Music Industry Cracks Down

Quote:

---

It is also untrue to say that these lawsuits will cost the taxpayers money. Usually if you are sued for breaking the law part of your sentence is to pay the court costs and fees associated with bringing you to justice.

---

That is irrelevant if the person doesn't actually have the money. The judge still needs to be paid. The bailiff still needs to be paid. The prosecuting attorney still needs to be paid. The fact that they may add those fees to the final judgment against the accused isn't relevant if they don't have it to pay.

Quote:

---

Also- the RIAA is a non profit organization. They do not themselves hold or make any money off of copyrighted materials. Instead they represent a large majority of the music industry copyright holders. So saying the the RIAA is greedy and just wants to make more money is a grossly inaccurate statement as they do not make any profit as dictated by SEC standards on what is a non-profit organization.

---

I knew someone would bring up this point and the fact that the RIAA doesn't work with artists- the labels do. I almost went back and edited some of my stuff to make it politically correct and then decided not to. The RIAA may be non-profit, but it is a non-profit made up of and representing the record labels and the industry. They are synonymous for the purpose of this discussion.

Besides, being a "non-profit" corporation certainly doesn't validate them as being altruistic or charitable. Non-profits are still corporations. For many non-profits it is just a legal way to avoid some other taxes by exploiting loopholes in tax code while still operating as a standard capitalist corporation.

Quote:

---

An RIAA bot searches a P2P network looking for what it thinks is copyrighted music. Once it successfully finds something it thinks is copyrighted it will try to download it and any other songs that the "sharer" is offering. It will then also gather any information it can about the complete file list the person is sharing as well as the IP address of the "sharer." Once all of this data is gathered it is flagged for a human to listen to the music to make the determination if the music is the proper copyrighted material. If it is, you are marked to have a summons sent to you...

---

I agree that this is how they are doing it- but the P2P networks are already introducing versions of the client software that reroute connections through multiple proxies and use other methods to attempt to obfuscate the identity of the end-user. I am sure it is all breakable given enough time and resources but the RIAA has to decide how much time and resources they want to devote to this.

I agree that downloading illegal songs is stealing. I agree that the RIAA (translate="the music industry") has a right to enforce their copyright, enforce the law, and prosecute to the full extent of the law anyone found to be violating it.

They are technically within their rights. It is just a slippery slope and a very poor public relations and marketing decision on their part. And they need to stick to using and enforcing existing laws instead of lobbying for new laws or for exemptions for them to go around existing laws in tracking people down.

Quote:

---

They are technically within their rights. It is just a slippery slope and a very poor public relations and marketing decision on their part. And they need to stick to using and enforcing existing laws instead of lobbying for new laws or for exemptions for them to go around existing laws in tracking people down.

---

I agree totally with your comments. I did not comment on these items specifically because you covered them sufficiently. I was moreso directing my comments to those that were trying to somehow justify breaking the law.

The only comment that I do have to make out of your post is that if the P2P networks develop software that circumvents current methodologies to identify music piracy, new laws will have to be developed. Copyright holders depends on the laws of this land to uphold their copyrights. If the laws cannot do that adequately due to changes in technology, the laws will have to be changed. So in a way it is the people who insist on creating new P2P networks that allow music piracy to continue anonymously that are causing the extra cost to be incurred.

If you are not distributing illegal items on P2P why does the technology have to change from how it is now? I think the legal system will also look much differently upon P2P systems that have anonymous features that are only there to foil law enforcement.

I forgot to comment on this -

Quote:

---

That is irrelevant if the person doesn't actually have the money. The judge still needs to be paid. The bailiff still needs to be paid. The prosecuting attorney still needs to be paid. The fact that they may add those fees to the final judgment against the accused isn't relevant if they don't have it to pay.

---

So if you do something to me, let's say you break into my house and steal all of my stuff. Let's also assume that we are/were friends and that I know you are broke as hell. Am I then the one to blame because the state had to eat the cost of prosecuting you as you cannot repay the costs and I knew this going into it? Should I just let you go free instead of having the courts uphold the laws which is what they are designed to do? I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think the RIAA should be blamed for asking the courts of this country to uphold the laws that our democracy has agreed upon.

