RIAA Hands out more Lawsuits 689
Syrae writes "The RIAA has unleashed yet another round of copyright infringement lawsuits against 754 people. Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of. I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
Stop right there. (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.
Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal. Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights, and anyone would have to be blind not to understand why they feel this is in their best interest.
As the submitter conceded, they're making an example.
Re:Stop right there. (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA doesn't care about the legality of file sharing, they care about making money. If file sharing actually made them money (as submitter is trying to suggest) then it would be a poor business practice to attempt to stop it.
Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights [...]
Only because Congress gave them that right, which is a little
Re:Stop right there. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots. Hundreds of millions, maybe.
How many of those fileshare (some) illegal "stuff" ?
Most of them, for sure. Even if it's only ONE music file that doesn't belong there, that's still illegal. Not necessarily imoral, but illegal.
Now, on to the "making some money" part...
IF (by some cosmic accident) it suddendly becomes LEGAL to share with the world everything you ever bought (or worse, everything you ever downloaded)... imagine how the number of sales would p
Re:Stop right there. (Score:2)
At any rate, there are exceptions to your post. I for instance, have absolutely no fear of ever being punished for my file sharing, yet media (music and videogames, I don't watch movies) is pretty much my only entertainment expense. I still buy music, not because I fear the consequences of coming int
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stop right there. (Score:2)
But of course fiel sharers pay more. They pay about $3000 to settle out fo court.
LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
Not any more, not after the ridiculous penalties.
BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm.
Re:LOL (Score:2)
"BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm."
An interesting question, but not relevant here. The RIAA tends to target the "whales" of file sharing who have thousands of songs in their share directori
Actual vs. Statutory Damages (Score:3, Informative)
You are right in that actual damages have not been shown, and that there is a good probability that these actual damages don't even exist in many of these cases.
However, copyright law is special in that the copyright holder has the option of pursuing statutory damages. As the name implies, these are damages assigned by statute (statute = law created by legislature). The relevant section of the law is pasted below, but these numbers are significant and are per wor
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the study? Or are you trolling?
Well, this particular one deserves an answer regardless, so here it is.
It doesn't necessarily lead to that. It may lead to a prospective customer discovering an unknown band (whose CD they never would've bought or even considered without being able to download risk-free samples), falling in love, buying that band's CD's, T-shirts, and attending their concerts. A nice windfall for the band, AND for the consumer-neither would've known the other existed but for filesharing.
Of course any system will have freeloaders, that want to get out of paying for anything, ever. These are the same people that were borrowing or copying tapes from their friends nonstop. That's been happening for decades, and the sky hasn't fallen yet.
Re:LOL (Score:2)
I'm not saying your logic is incorrect (or correct) but reading the "study" shows that it's not quite as general as the submitter believes.
Re:LOL (Score:2)
Your point is valid. However, CD's are the "old" medium, just as cassette tapes and records were decades ago, and will be naturally phased out in favor of the new-digital distribution. That will happen over a period of years, after all, people still own vinyl records! But very few seek to buy them anymore, and they are certainly not the source of anyone's profits. Cassette tapes still can be purchased, but again, are not the source of profits.
In the meantime, sure, CD's might remain a profit source, but u
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
But the other two are the interesting ones - a friend uploaded me a bunch of mp3s during a lan party a few years ago. In this mix were two non-mainstream bands, Opeth and Soilwork. You can't hear them on the radio, and it's only been in
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, do you think you can ask a more loaded question? Can I ask you one then? Are you saying that it is alright to enact laws that the majority of people don't want? Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
I am... Democracy is not mob rule! You logic can be applied to civil rights just as easily... why should minorities have the right to vote if most people don't want them to?
Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government.
Copyright is a good example of the government defending the rights of the individual against the desire of the masses to simply take. It isn't comparable to the war on drugs.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you think?
Re:LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
Jesus, no it isn't. If I dig holes all day it doesn't mean I have an inalienable right to profit from it. What's the missing factor here? That's right, someone who is willing to pay me!
If there is no copyright, and copying of electronic media is essentially effortless and free, how then do content creators profit from their labours?
The same way everyone else does, by entering into contracts of mutual agreement. Ya know, the honest
Re:LOL (Score:2)
It's hardly pirating music when the media company freely sold the media to the consumer.
