RIAA Hands out more Lawsuits

Syrae writes "The RIAA has unleashed yet another round of copyright infringement lawsuits against 754 people. Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of. I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

Comments

Why?

[FireFlie]

I understand where this is news for nerds, but come on, tell me that the last sentence in this submission isn't just a little loaded. They buy more music. Good. That gives them the right to steal whatever they want then, right? Yes, I know that this is slashdot and I am going to get hammered on this one, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you cant do whatever the hell you want. I like gin. I don't like paying for gin. When I go out to get gin, I don't steal it, despite my desire to have both my cash and my gin.

There are a wealth of music programs out there (which these people are apparently using). Most of the pay for networks give you the ability to preview music right? Sure it's often a small clip of it (itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable), but that is one of the biggest defense of sharers: that they somehow need to preview before they buy. Well they can, and people are still trading music illegally. Ghasp!

You hate the system, fine. I'm not exactly fond of the way things like this are going right now either. If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars.

Now, as usual, let the "fuck the **aa posts commence."

Re:Why?

[iamplasma]

Submitter's point was that the sharing of music leads to more sales and thus more money for the RIAA. No, his statement is by no means truth of this assertion, but this is what he was try to suggest...

Exactly, the submitter is suggesting, in a totally deceptive way, that P2P increases music sales, by relying on a blatant logical fallacy. Just because music pirates buy more music than non-music pirates doesn't prove a thing, correlation is not causation. The simplest disproof is to simply realise that not everyone listens to music (let's be conservative and say 20% of people don't listen to music). All music pirates listen to music (or close to all), unlike the group of non-music pirates, which include people who don't listen to music, so of course the music pirates will have a higher rate of music listening, and so purchasing.

Perhaps another simple proof is to use an analogy. I'll bet that people who steal alcohol also buy more alcohol than people who don't steal alcohol (since they're probably mostly alcoholics). Does that mean that alcohol theft increases alcohol sales? Of course not. But that doesn't stop the submitter trying to use that kind of deceptive logic to push his opinion. If you're going to propagandise in your submissions, at least make them logical.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Excellent. Why don't we let all the companies that would like to copy Linux and sell it in devices without providing their source code just do it? They aren't depriving another person of the ownership of Linux. The opensource developers aren't loosing anything.

Think this idea will get a +4 Insightful as well? I don't. Hypocrites Rule!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

>A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong.

Here we go, again...

Yes, copyright infringement isn't the same thing as physical theft, but, the end result is, for the seller of either, the same: They are deprived of the money that they are entitled to, for the goods they provide, under the terms they provide them as provided for under law.

For physical goods, it's a one to one mapping. For IP, it is not, nor must it be.

And that, of course, is where the "disconnect" arises: Those that want their entertainment for free seem to think that the mere fact that such can be cheaply duplicated now should also imply that it should be cheap for them to buy.

In short, they deem the value provided to be solely equal to the cost to duplicate... and when that cost is nil, or nearly so, they think that they should get it for free, or on whatever terms they deem "fair".

They resent any attempt by anyone, regardless of stripe, to make money, unless the amounts charged fall within their definition of "fair" - despite the fact that such isn't theirs to define in the first place.

However, here's an "out" for those that feel otherwise: You're free to release your own copyrighted creations, under your own terms. You can charge whatever you wish, or nothing at all. The Internet gives you worldwide exposure and cheap distribution... go for it! Prove the money-grubbing corporate fascists wrong by creating something better, and releasing it for free.

Of course, there are some that are doing so... but they are few and far between... and they certainly aren't the ones explaining the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement", for the umpteenth time, here on Slashdot.

Finally, I think that most of us that understand the real issues involved don't have any real problem with equating copyright infringement with stealing, insofar as it deprives someone of money to which they are entitled to.

Oh, and I just can't resist: Are you sure that that "lobotamy" was cosmetic? It seems to have affected your ability to write sentences: "the reason you're about the be modded"... and your spelling as well, as "lobotamy" is generally spelled "lobotomy".

Maybe you should ask for a refund?