Girl, 12, Settles Piracy Suit for $2,000 [Archive]

mbossman2

09-10-2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by mr krinkle
Technology has reached a point where once a song is released, anyone can
distribute that song to billions and no power on Earth can stop that from happening.

The music business and the RIAA fail to understand the simple facts. Apparently, they're out
of the music business and are now in the business of scaring money out of 12-year old girls.
If their product can no longer generate a profit for them, they should find new jobs. The Gestapo would be proud of the antics of the RIAA

so using your logic:

technology develops an invisibility cloak, you walk into a store, take whatever you want, you leave without paying, they go out of business: too bad for them?

C'mon, stealing is stealing, no matter what guise the manner of theft takes.

morriswindgate

09-10-2003, 02:41 PM

What the people who say the law is the law have got to ask themselves is do we want to be like it is in some contries in Europe? Over the years I have read stories where the houses and computer equipment of software pirates were raided/ siezed not by the police, but by hired guns from the software industry. ANd this was like in Norway and Sweden!
The tatics that the recording industry is using is 180 degrees out from what they should be doing. This is because they first want to maintain total control over what is produced, second they have for years been in colusion with each other on pricing (they just dropped wholesale prices quite a lot), third they are trying to hold on to an outdated mode of distribution, and finally they know that if the consumer was allowed to purchase/access all the music in their catalogs, the current bunch of artists they have would sink to the bottom like stones in water.
It is a fact, many times studied, that people downloading music are for the largest part looking for titles that are not sold in the local top 40/latest bimbo/talking parolee music store.
The music industry should be instead looking to surplant the P2P netwroks with their own download sites that have reasonable prices (not the dollar a song BS which was done to keep people buying the actual CD instead of making their own), unlimited use of the downloaded product, their entire catalogs available, small sample files that can be streamed, and reliable software with no hiddeen BS spyware on it. They could also just farm this service out to others as a way to stimulate and spread the costs.
I really believe that the first company to do this will see it's total revenues skyrocket from it's previous ones.

Confused

09-10-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by mbossman2
so using your logic:

technology develops an invisibility cloak, you walk into a store, take whatever you want, you leave without paying, they go out of business: too bad for them?

C'mon, stealing is stealing, no matter what guise the manner of theft takes.

I can agree with that, but I think the RIAA is making a big mistake and this will only hurt them. It is only going to take a few little girls in housing projects and the RIAA is going to have a public relations nightmare if the major news organizations decide to run with the story.

Downloading is only one portion of the problem. There are bootleg CD's created in this country and others being sold worldwide.

I wonder what other countries (England, Ireland, Germany, Japan, Canada, Isreal) to name a few are doing about the problem of CD coping and downloading to protect their artist.

We have a international membership here. What are some of the other countries doing?
Chas

mr krinkle

09-10-2003, 03:48 PM

mbossman2 surely you can see the difference between downloading some music off of the Web and shoplifting Cant you? If a person Records hours of his/hers favourite music from a local Radio station and Shares it with Friends is that Theft?

RayH

09-10-2003, 03:54 PM

The downturn in the economy has nothing to do with depressed CD sales because people need them more than food!

mbossman2

09-10-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by mr krinkle
mbossman2 surely you can see the difference between downloading some music off of the Web and shoplifting Cant you? If a person Records hours of his/hers favourite music from a local Radio station and Shares it with Friends is that Theft?

How is it different? convince me.

But 1st lets look at the definition of stealing:

steal
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
1) To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
property of dictionary.com

Now as to the recording off the radio...if you record something for your own personal use, the "fair use" doctrine comes into play, it is the same issue as if you record a TV program to time shift it to view at your leisure. If, however, you record something and then distribute it to others, then you are in violation of the owners copyright (see definition of stealing above).

Confused

09-10-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by mbossman2

Now as to the recording off the radio...if you record something for your own personal use, the "fair use" doctrine comes into play, it is the same issue as if you record a TV program to time shift it to view at your leisure. If, however, you record something and then distribute it to others, then you are in violation of the owners copyright (see definition of stealing above).

If I burn a song to a CD for my own personal use, I'm still having a hard time differentiating how it was accquired.

I just don't see the difference. Blue Suede Shoes by Elvis is the same if I record it off the radio or download it. It is still the same song by same artist and it is for my personal use.

I know legally I'm probably wrong, but that is the very reason the RIAA doesn't want me on a jury if one of these go to trial.
Chas

Prew

09-10-2003, 05:19 PM

They aren't going after people who download a song or two, they are going after people that make available hundreds of CD's and songs to anyone with a modem. Something needs to be done- you can go to Kazaa and pretty steal any program or song that you want.

If you download every Metallica song ever written on Kazaa, and then make available all of these songs to everyone with a modem- isn't that more of a crime than just going into Best Buy and shoplifing the CDs? Just because you don't leave your house doesn't mean you are exempt from theft laws.

mr krinkle

09-10-2003, 05:23 PM

mbossman2 many bands encourage downloading there "Some" of there music off of the Web..Go to
some Music web sites and check it out,So if Primus ow whoever
encourages us to listen to there music but also says not to Turn around and sell it how can you say that is theft?
 Sorry but I see no differance between what you call theft and what you call the "fair use" doctrine
..Its a very Fine line the RIAA has crossed. IMO of course..:)

pam123

09-10-2003, 05:37 PM

The Boycott the RIAA site is here : http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

CDBaby, the site for independent artists, is here : http://www.cdbaby.com/

You can put the RIAA out of business.

mr krinkle

09-10-2003, 05:50 PM

pam123 thanks,Action (money) speaks louder than words.:)

Prew

09-10-2003, 05:55 PM

Its a welfare mentality. You shouldn't have to pay for anything. Shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, rent, food, college, music, computer programs, and get over when you can- I don't think this way though.

If you can't afford to buy a CD - get a job or get a better job.

azscary

09-10-2003, 06:08 PM

What I don't understand here, is why the RIAA went after a 12 year old girl instead of Kazaa who sold her the access to the music? Is it because the 12 year old is less likely to afford a cadre of attorneys??

Force Flow

09-10-2003, 06:14 PM

Help The RIAA Kid:
As most of you have seen this afternoon on CNN Headline News T.V. broadcasts, we are helping out the 12 year old kid sued by the RIAA. Normally, we do not get involved in this type of stuff but this is a special case. First of all, we firmly believe people should pay for their music, but this situation has extenuating circumstances. We are raising the money to help the 12 year old girl sued by the RIAA by raffling off 400 chances to win a nice water cooled computer.

