Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Frogm4n on September 09, 2003, 10:32:30 AM
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32731.html
The RIAA has nailed one of the most prolific file-traders in the U.S., filing a lawsuit against 12-year-old Brianna LaHara.
-
So I take it you're a thief too, eh?
-
im downloading many backup copys as i type. But i do not share.
the difference between me and the RIAA. I dont lie to the artists.
-
heard they are blaming a 30% slip in cd sales on d/l music
maybe they need to blame the "artist" - maybe the rap crap phase is coming to an end
-
They need to be accountable for pushing nothing but crappy music on us for close to a decade. All the music i download is nothing but old stuff that i have or have had on cd anyways.
-
can you say copyright?
-
NEW YORK The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun.
Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
The Recording Industry Association of America (search) a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits couldn't answer that question.
"We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.
Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."
Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, said the lawsuit was "a total shock."
"My daughter was on the verge of tears when she found out about this," Torres said.
The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said.
When reporters visited teh apartment last night, Brianna who her mom says is an honors student was helping her brother with his homework.
Brianna was among 261 people sued for copying thousands of songs via popular Internet file-sharing software and thousands more suits could be on the way.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
At the same time, the RIAA offered amnesty to file-swappers who come forward and agree to stop illegally downloading music over the Internet.
People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty.
Brianna and the others sued yesterday under federal copyright law could face penalties of up to $150,000 per song, but the RIAA has already settled some cases for as little as $3,000.
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
I see RIAA has been taking PR classes from the Palestinians.
SMART MOVE...sue a 12 yr old girl... That will surely make people rally to your cause. /%#Ī&# Idiots.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I see RIAA has been taking PR classes from the Palestinians.
SMART MOVE...sue a 12 yr old girl... That will surely make people rally to your cause. /%#Ī&# Idiots.
I don't see the problem. Her parents have money. Her parents nurtured her. Her parents are responsible for her.
-
Well, rip, if you dont see the PR disaster in suing a crying 12 yr old girl over downloading mp3s (something that is already only barely accepted as acceptable behavior by the riaa) then you should get out more :)
-
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres.
Stealing is illegal.
Frogm4n: They need to be accountable for pushing nothing but crappy music on us for close to a decade.
How exactly did thay push anything on you that you did not want to buy?
Plenty of people are upset that firms are not selling them quality music at prices they would find acceptable as a justification of their stealing.
Of course those people are all idiots, because the same accusation can be issued against anyone and everyone.
For instance, why does Ford persist in making cars I would never consider buying instead of producing good cheap music. As a matte of fact, why do you (whichever one complaining) persist in doing whatever job you do instead of going into the music business and setting it straight. Existing companies may be too incompetent to see a way to sell good cheap music profitably but you surely do, so why don't you start your own music empire?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Stealing is illegal.
[/b]
Yeah, but downloading mp3s from kazaa is not stealing.
-
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning,"
Oh my.....
-
I still have ~100-200 tapes back from the 80s, when the only way to get Western music was to copy it on tapes from rare and almost "forbidden" LPs. Most of that tapes are 5th-10th copy from an LP. Copying tapes for friends was quite usual thing to do, and I never refused anyone, so as noone ever refused to copy a tape for me.
Should I go surrender to RIAA?
Also, I'd prefer to pay for the music I DL to Roger Waters, Ian Anderson and (suprise!) John Fogerty. AFAIK it's illegal to pay mr. Fogerty for any Creedence Clearwater Revival records. IMHO it's not fair that I have to pay some @#$$%% who made CCR work for food instead of giving money to people who actually made that great music.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning,"
Oh my.....
Add as many smirk remarks as you like, the PR fallout from this one will hurt RIAA *alot*
-
"PR disaster"
Never!
There are far too many adults in prisons these days. Juveniles are simply not carrying thier fare share of making license plates. Nor are they doing thier part by becoming apprentices to the many special trades and illicit crafts which are in serious danger of being lost.
IMO society has gone Dove bar soft. Why just a mere two hundred years ago that 12 yr old would have been hanged till death as the vile apple and horse thief that they are! Thier fathers and mothers or their grandmothers and grandfathers would have all been thrown in one of the many squalid debtors prisons until such a day as the overbloated and exagerated restitution was made.
American law enforcement has become a joke. Justice has gotten lax. Oh how I wish for the days of the posse' and brave vigilante! For sure they could have done a much faster, better job of rounding up this vicious group of music sale murderers and dragged thier hides, dead or alive, to the city for some good ole frontier justice or toe-tagging at the morgue!
-
I mean its already "Big corporations strike down on the little man to force them to pay outrageous overprizes".
Now it is "Big corporations strike down on a crying little girl to force her to pay outrageous overprizes"
-
Listen carefully. I'm only going to say this once.
