Posted on 02/06/2007 9:17:22 AM PST by dbehsman
In its running legal battle against unauthorized downloaders, five recording companies have sued an Augusta man in federal court claiming he illegally pirated and shared copyrighted music.
Scott Hinds, 23, is a defendant in one of a number of lawsuits by Recording Industry of America affiliates seeking to halt illegal sharing of copyrighted songs -- a once-widespread practice some maintain was "fair use," encouraged by certain computer software.
As artists attempt to regain control of their music -- and reap profits from sales -- recording industry spokeswoman Amanda Hunter said 18,000 individuals have been sued in similar lawsuits since September 2003, but Hinds is one of only six defendants in Maine.
(Excerpt) Read more at morningsentinel.mainetoday.com ...
So then if these bands had the talent (or rented out the machines) they could share it cheaply and make a lot more money. RIAA is the problem here since it is not adapting to changing technology.
BTW, what songs have you written? Do you have any concept of the "value" of music?
Haven't written any songs, but if they can play a tune on the radio they are giving it away for free, so it can't be worth all that much.
PS ... the model with songs for .25 or .10 allow that many more people to listen to it and increase the likelihood that they may go to CONCERTS, which is where musicians can make their killing.
Or you could dig the ditch yourself if you wanted the water that bad.
I swear, people, what is it about breaking a law that you don't understand?
How is that possible? Are they getting permission from the artists up front?
"If you don't want to buy the music, fine. But to steal it is to break the copyright laws."
They are trying to get me to pay for music that I have bought and re-bought. Who's really doing the stealing here?
Also, If I download a song, like it, and go buy the album, is the song I downloaded still "stolen"? Likewise, if I own the CD but I left it at home, can I download so me and my friend listen? You have made it quite clear what the vast rights of the RIAA are, now what are MY rights?
Look, what's happening here is the world is changing. You and others may not like it but music distribution and sales as we know it is over. It just is.
The other question is how does the RIAA arrive at suing him? Was he actively sitting at his computer when the 'found' illegal MP3's? What if someone else in the house (Family member, roommate, visitor) 'shared' his music? The RIAA has a fetish for suing IP addresses, not people.
(and no, I don't steal MP3s or apologise for those who do. I'm questioning the tactics, that's all)
Seems to me that people are "breaking a law" that was put into place, originally, in order to protect a certain revenue stream that mass technology has now rendered shaky. What you're seeing here is a culture clash between mass technology and business; business is trying to protect its racket by enforcing the paradigm most favorable to it as if that paradigm were the 11th Commandment Moses dropped on his way down from the mountain.
>>That would be the ditch-digger's risk to take then, wouldn't it?<<
Actually, I was agreeing with you. I needed to add this to my response: ;)
>>I swear, people, what is it about breaking a law that you don't understand?<<
I live in Washington state. Our governor stole an election in broad daylight.
There is no rule of law in this state. I live my life accordingly.
The only change is that the average citizen thinks that he is above the law.
So since the governor broke the law you have forsaken your sense of honor?
Be a man.
I can go to the store and buy a CD of 15 songs for $15...OR, I could cut out the middleman, the distributor, the shipping, the packaging, raw material costs, printing and warehousing by legally downloading it for...$15.
>>So since the governor broke the law you have forsaken your sense of honor?
Be a man.<<
Who is John Galt?
>>So since the governor broke the law you have forsaken your sense of honor?<<
Ok, I was a bit flippant in my previous post. But it does reflect my sentiment. I consider it more honorable to face reality than to continue to live as though the farce is the truth.
That is why I ask, who is John Galt?
>>The only change is that the average citizen thinks that he is above the law<<
Actually, we live in a country where we have a tradition that all laws apply to all citizens equally. That is, there is no "some are more equal than others". What this means is that as we see our "leaders" break laws with impunity, we apply the same standards to ourselves. Some do it consciously, others less so.
Slouching Towards Gomorrah comes to mind.
"How is that possible? Are they getting permission from the artists up front?
That is correct. Usually, artists are eager to get their music to fans. If there's one thing they want more than money, it's fame.
>>ASCAP polices bars and restaurants to insure that they have the correct license to play recorded music or to have live music.<<
I used to spend a lot of time on Harmony-central talking to other musicians about gigging and recording. One guy was playing a club that only allowed "original" bands. One overt reason was he refused to pay the ASCAP protection money. Well, they were thereatened with a cease and desist lawsuit by ASCAP because there was the RISK of someone playing a cover song (like the traditional version of Happy Birthday). The guy didn't want the hassle so he just ended live music in his club.
But you do not need ASCAP, BMI or anyone elses blessing to play live music. It just can't be copyrighted.
"The only change is that the average citizen thinks that he is above the law."
When the "law" is unjust, the average citizen is damn well above the law. The problem is, we have yet to determine what the "law" is. Don't download any music without paying somebody for.....what? The priviledge of listening to music that I have paid for half a dozen times in the past? What's the law, here? What law am I breaking? How many times must I pay for a song before it is mine to listen to as many times as I please? What is the dollar amount on that? What's the time-limit on my purchase? What am I really purchasing? The medium or the music? What law says I have to repeatedly pay for the priviledge of listening to a 3 minute song whenever I want? What are the intervals in which I should re-pay? When the media breaks, wears out or gets stolen, what does that have to do with my purchase of the rights to listen to a particular song?
Uh, oh. We just hit on something didn't we? No more re-buys. Let's think about that, shall we. How many CDs did I buy to replace cassettes I already had? Hundreds? How many times have I rebought cassettes, records and CDs due to theft, breakage, or wear? Thousands?
So, just me and that's thousands of re-buys on music that counted as record sales. No more. CD wears out and you just burn a new one yourself, even if you did pay for your downloads. That's another thing RIAA is trying to make up for. Not screwing people out of their money by making them pay for the same "intellectual property" numerous times has cost them big.
So excuse me if I don't feel too guilty since nobody ever answers those earlier questions. I think I can fathom a guess as to the answers and they are NOT fair to the consumer.
"I used to spend a lot of time on Harmony-central"
I used to also. Shame a person can't even post off-key, wrong tablature without getting the RIAA siced on him. ;)
The RIAA reminds me of the Wright brothers. They tried to patent "flying".
Meanwhile, when was the last time you flew in a "Wright" plane?
Given the way that copyright law has been bastardized by congresscritters bought and paid for by Disney et. al, that's just about right.
Better rule of thumb, is anything prior to about 1930 is public domain, stuff produced afterwards is difficult, if not impossible to determine without quite a bit of research.
For myself, if the work is more than 30 years old, it's fair game. 28 years was long enough copyright for Jefferson, it should be for us as well.
Sweet deal. Are there licenses that piggyback to the mp3?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.