If anything the way in which one repays the courts should be re-addressed. If you can't pay it outright, then you have to go and work a city/county/state job without getting paid. This would then counteract the impact of the city/county/state having to pay for your trial. But this is an entirely different discussion.

I've been following this on the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/) -- reading each development as presented by their dry and very Brit sense of humer. Follow the link, and when you get there type "RIAA" into the search field near the top. If you're like me, you'll laugh your ass off at the recording industry's antics, groan at their stupidity, and find yourself looking for ways to fight back.

Speaking of fighting back, the RIAA website has been the subject of numerous hack attacks since this all began. There's a story about that in today's Register.

The Director

Heh heh,

mohaughn, I suggest you take a real big step back for a second... Look at the big picture here.

Quote:

---

It is also rather silly to continue to bitch about albums sucking and only wanting one or two songs when you can legally go buy individual songs now for prices ranging from .59$ to 1.09$ a song.

---

Now usually, I must be insane, but usually when a band comes out with a song that you really like you don't go out and buy the single track so you can listen to it millions of times over again but instead, try and extend your musical horizons and buy the actual album and to support the band that made that song...

Let me guess here, you might be saying well if you do go out and buy it and it sucks, that was a poor decision on your part. Too bad $20.00 down the drain blah blah blah... why don't you listen to the 15sec mp3 sampler before you buy it... etc.

15 seconds Isn't enough dammit... I want to listen before I buy to the whole damn thing and I'm not gonna reach into my pockets and blow money. Wish I could... but I'm only 17 and I've got to take care of a bro. and a sis. not because mommy and daddy split but because they both have gotten screwed over by their employers (believe me heh I'm a realist for the most part so if they screwed up on the job I wouldn't mention this at all) but I'm getting off topic.

If your so sad about people making illegal CD's then campaign against CD burners.

Quote:

---

I was moreso directing my comments to those that were trying to somehow justify breaking the law.

---

Oh give me a break, you call this a REAL crime, your all wet, you go off shouting about how it's not right to steal from artists that make millions upon millions of dollars and then when someone like me comes along you run and wrap yourself around the American flag and cry capitalism. Non-Profit... maybe not directly, but... step back further now...
indirectly now, of course there is.

There is so much more that we could be doing as a nation than crying about this. These people are well off as it is, give it up!

Wow... ;)

Well, Since AO has felt they would take my RIAA post and move it off the front page (yet they leave this one *sigh*), I felt I would just post the link to the Project "Screw the RIAA" again.

http://www.planetmaddness.com/riaa

We are doing nothing "illegal", just a small experiment. Fell free to join up.

xmaddness

5mb an mp3, 2gb = 400 songs
400 x $150,000 = $60,000,000

hmmmmm oh o (not saying that this is whats on my HD am just using average mp3 drive size =P)

v_Ln

Does anyone find it scary that they actually are suing people!? I hate these people trust me, but I hate losing money more. What will we do?

scat

Quote:

---

15 seconds Isn't enough dammit... I want to listen before I buy to the whole damn thing and I'm not gonna reach into my pockets and blow money. Wish I could... but I'm only 17 and I've got to take care of a bro. and a sis. not because mommy and daddy split but because they both have gotten screwed over by their employers (believe me heh I'm a realist for the most part so if they screwed up on the job I wouldn't mention this at all) but I'm getting off topic.

---

I can name atleast 8 record stores in my local area that will let you listen to the entire album before you buy it. And honestly, I think if P2P is used in an ethical way it is a great way to preview albums. But how many people on here honestly use it that way? From the earlier posts on here that I was directing my comments at people will download an album, see that most of it sucks, and then keep the two or three songs that they like instead of going out and buying those particular songs.

Quote:

---

Let me guess here, you might be saying well if you do go out and buy it and it sucks, that was a poor decision on your part. Too bad $20.00 down the drain blah blah blah... why don't you listen to the 15sec mp3 sampler before you buy it... etc.

---

You are putting words into my mouth here, the only time I mentioned anything about making a bad decision was to address people talking about artists getting ripped off.

