This RIAA thing is getting scary...

Ok, so the RIAA is filing lawsuites against people with as few as 5 downloaded songs at $750-$150,000 per song!?! I wonder what will happen after they bankrupt a few parents.... And, of course, it turns out that my ISP is one of the only ones NOT fighting to keep the names of the swappers! I guess it works for the RIAA, but I feel for the people that they attack... This has gone too far.

(By the way, hi...been away for a while.)
33,310 views 108 replies
Reply #1 Top
RIAA will take 2191.78 years to sue everyone

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10733




Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #2 Top
Why should I feel bad for the people guilty of piracy?



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #3 Top

Why should I feel bad for the people guilty of piracy?

Who convinced you
a. this is piracy
b. they are guilty

Aren't you buying in to a hyped description promoted by record company executives in an attempt to increase their profitability by taking money from their own customers - however they can get it?

Reply #4 Top

btw - I agree with the original post... this has gone too far.

when you buy the NY Times and and you leave it at the coffee shop after reading it, and several other people read it, have you committed a crime? 

Reply #5 Top
Let's say you buy a CD for your friend's birthday and before you give it to him you make a copy of it for yourself. Is this a crime?
Reply #6 Top
mp3's give you a degraded sound quality.They call it a compressed file format.I can here the difference.If I am serious about the music I will buy the cd.So all you people with a huge mp3 collection don't have the real thing but someone wants you to pay a price.HE HE




Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #7 Top
If distributing and obtaining the works of others without the permission of the owners of those works isn't piracy, then what is it?



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #8 Top

This guy was being interviewed on the news and he talked about how he is being dragged to court and sued for 150,000 smackers for each illegal file on his computer and they are suing him for 300 files…do the math, he is most likely in financial ruin. It sounded like he was trying to use the popular tactic of getting out of a huge phone bill…i.e. the kids did it without my knowledge. I would not suggest using file sharing programs at this point.
Reply #9 Top
It's things like this that make me truly believe money is the root of all evil.
Reply #10 Top
I have nothing to worry about...I only dl boots of Grateful Dead!

Funny thing is..."The Media" will probably put out a reality tv show about it, and, Ummm, we will watch it
Reply #11 Top
The most disturbing thing to us is the online privacy issue.

It's amazing with all the hackers and spammers and trojan_horse/virus creators and spyware_freeware crap out there that people who file-share some crappy mp3's will be the ones on spy-watch alert and possibly bankrupted. Money does indeed talk!

Parents of many teens better be wary of what their teens do online. They should anyway but now they will hafta be big brother too to save their arses from some steep lawsuit.


Big brother warbuX$$ is on your case.
Reply #12 Top
#6 by Skinner Iben - 7/29/2003 8:30:59 PM
mp3's give you a degraded sound quality.They call it a compressed file format.I can here the difference.If I am serious about the music I will buy the cd.So all you people with a huge mp3 collection don't have the real thing but someone wants you to pay a price.HE HE


We agree...an mp3 never has the crisp and truly quality sound of the original...might as well be making a tape off the radio station...
Reply #13 Top
Yeah the dead make a policy of allowing anyone who wants to record their shows bring whatever recording device they want. The Dead were good back when Pigpen was in it like Europe seventy two is a great old one…haven’t listened to them in years …my sister was a huge dead head and forced fed them to me until I started liking it a bit… they just turned into a joke when Shakedown street came out it was like the Beach boys meet the dead.
Reply #14 Top
Put that in your refreshment rate and smoke it
Reply #15 Top
#11 by e-bros - 7/29/2003 9:21:39 PM The most disturbing thing to us is the online privacy issue.


O woe e brother .... woe
Reply #16 Top
Anthony, I hated Shakedown Street too! Any good band always has a album they wish they never did.

Reply #17 Top
Messy Bru, Actually, it's copyright infringement. It isn't easily categorized as theft, either, as a 1985 decision by the supreme court in Dowling v United Stated determined.

That doesn't mean it's right to do it, but overloading words that mean something else entirely only emotionalizes the issue, and does nothing to actually address the situation.

Part of the problem IMHO, is the word 'copyright'. The implication being that all copying becomes infringement, which is not true. A more accurate term would be distributionright (although a bit unwieldy). What is protected by copyright is distribution, primarily, distribution for gain.

I have a great deal of respect for the concept of intellectual property, but the current legal environment surrounding it right now is somewhat over the top, including the overlong coverage periods that currently exist.


Although many in the current environment (especially the likes of the RIAA, etc.), would have us believe otherwise, there really is a fundamental difference between physical property and intellectual property. In fact, as Justice Blackmun noted in the above decision, "property interest protected by copyright is limited by the First Amendment interest in free expression and copyright's goal not to reward authors but to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts".

Obviously, there is no first amendment protection for such actions as blatant online file distribution, and the like, but it is necessary to understand that there are levels of infringement, and levels of use that are not infringement, even if the copyright owner doesn't like it.