I agree with Hortlund.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I agree with Hortlund.
ahhh...saved that one ;)
-
looks like she cant go to college or buy a house when she grows up.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
heard they are blaming a 30% slip in cd sales on d/l music
maybe they need to blame the "artist" - maybe the rap crap phase is coming to an end
OMG! I agree with Eagler! Alert the presses, sound the alarm! banana and Eagler have found common ground! :)
banana
Classical Music and Opera Fan
-
Originally posted by banana
OMG! I agree with Eagler! Alert the presses, sound the alarm! banana and Eagler have found common ground! :)
Please add Boroda here.
-
And me.
Soon we could start a classical music hippey-collective.
-
Right or Wrong, does it really matter?
I mean its un stoppable anyway... You have to ban the internet to stop it...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Right or Wrong, does it really matter?
I mean its un stoppable anyway... You have to ban the internet to stop it...
They Don't have to stop it, now.
They don't even have to sell CDs anymore. They'll just sue the downloaders, and collect that way.
On a side note..anyone signing the RIAA confession?
-
*singin* "You can get anything you want at Alice's Resturant....exceptin Alice"
:D
-
Add as many smirk remarks as you like, the PR fallout from this one will hurt RIAA *alot*
====
oh my.....
-
PR doesn't matter, they are right and should win. Boroda, I think what you did in the 80's was a bit different, being behind the iron curtain and all.
-
Wow... so much to talk about...
12 year old girl sued:
This must be one of those 12 year old girls that has a job and can buy their own PC, have a dedicated internet connection and provide the means to download files. Then again, the parents that are funding and aiding in the issue might be the real plantiffs. Don't let that stop those trying to paint the brave kazaa bandits as modern day robinhoods.
30% decline is only because new music sucks:
This is an invalid argument demonstrated by the sheer volume of mp3 downloads. It would only be valid if there were no alternative to purchase being heavily used.
The RIAA is evil and it's OK to steal from them:
No... it's illegal to steal from them whether you happen to like the organization or not. Someone might actually believe that a more prudent idea would be to refuse to buy their records if they don't like the organization. Once that person decides downloading the record is OK... he is actually supporting the organization through criminal activity. The commodity and demand is being validated.
MiniD
-
FOR F***S SAKE
Get this into your heads. Downloading music from the internet is not stealing. It could be some other crime, but it is not stealing. How hard can that be for you to understand?
-
Well, since no one can seem to understand it, why don't you explain why it is not stealing.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
FOR F***S SAKE
Get this into your heads. Downloading music from the internet is not stealing. It could be some other crime, but it is not stealing. How hard can that be for you to understand?
"Copyrighted"
-
judge not, less ye be judged.
I know some folks here preaching about how bad this is. Yet break laws themselves.
And, what is up with cats and dogs sleeping together in this thread. Like the twilight zone.
My take....I pick and choose which laws to break or bend daily. I can have an opinion but will not look down on burning the music.
-
Originally posted by Dnil
judge not, less ye be judged.
I know some folks here preaching about how bad this is. Yet break laws themselves.
And, what is up with cats and dogs sleeping together in this thread. Like the twilight zone.
My take....I pick and choose which laws to break or bend daily. I can have an opinion but will not look down on burning the music.
I hope you're not talking about me (see my first post, key word= "too")
-
Originally posted by miko2d
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres.
Stealing is illegal.
Frogm4n: They need to be accountable for pushing nothing but crappy music on us for close to a decade.
How exactly did thay push anything on you that you did not want to buy?
Most logical statements you've written yet. I agree fully. If you don't like the music, don't pay for it.
Maybe if people paid for good music, there would be more good music out there.
Local bands gigs are being replaced with dance club soundtracks and (for awhile anyway) kareoke machines. Bands like REM that made it big doing the college bars may be a thing of the past. Downloading/file swapping music is just another cannon ball below the waterline.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
I'm not a New Yorker so I may be wrong, but isn't the Housing Authority a public housing program for poverty-level tenants? What's with the $30-a-month Kazaa subscription?
-
There you go dnil. And that would aply if the RIAA were going after the casual user. Seems they're targetting the heavy users.
It's not a matter of casting stones, it's a matter of backing a dump-truck up to the mob and supplying them.
MiniD
-
you'd think they (the copyright police) would be more worried about software costing in the 100's and thousands of $$$ you can download and use free of charge than a $19 music cd
hope the music industry chokes on every penny then get out of these lawsuits - its crap
-
I know file sharing can hurt a wide spectrum of the music industry. Take my brother-in-law for instance... He's a small business owner of a record/CD store. Sales have slumped in the past few years due to file sharing.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you'd think they (the copyright police) would be more worried about software costing in the 100's and thousands of $$$ you can download and use free of charge than a $19 music cd
They've been fighting software piracy for years, usually by requiring the original cd media before running the software. That's why you see so many kids requesting the "CD crack" codes a day or so after a new game is released.