Quote:

---

Oh give me a break, you call this a REAL crime, your all wet, you go off shouting about how it's not right to steal from artists that make millions upon millions of dollars and then when someone like me comes along you run and wrap yourself around the American flag and cry capitalism. Non-Profit... maybe not directly, but... step back further now...

---

I don't know, maybe it is that I have thought about that their are other people in the music industry other than the artists. I tend to have to agree with the new marketting campaigns that show all of the little people who work in the industries from which people are stealing. How many sound engineers work on a particular album? I can assure you those sound engineers for the most part of not making much money at all. And again I ask, who are you to say that artists make to much money? Isn't that the American way? You would do well to do some research into the matter and you will find that almost all music artists make the vast majority of their money off of music licensing(for commercials and things like that), and touring not album sales.

I also do not agree with the RIAA that piracy alone is causing the decline in the industry. Instead I would have to say that almost all industries are in decline and it is moreso a factor of the economy. Nor do I really agree with the idea that going after all of these people is a good idea as I stated in my last post. I still don't think stealing music is right.

sorry just had to add I can't remember who said it but i agree completly

the music industry is complaining that p2p software is to blame for the decline is music sales (single sales maybe but albumn sales are up) but it is not p2p software that is to blame it is the fact that all modern songs are **** !!!!

v_Ln

I believe in free music just as much as i believe in free information. The internet is a tool for getting both. I don't know much about the income of a music artist but wouldnt they make up for their losses by putting on more live concerts and stuff? Buying a CD and downloading it, I get the same experience from both, the songs. But there is no alternative to actually going to a concert. Did someone calculate out 3GB of music to be a 60,000,000$ fine? Damn, at one point I had 10GB on my HD.

Do anyones ISP's give them a set of rules, like things you can and cant do with your internet connection? cuz i mean they kinda gotta tell you if you doing something illegal dont they? My isp never gave me a set of rules, i could do whatever i wanted and just say "I didn't know" couldnt I?

This flood of posts would definelty be my fault...I am deeply sorry for even bring this up...as for you <hater> go to hell. You probobly are some flaming liberal...for all we know. Please post more about this topic but ban <hater>. Gracias mi amigos.

scat

Quote:

---

How many sound engineers work on a particular album? I can assure you those sound engineers for the most part of not making much money at all. And again I ask, who are you to say that artists make to much money?

---

Wait for it....

Quote:

---

You would do well to do some research into the matter and you will find that almost all music artists make the vast majority of their money off of music licensing(for commercials and things like that), and touring not album sales.

---

BAM... ya know what buddy I did do the research before I posted...so

Quote:

---

You are putting words into my mouth here

---

Check it out...
http://www.playbill.com/jobs/find/job_detail/1785.html
http://www.igda.org/breakingin/path_audio.htm#sound

And plus we're talking about music artists here so the top one is probly your best bet sense it's one for Yale and everything. The starting studio range is around $30,000, which Isn't much but keep in mind it's for people that are just starting out along with the artists. But hey, I thought they get a fixed salary anyway so what's it to say that P2P networks will make their salary go down at all??? Plus there is a HUGE demand for these type of people as well.

Now I tend to think thats not to bad... good benifits... nice pay... hmm, looks swell to me?

Quote:

---

the music industry is complaining that p2p software is to blame for the decline is music sales (single sales maybe but albumn sales are up) but it is not p2p software that is to blame it is the fact that all modern songs are **** !!!!

---

I couldn't state that enough valhallen.

Quote:

---

Isn't that the American way?

---

Whoops, sorry I don't practice your concept of purism, but hey there are probly a lot of Americans who don't either. AND I greatly resent any sarcasm with the use of it, after all, I mean, there are so many Americans that have died for YOU and ME and everybody else... You should know how many though, as far as the war in Iraq is concerned. I can't tell you how many times CNN has reported the number killed, they where it like an emblem, it's sick...

You try and push me an inch left, I'll throw you a mile right...

*** This is all in the spirit of good debating, I really don't have bad blood or anything toward you mohaughn, I hope you understand that.

--Peace :cool:

Many of these replies go so far off the beaten path they detract from the debate.

You can't really say that artists or sports figures make "too much" money. They make what the market is willing to give them- that is capitalism. If you choose not to be one of those who feels that artist's music is worth listening to or that sports figure is worth watching then by all means choose not to give them your money- its a free country.

