Music Industry Wins 871 Subpoenas Against Internet Users

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, sounds like some socialist rhetoric. Let someone else do the hard work so you can have something for free? [/B]

Better than the facist rhetoric the RIAA is pushing.

SaburoS you're pissing into the wind, shoveling sh*t uphill with a rake, everyones SICK AND TIRED of the monopolistic money grubbers in the RIAA and the crack heads they represent. No one cares whether its legal or not we don't give a flying **** anymore, kinda like the prohibition period.

The whole argument is just whining money grubbing BS. No ones produced any figures on the supposedly massive loses in sales (in fact I believe in many segments of the market CD sales have gone up). And the studios only push about 6% of performers.

The studios and RIAA refused to get with the market, and the markets been saying give us access to music the way want to buy it or we'll pirate it. And by that the market means buying tracks online, being able to play them on your mp3 player, pc, cd player, in your car etc.

The studio's and RIAA have put their hands over their ears and started the "la la la I can't hear you thing". Now they're trying to push to use the DMCA in the recipe. Current moves are pushing towards LIMITING what you can play your music on, ie buy a CD and find you can't rip the tracks to play on your MP3 player because its encrypted. Meanwhile Joe Everybody's said screw this and just gone for it.

No one cares about the legal jargon. No one cares about the law suits because we're one step ahead of those money grubbing tards.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Better than the facist rhetoric the RIAA is pushing.

Vulcan,
Don't get me wrong but two wrongs don't make a right. In the end who will pay if they get caught? Average Joe downloader is who. The one with 1000-3000 music files stored on disks at home. The one that doesn't realise what a MAC addy is. IP addy. The one that is using their personal home computer that happens to have personal data on it.
I don't know what the music industry has planned in the works, but you can bet there'll probably be some hidden code buried within the music file itself. I wonder how intrusive it'll actually be for those downloaders. You can forever state how unfair and corrupt the corporations are (BTW they are and have been for as long as I can remember - remember the MCA scandal in Calif in the 60's IIRC?), but using that as a reason to pirate the music is kind of shallow.
LOL, How many downloaders "upset with the system" actually reward the musicians directly with a check for the songs they like and keep? I'd bet that number is very low.



SaburoS you're pissing into the wind, shoveling sh*t uphill with a rake, everyones SICK AND TIRED of the monopolistic money grubbers in the RIAA and the crack heads they represent. No one cares whether its legal or not we don't give a flying **** anymore, kinda like the prohibition period.

So it looks like by your argument that the pirating is rampant then if: "No one cares whether its legal or not we don't give a flying **** anymore, kinda like the prohibition period."


The whole argument is just whining money grubbing BS. No ones produced any figures on the supposedly massive loses in sales (in fact I believe in many segments of the market CD sales have gone up). And the studios only push about 6% of performers.

So far it seems you want to justify your downloading free music files. So in my eyes, we have on one side the "money grubbing" music industry and on the other, the "music files for free" grubbing downloader. Hard to sympathize with either in this case.

You really believe that all this free downloading results in bigger sales for the music industry? LOL, you want to sell me a bridge too?

BTW, I don't know many big corporations that are not "money grubbers."
Are you this compassionate against all large "money grubbing" corporations, or just the music industry so you can rationalize your free music?


The studios and RIAA refused to get with the market, and the markets been saying give us access to music the way want to buy it or we'll pirate it. And by that the market means buying tracks online, being able to play them on your mp3 player, pc, cd player, in your car etc.

So you seem to be saying that a lot of pirating has been going on by your very statement. Seems you and the music industry are in agreement there.
Curiosity, if they are so corrupt and "money grubbing" and you feel this strongly about it, why don't you boycott buying the music AND to really show your convictions, stop downloading your free music? Oh but that would be too much of a sacrifice for you eh?
I guess those "crackhead, money grubbing" music corporations do just good enough for you to download some music.
Or is it you really don't like the music but just want to download it to show them?


The studio's and RIAA have put their hands over their ears and started the "la la la I can't hear you thing". Now they're trying to push to use the DMCA in the recipe. Current moves are pushing towards LIMITING what you can play your music on, ie buy a CD and find you can't rip the tracks to play on your MP3 player because its encrypted. Meanwhile Joe Everybody's said screw this and just gone for it.

Well "Joe Everybody" if caught is the one that's going to pay. Unless they change the laws (which I doubt).


No one cares about the legal jargon. No one cares about the law suits because we're one step ahead of those money grubbing tards.  

Actually you do care about the legal jargon, you just don't like it. That's why you are presently one of two steps ahead of them.

BTW:

And yes I do still buy some CDs (like Tadpole) where I know theres some decent content.