I feel no pity for media companies anymore. If they're worried about people stealing cable television, how about deactivating the wires carrying the signal? If they can't secure their product on the front end that is THEIR problem, not mine. Would you feel sorry for a car dealership which left the keys in the door locks of all its cars, overnigh
Re:LOL (Score:2)
Copyright, and for that matter intellectual property law in all its forms are obsolete. They cause harm to society. Therefore, it goes beyond "alright". You have a moral obligation to pirate music and steal cable rather than paying for it, because if you do pay for it, you're a contributing factor in the harm that it does.
How does it cause harm? Well, it goes like this:
As time goes on, the number of people i
case details? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just curious
I would complain about my tax money going to pay for these cases in court but you only ever hear of debt collection agencies calling those in the suits now...
Re:case details? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:case details? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not a lawyer either, but that's not the case. The RIAA need a court order, which is the same as the police do. It is not a trial, the standard is not "guilty/not guilty" (criminal) or even "preponderance of evidence" (civil), it is "reasonable suspicion". US police used to have to do the same to get subscriber information until the Patriot act, most western
Re:case details? (Score:3, Informative)
Witch hunt (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when did the RIAA care about the facts? They're not a morality organization, their only purpose is to generate revenue. Just like the SPA, MPAA, etc., these things start up as corporations run by high-powered attorneys. It's a great way to justify the existence of such an organization to the labels. As most people are already aware, the music industry wouldn't be what it is today without online file sharers who spend wads of cash buying legal music they ended up liking. Not trying to flame in the least bit - but why is everyone so surprised that an organization like this is defying all reason to pursue a bottom line?
never ending downward spiral (Score:2, Interesting)
So these people stop spending in order to cover court costs, fees, pissed off, etc.
RIAA notices that less people are spending money on music (it must be the filesharers) so they sue more people.
Futility? (Score:5, Interesting)
At first glance, this would seem futile.
From TFA:
The world's major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed more than 14,000 such lawsuits since September 2003.
This is an infinitesimal percent of filesharers, estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions. For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now.
Really, though, I don't think it is. I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots. They have gotten away with massively unethical practices for a very long time, and idiots don't do that.
This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal. They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports. This is true despite the fact that they are consistently releasing garbage. But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach.
Re:Futility? (Score:2)
"For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now."
You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?
"I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untru
Open WAP (Score:4, Interesting)
What's to stop the defendant from claiming that they didn't download the files? If you run a WAP, there is virtually no way (short of them seizing your PC) for them to prove that you actually downloaded the files.
With most techno-idiot judges, just claim the "hackers" used your wireless access point to download the files.
Re:Open WAP (Score:3, Informative)
Lying under oath could land one in jail. I bet the RIAA would pay for investigators to try to find evidence of perjury and turn over the evidence to the US attorney for criminal prosecution.
Re:Open WAP (Score:3, Insightful)
No, an IP address is being sued for uploading. There is no proof that a specific person used an IP address to upload.
I'm on a 100% music CD boycott (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody who does not agree with the RIAA's current actions, should do the same: Vote with your wallet.
I am, but may I suggest doing even more (Score:3, Informative)
The reason to do this is not just to get yourself music you enjoy
Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott (Score:2)
You have a point. CD's are (still) free of DRM. What else can one do to protest, though?
Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott (Score:2, Interesting)
Back in the day, sharing was normal (Score:5, Insightful)
If you liked it, you went out and bought it. Now before you say, "Yeah, but digital lasts forever". Nope, CDs get scratched, p0rn sites unleash system infecting bots to delete, etc.
Have to say it... (Score:3, Funny)
1. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/30/1
2. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/30/17392
3. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/25/13182
etc...
I'm one of the 754. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm one of the 754. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm one of the 754. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm one of the 754. (Score:3, Funny)
Judging by all the rationalizations for copyright infringement listed on Slashdot every time the RIAA is mentioned, I can't imagine why you'd feel that way.
Can they be any more stupid (Score:2)
Oh, and just in case the RIAA or MPAA or some other -AA organization sees this and wants to come after me... well I was never read my rights. Sorry. Fine away.
PDA & Smartphone Optimized Sites [mobileoptimized.com]
Replacing my laptop with a Treo [mobileoptimized.com]
Perhaps the RIAA is simply better at data analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
The study was no surprise. I've pirated music in the past. Today, I spend about $30 a month on the iTMS. My grandmother has never pirated music. She spends no money online for music. This is because she does not own a PC.
Folks who've used file sharing software tend to buy music because they are Internet-savvy and they like music. Copyright infringement is not a prerequisite for buying music online! The important corelations are having a computer, familiarity with the Internet, and an appreciation for getting music via their PC. The music industry can find plenty of people who fall into that category without also falling into the "putting thousands of files into their share directory" category that tends to make people ripe for legal action.
The record industry has acknowledged that they are using a "carrot and stick" approach toward curbing piracy. Apple has just sold their 50 millionth track, and the online music industry is still growing logarithmically. Their approach seems to be working just fine.
lost sales (Score:2, Insightful)
So damages are what, $3 a month? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So damages are what, $3 a month? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, not exactly. These people are being sued for their *distribution* of pirated music. So, if 1000 people downloaded tracks from the sharer, then that's 1000 $5 subscriptions that RIAA lost -- at least, that is what they claim in court. And t
Woohoo! 14,000 so far! (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, strong arm business tactics are alive and well. They never really left you know. Every great change in technology brought about decades worth of suffering of the people while the boneheaded ones finally benefitted in the end! Fair? Nope, not in the slightest. Who said life was fair?
Puts a tear in me eye it does. *sniff*
-FlynnMP3
supply and demand factor not accounted (Score:5, Interesting)
We are in the midst of another artificially high "fuel crisis" where any change in the weather, good or bad, somehow means they need to raise the price of fuel. If there was truly a supply problem, the profits of the companies on the supply side wouldn't be earning record high profits. In the US, this is an illegal pricing tactic and somehow it's not being prosecuted... maybe because the US president has strong interests in the oil industry. I recall the fuel crisis of about 20+ years ago and how it ended... and more importantly, WHY it ended. It ended when alternative fuels started to catch on -- specifically "gasahol." It was really soon after gasahol started flowing from the pumps that the fuel crisis came to an inexplicable end, but before that time, it didn't prevent the supply side from doing everything it could to rape its customers.
Back on topic, however, I see a demand for lower cost (read: better value) and the general responses we are seeing. We see what I consider to be "civil disobedience" even if it's technically not the correct expression for this situation. I don't consider it to be criminal as much as I consider it to be an expression that the supply side simply wants too much for something that is considered to have value... just not enough value to the people who would sooner get music this way.
The RIAA's hostile response will be the fuel of change... change they will not like. Just as gasahol started to threaten the fuel industry, independants and online trade will flourish at the RIAA's expense no matter HOW many victims they claim. There will be no "lawsuit into submission."
RIAA would do well to listen to history. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, the RIAA continues to defy reality and believe that suing its customers will bring them back (damn, how many times you gotta BOMB people to make 'em stop HATING you?) when people are faced with an alternative source of music (illegal or not) that is more convenient, better suited to getting them what they want, and cheaper (either free or $1.00 a song).
Unfortunately, I doubt that even the RIAA is so stupid or stupefyingly myopic that they can't see this, so I conclude that it's not about money. They want to be able to control you. They want control what you can listen to. They want to be able to stop anything new they can't pimp to enrich themselves.
They are scared to death of the internet. They hate the idea that I can could pay $12-14 for 12-14 tracks of music that I know I like, as opposed to 2 good songs and 12 pieces of filler because that would force them to put out the effort to create more good music. They hate the idea of something that can be replicated with no physical effort, because those who make money off pressing CDs will be destroyed by it if they don't adapt. They are scared of change, and intent on pulling as many people down as they can.
There's no question that the RIAA will be destroyed by the Internet. The only question is how many people with will take down with them.
Oh it scarews them for more reasons than that (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, pre
big diff between phys and IP (Score:4, Insightful)
It is literally, literally, comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit, both are sweet, but they look and taste COMPLETLEY different. You wouldn't call them the same thing. Those people who are comparing it to people stealing a car/CD/etc. are the same people who believe that the RIAA is telling the truth when they say they've lost "xxx Billion Dollars in Sales" from those internet pirates.
Of Course They Saw The Study (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course "they" saw the study. They're a huge association and I'd be shocked if the collective staff from all the member companies hadn't read every study ever written about music piracy. However "they" simply don't care. The RIAA's not concerned that pirates also purchase music because their profits aren't significantly affected by that tiny proportion of buyers. The RIAA's greatest fear is that if they turn a blind eye to the pirates then the practise of copying music will be legitimised in the eyes of the vast majority of their customers, aka normal people, and that the majority of customers will stop buying music.