But, as much as people complain about the price of baseball tickets or concert tickets or the price of CD's or anything else- as long as people pay it the market justifies the expense. As long as they continue making millions and mega-millions it just proves that many people do appreciate their contribution and are willing to pay money to be entertained by it.

All of that is beside the point though. Being an information security web site I believe the focus of the original post (and the other 30 or so threads about the RIAA / P2P wars) revolves around the RIAA's willingness and attempts to hack people's computers and circumvent, break or re-write laws in order to hunt down and prosecute people.

I have said it over and over, but since the thread has digressed into whether or not sound engineers will continue to be paid, yada, yada, yada, I'll say it again: stealing copyrighted songs, software, movies, books or anything else over P2P networks or any other means is stealing plain and simple. I condone it only insomuch as people wanting to sample songs in order to make informed decisions about their purchases and then dispose of the illegal files (and I think the RIAA would do well to start looking at this market for just that purpose).

I also believe that the RIAA and the record labels they represent are entitled to investigate, hunt down and bring to justice anyone found violating those copyright laws. Whether or not the artist is being paid "fairly" or "too much" for the CD sales isn't relevant. The artist knowingly entered into a contract with their record label that grants the label certain ownership rights. The artist is most likely not starving on a street corner so I won't sympathize with the fact that they may receive only a pittance from CD sales. The fact is that the record label owns the copyright for the songs on the CD's they produce and sell and they have the right to enforce that copyright.

That said, the RIAA needs to quit lobbying congress for Constitutional amendments and new laws. It is already illegal to infringe on someone's copyright or outright steal works protected by copyright. We don't need new laws. We don't need new laws to help the RIAA find copyright violators and we don't need to grant the RIAA exemptions to existing laws. They should follow the existing laws in finding the copyright violators and follow the existing laws and procedures for litigating against or prosecuting those violators.

I don't care if the RIAA and those they represent want to waste all day everyday in pursuit of this quixotic quest- but my elected officials and government agencies have better things to do and I don't want them involved.

Apologies, I felt overly compelled to respond, mainly because I had to get my point across. But in turn the topic degressed into something else.

**Note to self PM user if going off topic.

Quote:

---

That is irrelevant if the person doesn't actually have the money. The judge still needs to be paid. The bailiff still needs to be paid. The prosecuting attorney still needs to be paid. The fact that they may add those fees to the final judgment against the accused isn't relevant if they don't have it to pay.

---

And lets not forget that since they don't have the cash to pay the fine, WE will be FOOTING THE BILL for "three hots and a cot" for 5 years or so PER OFFENDER. Then there are the costs associated with building all the new prisons that will surely have to be built to hold all of these "hardened criminals". Will the RIAA be willing to pay those costs or will they, in their infinite wisdom, decide to release the minor offenders (you know, murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like) to make room for the "thieves"?

As for the fines being imposed....wtf are they thinking? $150,000 PER SONG??? That means that it would make more economic sense for the "thieves" to run down to Sam Goodys or Tower Records and just shoplift the music they want...all you're liable for in that case is restitution and community service if you're a first offender. If the courts end up supporting such an extreme measure, then it's time for a little judicial house-cleaning.

Perhaps it's about the ease of actually getting a song. i'm listening to the radio and i hear a decent song whilst i'm on the internet i download it because it is far less effort. Why wait till the next time i'm in town when i can get it now? On the other hand if i see a CD i like in town i'll buy it no big deal, not too expensive. the fact is i'm at home most of the time so it is a better sue of my time to download than to go out most of the time. The fines being imposed are rediculous though, just imagine some poor 12 year old who just downloaded her favourite spice girls songs of all time then BAM law suit and she is in debt, BIG debt, no more lolly pops for her.

