 ChoZ3nWon
join:2003-02-16
Lindenhurst, NY | What an idiot tale of woe | |
|  | 
ylen131
join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA | Re: What an idiot i will personally fight it, i have the means to take them on and if they will come after me they will see me in court with my legal defense dream team. | |
| 
Bill
Light Up The Halo
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-09
clubs:
1 edit | It's true.... It costs lots of money to go to court.
quote:
Frequent downloader Cecilia Gonzalez didn't settle against the RIAA, and on January 7, she received only a summary judgment in a U.S. District Court. Throwing out Gonzalez's claims that she was simply "sampling" songs to see if she wished to buy them and that she was an "innocent infringer" unaware that she was violating record company copyrights, the court ordered her to pay damages of $750 for each of 30 songs she was found to have downloaded illegally, for a total of $22,500
And to think this woman could have probably settled for a few thousand $$, and now she owes $22k. Seems like a stupid idea to even go to court. | |
| | 
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA | Re: It's true.... well you don't know the specifics there... she coulda been completely broke so she was going to end up delcaring bankrupcy anyway. | |
| | 
wjr110
join:2005-02-23
North Salem, NY | I agree, it'd cost too much to go to court. It makes more Cents to settle. | |
| | | 
NJChris
PS3 Xbox ID Zzaz
Premium
join:2000-02-08
Pompton Lakes, NJ
| Re: It's true.... said by wjr110  :I agree, it'd cost too much to go to court. It makes more Cents to settle. Not without a lawyer it doesnt. Would you really want to settle without legal advice? Do you know they could put what they want in the settlement agreement.
--
I know you're talking, but all I hear is Blah Blah Blah... | |
| | | 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| said by wjr110 :I agree, it'd cost too much to go to court. It makes more Cents to settle. Not from what I've heard.
Keep in mind, this is what I've heard. Often, the RIAA can prove that you're offering these files, but has little or no real evidence that you ever downloaded them.
Better to go to court and have them lose because they had no real evidence than settle for some ridiculous fees. Besides, most of the hardcore pirates are so convinced that what they're doing is legally sound, you'd think they were lawyers in the first place. Ironic, isn't it?
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey
iPod Shuffle=iPos
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 4400+ | |
| | | | 
EdibleTarget
Real Gamers Dont Use Consoles
join:2004-12-02
Lowell, MA | Re: It's true.... Sharing the files is the illegal part, and its the only part you can be caught for.
You didnt have to download them, if theyre shared, its against the law. | |
| | | 
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| said by wjr110 :I agree, it'd cost too much to go to court. It makes more Cents to settle. No, settling is retarded. If you fight them and you are SMART and you dont admit stupid crap, you are safe.
All you have to say is:
"I did not download those files. Other people have access to my computer."
If you just say that and you dont do something retarded and admit liability, you are safe.
The RIAA would be forced to take you to trial, which is EXPENSIVE. Furthermore, MANY jurors would be HAPPY to screw the RIAA with a defense verdict, which would then be picked up by the media and the defendant would be made an instant hero. Everyone would hear about his defense strategy and everyone would copy it. Far fewer people would settle and the RIAA would have a huge mess on their hands.
Gee I wonder why NONE OF THESE CASES HAVE GONE TO TRIAL?!
LOL  | |
| | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| why does it work? Ill tell you #1. The RIAA has the burden of proving not only that your IP address downloaded the files, but that YOU PERSONALLY sat at the computer downloading them
#2. The RIAA has no way of proving this
If you merely say u did not download the files, and other people had access to your computer, there is simply no way for the RIAA to prove it was YOU.
...and don't hire an attorney, just represent yourself and keep your mouth shut so you dont say anything stupid which contradicts your very simple story. If you have to file motions (and you will) just hand-write them in sloppy handwriting with all kids of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. That will piss off the RIAA attorney who actually has to read your garbage and craft some kind of response. lol | |
| | | | 
Tonyx3
@rr.com
| Re: It's true.... Going to trial is always a huge gamble; in this case, it's probably worse because you will be fighting the RIAA in civil court, where the standards for judging against someone are a lot looser.
The problem with fighting these cases is that if you're being sued, chances are an IP address under your control was offering the files for download. Just because "Other people have access to [your] computer" doesn't mean you're not liable for the infringement.
You're basically betting a potentially enormous amount of money that "MANY jurors would be HAPPY to screw the RIAA with a defense verdict", and thats if it goes before a jury. Legally, the cards are stacked against you. | |
| | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Tonyx3's whole post is a damned lie said by Tonyx3:
The problem with fighting these cases is that if you're being sued, chances are an IP address under your control was offering the files for download. Just because "Other people have access to [your] computer" doesn't mean you're not liable for the infringement. YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.
What authority can you cite to show me that there is some legal standard that you are automatically liable for whatever is being done with "an IP address under your control"? NONE. You simply made it up.
What you are doing is engaging in non-lawyer making-the-law-up stupidity. You are wrong. The RIAA must prove not only that the file was downloaded by your IP address, but also that YOU SPECIFICALLY did the downloading.
If your little brother used your computer to download files, YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE. Since the burden of proof is on the RIAA and NOT on you, you don't even have to find "the real killer" to escape liability yourself. All you have to do is sit back and laugh as the RIAA tries to prove its case with ZERO EVIDENCE. | |
| | | | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by Bill :And to think this woman could have probably settled for a few thousand $$, and now she owes $22k. Seems like a stupid idea to even go to court. After reading through the proceedings via PACER, I would tend to question the quality of representation she received. It wasn't downloading that brought her to the RIAA's attention. It was the 81 pages of KaZaA screen dumps listing files she had available for trade. | |
| |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Anyone making legal arguments that stupid didn't have a lawyer, which means Cecilia Gonzalez is poor. That means she is what we call "judgment proof".
The $22,500 judgment against her is not worth the paper it is printed on.
If you are poor, the courts can not take things away from you. They can't garnish your crappy little salary and/or welfare. They can't touch your house unless it is worth quite a bit (homes are immune up to $10 million in texas and florida).
If you are poor, all you have to fear is being thrown in jail, and the RIAA has no power to throw you in jail. No downloader has ever been thrown in jail for downloading, and none ever will. The US Attorney General has proven it will not be a RIAA stooge. They have bigger problems to worry about, like terrorism, the drug trade, paedophiles, child porn rings, etc. | |
| | DONKEYKONG01
join:2003-03-21
Metairie, LA
| Those who love money are day dreaming
Those who lack money are drooling over having more
Those who issue money out of thin air are the ones controlling our life
Money cannot buy happiness but those who are depressed due to lack of funds have to do without for awhile
Sucks doesn't it? Thats life! | |
| | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Something very important to keep in mind about Cecilia's case. She never really got her day in court. The RIAA called for a summary judgement and got it. Her lawyer (and IP lawyer) is already fighting the summary judgement since Cecilia never had the option for a jury trial. In other words her case is far from over.
Another thing to keep in mind is her defense was "I wasn't aware I was doing anything illegal", which really puts her in a bind. She never argued fair use rights or the specifics on copyright law. She essentially conceded sharing music was copyright infringement without question. Once that was in the books her options became severely limited. | |
| | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: It's true.... said by SRFireside :The RIAA called for a summary judgement and got it. Her lawyer (and IP lawyer) is already fighting the summary judgement since Cecilia never had the option for a jury trial. In other words her case is far from over. Listen.
I am an IP lawyer.
The summary judgment was properly granted and she has no right to a trial. It was her own fault for making a foolish defense.
I can't believe she actually had a lawyer. Any lawyer with even a cursory knowledge of copyright knows that ignorance of THE LAW is no defense. The innocent infringer defense is that the infringer didn't know the material in question WAS COPYRIGHTED. Obviously claiming that you thought the Britney Spears CD was not copyrighted, for example, is ludicrous. This is copyright 101 folks. Any lawyer working for her is either supremely stupid for believing his arguments had ANY merit, supremely callous for taking this womans money even though he knew she had no case, or supremely unethical: making nonsense arguments simply to screw with the RIAA and force them to take the time and effort to file a MSJ.
said by SRFireside :Another thing to keep in mind is her defense was "I wasn't aware I was doing anything illegal", which really puts her in a bind. That is a non-defense. It has no meaning legally beyond totally admitting liability and handing the RIAA their case on a silver platter.
said by SRFireside :She never argued fair use rights or the specifics on copyright law. She essentially conceded sharing music was copyright infringement without question. Listen closely. IT IS INFRINGEMENT. There is no way in hell downloading music online is "fair use". The law is extremely clear on this point.
The only way to escape liability is to say what I outlined above. | |
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: It's true.... said by Kaltes : There is no way in hell downloading music online is "fair use". The law is extremely clear on this point. I have found nothing in the books that put liability on downloading music. The question seems to be on uploading. Buying bootlegged CD's doesn't make you a copyright infringer, but selling them does. It seems the same thinking goes for file trading where the person offering the music for download is the target.
And what about Section 1008 of copyright law? Can that be used as a defense for sharing?
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
And what about Section 1004 (subsection A, part 1)?
"Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such device shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such device."
And then the whole part on copyright law that makes sharing music infringement because it's distribution. The actual wording on the law says, "Sales and distribution". One can argue the intent of the distribution side was just pertaining to those selling copyrighted works without authorization. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure that's exactly what was meant when the law was drafted. | |
| | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: It's true.... See this is what happens when you real the law out of context. A quick google search on that section, which I have never dealt with before because it is not legally significant, explains why:
Let's be careful about how we read the new section 1008. It does not say that noncommercial use by a consumer may never be an infringement (such would have to be determined by fair use or other sections of the Act). Rather it says that a manufacturer may not be sued for infringement based solely on the fact that it may be subsequently misused by a consumer. The thrust is that you can't hold the manufacturer liable for what a consumer does, not that what the consumer does is always right.
»www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyrigh···018.html
Court precedent already established this principle before this code section was enacted. This is just a codification of those cases. As for why downloading is infringement, look at 17 USC section 106(1):
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
When you download a song online or upload a song to someone else, you are creating a reproduction of a copyrighter work, which infringes on the copyright holders exclusive right to.... wait for it.... COPY the work. That is why it is called a COPYright folks.  | |
| | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: It's true.... Reading further into the link you provided seems to debunk what you just said.
>From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
Section 1008 covers one of the critical components of the legislation: exemptions from liability for suit under title 17 for home taping of copyrighted musical works and sound recordings, and, for contributory infringement actions under title 17 against manufacturers, importers, and distributors of digital and analog audio recording devices and recording media. **In the case of home taping, the exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings.** ...
>From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:
**In short, the reported legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use.** The legislation does not insulate, for example, record piracy from lawsuits.
Sounds like Section 1008 covers both manufacturers and consumers. The only thing I found with exception was that last sentence. What the question for that would be what defines record piracy. Is it selling bootlegged copies or noncommercial sharing?
Title 17 USC section 106(1) is just the start of the exclusive rights a copyright holder has. There are several other entries after it that talks about the many, many exceptions to those rights. These rights are by no means exclusive. Add to that Section 1008's interpretation by those house reports and we're back where we started. | |
| | | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: It's true.... those are legislative notes. you happen to be misinterpreting them but since legally they carry no weight, Im not going to bother.
in brief, I will just point out that what you pasted only says that the section was designed to protect MANUFACTURERS, and not consumers. | |
| | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: It's true.... Legislation is what creates the law. I wouldn't take their "notes" too lightly since their interpretation likely carries more weight. I am sure lawyers use these sorts reports often to solidify their cases, whether they be prosecution or defense. Besides section 1008 does specifically mention consumers.
"... or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The title makes no separation between manufacturer and consumer. Only that liability cannot be enforced for the sale, manufacture, or distribution of recording devices and the media it's recorded on AND the noncommercial use by consumers of said devices and media. Consumers are inclusive here.
Now what exactly am I misinterpreting from these briefs or Section 1008? | |
| | | | | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: It's true.... said by SRFireside :I am sure lawyers ... Honestly...
I am a lawyer and you are not. I know these things and you do not. Stop trying to argue with me.
I swear to God, you would argue with your surgeon over how to open you up if he didnt keep you unconscious. 
I'm not concerned about your ignorance, I just don't want you to poison the minds of any readers who might be fooled by your false air of authority. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: It's true.... In other words you don't have an answer. It's not like I'm not stating any valid points here. If you don't have an answer then fine. For me it's good to get this kind of debate from an IP lawyer so that the details get the right attention.
You are absolutely right about what kind of defense to put when you are sued by the way. It sounds like a solid method to get the RIAA off your back. My contention is the validity of their claims on this matter to begin with. You, being an IP lawyer (and law student from our previous discussions), make the perfect subject to test out my theories on copyright law and the RIAA/MPAA's abuse and distortion of them.
So far you haven't really given me anything to contradict my assertions. Instead of proving your point you stoop to deriding me as ignorant just because you SAY you're a lawyer. If you don't want me to "poison the minds of any readers who might be fooled by your false air of authority" why don't you prove me wrong? If you can't then at least concede this one. Last I checked we were both on the same side. You hate what the RIAA is doing as much as the next guy. Instead of looking at this discussion as locking horns why not look at it as a means to finding solutions? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: It's true.... said by SRFireside :In other words you don't have an answer. No, in other words I can't begin to explain everything to you because you have made SO MANY false assumptions about how the law works. The problem is that a lot of answers are long and complicated, and even moreso when you are trying to explain it to someone with no legal education.
I don't mind being informative, but if you argue or are combative with me, I am not going to do you a favor by correcting your false assumptions.
said by SRFireside :Buying bootlegged CD's doesn't make you a copyright infringer, but selling them does. It seems the same thinking goes for file trading where the person offering the music for download is the target. No. The reason you don't infringe when you buy a CD at some flea market is that you didn't interfere with any of the copyrightholders exclusive rights, namely COPYING. By contrast, both UPLOADERS and DOWNLOADERS are jointly responsible for the copying, and therefore both are infringers. Merely SHARING is not infringement.
said by SRFireside :And what about Section 1008 of copyright law? Can that be used as a defense for sharing? The answer is no. I should have just stated the more obvious answer that it simply doesn't apply to the situation of p2p where computers, not "digital audio recording devices" are being used.
The quick answer is that this statute doesn't really protect consumers because even if it is read to give them a blanket exemption, that exemption is extremely limited in scope and was already provided for by existing doctrines.
What is key to point out is how worthless this protection is today: a computer is not a "digital audio recording device". When you download online with p2p programs, 1008 has nothing to do with that. If you were copying music you borrowed from a friend, you might be covered by 1008, but think about that for a second: has anyone EVER gotten in trouble for doing that? If not, who cares?
CONTEXT
1008 was part of a 'package deal' including a tax on all blank tapes. The theory was that it was impossible to enforce copyright protection against A lending B his tape to copy, so instead the industry gave up this right (which was no loss whatsoever to them) in exchange for taxing all blank media on the assumption it was being used for infringement.
Of course this same situation does not exist today. The RIAA does not get a tax on all computers merely because they can be used for p2p (even though the RIAA would love that) because the more powerful computer manufacturer lobby wouldn't stand for it. Also, unlike the old days, the RIAA has the power to attack the source directly thanks to technology, hence the thousands of lawsuits, something we never saw back when you just borrowed a tape from your buddy. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: It's true.... My intention wasn't to be all that confrontational, but on the same token your early comments weren't exactly being non-combative either. I'm all for putting that behind now.
Understandably the context of 1008 was not intended to include things like a computer's hard drive. Then again copyright law's original intent wasn't to have individuals held in liability for sharing musical works with each other. Yet the record labels have made it such.
Those legislative notes did specify section 1008 does include consumers. I don't see how that can be challenged. Whether or not the intention was to have PC's considered recorded media they are indeed that. When copying a file you are recording bits onto your computer, which indeed is what a digital audio recording device does. Whether it be bits or electronic signals magnetized to tape the theory is the same, even if the tools are very much different. The fact that no taxes or royalty fees are levied from each hard drive or computer sold is not an issue since there is no wording that says exemptions are dependent on such compensation.
Yes the RIAA hasn't dropped the hammer on anybody passing CDs to friends, but they are on people doing so online. I keep hearing different reports, but apparently they are only interested in people having over 1000 copyrighted songs available for upload. Since the RIAA has found it necessary to sue people using these devices for non-commercial use I see no reason why section 1008 can't apply now.
I know I'm hammering on this, but that's the only way to really know the law is to disseminate it. Also I'm wondering what your views on section 1004 are on this subject as well. RIAA's claims on suing people is the lost royalties, but what if someone already paid royalties on the CD they purchased and share (non-commercially)? Yeah it's a stretch. But like I said, dissemination of the law. It's the best way I know of being prepared and informed. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| My Solution: said by SRFireside :Since the RIAA has found it necessary to sue people using these devices for non-commercial use I see no reason why section 1008 can't apply now. A computer is not a digital audio recording device. That term is defined by the statute. Although computers can do pretty much anything, including recording audio, that is NOT what you are doing when you are using p2p to download a song. You are not 'recording' audio you are copying a copyrighted file.
This is how I would change copyright law to make it fair for consumers:
#1. repeal the NET Act provision that criminalizes private noncommercial sharing, technically you can go to prison for up to 6 years for violating this. Fortunately Ashcroft refused to enforce it. I doubt it will ever be enforced, but nonetheless it should be removed from the books for being a perversion of justice:
17 USC § 506(a)(2)
(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully
by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
»www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrim···8red.htm
#2. Change 17 USC 504 so that private noncommercial use is exempted from statutory damages of $750 to $150,000 per work infringed. Force the RIAA to prove an ACTUAL LOSS on its part or an ACTUAL PROFIT on yours.
I believe if these two changes were implemented, the back of the RIAA monster would be broken overnight and the copyright war against consumers would end, leaving nearly every provision of law untouched and unchanged. I also believe that it is both fair and just to expect the copyright holder to prove some actual loss. | |
| | |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by SRFireside :Another thing to keep in mind is her defense was "I wasn't aware I was doing anything illegal", which really puts her in a bind. She never argued fair use rights or the specifics on copyright law. She essentially conceded sharing music was copyright infringement without question. Once that was in the books her options became severely limited. Actually, based on the Order granting Plaintiff's Summary Judgement, she attempted both the "fair use" defense and the "innocent infringer" defense. Both defenses were considered and rejected by the court. | |
| | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: It's true.... said by J D McDorce :said by SRFireside :Another thing to keep in mind is her defense was "I wasn't aware I was doing anything illegal", which really puts her in a bind. She never argued fair use rights or the specifics on copyright law. She essentially conceded sharing music was copyright infringement without question. Once that was in the books her options became severely limited. Actually, based on the Order granting Plaintiff's Summary Judgement, she attempted both the "fair use" defense and the "innocent infringer" defense. Both defenses were considered and rejected by the court. Good find | |
|
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA | downloading? come on... it's only UPLOADING that you get sued for. That article musta said downloading like 20 times. | |
| | 
heathcpe
join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS
| Re: downloading? said by AbBaZaBbA :come on... it's only UPLOADING that you get sued for. That article musta said downloading like 20 times. Reporters and news media are RIAA/MPAA puppets. They deliberately do this to induce fear into the general public. | |
|
Really Hatem
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
Nerdtalker
| GO RIAA Thank you RIAA for protecting my rights as an artist, a musician, and a business person. I personally wish this was not the only thing that happens to punks who steal music, I believe they should go to jail.
Stealing someone else's work without paying them is just plain and simple theft. If you steal music, you are a thief and you should be put in jail for a while just like any other thief. You *ARE* stealing my livelihood and those of others in the music industry. It's no different than stealing money from a bank, stealing gas from a filling station, knocking over a liquor store or any other form of theft.
THANK YOU RIAA!! GO!! GO!! | |
| |
See 32 replies to this post | |
DZoned
@170.35.x.x
| RE: Hatethem >
Great!!! SO you are getting the royalties from each of these settlements that you were entitled to right? I mean you should be getting your part for each of the songs that were yours that they download. Right?? Right??? O wait.... 
How's the other royalty thing going for you guys? Getting what you are supposed to get for regular song downloads, cd purchases, etc.. I guess then huh?
The whole process is BROKEN!! RIAA stands for no one but themselves and are after one thing. MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES. Not for you, heheh you seem to think they are looking out for the best interests of the artists.... hehehe How cutely naive that is. | |
| 
Techless
Like I care
Premium
join:2002-07-19
Hypoluxo
 ·Vonage
| How did we go from How did we go from "Payola" Music companies guilty of paying radio stations to play a song so that someone might hear it on their radio and want to buy it.
To suing someone for listening to perhaps that same song on their computer?
This is just sick!!
