Music Industry Sends Warning to Song Swappers

Reuters ^ | April 29, 2003 | Sue Zeidler

[Poohbah]

It would seem that kiddie porn would be easily enough traced back to them and it would be illegal for them to send unsolicited kiddie porn ---I don't think it'd be very smart of them to try this.

It would SEEM that it would be traced easily enough.

In reality, it ain't.

[Poohbah]

I use a firewall that lets me know of unauthorized communications, in or out, plus regularly use adaware - a spyware detection program.

Are they running on the same box as Kazaa Lite?

Are they running on a separate box that can execute RPCs?

If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," then you cannot be certain that your statement is accurate.

[Windsong]

What will get them into the big leagues is when Kazaa's distributed computing service gets used by a terrorist group--to run the hydrocodes necessary to model a thermonuclear device.

(Insert Twilight Zone music here)

[Wolfie]

Sorry, RIAA, you've been outsourced.

[Poohbah]

Hey, you're the guy who's perfectly willing to let Kazaa do what they want to your box...

[Not Insane]

"Microsoft should give me a new CD. "

You didn't make a backup copy then? Most software I used to buy said step one was to make a backup copy.

[Not Insane]

"2% of manufacturers sales go to the RIAA.

CD burners also have a tax sent to the RIAA, though I don't remember how much. "

If this is true, I now officially consider file swapping completely moral.

As poobah said, stupid people make stupid deals, and get their reward.

RIAA is officially getting their pound of flesh.

[Not Insane]

"Rather than change the law; they have challenged it, derided it and ultimately ignored it..."

Like prohibition...

[goldstategop]

RIAA and super-bitch Hillary Rosen can take their threats and shove it where the sun don't shine. Taking your customers to court is a sure-fire guaranteed way to lose their business for good. I hope they sue themselves out of existence with that attitude of theirs.

[Right Wing Professor]

Don't hold your breath waiting for new prescription drugs to be developed when the same arguement is used on that...

I'm not arguing against patents and copyrights, I'm arguing against trying to confuse 'intellectual property', a limited right granted by the government to foster the useful arts, and real property, which has its origins in common law and belongs to the owner in perpetua. The term 'theft' is generally used by people who want to extent patent and copyrights, in scope and duration, beyond their original intent.

[Not Insane]

"Is it moral to step on an ant on purpose? How about run over a possum on purpose?
And this bears on the discussion how?"

Who's to say when you've crossed a "moral" line (no, not legal).

It's illegal to break the speed limit by one mph. It is illegal to do all sorts of things that literally EVERYBODY does, with full knowledge. So what we are REALLY talking about here is RELATIVE seriousness of the "crime."

The only reason video stores charge per rental as opposed to per viewing is that they know virtually EVERYONE would say they only watched it once. They don't bother with an unenforceable rule which, by the way, would be copyright infringement if you watched it again without paying.

Kazaa, et al, have done the same thing to file sharing rules. They are no longer enforceable and are more and more perceived as just as silly as if the video store DID have a rule such as the one I mentioned above.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's life. Technology has changed the rules.

[goldstategop]

What all of the examples have in common is you're downloading and recording the stuff for your own private personal pleasure. You're not trying to make a profit off it by selling it without the copyright holder's permission. RIAA needs to understand that people who download and burn songs to their CDs don't do so with the intent of selling it or any way profiting from it illegally. People feel if they resort to Kazaa, Morpheus or WinMX to burn to their own CD they aren't infringing upon any one's rights. RIAA would be better off figuring out to turn this to its advantage than attempting to sue 40 million customers into foregoing file swapping online.

[Not Insane]

"I mean, when a crappy and vulgar rap song like "In Da Club" by 50 Cent can top the pop charts for two months in a row, you know it is a pretty bad year for music. "

Do you remember when "Sailing" by Christopher Cross recieved "song of the year" at the Grammies. Everyone was saying the same thing you did. When elevator music hits the number one spot, we're in a creative valley.

You may also remember that what got us out of the valley was Micheal Jacksons comeback. I can't remember the name of the album, but I think "Billy Jean" was the first hit.

[Poohbah]

You didn't make a backup copy then? Most software I used to buy said step one was to make a backup copy.

Ah, but I said--at the beginning--that I was completely irresponsible (Tesla coil next to the computer, lost the install CD.)

Let's say I backed up the CD--and managed to lose BOTH of the CDs through my own carelessness.

Microsoft still owes me a new CD, according to the "gimme-free-stuff" crowd.

[Not Insane]

You both expose the sleeping dragon in your posts: It's too complicated and messy to be "legal." People respond by either becoming tea-totallers or complete drunks, sometimes in protest.

The law, in it's attempt to be "fair" has become so convoluted as to have lost all touch with "fairness" or morality. After all, as one person said, you SHOULD be able to keep people from singing your song in the shower, if you so desire. Of course we think that would be stupid.

In the technological age, many are beginning to believe that keeping people from copying your music, once you've made it available digitally, is the same thing. Is it legal. Nope. But as in my Shower example, everybody will do it anyway.

You have taken nothing from a person unless after your done, they no longer posess it.

[Not Insane]

"Don't hold your breath waiting for new prescription drugs to be developed when the same arguement is used on that..."

Thank God for prayer.

[Not Insane]

Your analogies are all flawed in the same way - they try to relate the virtual to the physical.

One last time: The squatters are not in YOUR house. They are in a COPY of your house.

[Poohbah]

Your analogies are all flawed in the same way - they try to relate the virtual to the physical.

Either property rights are real and enforceable, in ALL cases, or they are void and unenforceable.

Which one is it?

One last time: The squatters are not in YOUR house. They are in a COPY of your house.

The issue is the same: ownership of a specific asset, be it physical (my house) or nonphysical (copyright).

In each case, I am being denied the benefits of controlling the use, abuse, and disposal of my property.

[The FRugitive]

*hands poohbah a tinfoil firewall*

[Not Insane]

I finally get it. You've come here for an argument! Well, your five minutes are up.

If you want another five minutes it will cost you on pound. Or you can get a half hour for five pounds.

I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue any more until you've paid...

Hmmm, hmmm,hmmm...