Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!
Washington Post ^ | July 6, 2003 | Leslie Walker

Posted on 07/06/2003 9:08:26 AM PDT by John Jorsett

The Recording Industry Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down and suing users of file-sharing programs has yet to spook people, say developers of these applications.

"Forget about it, dude -- even genocidal litigation can't stop file sharers," said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, one of several systems that allow users to upload and download files -- many of which are unauthorized MP3 copies of songs published by the RIAA's member companies. Rosso said file-trading activity among Grokster users has increased by 10 percent in the past few days. Morpheus, another file-trading program, has seen similar growth.

Maybe MP3 downloaders are interpreting the recording industry's threat -- an escalation from its earlier strategy of targeting file-sharing developers -- as a sort of "last call" announcement. Starting June 26, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a news conference, the group would collect evidence against consumers illegally trading files of copyrighted music, with lawsuits to follow in a couple of months.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: riaaesad
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-359 next last
To: Principled
A blade has a value certain.

So does the content on a CD.

101 posted on 07/06/2003 6:20:35 PM PDT by strela ("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Weiss said the recording industry should lobby for special taxes on CD burners and Internet access as a way to recoup losses incurred from file sharing, an idea that Grokster's Rosso also supports. Rosso was in Washington recently to talk to lobbyists about forming a coalition of file-sharing firms.

This is the assumption of guilt without the chance to prove innocence. These idiots are so arrogant they think every CD purchased is to copy their precious music.

I use a lot of CDs, and it's not for recording music. Why do they think they have the right to take my money to enrich themselves? Dam* liberals are trying to suck the life out of this country.
102 posted on 07/06/2003 6:21:40 PM PDT by gitmo (Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

Good!

103 posted on 07/06/2003 6:22:07 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (BREAKING: Supreme Court Finds Right to Sodomy, Sammy & Frodo elated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: strela
Except the file was provided by someone willing to share it. Taking my wallet without permission is not sharing. You can argue this until you are blue in the face. It changes nothing. No one cares if some people think they are a thief. 99% of what I download is something I already paid for on cassette... so the artist has my money. I no longer have cassette stereos in my car, as they were not options. So, I download the MP3 version and can listen to music I already paid for.
104 posted on 07/06/2003 6:22:36 PM PDT by Tuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
That's not true in this case. The producer hasn't lost anything.

The producer lost the control he had over how his product was used. He could also potentially lose sales to others who might have otherwise bought his product but now won't because they can get it free off the Internet. Theft is theft.

105 posted on 07/06/2003 6:22:50 PM PDT by strela ("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: strela
STRELA... LISTEN CLOSELY...

I'LL SAY IT LOUD THIS TIME...

Nobody is defending theives. I've said over and over in my posts that I'm not doing so. IMO nobody else is.

The problem is that technology outpaces the law's ability to stop swapping. Hence the repeated calls for a new model.

Why must you insist on asserting that I am defending thieves? You've done it four times now, and I've corrected you each time. Get over it.

106 posted on 07/06/2003 6:22:52 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
Well the $30 version has every song that is in the movie for even a few seconds, 41 different songs on 2 CDs a pretty kick ass set for any fan of 50s rock. There's a $15 version that just the 22 "main" songs.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/search-ng.gsp?search_constraint=0&search_query=american+graffiti
107 posted on 07/06/2003 6:23:29 PM PDT by discostu (you've got to bleed for the dancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Actually there was a guy on TV just the other day discussing this very thing. I believe he was with Grokster. He had several ideas, which his company had approached the RIAA with, only to be shooed away.
I'm in a different line of work, and certainly don't claim to have all the answers. I would like to be able to, as an example, go into a music store and mix a professional quality CD from a master list. Or, sit at my computer and download a variety of tunes for a few cents each to burn my own CDs. etc etc
This was written in 2000:
The lesson for the RIAA here is that old distribution models can fail long before
anyone has any idea what the new models will look like. As with digital text, so now
with music. People have a strong preference for making unlimited perfect copies of the
music they want to hear. Napster now makes it feasible to do so in just the way the Web
made it possible with text. Right now, no one knows how musicians will be rewarded in
the future. But the lack of immediate alternatives doesn't change the fact that Napster
is the death knell for the current music distribution system. The music industry does
not need to know how musicians will be rewarded when this new system takes hold to know that musicians will be rewarded somehow. Society can't exist without artists; it can, however, exist without A&R departments.
108 posted on 07/06/2003 6:24:14 PM PDT by visualops (He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The proper analogy would be if you make a photo of the blade and make a replica in your basement.

And if you took that photo without the permission of the store, the blade manufacturer, etc., that would still be stealing.

109 posted on 07/06/2003 6:24:48 PM PDT by strela ("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: strela
An anology you would be able to use was put forth by another poster.

Your analogy is false on more than one level, but plainly you see the difference between Joe buying a new blade and Joe borrowing a blade from a neighbor... how old are you?

110 posted on 07/06/2003 6:25:00 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, and if you're not convinced that's about copyright lookup Federalist 43.
111 posted on 07/06/2003 6:27:11 PM PDT by discostu (you've got to bleed for the dancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
"Oh Nick, Nick, Nick....you're such a tool."
Gotta love that album.
Now what if they decide they want to charge you EVERY TIME you play a tune????
That raises an interesting thought.
112 posted on 07/06/2003 6:27:23 PM PDT by POGIFFMOO (illegitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: visualops
I would like to be able to, as an example, go into a music store and mix a professional quality CD from a master list.