And that's why the RIAA uses pathetic copy prevention schemes, laughable studies and random lawsuits. They're not trying to convince YOU to stop copying. They know YOU will see through the bullshit and YOU will go to extreme lengths to circumvent the copy prevention. They know YOU are both incredibly smart (techwise) but also so lacking in common sense that you will risk having a criminal record to avoid spending $5 on a pressed CD from the bargain bin. They know YOU will spend countless hours reading websites and installing obscure software to get illegitimate copies of music.
However YOU are not the target of all their efforts. They're trying to convince the other 99% of the population that copying music isn't worth the effort. And they're using several techniques in a "shotgun" approach to do that. They're using scare tactics, "copy and you'll be sued", and appeals to emotion, "copy music and little Jimmy will starve to death", and appeals to decency, "copying is plain immoral", and technical barriers to copying that thwart 99% of people, "don't hold down the shift key", and stomping out networks like Napster so the digital copies that are made by smarter pirates aren't widely circulated.
There will always be criminals. The RIAA knows they can't stop them all. But they can deter the rest of the population from becoming criminals as well.
Replacing my stolen CD collection (Score:3, Interesting)
Since then I have managed to replace many of the CDs which were physically STOLEN from me, which I once rightfully owned and paid retail price for. I have a box full of album sleeves and cover art to prove it.
I don't think I'm stealing anything whatsoever by downloading replacement copies of CDs I used to own. I'm not sure I am even guilty of copyright infringement. I used to have a right to play all that music, whenever I pleased. Was that right somehow erased when my car was broken into?
I wonder if my entire CD collection had instead been washed away in a hurricane or destroyed by fire. If we are to believe the RIAA stance that I owned a "license to listen", I would hope that physical loss of my actual media permits me to re-acquire and re-create that media using filesharing.
So Let's Take 'Em On! (Score:4, Insightful)
For a few bucks each, we can help make RIAA's life a living hell.
Good entertainment value there!
Share only free music and RIAA will die. (Score:3, Interesting)
Share only free music and they cannot hurt you. With free music you give free publicity to unknown's and locals, and, more importantly, to those who are giving their stuff for free.
There is enough free music out there that we simply don't need "big media" record industry or anything that it sells.
If people would wake up to that, the RIAA would deservedly die off like the embodiment of greed that it is.
The problem with the RIAA... (Score:5, Interesting)
The movie itself on DVD: $14.97
The Matrix: Original Motion Picture Score [SOUNDTRACK]: $16.98
So, just the music part of the audio, not even the spoken words of the actors costs $2.01 more than the Digital Video, Audio in Dolby 5.1, Bonus Features, and all, of the DVD version.
Audio CD albums should generally be sold for $5 in little cheap cardboard sleeves
At the current insane prices I have bought 1 boxed set of CD's for $20 in the last year. If they cut their prices to $5 I would probably buy at least 1 CD a week. It's pretty simple, at 1/5 the profit per disc, but selling 50 times as many discs, profits multiply by 10.
Music stores would have much higher sales volume and albums would go 'gold' and 'platinum' a lot quicker. The main problem I forsee is the waste produced by making CD's more disposable, but that could be solved by a good recycling program.
As handy as iTunes might be, there is a good quote; "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes"; a truckload of CD's heading to the music store is a more efficent than pumping bits through the internet.
Re:The problem with the RIAA... (Score:3, Interesting)
Take another example:
DVD -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 08PX8P/102-9694362-0748148?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846 &vi=tech-info [amazon.com]
CD -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 08OWZC/qid=1125589192/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9694 362-0748148?v=glance&s=music&n=507846#product-deta ils [amazon.com]
The DVD is two disks which have a total play time of 314 minutes of phenominal video and audio in multiple formats. I own
RIAA and all your legalese is irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
Musicians want their music heard. Whether or not they get paid, they want their music heard. Some musicians, and bands, PAY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET for air time on local radio stations.
Downloading an mp3, even if it's from a known musician is NOT stealing. I don't give a hoot what you think the law says, or what it actually says for that matter. The law in this regard is supposed to reflect the feelings of the composers and performers... now, take this scenerio...
You approach Madonna, and say, "Wow, I've listened to all your songs and I'm a huge fan." Hell will freeze over before Madonna demands proof of purchase, or even ask, "Did you buy my CDs or did you just sit by a radio all day long?" About the ONLY thing we might hear a musician pitch is, "Oh, the T-Shirt stand is over there..."