--
Al • Adelphia HSI • 6000/768 • Will Work For Captain Morgan | |
| | 
Derspankster
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Marion, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: How did we go from Face it, we're living in one screwed up world today. The gap between the haves and the have nots widens daily. Me, I'm just trying to hang on to what used to be called a "middle class" lifestyle and hoping to retire someday with enough salted away for a roof over my head and to eat on a daily basis. I guess if I had a shot of making millions bleating obscenity's in what passes for "music" today I'd probably take it. But, it still breaks my heart to see the poverty all around us in what is supposed to be the most advanced civilization the world has ever known. | |
| | | 
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| Re: How did we go from Anyone who claims a moral or ethical imperative on this issue is either a simpleton or a hypocrite. "STEALING IS WRONG!" and "SCREW THE EVIL CORPORATIONS!" are both understandable reactions to a complex issue. To feel them is understandable, but to open your mouth and defend them shows a major lack of complex thought.
Ethics are defined by culture: American culture teaches that stealing is wrong. Yet corporations steal from Americans all the time and are rarely held accountable. That's because American culture also teaches that making money is right. On the other hand, American culture teaches that fighting against unjust authority is right, too. This is why you have so many conflicting points of view on this issue.
People who download music for free should also admit to themselves that they are committing a crime. The same goes for people who speed while driving. I myself have done both. Some of out most revered (well, by 50% of the country anyway) leaders are guilty of worse crimes. Am I proud of speeding? No. Am I losing sleep about it? No.
The truth of the matter is, downloading music without paying a music company isn't any worse than music companies colluding to keep CD prices high. Both are against the law, neither amounts to theft in the traditional sense (where one person is deprived of the same value another gains)*, and neither are punished universally in our society. The only difference is, the latter is punished more often because the injured party (the recording industry) has the money to pay politicians to do so. And by the way, that's the real moral wrong in this whole debacle. That the government is spending time and money to over-punish a minor crime because an industry has the money to pay them to do so; meanwhile, major issues in our country go unaddressed.
*(That is to say, if you take an apple from me, I'm out one apple. If you dowload a song off the internet, I'm not out one song. I may be out the profit I would've made off that song, but maybe not, since you may not have bought the song if you had to pay for it.) | |
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: How did we go from I still take exception to calling sharing music online illegal. There is enough in Copyright Law for the RIAA to claim as such and make it sound convincing, however there is also enough in Copyright Law that supports an individual sharing music without profit. There is more than enough for me to say music sharing is not illegal.
But yes. Making it a moral issue does very little to support that person's stance. In fact it lessens the effectiveness of their position. This goes for both sides of the fence and I am pretty tired of hearing it from either of them. | |
| 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| RIAA Settlement... quick question:
whats the difference if I download a song from a p2p, copy it from a friend's cd, or record and burn it from my digital cable/satilite or local radio station?
IMO, NONE, this isn't any difference at all. only the delivery method is different.
--
Webmaster Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»sphenterprizes.com
»pokemonpalace.net | |
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: RIAA Settlement... said by pokesph :quick question: whats the difference if I download a song from a p2p, copy it from a friend's cd, or record and burn it from my digital cable/satilite or local radio station? IMO, NONE, this isn't any difference at all. only the delivery method is different. None of what you mentioned are illegal.
Now if you uploaded a song on P2P, that is different than any of what you mentioned, and it is what people are being sued for. | |
| |
OneBornEveryMinute
@york.com
|  Re: RIAA Settlement...There's the real issue
Dance, puppets, dance. | |
| dan1rulz
join:2002-04-13
Crystal Lake, IL | uploading vs downloading Why is everybody saying only uploaders get sued? I thought this was not true anymore. | |
| | TurboGeek
Premium
join:2005-03-02
Boston, MA | Re: uploading vs downloading In Canada, it's been made quite clean that downloading is in no way illegal, much to the chagrin of the various trade associations, who now want to shove the UN's WIPO doctrine down their throats. Guess who that doctrine is bias towards? | |
| | | TurboGeek
Premium
join:2005-03-02
Boston, MA | Re: uploading vs downloading I meant clear, not clean, but it's an interesting typo when you think about it. | |
| | | baldwookie
join:2004-11-22
Fredericton, NB | Actually, we've been paying a tax on recordable media for decades, regardless of what the intended purpose is. That's "supposed" to compensate the music artists being hurt every time I download the latest Linux ISOs from distrowatch, I guess. | |
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: uploading vs downloading Not all blank CD's have royalty charges, but yes we have been paying to compensate artists when buying blank music CD's, cassette tapes, VHS tapes, DAT tapes and so on. The RIAA's "reasoning" behind still going with the charges is that the songs are on your computer and they can't charge royalties on your hard drive purchase. | |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| In America it's not illegal to purchase or own bottlegged or stolen material. It's only illegal to sell it. The same reasoning can be said about downloading since the person downloading is on the receiving end much like the person buying the pirated or stolen copy. The uploader is more related to the seller even if they aren't selling anything because a product the RIAA says is theirs is being traded without their consent. | |
|
wyatt earp5
@swbell.net
| my 2 cents I agree...the only illegal aspect of all this is the UPLOADING of music. Downloading is not different then me copying from the radio or the TV or any other media. When I offer up copyrighter material from my computer or other means thats where they get you. Most of these law suite simply fish for who will pay up and this scares people. Its costs alot for BOTH parties to go to court. Personally given the media hype for all this you could find a real cheap lawyer to take your case just for the mere media attendion it would receive....I say bring it on...
Oh BTW..I used to work at McDonalds...and I used to eat french fries I never paid for....put me in jail!!! LOL...anyone who says they have never stolen anything is simply a liar...everyone steals in some way shape or form....i am not condoning this just its reality of life... | |
| |
riaa sucks
@209.192.x.x
| my 2 quarters ill upload & download files till the day i die i share on private networks unlike open source crap like kazaa or bt or whatever lame p2p that has public access & has stupid leeches & narcs stalking people because they have 250gb or more of songs use your heads only go on private servers with invites only with user name & pass required servers because how fast a snitch for the r.i.a.a comes in they will have a fried pc enuff said | |
| | | kiamsiamdala
join:2001-11-05
Utica, MI | Re: my 2 quarters Right, because of course they could NEVER infiltrate that.
--
'void planets roll regardless of desolation' | |
| | | | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| The RIAA is The RIAA is esentually an arm of the Big 5 record corps. In the late 90's all five got popped collectively for collusion and price fixing by the SEC for keeping the prices of CD's artifically high. Together they had to pay a fine of 167 million and were ordered to stop the practice.
There were no price drops after the fine and I conclude that they are able to keep on doing what they've done all along. Most every CD sold is illegally priced and there is no enforcement.
As far as ripping off the artists, there is a reason most of the artists who are vocal against file sharing, own their own lables. They actually DO take a hit. For all the rest,
other that the appointed 1% who make the top charts,
they are already underpaid by the lables and their music manipulated under their contracts in order to keep them from competing with the top artists.
Nashville lables are notorious for this.
Add to this all the black artists from the 40s-60s who were ripped off by lables that were bought by the big 5,
and I'm rooting for the pirates.
Piracy won't help them get paid, but I'd sure like to hurt the corporate thieves responsable for this mess.
Go and Download my friends. Or at least stop supporting the RIAA.
NV | |
| | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: The RIAA is said by Noah Vail :... there is a reason most of the artists who are vocal against file sharing, own their own lables. They actually DO take a hit. What indie artists are complaining about P2P? Aside from Madonna (who technically owns her own label, but is still very much dependant on the majors for distribution and promotion) all I have heard from the independents is praise. It's like free promotion and exposure from them. | |
| | | wutang17
join:2005-02-27
| What's with this legal and illegal aspect???
Totally ridiculous. Most are getting owned and don't even know, just do whatever you like and stop worrying about legal or not illegal.
You want to be a slave forever? You enjoying being suppressed to cattles style? Then do something about it.
This is not humans vs monkeys, it humans vs humans
Use your brain and instinct | |
|
Anonymo
| RIAA has sued 0.00014 % of file-sharers Do the math! Reports say 60 million people have DL'd files "illegally". 8400 lawsuits filed so far by RIAA. That means that they have sued 0.00014% of "illegal" downloaders. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than being sued by the RIAA!! And note:
Fuck the RIAA anyway. They are a gang of thieves who have been systematically robbing musicians since day one. If musicians want to get paid, they should go after the thieving record company execs instead of suing their own fans. Musicians suing their own fans? What a bunch of idiots!
Sharing your music files should be the right of anyone who has files to share. This should be true for every kind of software and downloadable file. Those greedheads want to squeeze every dollar out of us they can get... soon they will try to get their bribed servants in Congress to outlaw public libraries, perhaps? Why not? The libraries share books and CDs, LPs and cassettes, even DVDs!
If those of us who can afford to buy CDs, DVDs and software programs wish to share our bounty with other people, why can't we set up our own online libraries? If the RIAA wants to sell more music, I have a suggestion: LOWER YOUR PRICES! There's no way in hell it costs $16.99 to make a damned CD.
If the RIAA member corporations had been minding the store, they'd have created online music distribution networks like IPod... and they'd have made billions in profits by now. Instead they took the lazy, greedy path they have trodden for so long.
In the 70's the idiot music industry bemoaned the advent of home cassette recorders. They said it would kill their industry, and tried to stop it. They failed. Result: billions in profits for music industry as sales of pre-recorded cassettes exploded. They should have gone into production of blank cassettes!
In the late 70s the movie moguls tried to get the Congress to ban videotape recorders (SONY Betamax). They said that videotape would be the death of the movie industry... They failed. Result: Hollywood makes more money off videotape sales now than off sales of theater tickets. Billions.
They bitched about digital audiotape and CD recorders, DVDs too. Now it's the Internet. While they bitch and moan over at RIAA, Apple has sold hundreds of millions of songs over the Internet, for $1 each. Will these assholes ever learn?
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take a good look at the historical record and rule resoundingly against the "Wolf!"-criers at RIAA.
Anonymo | |
| | |
chekup
@comcast.net |  Hmm....uploaders?
| |
|
denzilla
@charter.com
| F' em! I say Put a 3 dollar tax on Every 50pk of CDRs, with the money going to the RIAA/Artists and be done with it.
I'm getting rather sick of the whole "intellectual property" BS being flaunted by corporations as of late. Can I download an episode of Angel because I forgot to record it? Hell no, because if I do, I'm directly liable for the starvation of someone somewhere! If I go to the store and buy a used CD did the RIAA make a profit off that? Nope. How bout I go one step further and trade that CD to a buddy for a CD I want? The first born of all execs at the RIAA must've dropped dead upon the awful act! Pfft...*ricks STFU! | |
| | 
RMAntala01
join:2002-02-14
Merrillville, IN
clubs:
| Re: F' em! said by denzilla:
I say Put a 3 dollar tax on Every 50pk of CDRs, with the money going to the RIAA/Artists and be done with it.
I agree with you on that point, but did you know that they pretty much already do that??
Did you ever notice the difference in price between a "10 pack of blank CD-Rs" and a "10 pack of blank CD-Rs for home audio recording"?
Both are essentially the same product, just put in a different wrapper with a different SKU number; but the second one is slightly more expensive. Why?
Because the price of the second one includes a payment to the RIAA for a fund to compensate artists for the personal-use copying of audio recordings.
I remember reading a few years back that PC-based CD burners could use either blank media but the first home audio based CD burners could only use the more expensive media; it was a way to make sure the RIAA was compensated for personal-use copying of audio recordings done on home audio systems. I don't think this is still true, but it proves at one time that the RIAA was being compensated by people who were burning their own mix CDs or full CD copies in their living-rooms.
I remember a few years ago for Christmas, a friend bought me 2 10-packs of blank CDs with jewel cases to use on my computer. She later asked me why they were so expensive for her to buy, when I usually found them cheaper. It turns out she purchased them in the home-audio section of a local store and they were labeled "for use in home audio CD recorders".
So, it turns out that what you are suggesting was already being done at one point in time.
--
Zen Buddhism for techies: "Jesus saves, but only Buddah makes incremental backups". | |
| 
rivalman
Rival
join:2004-01-18
Calgary, AB
| Those lazy music guys! Wow! K, here's the deal in my eyes. Maybe only my opinion, I don't know....
The music industry has never had competition before. They are not used to having to compete with anyone else. Really when you think about it, if you want an album that is from a Sony record label artist, then you have to buy it from Sony. Aside from the small bootleg percentage that is. Really when I think about it, I can't think of anything that the record companies had to compete with........ other labels? Whatever! If you want 50cent, then you need to buy from whatever label he's with.
Point #2
They no longer have a product that people will pay that kind of money for. Profits = quality unique product + price that is as high as people WILL pay.
I'm guessing that one of those is off, either the product or the price that people are willing to pay. People are able to get almost the same product right in the convience of their own homes, they don't have to leave to get it, if they download that is. And price, well, it had better be a good price if all i'm getting more is a cover and a case with my purchase.
What I think they need to do is come up with a better product, ie: an album with more than 2 songs that are actually good, maybe record all cd's in dolby digital 5.1
And maybe find a way to get your purchase into your home easier. Point is, the product is no longer unique or even all that good for the price they are charging.
Their problem to solve is coming up with a better product that will bring people back into the stores. I mean, man, I wish I could sue my customers for buying elsewhere, I don't care if it is "copywrited" or not.
The bottom line........
The music industry is suing it's potential customers for not buying their music. Suing people is an interesting way to gain customers. They need to find a way to bring those who are no longer buying music to go back and buy it again. It's their riddle. Lots of money to be made by those who solve it.
| |
|
screwtheEFFpigs
| This story illustrates JUST hod G.D. DUMB Pirates ... are !
Ferchristssake the RIAA gives you an easy means to come clean and people bitch about it. Then you have those who want to use "civil disobedience" as an excuse for criminal activity. What JACKAZZES !!! Hope they enjoy the Iron Bar Hotel 'cause nobody has any use for a Pirate.
Here's a CLUE for the Pirates:
Theft of copyright protected material is a CRIME and all who steal will be prosecuted over time. As the BONEHEAD in this story relates, his PRIOR ISP was the one who had to turn over the records. If you think because you run to another ISP or P2P whore that you won't get caught, then think again. it's just a matter of time before your number comes up.
It's time the Pirates get REAL because NO ONE is going to allow them to steal and go unpunished. You can Piss and Moan and lament and have a bunch of whores who pretend to represent the IT or electronics industry, which they do not, but at the end of the day you're going to jail and you're gonna pay a high price for your theft - as it should be.
Get use to it. This IS reality. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
rivalman
Rival
join:2004-01-18
Calgary, AB
| P2P is here to stay, get used to it! Don't get me wrong, I know it's Illegal, however.......
It's going to stay, in fact, it's only going to get bigger. If this really was as big a problem as the RIAA would have you believe then there WOULD have been a solution by now. This has been going on for a LONG time now, and it's on the rise. Some have picked up on it and sold many Ipods based on it, others have not been so smart.
You're right, it's Illegal and some will do time and/or pay fines. However, most will not as a previous post on here told about the ridiculously small number of people that have had issues with the RIAA.
Microsoft knows roughly how many pc's are runnig pirated windows, however they are still making billions. The music industry knows how many are downloading and yet they continue to make a lot of money. While Microsoft is doing things to make it harder to use Windows illegally they are also smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them. The music industry will learn that too, humility is a wonderful thing after all.
Some are faster to embrace it and go with it rather than fight it. The times, they are a changing after all. Up here in Canada we've already made downloading AND now uploading perfectly legal. Cd sales here are higher per capita than in the US, maybe not related, but then again maybe it is?
You're right, it's illegal and they are breaking the law. I'm in a profitable company right now because we do one thing that is very important. You have to learn from your customers, not teach them! | |
| | baked247
Can Nib Is
join:2003-06-25
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: P2P is here to stay, get used to it! I think that the record companies are trying to make up for signing literally thousands of bands that SUCK and the bands cant repay all the RIAA's cash advance store style loans . If they wouldnt sign shitty lame bands then problem solved. Then people wouldnt worry about paying for good music from bands who have more than 1 hit that gets overplayed on radio. | |
| | | 
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: P2P is here to stay, get used to it! said by baked247 :I think that the record companies are trying to make up for signing literally thousands of bands that SUCK and the bands cant repay all the RIAA's cash advance store style loans . If they wouldnt sign shitty lame bands then problem solved. Then people wouldnt worry about paying for good music from bands who have more than 1 hit that gets overplayed on radio. Plain and simply quite right!! Why don't the aholes from the RIAA catch on to this modern technology. Even though it's already to late for them?
--
Spread Opera, fastest browser on earth or Cyberspace! | |
| | |
andrewvincent
| Big corporate record companies don't really sign bands anymore, they just create them. They create their music, they create their image, they create their backround even. | |
| | | | DONKEYKONG01
join:2003-03-21
Metairie, LA | Re: P2P is here to stay, get used to it! I just hope it grow stronger, bigger and better then ever!!! Then we will have a good time!!!
OH YEAH | |
|
LKSJRFOWAE
@69.173.x.x
| How many individuals are ever id'd? The original story says outa 8100 addresses only 1700 have ever settled. Since nobody has taken it to court, what happened to the rest? Apparently 3/4 of all attempted lawsuits have not resulted in a settlement. Are they just backlogged? If so, they are filing suits 4 times as fast as they can process them. But dont some of the annon litigants simply defy identification? Surely some logs are lost, deleted, corrupted so they cannot be given to the RIAA no matter what a court order says. And some of these people must have used public computers, unidentifiable wireless connections, whatever. Haven't some of these folks moved away, dissapeared, maybe never used their real data in the first place? If only 1700 people have ever settled it makes the kill ratio even less scary. Should we be worried more about being struck by lightning that being sued? | |
| 
nerdling301
join:2004-01-12
Brookline, MA | verizon's protection whatever i feel safe knowing that verizon took the RIAA to court over their subpoenaing ips and information related to P2P!
--
- Bill | |
| 
JacksGhost
Got Bottle?
join:2002-12-29
Buffalo, NY
| Just some food for thought...
MP3's are 0's and 1's by digital code. They're not vinal nor printed media. If a file is ripped from its original source and ( for lack of better words ) put into a different format/medium, would it not make it harder to declare whats copywritten and whats not?
I'm not one to support theives. People can claim ' revolution ' all they want and pound their chests but I highly doubt half those on here pounding their chests would go the distance to court. Its a loosing fight. Why not outsmart RIAA and MPAA and try a different format/file type? Patents are cheap and the open source world has a LOT of talent.
For all the complaints from both sides of this argument, I've not seen either side put up something thoughtful or concurrent with a solution.
Legally, traders are criminal. Morally, RIAA and MPAA are a pair of theives themselves ( Robbing artists ) . Birds of feathers.
Lawyers win Litigation, Not defendents nor plaintifs. They walk away with money in their pocket even before a case goes to court, can either of the 2 parties involved say the same?
There are solutions out there, but ya have to be reasonable to get there.
jAX. | |
| jaspar2002us
join:2005-04-15
Wheeling, WV
| The Unbelievable Superpower - Part 3
POLITICAL ESSAYS
The Unbelievable Superpower - Part 3
`
`
April 11, 2005
Associated Press [1]
Center Tries to Keep Computer Data
Safe
`
"Experts from...colleges will lead
a far-reaching effort to keep the
nation's computer data safe from
cyberattack...."
`
AP quotes the director of this
TRUST center:
`
"The idea is to look at ways to
build more secure systems before
a disaster along the lines of an
'electronic Pearl Harbor.'"
`
But the electronic Pearl Harbor
occured two days after he spoke.
`
`
April 13, 2005
Associated Press [2]
Music Group to Sue Students Over
Downloads
`
"Internet2 is used by...[millions
of] university students, research-
ers and professionals around the
world but is generally inaccessi-
ble to the public."
`
AP reports Internet2 is "super-
fast": its "researchers...can
download a DVD-quality copy of
the popular movie 'The Matrix'
in 30 seconds...."
`
That's background. Moving on.
`
"The Recording Industry Associa-
tion of America...said it will
file federal lawsuits...against
405 students at 18 colleges with
access to the Internet2 network."
`
The Motion Picture Association
of American also plans to get
into the act.
More and more Internet2 students,
already up to their necks in debt
to pay for their schooling, will
be hit financially. Severely so!
`
These are the folks TRUST will de-
pend upon to do the grunt research
"to keep the nation's computer data
safe...."
`
`
Like AP quotes the TRUST director:
`
"If one thinks about the possibil-
ities, they're really
`
QUITE FRIGHTENING."
`
`
`
[1]
`
»www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy···=printer
`
{2]
`
»www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy···=printer
`
I capitalized the words "quite frightening."
`
`
| |
| | | |
|
|
RIAA Settlement details
Re: RIAA has sued 0.00014 % of file-sharers