-
Hortlund: Yeah, but downloading mp3s from kazaa is not stealing.
In that case the girl's family has nothing to fear. The court will surely not convict them of there was no crime in her actions.
I though copying copyrighted material was illegal and considered theft of intellectual property in US but I may be wrong in this case.
Boroda: IMHO it's not fair that I have to pay some @#$$%% who made CCR work for food instead of giving money to people who actually made that great music.
There is no useable definition to the word "fair" other than "abiding by the contract that was entered voluntarily". Those guys sold their property. They cannot sell it again.
You can buy it from the legal owner now.
Often the artist are content with the economic role of a laborer preferring not to act in a function of an entrepreneur - thus allowing an entrepreuner to take on the risks - and rewards - of a venture. If the entrepreneur goes bust and wastes the investor's money, fine. In rare cases when the music earns a lot of money, the artists may have second thoughts but whatever choices they have made are final.
It is certanly not illegal for you to send the artists whatever amount of money you want as a donation or a gift.
Eagler: you'd think they (the copyright police) would be more worried about software costing in the 100's and thousands of $$$ you can download and use free of charge than a $19 music cd
You seem to be very confused here.
There is no "copyright police" involved. Music companies - the owners of the property being stolen - are suing the alleged thiefs. Since the property that was stolen from those owners is music, that's what they are suing about.
If the software companies are concerned about their property being stolen, they are free to sue the thiefs regardless of the action of the RIAA or anyone else.
miko
-
By the way, there is a great debate among libertatian philosophers whether the concept of intellectual property should be recognised.
It is a serious matter - because enforcing the property right involves use of force/coercion and libertarians are extremely cautious about giving anyone (the state) a right to use force.
Unlike physical property, the intellectual property is not "scarce". By taking someone's intellectual property you do not preclude him/her from continuing to own/use it.
Anyway, the intelectual property as well any other kind of proplerty is just a social concept and once legally established, the owners have a right to demand it enforced.
The RIAA claims the plaintiffs broke the laws. The court will decide if that is the case, however young or qute the alleged thiefs are.
miko
-
**** the artists. they're a bunch of greedy overhyped obnoxious retarded knuckleheads.
Except for Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears. They're just potatos :)
-
Really...
Why should the Music artists and the record companys earn so much?
One day, being an music artist will become "djust another job", like being an carpenter...
Same for the "hollywood stars" they make millions and millions over periods of six months... Why should they earn so much?
CGI actors will take care of this ;)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
In that case the girl's family has nothing to fear. The court will surely not convict them of there was no crime in her actions.
I though copying copyrighted material was illegal and considered theft of intellectual property in US but I may be wrong in this case.
Well, actually what I think is happening here is that you (and others) fail to understand the difference between theft and copyright violation.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
That's why you see so many kids requesting the "CD crack" codes a day or so after a new game is released.
Most "kids" don't even know what a CD crack is, or what it does.
Most adults (18-whatever) have a very good understanding of computers and how to crack software - hence, THEY are the ones asking for the CD cracks.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Most "kids" don't even know what a CD crack is, or what it does.
Most adults (18-whatever) have a very good understanding of computers and how to crack software - hence, THEY are the ones asking for the CD cracks.
-SW
Or the adults doing the cracking and the kids trying to make them work. ;)
-
the difference between theft and copyright violation.
====
They both sound like illegal pursuits to me?
What do you think......
-
Only about $2 goes to an artist off a CD sale. About $4 goes to advertising and editing companies. The rest, about $12, goes to the RIAA. So if Eminem sells 10 CD's an hour, he'll recieve $20, but the RIAA walks away with $120.
The RIAA's alleged argument is that file sharing programs are stealing from the artists. Who's really stealing? Seems only the RIAA is crying sour grapes over this. Some bands that don't sign contracts with the RIAA actually PRAISE file sharing because it gets their music out there.
Now, if I have a collection of my own music, that I myself recorded with a group of jazz friends, and that gets on KaZaa, am I going to be sued? My internet provider has already told me the RIAA is looking for me, but I don't have a single copyrighted file on my machine, only my own music.
What's the deal?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the difference between theft and copyright violation.
====
They both sound like illegal pursuits to me?
What do you think......
Sure, but just like rape and theft are also both illegal pursuits, there is an enormous difference between the two.
-
If you have created your own music and copyrighted it I imagine you could sell it online for your own profit, get a lawyer. If the jazz music is copyrighted by someone else I imagine they could come after you legally.
-
But it isn't any form of comprehensable music. It a group of friends and I just doodling on instruments. It was never meant for sale or d/l, but somehow someone got a hold of the files and now the RIAA wants to talk.
Hmm...
-
There is a little perspective to be taken here.
The masterminds behind the RIAA's current approach are the same brainiacs who, in the 1980's, successfully argued that the advent of home VHS recorders would cause the downfall of the motion picture industry.