As a musician myself. I will NEVER accept any notion saying that downloading an mp3 is either wrong, or illegal. I'll tell a judge to his face that he and his court is insignificant and irrelevant, without acute vision of the issue at hand then walk the hell out of the court room.
Well, thats just bullshit... (Score:3, Insightful)
I happen to run a free internet radio program so I have the honor of talking to a fairly wide variety of musicians, most of which are happy to do what they can to get their music heard (I'm not doing the site for profit so I ask permission to play the tracks sans royalties, etc; bandwidth already
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
New ways of thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Framing the debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Really. Unlicensed copying is not theft. Nor is personal downloading piracy. Piracy, in matters of copyright, is when you sell unlicensed copies of a work, thereby denying the authorized publisher and the author revenue from customers who without question would have made a purchase, as they purchased it from you. Congress has never passed a law explicitly criminalizing personal downloading, and if they actually intended for a law which provides for $250,000 fines to apply to copying a $15 CD, once, then that law would certainly fail the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. This isn't just me talking, you'll see comments to this effect in several judicial rulings related to copyright infringement.
I'm seeing comments in this thread trying to compare the freeloaders to people who actually break into someone's house and steal their stuff. That's not what's going on here at all. The recording industry has engaged in a long term effort to brainwash us all into believing that it is a matter of natural law that we do not have the right to copy information. In fact, the clause in the constitution explicitly permitting copyrights and patents reflect that those who crafted the constitution saw that as a matter of natural law we should be able to do whatever we please with our information, and Congress had to be explicitly authorized to restrict this. Copying can be fair use, or it can be civil or criminal infringement.
So, why are they trying to crack down on the very same downloading that's driving revenue? It's all about power. They want to control everything you do with their content. They want to ram DRM down your throat so far that you can't play any content that they or their allies have not (cryptographically) signed, which implies any content produced by someone they have not contractually signed. Extreme laws are passed only in response to perceived emergencies, so they're creating an emergency.
Would you like to know a secret? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The MPAA and RIAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
3. ...lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright. ...can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.
How many fuckin' times do we have to tell you?
STOP CALLING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT THEFT!
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, no court in the world will convict you of theft for breaching copyright. Yes, yes, we know, violating copyright is against the law, but the law doesn't call it theft. Neither should we. Really, calling a copyright violator a thief is probably slander, and therefore punishable by law.
We (who don't call it theft) don't need to justify our position. If you are going to call it theft, please reference for us even one legal code that refers to copyright infringement as theft. Or lacking that, perhaps a moral or religious teaching to justify calling copyright violators theives (We may not agree with it, but it would at least provide a reason for you to say it). If you can't find even one reference in law or commonly accepted moral/religious teaching to justify calling copyright infringement theft, then perhaps you ought to stop. Think about it.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
The U.S.Code defines copyright infringement as a felony. WWW.CYBERCRIME.GOV [cybercrime.gov]. Which is all that matters to your mates at Club Fed.
In the popular mind, legal words of art have no great place and all crimes against property, including intangible property, are seen as a form of theft. The association
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable
30 seconds of previewage isn't at all adequate for prog or trance, but.. whatever... just had to mention that.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I could preview the whole song at reduced quality or something. There are a number of songs that I've bought but wish I could "take back". If I could listen all the way through I would probably buy more music.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, I'm saying the specious claims are not limited to the P2P defenders in this conflict.
Also, by your line of thinking, you can also make the connection that piracy isn't affecting sales at all for music in general, because those who engage in P2P infringement are among the targeted group who purchase the CDs anyway, and that is the RIAA's most lucrative demographic. So by that assumption, perhaps the quality of releases does have more of an adverse effect on sales, rather than the specter of "piracy" that simply is trumpeted so sell the general public a bill of goods ("it's better if we control your computer, because those evil bastard pirates are going to hack you!") But that's another line of discussion.... I digress.
Besides, I left my tinfoil hat in my car... I can't go into that line of conspiracy thinking without it.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't really think harm matters, I just think that morally a copyright holder, who has gone to the bother of creating music or other intellectual property (or paid someone else to make it) should have the right to limit the distribution of that
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's start with a basic premise that everyone (who's sane) agrees upon: People who create the work need to be properly compensated for it, but they aren't entitled to take all of society to the cleaners over it. Fair enough? I think so. This
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is more the situation in question with music. This "music", mostly of arguably poor quality, drenches the airwaves in a fashion that is free to the consumer. The RIAA doesn't make a penny off of most of this
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Since the mods aren't descriptive enough, I'll explain that the reason you're about the be modded overrated is not that you've expressed an unpopular opinion, it's just that there's no "giant logic flaw" mod.