ARRRRRRR, Long Freddy Silver here. Did anybody is that bird Swabby. Arrrrrrr. I do use irc when I'm looking for songs. I do wonder why one needs 3000 or more mp3's though. I make my disc and then delete the mp3. Anybody doing RESALES here? Hmmmmm. Well, back to finding old Swabby. Here Swabby old boy, arrrrrrrrrr. Is it dinner time again? (lol)

Long Freddy Silver :D

Anyone interested in the future of p2p networking should check out Mixter's beta release of Six-four. Its an open source framework for a completely anonymous de-centralized p2p network capable of transporting anykind of data through a encrypted channels on a trusted peer network. Mixter is a already some what an infamous l33t hacker and his site provides other interesting work as well. The encryption scheme has been approved by the US DoD as long as you promise you're not a terrorsit. The source is provided so,with some programming knowledge existing apps could changed to use 6/4 or entirely new applications can be created. Protect you rights, screw the RIAA, copyright laws were created to protect the IP of people, not to insure them they would get rich selling pig-****, those who provide quality work and content will find that their work will always be purchased by honest and discernining consumers who appreciate the creators hard work. The RIAA must learn to adjust to the current market conditions and change their business rules to meet this change. Otherwise they will find themselves a legcay in the industry. Regardless of the moral controversy surrounding p2p technology, the fact is, Pandora's box has already been opened and you will find the RIAA's current strategy is only speeding their decline, as they choose litigation over innovation and competition as a business strategy. Copyrighted **** still smells like **** to me.


http://mixter.void.ru/ - Mixter's Home
http://www.hacktivismo.com/ - Hacktivismo Home / Six-four download


-Maestr0

Wow,

That quite amazing that this guy had put this thing together...

I strongly believe that the RIAA is going to eat **** here in the next few years due to the fact that technology is only getting better and the sheer fact that just about anything can be digitized.

My prediction is that in 5 years or so, software companies, the RIAA, and other digitizable media companies will be in a massive **** storm. I say this because, you and I both know that people would rather spend hours cracking software, building p2p 'encryption' software, and hacking in general than actually going out and buying the stuff. That particular industry is going to find itself in a massive spiral. Also, perhaps the open source market might finally dominate...this is my prediction.

scat

Some one please tell me why the music or film industry should be different from the book industry. If i by a book it is protected by copyright restrictions. But that book is mine to do more or less what i like with, i can lend it to who ever i like, sell it on or give it away. As far as i am concerned if i bye something it then becomes my property. I feel i have the right then to do what i like with my property.
As long as i do not use that propery to make money i do not feel that i should be beholden to anyone.

Yes, but you cannot reprint thousands of copies of the book and give them away.

-Maestr0

You would think that they would give up by now. What they are doing is just wasting other peoples time by them crying of things that can't be controlled. They don't even need that money they are already rich I bet. They just want more.

I don't share my files on line, because of this RIAA bot or bug. But I think that file sharing should be free. The internet needs to stay free. But, for people who sell, you are theives and you should recieve the full out come of the law. You are no better than a drug pusher on the street selling dope to little kids. Well, that may be to hard, but we do need to keep our way of life free. The history of file sharing has told us that people are feed up with spending thier hard earned cash on crapy music. :jams: Well, that my $.59 worth.

Freddy :flash:

Quote:

---

The history of file sharing has told us that people are feed up with spending thier hard earned cash on crapy music. Well, that my $.59 worth.

---

You're digressing from the point again.

History may show that people are fed up with spending their "hard-earned cash on crappy music"- maybe that has something to do with the decline in CD sales. But, if you think its crappy then there is no point in downloading it for free either.

These arguments that the companies backing the RIAA have billions of dollars already, or the artists are making millions of dollars anyway are ridiculous. The fact that U2 or Britney Spears has millions of dollars does not suddenly make it OK to steal from them. The fact that Sony or Warner Bros. has billions of dollars doesn't suddenly make it OK to steal from them.

You, or we, don't get to choose how much is enough money or how much is too much- the market does that. If you think their music is crappy then you can choose to be someone who does not contribute to their millions, but as long as millions of people do buy their CD's then they deserve every penny they get. If I was a shareholder of one of the recording companies you can damn well bet I would want my share price to increase (and increase and increase).

The general population gets to decide how much the market will bear and in effect does get to determine the worth of a product or service. However, an individual or group of people don't get to just decide on their own that something costs too much or that a person or company makes "enough" money so its OK to break the law now. When it truly gets to be too much or "enough" the market will stop supporting it and they will cease to make a profit- that is capitalism. If you like being told how much you're worth up front or that you've made enough find yourself a nice socialist or communist country and feel free to pack your bags.