How many are aware that, as a result of this successfull lobbying campaign a "tax" of sorts was instituted paying members of the MPAA (the motion picture studios) a fraction of the cost of every blank VHS purchased? The rationale behind this is that this would make up for the obvious losses that would occur due to pirating.
(No need to reverse this action when it became obvious that the home VHS recorders represented a bigger boost to the industry than the advent of sound or color).
This "tax" has been extended and now a portion of the cost of every blank cassette tape, VHS tape, CD-RW, DVD-RW, etc. goes to the entertainment industry.
Now we have a classic example of an established power base in an industry unwilling to adapt to change and using the legal system as their crutch. Liveries and coach makers were not able to use the legal system to outlaw the automobile and the RIAA should not be able to use it to prop up a failing business model.
Is it copyright infringement to download illegal copies of music? Absolutely. Do I condone illegal downloading or serving copyrighted materials. Absolutely not.
Do I condone the use of the courts, suing hundreds upon hundreds of teenagers, by people who have repeatedly proven incompetent and incapable of addressing changing markets. Hell no.
Let the free markets rule - and it's very clear that the market has evolved to the point where the sweet spot demographic (teens) do not intend to pay for their music in the traditional manner. The RIAA should be expending their considerable resources coming up with ways to meet the new market instead of ways to use the courts to beat us over the head with the old one.
-
Samian!
And by the way, how many of you that critizise dl of mp3īs have an illigal copy of a Microsoft product?
People have used the "i hate bill gates" phrase for an long time to justify their actions.... And yet i dont think Bill will go broke any time soon...
-
What Samiam said :)
-
Think back when VCRs came out. What aplication was there other than recording copyrighted material? The .0002% of the polulation that owned video equipment capable of capturing video were greatly outweighed by those who bought the tapes for the reason cited.
It's the same thing today. If you have to refer to the exeptions when defending the use/implimentation because the the rule is simply wrong then you'll get your bellybutton kicked in court.
And Maniac... that's not an argument, it's an excuse. "What about them?"
I haven't jumped in many threads criticizing those using kazaa, smoking pot or doing any of the "we feel it should be legal" activities. I have a tendancy to drive over the speed limit... it's just that when I get a ticket I don't argue it in court. I know what I did was illegal and don't try to pretend otherwise or justify it with someone else's behavior as a counterpoint.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Samian!
And by the way, how many of you that critizise dl of mp3īs have an illigal copy of a Microsoft product?
People have used the "i hate bill gates" phrase for an long time to justify their actions.... And yet i dont think Bill will go broke any time soon...
the list would be much shorter if you asked if anyone had ANY software THEY did not pay for or is not licensed to them (the host computer) on their computer
my guess is the list is shorter of the ppl who do not have an "illegal" mp3 on their box than the "software pirates"
-
Hortlund: Well, actually what I think is happening here is that you (and others) fail to understand the difference between theft and copyright violation.
I am ready to concede that you are most likely right and I used improper legal term.
At the same time when we speak not in legal but in layman vernacular or in historical terms, "theft" is what we call the "copyright violation".
The expression "you stole my idea" or "you stole my trade secret" was used way before the word "copyright" was "coined".
Anyway, as long as the offender pays the fine and rots in jail for breaking the law, does it make practical difference what we call it here?
Sure, but just like rape and theft are also both illegal pursuits, there is an enormous difference between the two.
I am not sure I get your analogy.
Are you saying that since by raping a woman one does not actually take any material posession from her - unlike theft of property and just like "copyright violation" - and since the women demand way too much money/effort for sex which does not cost them practically anything, the rapists should be allowed legal slack compared to the thiefs? Especially if no violence is involved (date rape drugs) and/or no bodily harm caused?
Did I get you right? :rolleyes:
texace: The RIAA's alleged argument is that file sharing programs are stealing from the artists.
Not programs. People. Only people or corporations are legal entities capable of acting.
As for from whom the income is stolen, they are technically correct. It is stolen from the artists as well as from the other people to whom the profits are due - shareholders, etc.
Who's really stealing?
Legally the ones illicitely copying teh information. Paying someone too little (in the accuser's opinion) is sometimes called "stealing" but only in metaphorical, not legal sense.
Some bands that don't sign contracts with the RIAA actually PRAISE file sharing because it gets their music out there.
That has nothing to do with the issue. They may be praising a great communication technology that facilitates information exchange. That is quite different from praising use of that technology to commit theft.
When I praise the technical/tactical virtues of a firearm, that is not the same as condining the use of that same firearm for illegal activities.
Now, if I have a collection of my own music, that I myself recorded with a group of jazz friends, and that gets on KaZaa, am I going to be sued? My internet provider has already told me the RIAA is looking for me, but I don't have a single copyrighted file on my machine, only my own music.
They are looking for their stolen property. If you do not have any, you should not be concerned.
