Can you get around the RIAA

[Grinler]

Nihil,

I agree its the uploaders who are going to get slammed the most here, but that doesnt make it legal to download. We are talking about copyrighted material here. Just like downloading commercial software or books is illegal, so is downloading music.

The uploaders will definitely be the ones they go after as they are spreading the material, while the downloaders generally just keep it on their machines. The RIAA is trying to stem the tide of the propogation of the copyrighted music.

In reference to the other posts,

As for the 12 year old girl and whether or not she has protection? Of course she does. She cant go to jail, she wont go to juvie for this, but her parents will get screwed. Trust me this is very smart of the RIAA. They go after a 12 year old kid, knowing that the parents will have to pay the fine and not the girl. Now all the parents around the world will come down on their kids for using P2P software for fear of them getting fined as well.

Trust me the RIAA is not stupid and has a strategy towards all of this.

It just drives me crazy how people,, including the EFF, are actually stating what the RIAA is doing is wrong. Cmon people, we all know downloading and sharing the music is illegal, lets start thinking about this a little more logically.

[DjM]

Originally posted here by Grinler
They go after a 12 year old kid, knowing that the parents will have to pay the fine and not the girl.

It appears a group has come to the rescue:

P2P United, a peer-to-peer industry trade group that includes Grokster, StreamCast Networks, Limewire and other file-trading software companies, said Wednesday it had offered to reimburse Brianna Lahara and her mother's payment to the Recording Industry Association of America. Lahara's mother agreed Tuesday to settle copyright infringement charges on behalf of her daughter.

Now, while the group has offered to help in this case, (which IMHO is great) I don't think everyone should think this is going to happen.

Full story here.

Cheers:

[h4ck.51gn]

there just being stupid and trying to get pub;icity a spot in the history books or osmething

[nihil]

Thanks Grinler,

Interesting to see the difference in our legal systems. We obviously have the same kind of attitude regarding copyright/intellectual property; but if you tried to sue the purchaser of pirated material when the vendor is in full view, you would get absolutely nowhere over here; you would have to go to the sites where this trading goes on............I presume that the 12 year old was not running her machine as a server.

The really interesting difference, though, is that the parents are NOT responsible for the actions of the child over here. If you own a dog, cattle, horses, sheep, goats etc. YOU ARE,
but cats and small children enjoy the full protection of our laws not only that, they have the equivalent of "diplomatic immunity"

This is just an example of what I consider to be a major problem on the internet, it crosses countries with very different laws ( or worse, very similar laws but quite different interpretations on how to apply them). I am pleased to see that the FBI and British police forces have had some good results in the area of child pornography, but success stories are unfortunately few and far between.

I do not condone piracy/theft or whatever you like to call it. We have a fundamental tenet of British commercial law "caveat emptor" which is Latin for "let the buyer beware".........so if you don't like the price, boycott the product (don't steal it)

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up I keep getting asked the question being that I am in IT, and our laws are so different regarding the actions of minors ( the news is just "breaking" over here). I now have a reasonable explanation.


Once again, many thanks

[gore]

Well, we could all just buy punk rock records.

Most of them have there own labels, or they sign to other punk rock labels, the ones who have no part in this *cough* Misfits records *cough* I buy alot of punk rock albums, and you dont see people on these labels riding around in a BMW or something, driving home to a 30 million dollar house bitching about how they are losing money.

They are just lucky MY band isnt ready yet, this music industry is going to be destroyed and rebuilt.

Download the song "Dinosaurs will die" by NOFX.