If people get fed up with spending their hard-earned cash to die a slow painful death from cancer will that suddenly make it OK for them to just walk into any store and steal cigarettes? I mean - Phillip Morris is worth billions. They certainly have "enough" and don't need to make any more money off of murdering people slowly. I mean, this is America- their "way of life" must be kept free.

The fact that Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in the world doesn't make it OK to pirate software from Microsoft- we don't need any modern day Robinhood's who take from the rich and give to themselves. There are developers and marketers who work for Microsoft. There are people who work the lines producing and packaging the CD's. There are people that make their living selling the software in the store. All of these people rely on the sales of these products, or conversely suffer when sales decline- whether because the market quits buying or because the market starts stealing instead of buying.

That same argument has already been put forth regarding the songs and movies. When you steal a movie from a file sharing network that means that Best Boy #3, Key Grip #1 and Assistant Supervisor of Set Direction don't get paid as much. You can't pick and choose and claim that you are only stealing from Microsoft or Disney or Sony or Warner Bros..

Each theft affects the entire economy with a small ripple effect. When there are enough thefts those ripples combine into a large wave that ends up washing some of those little guys aside to the unemployment line.

Its arguments like that and others throughout this thread that get Congress to buy into supporting the RIAA, MPAA and others. If you don't want to support a company or an artist- don't. Keep your money. But don't claim you don't want to support them and then turn around and steal their work from a file-sharing service.

"
Whoops, sorry I don't practice your concept of purism, but hey there are probly a lot of Americans who don't either. AND I greatly resent any sarcasm with the use of it, after all, I mean, there are so many Americans that have died for YOU and ME and everybody else... You should know how many though, as far as the war in Iraq is concerned. I can't tell you how many times CNN has reported the number killed, they where it like an emblem, it's sick...

You try and push me an inch left, I'll throw you a mile right...

*** This is all in the spirit of good debating, I really don't have bad blood or anything toward you mohaughn, I hope you understand that.

--Peace
"

The Radical- You really confused me with that post. Are you trying to use one example of a job add to try and say that sound engineers are ok in the industry? Sorry, but that type of logic doesn't fly with me. You seem to want to disagree with what I am saying, but you have not made any points yourself. I really don't see what people killed in war has to do with this either.

The fact is people are deciding the market in a non-violent way, by file sharing. There are no guns or any form of violents.

Quote:

---

The general population gets to decide how much the market will bear and in effect does get to determine the worth of a product or service.

---

The internet has become the new power of the people. It is apparent that it will take new laws to try and stop this,so the old laws are of no effect. This is a perfect picture of the people being empowered to voice thier desires. It seem those on top of the world wish to keep thier heavy boots on the peoples necks.

Freddy

does anyone besides me remember the case in federal court,?
you know, the one where riaa,mia,sony and philips are getting sued
for over charging consumers for the price of cd's. wasn't it about $200,000,000
or so? the debate over cost, copyrights or morality is pointless,
this is just another spin job,do you realy think riaa would risk going after a
consumer? imagine the press,when the mega industry lawyers go to court
and try to slam some 12 year old.

justice is a matter of income

Quote:

---

The fact is people are deciding the market in a non-violent way, by file sharing. There are no guns or any form of violents.

---

Pardon my French - but that's a crock of ****!

The people decide the market conditions in a non-violent way by supporting or not supporting something. If you don't want to support an artist you do it by not listening to their music. If you actually LIKE their music and choose to steal it from P2P rather than paying for it- that is criminal, not voicing your opinion and affecting market conditions.

Don't get me wrong- I hate the RIAA and I think P2P can be a great marketing tool to let consumers make informed choices about what to spend their money on. But these pathetic arguments that they make too much money anyway, or that stealing is a form of affecting market conditions don't hold water.

Quote:

---

does anyone besides me remember the case in federal court,?
you know, the one where riaa,mia,sony and philips are getting sued
for over charging consumers for the price of cd's. wasn't it about $200,000,000
or so?

---

The record industry lost that one. You can go to some web site and sign up for your share of the settlement. It was like $1 per CD or $4 per CD or something- but it has some ridiculously low cap- like the most you could get was like $20. I have bought well over 600 CD's so I didn't feel the $20 was worth my time to fill in the information.

The recording industry also gets paid a percentage from ALL blank CD sales so they are, in effect, already being compensated for all of the copyright theft to some degree.

Another encrypted p2p file sharing program is Earthstation 5.

Also the RIAA stated that for now, they are going after people who are sharing "significantly" large amounts of music. Use good judgement

Is the RIAA getting paid a percentage of each blank CD sold? I didnt know that. I think its a whole load of ****. Why should I pay the RIAA when I buy blank Cds. Buying blank Cds doesnt mean I pirate music. I could be backing up data in the office, making backups of software, music, movies that I already own, playing frisbee, building a mirror.......

I guess this is why people are pissed about all this. Things are not getting cheaper bcos theyare getting ripped off thru this kinds of means. I dont condone p2p music sharing but the RIAA and MPAA has to find a better solution out of this than trying to rip people off for all they can. p2p will be around for a long time. It might just go undergroun if they really start sueing too many people but it will still be there. They just fear what they cannot control.

Quote:

---

The recording industry also gets paid a percentage from ALL blank CD sales so they are, in effect, already being compensated for all of the copyright theft to some degree.

---

I wonder it that's true in the UK?

It had better not be, 'cause otherwise I'll be very cross.

Steve

According to this article, if the Electronic Frontier Foundation statistics are right it will take the RIAA 2191.78 years to sue everyone.

It is a little tongue-in-cheek, but it still illustrates the futility of this strategy for the RIAA. Not that futility makes stealing songs legal- but they need some other strategy than trying to sue everyone.

The article also points out that the artists that everyone claims are getting short-changed by the file-sharing won't ever actually see any of the money that comes from the lawsuits.

As we discussed earlier in the thread- when the RIAA sues Joe Smith for having 3000 illegal MP3's and win a court judgment against him for $450 million- that doesn't change the fact that Joe Smith doesn't have any money.

The RIAA will still have to pay its lawyers. The government will still have to pay the judge and everyone else involved in the court system. In the end- everyone loses money to try and make an example out of Joe Smith in hopes that it will scare others into not file sharing.

I suppose that is one "advantage" to making it a felony crime. The threat is larger. As long as its just money, and not jail time, the threat isn't that big because nobody has the money anyway. If they started threatening people with jail time that might make more people think twice. However, as I have pointed out countless times- draconian law doesn't really work. It gives the illusion of working while in reality just pushing the booming business to the underground and the black market.

As I have said- laws only work for the lawful. Those who are stealing the music because they feel like stealing the music will continue to do so somehow. IMO the RIAA should try to focus on the lawful consumers who will pay money to have legal copies of the songs if you give them a way to do it. Yes- there are CD's. But, I think many people will use services like Apple's iTunes or BuyMusic.com to actually purchase what they want for $0.80 or $1.00 a pop rather than stealing the songs and risking a lawsuit or potentially jail time.

Here is the article: RIAA will take 2191.78 years to sue everyone

Quote:

---

I wonder it that's true in the UK?

---

I don't know about the UK, but here is an article about blank media taxes in Canada: Will passive Canadians tolerate More Blank Media Levies

This is a quote from the AARC web site :

Quote:

---

In October 1992, the United States Congress passed AHRA, which requires manufacturers or importers of digital audio recorders (including, for example, DAT, DCC and MiniDisc recorders) and blank media to make royalty payments.

---

This means that you are already paying the RIAA every time you purchase a blank CD or a CDR drive or a minidisc player, etc., etc. They don't really have the right to whine on TOP of this that they want even more money. In effect, they are being compensated for the music downloaded and burned from P2P.

Wow. This has been a lot of fun watching you guys go back and forth. And I'm so glad to see that I'm not the only one with a sense of morality here. My faith in humanity has been restored. Thanks tonybradley and mohaughn.

I think that this thread has been an excellent exercise in futility . . . meaning that no matter how much you try to appeal to people's sense of logic and/or morality they're still going to, not only do immoral and illogical things, but try to justify and excuse it.