Even if you hypothetically had stolen files that are not music(software, images, secret plans, chemical formulas, etc.) or not their music, they would still not have a case against you.
Just like if a guy steals a watch he may be caught and jailed when the watch seller raises the alarm. That does not mean that you are in any danger wearing exactly the same watch if you've obtained it legally.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I am ready to concede that you are most likely right and I used improper legal term.
At the same time when we speak not in legal but in layman vernacular or in historical terms, "theft" is what we call the "copyright violation".
The expression "you stole my idea" or "you stole my trade secret" was used way before the word "copyright" was "coined".
Anyway, as long as the offender pays the fine and rots in jail for breaking the law, does it make practical difference what we call it here?
Are you saying that since by raping a woman one does not actually take any material posession from her - unlike theft of property and just like "copyright violation" - and since the women demand way too much money/effort for sex which does not cost them practically anything, the rapists should be allowed legal slack compared to the thiefs? Especially if no violence is involved (date rape drugs) and/or no bodily harm caused?
Did I get you right? :rolleyes:
err...no
It was just an example on how even though two things are illegal, there still can be an enormous difference between them. It is criminal to steal something, it is also illegal to rape someone. That does not mean that it is correct to say that since they are both criminal we can compare them on any level. That is what is happening when you guys are comparing copyright violations with theft, although on a different level.
Theft is a crime with a certain punishment (along the lines of "prison, up to two years"...or whatever) while copyright violation is another crime with another punishment (along the lines of "fine up to $15 000 per occation"...or whatever).
-
So if my next door neighbor were to play a CD (hypothetically) loud enough for me to hear AND record it, I am violating the copyright on that music?
If I were to take a picture of a Coca Cola logo, and put it on my wall, am I violating the copyright of the artist who drew it?
If someone were to hand me a free CD, am I not allowed to accept it? What if he paid for it? what if he got it as a gift from someone else?
If it is OK for me to accept a gift, how about a gift that requires me to do a few keystrokes on my computer to accept it?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So if my next door neighbor were to play a CD (hypothetically) loud enough for me to hear AND record it, I am violating the copyright on that music?
If I were to take a picture of a Coca Cola logo, and put it on my wall, am I violating the copyright of the artist who drew it?
Yeppers... and if you re-arrange that RF energy that's currently bombarding your house into a coherent signal, you'll be stealing from DirecTV.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Think back when VCRs came out. What aplication was there other than recording copyrighted material? The .0002% of the polulation that owned video equipment capable of capturing video were greatly outweighed by those who bought the tapes for the reason cited.
MiniD
Actually, the vast majority of VCR use then and now is to record television for personal viewing and this is perfectly legal under "fair use".
Please don't mistake me as condoning people to serve and download copyrighted material. It is clearly breaking the law.
What I'm pointing out is that most of the people who are downloading music illegally are fully aware that it is illegal - and there are still millions upon millions of people doing it. And if you've watched the news recently (or spent any time on a college campus), you've seen an awful lot of kids willing to go on camera to say they are going to keep doing it.
For all intents and purposes, it is a massive act of civil disobedience, not aimed at the government, but at a particular industry.
Now, historically and world-wide, is it more effective combatting massive acts of civil disobenience through over-agressive enforcement of the law, or by acknowledging that there's a pardigm shift underway and adapting?
The RIAA is well within their rights to sue the pants off of anybody with any copyrighted material on their hard drive. But they are weilding the law like a big, dumb, club bearing ogre and aiming it at equally stupid teenagers. Who wins here?
If they would expend the same ammount of energy (and use the money that we, by act of Congress, are giving them for blank CD's - even ones I burn my family photos on) on creative business and marketing types rather than lawyers, I think everybody would win out in the end.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So if my next door neighbor were to play a CD (hypothetically) loud enough for me to hear AND record it, I am violating the copyright on that music?
Yes. Just as you'd be violating the copyrights on the music if you recorded a live concert.If I were to take a picture of a Coca Cola logo, and put it on my wall, am I violating the copyright of the artist who drew it?
If you printed them up and distributed them, yes you would. If they were just part of a picture then no you wouldn't.If someone were to hand me a free CD, am I not allowed to accept it? What if he paid for it? what if he got it as a gift from someone else?
There's not a problem provided it was a licensed copy of the music.If it is OK for me to accept a gift, how about a gift that requires me to do a few keystrokes on my computer to accept it?
Depends on the legality of the gift. If someone steals a car and gives it to you, you are legally liable for the theft of that car.
Once again... people are taking the rediculous and trying to excuse the norm. People are downloading music to avoid having to purchase it. There really isn't a way to legally justify it.
Download all you want, just don't get upset when the people it impacts come looking for you.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So if my next door neighbor were to play a CD (hypothetically) loud enough for me to hear AND record it, I am violating the copyright on that music?
