Skip to comments.
Verizon Is Ordered to Give Name of User in Music Dispute
The Wall Street Journal ^
| Tuesday, January 21, 2003
| ANNA WILDE MATHEWS
Posted on 01/21/2003 11:51:47 AM PST by TroutStalker
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:47:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: TroutStalker
If you've ever downloaded an MP3 with LimeWire, it is likely that it landed in the "shared" folder and was available for others to download from you. You could be the next target if RIAA and the forced exposure of an ISP customer.
2
posted on
01/21/2003 11:56:54 AM PST
by
Myrddin
To: TroutStalker
Can you hear me now?
3
posted on
01/21/2003 11:58:47 AM PST
by
dfwgator
To: Myrddin
That's why I've kept my kids from putting any of those freeware programs on my PC. I'd rather buy the CDs and keep away from file sharing.
4
posted on
01/21/2003 11:59:29 AM PST
by
Sender
To: TroutStalker
Just another reason to not buy any CD'S from the record companies. If the record companies were not so greedy, they may actually improve their sales base. I think they need a lesson in economics. Mainly, when sales are bad, you don't raise the price of CD'S, you lower them. THis will generate more sales and generate more people buying them. Any other logic makes no sense. It's like your cable company raising the price for cable because he is losing customers. Well why do you think he is losing customers? Because the price is too high! If he wanted to add customers, he would lower the price. Excuses just don't fly in this situation. Companies raise prices because they are trying to stick it to the little person. Let's take a lesson is economics and learn that when sales are bad, you lower prices, not raise them.
5
posted on
01/21/2003 11:59:41 AM PST
by
rs79bm
To: All
Interesting.
6
posted on
01/21/2003 12:07:19 PM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: All
7
posted on
01/21/2003 12:08:41 PM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Sender
That's why I've kept my kids from putting any of those freeware programs on my PCNot to mention all of the Spyware and Adware that those freeware programs install onto your PC.
8
posted on
01/21/2003 12:08:58 PM PST
by
Mixer
To: TroutStalker
a subscriber who was allegedly distributing hundreds of songs online. This makes it sound like the person was some kind of Big Player in all this, but it could be anyone who has "hundreds of songs" in the sharing directory on their computer. Based on some of the usage numbers I've seen for Kazaa, et. al., there could easily be ten million such people. This one could turn out to be some 12-year-old.
This whole thing is a case of lawyers running amok. Here they are conducting what amounts to a reverse lottery; they will never be able to go after even one per cent of the people who are doing this. Every once in a while, they will sue the parents of some teenager into bankruptcy, but they will not have made a dent in the problem. For how long will the courts let such nonsense go on? This is just lawyers raping and pillaging at random; they aren't doing anything to solve the business issues underlying the problem. Is it right for people to be sending these songs around the Internet without paying for them? Of course not. But how does suing one person out of ten million do anything but piss people off? I can't believe how stupid and pig-headed these RIAA people are about trying to use lawyers to solve their business problem. There is a new music distribution technology that is cheaper than the one they have now. They do not get to use lawyers to prevent its adoption. They can either adopt it themselves, and reduce their prices accordingly, or they can continue to watch their customers adopt it for them... and pay them nothing. |
9
posted on
01/21/2003 12:17:34 PM PST
by
Nick Danger
(Secret Iraqi tag hiding from Hans Blix)
To: Myrddin
I believe this is a case where the user was actually announcing the availability, via his website or email. That's much different from inadvertently "distributing". If he broke the law, why shouldn't Verizon be required to divulge his identity?
10
posted on
01/21/2003 12:20:44 PM PST
by
Mr. Bird
To: TroutStalker; All
Is there any wonder why I closed my ISP biz in '91? I saw all this crap comming even back then.
11
posted on
01/21/2003 12:25:08 PM PST
by
Mr_Magoo
(Single, Available, and Easy)
To: Nick Danger
yes but the little 12y/o isn't paying for the account...mom and pop will be paying money to the record companies for damages.