The biggest problem the RIAA has, IMHO, is not so much that the file sharing itself is such a major problem, it is that they truly fear losing their lucrative physical distribution method. They are also truly opposed to the concept of fair use, as they see it as undermining their desire to have you pay for every single use of a bit of content. As outlets like iTunes, and the like demonstrate, a lot of people are fine with paying for online distribution if the price is right, and if the content is not so restricted as to be virtually unusable.

Copyright infringement is illegal, and rightly so, but it is important to remember that we shouldn't cloud the issue with loaded and emotional phraseology, and we should also remember that the RIAA and their ilk are less interested in copyright infringement as an honestly legal issue, and are more interested in it as a mechanism for protecting (at all costs) what is rapidly becoming an outmoded and uneconomical business model.
Reply #18 Top
How is it a privacy issue, considering that they obtain the information from KaZaA, which is more like a mall than somebody's home, and if it was like somebody's home, then that person clearly has made it a home by allowing anybody to enter it and do business.



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #19 Top
Purrrr... /me smacks Anthony with "Dead Set".. tell me how much you don't like the Dead anymore...
Reply #20 Top
Personally, I think the fine should be a MAX $1000/song. I wonder how many of the file-sharers out there even HAVE 150k. (Or the means of getting it)
Reply #21 Top
#19 by China - 7/29/2003 9:50:32 PM China smacks Anthony with "Dead Set".. tell me how much you don't like the Dead anymore...



I went to see the Dead with my Friend Chris and my sister once and it is funny to think about it,I had so much fun that evening …. My friend Chris and I had been learning Karate and he was all full of himself with the skills he was learning, so during the show all these balloons were flying around and hitting him in the face and it was really pissing Chris off in a serious way so he turned to me and said “if I get hit with one more (expletive) balloon one of these freaks are going down…. Ill never forget that statement and the way he said it I laughed so much at that.
Reply #22 Top
Messy Bru, Actually, it's copyright infringement. It isn't easily categorized as theft, either, as a 1985 decision by the supreme court in Dowling v United Stated determined.


The dictionary doesn't seem to have a problem defining piracy as: "use of copyrighted material without permission." Therefore, I think it's a perfect term to use.

That doesn't mean it's right to do it, but overloading words that mean something else entirely only emotionalizes the issue, and does nothing to actually address the situation.
Part of the problem IMHO, is the word 'copyright'. The implication being that all copying becomes infringement, which is not true. A more accurate term would be distributionright (although a bit unwieldy). What is protected by copyright is distribution, primarily, distribution for gain.

I have a great deal of respect for the concept of intellectual property, but the current legal environment surrounding it right now is somewhat over the top, including the overlong coverage periods that currently exist.

Although many in the current environment (especially the likes of the RIAA, etc.), would have us believe otherwise, there really is a fundamental difference between physical property and intellectual property. In fact, as Justice Blackmun noted in the above decision, "property interest protected by copyright is limited by the First Amendment interest in free expression and copyright's goal not to reward authors but to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts".

Obviously, there is no first amendment protection for such actions as blatant online file distribution, and the like, but it is necessary to understand that there are levels of infringement, and levels of use that are not infringement, even if the copyright owner doesn't like it.

The biggest problem the RIAA has, IMHO, is not so much that the file sharing itself is such a major problem, it is that they truly fear losing their lucrative physical distribution method. They are also truly opposed to the concept of fair use, as they see it as undermining their desire to have you pay for every single use of a bit of content. As outlets like iTunes, and the like demonstrate, a lot of people are fine with paying for online distribution if the price is right, and if the content is not so restricted as to be virtually unusable.


Why do you say that they are truly opposed to the concept of fair use?

Copyright infringement is illegal, and rightly so, but it is important to remember that we shouldn't cloud the issue with loaded and emotional phraseology, and we should also remember that the RIAA and their ilk are less interested in copyright infringement as an honestly legal issue, and are more interested in it as a mechanism for protecting (at all costs) what is rapidly becoming an outmoded and uneconomical business model.


I don't really care about their motives, considering that the motives of the other side aren't necessarily altruistic either.



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #23 Top
20 by EventHorizon - 7/29/2003 9:53:01 PM Personally, I think the fine should be a MAX $1000/song.


Oh thank goodness for your leniency
Reply #24 Top


This again? I do believe the RIAA is handling it wrong... but the case of P2P file sharing music (as well as programs DavidK) does brake the fair use claus. The first person didn't buy it and give 1 away for free he make multipul copies and give multipul copies away for free.


How come no one addresses the artist and how, while the RIAA doesn't help them much, that downloading multipul files of a song that the artist made is wrong?


How come I go through all the crap and kissing up and non-music, non-inovative stuff that the RIAA does do me just to make it and then as I make 3 dollars or less on a CD someone make it avialable on P2P help me recoop?

Notice the downloads on any skin here, how many leave comments? No less how many would pay or volunteer money for the skin?

interesting.....
Reply #25 Top
Aslo, I don't think they should be filing against people. This is some wierd awareness program for the RIAA but I think it is a waste of money.

Focus on iMAC's music store and making it availible cross platform by December of this year. Focus on Son of Napster; Focus on changing your business model and information systems.

This is what the RIAA should be doing.