RIAA To Sue Individual's for File Sharing (This could mean you!!!!)

Miami Herald ^ | 06/25/2003 | Ted Bridis

[rwfromkansas]

You apparently have no inner child based on your tagline.

I bet you sue those kids who have the audacity to have fun and run around the neighborhood.

You are a grumpy old fart. Quite frankly, you remind me of an old neighbor. When I was like 5 or 6 years old, he told my father that if I ever stepped on inch on his lawn that he would have me arrrested. What a lovely fellow.

And your tagline makes me believe you are quite similar.

[Orangedog]

Except computers are not illegal to own, and computers are often shared. It's not the same as drugs, where you would most likely have known that they were in your house/car/purse.

It's not the computer's legal status that is the issue. It contains "illegal" files.

It's not the same as drugs, where you would most likely have known that they were in your house/car/purse. How would you be expected to know if someone downloaded a few songs and left them on there for someone to share? It's not as though everyone checks that every day.

Substitute the words "downloaded a few songs" with brought over a few joints" and see how that would sound to a judge. It doesn't matter if it's drugs or mp3's...trust me, a lawyer WILL make that connection in court, and will likely win over the judge with it.

[rs79bm]

I see you've posted quite a bit about Hillary Clinton's book. Are you on her staff?

Ouchh!! What an insult. LOL!

[rwfromkansas]

Apparently he considers battery a good thing, but listening to inferior copies of songs are a bad thing.

[wizzler]

I do not believe it was the intent of the Founders or the accepted knowledge at the time that you have unlimited control over your art-form even after it is completed.

Well, then, I've got good news for you: You don't have to rely on "belief" on this point. Stuff is actually spelled out in real documents, there for you to see and actually KNOW.

The aspects you're describing -- plagiarism, alterations of attribution -- are covered by a part of copyright often referred to in law as "moral rights."

However, the essence of copyright pivots on a single point: The copyright holder -- who is not always the original creator -- has the exclusive right to copy and distribute the work. You don't have to have profitted from distribution, or committed fraud, to have violated copyright.

No one is saying P2P technology should be illegal, or that copyright holders should have control over it. They're simply saying that copyrighted material cannot be copied and distributed without authorization of the copyright holder.

It's all so very simple.

[rwfromkansas]

Of course.

[dagoofyfoot]

The truth of the matter was I pretty much lost interest in the music on the radio (Rush Limbaugh fan), and havn't purchased a cd in quite some time


Then I discovered Kazzaa. I started downloading some music files, and I became interested in music again. I started purchasing cd's again, and playing them on my "musicmatch" jukebox having a good time.


Now they call us theives and don't want our business. Well let me tell you something RIAA;


JUST KAZZAA ALONE HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED OVER 2 MILLION TIMES. EVERY MUSIC FAN WHO HAS A COMPUTER HAS PROBABLY DONE THIS. NOW YOUR TELLING ME THAT YOUR GOING TO SUE EVERY OR SOME OR WHATEVER ONE OF US? I DON'T THINK SO. ANY KID OR ADULT MUSIC FAN WHO GETS DRAGGED INTO COURT OVER THIS B.S. IS GUARANTEED TO DO ONE THING.

BOYCOTT YOUR STINKIN' LABEL!!!


...and then the counter suits will start for wasing our time. count on it. You think your losing money now...just wait.

[KCmark]

All I have to say is that, I have bought MORE cds since I have started downloading music than beforehand.

---

And I purchase a much wider genre of music too. I wish the RIAA would see that. Besides, shared mp3s are inconsistent, unless you want to spend a lot of time looking for the best copy; they are never as good as the commercially produced product.

[Jhoffa_]

And your tagline makes me believe you are quite similar.

My tagline is an inside joke..

PS: Looks like Satan has a bunch of willing accomplices on this thread.