Nice! I'd go for that, if they weren't charging prohibitively.

BTW, how does recording off the radio fit into this?

113 posted on 07/06/2003 6:29:19 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Principled
Anyone defending the "sharing" of copyrighted material against the copyright holder's wishes is defending thieves.
114 posted on 07/06/2003 6:29:55 PM PDT by discostu (you've got to bleed for the dancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
So what's to stop people from setting up lending libraries that you can borrow the CD, take it home and record what you want, then return it to the library. A little slower than Napster, but is it illegal?
115 posted on 07/06/2003 6:30:11 PM PDT by POGIFFMOO (illegitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo
Except the file was provided by someone willing to share it.

Two logical errors here:

1. The OWNER of the rights to the music on that file did NOT grant permission for it to be copied, ripped, etc. The person doing the ripping has no say in how that data can be used by others. Because it is not his or her property.

2. So if one panhandler steals my wallet and hands it to another panhandler, I have no recourse against the guy holding my wallet because the first one gave it to him? Ridiculous.

You can argue this until you are blue in the face.

And you can argue that theft is not actually theft until YOU are blue in the face. It changes nothing; theft is still theft and should be punished.

99% of what I download is something I already paid for on cassette... so the artist has my money.

If you truly believe that 99% of file sharers have the same arrangement, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in New York City.

I no longer have cassette stereos in my car, as they were not options. So, I download the MP3 version and can listen to music I already paid for.

Don't download too many, my FRiend. You might not like the result when RIAA ramps up their enforcement operations.

116 posted on 07/06/2003 6:30:12 PM PDT by strela ("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: discostu
It's not that they "cannot" alter the business model it's that the file sharers want something for nothing

It's not clear that the desired price is zero. Humans are more complex than that. On some level, everyone wants everything to be free. Who wouldn't want something for nothing? To criticize this imaginary class called "file sharers" for wanting "something for nothing," or to suggest they they are a unique breed for wanting this, is specious.

People face reality pretty well. They accept the idea that things are not free. They understand why. We actually have so few people who use thievery as their main way of making their way in the world that it is practical to catch the few we do have and lock them up.

I would argue that the RIAA is not taking reasonable steps to minimize its own damages here. Copyright may be law, but so is the obligation to minimize your own damages.

The opportunity for the misappropriation of music exists because a technology has appeared that replaces a big part of what the RIAA does at near-zero cost.

This technology is available to the RIAA. They can deliver music to people for the same cost that Napster could. It is their choice not to do this. The fact that there exists a $17 gap between their price and the "get it by stealing" price is their choice. They are creating this gradient across which all this energy is flowing. There is every reason to believe that if they adopted the lower cost technology themselves, and reduced their prices accordingly, they could earn the same profit they do today while the thievery subsided into the noise.

Their argument is that this would be futile, since the people they are fighting "want something for nothing" and are only willing to pay zero. Nothing we see in the real world substantiates that. Even teenagers with little money would probably be willing to pay a buck or two just to assuage their own consciences.

The technology exists for RIAA to do this, and still make money. That they are not taking advantage of it is a failure on their part to take a reasonable step that would substantially reduce their losses to thievery. They want to hang their hats on copyright law, and claim that the law gives them the right to be unreasonable. Not so. Sooner or later they are going to sue some ISP with a hotshot IP lawyer who busts them in the chops.


117 posted on 07/06/2003 6:30:53 PM PDT by Nick Danger (The liberals are slaughtering themselves at the gates of the newsroom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: strela
And if you took that photo without the permission of the store, the blade manufacturer, etc., that would still be stealing.

No, it wouldn't, since you haven't actually taken any goods or services away from the store or manufacturer. It could be considered copyright infringment if you make the blade yourself, however it's not theft, since nothing was actually removed from the owner (the store in this case). BTW, people take pictures of copyrighted ideas all the time without permission. Specific car brands on roads is a big one.

-The Hajman-
118 posted on 07/06/2003 6:31:51 PM PDT by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Principled
My question exactly. I recall that under fair use a person could tape a program from the tv or music from the radio for personal use. Now music and videos are available in digital format. It is okay to record digitally as it was using a tape??? someone answer this for me. thanks
119 posted on 07/06/2003 6:32:24 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Principled
Nobody is defending theives. I've said over and over in my posts that I'm not doing so. IMO nobody else is.

Then they (and you) are doing a darned good impression of doing so by not condemning file sharers for what they are - thieves.

The problem is that technology outpaces the law's ability to stop swapping. Hence the repeated calls for a new model.

I hope you get your "new model," I really do. But the law is the law, and theft is still theft.

Why must you insist on asserting that I am defending thieves?

Maybe because you're not condemning them?

You've done it four times now, and I've corrected you each time. Get over it.

I'll never "get over" theft, nor will I ever sanction or approve of it, no matter who is doing the stealing. Theft even for a good reason is still theft.

120 posted on 07/06/2003 6:33:09 PM PDT by strela ("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-359 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson