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

Skip to comments.

RIAA To Sue Individual's for File Sharing (This could mean you!!!!)
Miami Herald ^ | 06/25/2003 | Ted Bridis

Posted on 06/25/2003 6:15:06 PM PDT by jimmccleod

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-337 next last
To: wizzler
What's wrong is your notion you have any idea what you are talking about.
261 posted on 06/26/2003 8:47:39 AM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
How much would/should it cost to get a scratched or skipping CD replaced at a record shop?

What percent of the sales price is the IP worth?

Where can I bring a case of unlistenable lps, tapes, cds to be exchanged for new copies? How much should they cost to replace?

If one buys a cd, loses it, then get's a copy from a friend, did one pay the licensing fee?

If your home burns, and you lose a 500 cd collection, do you have to replace it at full price?

What if the albums are no longer available?

How many times should one pay the piper for the same song?

262 posted on 06/26/2003 8:47:53 AM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Please detail points on which I've been wrong.
263 posted on 06/26/2003 8:48:15 AM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
How much would/should it cost to get a scratched or skipping CD replaced at a record shop? What percent of the sales price is the IP worth? Where can I bring a case of unlistenable lps, tapes, cds to be exchanged for new copies? How much should they cost to replace? If one buys a cd, loses it, then get's a copy from a friend, did one pay the licensing fee? If your home burns, and you lose a 500 cd collection, do you have to replace it at full price? What if the albums are no longer available? How many times should one pay the piper for the same song?

Say what?? What does any of this have to do with the rights of copyright holders, or the status of authorized/unauthorized copies of copyrighted work?

Could you please elaborate on the reasons that you think:

1. A CD at Joe's Used CD Shop is not a licensed copy.

2. A song you download on Kazaa is not an unlicensed copy.

264 posted on 06/26/2003 8:50:55 AM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
What does any of this have to do with the rights of copyright holders,

Everything.

265 posted on 06/26/2003 8:53:18 AM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
Everything.

Such as: ---, ---, ---? Please fill in the blanks.

And please answer the rest of the previous post:

Could you please elaborate on the reasons that you think:

1. A CD at Joe's Used CD Shop is not a licensed copy.

2. A song you download on Kazaa is not an unlicensed copy.

266 posted on 06/26/2003 8:55:10 AM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
Could you please elaborate on the reasons that you think: 1. A CD at Joe's Used CD Shop is not a licensed copy. 2. A song you download on Kazaa is not an unlicensed copy.

1. This is a business making a profit selling a cd and not allowing the copyright holder any benefit from the sale. This is clearly wrong. Also, used book stores are doing the same underhanded practice.

2. A song from Kazaa "could" be an unlicensed copy if.......

A. the song has a valid copyright in the first place ...and (aa.) it was never played on a radio station or anywhere it could be heard for free (bb.) the Copyright holder doesn't want you the hear it

B. A person has never bought the song at any time in the past and paid the "piper" already

267 posted on 06/26/2003 9:07:15 AM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
Thank you for the elaboration.

1. This is a business making a profit selling a cd and not allowing the copyright holder any benefit from the sale. This is clearly wrong. Also, used book stores are doing the same underhanded practice.

This is not an underhanded practice. I suggest you look up something called the "doctrine of first sale." A copyright holder maintains rights to royalties only on an initial purchase. From there, the disc or book or whatever is the owner's to do with as he wishes. (Except to make a copy.)

A song from Kazaa "could" be an unlicensed copy if... A. the song has a valid copyright in the first place

Well, every piece of work is inherently copyrighted. Only work that has fallen into the public domain would be exempt.

(aa.) it was never played on a radio station or anywhere it could be heard for free

This is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything. I mean, you're essentially just making stuff up at this point.

(bb.) the Copyright holder doesn't want you the hear it

Bingo.

B. A person has never bought the song at any time in the past and paid the "piper" already

This is irrelevant. "Buying the song" at some point in the past does not empower you to infringe a copyright holder's exclusive right to reproduce and distribute his work.

268 posted on 06/26/2003 9:16:40 AM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
Please detail points on which I've been wrong.

When was your first post on this issue? How many have you made since then? That's an awful lot of posts, and an awful lot of points.

Fact is, when you made your post here and then tried to back it up here (after being asked to do so no less than three times), I knew you had left Ignorance behind in your rearview mirror for Stupidville, howling like Gary Busey in The Gumball Rally.

269 posted on 06/26/2003 9:19:06 AM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
In you post # 232, you imply that libraries have a legitimate copy of a piece of work.

If you are right,then.....

I buy a cd from a record shop... I make my "allowed" single copy for my mini-disc player...... I give the cd to a friend...... The cd is his now (there are now two legitimate copies)...... He makes a copy for his computer...... and so on...... and so on......

Or someone could call and request the song on the radio......then everyone (that wanted one) could have a copy simultaneously

270 posted on 06/26/2003 9:26:20 AM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: wizzler; Lower55
A copyright holder maintains rights to royalties only on an initial purchase. From there, the disc or book or whatever is the owner's to do with as he wishes. (Except to make a copy.)

For example: Recording the content onto a cassette tape for your own personal use.

Recording a song off of a radio is also prohibited, even if for your own personal use.

In fact, "personal use", in and of itself, is a term opposed by the RIAA.

271 posted on 06/26/2003 9:26:48 AM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Neither of the posts to which you linked prove any sort of mistake or error in judgment.

If you disagree about the nature of file-sharing, or the principles of copyright, etc., then we can disagree. But you've yet to point out any mistake I've made, or to refute my arguments. Here, for instance, you've simply launched a personal attack. You're more interested in going after me than in going after my argument.
272 posted on 06/26/2003 9:27:34 AM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
"Buying the song" at some point in the past does not empower you to infringe a copyright holder's exclusive right to reproduce and distribute his work.

Where did I say that?

273 posted on 06/26/2003 9:29:03 AM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
For example: Recording the content onto a cassette tape for your own personal use.

No, actually, recording a copy onto a cassette tape for personal use is defensible under fair use.

274 posted on 06/26/2003 9:30:33 AM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
Where did I say that?

You were describing the scenario of a song on Kazaa. Distribution is inherent to that scenario. "File-sharing" is a distribution of files.

275 posted on 06/26/2003 9:32:13 AM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
Well, every piece of work is inherently copyrighted. Only work that has fallen into the public domain would be exempt.

Such as playing it on the radio????

276 posted on 06/26/2003 9:33:02 AM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
"File-sharing" is a distribution of files.

And a farmer who has his watermelon patch raided is distributing watermelons.

277 posted on 06/26/2003 9:35:42 AM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
You mean the stupidity of your argument was not self-evident?

You are much worse off than I thought.

But, since you actually require me to explain it:

You said songwriters need that copyright protection so they can feed their kids, implying these people are dirt poor.

After my asking you three times, you give a response that reminded me of an occurrence at a university on the east coast ten years ago: As part of a class, a group of female students posted a sign bearing the names of every male member of the student body at that university, under the legend, All of the below are potential rapists. The insinuation, of course, was that all boys are potential rapists.

With your suggestion in the latter linked post all songwriters are dirt poor, you were making an absolutely incredulous and absurd statement on par with Jhoffa's "Don't like the RIAA and record companies? Then don't listen to music."

In fact, judging from your and his posts in this thread alone, it seems you are once again engaged in a race to the summit of the mountain called obnoxiousness.

278 posted on 06/26/2003 10:04:08 AM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
But you've yet to point out any mistake I've made, or to refute my arguments. Here, for instance, you've simply launched a personal attack. You're more interested in going after me than in going after my argument.

Exactly correct, and it remains the modus operandi of the internet pirates attempting to justify their thievery on internet message boards. They simply refuse to objectively look at the personal responsibility of their own actions, and subsequently incorrectly conclude what they ultimately represent. Much like the alcoholic, who without admission of what his actions indicate, instead blame others and continue their path of self destruction. Good luck in your efforts to educate and enlighten, unfortunately many have simply becomed 'hooked' on free music and will never be cured without equivalent education as provided in 'detox' programs.

279 posted on 06/26/2003 10:28:12 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
and folks can still burn copies of someone else's cd...they are really going to tick people off if they start trying to check what's on someone's computer
280 posted on 06/26/2003 10:34:09 AM PDT by tutstar (I'm not really blonde, it's just low blood sugar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-337 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