So do you or do you not buy some cds? By your very own arguments it seems you'd be buying into those "money grubbing, crackhead tards" schemes.

For the record:
Do I think the recording industry is a fair one for the musicians?
Not at all. I actually agree with most (not all) of your sentiments.
I just find the recording industry corruption way down on my list of things to worry about.

It just looks like you're trying to reason getting your music for free.

I'm just afraid that a lot of people not savvy enough will get hurt from these prosecutions/convictions to come.

[Bodhi]

The saddest thing here is that the Court System is gonna GET SWAMPED by tons of new lawsuits over something the recording industry brought on itself...

Gotta love America's legal system....  

[Torque]

Only five more million to go....

[Ghosth]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Sorry, but copyright ownership does not transfer to the listener even if the listener did pay for the cd, concert ticket, etc.

Copyright ownership no, didn't say that it did or should. Copywrite protects that 1 unique arangement of words & sounds so no one can steal it.
Copyright should not be used to keep someone from "sharing" music.

Would you want the copyright police busting into your place because you were playing a cd for a freind? After all HE didn't pay for  to listen to it.



That song should then belong to the public domain.

It'll be interesting how much music will be available if no profits motives were involved. Might be a boring, quiet kind of place.

There is a difference between a profit motive for artists, and the RIAA.
I don't mind seeing artists rewarded fro what they do. I mind seeing RIAA & corporations profit from it.


When copyright laws were written there was no way to copy a song exactly like we can now, much less share it with more than a handfull of people.

Copyright laws were introduced to protect the musicians, artists, authors, etc from others stealing their works.


The relevent point however is that copyright only protects you if someone else is selling your product without your permision/royalties being paid.

So if someone takes your music and posts it on the internet for free downloads, how do you really think your sales are going to go?
LOL, not many people are going to pay for something that they can get for free. Why would they?

You'd be surprised. Why do songs play on the radio for free? Its called exposure.


However  no one on peer to peer sharing is selling anything.
Its time for a new standard for music.

But they are causing real losses. If the record companies were getting increased sales based on free downloads they'd be promoting file sharing. They see the writing on the wall. Do nothing about this type of copyright infringement and there will be no music indusrty as we know it (LOL, to some that's a good thing  ). With the increased user base of broadband subscribers, I'd bet sales will continue to dwindle. Most downloaders believe that there is nothing wrong with file sharing and believe it to be legal. The music industry is fighting for their survival (they aren't hurting....yet), but they know that to not do anything will result in practically most one with a broadband connect would be downloading their music and stop buying it.


Look at mellalica, they were one of the first ones screaming about sharing.

why, because they were not selling in the first place?

Now NO ONE will buy their CD's.
Thats a loss, but its not caused by sharing.

Take the big corporations back out of the mix. Put the music back in the hands of the people.

LOL, sounds like some socialist rhetoric. Let someone else do the hard work so you can have something for free? [/B][/QUOTE]

No but it is a clear cut msg to the big corportations. Quit ripping us off, get with the times, give us what we what how we want or will will find it ourselves.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by SaburoS
1.)It'll be interesting how much music will be available if no profits motives were involved. Might be a boring, quiet kind of place.

2.)But they are causing real losses. If the record companies were getting increased sales based on free downloads they'd be promoting file sharing. They see the writing on the wall. Do nothing about this type of copyright infringement and there will be no music indusrty as we know it (LOL, to some that's a good thing  ). With the increased user base of broadband subscribers, I'd bet sales will continue to dwindle. Most downloaders believe that there is nothing wrong with file sharing and believe it to be legal. The music industry is fighting for their survival (they aren't hurting....yet), but they know that to not do anything will result in practically most one with a broadband connect would be downloading their music and stop buying it.

1.)Long b4 there was any kind of money, people were playing music for each other, was it boring then? No, and, as a matter of fact, alot of people still do. There are ALOT of musicians out there who play for people just to share their music.We had a band in jax, fl. We would invite everyone over and have a big house party. There would be other musicians there too, we would play all day into the evening, it was a good time.(lol, although I would get sick of all the southern rock after awhile)

2.) Causing real losses:confused:  I would like to see a stat for that(and don't forget to factor in the economy) When I was young I would record songs from the radio because I couldn't afford to buy the record, and so did alot of other people. Did this cause great losses? Did they run to shut down the radio stations? You can record a song from alot of sources, not just the internet.

People buy CD's for alot more than the music(lyrics, pictures, info, etc.). I had every song of BOSTON recorded from the radio when I was young, but I ended up buying the album cause I wanted the album itself.