A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong. There are good reasons that it's not good to download the stuff, but comparing it to swiping materials is just going to make you look dumb to the majority of Slashdot.
Most of the pay for networks give you the ability to preview music right? Sure it's often a small clip of it (itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable)
That must be some awfully repetitive music you listen to if 30 seconds is enough.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's ok. The majority of Slashdot seems to think copying a song without permission is no big deal. But when a company copies Linux and releases it without the source, then it's a HUGE deal.
Gotta love the hypocrisy.
(disclaimer: Yes, I know Slashdot has a lot of different folks on it and not all share those same set of views at the sa
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will you please think about the reality of the situation for once? Spare me the holier-than-thou "it's the law" junk. The reality is this: if the media companies were so darn concerned with their intellectual property then they should control the distribution on the front end by whatever means they feel they can implement profitably. This business about suing customers after the point of sale is ridiculous.
I will emphasize again, for the millionth time: Face reality. Once the media company sells something to me then it is mine and I will do with it whatever I darn well please. If they don't like it they're free to not sell it to me in the first place. Once they've sold this music to the masses, however, I no longer feel any pity for them. No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day.
Whatever you darn well please? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how this analogy applies to the RIAA and MPAA. They are not all-powerful, even among huge corporate interests, and certainly not in our government. Just because things are going their way right now doesn't mean that the slow mechanisms of representative government won't eventually force them to acquiesce.
Once the media com
Re:Whatever you darn well please? (Score:5, Insightful)
The music was legally sold to a customer. That customer chose to share something which they bought ownership of. If the music industry wants to deal in rentals then they should make that clear at the point of sale.
As for fair use and copyright law: The federal government, the primary author of copyright law, is empowered by a single document: The Constitution. In this document, the rights are reserved to the individual authors and inventors. Rights are inalienable. You cannot sell or transfer your Constitutional rights. Admittedly, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of court cases where incompetent attorneys and incompetent judges have breached this natural law. But let's hold true to natural law and how the Constitution implements it.
What part of modern copyright law does anything to secure rights to the individual authors, inventors, and creators? At last glance, copyright law seems to do everything possible to give the established companies the upper hand in swindling those rights away.
Consider two statements: "I can sell my rights to RCA for $XYZ, which is enough to pay rent and buy food, or I can continue to take my chances at the local pub'n'grill and possibly be homeless in a few months."
"I can sell my rights to King George and his men for a pittance which will allow me to keep my farmland and my home, or I can resist and they can burn the whole thing to the ground."
Current copyright law is the newer, kinder, gentler extortion... and nothing more.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the music companies feel like they're being ripped off they're free to screen their customers more carefully. If they sell the product to the customers then they have no legitimate control over what the customers do with the product. This is a well known fact. This is not something that can be solved by suing customers after the fact. Face reality.
Go to some venture capitalists and tell them,"I have a great idea for a new product. There's one problem: the product is easily
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
My biggest reason for sharing is that it is sharing. It is not stealing. It is not taking something that will deprive another person of ownership. When I share a CD with a friend, you are not loosing anything. The artists are not loosing anything. The only one with a paranoia of loosing money is the Corporate executives. And the only thing the suits are loosing is sleep, hair, and customers who they disfranchise.
In the USA we have the right of free speech. Often, some of the most insightful ideas come from music. What was the history of the 1960's? What happened. What was the mood of the people. You can find out in the music. Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival told you more about the Vietnam war than Nixon did in any speech.
This is the USA, not China. What will the USA do? Tax ideas? If you want to share this piece of music then you must pay $15 for the CD or $30 a month to download something you won't own, a file that will play today but not tomorrow?
If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars.
No matter what grass roots campaign you start, or how good of a candidate you find, we the people can NEVER win. The establishment uses money to buy votes. Why does a Senate seat cost 5+ million dollars?? How can Joe Sixpack, everyman, ever get elected to high office? Instead you get Senators that have debts to pay to those who contributed money. And guess where the money comes from? Corporations. So when the head of the RIAA or Sony calls Senator Hatch, guess what Senator Hatch does? He listens and votes. Guess what happens when Joe Sixpack calls Senator Hatch. Not a damn thing.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, Steve has been arguing that downloaders are usually not people who steal for the stake of stealing, they steal because they're music junkies who REALLY like the convenience of downloading music.