This raffle is not about who is right or wrong, we don’t really care about that. What we are trying to do is help a 12 year old catholic school honor roll student who comes from a low income, single parent household. The $2000 fine from the RIAA for downloading music could easily break their household. We have a few things around here to put together a kick ass computer. The money will go a long way to help the kid out, you’ll feel good about yourself and to top it off… ONE OF YOU will get a nice computer for a mere $5, the odds are pretty damn good too ( only 400 chances to win ). This way, we have helped out and everyone is happy…..even the RIAA will be happy because they’ll have their money, that is what is important to them. This is a win-win-win situation.

from hardocp.com

azscary

09-10-2003, 06:25 PM

I sent em $15. I already had a PayPal balance I had nothing else to do with and 3 chances out of 400 to win a system is decent odds. LOL

I have a friend that could use a new computer. :):):):)

Strider

09-10-2003, 06:37 PM

It seems to me going after a 12 year old in this matter is a little tough and wrong, but that's the RIAA for you. It's my opinion that the RIAA is going about this in the wrong way, for they should be embracing technology not trying to fight it. Let's face it, the CD is going to become obsolete just like the LP did, so why doesn't the RIAA think of something clever? They could change formats, by this I meaning changing formats from mp3 to something that is a little harder to copy. They (RIAA) are also going to have to realize that there are going to be people who will be able to copy this new format. They should become passive and not make to much of a stink about it, unless it's a flagrant violation of copyright infringement. This is where they got themselves in trouble in the first place, for they should have just kept their big mouths shut and lower the cost of music would be a good start - but that is a different subject. Just my .02 cents.

Force Flow

09-10-2003, 06:43 PM

The problem is that the RIAA likes a fat wallet. Not much short of an all-out legal battle is going to put a stop to that.

pam123

09-10-2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Prew
Its a welfare mentality. You shouldn't have to pay for anything. Shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, rent, food, college, music, computer programs, and get over when you can- I don't think this way though.

If you can't afford to buy a CD - get a job or get a better job.

Now why is it the RIAA companies get indicted, repeatedly, for price fixing and a 12 year old is the major lawbreaker ?
There is a welfare mentality but it's not her's.
Keep walking people, the cheaters are the ones threatening the $100,000.00 lawsuits.
What we've all been living under is the misuse of copyright by the ones with the money and the influence.
Remember Janis Ian's comment after 40 years in the music business - I make my money from touring.... . I have never received an account from a record company that didn't tell me that I owed them money - .
Deby peonage is alive and well in the music business.
The current shakeout is long overdue.
For the first time the RIAA companies are getting hit, usually it's the musicians and the buying public.
If you can just stick it out we may have a new popular music industry that gives both the buying public and the musicians a fair break.
It sure isn't what we've got now.
Don't fall for any, "legal" arguments from the otherside. They may be "legal" but in no way is what went before just or ethical.

pam123

09-10-2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by azscary
What I don't understand here, is why the RIAA went after a 12 year old girl instead of Kazaa who sold her the access to the music? Is it because the 12 year old is less likely to afford a cadre of attorneys??

Because a judge told them they couldn't.
They appealed but it looks like they won't win that one.
Essentially, file trading is perfectly legal and what people trade is not the problem for the software service.
Unlike Napster there is no one to sue.

As for the 12 year old, they can afford the lawyers and she can't.
You got it right.

FLG

09-10-2003, 07:13 PM

How do they find out who downloaded songs? i just want to protect myself.

Prew

09-10-2003, 07:22 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pam123
[B]Now why is it the RIAA companies get indicted, repeatedly, for price fixing ]

Huh? I can't think of once.

"What we've all been living under is the misuse of copyright by the ones with the money and the influence."

Yep- just as I thought- nothing but typical class envy- in other words- they are rich so the we are entitled to their money, music, etc. They should give away the music because they have so much more money- I disagree- just a philosophical disagreement I guess. Nothing personel- I've read your other posts- just disagree on this one.

azscary

09-10-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by FLG
How do they find out who downloaded songs? i just want to protect myself.

I have never downloaded any songs, but I too am interested in the how.

mbossman2

09-10-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by mr krinkle
mbossman2 many bands encourage downloading there "Some" of there music off of the Web..Go to
some Music web sites and check it out,So if Primus ow whoever
encourages us to listen to there music but also says not to Turn around and sell it how can you say that is theft?
 Sorry but I see no differance between what you call theft and what you call the "fair use" doctrine
..Its a very Fine line the RIAA has crossed. IMO of course..:)

as the owner of the copyright of the music, they have the right to choose to make their product available at no charge. Kazaa etc and their users remove that right. Change the product from music to, lets say, candy bars and you can see how inequitable this is.

Now as to the fair use doctrine. Lets use network TV: in essence, by accepting the programming (both the show and the advertising)into your house, you have "paid" for the ability to view the show for your own personal use (but not to distribute - that is to say give to your friends and neighbors). With illegal downloading, you have not paid anything and therefore you do not have the right to enjoy the content.

SonicVanguard

09-10-2003, 07:57 PM

I hope that this WILL bring down the RIAA.
Sorry, but that is pretty doubtful.
It's times like this that make me wish I knew all the ins and outs of the law.
Copyright laws are pretty straight forward. If I create 'something' - music is this example. I or my representative have control of how it is used. I can license the music to be played on the radio, and in return, the radio stations will pay me each time it's played. I can license the music to be pressed to CD, and in return, I am payed every time someone purchases that CD to listen to my music. And keep in mind, you've purchased a CD, but you do not own my music. Thereby, you cannot do with it as you please. Basically, you have purchased the right to listen to my music.
If a person Records hours of his/hers favourite music from a local Radio station and Shares it with Friends is that Theft?
Yes, it is. The radio station paid a license fee to play that music, you did not pay a license fee to record it, distribute it, or even listen to it.
If I burn a song to a CD for my own personal use, I'm still having a hard time differentiating how it was accquired.
As long as you purchased the license to that song, you can burn it for your own personal use. So if you buy the latest CDs from 12 Stones, Creed, Evanescence, and Breaking Point, you've got all the right in the world to make a "personal fav" CD using songs from those CDs. You cannot however allow others to do that, nor can you distribute those songs. You only own a license to listen, nothing more.
I just don't see the difference. Blue Suede Shoes by Elvis is the same if I record it off the radio or download it. It is still the same song by same artist and it is for my personal use.
Your right, it is the same. But do you own the license to listen to it? That's the RIAA's beef - downloaded music does not include that license. The only way to obtain that license is to purchase a CD with a give song on it (in this case, Blue Suede Shoes). Yes, you own that CD, but you do not own the music it contains. But owning that CD does give you the right (the license) to listen to that song.
Now why is it the RIAA companies get indicted, repeatedly, for price fixing and a 12 year old is the major lawbreaker ?
One indictment. And they paid the price for it. But who did that really hurt? Yes, it allowed Best Buy, Circuit City, Media Play and all the other big box retailers to lower prices of CD's based on their ability to buy in quantity. But what about the small indy store down the street? That lawsuit and consent judgement may very well put many of those smaller music stores out-of-business because the rules the industry had in place that kept all music retailers on the same competative page is now gone. Are you happy?
------------------------

What it really seems to come down to is that people don't seem to want to pay a fair price for something owned by someone else. As I have pointed out, you do not own the music on those CD's, you mearly own the right to listen to that music.