[MilitaryBuff]

Heck no I'm not going to stop downloading...In my Highschool almost everybody is a user on at least one song SHARING network. I'd like to see what happens when the RIAA pisses off their best customers. Great Marketing plan (sarcasm)

[Orangedog]

No, actually I was the kid who would toss you down the stairs for remarks like that..

Why doesn't that surprise me?!

The one thing I would not do, however, is steal your stuff.

My....how big of you. I know I'd feel a lot better about being tossed down a flight of stairs just as long as you didn't steal my notebook paper first.

That's the kind of mentallity that results in kids bringing in a 12 GA shotgun and blowing away the thick-necked wrestler types.

[JSteff]

"I have bought MORE cds since I have started downloading music than beforehand"

That is the stupidity of the artists, they aren't looking at history. 2 examples in particular. First, VCR's. The studios, actors, directors, etc tried to have VCR's not be able to record. They lost in court. Result, people saw the movies or copies and STILL bought the originals. Sales exploded and are still growing!

Second, in 1996 to 2000 people were downloading in huge numbers and CD sales were still very strong, actually had strong growth. In 2001 the court ruled in favor of RIAA and starting that year, sales declined since.

Don't they realize people will still buy a good product, just they don't want to waste their money on trash. When they download them, the quality is generally not as good. In fact it is spotty, sometimes you get a good copy, often it is only okay... or worse.

Make them good, and people will still buy them. If they are not, well tough.

[Jhoffa_]

Now, here's my point that would hold up in court anyday: If I can show proof that I own these CD's, then how can the RIAA sue me for liability damages? I don't think they can.

I don't think so either. I believe you are allowed to archive in this manner.

Let's bring up another point. What if I downloaded a certain song from a sharing program, or what have you, listened to the song, and then went out and bought the CD. Would the RIAA disapprove of this?

You bet they will.

They have no idea what you're doing with that music and probably don't care..

[Jhoffa_]

You know, I see stuff I want every day..

In fact, I was in a position to copy a movie earlier I was purchasing for a gift.. I like it so well, I want my own copy also.

But, it's not mine.. So I will just buy another, rather than steal it.

See how easy that is?

And now Apple has this approved download service, it's like a buck a piece or something.. Why not just go over there and buy what you want?

[wizzler]

Now they call us theives

But that's because you ARE.

and don't want our business.

No, I'm sure they want your business. They just don't want you stealing their stuff.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify music fans who offer "substantial" collections of MP3 song files for downloading.

This is why I don't...share...squat.

If something happens to get left in my shared folder...it's a mistake.

[Orangedog]

And now Apple has this approved download service, it's like a buck a piece or something.. Why not just go over there and buy what you want?

Who's saying I don't already? I don't approve of anyone stealing, but I also don't approve of lopsided penalties like $150,000 per mp3. These types of tactics are not proportional to the "crime" in question. In fact, it brings a whole new meaning to the term "non-linear"

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

They should just offer the music for sale on the internet on a per-song and save themselves the distribution costs.

That has been my suggestion for years. They should digitize their entire catalogs and start building the websites and setting up accounts for all those that wish to download. I don't see a downside.

[Jhoffa_]

These types of tactics are not proportional to the "crime" in question. In fact, it brings a whole new meaning to the term "non-linear"

Didn't you know this was going to be the end result?

People have been saying this for years.. Over and over:

"If you don't stop stealing software and music, they are going to come down on EVERYONE like a ton of bricks.. Then, it's going to suck for us all, legitimate and illegitimate computer users alike, and we will have to deal with lawsuits and copy protection out the wa-zoo. Can't copy that digital picture of Grandma and send it to the folks back home? Thank the downloaders.. Got sued because they thought your garage band's MP3 was a metallica rip off? Thank the downloaders.. "

And all I ever heard in response was garbage like: "They can't stop downloading, "man""

Well, guess what? They're about to..

And frankly, I like this solution allot better than copy protection so tight you have to phone MS to re-install windows every time it crashes.

[new cruelty]

Ya gotta draw the line somewhere. :)