[h4ck.51gn]

that is a kick ass song by NOFX

[Maestr0]

Unfortunately many "indy" labels have been bought out and are actually owned by RIAA members, Epitaph/Hellcat being one of them(NOFX,Bad Religion,Pennywise,Rancid,etc http://www.totse.com/en/ego/can_you_...it/163460.html). Ironic isnt it? And downloading music is not stealing and it never has been. By the letter of the law its actually an "infringement" of a copyright, and is not considered criminal or theft. The record industry was originally established to distribute music which used to be a rather difficult task for a musician, today however it is not. Truly they are a dinosaur and are not really neccessary in a free market, if they arent distributing the music then what ARE they doing? Doing what everyone else does when trying to pass laws to protect a dying industry, they lobby and sue. Copyright laws were NEVER intended to be used this way, they were not made to subsidize private industry but to protect the AUTHORS and INDIVIDUALS. The orginal Article 17 was established to make sure that artists and other creators of copyrighted content were assured credit for their work (and to ensure someone else did not profit or plagarise their work which p2p is not doing) and to make sure libraries had the ability to distrubute,copy,and loan copyrighted works in the intrest of raising the common level of literacy(This has also been changed and now libraries cannot loan e-books without paying out the ass.). So I dont buy anyones bullshit about it being wrong. It may be illegal but the two are not always related. Just because the RIAA has twisted what was once a great idea into a monopolistic vortex and is now collapsing does not bother me in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned they can go **** themselves and if you had any sense you would too, because its your rightful access to information,books,music that are being taken away. So say hello to the RIAA and remember Big Brother is watching you.

-Maestr0

PS. I dont use any p2p and dont own any .mp3's, wake up everyone you're being screwed.

Oh yeah, Brett Guerowitz(sp?) of Epitaph owns about 40 ****ing cars he put them on the last track of Recipe for Hate reving the engines in some wierd ass track. Not that he didnt earn his money just thought you might find in humorous in light of the BMW post.

EDIT: I have found conflicting information as to whether Epitaph IS or IS NOT associated with RIAA, if anyone could find a definitive answer I'd be interested to know. Seeing as I do not purchase RIAA albums.

[darkes]

Originally posted here by [WebCarnage]


Look on your CD/CD Case. See that fine print which merely mutters:
"No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical... etc. etc." (may differ, but you get my point).

You just became an outlaw, me-thinks.

Depends on how you interpret that. Under UK & EU law it is legal to take a copy of a music CD etc. that you own, as long as it is for your personal use. Otherwise WTF would be the point of portable MP3 players ??

Doesn't matter what it says on the case, as if the 'small print' is illegal, then it is invalid anyway. I get really pissed off by these 'copy protected' music CDs - I am legally allowed to copy it or play it on my PC, so if it doesn't work I can return it as being 'unfit for the purpose for which it was sold'.

All completely pointless anyway, as if I want to copy it I just connect up my hifi system to my sound card (analogue input), and rip it to MP3 format. There is no significant loss of quality, as MP3 is not up to the original CD quality.

Doesn't take a genius to work out that you can buy a copy protected CD, rip it, return it & get your money back. Not that I would condone that, of course.

[XTC46]

OMG the RIAA should sue sony and phillips for making stand alone cdburners that are made specificly to create your own cd from other that you have, atleast then they would be picking on someone there own size.

[nihil]

Darkes has a good point, in Europe, and probably a lot of other countries, it IS legal to make a copy for your own use, so manufacturers of the equipment that does this are immune?

I feel that the RIAA "sabre rattling" will probably drive the activity "offshore" so to speak?

I am not quite sure as to the RIAA's actual stance here. In England, copyright infringement is "illegal" (a civil action), but copying and selling CDs (or anything else for that matter) is "unlawful" (a criminal action) I do not know what the position is regarding the swapping of music files between private individuals, where no money changes hands?

I think the basic distinction is that if you do it to make money out of it, it is unlawful, because that money should have gone to the owner of the patent or copyright; and the production of the product is actually "counterfeiting".

I think that in England we have the added complication of the "Performing Rights Society" which licences the playing of music in public places (juke boxes and the like). In the "small print" over here, it usually says "not for public performance"

I wonder if it would be "legal" to set up an MP3 site if one had a performing rights licence?

Just a few thoughts