If I were to take a picture of a Coca Cola logo, and put it on my wall, am I violating the copyright of the artist who drew it?
If someone were to hand me a free CD, am I not allowed to accept it? What if he paid for it? what if he got it as a gift from someone else?
If it is OK for me to accept a gift, how about a gift that requires me to do a few keystrokes on my computer to accept it?
Ok...so music downloaded from file sharing is a gift to you?
-
That's pretty compelling, actually.
Can it be argued that the PC is simply a means for listening to a song.
For example, say a man named George buys a CD. He loans it to his friend. HIs friend loans it to another friend, and the last friend brings it to your house to listen to it with you.
Are you suppsed cover your ears because you did not pay for CD.
How much different is the computer? Someone bought the CD and is sharing it.
How different is this from someone who buys a cassette, and plays music on a boom box at a party?
How long before the RIAA sues me for whistling a song I hear on the radio? I mean, I'm sharing copyrighted material with other without authorization.
Are they planning on suing 60 million Americans?
I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't give a rats arnold what they charge for a CD. I will never buy one again because of this heavy handed form of corporate terrorism.
*Side note: I no longer DL music. I'm wondering if it makes sense to delete any songs still on my HD. What do you think?*
-
Well,
Right or Wrong, we can all agree that this is not the way to stop file-trading...
-
I am not a Lawyer but those would eb my guesses:
midnight Target:So if my next door neighbor were to play a CD (hypothetically) loud enough for me to hear AND record it, I am violating the copyright on that music?
I think so. But if you recorder it off the radio, under fair use laws you have a right to use it for your personal enjoyment and play in company but not duplicate for distribution nor charge for playing it.
If I were to take a picture of a Coca Cola logo, and put it on my wall, am I violating the copyright of the artist who drew it?[/b]
Private wall, most likely not. If you put it on some other things, probably yes.
If someone were to hand me a free CD, am I not allowed to accept it? What if he paid for it? what if he got it as a gift from someone else?
That's fine. The ownership of the intellectual property is linked to the ownership of the media. You can even legally make personal backup copies of teh CD you own - as long as you do not distribute them or sell/play them for money.
Of course if the person who gave you the CD for free did not destroy all his copies, he will be in violation, unless specifically autorised to replicate the content.
If it is OK for me to accept a gift, how about a gift that requires me to do a few keystrokes on my computer to accept it?
If he gives you a gift and keeps the copy or gives you a gift that he stole, he is in violation, not you - provided you are not aware of the illicit nature of the gift.
If you are buying/receiving stolen property you may not always be liable unless the prosecution proves that you knew the property was stolen.
miko
-
So if a friend buys a CD, makes a copy of a song on his computer (legal) then gives me a copy of the song as a gift... I stole the song?
I think not.
Music is falling from the sky. Everyone plug your ears. Save the buggy whip factories!
-
It is very simple gentlemen:
You can copy/record anything you like, be it a photo or a song.
If then you distribute(including multiple copies or for sale) that, then you are breaking the law.
The lawsuits deal with people who allowed OTHERS to access the music from their HD, not those who simply copied it.
-
And dont forget that the RIAA lawsuits are civil lawsuits. That makes the theft argument twice as wrong since if it was theft, it would be a criminal lawsuit.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
It is very simple gentlemen:
You can copy/record anything you like, be it a photo or a song.
If then you distribute(including multiple copies or for sale) that, then you are breaking the law.
The lawsuits deal with people who allowed OTHERS to access the music from their HD, not those who simply copied it.
Well, perhaps just a little more complicated. These well publicised lawsuits are, indeed, against those who are distributing the music.
But every day ISPs and college campuses are served with multiple DCMA infringement notices pointing at customers/students who have merely downloaded from an illegal source and threatening a lawsuit.
If you own the CD and make a copy for your personal use, or record a song from over the airway for your personal use - that's OK. If you obtain a song from an illegal source - even if you pay for it, you are also breaking the law.
Soapbox: A law written by lobbyists for an industry that has demonstrated repeat incompetence and have spent over five years fighting the inevitable and alienating the volitile psychies that comprise their most important demographic.
-
therealso suing a 75 year old after his idiot grandkids downloaded **** from regular kazaa (STUPID!!!) onto his computer
they may as well go after the kiddie pornographers while there at it...
-
I have DL's prolly about 3 cds worth of music. Not much but most standards.
I know its wrong but so is speeding. I do that pretty darn regularly. If I got hammered buy a suit, its just like getting a ticket.
I don't agree on how they are going about the suits. I stopped buying CDs looong before the DL crazy, I got tired of getting screwed out of 18 bucks for 2 good songs. I almost bought 2 CDs after listening to them after I downloaded them. The funny thing is the artist is heavily opposed to downloading, ironic huh.
Course I didn't buy it, didn't wanna give him the money :)
-
Im having doubts wheter its still SAFE to download on KAZZA LITE...
