* sue them under the DMCA for circumventing encryption.
Now there is a lot of stuff to be worked out with this method. And it would make a criminal out of everyone(for breaking encryption) but the kind of people who download music for free don't seem to care about that sort of thing(though I'm not saying downloading music is a criminal act).
The worst was when the RIAA sued a girl using Kazaa who was about 12 years old - she even paid for it monthly, too.
from Apple's iTunes, but with all this f-ing bullshit, I'm seriously considering stopping my purchases again. The first time I stopped buying music because the RIAA was being total dicks. If they really want to make sure their sales come to halt, just keep on acting like a bunch of asses. consumers aren't going to take this BS and will find another way to get music.
1. OK, here's really what we need - a system like MusicBrainz that can go thru and automagically tag everysong on your disc.
2. And then interface with the RIAA Radar to identify specifically the RIAA stuff vs. which isn't.
3. Then MOVE that stuff out of my shared folder - I don't *want* to share it. Better yet MOVE it to the TRASH...
I like electronica and sometimes underground hiphop anyway- I can live without FSOL and Jay-Z and certainly would much rather share out people more deserving of my disk space and bandwidth...
You know, this is reminding me a bit of the cigarette tax, who's stated purpose is to discourage people from smoking. In truth, if we wanted to legally discourage smoking, we'd raise the age, or make it illegal all together. The purpose of the cigarette tax is to make money.
The stated purpose of these lawsuites is to discourage illigal MP3 trading. Aren't there better, more efficient ways of doing this? Certainly, if they were only sueing one person, you could be trying to discourage them and simply recover your losses.
The RIAA has turned it into another source of income. They're not going to stop suing people now - that'd be shooting their new cash cow. The purpose of THESE lawsuites is cash.
You missed again, motherfsckers!
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
just name all of your pr0n images after songs.
better the image.. the better the name of the song.
there are no mass law suits in the netherlands (yet), but that's most probably because downloading is legal here, the sharing of copyrighted / illegal content is only illegal here, which is pretty fair I guess. (this only applies if it's for home-use, not for selling it to your friends/co-workers but I guess that falls under sharing)
to my knowledge the only people being sued are people that are offering copyrighted works to other people via file sharers. Turn off your file sharing options if you have copyrighted material in your share directories and you won't get sued.
Two things constantly strikes me when I read about RIAA suing a group or doing this to discourage me .... or any action from RIAA really.
:
1. Instead of discouraging me from sharing my music, why don't they encourage me to buy. It comes down to the same end result and this way, I don't feel attacked.
2. Its all about evolution.
History is a good teacher to prove us that if a company does not evolve, it will die. if you cannot understand / satisfy your clients, you will perish or be bought.
RIAA's model hasn't evolved from when RIAA was created at all. Back then, there was no internet, thus, the market was different.
Today, RIAA hasn't evolved one bit, they're still acting as though there was no internet, as though they had no opponent.
But they do have one opponent : Evolution. They need to update their business model so that they stop losing money when we share music.
As sad as it is for them, today, I can find most of the music I want on the internet, so why would I buy a CD ?
for two reasons
1. I really like the band and I think they deserve some money
2. The CD offers me something I cannot get on the internet.
For instance, a local artist (Francois Pérusse - http://www.zeromusic.com/perusse/) includes a small membership card with every CD, that membership gives access to a protected section where you can listen to stuff not available on the market such as unreleased material
That's one reason why I would buy his CD..and I do.
Sadly, many companies today refuse to evolve, they refuse because it'll cost them money, they'll need to change.
What they do not seem to realize is that everyday they remain as they are is another day where they lose even more money trying to stop us...and in the end, they never do.
Just my 2c.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
It may be wrong of me to pirate, but IMHO what they're doing is more wrong than what I'm doing.
"It may be wrong of me to sodomize these prisoners with a glow stick, but IMHO what they did to us on 9/11 is more wrong than what I'm doing."
I admit, my analogy isn't perfect -- for one thing, in my version both acts are illegal, whereas you're undertaking an illegal act to respond to something that's entirely legal.
If you don't want to give your money to RIAA-member companies anymore, don't consume their product anymore! Stop being a jackass.
A few weeks back on slashdot there was an article on how the RIAA was deliquent in paying royalities to many music artists.
It would be a boon to cutting the RIAA down to size if these artists sued the RIAA.
It would be hilarious to read about the RIAA suing people for stealing music while they would be under litigation for doing the same.
It might just embarrass them enough to stop, but even if they continued in their historical stupidity it would definately poison their public image enough to reduce their influence.
Steve
Bittorrent allows you to download in a P2P network. While downloading you are also at the same time uploading portions/fragments -- this distributed uploading works well to make the network robust. However, what if it was hacked into the code of bittorrent that you could only upload say a _specific_ 1/10th of the song? And that each user uploads a different 1/10th of the song so that any new downloader comes in can still download the song in its entirety, s/he just gets a 1/10th of it at a time from different sharers. And all the while, although you are uploading ad nauseum, you are only uploading a specific 1/10th of the song, never its entirety.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, say if you broke down the size to even smaller amounts, like 1/1000000th (Dr. Evil pinky to mouth)? Digital data is nothing more than a series of zero's and one's. If you break it down small enough, the series of zero and one's become so common that it cannot be considered a unique segment. In other words, the 1/1000000th digital piece that I'm uploading could be part of Britney Spears' new song or it could be part of Jules Verne's novel in the public domain, the onus is up to the RIAA to prove otherwise. I'm sure my logic is erroneous somewhere, someone prove me wrong.
