Music Industry suing file sharers
Wednesday, June 25, 2003 by The DJ | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
WASHINGTON -- The embattled music industry disclosed plans today for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.
The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin today to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify music fans who offer "substantial" collections of mp3 song files for downloading.
It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.
Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer might qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.
The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to "the real risk of having to face the music."
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who has proposed giving the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. "It's about time," Berman said in a statement. "For too long ... file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity."
The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
"We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen," Sherman said. "We will go after the worst offenders first."
The RIAA said it expected to file "at least several hundred lawsuits" within eight to 10 weeks but will continue to file lawsuits afterward on a regular basis.
For the whole story:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20030625_1212.html
[Message Edited]
The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin today to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify music fans who offer "substantial" collections of mp3 song files for downloading.
It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.
Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer might qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.
The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to "the real risk of having to face the music."
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who has proposed giving the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. "It's about time," Berman said in a statement. "For too long ... file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity."
The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
"We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen," Sherman said. "We will go after the worst offenders first."
The RIAA said it expected to file "at least several hundred lawsuits" within eight to 10 weeks but will continue to file lawsuits afterward on a regular basis.
For the whole story:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20030625_1212.html
[Message Edited]
 |
|
Page 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Tech-Cat
Reply #42 Friday, June 27, 2003 11:22 AM
Reply #42 Friday, June 27, 2003 11:22 AM
In the case of taping of the radio, the advertising goes towards the costs of running the station adn paying royalties to the copyright owners, so the copyright owners at least go some compensation, but not enough to justify taping whatever you want off the radio.
It is my understanding that taping shows off of TV is okay as long as you are only doing it to catch shows you are going to miss and that you only watch it once and you don't share it with anyone else. The copyright owners of the television program got paid royalties for the broadcast.
It is my understanding that taping shows off of TV is okay as long as you are only doing it to catch shows you are going to miss and that you only watch it once and you don't share it with anyone else. The copyright owners of the television program got paid royalties for the broadcast.
joetheblow
Reply #43 Friday, June 27, 2003 2:32 PM
Reply #43 Friday, June 27, 2003 2:32 PM
woooow....
I think this issue is hard to understand but if you really try to put yourself into the shoes of artist and music makers and put your own money on the line I think you will no longer see 'just listening to it' as legal.
There is always a breaking point. There are some people who do listen and then buy the CD or single. Others never buy it and download 100's of songs without a thought as to paying for it.
The RIAA is soppossedly going after the 1,000 uploaders and 1,000+ downloaders. They are going after the persons who supply all this music on p2p networks.
For those who will go to private networks will put themselves in more jeapordy. Anywat, most downloaders and uploaders are in colleges. Buying a private secure network just to download songs defeats the purpose of free
Those who are at work doing it are putting thier jobs on the line.
At any rate the RIAA is not going after DJ's and people who record tapes off of the radio because in more ways than not it helps thier bottom line and they have dollars to prove it.
On the other hand they have noting to prove that allowing fre download helps them in any way other than loosing revunue for high quality sound (unlike tapes off of the radiop or a CD)
I am still upset at the RIAA and those downloaders and uploaders who totally take advatage of the p2p system at others detrament. I don't believe that the downloading is the major reason for lower CD sales but it isn't helping.
I think this issue is hard to understand but if you really try to put yourself into the shoes of artist and music makers and put your own money on the line I think you will no longer see 'just listening to it' as legal.
There is always a breaking point. There are some people who do listen and then buy the CD or single. Others never buy it and download 100's of songs without a thought as to paying for it.
The RIAA is soppossedly going after the 1,000 uploaders and 1,000+ downloaders. They are going after the persons who supply all this music on p2p networks.
For those who will go to private networks will put themselves in more jeapordy. Anywat, most downloaders and uploaders are in colleges. Buying a private secure network just to download songs defeats the purpose of free
Those who are at work doing it are putting thier jobs on the line.
At any rate the RIAA is not going after DJ's and people who record tapes off of the radio because in more ways than not it helps thier bottom line and they have dollars to prove it.
On the other hand they have noting to prove that allowing fre download helps them in any way other than loosing revunue for high quality sound (unlike tapes off of the radiop or a CD)
I am still upset at the RIAA and those downloaders and uploaders who totally take advatage of the p2p system at others detrament. I don't believe that the downloading is the major reason for lower CD sales but it isn't helping.
winbypin8605
Reply #44 Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:08 PM
Reply #44 Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:08 PM
Some of you guys out there are so fake, acting like you really want to pay for "lleagl" music. Buullllllshit, no one does. If someone likes one song off the entire album there not going to pay 15 bucks for a cd that what they want. Also, are the musicans doin it for the money or for the music, I mean honestly think about it. I know of bands that would kill just to get there music to be heard by other people. BTW they cant find users by their IP because many people have IP rerouters. Also there are many "double" user screen names.
Just my 2 cents
Just my 2 cents
paxx
Reply #45 Saturday, June 28, 2003 8:09 PM
Reply #45 Saturday, June 28, 2003 8:09 PM
Ben, what do you do for a living? Do you do it for the love of doing it or for the money? How about you work for free from now on?
If you only like one song, then buy it. There are places you can buy songs online.
And, ok. I'll bite the bait.
Do you realise that your friends musicians who would kill to get their music heard are actually the ones you are hurting by pirating music? Who do you really think pays for the songs you don't buy? The record labels? Pfff! Yeah, right! The top 10 artists? It hardly makes a dent in their budget. Do you know how the music industry works? Do you know how much it costs to produce, record, and distribute a record? Do you know that only 1% of the records that are recorded are actually profitable? The 1% of the albums that mae it actually help the labels to pay to the loss that the other 99% create. In other words, Britney Spears actually help finance the discovery of the new talents. If a bunch of people stop buying albums but download them for free instead, what will happen? Well, you can bet that the record label will not take as much risks with more chancy artists. They are more likely to only sign a contract with mainstream artists. The unknown and more nebulous artists will loose out, and so will we, music lovers, because we'll be stuck with only the Britney Spears wannabees.
Nothing is free. Everything has a price. The price of P2P is the potential death of good music.
kona0197
Reply #47 Saturday, June 28, 2003 8:55 PM
Reply #47 Saturday, June 28, 2003 8:55 PM
And ben I don't care how many firewall or rerouters you have, if someone wants your IP bad enough they will find it.
CognitoToo
Reply #48 Saturday, June 28, 2003 9:31 PM
Reply #48 Saturday, June 28, 2003 9:31 PM
What happens if the Kazaa users decide to boycott the music industries and stop buying music altogether? I surely won't support the rich music executives to rip off the artists for their own benefit. And then trying to sue poor college students. Just so that they can send their sons and daughters to Harvard while the artists barely survive. Where do you think the RIAA gets these hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay off the legislators? From the artists of course. With all this money they are spending, it sounds like just plain greed to me.
Personally, I've brought many more CD's because of file sharing. I was able to hear old music that I liked, and I went to buy it. If I heard hype about a new artist, I would look for them on Kazaa, and if I liked what I heard, I brought the CD.
I've heard no hype about Madonna's new album for example. So, I didn't look for it on Kazaa. She tends to put out a lot of junk. And, it would be a waste of my time since my intent would be to hear it to buy it.
The evidence of the massive lost revenue because of Kazaa or Napster is non-existant. Kazaa and Napster has surely sparked the interest in Music in spite of a poor economy. Try blaming the poor economy, and look at the stock market for the evidence of the poor world economy. Still, the instant I hear of mass law suits, I'm personally going to stop buying music altogether. I SAY BOYCOTT THEM. >
Personally, I've brought many more CD's because of file sharing. I was able to hear old music that I liked, and I went to buy it. If I heard hype about a new artist, I would look for them on Kazaa, and if I liked what I heard, I brought the CD.
I've heard no hype about Madonna's new album for example. So, I didn't look for it on Kazaa. She tends to put out a lot of junk. And, it would be a waste of my time since my intent would be to hear it to buy it.
The evidence of the massive lost revenue because of Kazaa or Napster is non-existant. Kazaa and Napster has surely sparked the interest in Music in spite of a poor economy. Try blaming the poor economy, and look at the stock market for the evidence of the poor world economy. Still, the instant I hear of mass law suits, I'm personally going to stop buying music altogether. I SAY BOYCOTT THEM. >
The DJ
Reply #49 Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:05 PM
Reply #49 Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:05 PM
Well CognitoToo, I'll just say as many people as you can name that bought because of Kazaa and whatnot, I can name just as many who haven't.
I'll bet half, if not the majority, will get it from Kazaa instead of buyin.
BTW, 128 sucks.
I'll bet half, if not the majority, will get it from Kazaa instead of buyin.
BTW, 128 sucks.
Tech-Cat
Reply #50 Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:23 PM
Reply #50 Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:23 PM
128 is okay for cheap computer speakers but not for a really good stereo.
The DJ
Reply #51 Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:44 PM
Reply #51 Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:44 PM
^^^^
It that ain't the truth.
But it depends on how you and what you use to encode it and the source of the rip. Also, a higher bitrate doesn't always equal better quality.
It that ain't the truth.
But it depends on how you and what you use to encode it and the source of the rip. Also, a higher bitrate doesn't always equal better quality.
Tech-Cat
Reply #52 Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:48 PM
Reply #52 Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:48 PM
All of my MP3s come from my CDs. I use 128 because it is near CD-Quality and saves hard drive space. I don't notice a difference between my MP3 files and my CDs. It saves me the trouble of flipping through my CD wallets and popping open the CD drive to change albums while I am on the computer.
CognitoToo
Reply #53 Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:25 AM
Reply #53 Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:25 AM
128 sucks? Hmm, have you actually listened to the difference on the original CD and the ripped 128 version? I notice the same blips(clicks) on both versions. Of course, I sometimes clean them up with a declicking program myself. Still, if the imperfections exist on the original CD, one can't possibly improve it by recording at a higher bit rate.
I think the only way to improve it is to get a super high quality original CD. Unfortunately, the normal commercial CD's just aren't super high quality.
About "half the people will get them from Kazaa".
Some songs just aren't available on commerical CD's anymore. I have found it necessary to clean up vinyl records because of this problem. Some CD's that I wanted to buy aren't even available anymore. Mainly because they were made on old Vinyls or tapes and weren't redistributed on the generally higher quality CD's. Therefore the only way to get some of these songs were by downloading them from some fan of an artist. Or, if you are lucky, maybe the album wasn't that old for an older CD version, and some fan ripped it and shared it.
I think the only way to improve it is to get a super high quality original CD. Unfortunately, the normal commercial CD's just aren't super high quality.
About "half the people will get them from Kazaa".
Some songs just aren't available on commerical CD's anymore. I have found it necessary to clean up vinyl records because of this problem. Some CD's that I wanted to buy aren't even available anymore. Mainly because they were made on old Vinyls or tapes and weren't redistributed on the generally higher quality CD's. Therefore the only way to get some of these songs were by downloading them from some fan of an artist. Or, if you are lucky, maybe the album wasn't that old for an older CD version, and some fan ripped it and shared it.
The DJ
Reply #54 Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:28 AM
Reply #54 Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:28 AM
Have I listened to and heard the differences? Yes and on a very nice setup.
With 128, you can have more of a compressed sound and can really suffer highs. Like I said, it really depends on the quality of the encoding software. The differences on a pair of pc speakers might not be all that noticeable, but on a quality setup and with a god ear it wil be there.
If only planning to listen to it on your pc, 128 is fine. But in your car or home theater/system, 192 or above to me will suffice.
With 128, you can have more of a compressed sound and can really suffer highs. Like I said, it really depends on the quality of the encoding software. The differences on a pair of pc speakers might not be all that noticeable, but on a quality setup and with a god ear it wil be there.
If only planning to listen to it on your pc, 128 is fine. But in your car or home theater/system, 192 or above to me will suffice.
The DJ
Reply #55 Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:36 AM
Reply #55 Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:36 AM
About your second part: I meant is somebody wants or hears about an album, instead of listening to a few songs and then buying the cd like you have stated, half if not the majority will just get the album from Kazaa and not buy it.
kona0197
Reply #56 Sunday, June 29, 2003 11:01 AM
you can order any cd ever made at your local cd shop like sam goody... i always have.
Reply #56 Sunday, June 29, 2003 11:01 AM
| Some songs just aren't available on commerical CD's anymore. I have found it necessary to clean up vinyl records because of this problem. Some CD's that I wanted to buy aren't even available anymore. Mainly because they were made on old Vinyls or tapes and weren't redistributed on the generally higher quality CD's. Therefore the only way to get some of these songs were by downloading them from some fan of an artist. Or, if you are lucky, maybe the album wasn't that old for an older CD version, and some fan ripped it and shared it. |
you can order any cd ever made at your local cd shop like sam goody... i always have.
c242
Reply #57 Sunday, June 29, 2003 11:39 AM
Reply #57 Sunday, June 29, 2003 11:39 AM
Some independent labels have set up a interesting strategy. First of all they offer far more quality music (not all of them of course) and second they do interesting packs like metal cases or special small plastic bags or give away some goodies like postcards or stickers to name a few. In that way it is far more special to own the original cd than to have a bunch of files on the harddrive.
DavidK
Reply #58 Sunday, June 29, 2003 11:59 AM
Reply #58 Sunday, June 29, 2003 11:59 AM
The world is adjusting to the new markets offered by the internet, making the changes required in marketing to capitalize on the potential and only realizing success if they are creative and forward thinking. The music industry relies on legislators to support an organized-crime type dominion and repression of new marketing ideas, new and beneficial technologies and the evolution of distribution. They have no vision or creativity, they want to resist change to the point of making you a criminal for doing something that is perfectly legal.
It's gone too far when privacy gets thrown out in favor of a few corporation's misstated losses. Record sales where at an all time high when Napster was flourishing. The RIAA's efforts to shut down Napster resulted in a dramatic decrease in sales and a lot of animosity towards the record labels. Their current dilema is probably more a result of their own actions than any other cause. Certainly not because kazaa kids are not rushing out to buy the latest souless plastic crap on the hit parade.
Doomgaze
Reply #59 Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:38 PM
Reply #59 Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:38 PM
The fact remains the RIAA isn't on this gestapo-esc mission for the indy labels or any "little guy" for that matter. They're run by the heads of the major labels and names so they can push another dollar into their own pocket.
They refuse to post record sales pre-napster then post-napster in fear of people figuring out their game is all corporate and not to "help" their 101 Backstreet Boys and Britany Spears copies they pump out and shove in your face every year.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any value in supporting artists who neither write their own music nor actually play a live set. (Which most of the *bigger* names don't do either.) And I certainly don't see a point in supporting another record industry's exec's golf trip.
They refuse to post record sales pre-napster then post-napster in fear of people figuring out their game is all corporate and not to "help" their 101 Backstreet Boys and Britany Spears copies they pump out and shove in your face every year.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any value in supporting artists who neither write their own music nor actually play a live set. (Which most of the *bigger* names don't do either.) And I certainly don't see a point in supporting another record industry's exec's golf trip.
kona0197
Reply #60 Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:49 PM
for instance, both my new cds, metallica st anger and staind 14 shades of grey both came with DVDs with videos on em...
Reply #60 Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:49 PM
| Some independent labels have set up a interesting strategy. First of all they offer far more quality music (not all of them of course) and second they do interesting packs like metal cases or special small plastic bags or give away some goodies like postcards or stickers to name a few. In that way it is far more special to own the original cd than to have a bunch of files on the harddrive. |
for instance, both my new cds, metallica st anger and staind 14 shades of grey both came with DVDs with videos on em...
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Friday, June 27, 2003 10:34 AM