This means that if you cater to these people, and you give them convenient / reasonable ways to buy music legally, many
Re:Why? (Score:2)
It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. Does it give the right to infringe on copyrights? Not at all. But are the losing money on the the people they are sueing? Not likely.
Think back to the 1980s when VCRs were new. Some pay channels encouraged taping of movies and others took it upon them selfs to dedicate a timeslot for people to set their timmers to record a movie. To the subscriber they got a v
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I'm going to just throw around a few scenarios which I hope will make you ponder your black and white view of copyright.
1. You like a song but not the record label it's on, as it's an RIAA one.
2. You like a song and it's label but you don't have money
3. You disagree with the copyright system in it's current form and are willing to take your chances.
Now here's a few pos
Easy Solution. (Score:2)
Let's put the copyright length down to 5 seconds, then no more 'stealing'.
I might compromise and put it to 10 years but not a day more.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Your bias just swings the other way.
Re:That's not the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's not the point. (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Karma-whoring? Do you really think his position is karma-whoring here on slashdot??
And the fact that he used the common man's verbage and called it stealing is playing word games. Both are breaking the law. Maybe you could argue that infringment is breaking cival law whereas stealing is breaking a criminal code. But as wierd as these times are I don't know if that's true anymore, stricktly speaking.
I don't like seeing copyrighted material being shared via P2P but then I also don't like the way the copyright has been extened over and over so that it never runs out.
Stealing and Copyright infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy makes unwanted duplicates, but otherwise causes no *damage* to the firm. The copies the users make with their own bandwidth costs the company nothing.
So, let's make this analogy. Let's say you find a way to secretly tunnel all the gin you want, for a discounted price, the Cost of Goods Sold. We'll call this 'pirating' gin. You pay COGS and get your gin. The company loses no money.
Now, from the company's perspective, the two are equal. They obviously would like you to buy instead of pirate, and pay retail instead of COGS, but neither is making them *lose* money.
Unless, of course, you all of a sudden, assume they are pirating instead of buying. However, the surveys suggest this is not an accurate model.
Surveys suggest that users pirate music and buy more music than other people. The analogy now would be, that you 'pirate' your gin, then buy two bottles at retail. Compare that to someone else who only buys one bottle.
Despite the fact that you are 'pirating' gin (or music), the company is still better off having you do both.
Obviously, they would rather have you buy three bottles than buy two and pirate one, but they're still doing just fine.
Company makes money. Customer is drunk. Everyone's happy. Why do we need lawyers for this?
Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy is possibly depriving an organisation of sales.
Theft is definitely depriving a company of property.
They're only equivalent in the slightest if you assume:
"Possibly" is the same as "definitely" (when all the studies we've seen show otherwise), and
"The potential for a sale" is the same as "definite tangible property", like money or goods (which is such clearly bogus wishful thinking that I'm surprised anyone ever buys the argument).
"Company makes money. Customer is drunk. Everyone's happy. Why do we need lawyers for this?"
Because the *AA still think it's better to have 99% of a tiny cake than slightly less of a cake many, many times the size.
And where there's a worry, or the potential for disagreement, there's a pair of lawyers right in the middle, profiting from it like crazy.
Re:Rationalizing Theft? (Score:2)
This analogy is flawd. There is NO theft.
A better analogy would be... let's say for example you rented a room to exhibit media that you didn't own the rights too... esp something you taped off the air. This would be wrong. But... let's say
Re:Rationalizing Theft? (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point, the media producer sold the media to a distributor. Legally. That distributor then sold the media to the retail outlet. Legally. That retail outlet then sold the media to a customer. Legally. That customer then shared the media with you. Sharing is not theft.
All arguments based on the artificial concept of a license agreement aside... Just what part of this process was stealing?
What is a license agreement? There are two types of transactions: one in which ownership is transferred (sale), and one in which ownership is not transferred (rental). This business about a license agreement is a subversive technique attempting to obfuscate a rental as a sale in order to charge sale prices. 90% of the population would never exchange money for a CD if they knew it were an elaborate rental scam.
The only really fair lawsuit is one of false advertising against the media companies. They advertise sales but they really offer rentals. The fact that the rentals don't have a return date or late fees is irrelevant--Blockbuster does it.
Re:Rationalizing Theft? (Score:3, Insightful)