Oh RIAA your always good for a laugh.

[SaburoS]

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.

[Vulcan]

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.

[Pfunk]

Originally posted by SaburoS

BTW the RIAA cannot sue the 12 year old girl, they will sue the parent(s) probably.
 

settled for $2000

Guess they are just after $$$$

[Fishu]

"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

[Dega]

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" . . .

[rc51]

Morale of the story see below
Q. what do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A. a good start.

[Mathman]

Since this girl and her family settled, is she allowed to keep the music she may have downloaded now since they paid some money?

[muckmaw]

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.

[Samiam]

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.

[Fishu]

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)
..oh.. and go sell those, if you wish


Muckmaw,

I think the last music CD I bought, was back in 1993 or 94

Meh..  I surely don't listen to music much.

[Rutilant]

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?

[Tuomio]

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.

[Samiam]

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.

[Dega]

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 . . .

[Sandman]

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.