I hear people say all the time that "we'll get back at the RIAA - we'll stop buying CDs". So what? You don't think they make all their money by selling CD's, do you? Much of the money that record companies make comes from licensing agreements with radio stations, sports teams, movies and television...CD's are just a part of thier bucket.

Bottom line: You may not like what they are doing, but they are simpley protecting what is theirs. They do own controlling rights to that music and have all the legal right in the world to how and where it is distributed and played.

Dave.

pam123

09-10-2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Prew
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pam123
[B]Now why is it the RIAA companies get indicted, repeatedly, for price fixing ]

Huh? I can't think of once.

"What we've all been living under is the misuse of copyright by the ones with the money and the influence."

Yep- just as I thought- nothing but typical class envy- in other words- they are rich so the we are entitled to their money, music, etc. They should give away the music because they have so much more money- I disagree- just a philosophical disagreement I guess. Nothing personel- I've read your other posts- just disagree on this one.

What an extraordinary set of statements.

Check the following : http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/refund.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/03/1019441430672.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32048.html
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/4183843.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
http://money.cnn.com/2000/08/09/companies/record_industry/
http://news.dmusic.com/article/7324
http://www.magnatune.com/info/plan
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/record_companies.html
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/11162.html
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,543415,00.asp

I finally realized I could drive myself crazy this way so I present the Google starting page for music industry price fixing to you.
Never again will you be able to make that "typical class envy" charge with any honesty.
http://www.google.com/search?q=music+company+price+fixing&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

This next statement has a touch of malice in it: we wouldn't be so apt to be scammed if we didn't give the guys doing it so much help.

Prew

09-11-2003, 12:17 PM

I stand corrected on the price fixing charge.

However, I stand by my position that stealing music off the internet cannot be justified just because the companies have money and power. Sorry if I came across with malice- not my intent at all.

WolfPac_Ite

09-11-2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by glc
I'm not defending their tactics, but the laws are laws. Break a law, get caught, pay the price.

I agree, If you break the law you must pay the price, You can't be excused just because your under aged.

pam123

09-11-2003, 12:48 PM

Understood and accepted, it happens on forums.

If you switched that to flagrant abuse of musicians and music fans with their money and power I think you'd be nearer the truth.
There are 2 ways to combat it, boycott and theft and I use the first.
Watching the internet remake the record industry is a continuing amazement.
I don't know if the new model will be better but the old one is on it's way out.
I also think that copyright, as the record industry uses it, willl have to be rethought. But that's a job for the courts and congress.

sdkfz

09-11-2003, 01:46 PM

The problem we have is:

If you create something you should be paid when someone uses it unless you give it away. I think we would all agree that is true.

Radio does indeed pay to play music, this is why they have play lists, just try getting them to play your favorite track from album (err - I am showing my age - CD) but this track is not one they have paid to play because it is not the 'popular one'. It will never happen. The radio station knows it can lose its rights to play and then looses listeners hence advertising dollars.

Not long ago your only way to record your own music was 8 track and cassette tape, obviously copied, poor quality and clipped because the radio station talked over the beginning and/or end of the song. Sure you could make copies and sell them but it was not really a profitable thing to do and the music industry was not hurt enough to bother.

Vinyl records and store bought cassettes got around some of the recording from radio issues but the final product was still obviously 'home made' and once again not really a problem of any sort to the makers of music.

And all along the industry is getting 'old', layers and layers of management are being built in and costs are rising to be a music company....profits get slimmer…

Now, digital music comes along....I remember the first CD player I ever saw in the early 80’s they only had about a dozen different CD’s (in total- of course this changed pretty quick), and the unit cost 1,000….This was not a problem though for the recording industry cause you still had the same ability to copy and distribute your bootleg even if the quality was better at the actual qaulity of the recording on the casstte.

Finally technology hands us, CD burners and the internet. All of a sudden we are able to ‘share’ music with out handing over the CD or a cheap badly copied cassette. Being the typical humans who when offered something they want for free we say “absolutely- give me one”, a lot of the music being ‘shared’ is the current popular stuff, the higher priced music, true a lot of the “Value Priced” older music is going around too, but in a profit and loss situation it is the new music that is hurting them more on a song by song download.

Throw in a declining economy and a target (down loaders) it is obvious that they would do their best to protect their interests. I would do it and so would all of you if put in the same situation….. BUT and here is the rub, technology once discovered can not be undiscovered, YES file sharing will never go away - it is to easy- and YES under current laws it is illegal. So we have two mutually exclusive items. Arguing about them is going to solve nothing … I present to you this choice….

Either organize to stop file sharing.
Or.
Organize to come up with a way for file sharing to occur and be legal and reward the artists and those they have contracted with to represent them (the recording industry).

rant mode off

Steve1

09-11-2003, 07:28 PM

Keep in mind that there is an actual legal definition of stealing...

STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

Copying music is not stealing. That is why the RIAA is pressing CIVIL cases for copyright infringment instead of CRIMINAL cases for stealing.

Mr N8

09-11-2003, 07:43 PM

Well, her debt has been paid.
http://www.hypothermia.us/

Steve from HardOCP raffled a computer to raise the money, and they already have it.