So, I think that we should let this thread die (but not before I throw another two of my cents in!)

Quote:

---

I don't share my files on line, because of this RIAA bot or bug. But I think that file sharing should be free. The internet needs to stay free. But, for people who sell, you are theives and you should recieve the full out come of the law. You are no better than a drug pusher on the street selling dope to little kids. Well, that may be to hard, but we do need to keep our way of life free. The history of file sharing has told us that people are feed up with spending thier hard earned cash on crapy music.

---

I'd like to say that you made several good and well-thought-out points Fred, but I'd be lying if I did. First, no one is saying that file sharing shouldn't be free. If programmers want to make freeware or shareware, that is their prerogative. But that is not what music is (unless the artist wants to give away their music). The internet is not free. I know I pay for a connection (I don't go to school anymore) and I pay for things that I buy online (books, etc.), so I don't know what you're talking about.

And " . . . for people who sell, you are thieves". I'm going to file that one under "most hypocritical thing I've ever heard." All I'm going to say is that it is already illegal to trade music, so I wonder if you think that you "should receive the full outcome of the law."

Anyway, Fred, I don't mean to pick on you, but I think that your justifications for downloading musics seems to be typical of the type and I found your posts entertaining. But, now that I think about it, you're not that bad; at least you only download crappy music, most other people download top 40 stuff, I think.

Oh, BTW, there's another technology that allows you to listen to music for free. It's called the radio. Maybe you should try it.

(I use sarcasm as a defense mechanism :D )

I'm very confused about this whole entire mp3 crackdown. I mean mp3's arnt the only media that is copyrighted on the p2p network. Also, how do they expect people to pay all of that money if they dont have it? Finally, if you move all of the files from your shared folder do they still know you downloaded it?

I get a kick out of how the RIAA is willing to attack the very group that it should thank for it's existance...the consumers. It's the consumers who buy the CD's in the first place and line the pockets of these greedy individuals. I've heard rumors and other various horror stories of the RIAA willing to actually attack computers of file sharers...jeez.

But what I want to know is how they can tell the difference between a track that was downloaded from P2P and a track that was ripped from a CD purchased ligit?? Sounds rather difficult, if not impossible if you ask me. If they continue to follow through with this, I hope there is some serious backlash. I heard on TechTV this morning, something about file sharing causeing a 20-something percent drop in revenue allegedly. If this kind of "attack the consumer" crap continues, I hope that amount increases from boycotts, increased downloading, whatever.... And when it does, the brainchildern of the RIAA will most likely scratch their head and wonder why their customers are so pissed.

On a side note, I do like the idea earlier in the thread of going with independent, non-RIAA affiliated bands. May have to look into that more, but how do I figure out who is and isn't affiliated with the RIAA??

If they shut down 1 p2p network, one hundred more will show up in its place. Check download.com and search for peer to peer sharing. It goes on for days.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32048.html
Good old price fixing again.

Quote:

---

On a side note, I do like the idea earlier in the thread of going with independent, non-RIAA affiliated bands. May have to look into that more, but how do I figure out who is and isn't affiliated with the RIAA??

---

www.boycott-riaa.com

There are many excellent arguments for and against their actions at the RIAA. I have stated my issues with freedom, etc. And also stated my avid desire to collect music and pay the artists for what they produce. You would be surprised what is on the indy (independent) labels in this country. One of my all time favorite bands is Great Big Sea, from Newfoundland. They don't get RIAA support so they aren't huge but there is a treasure out there and that site can get you started. Notice my sig?

Quote:

---

Pardon my French - but that's a crock of ****!

---

Well, the people have spoken. If you don't like, tb. The numbers are there. Even if it means death, people will find a way to speak out and in this case, they have. By the way you French smells funny :fart: . :D It can be songs, it can be movies, it can be programs. It will have to be the work of the programmer to stay ahead of the game. You will not be able to stop it. Tonybradley, this is a debate, so let's be cool about the words we use.

Freddy

Screw the RIAA, I'm going to PuRe's Escape. www.pureescape.net ftp://www.pureescape.net/pub/music

See ya there!


--PuRe