This RIAA thing is getting scary...
Tuesday, July 29, 2003 by AlphaDraco | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Ok, so the RIAA is filing lawsuites against people with as few as 5 downloaded songs at $750-$150,000 per song!?! I wonder what will happen after they bankrupt a few parents.... And, of course, it turns out that my ISP is one of the only ones NOT fighting to keep the names of the swappers! I guess it works for the RIAA, but I feel for the people that they attack... This has gone too far.
(By the way, hi...been away for a while.)
(By the way, hi...been away for a while.)
 |
|
Page 2 of 6 | |
|
|---|
messybuu
Reply #22 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:59 PM
The dictionary doesn't seem to have a problem defining piracy as: "use of copyrighted material without permission." Therefore, I think it's a perfect term to use.
Why do you say that they are truly opposed to the concept of fair use?
I don't really care about their motives, considering that the motives of the other side aren't necessarily altruistic either.
Reply #22 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:59 PM
| Messy Bru, Actually, it's copyright infringement. It isn't easily categorized as theft, either, as a 1985 decision by the supreme court in Dowling v United Stated determined. |
The dictionary doesn't seem to have a problem defining piracy as: "use of copyrighted material without permission." Therefore, I think it's a perfect term to use.
| That doesn't mean it's right to do it, but overloading words that mean something else entirely only emotionalizes the issue, and does nothing to actually address the situation. Part of the problem IMHO, is the word 'copyright'. The implication being that all copying becomes infringement, which is not true. A more accurate term would be distributionright (although a bit unwieldy). What is protected by copyright is distribution, primarily, distribution for gain. I have a great deal of respect for the concept of intellectual property, but the current legal environment surrounding it right now is somewhat over the top, including the overlong coverage periods that currently exist. Although many in the current environment (especially the likes of the RIAA, etc.), would have us believe otherwise, there really is a fundamental difference between physical property and intellectual property. In fact, as Justice Blackmun noted in the above decision, "property interest protected by copyright is limited by the First Amendment interest in free expression and copyright's goal not to reward authors but to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts". Obviously, there is no first amendment protection for such actions as blatant online file distribution, and the like, but it is necessary to understand that there are levels of infringement, and levels of use that are not infringement, even if the copyright owner doesn't like it. The biggest problem the RIAA has, IMHO, is not so much that the file sharing itself is such a major problem, it is that they truly fear losing their lucrative physical distribution method. They are also truly opposed to the concept of fair use, as they see it as undermining their desire to have you pay for every single use of a bit of content. As outlets like iTunes, and the like demonstrate, a lot of people are fine with paying for online distribution if the price is right, and if the content is not so restricted as to be virtually unusable. |
Why do you say that they are truly opposed to the concept of fair use?
| Copyright infringement is illegal, and rightly so, but it is important to remember that we shouldn't cloud the issue with loaded and emotional phraseology, and we should also remember that the RIAA and their ilk are less interested in copyright infringement as an honestly legal issue, and are more interested in it as a mechanism for protecting (at all costs) what is rapidly becoming an outmoded and uneconomical business model. |
I don't really care about their motives, considering that the motives of the other side aren't necessarily altruistic either.
Anthony R
Reply #23 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:01 PM
Oh thank goodness for your leniency
Reply #23 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:01 PM
| 20 by EventHorizon - 7/29/2003 9:53:01 PM Personally, I think the fine should be a MAX $1000/song. |
Oh thank goodness for your leniency
joetheblow
Reply #24 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:04 PM
This again? I do believe the RIAA is handling it wrong... but the case of P2P file sharing music (as well as programs DavidK) does brake the fair use claus. The first person didn't buy it and give 1 away for free he make multipul copies and give multipul copies away for free.
How come no one addresses the artist and how, while the RIAA doesn't help them much, that downloading multipul files of a song that the artist made is wrong?
How come I go through all the crap and kissing up and non-music, non-inovative stuff that the RIAA does do me just to make it and then as I make 3 dollars or less on a CD someone make it avialable on P2P help me recoop?
Notice the downloads on any skin here, how many leave comments? No less how many would pay or volunteer money for the skin?
interesting.....
Reply #24 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:04 PM
This again? I do believe the RIAA is handling it wrong... but the case of P2P file sharing music (as well as programs DavidK) does brake the fair use claus. The first person didn't buy it and give 1 away for free he make multipul copies and give multipul copies away for free.
How come no one addresses the artist and how, while the RIAA doesn't help them much, that downloading multipul files of a song that the artist made is wrong?
How come I go through all the crap and kissing up and non-music, non-inovative stuff that the RIAA does do me just to make it and then as I make 3 dollars or less on a CD someone make it avialable on P2P help me recoop?
Notice the downloads on any skin here, how many leave comments? No less how many would pay or volunteer money for the skin?
interesting.....
joetheblow
Reply #25 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:07 PM
Reply #25 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:07 PM
Aslo, I don't think they should be filing against people. This is some wierd awareness program for the RIAA but I think it is a waste of money.
Focus on iMAC's music store and making it availible cross platform by December of this year. Focus on Son of Napster; Focus on changing your business model and information systems.
This is what the RIAA should be doing.
Focus on iMAC's music store and making it availible cross platform by December of this year. Focus on Son of Napster; Focus on changing your business model and information systems.
This is what the RIAA should be doing.
Sugaree
Reply #26 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:21 PM
Reply #26 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:21 PM
Anthony it's so fun to take unsuspecting frinds/family, to dead concerts and watch them
But, the best times I had was with very good friends that shared the love of their music.
[Message Edited]
But, the best times I had was with very good friends that shared the love of their music.
[Message Edited]
Aleatoric
Reply #27 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:55 AM
Reply #27 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:55 AM
Meant to post some text with this link, some kind of weird browser problem posted instead of linefeeding the comment. 
Here's a commentary that clarifies a part of my position concerning the actions of the RIAA, et. al.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-072903B
-Buu,
There's a pretty good amount of evidence that many of the consortia are antagonistic to fair use rights. Without getting into a post full of references, I'll just mention that during the the Sony betamax issue, it took going all the way to the Supreme court to drag the industry kicking and screaming to a piece of technology that ultimately made them a great deal of money. Throughout the entire course of action, they fought tooth and nail against the arguments of time-shifting (now fully considered a fair use right), among the other issues. (Jack Valenti comparing a VCR to the Boston Strangler was a remarkably bad analogy).
[Message Edited]
Here's a commentary that clarifies a part of my position concerning the actions of the RIAA, et. al.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-072903B
-Buu,
There's a pretty good amount of evidence that many of the consortia are antagonistic to fair use rights. Without getting into a post full of references, I'll just mention that during the the Sony betamax issue, it took going all the way to the Supreme court to drag the industry kicking and screaming to a piece of technology that ultimately made them a great deal of money. Throughout the entire course of action, they fought tooth and nail against the arguments of time-shifting (now fully considered a fair use right), among the other issues. (Jack Valenti comparing a VCR to the Boston Strangler was a remarkably bad analogy).
[Message Edited]
Aleatoric
Reply #28 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:55 AM
Reply #28 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:55 AM
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-072903B
Gregory2001
Reply #29 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:04 AM
Reply #29 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:04 AM
Bottom line: Nobody on this site approves of "rips".
DaWebMassa
Reply #30 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:35 AM
Reply #30 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:35 AM
*sigh* It's just all smoke and mirrors because of two things.
#1 Some of these artists can't afford thier 97 foot yacht anymore and rather than admitting they are played out and/or suck, they point a finger. (perfect example is the new Tomb Raider lackluster sales being blamed on the fact that a game based on it was released before the movie and the game wasn't great)
#2 The RIAA is sells nothing and thus if they don't look like they're earning thier exhorbitant membership fees, they'll go down crying.
That's my whole take on it.
#1 Some of these artists can't afford thier 97 foot yacht anymore and rather than admitting they are played out and/or suck, they point a finger. (perfect example is the new Tomb Raider lackluster sales being blamed on the fact that a game based on it was released before the movie and the game wasn't great)
#2 The RIAA is sells nothing and thus if they don't look like they're earning thier exhorbitant membership fees, they'll go down crying.
That's my whole take on it.
Nuryan
Reply #31 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:38 PM
Reply #31 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:38 PM
If you don't want too get sued. Then don't use P2P programs to download MP3s.
messybuu
Reply #32 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:54 PM
Maybe not, but I do disapprove of people protecting their work from being ripped. That's just wrong.
Reply #32 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:54 PM
| Bottom line: Nobody on this site approves of "rips". |
Maybe not, but I do disapprove of people protecting their work from being ripped. That's just wrong.
Cavanaugh
Reply #33 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:26 PM
Reply #33 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:26 PM
personally Im waiting for someone to write a kazaa virus - sits on your machine and answers kazaa ports just like kazaa and report you have 150000 songs - would make the RIAA's case of suing someone mighty nebulous.