Lespaul20

09-11-2003, 07:57 PM

I believe we have two defined sides to this, one people who base there opinions off of the law and then those who base there opinions off of their morals and values. I agree stealing is stealing and law breaking is law breaking, but, I challenge you to tell me that you absolutely never ever go past the law, for instance driving, we all have exceeded the "legal" speed limit, and I'm sure there are plenty who have been caught breaking the law, now when that cop wrote you a ticket for going 6mph over, you probably "geez I was only going 6 over", well this, I guess, could apply to both sides, but it's just what you think is right and if you think your breaking the law or it was a waste of time. Somebody's always going to break the law and somebody always will get caught. I don’t' know if this makes much sense though.
My opinion is illegal use of the copyrighted music is wrong, but I also believe it's time the RIAA to seriously need to start to realize what kind of new technology is going to be coming and maybe start changing for it. Just my 4cents.

[Mystic]

09-11-2003, 08:02 PM

The point is, they should be spending this money developing services like pay to download good quality songs. Id pay $10 a month to download songs at 192kbps. They fail to see this. Most people would pay for the high quality songs, but no, lets go sue everyone instead. Makes no sence to me, I think their busniess plan has changed.

gramps

09-11-2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by FLG
How do they find out who downloaded songs? i just want to protect myself.

Is your firewall active?

WolfPac_Ite

09-12-2003, 04:05 PM

Statica

09-12-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by gramps
Is your firewall active?

Doesnt matter if you have a firewall, they likely get logs from the ISP anyway.

Iman74

09-12-2003, 04:23 PM

Is it just me, or the RIAA's actions reminds you of the actions PETA takes?

afoctober2

09-12-2003, 04:30 PM

Well, Say all you guys made music with copyrights on them, And then you see no ones buying them because they are getting them for free by file trading? Although other things that are similar to file trading are legal, These artist own the copyrights and they can say what you are allowed to do and what you can't.

I doubt anyone would want to download any cd's we make most songs downloaded are of already established artist and you notice many artist are not even saying anything about file shareing because they are already rich enough.

And actually my freind who is in a band put his songs on kazaa so that they can be known and so people can go to there website.

Why should kazaa be differant we already have so many ways to dowload or record music. Internet radio, yahoo launch, mtv, radio. If there going sue people for that they should start fileing lawsuites against people who record of tv and other sources.

Sauron

09-12-2003, 04:31 PM

Well from what I heard, people are downloading a certain type of song, really new ones, popular ones, that the RIAA is clicking onto. I doubt if someones collection of Pink Floyd is going to get it. Also this 12 year old was a misfortune, but hey, people have always been fighting against oppression of some sort or other. I wouldn't worry too much. There are 60 million users, and its not as easy as it was to sue them.

Iman74

09-12-2003, 04:33 PM

Forget about the number of users; how about all the user's not on American soil; what are they going to do with them?

WolfPac_Ite

09-12-2003, 04:34 PM

Well, PETA's stupid, There dumb don't kill animals and die from no proteins crap is stupid, Come on, Don't cut your grass?

Iman74

09-12-2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Lespaul20
I know that is the law, it's copyrighted, but a 12 year old, I don't think that should have been among there first, If you can honestly say you never had an ilegal peice of anything then I commend you. But there are too many people that are doing this and control is probabaly hopeless, I compare it to the drug market, cracking down may help, but to fully control who has them is almost next to impossible.

That is an excellent point; truly excellent.

Look how many years laws been fighting the war on drugs; like Napster you have a drug dealer, you take that drug dealer down (Napster) and many more show up in it's place (Kazza, Morpheus, etc...)

Iman74

09-12-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by WolfPac_Ite
Well, PETA's stupid, There dumb don't kill animals and die from no proteins crap is stupid, Come on, Don't cut your grass?

Not to mention all the years that the American Native Indians survived on Buffalo and other sources of food. Everything is on some sort of food chain. Think about it; mosqhitos try to suck our blood, but being we are dominate we kill them without thinking twice.

Sorry got off topic there. Will start a new thread if I want to pursue this.

Iman74

09-12-2003, 04:42 PM

afoctober2

09-12-2003, 04:59 PM

Steve1

09-12-2003, 05:25 PM

You got it, Iman. It's not stealing. It's copyright infringment. There is a BIG difference. I have no problem if some folks want to THINK of it as stealing, but that doesn't make it so. The act of copying the song is what makes it ...copyright infringment.

RenegadeKing

09-13-2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by WolfPac_Ite
Well, Say all you guys made music with copyrights on them, And then you see no ones buying them because they are getting them for free by file trading? Although other things that are similar to file trading are legal, These artist own the copyrights and they can say what you are allowed to do and what you can't.

So, Think about it, I sure know if I made a music CD and copyrighted it I wouldn't wan't people getting it for free if they didnt own the rights to listen to it.

1) There are more than enough people who still buy CDs. The record companies can't be suffering as much by all this as they would want you to believe.

2) It's not the artists who own the copyrights. It's the record companies. The artists sell the copyrights to the record companies, and then the artists make something like 2% profit from all sales. So you have to realize this doesn't hurt the people who make the music, but it hurts the people who own the copyrights, who didn't actually make the music.

RenegadeKing

09-13-2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by SonicVanguard
Yes, it is. The radio station paid a license fee to play that music, you did not pay a license fee to record it, distribute it, or even listen to it.

By listening to the radio, I never have to sign or agree to anything. So how am I supposed to know what rights I have? I would assume I have the right to listen to it, so does that mean I also have the right to record and distribute it? How am I supposed to know?

So know let's say, since I have no clue what I'm not allowed to do, I record a song off the radio and assume it's ok. Now I put it on my computer and share it on kazaa. Is that illegal? Again, how do I know? It was never made clear to me, as I never had to sign anything or agree to anything.

I'm going to assume that doing that is illegal, but I would really like to know why. How are people expected not to break laws like that, if they do not know them in the first place??

Now for CDs, that's different, because they do say unauthorized distribution is a violation of copyright laws on the case. Sharing music from CDs would clearly be illegal.

But now let's say I'm an innocent 12 year old girl. I just got a computer 2 years ago, and discovered kazaa last year. All my friends are using it, and no one ever told me it was illegal. I didn't know about the whole napster thing because I was 10 years old at the time and didn't watch the news. Now all of a sudden I'm being sued for $2000 by the RIAA, and the whole time I had no idea what I was doing was illegal. I have a single mother and there's no way we can afford that. What do I do now?

Iman74

09-13-2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by RenegadeKing
By listening to the radio, I never have to sign or agree to anything. So how am I supposed to know what rights I have? I would assume I have the right to listen to it, so does that mean I also have the right to record and distribute it? How am I supposed to know?

That leads to a whole different topic: responsibility. If you or anyone is going to copy and distribute, it is the person's responsibility to educate themself, not for others to do it for them. That goes for radio, cd's, games, etc... Just because you don't have the legalities in your face in black and white is not an excuse.

Now personally I do not care. The only reason I am replying to this is I hear statements like yours of people putting the blame on someone or something else because they did not take responsibility. It's like all the times that people crash, lose their data, and then blame us for not getting on their backs about backing up their data. The tool is there, they know how to use it, but do they use it? No. This girl being 12 is a factor, but I do not agree it being an excuse.

RenegadeKing

09-13-2003, 10:11 PM

I know you say it's the person's responsibility to educate themselves about it, but come on, they put warnings on coffee cups at fast food places saying the contents are hot. If people can't figure out that coffee is hot, how are they supposed to go research and find out that recording stuff off the radio is illegal. Even I still don't know where to go look to find that out for sure, and I have looked.

But that's a bit off the subject, since most of the stuff comes from CDs, which do say you can't make copies.

As to what a lot of other people have said about how the recording companies should take advantage of the internet, they are. The new napster is going to have a monthy fee, and also, Shawn Fanning has branched away from Napster, and has come up with a new system. He has already gone to a few record companies who have said that they like his idea. Basically it will be implemented into p2p software like kazaa (if kazaa agrees to do it) where some songs will be ok, but others under copyright laws will cost money. Not much information is available on it yet, but I have faith in Shawn Fanning, and the record companies like it. So it could work out.

arubahounds

09-14-2003, 01:13 AM

I'm definitely not on the RIAA's side here, but did they really know that she was 12 years old when they sued her, or did they just obtain a list of file traders and sue 261 of them, without any real knowledge of who (whom?) they sued?

Personally, I'm waiting for a smart law firm to file a class action suit against the RIAA on behalf of the 57 million or so file traders. On what grounds, I don't know. But there's got to be something along the lines of personal use, invasion of privacy, etc.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that the original copyright laws envisioned this kind of activity. The music industry's actual damages from "theft" of a song is under a buck. It seems unfair that they can sue for up to 150M.

In my opinion the RIAA realizes that they will eventually have to cave in and offer their product online. But that will end a monumental cash cow. They've been charging up to $10 wholesale per CD when their actual costs are under a buck. But when people can buy only the songs they want, a 20 song CD selling retail for $18 will convert to $2 or $3 when people just pay for the ones worth buying.

The RIAA is treating their customers like criminals, but I bet that most people would pay to download the songs if it were available and not subject to ridiculous restrictions (aka Buymusic.com). Outside of the ability to get songs for free from Kazaa et al, the file sharing services suck. Download times are often excrutiatingly slow, you never really know what quality you're getting and the uploader can cancel the transfer whenever he wants. Not to mention the adware/spyware and misc. junk you get from the software itself.

There's a huge opening for the RIAA to do better. But they'll cling to their old way for as long as they can. The future is coming whether they like it or not, but it's going to be less profitable for them.

Prew

09-14-2003, 08:09 AM

Regardless of right or wrong, I seriously doubt if these lawsuits will put a dent in the free online sharing of music- there are millions of people engaged in free filesharing. The music industry will have to come up with something else to stop this massive violation of copyright laws.

I still buy CD's, if for no other reason than CD's sound significantly better than the MP3's that are downloaded off of Kazaa.

Confused

09-14-2003, 08:12 AM

Just to muddle the waters a tad further. Local paper this morning (Courier-Journal) had a big front page article about this.

It seems that the artist get very little if anything from the RIAA. It seems their royalties don't kick in until expenses are met and therefore most never get anything. So nothing is being taken from the artist.

Another thing the article pointed out is the division among the artist. It quoted many bands that encourge downloading of their songs. I believe that those that say stealing is stealing and therefore should be punished have to realize that this creates problems. How is the average person to know which songs are encourged by the artist to be downloaded and those that aren't.
Chas

Mac Medic

09-14-2003, 10:15 AM

I find it intriguing that people are still asking for a viable alternative when one has already been provided. The Itunes music store and buymusic.com both came about via agreements with the five major record companies. It may not be a perfect system, and naturally they have placed restrictions on the use of the music, but that's to be expected. The music I purchased from the itunes music store can be burned to an unlimited number of CDs and I don't think that's too restrictive. I, of course, have downloaded music via peer-to-peer file sharing networks, while all the time justifying it by saying give me an alternative, provide a system where I can download the songs I want without having to pay a ridiculous price for the entire CD. Now that a company has stepped up to the plate, I use the service and have been extremely happy with it so far. So, no more excuses for me. I have no reason to ever fire up a file sharing program again. I think though, I may be the exception to the rule because for some people it doesn't matter how good the system is put into place, if the same product is available for free, chances are they will choose the free option. I'm afraid the record companies cannot be blamed for this behavior, they obviously are not opposed to legal downloads as is evidenced by the availability of services provided so far. So the question now becomes, who do you blame. Obviously the blame lies solely on the individual. The framework is in place to download music legally, and if you make a choice not to do so then you should be man enough to face the consequences.

flsurf420

09-14-2003, 04:21 PM

what they should do is sell cds online then d/l them instead of a cd then u burn ur own at ur own risk. but as long as u dont get caught distributing its all good.

flsurf420

09-14-2003, 04:22 PM

ok oops didnt read the whole post. and didnt kno about i tunes

Sauron

09-14-2003, 07:25 PM

Personally if the record companies were intelligent, they would sell the singles, each one, maybe for .99, or $2.00, something like that, instead of making people buy the whole CD. Now that Itunes is out, thats a nice idea, and I don't see why record companies can't see the new wave of technology and go for it. Its better to accept new technology and try to make a fortune out of it, then sueing people for wanting to get past the horse and buggy.

RenegadeKing

09-14-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Sauron
Personally if the record companies were intelligent, they would sell the singles, each one, maybe for .99, or $2.00, something like that, instead of making people buy the whole CD. Now that Itunes is out, thats a nice idea, and I don't see why record companies can't see the new wave of technology and go for it. Its better to accept new technology and try to make a fortune out of it, then sueing people for wanting to get past the horse and buggy.

You said it yourself.. ITunes. That is one of the ways the record companies have gotten into the new technology. And as I also said in a previous post, the new Napster will be a pay service, either monthly or per song. And I also mentioned Shawn Fanning's new technology which he has brought to many of the record companies who have admitted that they like his idea and would be willing to persue it. So they are getting into the new technology.

Iman74

09-15-2003, 12:40 PM

Very interesting about what Shawn Fanning has suggested. As far as the coffee cup thing, that was a result of a STUPID case where a woman burned herself with coffee which she got at the drivein at McD's and then started a lawsuit against them for not informing her of it. I agree it's lame, but according to the law, if there is not something documented on the product or whatever they can sue. However, I do not agree this takes away their responsibility as an individual to get the facts and information.

Originally posted by RenegadeKing
I know you say it's the person's responsibility to educate themselves about it, but come on, they put warnings on coffee cups at fast food places saying the contents are hot. If people can't figure out that coffee is hot, how are they supposed to go research and find out that recording stuff off the radio is illegal. Even I still don't know where to go look to find that out for sure, and I have looked.

But that's a bit off the subject, since most of the stuff comes from CDs, which do say you can't make copies.

As to what a lot of other people have said about how the recording companies should take advantage of the internet, they are. The new napster is going to have a monthy fee, and also, Shawn Fanning has branched away from Napster, and has come up with a new system. He has already gone to a few record companies who have said that they like his idea. Basically it will be implemented into p2p software like kazaa (if kazaa agrees to do it) where some songs will be ok, but others under copyright laws will cost money. Not much information is available on it yet, but I have faith in Shawn Fanning, and the record companies like it. So it could work out.

Iman74

09-15-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002
...So the question now becomes, who do you blame. Obviously the blame lies solely on the individual. The framework is in place to download music legally, and if you make a choice not to do so then you should be man enough to face the consequences.

EXACTLY!

WolfPac_Ite

09-15-2003, 01:09 PM

^I agree also^

RenegadeKing

09-15-2003, 03:46 PM

Aren't all the people who are being sued the people who are providing the most music, and not downloading it? Do the laws differ between illegally distributing copyrighted work, and recieving it?

Iman74

09-16-2003, 09:53 AM

I believe that is correct; they are making their list according to those offering the most mp3's for distribution.

glc

09-16-2003, 10:24 AM

I'd be VERY interested to see how much of what was found in this girl's shared folders.........of course, we will never know, this one is being spun to the max in the court of public opinion.

Optimum Online broadband in NYC is pretty cheap - it's in the $40's a month for 6m/1m bandwidth..........and we all know how cheap huge hard drives are.

All I really want to know now is - what is this thing she spent $29 for? I thought all the P2P's were free. Is this a "premium" service that gets you unrestricted bandwidth or something?

There's a lot more to this one than meets the eye, folks, but as I said, we will probably never know because the media has picked up on the "poor little 12 year old girl in the projects" aspect.

redbaron_snoopy

09-16-2003, 10:36 AM

The 12 yr old girl may be illegal but the RIAA is also morally wrong to select and make her as an example.

Many products gets cheaper as its popularity and consumption grows. A good example is a PC. Its gets better but it doesn't get more expensive. I don't see that happening in the music industry. CDs are price controlled. All behind the fascade of copyright, etc. Now that the control measures are being threaten by technology and internet, they are putting all their efforts in this area instead on thinking how to take advantage of the technology and mass market to replace revenue lost through traditional selling methods.

I don't think its right when people are downloading illegally but its equally wrong of the music industry not to change it highbrow "take it or leave it" attitude towards its products.
2 wrongs don't make a right. The problem is even if the whole world stop all this downloading and sharing, will consumers get a better deal ? Music history has prove that this is a big fat hope.

Strider

09-16-2003, 10:56 AM

I have no problem with the RIAA going after a "12 year girl who was illegally downloading music", but what I have a problem with is the manner they went about doing it. I totally disagree that the ISP has to give up people identification who are believed to be illegally downloading music, but the courts have said otherwise.:(

That to me is invasion of privacy and trampling on a person's rights. What's going to stop a company (or person) who thinks such and such person is breaking some copyright law but really has some other evil intentions? Probably nothing, but not being a lawyer I don't know.

Jester

09-16-2003, 11:09 AM

Just throwing a point out there.

1. You can't find EVERY song on the P2P networks.

2. Most if not all of the songs are CD quality.

3. Alot of people download on song to see if they want to buy a CD. In doing this depending on oh big there collection of CD's is they might have ecrued over 1000 mp3's.

Yes stealing is wrong but if you look at CD prices and wholesale prices aren't the record companies stealing from us?

mbossman2

09-16-2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by redbaron_snoopy
Many products gets cheaper as its popularity and consumption grows. A good example is a PC. Its gets better but it doesn't get more expensive. I don't see that happening in the music industry. CDs are price controlled.

that is true only if there are multiple people providing the same product, in your PC example: there are umpteen mobo manufacturers, 6 or 7 hard drive manufacturers etc).

In the music industry there is only 1:

Pink
Aerosmith
Britney Spears (thank god) etc.

They are producing a unique product using a unique talent and providing a unique product allows you to operate outside the standard competitive pricing models of commoditization.

Confused

09-16-2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by mbossman2
that is true only if there are multiple people providing the same product, in your PC example: there are umpteen mobo manufacturers, 6 or 7 hard drive manufacturers etc).

In the music industry there is only 1:

Pink
Aerosmith
Britney Spears (thank god) etc.

They are producing a unique product using a unique talent and providing a unique product allows you to operate outside the standard competitive pricing models of commoditization.

Reported in our Sunday paper (Courier Journal) that the artist are receiving very little if anything from CD sales. It went on to say that many artist encourge the download of their songs. How is the average person to know what is encourged and what isn't?

The RIAA will be drug into the 20th. century. The Genie is now out of the box.
Chas

malek

09-16-2003, 11:28 AM

OK, for those who think what the RIAA is breaking your rights of privacy. I will remind everyone of the 4th ammendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So yes you do have a right of privacy, BUT NOT WHEN THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

They can then search your computer for that activity (and only that activity, and arrest your sorry $$$.

Oh and the argument, "but aren't the big bad record companies stealing from us", will only work if you also plead insanity!

Mac Medic

09-16-2003, 12:34 PM

$0.79 (not new releases though) on buymusic.com, $0.99 on itunes (windows version release mid october), These are both good cheap alternatives to illegal downloads. The big 5 music labels got together with these companies and struck these deals, so obviously the industry can and is changing. There are no more excuses to be made, an affordable, legal alternative has been provided that fits into the digital lifestyle. It provides choice and reasonable cost. The same things file sharers have always said they wanted. So if you go to court, and the Judge ask's why you didn't just pay the 79c for that song you just couldn't live without, what excuse will you use. Will we not be happy until file trading is deemed legal and all music is free?.

glc

09-16-2003, 01:03 PM

I think you are missing my point - I don't believe the RIAA singled her out randomly or capriciously - they went after the biggest offenders if what Iman says is true, they didn't "make an example of a poor little girl". Just my opinion.

Iman74

09-16-2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Radioactiveninja
Just throwing a point out there.

1. You can't find EVERY song on the P2P networks.

Based on what? I found every song, my wife found every song she is looking for, and others I know found every song they are looking for. Is there someone out there that yet to find every song they are looking for? With the total amount of P2P user's, it's quite possible. All you need is one person to prove that statement true.

But this statement you said, "2. Most if not all of the songs are CD quality."
Oh come on, I downloaded tons and tons of mp3's that are not cd quality, were cutoff, had skipping, and things I do not even recall. Not to mention if you want to get really picky; if you find a true music fanatic which I met a few, they will take the best quality mp3, compare it to the CD and pick out the little things that make it not CD quality. But that is just picky. So how can you say most?

This statement, "3. Alot of people download on song to see if they want to buy a CD. In doing this depending on oh big there collection of CD's is they might have ecrued over 1000 mp3's." Honestly, I do not think this can every really be proven as true or false. What I really think of the response of people claiming that they are downloading the mp3 to see if they want to buy the CD is complete BS. It's just an excuse to hide what they are really doing; they are downloading the music and burning it to a CD for free listening purposes.

Lastly, you said, "Yes stealing is wrong but if you look at CD prices and wholesale prices aren't the record companies stealing from us?" NO! What are they stealing? They are not stealing our money. Did someone put a gun to your head and forced you to buy that CD? Come on; if we are really going to bitch about CD prices, then let's bitch more about something that effects those that drive: gas prices. Now there is something that is expensive.

Iman74

09-16-2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Confused
The RIAA will be drug into the 20th. century. The Genie is now out of the box.
Chas

I agree but disagree how you put it together.

MP3's are the drug
P2P and the ones using it are the dealers and distributors
RIAA are the cops trying to get rid of us dealers and distributors.

Iman74

09-16-2003, 01:50 PM

OEM,
Something just dawned on me after reading your post. First
of all as many of you have seen by my posts I have been pushing for them to just charge and be done with this. However, I just realized that will not be a proper solution that the record company can benefit from. Why? Many reasons:
First, OEM you gave an example of the girl being asked about how come she did not pay for .79 cents for the song; well first she is NOT being charged for downloading, she is being charged for distributing. Even if every single MP3 she had is from burning HER cd's that she owned, by having it there for copying using a P2P program makes her guilty. Why, because she is distributing music that is deamed copy protrected.
Now why won't buymusic.com won't work; well yes, they will make .79 here, .22 there, etc. But what is to stop the purchasers to participate on forums, sites, newsgroups, friends, LAN parties, etc... to share his purchased music with others that have music to share too? Before we had cops patrolling for kiddi porn, the next thinig you know we will have them patrolling for MP3's. Now I see why they are not supporting that.

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002
$0.79 (not new releases though) on buymusic.com, $0.99 on itunes (windows version release mid october), These are both good cheap alternatives to illegal downloads. The big 5 music labels got together with these companies and struck these deals, so obviously the industry can and is changing. There are no more excuses to be made, an affordable, legal alternative has been provided that fits into the digital lifestyle. It provides choice and reasonable cost. The same things file sharers have always said they wanted. So if you go to court, and the Judge ask's why you didn't just pay the 79c for that song you just couldn't live without, what excuse will you use. Will we not be happy until file trading is deemed legal and all music is free?.

Mac Medic

09-16-2003, 02:29 PM

Yes, You're right, she's in trouble for distributing, but surely it's just plain common sense that downloading and distributing are both illegal. It may be the uploaders they target right now, but it will be the downloaders next, of which I was one. My point is that, at least for me, an alternative to buying an entire CD has been provided so I cannot use that as an excuse for downloading free songs. My comments wern't directed at the Girl, they were just general based on the arguements I see on the forum. Right now some are justifying downloads because the RIAA is only going after the Uploaders (or distributors if you will). In the same vane, would that justify buying drugs, as long as you are not the distributor it should be ok?..

Iman74

09-16-2003, 02:54 PM

OEM, all this from a MAC user. :p

J/K

RenegadeKing

09-16-2003, 06:55 PM

Personally, I think 99 cents and even 79 cents is a little high for a song. Those prices keep the same price of CDs (around $15-20 for 20 songs) I'm still waiting for something with a monthly fee for unlimited songs, or something cheaper like 20 cents per song. I'm hoping that the new napster or Shawn Fanning's new system (if it works out) will provide this. Until then I'm going to keep downloading my music thru p2p. I only download songs very occationally anyway, usually only to get a song someone has told me about. Though I do occasionally download an entire cd, which I then usually feel like I should go out and buy.

Mac Medic

09-16-2003, 08:09 PM

Personally I do not like the idea of a subscription based service. I like to know that once I have purchased a song I am able to play it wherever and whenever I choose without being tied to my PC. The problem with the subscription models I have seen is that you can only play the songs on the PC that download them, and if you do want to burn them to a CD you have to pay extra for the privilege. and even then you can only play the songs for a long as you are a member of the service, as soon as you cancel your membership you can no longer play the songs. basically you would be renting music which doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

The thing with the itunes music store is that even though the songs are priced at 99¢ individually most albums, and I say most not all, are priced at $9.99 even if they have 20 songs on them. Having said that if an album only has six songs then you are only charged $5.94. One of the greatest advantages to the music store is the availability of albums that would otherwise be considered imports. One such album I purchased recently from the music store for $7.99. At my local import record store (Tower) that same album was over $25. Quite a saving really.

Jester

09-18-2003, 07:36 AM

"First, OEM you gave an example of the girl being asked about how come she did not pay for .79 cents for the song; well first she is NOT being charged for downloading, she is being charged for distributing. "

So what your saying Iman74 is that I could download 5,000 songs from various artists heck whole cd's even, but that would be ok if I took them imidiatly out of my shared folder?
Woo hoo I'm going to go start downloading now. Look how far behind I've gotten on my collection. :D

Jester

09-18-2003, 07:43 AM

"all you need is one person to prove that true"

I am that one person Iman74. I could'nt find the song Crash by keoki. Oh yes I found it remixed by another artist, but I did not find it by that artist. I also couldn't find some the non edited version of Drawing borad by MEST. I used almost all of the p2p networks.

and now for a Second point. What about the people who bought the CD and then it was scratched, lost, or stolen. Should they have to pay an outragoues price for something they already had. I say nay. And to those of you that say they should of backed them up on there hard drive in the first place. I have a collection of 743 CD's I'm not going to go buy the hard drive space to back all that up.