-
sure is, just dont SHARE the music
-
i liked the part where you can use so many other ways of getting stuff off the net without fileshareing.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
i liked the part where you can use so many other ways of getting stuff off the net without fileshareing.
Bitorrent,Mirc,newsgroups are the best for warez,movies,games, and CD's before they are released. Kazaa or other P2P are good for single songs
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
FOR F***S SAKE
Get this into your heads. Downloading music from the internet is not stealing. It could be some other crime, but it is not stealing. How hard can that be for you to understand?
If it is copyrighted music, hasn't been paid for, nor permission given from the copyright holder, then it is a form of theft.
That is per copyright law.
Now why do you find that so hard to understand?
Because many people have downloaded copyrighted music files for free, they seem to think that it must be okay. Still doesn't make it right. Blaming the RIAA for your greed in getting copyrighted music files for free is kind of..........
Under present law it is illegal to do so.
BTW the RIAA cannot sue the 12 year old girl, they will sue the parent(s) probably.
Ignorance of the law is not a defence for breaking the law.
-
The RIAA can never win this battle.
When the MP3 format came out the slammed it as unfeasable, and not of commercially viable quality.
Then the RIAA tried to smother out any attempts at online music sales.
Now the RIAA and going even further. They want to license what you can play your tracks on. They want to prevent you from playing your legally owned music on portable devices such as MP3 players, computer cd players. They are trying to legislate digital media technology that track licenses so you cannot play a track you may own on other players, be it your car, a portable player, or a home system. They are trying to legislate this right now. End result is you may have to purchase a track multiple times if you want to play it at home, in the car, on your walkman etc.
To me, the battle is changing.
The public are informed of the issues. The public are aware that the music industry (RIAA) has been ripping them off for years. The public is aware the RIAA don't give all artists a fair shot at fame. The public are also aware that the RIAA is trying to implement further controls to make more money.
We're no longer fighting this because of the overpriced monopoly the RIAA have been running, we're fighting to destroy the RIAA and prevent them taking things to facist monopolistic extremes.
Enough pressure on the industry will force those at the top out and a new way of doing business in.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
BTW the RIAA cannot sue the 12 year old girl, they will sue the parent(s) probably.
settled for $2000 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=501&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_en_mu/downloading_music_11&printer=1)
Guess they are just after $$$$
-
"Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested."
"We're trying to let people know they may get caught, therefore they should not engage in this behavior," Sherman said. "Yes, there are going to be some kids caught in this, but you'd be surprised at how many adults are engaged in this activity."
Somehow I see some difference between shoplifting and a teenager downloading MP3... or even an adult.
1. shoplifter steals a $100 jacket - thats a direct $100 loss for the store, no more, no less.. they simply cannot sell the jacket anymore since someone stole it.
2. a person downloads MP3 from the net - he cloned it.. shoplifters simply cannot clone the products they steal and leave the original at the store (or to it's original owner)
Most MP3 downloaders surely couldn't afford to buy even a partition of the music, especially teenagers. (as a teenager I could have perhaps bought 1 CD a month, if I had dumped everything else.. for a lousy 10-20 songs.. but for obvious reasons I couldn't have dedicated the money to one CD a month when I found songs to be way too expensive in usefulness against the other products)
IMHO the losses caused by internet are highly exagerated and comparisons to shoplifting are somewhat out of the line comparing the difference in damages for the store.
Comparing to shoplifting would be directly the same as you'd go and steal the CD instead of downloading it off the net.
...and I do have zero illegal MP3's myself, so it cannot be said I'd be defending my MP3 pirating :D
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
im downloading many backup copys as i type. But i do not share.
Now why would you do that instead of making copies of your originals? If they're "backup copies" . . .
-
Morale of the story see below
Q. what do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A. a good start.
-
Since this girl and her family settled, is she allowed to keep the music she may have downloaded now since they paid some money?
-
You know how to end this RIAA Terrorism?
Very simple really...don't buy a single CD for the next 3 months.
Cause a Boycott so extreme that they will realize what they are doing is a PR nightmare.
When they're quarterly results come up, let them show sales drops of CDs at 50-70% for the quarter.
Do you think this will get their attention? Let them know we want a new way to obtain the music we want legally? Just like anything else in a democratic society, we have a voice. Let's vote with our wallets.
I heard Simon and Garfunkle are touring again. After listening to some of their tracks on the radio this morning, I thought, let me pop over to Amazon and buy their greatest hits.
Then I remembered the RIAA. Guess what I'm NOT doing today.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Somehow I see some difference between shoplifting and a teenager downloading MP3... or even an adult.
Well, it is stealing. Let's not kid ourselves about that.
But it is a valid point that when the industry goes to our lawmakers and the media to explain how big a problem this is, they cite dollars "lost" as if every person who dowloaded a song illegally would have gone and bought the entire CD if the free download were'nt available.
