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

Skip to comments.

Music industry sues Augusta man
Morning Sentinel ^ | 2-6-07 | BETTY ADAMS

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 ...


TOPICS: US: Maine
KEYWORDS: copywrite; mafiaa; mpaa; riaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 last
To: HIDEK6

I remember all the local dances I went to in the Sixties when the Beatles,Stones,Kinks,etc were big.It was cool for these garage bands to do their music and get paid maybe forty bucks for four hours of work.No one ever thought they might be violating copyrite laws.


121 posted on 02/07/2007 8:37:54 AM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ByDesign
and I've asked musicians who I know for a fact the RIAA have sued people for downloading their music, is what happens to the money that is received in such cases. The RIAA doesn't tell, the label folks change the subject, and the musicians have no clue.

I know that one. Any income from the initial extortion attempt gets put back into the lawsuit machine. The artists receive zero compensation. In fact, the agreement people sign when they pay the extortion money specifically says they're only clear with the labels. That means the artists are still free to sue on their own behalf if they want any money.

122 posted on 02/07/2007 9:10:22 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Downloading music from the Internet is not conceptually different from the radio stationr

For one, the person uploading the music doesn't pay ASCAP fees.

123 posted on 02/07/2007 9:11:43 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
For one, the person uploading the music doesn't pay ASCAP fees.

Do radio stations? I honestly don't know.

If they do, shouldn't uploaders simply be liable for ASCAP fees then?

124 posted on 02/07/2007 11:21:48 AM PST by TChris (The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Do radio stations?

Yes.

If they do, shouldn't uploaders simply be liable for ASCAP fees then?

ASCAP is for performances. Streaming is a performance, but making available for download is a copy, so I don't think uploaders could just pay an ASCAP fee and be legal. I guess an uploader could stream it at 100% quality, and the player on the other end have an option to save the stream. But we know the RIAA doesn't like that since they're going after XM radio for a recording feature.

125 posted on 02/07/2007 1:35:39 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
ASCAP is for performances. Streaming is a performance, but making available for download is a copy, so I don't think uploaders could just pay an ASCAP fee and be legal. I guess an uploader could stream it at 100% quality, and the player on the other end have an option to save the stream. But we know the RIAA doesn't like that since they're going after XM radio for a recording feature.

Thanks for the information.

What you wrote leads me to another issue:

File sharing is overwhelmingly not at "100% quality". While I'm sure there are some people sharing the byte-perfect .WAV files, 99% of them are compressed with the lossy MP3 algorithm, usually at 128Kbps. This is known in the industry as "radio quality".

So, the RIAA's complaint that it's somehow worse than recording off the radio really doesn't hold up. If that were the issue, then any MP3's should be OK, since they aren't 100% quality.

126 posted on 02/07/2007 1:53:15 PM PST by TChris (The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman

You said: Isn't that a little extreme? If someone stole a candy bar from a store, should the store try to extort $750 from the thief? Who would be the worse thief in that case? The person who tried to steal a candy bar, or the stores lawyer who tries to steal $750 from the thief?
***
I don't think so. It would be too little to ask the guy simply to pay the amount he should have paid in the first place for the music he stole. If that was all that was required, why pay in the first place? Just wait and see if you are caught, then pay. It costs money to bring an action to protect one's rights. $750 per song doesn't sound that steep to me.

All of that said, I do have conceptual problems with much of copyright law. For example, one can buy a book and give it away, allowing many others to benefit from what was only paid for (to the writer) once. I could buy a CD, invite friends over every night and play it for them, without further compensating the artist. And, of course, copyright infringement is different from other theft in that the owner still retains that which is "stolen" from him, unlike the store owner who gets a candy bar stolen in your example.

For me, the bottom line is, the law is pretty clear, and unless the "theft" was accidental, the punishment should be imposed.


127 posted on 02/07/2007 2:11:49 PM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

You said, in part: So for 10 songs 10 bucks? Nope, too much. When CD albums are 5 bucks I'd be glad to start buying them again.
***
If it isn't worth it to you, don't buy and do without. The seller sets the price. If buyers balk, the price will drop. The solution is not to just take something when you think the price is too high.


128 posted on 02/07/2007 2:15:22 PM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
If it isn't worth it to you, don't buy and do without. The seller sets the price. If buyers balk, the price will drop.

The buyers are balking. The sellers are not adjusting the price.

129 posted on 02/07/2007 2:47:13 PM PST by Centurion2000 (If you're not being shot at, it's not a high stress job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Huck

>>Your piffle speaks for itself.<<

That was the idea.


130 posted on 02/07/2007 3:16:10 PM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in 1938.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 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