Sauron

09-18-2003, 08:10 PM

Personally, I still don't understand how its all stealing. Think about it. Its like someone went out and bought a pencil, then passed it on to a friend or neighbor and he passed it on to someone else. Sharing is exactly that, sharing, one isn't selling it, they are freaking copying it. Its not being sold or bought. And somewhere, someone bought that CD to copy everything...

This may sound stupid, but its how I am seeing it.

glc

09-18-2003, 10:23 PM

Pencils aren't intellectual property and aren't covered by copyright laws.

Iman74

09-18-2003, 10:45 PM

Well to make things more understandable, it would help if people use the correct terminology. Much like people saying screensaver when they are talking about wallpaper, this is not stealing, it's copy infringement. Using the correct terminology will help rule out most of the confusion.

So back to the basics; when you own a movie, cd, and game by law you have the right to copy it for the sole purpose of a backup. Now if you distribute those backups to others that did not purchase it, that is copy right infringement. Now if you take money for selling those copies, I am sure the charges just escalate from there.

Now using a pencil to prove your point; how does one have anything to do with the other?

sdkfz

09-18-2003, 11:06 PM

OK, I have written this response about 10 times, so far I have written nothing that would enable me to stay a member of this site after submission....

Hows about this- Anyone want a copy of windows XP? I'll 'share' my copy with you. Its OK, I am just sharing it....

Strider

09-19-2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by malek
OK, for those who think what the RIAA is breaking your rights of privacy. I will remind everyone of the 4th ammendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So yes you do have a right of privacy, BUT NOT WHEN THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

They can then search your computer for that activity (and only that activity, and arrest your sorry $$$.

Oh and the argument, "but aren't the big bad record companies stealing from us", will only work if you also plead insanity!

So it would be ok for the government to put a tap on your phone without probable cause to see if you're participating in an illegally activity? (I THINK NOT). Basically that is what they're doing when they see that you're using peer to peer software.

Iman74

09-19-2003, 10:48 AM

Please state my posts for what they are. I am not saying what is okay and what is not. I am stating what the RIAA is charging for right now. They are not saying downloading 5000 songs is okay if you do not share. They just choose to focus on the larger distributors.

Originally posted by Radioactiveninja
"First, OEM you gave an example of the girl being asked about how come she did not pay for .79 cents for the song; well first she is NOT being charged for downloading, she is being charged for distributing. "

So what your saying Iman74 is that I could download 5,000 songs from various artists heck whole cd's even, but that would be ok if I took them imidiatly out of my shared folder?
Woo hoo I'm going to go start downloading now. Look how far behind I've gotten on my collection. :D

Iman74

09-19-2003, 10:51 AM

Yes they should pay for it again, because they are the stupid ones that let it get scratched. I have a few hundred CD's for many years which I have listened at home, in cars, on vacation, etc. and they still yet to be scratched. The only time I came across a scratched music CD of mine is one I just bought which I exchanged for a new one. So if the person chooses to be careless and does not take precautions to prevent damage, then they should be responsible for paying for it again.

Originally posted by Radioactiveninja
and now for a Second point. What about the people who bought the CD and then it was scratched, lost, or stolen. Should they have to pay an outragoues price for something they already had. I say nay. And to those of you that say they should of backed them up on there hard drive in the first place. I have a collection of 743 CD's I'm not going to go buy the hard drive space to back all that up.

P.S.

I see you are too a fan of the movie, "Hackers"

Iman74

09-19-2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by sdkfz
OK, I have written this response about 10 times, so far I have written nothing that would enable me to stay a member of this site after submission....

Hows about this- Anyone want a copy of windows XP? I'll 'share' my copy with you. Its OK, I am just sharing it....

Trying to make a point?

sdkfz

09-19-2003, 11:15 AM

Absolutley, the CD case has a warning that unauthorized reproduction is not allowed, be it music or software, what is the difference?

Jester

09-19-2003, 11:49 AM

uanauthorized REPRODUCTION. It doesn't state wheather or not the reproduction of the whole cd or part of the cd is considered unlawful. I'm just arguing samantics now please dont hurt me

Iman74

09-19-2003, 11:20 PM

That may be true, but I bet there isn't anything about it being illegal to make a backup; making backups are not illegal as long as you don't distribute your copies. If you keep your backups for the sole purpose of serving as a backup, then you are not breaking any laws. Once you hand that backup to someone else to use, then you are breaking the law.

Originally posted by sdkfz
Absolutley, the CD case has a warning that unauthorized reproduction is not allowed, be it music or software, what is the difference?

GhostRecon

11-06-2003, 02:37 PM

The Rules Must Apply to Everyone!

i3OSS

11-07-2003, 09:41 PM

Hmm, i do i understand its basically "stealing" songs, but honestly don't stars make enough money to go out and do better things like making new albums or concerts then complaining and start suing kids for downloading music? I myself, when i find a good cd i go and buy it. the only reason i download songs because only 1 or 2 songs are actually good. I think we're just going to have to accept the fact that we are breaking rules and the RIAA are money hungry.
watch out guys...

RenegadeKing

11-09-2003, 09:43 PM

You can't justify using p2p by saying you only want one or two songs from a cd anymore, not that things like the new napster and iTunes are out.

i486

07-26-2004, 10:52 AM

kazaa k++ has an anti-riaa firewall.

ric449

07-26-2004, 11:10 AM

Little late on posting in this thread i486 :p. Thats true, but it hasn't been updated for so long I would expect the RIAA have found a way around it.

Punked Out Comp

07-26-2004, 02:32 PM

I know this is an old post but i have to say my opinions:

1) Did the kid actually download $2000 worth of music??!!

2) Is it right for the cd companies to charge 20 bucks a cd when somebody only wants one song, really theyre being charged 20bucks for a song not for a cd because they're not benefiting from the rest of the cd.

3) Why dont they put some of this effort on finding downloaders into finding ists? I think that would be alot more useful.

4) The artists hardly if at all get anything from thier cds anyway and they deserve it more than the record companies. Why should I pay the record campanies? They dont do nearly as much as the artists. If anything I should pay the artist, but scince the artist isn't getting anything why should I pay?

5) Has it really made a noticable difference in the record companies profits scince ppl sarted downloading music??