AlphaDraco
Reply #34 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:01 PM
Reply #34 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:01 PM
I'm not trying to say downloading music off of a P2P network is RIGHT, but c'mon...$150,000? Personally, I don't download music off of KaZaA/Gnutella/whatever because 1) I'm on dialup, and 2) I'm scared senseless my parents would end up getting busted for it. In any case, I think it's safe to say that the RIAA may have found a way to stop copyright infringement over P2P networks until someone finds a way to make downloading anonymous. Also, for those of you that are opposed to downloading music (and no, I'm not trying to say it's OK to do) would you be mad if your kid burned a copy of a CD for a friend? Kinda like saying "Is it worse to steal $1,000 than it is to steal $1?"
Hus
Reply #35 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:10 PM
Reply #35 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:10 PM
Does anyone know how they actually catch you? Like, do they monitor certain p2p apps or do they have some other sneaky way of catching you, or is it does by bandwidth measurements through the ISP or something? How does it work?
EventHorizon
Reply #36 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:24 PM
Reply #36 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:24 PM
Somehow they can find your IP address once they see that you have songs avaliable for download. I would imagine they wrote their own proggy for IP detection that works in union with Kazaa/Grokster/iMesh... (Just a speculation) 
AlphaDraco
Reply #37 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:24 PM
Reply #37 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:24 PM
I think they simply look at your library through the program you're using. This is why they are only filing lawsuites against distributors, not the people downloading. Also, Aleatoric's link said that EDonkey2000 claims to be anonymous, so swappers may be switching to the less-used serveces instead of the mainstream KaZaA and Gnutella. After they get your IP address and they know you have music in your library, they call up your ISP and ask for the name and address of the person who was in that IP. It makes sense, 'cos if they manage to scare off all the distributors, there is no more music TO download. Also, I'll bet that if people start using new P2P services that are somehow anonymous, they'll resort to sneakier methods...
Anthony R
Reply #38 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:20 PM
My favorite dead songs will always be the old ones... like high time from [Workingmans dead] and stuff from that era ..Jerrys voice always sounded a lot better than phils.I never cared for the newer things they did.
Reply #38 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:20 PM
| #26 by China - 7/29/2003 10:21:17 PM Anthony it's so fun to take unsuspecting frinds/family, to dead concerts and watch them |
My favorite dead songs will always be the old ones... like high time from [Workingmans dead] and stuff from that era ..Jerrys voice always sounded a lot better than phils.I never cared for the newer things they did.
Jafo
Reply #39 Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:02 AM
Reply #39 Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:02 AM
Interesting thought here though.....Kazaa is an Australian creation.....and yet we have NO 'fair-use' rights in our legal system, unlike America.
In Australia it is actually illegal to copy that CD or record or Cassette on any media.
If you damage it you are obliged to purchase another.
Simple Aussie lethargy allows duplication to continue....but to answer DavidK's early post/s, yes, copying the CD before giving it to a friend as a present is illegal and there's nothing 'fair' about that 'use' at all....just 'convenience' and 'popular occurrence'....
Bangkokboy
Reply #40 Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:55 AM
Reply #40 Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:55 AM
what i want to know is: during all those decades when we went to the store and bought records, later tapes, and later CDs, why were there no crowds marching in the streets shouting " What a crock of sh! I am entitled to all this for free and i'm being robbed by having to pay for it!!" and when the jerk at the beach snuck in and stole our tape collection out of our car while we were distracted, why did we get so mad at him?? i mean after all, he's entitled to tunes for free too, right?
the adroitness of the human mind at decriminalizing criminal acts is very strong, and usually comes into play right around the point where the person has figured out how to commit the crime. he soon graduates to believing his own rationalizations.
the old axiom of grabbing up the first available "violators" in an arbitrary selection and making an example of them with obscenely overblown discipline has been popular with the military for millenia, and has made many governmental inroads thanks to the work of organizations like the IRS.
the adroitness of the human mind at decriminalizing criminal acts is very strong, and usually comes into play right around the point where the person has figured out how to commit the crime. he soon graduates to believing his own rationalizations.
the old axiom of grabbing up the first available "violators" in an arbitrary selection and making an example of them with obscenely overblown discipline has been popular with the military for millenia, and has made many governmental inroads thanks to the work of organizations like the IRS.
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 2 of 6 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:55 PM
I went to see the Dead with my Friend Chris and my sister once and it is funny to think about it,I had so much fun that evening …. My friend Chris and I had been learning Karate and he was all full of himself with the skills he was learning, so during the show all these balloons were flying around and hitting him in the face and it was really pissing Chris off in a serious way so he turned to me and said “if I get hit with one more (expletive) balloon one of these freaks are going down…. Ill never forget that statement and the way he said it I laughed so much at that.