[Mickey1992]

Originally posted by Sixpence
1.)Long b4 there was any kind of money, people were playing music for each other, was it boring then? No, and, as a matter of fact, alot of people still do. There are ALOT of musicians out there who play for people just to share their music.We had a band in jax, fl. We would invite everyone over and have a big house party. There would be other musicians there too, we would play all day into the evening, it was a good time.(lol, although I would get sick of all the southern rock after awhile)

That's what we will end up with.  As soon as file sharing destroys the traditional music business and musicians can no longer get financial backing to record albums, we will all end up sharing mp3s of Sixpence and his house band.  No thanks.

It's the same with software.  If companies can no longer make a profit selling their product, they will stop developing it.  I never understand the "I can't afford $600 for Adobe so it is OK for me to steal it" mentality.

[Maniac]

I never understand the "I can't afford $600 for Adobe so it is OK for me to steal it" mentality.

Well i understand it perfectly... Either you pay $600 for Adobe or you click "download here" and get it for free...

I would take the free version anyday... Theres enough sheep and Companys that pays allredy...

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Mickey1992
That's what we will end up with.  As soon as file sharing destroys the traditional music business and musicians can no longer get financial backing to record albums, we will all end up sharing mp3s of Sixpence and his house band.  No thanks.

Did recording songs from the radio destroy the traditional music business?  Did it prevent musicians from recording albums? File sharing destroying the music business, that's rich.

[SLO]

Originally posted by Mickey1992
That's what we will end up with.  As soon as file sharing destroys the traditional music business and musicians can no longer get financial backing to record albums, we will all end up sharing mp3s of Sixpence and his house band.  No thanks.

It's the same with software.  If companies can no longer make a profit selling their product, they will stop developing it.  I never understand the "I can't afford $600 for Adobe so it is OK for me to steal it" mentality.

1- your already listening to cheap 1 song hit bands now....so if sixpence has a semblence of a good band...what would be the difference...

2- what you seem too forget is LINUX.....its FREE....oh my!!!!.....it shouldn't be.....its for them to try to make it more secure.....its for us to show em it's not so secure:D

if ya don't want them too come....don't build it dweeb

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by SLO
1- your already listening to cheap 1 song hit bands now....so if sixpence has a semblence of a good band...what would be the difference...

Um...er.....ah....thanks?

I will take revenge on your subliminal cheap shot:D

[Fishu]

Michael Jackson 'speechless' on P2P jail bill
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31872.html



Vulcan,

Don't waste your precious time with SaburoS.
Hes either rich, working for the RIAA likes or fails to see things for some other reason.

Ignoring comes handy

[Nash]

He's making complete sense.

[muckmaw]

Just remember who introduced this bill when the time to vote comes 'round.

Last week Congressmen Howard Berman and John Conyer (both Democrats) teamed up introduce the Authors, Consumer and Computer Owners Protection and Security Act of 2003 (ACCOPS Act).

This legislation would, as El Reg's Thomas Greene wrote, "simply assume that any P2P activity with a copyrighted file involves more than ten copies and represents a retail value of $2,500, automatically making it a felony and bringing in the possibility of incarceration. That's ten copies and a minimum of $2,500 assumed per individual file, we believe."

So they just assumed you committed a felony, and lock your butt up...nice.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Fishu
Michael Jackson 'speechless' on P2P jail bill
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31872.html



Vulcan,

Don't waste your precious time with SaburoS.
Hes either rich, working for the RIAA likes or fails to see things for some other reason.

Ignoring comes handy

LOL, I'm not rich, I don't actually like the RIAA types. But you're right. I don't like see a form of theft and excuse it for something else.
My cd collection numbers in the 300-400 range bought over 20 some odd years. Most of my cds I bought because of only 2-4 songs that I liked. It's seemingly always been like that even with the vinyl record albums. I rarely agree that a "Best of" is the best song compilation of a particular artist.
You want a good deal? The join the various music clubs. Get 12cds for the price of 3 (sometimes as low as 12 for one).
My free music collection? Zero. Never downloaded a copyrighted product without the copyright owner's permission. I never had Napster on my comp, nor do I haveKazaa, Kazaa lite, or any file sharing software on my comp.
I don't believe in a "because everyone's doing it means it is okay for me to do it" mentality, especially dealing with copyrighted materials.
What I find amusing is that the music pirates are now whining about the newer intrusive laws being passed that were designed to fight the piracy going on.
If you want to blame someone, blame yourselves. You know how the recording industry is yet you continue to download free music files (what is it up to now? 1600-3000 songs? More possibly?) without going out and actually buying the product. You should know they'd go after any potential major threat they see against their business.

If you know the answer to the following question, you'd know why the free downloading is wrong.

Why were copyright laws introduced in the first place?