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 1 of 6 | |
|
|---|
messybuu
Reply #2 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:43 PM
Reply #2 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:43 PM
Why should I feel bad for the people guilty of piracy?
DavidK
Reply #3 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:06 PM
Reply #3 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:06 PM
| Why should I feel bad for the people guilty of piracy? |
Who convinced you
a. this is piracy
b. they are guilty
Aren't you buying in to a hyped description promoted by record company executives in an attempt to increase their profitability by taking money from their own customers - however they can get it?
DavidK
Reply #4 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:09 PM
Reply #4 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:09 PM
btw - I agree with the original post... this has gone too far.
when you buy the NY Times and and you leave it at the coffee shop after reading it, and several other people read it, have you committed a crime?
DavidK
Reply #5 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:12 PM
Reply #5 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:12 PM
Let's say you buy a CD for your friend's birthday and before you give it to him you make a copy of it for yourself. Is this a crime?
Iben
Reply #6 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:30 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:30 PM
mp3's give you a degraded sound quality.They call it a compressed file format.I can here the difference.If I am serious about the music I will buy the cd.So all you people with a huge mp3 collection don't have the real thing but someone wants you to pay a price.HE HE
messybuu
Reply #7 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:45 PM
Reply #7 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:45 PM
If distributing and obtaining the works of others without the permission of the owners of those works isn't piracy, then what is it?
Anthony R
Reply #8 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:51 PM
This guy was being interviewed on the news and he talked about how he is being dragged to court and sued for 150,000 smackers for each illegal file on his computer and they are suing him for 300 files…do the math, he is most likely in financial ruin. It sounded like he was trying to use the popular tactic of getting out of a huge phone bill…i.e. the kids did it without my knowledge. I would not suggest using file sharing programs at this point.
Reply #8 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:51 PM
This guy was being interviewed on the news and he talked about how he is being dragged to court and sued for 150,000 smackers for each illegal file on his computer and they are suing him for 300 files…do the math, he is most likely in financial ruin. It sounded like he was trying to use the popular tactic of getting out of a huge phone bill…i.e. the kids did it without my knowledge. I would not suggest using file sharing programs at this point.
Hus
Reply #9 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:00 PM
Reply #9 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:00 PM
It's things like this that make me truly believe money is the root of all evil.
Sugaree
Reply #10 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:14 PM
I have nothing to worry about...I only dl boots of Grateful Dead!
Funny thing is..."The Media" will probably put out a reality tv show about it, and, Ummm, we will watch it
Reply #10 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:14 PM
I have nothing to worry about...I only dl boots of Grateful Dead!Funny thing is..."The Media" will probably put out a reality tv show about it, and, Ummm, we will watch it
e-bros
Reply #11 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:21 PM
Reply #11 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:21 PM
The most disturbing thing to us is the online privacy issue.
It's amazing with all the hackers and spammers and trojan_horse/virus creators and spyware_freeware crap out there that people who file-share some crappy mp3's will be the ones on spy-watch alert and possibly bankrupted. Money does indeed talk!
Parents of many teens better be wary of what their teens do online. They should anyway but now they will hafta be big brother too to save their arses from some steep lawsuit.
Big brother warbuX$$ is on your case.
It's amazing with all the hackers and spammers and trojan_horse/virus creators and spyware_freeware crap out there that people who file-share some crappy mp3's will be the ones on spy-watch alert and possibly bankrupted. Money does indeed talk!
Parents of many teens better be wary of what their teens do online. They should anyway but now they will hafta be big brother too to save their arses from some steep lawsuit.
Big brother warbuX$$ is on your case.
e-bros
Reply #12 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:25 PM
Reply #12 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:25 PM
#6 by Skinner Iben - 7/29/2003 8:30:59 PM
mp3's give you a degraded sound quality.They call it a compressed file format.I can here the difference.If I am serious about the music I will buy the cd.So all you people with a huge mp3 collection don't have the real thing but someone wants you to pay a price.HE HE
We agree...an mp3 never has the crisp and truly quality sound of the original...might as well be making a tape off the radio station...
mp3's give you a degraded sound quality.They call it a compressed file format.I can here the difference.If I am serious about the music I will buy the cd.So all you people with a huge mp3 collection don't have the real thing but someone wants you to pay a price.HE HE
We agree...an mp3 never has the crisp and truly quality sound of the original...might as well be making a tape off the radio station...
Anthony R
Reply #13 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:27 PM
Reply #13 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:27 PM
Yeah the dead make a policy of allowing anyone who wants to record their shows bring whatever recording device they want. The Dead were good back when Pigpen was in it like Europe seventy two is a great old one…haven’t listened to them in years …my sister was a huge dead head and forced fed them to me until I started liking it a bit… they just turned into a joke when Shakedown street came out it was like the Beach boys meet the dead.
Anthony R
Reply #15 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:39 PM
O woe e brother .... woe
Reply #15 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:39 PM
| #11 by e-bros - 7/29/2003 9:21:39 PM The most disturbing thing to us is the online privacy issue. |
O woe e brother .... woe
Sugaree
Reply #16 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:42 PM
Anthony, I hated Shakedown Street too! Any good band always has a album they wish they never did.
Reply #16 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:42 PM
Anthony, I hated Shakedown Street too! Any good band always has a album they wish they never did.
Aleatoric
Reply #17 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:47 PM
Reply #17 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:47 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
messybuu
Reply #18 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:48 PM
Reply #18 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:48 PM
How is it a privacy issue, considering that they obtain the information from KaZaA, which is more like a mall than somebody's home, and if it was like somebody's home, then that person clearly has made it a home by allowing anybody to enter it and do business.
Sugaree
Reply #19 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:50 PM
Sugaree smacks Anthony with "Dead Set".. tell me how much you don't like the Dead anymore...
Reply #19 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:50 PM
Sugaree smacks Anthony with "Dead Set".. tell me how much you don't like the Dead anymore...
EventHorizon
Reply #20 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:53 PM
Reply #20 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:53 PM
Personally, I think the fine should be a MAX $1000/song. I wonder how many of the file-sharers out there even HAVE 150k. (Or the means of getting it)
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 1 of 6 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:58 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10733