12
posted on
01/21/2003 12:25:51 PM PST
by
Noslrac
To: TroutStalker
I say we turn Homeland Security over to RIAA. These guys are serious and focused.
To: Myrddin
Good. Maybe if a few of these jerks were prosecuted, it might let the hard-headed understand what "intellectual property" actually means.
14
posted on
01/21/2003 12:40:21 PM PST
by
Illbay
To: rs79bm
How are they supposed to learn this with the "supply/demand" balance being upset by "free" supplies?
The rip-off artists and thieves have done the music consumer far more harm than good--not that they'd care. They exhibit the sort of nihilistic, hyper-"me" generation tendencies that used to be the exclusive purview of the Left, but is now championed even by some here on FR, who you'd think would know better.
15
posted on
01/21/2003 12:43:39 PM PST
by
Illbay
To: Illbay
How are they supposed to learn this with the "supply/demand" balance being upset by "free" supplies?
While most people would rather just go out and buy a CD anyway, if they really liked it, like myself, some think the prices are too high and would never buy a CD. So who is to blame.. The record companies for pricing CD's to high, or the consumers, who don't want to pay that much for a CD?
16
posted on
01/21/2003 12:52:02 PM PST
by
rs79bm
To: Nick Danger
Is it right for people to be sending these songs around the Internet without paying for them? Of course not.
Says who?? I have downloaded MANY songs from this band, and yet, they still make TONS of money. They have a VERY reasonable trading policy.
I vote for a boycott on ALL artists and labels who encourage suing their former customers.
To: rs79bm
I think $5 is the magic pricepoint at which people will decide the hassle of downloading and burning their own CDs is not worth it. Let's face it, it's a pain-in-the-neck to put together a CD off the web. You have to find and locate decent copies each individual song. Many MP3s are of poor quality or they are incomplete. Then you end up with a CD that either has magic marker written on it (most people label their CDs this way) or a cheesy label from one of those CD-labeling kits. BTW, it is almost impossible to get the font size small enough to fit all the artist and track information on these homemade labels. Not to mention the cost of printer ink and labels (not cheap).
I have a vast CD collection and I tell you, I would much rather have the genuine article than these homemade CDs. You get the liner notes, artwork and a professionally burned CD that I believe will hold up better in the long run than what you can make at home. I also like the idea of the recording artist making the few pennies on it that the RIAA pays out.
If the recording industry made the price of a CD $5, they would easily make up in volume what they lose in per-unit revenue. Remember when VCR tapes costed $90 for one movie? Now they sell at Wal-Mart for $10 and they sell in the millions and millions.
Of course, the recording industry would have get efficient and downsize. They'd have to cut out all the middlemen from their antiquated and corrupt distribution system.
If the recording industry doesn't change, they are going to die. People now realize how badly they have been getting ripped off all these years. Speaking as one who used to buy over 100 CDs a year, I'll never buy more than a handful a year anymore now that I know I can get a stack of 100 blank CDs for the price they are currently charging for a single pre-recorded CD. I'm an honest consumer (I don't have any homemade CDs made from MP3s downloaded illegally off the web) but I'm not a stupid consumer.
To: rs79bm
Interesting bit of sophistry. You're presupposing a natural right to steal what isn't yours, based solely on your dislike of the price the copyright holder is asking.
19
posted on
01/21/2003 12:55:22 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
To: Nick Danger
This whole thing is a case of lawyers running amok. No, it's a case of the record companies trying to get the ISPs to do their work for them. Their goal is to get ISPs to crack down on people by making the ISPs life miserable if they don't.
The case just forced the ISP to cooperate with one person. The next step will be a court order requiring the ISP to keep track of everyone on their network that is involved in file sharing (and threaten them with a possible fine if they don't.)
Keeping track of people who may be illegally sharing copyrighted works is a huge task that would take tons of resources (and cash) to accomplish. The ISP will eventually install systems to prevent file sharing on their network all together (those that don't will be hounded by the record companies via the courts.)
The end results: even people that are legally sharing copyrighted (sharing with permission) or public domain works (don't need permission) will be stopped from sharing. And the record companies close another loophole in their music monopoly.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson