RIAA Sues Nearly 500 New Swappers 637
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the story. " U.S. music industry group says it has sued 493 more people for copyright infringement as part of its campaign to stop consumers from copying music over the Internet.
The Recording Industry Association of America has now sued nearly 3,000 individuals since last September in an attempt to discourage people from copying songs through peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa and LimeWire." "
I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that file sharing of unlicensed copyrighted works is illegal, but the practice of threatening lawsuits left and right still bothers me. As many of you are aware, a number of the people already sued did not have the financial ability to fund a lawyer even if they wanted to. The question is, what happens if a company (like DirecTV mentioned here [slashdot.org]) starts blanket suing for something that is not necessarily illegal? These corporations have deep pockets, and they could threaten to sue the crap out of you for looking at them cock-eyed, to which many people would have to settle out of court (I'm not being literal). If you can't afford a lawyer then what do you do? 'Admit' to wrong-doing you didn't committ? Again, I realize that a lot of file sharing IS illegal, but the whole blanket lawsuit thing does raise some interesting (or scary?) questions.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Suing people won't stop piracy.
Any amount of software to stop piracy will be circumvented/broken (see how long a piracy-catch in a Linux kernel will last before it gets cut and rebuilt).
This is one of those things that our tech is going to force us to change socially.... how/when/to what, I'm not sure.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
One helpful social change would be to *stop cheering the thieves on*. If you dislike the big labels, fine, but don't lionize criminal behavior just because it hurts someone you dislike. History seems to show that "the enemy of my enemy will probably turn and attack me next." I don't want to hang around with dishonest people; I get a crick in my neck from watching my back all the time.
If you want to oppose incorrect behavior, the most productive way in the long run is to oppose it with correct behavior, not more incorrect behavior. Reward good behavior by doing business with good people. Refuse to reward bad behavior -- *anyone's* bad behavior -- and find ways to punish it *properly*.
*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: Unless the songs being shared were not available on any of the available download stores, these people are deserving of what they have received (if the idiots at the RIAA have done their research). But going after stupid kids is kinda cheep, i must say.
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:3, Interesting)
Main Entry: copyright
Function: noun
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)
Webster Online [webster.com]
Main Entry: infringement
Function: noun
1 : the act of infringing : VIOLATION
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
Unless the songs being shared were not available on any of the available download stores...
Even if the material is unavailable in the format that you want it in, one does not have the right to share it unless they truly were given (by the copyright holder) the rights for distribution.
What I would love to see though is an environment where the large distributors are not part of the picture at all and artist can choose for themselves how to get their work out to the masses. The acceptance of the Internet should allow for a more direct artist to consumer market. Coming up with a business model could be tough, but if they can cut out the overhead of a distributor, it should be possible. We as consumers will need to change our purchasing habits to allow for the new models. Obviously illegal downloading isn't necessarily helping the artist (yes, one could argue it ultimately leads to a CD sale, but for most, it probably doesn't) and I imagine most would like to be compensated (you'll have the die hards in it for the art, but most probably would like to generate income).
Until the artist and the consumers come up with another process, the RIAA is going to exist and we'll have to deal with their rules.
a perhaps more accurate car analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I think it needs some reworking to more accurately reflect the role that the RIAA is playing now-a-days...
Let's say that the car companies got together to form the APIA (Auto Producers Industry Association) and used their considerable lobbying clout to influence Congress to pass new legislation that outlaws the selling of or owning of used cars.
Say then that the automakers decide to not sell cars in the tradional way anymore, but only lease them with extensive "appropriate-use" regulations attached and extensive monitoring equipment to ensure that you comply.
Additionally, after a couple of years when the car makers release a new model they refuse to offer any of the older models for lease and instead recall them and refuse to make these models available for any purpose.
That is closer to the situation that the RIAA is trying to bring into existence.
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:3, Interesting)
Should NO information cost money? Your "I'm taking, but you're not losing" argument boils down to solely that copyright is an artificial restriction placed on information. The whole point of copyright is that we, as a society, have decided that information should be artificially restricted. I don't think many people on either side are arguing against copyright (but I don't know, maybe you specifically are). The real question is where exactly the restrictions should be placed.
Get this through your skull, it's not stealing.
The word stealing has more than one meaning. "I stole the book", "I stole his research", "I stole a kiss". Insisting people only use your definition is a political move, so please don't treat people as ignorant or stupid as to the meaning of a word because they don't agree with your meaning.
Thieves? Of what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You may see little difference, but a little difference is still a difference.
The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
It may be wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing.
A performance is not property. It happens and then it's over. A recording of a performance can be copyrighted, but it's still not property. If I take your only copy (say, the only tape containing that performance), then I've stolen from you. But if I copy it, I haven't stolen anything.
Copying your recording may mean that you don't have the money I might have paid you for a copy had I been unable to copy it myself for free, but perhaps I wouldn't have paid you for it. In any case, that's still not theft. Perhaps "theft of opportunity"?
But you can't just say "there's little difference" and therefore behave as if there's no difference at all. That, too, is wrong. "Intellectual property" is a misnomer. It's the reason the idea of copyright exists in the first place.
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to go about trying to legitamize the booger-flinging little brats that run around ripping off songs on p2p and ruining a good thing for everyone else, but how, exactly, do you propose that we reward good behavior when there isn't any around? The problem here is that there are so many ridiculously deep levels of the RIAA that, even with ongoing lists of tainted labels, it's almost impossible to keep up with what is and what isn't poisoned by the RIAA's presence. Even individual bands flipping between labels can confuse matters. My KMFDM collection is clean so far, but I won't finish up the rest of it because some of the later albums aren't. What now?
This problem extends beyond the RIAA too. Where do I go for high speed internet? I can get *DSL from Verizon, but they're pure evil, and I can get cable from Adelphia, but they're staffed entirely by morons and escapees from a Down's Syndrome group home.
With the conglomerates and monopolies overrunning government policy makers and quietly spreading their tendrils through previously independant operations, it's almost impossible to find any "good behavior" in a company in this country anymore, and I can't afford the higher prices of little local mom and pops (beause, despite what many, many very stupid people say, the economy is still a shithole).
It's hard to reward good behavior when there isn't any....
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I also understand the consequences of my actions. I understand that by not abiding by the laws of the land I must pay the penalties when I am caught doing so, and I will stand by that.
-Al
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's travel back to say 1830...If I "stole" somebody's slave and set him free, am I really stealing? To the owner and possibly the gov't of the time, yes. However, I feel I have the "moral high ground"(favorite phrase of mine lately) in setting a person free that nobody has a right to own, even if society says otherwise. What's being done is merely against the law. It doesn't mean that it's wrong. Many times the law is wrong, and has to be made, by violations, to be unenforceable. The controlled substances act is a good example. Weed was made illegal, not for the benefit of society in general, but simply to round up and deport the Mexicans out of California during the depression. The law is wrong, but too many people believe the propaganda, and thus will be difficult to repeal. This is one reason democracy is called tyranny by the majority.
The selling of copies of information is no longer a viable business. And if you want to know who is really hurt by P2P, it's the pirates who SELL copies as a business. They are the first who will cease to exist due to P2P. And they are probably the ones "complaining" to the RIAA about all this file sharing on the net. They stand to lose the most. The pirates who sell unauthorized copies in Asia and other parts are the ones helping the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft acquire and maintain mind share in these markets. The net just made them obsolete. Society and its "criminals" maintain a bizarre(but apparently necessary) relationship.
History seems to show that "the enemy of my enemy will probably turn and attack me next." I don't want to hang around with dishonest people; I get a crick in my neck from watching my back all the time.
So very true. I don't believe that file sharers are dishonest. On the contrary, the RIAA has settled with the gov't on several ocassions to avoid being convicted of the wrongdoing they are so obviouly giulty of. They appear to be the dishonest ones. You will get no argument from me on your last paragraph. If we simply followed that, the whole world would definitely be a better place.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
sounds stupid doesn't it. Just because you don't agree with a law, or the people backing it doesn't make it any more invalid. If you choose to violate it then you are violating the law, plane and simple.
I'm not in any way comparing murder to filesharing but it is one extream to the argument the parent presented. Saying thier not thieves is the same as saying they didn't violate a law and the argument falls short realquick. If there is a problem with the law, or who inspired the laws, then by all means take action and try to get it replaced with a more apropriate law.
By the way, to this day i havn't been able to find the law that says downloading is ilegal. All I can find is were sharing it is. I have asked several times for someone to show a law stating that it is not legal but all I get is hypotheticals that don't hold water. Maybe it is important to seperate the sharers from the downloaders when having conversations about this. I would hate to be called a thief because I bought somethign from a store that was selling stollen goods. Or even cloaser might be getting busted for exposing yourself in public when all you did was use the urinal in the public restroom at the court house.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you really call these "blanket lawsuits", given that the RIAA has sued only 3,000 out of millions who are illegally downloading music?
And yes, I think the tactic has been more successful at embittering thir customers than at preventing illegal distribution of their product, and that generally these lawsuits are a Bad Thing (tm) but let's not make this something it isn't.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
"1.2 million people file lawsuit against RIAA this month. The court system is grinding to a halt, and congress begins deliberations to resolve the problem."
The problem with lawyers is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't mod this funny, I'm actually being extremely serious. And yes, it would work. The one thing corporations do not want is a young male or females blood on their hands.
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Large corporations have plenty of blood, sweat and tears on "their hands". My god, ever been to a sweatshop in China, Taiwan? I've actually seen the pee buckets near their seats. This was a shop making clothes for the Gap.
Don't want blood on their hands. Pffft. If they can do it, they will. Remember that.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
You represent yourself, you find a lawyer that will work pro bono, you settle, or you admit liability.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
In the meantime, I suppose you do negotiate for a smaller out-of-court settlement or plead "no contest", hoping to recover your loss later when the class suit wins. Audacity usually succeeds in the beginning -- it's only later that it becomes plain whose was the stronger position.
What you don't do is meekly take whatever deal they offer. You push back with whatever you have. Negotiate the best deal you can, and if that is not good enough then you have some breathing space to gather the power to force renegotiation for more favorable terms. And don't agree with false charges; just put off fighting to disprove them until you are prepared to win. In any conflict, never give up anything that doesn't buy you something better.
[*sigh* in case it's not obvious, IANAL and this is not legal advice.]
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
The game is rigged so that the more you fight the more you lose.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
The significant fact was that the BBS was not a site that charged any money. There was no law against noncommercial copying of files. After all, the copyright laws were created by Congress to protect one publisher from another in order to encourage publication. There wasn't originally any intention to prevent individuals from sharing publications at no cost. In fact the creation of public libraries was specifically for the purpose of encouraging the spread of copyrighted publications (books, magazines, recordings and eventually video recordings) at no charge except for late fees.
So when technology evolved to the point that people could spread copyrighted material at no significant cost to everyone else why was this a BAD THING (TM)? Are people so short sighted that they believe all literary, musical, scientific activity would come to a halt? These people want to take what is naturally plentiful (copies) and try to make it behave as though it were scarce. And until 10 years ago there wasn't even a law against non-commercial copying.
Our Constitution included the clause about trying to promote the progress of art and science NOT a clause about creating artificial scarcity for the benefit of corporations defending business models that may or may not work as new technologies emerge. Maybe, just maybe, it will no longer be economically viable to create summer blockbuster movies that require hundreds of millions of dollars to create and promote. I would sort of miss them. BUT SO WHAT?
When you have a new law (forbidding non-commercial copying being less than 10 years old) being flouted by tens of millions of people, I think there is a real issue of our legislators being bought by very narrow special interests. Remember all you moral absolutists, it wasn't even illegal 10 years ago. This is questionable legislation being passed by lap dog legislators creating artificial scarcity for the benefit of a few wealthy, powerful corporations.
OK, you may now resume your (making a copy of a digital file = stealing expensive sports cars) nonsense.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I agree. I used to be very anti-piracy. I knew that the labels were corrupt and everything, but it wasn't enough for me to justify breaking the law and pirating more than the occasional song. When the lawsuits started though, that was it for me. Legal or not, I'm not willing to pay money to a company when I know my money is going to be used to do things like that. It may be wrong of me to pirate, but IMHO what they're doing is more wrong than what I'm doing.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Moral relativity is bunk. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It may be wrong of me to sodomize these prisoners with a glow stick, but IMHO what they did to us on 9/11 is more wrong than what I'm doing."
I admit, my analogy isn't perfect -- for one thing, in my version both acts are illegal, whereas you're undertaking an illegal act to respond to something that's entirely legal.
If you don't want to give your money to RIAA-member companies anymore, don't consume their product anymore! Stop being a jackass.
EFF includes lawsuits in their solution too... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody likes lawsuits (except, perhaps lawyers). But in all likelyhood, they will remain part of the response to unauthorized file-sharing.
Even the EFF acknowledges this. Not so long ago the EFF suggested that the RIAA should be suing infringers [com.com] and in the EFF's more recent file-sharing solution "white paper" [eff.org] they continue to suggest the same. (under "What about file sharers who won't pay?" you'll see "Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against 'free-loaders.'"
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
People are sharing recorded sounds with each other, it is not a big deal. Since the companies put the recordings out into the public in the first place, they shouldn't be upset or surprised that people are sharing them with each other.
Sharing music files is about as big a 'crime' as sharing a can opener at a company picnic. The RIAA is simply exposing the gangster underbelly of the music industry that has always been discretely hidden (except to musicians) from the public with this ugly extortion.
This idea that music is sold in individual packages by created rock stars is a weird 20th-century concept (like communism) that simply appears grotesque and distasteful in the modern age. Music is like air: it comes into you, it comes out of you. No one can own it.
By all means, stop giving these people money that they use to extort money from others. What goes around, comes around.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, its not UNETHICAL.
There is a big difference. Ethical actions can be illegal, and Unethical actions can be legal.
LEgality has nothing to do whether an action is right or wrong.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it sometime. Where does the government derive it's power to issue commands?
that's why a lot of us.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's NUTS. It's getting worse, there's no end to the amount of laws passed, no top end limit, we are over 3 million laws on the books now, and these people in washington are SO FAR REMOVED from what it really is like in the US outside of the completely artifically maintained washington DC/NYC/LA axis of profits area, they really have no clue what they are doing other than maximising profits for themselves and their rich buds. No clue and they DON'T WANT a clue. They are trained actors and script readers, they "campaign" by 15-30 second sound bite, directly or indirectly, and by the acceptance of out and out bribes called "campaign contributions", but these public uttered "sound bite" words have little meaning, they just parrot what their focus groups tell them that will result in the same people "voting" for them over and over again, no matter what really happens.
The system is broken, terribly. It needs to change. Change at the federal level is just way to hard, SO, we need to elect some governor some place who can be the executive branch leader that at least can get ONE state back to what we are supposed to have,set a clear example of what it really was designed as, an independent state with loose ties to the federal government in a "union", BUT NO MORE, *full, default and complete* constitutional rights, and he has got to be unafraid of serious confrontation. That's the highest level we can hope for to look for any significant change for the better, IMO.
The Libertarian Party Free State Project is one example, Mack for Governor in Utah is another (He has a decent credible chance, too). There might be more, those are the two I am aware of right now where this sort of effort is being undertaken.
A success in these matters will go a long way to re establishing the court system like it is supposed to be, especially with jury nullification, speedy trials, and always having a jury trial if the matter in question is over 20$. You get some honest working class people on juries, and STOP the mostly completely criminal DAs and judges intimidating and instructiong them illegally, you'll see nonsense like in this article struck down, because people can see it's absurd. BUT, it HAS to be done at some decent level, local it doesn't matter, federal is impossible, that leaves the state level.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Civil courts reeeeealy need to think about changing the level of proof from 'balance of probabilities' to 'beyond reasonable doubt' like the criminal courts *supposedly* use, and making being unable to afford to defend oneself a miscarige of justice (not sure if justice is right word for civil cases)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the American Civil Liberties Union only helps out in criminal cases?
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Informative)
"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that this is a civil case, not a criminal case, but I think you should still know who you are suing before you can do it. If the RIAA can't figure out who say, 66.35.250.150 is, they can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. Figure it out and come back, or don't, and drop it. And while you're at it, don't use our criminal justice system to go fishing for you.
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:3, Interesting)
Search results for: 66.35.250.150
OrgName: Cable & Wireless
OrgID: EXCW
Address: 3300 Regency Pkwy
City: Cary
StateProv: NC
PostalCode: 27511
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.exodus.net:4321/
NetRange: 66.35.192.0 - 66.35.255.255
CIDR: 66.35.192.0/18
NetName: SC8-2
NetHandle: NET-66-35-192-0-1
Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: DNS01.SAVVIS.NET
NameServer: DNS02.SAVVIS.NET
NameServer: DNS03.SAVVIS.NET
NameServer: DNS04.SAVVIS.NET
Comment: * Rwhois reassignment information for this block is available at:
Comment: * rwhois.exodus.net 4321
Comment: * For abuse please contact abuse@exodus.net
RegDate:
Updated: 2004-05-05
TechHandle: ZC221-ARIN
TechName: Cable & Wireless
TechPhone: +1-919-465-4023
TechEmail: ip@gnoc.cw.net
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE11-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-877-393-7878
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@exodus.net
OrgNOCHandle: NOC99-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Network Operations Center
OrgNOCPhone: +1-800-977-4662
OrgNOCEmail: trouble@cw.net
OrgTechHandle: EIAA-ARIN
OrgTechName: Exodus IP Address Administration
OrgTechPhone: +1-888-239-6387
OrgTechEmail: ipaddressadmin@exodus.net
OrgTechHandle: GIAA-ARIN
OrgTechName: Global IP Address Administration
OrgTechPhone: +1-919-465-4096
OrgTechEmail: ip@gnoc.cw.net
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2004-05-24 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:4, Interesting)
If you do a whois lookup on me, you won't get the correct city for starters. You'll get the location of head office, which is 4 hours away from me. Upon contacting them, you will discover that they don't want to tell you who I am, particularly if you identify yourself as being from the RIAA. So good luck..
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:3, Informative)
That's exactly what these John Doe suits are basically doing. They don't need the name and address of the person you're suing, they just need enough info to uniquely identify the person, and then they can use a subpeona to force the ISP to disclose who that person is. Without the filing of the John Doe case, the ISP wouldn't have to co-operate.
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
So... if somebody keeps calling your house from 555-1212 and breathing heavily at your daughter, then is it also *your* responsibility to track that person down before you do something about it? Seems like a double standard.
And how about this for an idea:
"John Doe" lawsuits aren't more dangerous- SOLs (Score:3, Informative)
In general, a plainitff is allowed to amend a complaint for errors in the complaint, and have those amendmends reach back to the orignal filing date for SOL purpose. Courts (at least in my Circuit), however, have ruled that the practice of naming John Does for unknown defendnats is not an "error", and therefore, ameneding the complaint with the person's name does track back to the filing date for the SOL--See Aslandis v. US Lines Inc or Barrow v. Wehtersfieddl Polic department. (I just had to research this -IANAL, IAA paralegal on his way to law school)
So, you break the law, either by trading copyriighted files or rapig someone. You are i danger of a lawsuit until your SOL expires. Wether they figure out who you are first and sue you, or sue forst and then figure it out, you still have the same exposure to litigation. In these RIAA cases, I'm guessing the RIAA goes ahead and files anyways to make it easier to obtain subpoenas, plus they get publiciity.
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like a server on Hotline or Carracho:
"By clicking on teh buton yuo have agreed that yuo are not connected to teh gouvernment or any law-enforsement agency or teh riaa. This server is for LEAGAL BACK-UPS ONLEY!!!!!!!!!!"
LimeWire is NOT a network! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:LimeWire is NOT a network! (Score:4, Informative)
3000 down.... (Score:5, Funny)
Quick math tells us that the last user will be sued in January 3335.
In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you *ever* *consider* buying another Britney Spears (RIAA-represented) cd if a member of your family, a friend, or a neighbour was sued?
I for one welcome our new free music overlords and only listen to alternative music: trance, rock, whatever. It's there, just as good (even better!) and ready to be explored. I have over 30 GB (!) of mp3's in my shared folder, and run 30+ radio webcast stations, with solely music not represented by the RIAA. I'm still waiting for the subpoena so I can countersue for battery or slander!
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
This excuse keeps coming up, and it's starting to get on my nerves. Just because the record company who's stuff you're copying isn't part of the RIAA, it doesn't make it legal for you to distribute their material. Sure, they might not be sending rabid lawyers after you, but most record companies (even non-RIAA ones) don't take too kindly to you freely giving out the material they sell.
Copying Music in new formats (Score:5, Funny)
Don't hum that tune in public! (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law is completely out of touch with physical reality, technology, and our culture (and indeed it actively stifles the latter two).
An example of how rediculous copyright law is, and how artists as well as the industry have grown used to double dipping. It isn't enough to cell the CD, they want to get paid every time it is played in a restaraunt or bar. It is even illegal to play the radio in a restaurant or bar
But, what is often unremarked about these absurd laws, is that a person humming a copyrighted tune as they walk down the street is technically breaking the same law, giving a "public performance" without a license. As is the busker on the corner, the teenage garage band when they perform at their local high school, etc.
It really is past the time when we as a society should have repudiated the very notion that one can "own" ideas (patents) or their expressions (copyright). A far less draconian mechanism for reimbursing artists for their work needs to be devised, something that insures them a portion of the profits made without imposing restrictions on how the work may be incorporated into other aspects of our culture, but most of all, unlike copyright a mechanism that favors artists and culture rather than publishers and middlemen.
A quick example of one of the many such alternatives that have been proposed: a tax on works sold, with a set percentage (say 50%) going directly to the original artist. Anyone can publish your book (and you can't stop them) but you get half the proceeds. As an artist or author you have no control, but you are generously compensated financially.
It really is time we as a society started thinking outside the box on this issue, if we wish to have any kind of viable, free society left in the information age, and wish to do so in a manner that benefits artists and fans, rather than consortia of parasitical middlemen such as the RIAA (and more to the point, their attorneys).
Re:Don't hum that tune in public! (Score:3, Insightful)
But, I don't think that is how music copyrights work. While it may SEEM that way considering how most "musicians" can't read musical notation, instead they use those guitar chord notations, TIME is an essential part of music.
Every possible combination of actual notes is only a small part of music. You have the time measurement for each note (1/8th note, 1/4 note), you have the dynamic range(forte, piano), you have the style of the note(muted, tremolo, vibrato, staccato), all in addition to a wide range of octaves (10 on a piano for instance), and the use of chords.
When you consider all of these factors, you realize there is a near infinite number of different combinations of music out there. Maybe this is why people still dig it.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a great page on musical terminology.
What about CD owners? (Score:4, Interesting)
For me personally, I've sometimes downloaded songs from CDs I because 1) it's sometimes faster than ripping it myself, 2) the CD is scratched or broken, or 3) I still have the case but the CD itself was stolen. Would downloading an MP3 of a song from a CD I rightfully purchased make me a pirate?
Re:What about CD owners? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you had purchased the CD/record that would be illegal.
Re:What about CD owners? (Score:5, Funny)
$ echo "deltree
It would be a little funnier if the command would work. It should be either for double quotes: As you have it now the shell would wait for a terminating " . Or simpler with single quotes:
Re:What about CD owners? (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree that this is subject to some limitations, it's still a very broad, overarching right that is counter to the earlier claim that a single backup copy of damn near anything is legal.
Would anyone care to show an exception to 106 that does permit a single backup copy of damn near anything? And I should caution you that you cannot make valid blanket statements as to what is and is not permitted by 107.
Representation (Score:5, Informative)
"According to the study, 60 percent of those surveyed do not believe the RIAA's efforts to halt file sharing through lawsuits will benefit musicians and songwriters.
Additionally, 35 percent believe free downloading has helped their careers, 37 percent believe it has not had any effect and only 5 percent believe it has exclusively hurt their careers. Of those interviewed, 83 percent have provided free samples of their music online."
The artists are merely pawns (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me, the biggest pirates are the executives. Litigating consumers is just a way of deflecting attention from the fact that consumers are tired of getting ripped off for buying $20 CDs worth only $2 and that the studio executives are worried about losing their profits. The real victims in the litigation are the artists.
losing the music-war (Score:5, Insightful)
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
I call bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Of all the justification attempts for copyright infringement, this one grates on me the worst.
If you want to listen to a certain song, you currently have several LEGAL options:
A. Buy the album (or single if available) on CD.
B. Purchase the song from an online distributor like iTunes.
C. Listen to it on the radio.
Having no intention to buy the music is NOT a valid defense for copyright infringement. There are lots of people who ARE willing to pay for it, and do so. What makes you so fucking special that you shouldn't have to?
Re:I call bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to listen to a certain song, you currently have several LEGAL options:
A. Buy the album (or single if available) on CD.
Hmm, lets overpay for music, knowing the artist won't get any of the money anyway, and buy 13 songs I don't want to get one I do.
B. Purchase the song from an online distributor like iTunes.
This is overpaying even more than a CD, you pay the same price as a CD costs for the music, but get no CD, booklet, or Case, and you get many more restrictions on use.
C. Listen to it on the radio.
Most of the good music isn't on the radio. thank you Clear Channel and friends.
Now What???
That's it. (Score:3, Interesting)
I make them look like an ass when they ATTEMPT to sue me, and they lose.
Now IANAL, but any of you lawyers out there wanna tell me if this is worth attempting. I would consult a lawyer first, but do you think I have a case for any kind of damages? I have money to front for a lawsuit if it means a good chance of decent return.
... all is not lost (Score:3, Informative)
Regards,
John
IRS (Score:4, Interesting)
This use to be a big IRS tactic. Go after the guys without the funding to take you on. If the recording industry sued someone with the money and the inclination (sp?) to take them on through a significant series of appeals, then I think that the laws would be changed.
Also, Congress needs to hold hearings on this. The General Accounting Office [GAO], the investigative brance of the Congress, helped get the IRS inline. Now, my personnal feeling about anything being done is that it would be unlikely. (I mean, come on, we call them Congress instead of Progress.) But, just maybe, someone will get a clue.
The RIAA is trying civil court because they know that they can use the 'perponderance of the evidence' to thier own advantage. If they think they are right, let see some criminal charges. Gutless wonders
24 "named" individuals declined to settle (Score:5, Interesting)
Terminology (Score:3, Interesting)
Its the terminology is what gets me. When I was in middle school I used to copy apple
Publicity of RIAA Court Cases (Score:3, Insightful)
So who's right and who's wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now before the hate replies come in, I should mention that I'm all for file-sharing. I think RIAA are a bunch of corrupt bastages who overcharge for their products and services, and underpay the real talent--the entertainers.
I think game design companies charge way too much for a product, which is not neccesarily a corruption, but a misunderstanding of market forces. They feel they have to correct for piracy by charging $50/game, when in fact, there would be a lot more copies sold if they offered the same product for half. But then, that's been said for years.
I think the movie industry...is still quite fair. They churn out movies, $5-8 is a reasonable price to pay for a couple of hours of entertainment. If one does not like what they watch, then at most, an hour's minimum wage is lost. If it happens repeatedly, then they should take advantage of the local library.
Does this mean I'm anti-piracy? No. If you got something for free, and you enjoyed it, then you should then pay for it. Because in America, votes are determined by dollars, not by voices. If you vote (aka "buy") a legit copy of that game/CD/movie that you loved, then you have just voted for more of the same genre/artist/director to be produced. Same goes for everything. Feel free to sample, if you feel you need to. But if you like it, and continue to use it, you have an ethical obligation to buy.
That said, free sampling aside, piracy and distribution of copywrited material is still illegal, and those who participate in it take that risk willingly. The piper may be a total arsehead (read: RIAA), but that doesn't mean they don't have legal right in this matter.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old. [everything2.com]
Whoa there cowboy (Score:3, Insightful)
The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it.
You are assuming too much here
Perhaps you are right, and they are only suing people that are doing something illegal. I'm not trying to bash you here, or discount what you are saying, but I have not seen any of the evidence in any of these cases (and I'm not talking about the press info, I'm talking about evidence admissable in court)
Cases are brought, and settled everyday because one party or the other feels it would cost less to settle than to pay legal fees. It may very well be that all of these people are doing something illegal & probably most are, but what about the couple that might not be. Only a court can determine legality, and if someone settles solely due to their financial situation, there is no way to know.
My T-Shirt sez: (Score:5, Funny)
Mistaken Idenities... (Score:3, Interesting)
There seems to be nothing open and shut about this sort of thing, especially since most people infected by the bagel virus have no idea that they are spammers, will they be prosecuted under the CANSPAM Act?
Where is the line drawn? (Score:3, Insightful)
If i take a song, represent it in binary (create a file out of it), and then just call it a number, can't i tell the court that all i was doing was sending a number to my friend? It's not my fault if the number can be decoded into sound. An artist can't possibly own all the numbers his song could be digitized into!
I can't seems to figure out what is considered an artist's property and what is not. If i walk down the street and sing a tune to myself, can i be sued? Is it different if someone else hears me sing the tune, and then starts singing it themselves?
If i get a song stuck in my head can they do a brain scan and sue me over and over again?
All along the watchtower contains the chord progression Am, G, F, G, Am, and so does Stairway to Heaven (and many other tunes), so what's the deal with this?
Re:Where is the line drawn? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not about fooling anyone. It is the exact opposite in fact. It is a matter of the intrinsic freedom of trading numbers. You cannot claim a number as property becuase it could possibly happen to represent a song in some digital format.
If I were to pull the first 4 bytes from each mp3 frame, then the file could no longer be considered an mp3 or audio file for that matter.
Or furthermore, i could take ANY long string of 1's and 0s and create a player (decoder) that would decode that particular string of numbers into some copywritten work (or something that sounds similar). There is too much gray area.
Re:Where is the line drawn? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure. But that's not what we're talking about. You're saying that you cannot have rights to a number that was specifically chosen because it represents a work. You didn't randomly pick out numbers.
If you copy a work as you describe -- even when you are clever about how you do so -- you're infringing.
Only if you independently create an identical work, without having had access to the earlier instance of the work, would you be okay.
There is no grey area because your intent is always perfectly clear -- to get away with copying something. No court is ever going to side with you.
In Numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
I was always under the impression that if you do something in numbers, that was the safety mechanism. This is a huge concept in nature for survival. 3000 out of millions! My chances of winning the lottery are only slightly worse than my chances of getting sued by the RIAA!
How can the RIAA expect to thwart something that is so widely accepted, and internationally practiced? This is the equivalent of a strike or a boycott. Obviously these lawsuits aren't working very well, and even so, the sharing networks will just end up switching to a closed system like Friendster where 'known parties' will use strong encryption to transmit data.
3000 Ex-Customers (Score:3, Interesting)
Morons.
I'm safe (Score:3, Funny)
Download does not equal lost sale (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought it was a great analogy. I wonder if/when the RIAA will ever get it.
I purchased 21 CDs last month (Score:4, Interesting)
SWING OUT SISTER -- Kaleidoscope World
White Zombie -- Astro-Creep 2000
Alice Cooper -- the eyes of...
GRAVITY KILLS -- Gravity Kills
SNAKEFARM -- Songs From My Funeral
AMANDA GHOST -- Ghost Stories
EVERCLEAR -- Songs From An American Movie
RICKIE LEE JONES -- FLYING COWBOYS
ELECTRIC SWING -- Big Band Crazy
NO DOUBT -- Return Of Saturn
Various Artists -- HOUSE OF BLUES SWINGS
BIG BAD VOODOO DADDY -- This Beautiful Life
CHICAGO -- Night And Day (Big Band)
DUKES AND GANNON -- SIX SHOOTER
PHIL COLLINS -- NO JACKET REQUIRED
DUKE HEITGER AND HIS SWING BAND -- RHYTHM IS OUR BUSINESS
VARIOUS ARTISTS -- THE UNPLUGGED COLLECTION
DON HENLEY -- THE END OF THE INNOCENCE
ANGEL CITY -- Face To Face
XFILES SOUNDTRACK
VARIOUS ARTISTS -- SKA WARS
take that RIAA!!!!
I hope i get sued... (Score:3, Interesting)
Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
Now there is a lot of stuff to be worked out with this method. And it would make a criminal out of everyone(for breaking encryption) but the kind of people who download music for free don't seem to care about that sort of thing(though I'm not saying downloading music is a criminal act).
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
But, creating an encrytption scheme that would use DMCA as protection is a good idea. Possibly license the encryption method so that it cannot be used to track user habits or something.
Bah! (Score:3, Funny)
You missed again, motherfsckers!
Its all about evolution... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Instead of discouraging me from sharing my music, why don't they encourage me to buy. It comes down to the same end result and this way, I don't feel attacked.
2. Its all about evolution.
History is a good teacher to prove us that if a company does not evolve, it will die. if you cannot understand / satisfy your clients, you will perish or be bought.
RIAA's model hasn't evolved from when RIAA was created at all. Back then, there was no internet, thus, the market was different.
Today, RIAA hasn't evolved one bit, they're still acting as though there was no internet, as though they had no opponent.
But they do have one opponent : Evolution. They need to update their business model so that they stop losing money when we share music.
As sad as it is for them, today, I can find most of the music I want on the internet, so why would I buy a CD ?
for two reasons
1. I really like the band and I think they deserve some money
2. The CD offers me something I cannot get on the internet.
For instance, a local artist (Francois Pérusse - http://www.zeromusic.com/perusse/) includes a small membership card with every CD, that membership gives access to a protected section where you can listen to stuff not available on the market such as unreleased material
That's one reason why I would buy his CD..and I do.
Sadly, many companies today refuse to evolve, they refuse because it'll cost them money, they'll need to change.
What they do not seem to realize is that everyday they remain as they are is another day where they lose even more money trying to stop us...and in the end, they never do.
Just my 2c.
Sue the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
It would be a boon to cutting the RIAA down to size if these artists sued the RIAA.
It would be hilarious to read about the RIAA suing people for stealing music while they would be under litigation for doing the same.
It might just embarrass them enough to stop, but even if they continued in their historical stupidity it would definately poison their public image enough to reduce their influence.
Steve
Excellent point (Score:4, Interesting)
www.allofmp3.com completely thwarts the RIAA while still paying the artists a modest sum (probably comparable to what the RIAA pays them).
$0.01 / megabyte download (pennies per song, less than $0.50 per album), perfectly legal (all RIAA propoganda and misinformation aside), and none of the money goes to fund these lawsuits. Even better, a portion goes to the actual artists directly -- a requirement of Russian copyright law.
Legal, so cheap it is almost free, and it absolutely thwarts the RIAA's ability to even think about suing anyone.
Re:Excellent point (Score:5, Informative)
If it is downloading, then that means that a new copy is being created in the US, and that's infringing. Even if it were construed as importation (which it is not) then it is still infringing as it is pretty damn likely a piratical copy by US standards, regardless of the situation in Russia. Take a look at 17 USC 106, 602, the MAI v. Peak case, and the Quality King case.
The bottom line is, you cannot expect foreign legal standards to apply within the US. It's like arguing that the US' First Amendment protects foreigners from foreign governments.
Re:Excellent point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, the intent is to minimize new bees joining the hive, while at the same time through intimidation reduce the members of the hive contributing productively.
In the end they hope the hive will starve off from lack of contributors (sharers).
I Pre-Apologize for the extended use of a bad analogy, but I just couldn't resist :-p
Re:Whew! Still safe! (Score:5, Insightful)
Once a system is entrenched (like RIAA in the copyright system) it is basically impossible to reform it from within. You have to leverage to reform the system because the people in power built it with their own interested in mind and have no incentive to consider other possibilities. The only hope the average man has is to eventually cause enough ruckus to bring the problem to a head and force the change. That is what is happening now with file swapping, but I fear there will be a lot of dead bodies littering the field (metaphorically speaking I hope) before this battle is over.
Re:Whats up with this? (Score:3, Informative)
When you borrow a book -- or whatever -- from the library, it is an instance of a lawful copy of the work being distributed. While this could be illegal per 17 USC 106, it is not when you take into consideration the exception in 109. 109 basically says that it's okay to distribute lawful copies of works, if your posession of them is lawful. Or, more simply, if a copy was bought from the copyright holder, it can be resold, lent out, and otherwise redistributed to people.
OTOH, when you download the text of a book, you are creating a new copy, and that does violate 17 USC 106. As there's typically no applicable exception to it that could protect you, you're hosed.
Will video games, or other pieces of software ever be legal to borrow from the local library?
The trick with this is that when you run or install software, copies are typically made in the process. There is an exception at 117, but the way it's written doesn't make it very applicable to that situation. Plus of course, there are numerous questions regarding EULAs that altogether make things too hairy for libraries to risk it.
Are libaries legal only if run by the government?
No -- there are numerous private libraries, some of great distinction.
Are only non-profit libraries legal?
No, but it helps to be a non-profit library. For-profit libraries don't receive the benefit of some exemptions to the law. But they do exist. Movie rental stores are probably the most well known example.
Could I open my OWN library and let people borrow my CDs and books?
Books, yes. CDs, it might depend, when you get into the guts of 109.
Uploading, not downloading (Score:5, Informative)
However, in both these cases - the producers downloading, and the CD-owning user downloading - the person uploading is guilty of copyright infringement, since they do not have distribution rights. Thus, the uploader, provided they aren't the distribution house or the artist, is committing a crime, and it's the uploaders that the RIAA is going after.
Now, it so happens that to prevent leeching, Kazaa, Gnutella, Limewire, etc. all put your downloads into a "shared" folder for uploading... so if you download something, you're uploading it too. The RIAA uses this to publicize that they're going after "downloaders" rather than "uploaders", but the truth is that they can only find uploaders.
To be safe, leech. It's not nice to the rest of the community, but 'no honor among thieves' and whatnot.
Not that I do either.
-T
What if you upload just a portion? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why am I bringing this up? Well, say if you broke down the size to even smaller amounts, like 1/1000000th (Dr. Evil pinky to mouth)? Digital data is nothing more than a series of zero's and one's. If you break it down small enough, the series of zero and one's become so common that it cannot be considered a unique segment. In other words, the 1/1000000th digital piece that I'm uploading could be part of Britney Spears' new song or it could be part of Jules Verne's novel in the public domain, the onus is up to the RIAA to prove otherwise. I'm sure my logic is erroneous somewhere, someone prove me wrong.
Re:Why is everyone getting this wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, but for the wrong reasons.
They're publicizing that they're suing downloaders to scare people - 'cause most people don't say "I'm gonna go upload some music", they say "I'm gonna go download some music". Those are the people they're trying to scare.
Anyways, as for downloading not being illegal, yes and no. If you own the physical CD, it is legal to format shift it onto your computer... Whether that means you stick the CD in your drive and rip it, or download the tracks from Kazaa, both are legal methods of format shifting. However, if you do not own the CD, then you are not authorized to format shift if you don't own the source material. It ends up being legally equivalent to 'buying stolen goods' - you bought the goods and paid money for them, but if you knew they were stolen originally (or could strongly suspect), then you are guilty too.
Since the only people with rights to upload the tracks legally are the artists (sometimes) and the distribution houses, and almost no artists do so and no distribution houses do, it's highly likely that your source is uploading it illegally. Knowing that, your downloading is not legal...
Unless, as said before, you have the physical CD. Then it's legal, 'cause it doesn't matter where you get the format-shifted version.
So, the moral of the story is... go buy all of your downloaded music on CD in cash the moment you receive a subpoena. Since the only way they can catch you is if you're also uploading, use the virus defense to say that you never clicked a "upload my music" button and it must be a virus. And here's the CDs to prove that you own the music.
200 CDs costs a lot less than a lawyer or a $5k settlement. Buy 'em used, too!
(Not that I condone any of this, of course) ;)
-T
Re:Why is everyone getting this wrong? (Score:3, Informative)
"Anyways, as for downloading not being illegal, yes and no. If you own the physical CD, it is legal to format shift it onto your computer... Whether that means you stick the CD in your drive and rip it, or download the tracks from Kazaa, both are legal methods of format shifting."
The original Napster tried this argument, as well. It didn't work in their case. Here's an excellent summary [ivanhoffman.com].
Re:Why is everyone getting this wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Similarly, it should not be my responsibility if someone downloads a file from me that they are not entitled to.
That argument may work for non-copyrightable items, but this is like saying that just because you xeroxed a bestselling novel and put the copies on a table on Times Square, you shouldn't be responsible for people taking them. The important fact is that by providing the copy, you are facilitating the distribution of copyrighted works.