Linux at home
Shareaza is my poison of choice.
Shareaza=Gnutella2 + Gnutella1 + BitTorrent + EDonkey2000.
Good Times.
Forgive me if i'm stating obvous already known things (if yes, feel free to patent them :o) :) ... add your stuff here ...
I belive there are two possible ways to mess up with laws and I wonder what would happen if someone did it...
1) we have DMCA that forbids to circoumvent any (even broken) protetion schemes
It could be abused by coding software with broken protection that could be used for p2p. Example: Personal MultiMedia server that uses passwords for access control (so only the owner of the computer can access to files) and an "infortunate misfeature" that limits password to 4 ASCII caracters, the editor of such software could fail to fix that for looooong time
This software could be used to share music, and if some jerk tries to sue you for that. arguing he detected copirited files on your computer, you have evidence he pirated your network and violaded DMCA
2) we have "presumption d'innocence", I don't know the correct translation to english.
This means that one have to prove that you're guildty, otherwise you're not.
Now suppose two unrelated individuals share some Mbytes of random bits. And, oh dear!, if you XOR them you get interesting stuff, but who's fault? Each of two individuals claims his data is plain random and the only way to know who is guilty is to track down which of two chinks of data was published first, not easy.
3)
soulseek is the best ;) and written by an ex-napster coder.
Nothing will ever be as good as napster, but soulseek captures the feeling of napster quite well.
Chat rooms and other features create a nice community feeling, a good selection of music is shared, but not at the volume of some other networks. Although smaller is better in this case i think.
DC is full of warez kiddies looking to leech 0-sec games and movies. Its not good for music lovers.
-twokay
But I think it needs some reworking to more accurately reflect the role that the RIAA is playing now-a-days...
Let's say that the car companies got together to form the APIA (Auto Producers Industry Association) and used their considerable lobbying clout to influence Congress to pass new legislation that outlaws the selling of or owning of used cars.
Say then that the automakers decide to not sell cars in the tradional way anymore, but only lease them with extensive "appropriate-use" regulations attached and extensive monitoring equipment to ensure that you comply.
Additionally, after a couple of years when the car makers release a new model they refuse to offer any of the older models for lease and instead recall them and refuse to make these models available for any purpose.
That is closer to the situation that the RIAA is trying to bring into existence.
LimeWire isn't a network, it's a Gnutella client! =P
There's a great service called allofmp3.com. It's in Russia, where their rates are equivalent to the Apple iTunes prices, but because of the exchange rate of dollars to rubles, the prices are fantastic for Americans (and probably several other countries). You can buy an entire CDs worth of songs for under $1 USD. They even let you choose the format and quality of the tracks.
...
Excerpt from http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm
Is Allofmp3 legal?
The most frequently asked question. We have thoroughly investigated this.
You will not find Allofmp3 in the list of legal music services supported by the IFPI at www.pro-music.org.
Organizations like IFPI and the RIAA are doing their best to avoid any publicity when it comes to the legal services in Russia. There is a loophole in the Russian copyright legislation that makes service like Allofmp3 possible. Apparently this loophole cannot be closed easily.
The legal status of Allofmp3
Russian copyright legislation allows phonograms to be performed publicly without the authorization of the copyright owner for broadcasting and cable transmission. (Article 39) The Internet could be deemed to fall under this exemption. The copyright involved have to be paid to a collecting society.
Allofmp3 has signed agreements for this with Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems (ROMS). According to license --02-36 the Internet-project www.allofmp3.com, has the right to use musical compositions by providing downloads. Under the license agreement Allofmp3 pays out fees to ROMS for downloaded materials that are subject to the Russian Federation Copyright And Related Rights Law.
ROMS is a member of CISAC (www.cisac.org) - the International confederation of authors and composers societies. ROMS manages intellectual rights in the Russian Federation. All third party distributors licensed by ROMS are required to pay a portion of the revenue to the ROMS. ROMS in turn, is obligated to pay most of that money (aside from small portion it needs for operating expenses) to artists. Both Russian and foreign.
We have received this confirmation from ROMS:
* I can confirm the legality of allofmp3.com
You can legally buy/download mp3-songs from this site if it does not breaks the law the national legislation of the country in which you will be during that moment.
Sorry for my english.
Yours faithfully, the assistant to the lawyer of the Russian society on multimedia and to digital networks (ROMS) www.roms.ru,
Bahanets Roman Igorevich
(Endquote)
It's a good thing they didn't think of regional coding back when CDs were first thought up.
Seriously, with all of the ads that many stations (ClearChannel's to be more specific) are trying to squeeze in now, it really sucks. I don't remember what the machine/program that does this is called, but what it does is it compresses songs (I think by taking small chunks out of each fraction of a second) and has them play faster than what they normally do, making it sound higher-pitched. (ex. Hot100 in the Dallas/FW area) And the other two don't make any kind of sense (to me, whole limited income thing) unless you are a fan of the band, because they're already getting your money for something you know nothing about.
BTW this is actually how I found out about most of the bands I have on CD and vinyl now.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
They're suing people who "share" the music. It doesn't matter if you own the music or not. You don't have a legal right to duplicate and distribute.
You can download all you want. But if you put your collection for the whole world to download then they'll rightfully come after you. The RIAA isn't doing anything new. It's just another form of warez, bootlegging and illegal street vending.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
....want a serious, across the board fundamental change in the US. The government is corrupt, broken, out of control. Think about what we do. Millions trudge to the polls and allegedly "elect" a mostly priveleged millionaire class of people to a professional and pensioned "career" of outright "rule" over us. they DO NOT in fact, represent us, you and me, they represent and work for some fairly wealthy and exalted inteerests qwho have nothing in common with 99% of the US population. Nothing. And MOST of them are lawyers, and/or are connected financially to international conglomerates, in a big way. This is just an OBVIOUS conflict of interest. WHAT ELSE are you going to get but more complex and weird laws when it PROFITS the very people who "pass" them all the time? Then, while congress is in session, they spend all their time passing new laws,by the thousands, never ending, with little effort made to even have a modicum of constitutional review, common sense review, or to see if perhaps some of the older laws they have passed need to just be removed, a law-code review if you will. It doesn't happen, there's NO incentive for them to do so, because they control the system, they control the mass media, they control the social engineering brainwashing facilities called "public schools", and they PROFIT from it to extreme and obscene levels.
It's NUTS. It's getting worse, there's no end to the amount of laws passed, no top end limit, we are over 3 million laws on the books now, and these people in washington are SO FAR REMOVED from what it really is like in the US outside of the completely artifically maintained washington DC/NYC/LA axis of profits area, they really have no clue what they are doing other than maximising profits for themselves and their rich buds. No clue and they DON'T WANT a clue. They are trained actors and script readers, they "campaign" by 15-30 second sound bite, directly or indirectly, and by the acceptance of out and out bribes called "campaign contributions", but these public uttered "sound bite" words have little meaning, they just parrot what their focus groups tell them that will result in the same people "voting" for them over and over again, no matter what really happens.
The system is broken, terribly. It needs to change. Change at the federal level is just way to hard, SO, we need to elect some governor some place who can be the executive branch leader that at least can get ONE state back to what we are supposed to have,set a clear example of what it really was designed as, an independent state with loose ties to the federal government in a "union", BUT NO MORE, *full, default and complete* constitutional rights, and he has got to be unafraid of serious confrontation. That's the highest level we can hope for to look for any significant change for the better, IMO.
The Libertarian Party Free State Project is one example, Mack for Governor in Utah is another (He has a decent credible chance, too). There might be more, those are the two I am aware of right now where this sort of effort is being undertaken.
A success in these matters will go a long way to re establishing the court system like it is supposed to be, especially with jury nullification, speedy trials, and always having a jury trial if the matter in question is over 20$. You get some honest working class people on juries, and STOP the mostly completely criminal DAs and judges intimidating and instructiong them illegally, you'll see nonsense like in this article struck down, because people can see it's absurd. BUT, it HAS to be done at some decent level, local it doesn't matter, federal is impossible, that leaves the state level.
anything...
Suing people who allowed other people to enfringe copyright was insane, and it's no wonder some people at that time came to the conclusion that the people who were actually breaking the law should be brought to account for their actions.
Suing people who enfringe copyright is a sane, LEGAL thing to do, and it is also a good business plan. If I were a greey heartless bastard who owned stock in an RIAA member, I would be applauding them for it. However, I try not to be greedy, and I try to be considerate of the people who are elsewhere in the big picture, and when you look at the big picture the answer is obvious:
either
a) persue independant artists alone, and take part in existing artist comunities, "Voting with your money" your time, your effort, your mindshare, make your own art and "be the media" or alternatively
b) go the route that is slightly easier, if less creative, and create more value for the whole by sharing with others things that do not cost you anything to share.
because the world is going through some rough time and if we can get every employee at the RIAA who's normally just trying to screw other people over, and get them actively productively doing something for the betterment of the whole species, then the world would be a better place for it.
And aren't they persuing criminal charges these days? my statement still applies. Even if it is the most legal and best business plan to persue, we should still be angry with them them for it.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Shit... My iPod.. I've got my entire CD Collection
on the iPod, (I use gtkpod on Linux). Limewire
also to collect some tunes that I don't have.
can you get busted for an iPod in Holland?
If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.
... instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.
Okay.
I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy"
I agree with that. Infringement is the correct term for certain offences, and that's why you'll find it in statutes and inumerable cases.
(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases.
I think it's a factor -- and besides, a lot hinges on how overly long terms are felt to be.
I believe that artists should be compensated for their work -- preferably by someone else. I mean, they can sell concert tickets (which someone else can buy) or sell t-shirts (to someone else) or something. As long as someone else subsidises my free ride, I'm coooooool with it.
Sounds good to me. I love getting free stuff. Who doesn't, in fact?
(10) I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing. It's my right.
Provided that it isn't done for profit (NET Act be damned) and is only engaged in by natural persons, I've got no problem with this. Enact this sort of reform, and most infringements will disappear, in fact.
(11) I believe that record companies cracking down on piracy is "greed", but a mob demanding free entertainment is not.
Disagree with this one. They're both greed. But that's okay.
(12) I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it, because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.
See response to #10, above.
What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.
Oh, there's a difference. But both are worthwhile endeavors. If it wasn't for rote copying, we'd have lost all the works of antiquity.
If you like music, you should pay for it.
Why?
I like the sun, the air, and the ocean, and they're all free. I like Shakespeare, Heroditus, Aristotle, and the art of the Italian Renaissance, and I don't have to pay to make copies of them.
If you've got a good reason, you should tell us what it is.
You are giving away copies of their work so that they don't get paid for it. Again, you will never, ever be able to justify this
Then how do we justify the fact that we place all works in the public domain after a while?
Easily, I think, if we ignore artists altogether and concentrate on what makes the public happiest in the long run. Maybe fortune will smile on artists and they'll find that we are happy when they're happy. Or not, and artists will be penniless when the public is at its happiest.
Either way, I don't care about artists, and it all works out rather well. In fact, not caring about artists, but only caring about the public, is what copyright is all about.
Are you saying the law should allow people to pirate anything that is copyrighted?
More or less, yeah. But see #10 above.
How will John Carmack ever make money on Doom 3 if pirates simply copy it everywhere so that nobody has to actually buy or order it?
Got me. This may result in there not being Doom 3. But if people can copy freely, and that despite the lack of Doom 3, people are more satisfied, then it is a good thing. Basically you add up the increase in happiness by being able to copy, and subtract the decrease from having fewer works, and if you still come out ahead of where you would be otherwise, it's clear that you need to reduce copyright.
Always make reductions or enlargements in copyright until you reach the point where the public is maximally satisfied, that's the thing.
If you believe the copyright of the GPL sho
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Compared to whom exactly? Keep telling yourselves that though.
Every time this argument comes around we have the same old points, but (and I know this is /.) I can't remember seeing any real evidence. So here are some questions that prehaps can be answered with more than opinion.
1) How much have artists lost out because of d/ls?
2) How many people would actually buy a legal copy of the product after "sampling" it?
3) Revenue from touring vs cd sales, which is greater (and lets have some numbers here)?
4) Estimated cost to people working within the record industry, but not artists ie. studio's, cd ractory staff etc?
5) Do record companies make excessive profit on cd sales? What would be an acceptable level of profit?
I am sure that there are hundreds more questions that people, who would like to make a more informed decision, want answered. I am all ears for evidence. But I am not holding my breath.
how many of these 3000 or so cases have they won, have been dismissed, have settled out of court...etc...
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
If you use default settings on your wireless network anyone can use your network to do pretty much anything.
The RIAA would be entirely unable to prove that it was *you* who was uploading the files.
They may sue you, but you are the victim here, you have been hacked (-; and trying to claim that you were legally responsible for securing your network would go against all legal precedent.
but if you're curious to see if you've got a friendly court order coming for you in the mail:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
His book can be purchased on paper, or downloaded free (he has literally put his money where his mouth is). I was about halfway through the electronic version when I decided to support it by buying the hardcopy (which is easier to read anyway).
I strongly recommend this to anyone. Buy it. Read it. Tell other people about it. And mention it in the first post on a digital rights story on /.
Why don't we donate our CDs to a central repository, and transfer legal ownership of that repository to whoever gets sued? Perhaps we charge $1/mo to belong to the "ownership" club. We could use the money for storage, and to buy used CDs to round out the collection.
Once we have a large enough library, people would be immunized from the suits.
About 18 months ago, my uncle got divorced (wife of 20 years decided she didn't love him anymore). She bought out his half of the house and their two teenagers still live there.
:) YMMV.
About 6 months ago, my uncle (an attorney specializing in family law) got a letter claiming that his IP had been traced (the cable account was in his name) and he was illegally sharing music. He was going to be sued, yadda yadda. Since he no longer owns the premises nor pays for the service, his response was "prove it."
There has been no further correspondence on the matter.
We know the RIAA is suing uploaders. We knew that months ago. The only thing even remotely newsworthy about this story is that there are still fools uploading copyright-protected works.
Well welcome to you to friend. Thanks for shopping at Slashdot and have a nice day.
You know so much of what we call Western Culture started long before the English language ever made it into print. The Romans mostly borrowed from the Greeks who were Democratic in a sense. You have to say in a sense because the only people who could vote were the citizens who were in the minority. Likewise, economically they were much more communist than capitalist. If you don't think those economies were state controlled then . . . well, you're wrong.
So the point here is that Western Culture in the broad historical sense has very little direct relationship to capitalism. Eastern culture might perhaps have an even more tenuous link to this modern blip on the map called capitalism. So, the majority of human history worked great without this diety called capitalism. Perhaps evoking its sacred name doesn't really mean as much as you think it does.
I see little difference between someone giving away (say) Madonna's recorded music without her permission, and someone giving away her car without her permission
You may see little difference, but a little difference is still a difference.
The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
It may be wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing.
A performance is not property. It happens and then it's over. A recording of a performance can be copyrighted, but it's still not property. If I take your only copy (say, the only tape containing that performance), then I've stolen from you. But if I copy it, I haven't stolen anything.
Copying your recording may mean that you don't have the money I might have paid you for a copy had I been unable to copy it myself for free, but perhaps I wouldn't have paid you for it. In any case, that's still not theft. Perhaps "theft of opportunity"?
But you can't just say "there's little difference" and therefore behave as if there's no difference at all. That, too, is wrong. "Intellectual property" is a misnomer. It's the reason the idea of copyright exists in the first place.
THEY ARE VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN GREED. They tried for one last dip by creating CD's and digital formats (hence going from vinyl to 8track to cassestte, etc...). Well to bad so sad, f off you rich pussy bastards. YOU CREATED A MONSTER YOU CAN'T CONTROL ... LONG LIVE P2P!!!
That might be true. I don't know
However, a lawyer-firm in Holland has done preliminary research (paid for by some pro-sharing websites in Holland, no less) that indicates that puchasing music from allofmp3 is legal here if it is for personal use.
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
Property is whatever the prevailing law says it is. The prevailing law says that a recorded performance is property. For that matter, prevailing law says that an UNrecorded performance is property -- ever listened to the warning at the start of an NFL game?
No, pretending that the deal was different is not stealing; it's breaking your promise. I believe that in the case of licensed material it meets the standards for breach of contract, though I could be mistaken. The law gives the other party the power to punish you for breaking your promise.
I think you're confusing "natural law" with statute law.
(notice: I didn't say legal, I said not illegal...for the time being)
Perhaps I am wrong, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that performances and recordings of them fall under copyright. Copyright is not property.
In which case you have no right to view or listen to it thus you are stealing.
Why is this so hard for people to understand. It is theft pure and simple. I realize this and still do it because I want stuff for free and I am a thief.
Just admit your a thief and then the fog of denial may be lifted.
--If something I said could be taken two ways, and one of those ways made you cry, then I meant the other way.
It's not legal for people in the US to download from there.
Ummm, according to the law you posted, it IS legal. It says (my paraphrase): It is illegal to import a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright owner UNLESS the importation is for personal use. Further, provided allofMP3.com is a legal distributor in their home country, then US Customs has no right to block importing from them. Here is the law complete with legalese:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 6 > Sec. 602.
Sec. 602. - Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords
(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to -
(1)...
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; or
(3)...
(b) In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable. In either case, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe, by regulation, a procedure under which any person claiming an interest in the copyright in a particular work may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the Customs Service of the importation of articles that appear to be copies or phonorecords of the work
"ever listened to the warning at the start of an NFL game?"
Yep. And it strictly prohibits "Public Performance without compensation to or agreement with the NFL". In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to watch the game on TV in a bar unless the bar pays a fee to the NFL. That is a public performance or if I use a projector type TV, throw a pro game or concert up on a wall AND charge admission. If I let five of my friends come over and watch on my big screen for free, then no commercial profit has been made by me. The key is two fold, public performance and profit.
What pro sports, musicians and actors gain from small private, non-commercial replay of events is greater exposure. i.e. Free Advertising. Say I go to a friends house, watch a movie he rented, there is a room full of his friends, we only paid ONE $4 rental fee and then later we discuss the movie. Has the actor/studio really lost anything?
Some of those people would have never paid to see the film in the first place (no lost revenue there), some may have thought the movie sucked until they actually watched it and now will tell others how much they enjoyed it (they may watch again=more rentals, they tell others=more rentals), if people enjoyed the movie they may watch other movies old or new with the same actor or director (more revenue), or the person may have thought the movie totally sucked and go home glad he didn't pay to rent the movie on his own (he likely wouldn't have chosen the movie on his own anyway, e.g. chick-flicks or date movies, no lost revenue). What we see here is a win-win for the studio and the actors. Free advertising. If teh viewers can't now afford to spend their money to view the content, they are encouraged to do so in the future.
The same could be said for a couple of kids sneaking into a movie theater. Sure they aren't supposed to be there as they haven't paid and they may be trespassing, but would you sue them for either loss of wages or something other than the actual criminal trespass? To do so would be detrimental to your future customer base. In reality the best thing to do would be to just put them out of the theater if caught and possibly host a couple of showings for underpriviledged kids. Have a homeless shelter or a youth center hand out passes. Again, nearly free advertising. Engendering goodwill to the fan base has never been a career killer. But do you remember any actors or musicians being able to continue a career after a melt-down infront of the press or after abusing fans while on stage?
If I allow others on the net to download all or part of my music collection, has a sale really been lost. Would that person ever actually heard the songs other than on the radio. I have actually helped them distribute their old tunes even further without any work or cost by them. If the downloader really enjoyed the tunes, he may go buy the full album or buy the next new album. If he doesn't have enough extra money to buy music, he may never buy an album. Have they really lost a sale here? Some of my collection includes stuff that is out of print, completely unavailable. How have they lost? They refuse to make this stuff avail. for purchase indefinitely. However, I can still hear the same tired old Led Zepplin and Pink Floyd songs on the radio.
What a load of crap.
And how about Disney, they stop selling some of their old movies every once in a while to drive up demand right before they go off sale. Why is it still $20 for Snow White and Cinderella? Have the prices of music and movies EVER come down? Become commoditized? No. I still have to pay $13 and up for an album. $20 for a movie. Rental prices have gone up. BMG music service is the only affordable place for me to buy music, but not everything I want is avail. I guess I'll just keep listening to the crappy radio and the same old music I have on CD until all this settles down.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
Excellent post, I'm keeping that in my personal documents collection as an example of well a thought out attempted rebuttle of the pillars of my worldview. some thoughts:
I'll take
(2)(information needs to be freed)
(3)(that's not the reason why I would potentially pirate, but I realize that many people do. acknowledgement of other peoples reasons and a reason why they are wrong does not make you a hypocrite, etc)
mabye's:
(12) sounds shady, but I don't really see that much wrong with it.
(11) THE PEOPLE do not 'demand' free entertainment. THE PEOPLE merely take it, as it is available to them. I demand free entertainment, that is freely available to all. this is not to say that I demand free entertainment, which should be freely available to all, but rather it is freely available to all allready, and this fact needs to merely be acknowledged.
(10) (if you ignore the 'it's my right' bit)
(6) mabye
(13) if you substitute Analogous to the word "like". This makes things a great deal more clear.
Brainless Copying vs Creative Works
Sure one can tell the difference. Consider it this way: People who brainlessly copy are similar to the average jo who, when they find a broken beer bottle or a macdonalds wrapper on their block, clean it up/throw it in a local garbage can. Whereas, when seen from this metephor, the creative artist is like the environmentalist, who actively runs a recycling co-op, or grows his own hemp, or the like. one makes the world a better place in small ways, the other, in larger. without each other, the whole gig is pointless. Without millions of people who are part of the great collective known as the internet, when an independant musician worthy of anyones attention comes around, they can now be heard by practically anyone within a week. This hasn't always been the case (see the 80s).
Most of my freinds would buy the CD anyway:
if I had, say, 50 freinds. and they all bought the dark side of the moon album
at 40$ per head that's 2000$
I wouldn't condemn the group of the 50 people I care most about to a
2000$ loss of funds. 2000$ can buy a lot of
bread, eggs and milk.
I am aware that this might be replied to with "but the artist spends say, 2000$ of his own to create the work...don't you want the artist to be able to afford eggs, bread and milk?" and this does not necessarily compete with this point. both could be the case, I'll leave that specific issue with this statement to be answered later on.
Filesharing is Illegal:
Sure. in some countries, sharing might be illegal. In some countries, freely voicing your opinion is illegal, too. does this mean that we should support the brutal repression of people freely expressing their opinion, because they are breaking the laws of their local despotic, non-elected government?
Semantic Blurring concerning "Information"/"Sharing": the term "Information Sharing" rightly blurs the line between existing, conservative, information and information that has yet to be legally shared. Just like the right to free press is really just a blurred misconception of the right to free speech. You can't have the later without the former, but you can have the former without the later.
GPL
Filesharing has the ability to become something bigger, and more important than even the GPL. The GPL is an important thing in a world filled with copyright and intellectual property law. Without copyright, and intellectual property law, the GPL is quickly overshone by, a contract that has yet to be named(to my knowledge), but could only be partially described by True Freedom. Perhaps "Information Anarchy"?(there is a book by this name on my to read list: I have not read it yet, so I am not able to comment on it yet beyond the fact that it exists)
"so that others don't have to pay for it"
completely misses the point. we don't share music to
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Take a look at 17 USC 106, 602, the MAI v. Peak case, and the Quality King case.
I'm not sure how the MAI v. Peak case fits in exactly. It establishes that simply running a program creates a copy in RAM, which is actionable under copyright law. Since we're talking about transferring data here, I don't think there's much argument about whether or not a copy has been created.
And as for the Quality King case, here's the synopsis. A producer of hair products sold stuff in different countries for different prices. One distributor got wise, bought the stuff in a country where the product was cheap, and then imported it to the US to resell at a higher price. What's the catch? The producer copyrighted all the labels on their products and tried to use copyright law to prevent this 'unauthorized' importation of their products. The judge ruled that the distribution company was allowed to import the product.
You seem to be saying, "Its illegal because somebody got sued!" So far, none of the items you've pointed out make me think that downloading from allofmp3.com is illegal.
That's a heck of leap of logic. To suggest that there is little difference seems foolish to me. Copyright law creates a weird special case where a third party can claim harm regarding handling of property by two other parties. I've got a number of CDs I'm very fond of. If I loan one out, sell it, give it away, or it is stolen from me, I no longer have access to it. In the case of it being stolen from me that access was taken from me without permission. The CDs are mine, I own them (I have no claim on the music, but those particular copies are mine). Ultimately it's a matter of scarcity, someone else having it can deny me access. However, if I were to provide a friend with a copy of one of those CDs I've lost nothing. Instead, some third party that I've never met has lost something. Worse, it's not a real loss (they had something, now they don't), it's an opportunity loss, and a fractional one at that (since you can't really count those cases where the person would never have purchased the CD themselves). It's a weird special case.
I believe in the principle of property and will defend it as well. I simply limit private property to things subject to scarcity. I also believe in the copyright system, I believe that it is good for society and would fight against efforts to abolish it. But I believe in them for different reasons. Let the ethics of copyright law stand on its own; I think it's strong enough to do so. Most file sharers understand in their hearts, if not their minds, that they are different things. Confusing the two just leads to sloppy thinking and closes the minds of those you most want to influence.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Kill your stereo and make your own music. Just because you're not happy with RIAA-provided options, doesn't mean you have to break the law.
You get the best of both worlds - you're not liable for being sued, and you're not giving any money to the RIAA.
Sean
How does one find out the statute of limitations on a John Doe case?
artists dont make very much money from their CD sales.. at least, on the whole.. there are exceptions. but Johnny-Punk-Band makes very little off of the CD's.. so if piracy helps his career, he's doing 2x as well.. now he's playing a lot more live shows (where he makes the majority of his cash), has potential for endorsement deals, etc.
/ANALOGY
meanwhile, the record label that paid for all his studio time, all the A&R exec's salaries, all the promotional campaigns, for every album less they sell due to piracy, even if it doesnt hurt the artist, it hurts them. now, i can't tell you the equation for how many $SONGS_DOWNLOADED equates to N(); lost $RECORD_SALE.. but i can tell you that this is the light record companies view piracy in.
if you owned a bread company that made really amazing bread, and you kept the recipes secret to that everytime someone wanted to try a loaf of your latest recipe they'd have to come to you.. and suddenly you found out that people had the recipe and were making their own loaves, for FREE, while you had a lease to pay, and the cost of that snazzy yellowpages ad, and don't forget your secretary and the guy's who wash the dishes, and there's the garbage bill and the phone bill.. i mean, sure, business is still good, but look at all those people across the street eating bread.. i bet some of those guys used your recipe, damn them.. they should have to come to you if they want tasty bread.. now you're going to go broke..
I've misplaced, had stolen (a physical object), broken or scratched dozens of CDs over the years. Some few I've purchased again.
If I had made a backup copy of one before it broke, would I be entitled to continue using that backup copy after it broke? And could I space- and time-shift the songs on the backup?
If so, does it really matter if I didn't make a backup?
So shouldn't it be legally defensible for me to download MP3s of any CD that I purchased in the past, whether or not I can produce that CD now?
That it was uncopyrighted. The copyrights are just held by the bands/indie labels/whoever owns MP3.coms archive now. And to everyone whos saying they would never sue me because i'm not sharing their music, look at who they have sued... Grandmothers with Macs unable to run kazaa, college professors with the same name as artists etc. Its not unthinkable that they would make the mistake of going after someone sharing music whos copyrights they dont own or uncopyrighted music (its not that hard to get a hold of uncopyrighted music, public domain works such as classicle are easy enough to find). Anyways, IIRC there have already been artists or labels who aren't afiliated with them complaining about the RIAA thretaning people who are doing whatever with their (non RIAA) music.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
that (area code)555-1212 is directory service. So if somebody was prank calling you from there you'd know it was an operator, which would really narrow down the list of culprits. ;-)
Jim
Aside from the No Doubt, it's all crap.
On the topic of the recording industry, PBS is airing a Frontline episode: "The Way the Music Died," on 2004-05-27, Thursday at 21:00. It may be of interest to some of you.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/musi c/
Freeing slaves was the issue of the 19th century. Freeing information is the issue of the 21st century. Got a problem with that?
An average man like you can't stop people from swapping files, because it isn't going to happen. And it's just as much stealing as it is to record a video on your VCR and watch it repeatedly on your own time. It's just as much a crime as going 46 MPH in a Speed Limit 45 zone.
Welcome to the new entertainment world order. File-swapping is here to stay. Stop living in the past and start working on the future. Develop a business model that allows these artists to profit accordingly from their production, and screw the RIAA and other corporations who get paid a shitload for outdated service.
Copyright is perhaps the purest form of property. Copyright says that my creative expressions belong solely to me until I say otherwise. How could that not be property? I can give it or withhold it; I can buy it or sell it; I can punish you for taking or damaging it. Something which can belong to someone is property.
That copyright has no physical existence means only that the law is my *only* means of defending my ownership, since I can't lock it in a safe or set guards on it.
What promise?? I made no promise. Turning on the TV does not constitute a "promise" of any kind, except to pay my electric bill maybe. To me, these laws are not valid, anymore than an EULA. In Britain, where I believe you still need a license to use a TV(is that really true?), then you signed a written agreement. It's there in black and white. So there would be little to argue about. Prevailing laws are written by the last guy who won the war. Now we're getting into "might makes right". Is that what you want and believe?
What?
This is not about stealing or copyrights or even artists or music.
This is about powerful people commercializing art to produce excessive profits and the monopolization of an industry.
This is also about the explotation of artists and audiences.
Make no mistake, the RIAA is a front for evil people that we must fight, or we will be assimilated.
*sigh* It's the League's property, or the author's, or whoever, so they get to decide whether they have lost anything they care about. If you want to make that decision, write your own song, or stage a game, or in some way create something that gives you intangible property. In the case of having friends over to watch your rented movie, the studio agreed implicitly to permit that use by releasing the movie knowing that the laws permit such use. *They* (generally) live up to *their* obligations under the law. I wish everybody did.
It's "barratry",
not "battery", unless they come and beat you up or pour pancake batter over you and your computer.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
What percentage, I wonder, of P2P users leave files available for others to download, vs moving them out of the shared folder?
- mp3 via mod_mp3
- IPV4 ogg stream via icecast
- IPV6 ogg stream via icecast
High quality mp3 files are also available for download at www.ardynet.com. Coming soon, high quality ogg files for download.DISCLAIMER
I am not affiliated with any RIAA label, and my music is free to download and redistribute.
Hey, there is not one IT professional that know that doesnt copy mp3s/movies. Everyone has either a 20-30g of stuff , some have 100gig +.
Also often they have dedicated servers at the office (less so in corporate USA companies, shmucks!!). But rife at EDUs and smaller companies, people just carry an 80gig removable HD.
Hey, 80/120/160 GIG removable HDs are cheaper than that much worth of data put on blank CDRs/DVDRs and far more reliable/portable.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
in the long awaited death of copyright, which is simply absurd in the Digital Age.
You violate copyright, he violates copyright, everyone violates copyright because society cannot accept such limitation on freedom. Of course you only violate copyright because the songs are too expensive, or because you can't afford it, or because nobody knows and you wouldn't buy it anyhow. That self-righteousness is what all copyright abusers who tend to support copyright say. The support copyright has is a result only of the lack of enforcement - and thus copyright enforcement is a necessary and positive step in its ultimate destruction.
Share on USENET.
Share on an on a wireless network.
Share on invite only P2P networks.
Share on LAN parties for MP3 sharing.
Share on IRC.
Share on an invite only FTP server.
Share on VPNs.
Share using snail mail burning CDs.
Fuck you RIAA, you will never stop sharing. So maybe check your own shit seeing as you cannot even pass an audit before you make bullshit claims and go after the only thing you can attack.
Retarded
Idiot
Assholes of
America
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
The statue depends on the crime or injury. In my state, for example, products liabilty cases are 3 years, negligence are two years, etc. As one frequently hears, murder has no statue of limitations. To findout what the statute of limitations is for you, go to your state's judical or legislative homepage, and look thought the state statues. One section buiiedsomewhere in the section on civil procedure will pobably be titled "limitations". that's what you are looking for.
They want to start charging royalties for ring-tones? That is ridiculous. Are they going to start charging royalties when you get a song stuck in your head too?
"It has come to our attention that you have been humming . There is a 2.5 million dollar fine for the illegal performance of copyrighted material."
It would be funny if it was mildly correct.
1. dont use C: as my boot XP is E:, and i might not even HAVE a C: so use %SYSTEM%
2. dont assume a \windows, it could be winnt, or winxp, \XP_04\
tsk tsk, is this what graduates learn at MIT?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Well, who made you el corporate defender.
:) Just look what Jacko did with all his cash.
Civilization will not die if everyone is allowed to copy like hell.
Think of what else you can buy for $20 that had 100x more effort/resources put into. A cpu, a pair of jeans, a kb, a mobile battery, solar cells, CF card., and now that $20 piece of music, which the clowns probly had a damn good time making and wrote the song in 2hrs on a napkin (the songs that take a long time to write are crap).
On the serious side, there are lots of songs that
1. cannot be found locally in some cities
2. wont be on itunes, or itunes wont be active in some other country besides Gods own USA.
3. and yes, we can tune into the limited radio stations playing the same songlist of 100 songs 23.99945/7
But for the vast majority that want top 40 etc... big deal if they download the music, it means they have more $$$$ to spend locally on beer or pizza, or that extra 256meg ram. Besides i have no desire to see Britney get even more richer or make more albums.
My defence for C.I. is, well this is it "Jesus would approve" thats it, its moral. Oh and I dont wish to send more $$$ funding USA's war on *.*
I'll fund my local beer brewery.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
That is not what copyright says. Copyright, at least here in the USA, says that your creative expression belongs to everyone (how could it be otherwise, once you express an idea, we all share it, and you have not lost it, unlike if we all take your car and you don't have it anymore). Copyright simply grants you exclusive control of your expressions for a limited time, in order to artificially inflate the value of your expressions and therefore encourage you to continue being expressive.
Although I generally think Richard Stallman is a bit extreme for my tastes, you really should read his short writing on "intellectual property".
If so, does it really matter if I didn't make a backup?
So shouldn't it be legally defensible for me to download MP3s of any CD that I purchased in the past, whether or not I can produce that CD now?
Unfortunately, copyright is a civil issue, not a criminal one (yet...), and in a civil case there is no "innocent until proven guilty". Burden of proof (unfortunately) falls upon yourself to prove that you own the items.
-T
"Four factors that govern all human endeavors: geography, technology, inertia, and greed."
- Cecil Adams
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
No, you're just not reading the law carefully enough. First, it is not importation, and you should read the MAI case to see how easily this answer can be arrived at. The Utah Lighthouse case that is based on MAI is also enlightening.
But anyway, even if this IS importation -- which it is not -- that is illegal, save where 602 applies. Look closely at 602(b): In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited.
Well, if "this title," i.e. US law were active in Russia, the pertinent copies could not be legally made. They would be infringing. Hence, while it would require the Customs service to stop you, it is illegal. The 602(a) exception doesn't make it legal -- it just prevents the US copyright holder from suing you.
But this is all academic. As I said, there is no importation. A new copy is being created on your hard drive. A copy is a MEDIUM embodying a work. A TANGIBLE MEDIUM. You simply cannot, given the way the law is written (see 17 USC 101) move a work from one copy to another. Instead, you must create a new copy in the second medium, whereupon you may (or may not) destroy the previous copy.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well, MAI -- and the Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Intellectual Reserve case that comes from MAI -- don't distinguish between data and programs. If it is on a computer, they hold, new copies are made when anything goes from network to hard drive, hard drive to RAM, RAM to cache, etc. Each physically distinct piece of memory is a seperate medium. Since a copy is a medium embodying a work (see 17 USC 101), each one is a seperate copy.
When you download, you are making at least one new copy.
Qualtiy King is merely the only case I know off the top of my head involving even dicta about 602, and there is some. The copies were talking about are piratical, per 602(b) because they could not be made legally under US law. 602(a) doesn't save it, because both sections only deal with who can act to stop it -- not overall legality.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.