Fortunately most lawmakers aren't that stupid and they show signs of seeing both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the media is and so we see some pretty outrageous claims as this gets reported.
-
Samiam,
Well it might be so in the law, but I'd say shoplifting and mp3 download is almost from two different dimensions.. figuratively speaking of course.
It's quite ridiculous though.. you might get up to 150,000 bucks fines for sharing a SINGLE song, although might be practically closer to 2000 per song or so, but still, quite exagerated sum for a single song.
For 2000 bucks, you can steal whole lot more from a store than a single song, at least for a first timer (let alone 150,000 bucks) :D
..oh.. and go sell those, if you wish
Muckmaw,
I think the last music CD I bought, was back in 1993 or 94 :D
Meh.. I surely don't listen to music much.
-
One day, music will be free and available to all! It kinda is now, actually! Can they really nab you on copyright if you just download it? I thought the copyright laws protected against editing and reselling without crediting the artist and/or manufacturer?
-
Copying music is hurting the industry, but not because that 12 year old girl copied some of their material for her personal amusement, but because industry didnt want to adapt for the truth of rapid digital sharing. Thats because the truth equals dead RIAA. They no longer have ANY reason to exist, unless you are Britney. Lawyers and studios you can get from the free market, with competent prize tags.
One thing the computers still cant do themselfs is the music itself (for now that is) and that equals $$, for some artists, not for RIAA or Britney.
I just cant see the invidual copying of music as a theft. Its like if i find 5 bucks from the street and keep it, am i thief? Am i stealing from the person who is now 5 bucks short? He could be unhappy, but could he blame me for that?
I see music industry going down the toilet (thats where shi* belongs)eventually, big time. Thats because their retailer puppet strings were cut by p2p and people just ignored their outrageous (lets face it) prizes created by music TRUST, not by laws of competition. Now the valves for easy copying are open and it wont stop, unless they shut down network. Which they will try, trust me and sadly they even have chance of succeeding if they make their move before too many understands what the net is.
This market will crash and then change to something completely different, where the end "user" gets the recorded stuff for "free" (i mean, do you get the free TV channels for free?). The profits will be made some other way, possibly by living only with the ravenue that comes from radio plays. Good artists will be making their money from the live tours as they (to my understanding, Britney excluded) currently do. Its the RIAA that will be dying away and big monster creates a lot of havoc when it goes down. Yeah and the CD industry will go too, thats the truly sad aspect of it, theyre done nothing but their fair job. Its more easier now to get all your data via telephone line. Its the wonders of automation folks! Less people needed for same work.
What you are actually witnessing is the breakdown of monopolies, which are de facto created by branding ("Britney" or "Puff D", not "Sony"), brands which are forced to be successfull. I have nothing against brands per se, im not bothered by Nike selling shoes with double prizes, since they do it they way customers "want".
Now the Britney clones will have to start competing with eachothers. Only people who will still make big $$ are the ones with REAL talent, with 10:s of years of musical study (be it self study with bands or academic). I can have all the songs of Paco De Lucia on my HD and i still would pay big $$ to see him if he'd come to play near my area.
The same will happen to movie industry too, but later.
-
Retrieving music that is being distributed from an illegal source is stealing. The finding $5 analogy does work because you are not just stumbling across songs and you have no idea who their rightfull owner is and no way to find out.
Looking at the business of it, absolutely the members of the RIAA are at risk of becoming non-relevant and that is, of course, why they are behaving the way they are.
The key point is that they have failed to adapt to a changing market. Napster was a company with a business plan and an intent to make money. I've no idea whether is was a sustainable business plan, but they certainly believed it was.
Rather than the record labels being opportunistic and seing that there is, perhaps, a different way to make money from distributing music, buying Napster and running with the idea, their first course of action was to hit them with a series of law suits and put them out of business.
Digging one's heals in has never worked for an industry threatend by a changing paradigm and in the long run it won't work this time.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
i mean, do you get the free TV channels for free?
Free TV? Yes, I suppose it's out there. Do YOU watch it? I pay for cable so I have access to the few decent programs out there.
I want to drive a Corvette. How dare GM charge so much! I think I'll just go take one off the lot. It's not stealing, I wasn't going to buy it anyway so GM lost no money. It's not fair anyway, the Auto Manufacturer makes so much money and the guy building the car doesn't get much. How DARE they be interested in profit!!! In fact I myself only work for just enough to pay my bills and I always return any extra to my employer. Damn that profit, it's so evil. Why can't we just work according to our ability and receive only according to our need? Any country that tried that is bound to succeed and we'd all have free music and cars . . .
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
This market will crash and then change to something completely different, where the end "user" gets the recorded stuff for "free" (i mean, do you get the free TV channels for free?).
While I don't generally disagree with what you say, I can't resist nit-picking.
Free television is "free" because you're not a consumer. You're product.