RIAA Takes It To The Next Level Today
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">A Boy Named Sue, by Johnny Cash-in</div> <a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1804&u=/washpost/20030908/tc_washpost/a42637_2003sep8&printer=1' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid...3sep8&printer=1</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) (RIAA) today said it filed lawsuits against 261 people accused of trading copyrighted songs on the Internet. The group also said that it would not sue file sharers who promise in writing not to do it again.
The lawsuits, which were filed in federal courts across the country, are the RIAA's latest tactics in its war against the illegal file sharing that record companies blame for plummeting CD sales.
In June, the RIAA promised to sue hundreds of Internet users suspected of illegally trading music using file-swapping services like Kazaa and Morpheus. The association in August clarified that it only would target the most egregious file sharers.
RIAA President Cary Sherman in a teleconference today characterized the people who were sued as "major offenders" who distributed about 1,000 copyrighted music files on average.
The amnesty program, reports of which surfaced last week, would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again. The amnesty would not apply to anyone the RIAA already has subpoenaed for information regarding file swapping.
"We're willing to hold out our version of an olive branch," Sherman said.
About 57 million Americans use file-sharing services, according to Boston-based research firm the Yankee Group. Among the most popular are Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, which rose to prominence after a federal judge shut down the pioneering Napster (news - web sites) service in 2001. Kazaa says that its file sharing software has been downloaded more than 200 million times.
Record companies say file sharing cost the industry more than a billion dollars in lost CD sales between 2000 and 2002. File sharing cost the industry $700 million alone in 2002, according to a report released last week by the Boston-based Forrester research group.
The RIAA has focused most of its efforts on shutting down peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, but a Los Angeles federal judge in an April ruling said that the sites have legal uses and should not be shut down.
The ruling came a day after another federal judge ruled that the RIAA could force Verizon Communications Inc., to hand over the names of two of its high-speed Internet service customers who were illegally trading large amounts of copyrighted music on the Kazaa network.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) (RIAA) today said it filed lawsuits against 261 people accused of trading copyrighted songs on the Internet. The group also said that it would not sue file sharers who promise in writing not to do it again.
The lawsuits, which were filed in federal courts across the country, are the RIAA's latest tactics in its war against the illegal file sharing that record companies blame for plummeting CD sales.
In June, the RIAA promised to sue hundreds of Internet users suspected of illegally trading music using file-swapping services like Kazaa and Morpheus. The association in August clarified that it only would target the most egregious file sharers.
RIAA President Cary Sherman in a teleconference today characterized the people who were sued as "major offenders" who distributed about 1,000 copyrighted music files on average.
The amnesty program, reports of which surfaced last week, would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again. The amnesty would not apply to anyone the RIAA already has subpoenaed for information regarding file swapping.
"We're willing to hold out our version of an olive branch," Sherman said.
About 57 million Americans use file-sharing services, according to Boston-based research firm the Yankee Group. Among the most popular are Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, which rose to prominence after a federal judge shut down the pioneering Napster (news - web sites) service in 2001. Kazaa says that its file sharing software has been downloaded more than 200 million times.
Record companies say file sharing cost the industry more than a billion dollars in lost CD sales between 2000 and 2002. File sharing cost the industry $700 million alone in 2002, according to a report released last week by the Boston-based Forrester research group.
The RIAA has focused most of its efforts on shutting down peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, but a Los Angeles federal judge in an April ruling said that the sites have legal uses and should not be shut down.
The ruling came a day after another federal judge ruled that the RIAA could force Verizon Communications Inc., to hand over the names of two of its high-speed Internet service customers who were illegally trading large amounts of copyrighted music on the Kazaa network.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least thats a start...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least thats a start... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A start my ****.
Its gonna have to be in writing, a contract thats probably 400 pages.
<a href='http://www.overclockers.com/tips00455/' target='_blank'>This Is Amnesty?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The important point is the term "willful copyright infringement." If you have "willful" copyright infringement, criminal charges can be made against you. That means jail.
If you actually did what the RIAA suggested, complete with notarized statements and all, and they caught you at it again, you've given them a ready-made criminal case tied with a bow proving "willfulness" which they can then hand over to the authorities to try and get you a stay at Club Fed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Secondly the RIAA said it was gunna file 1600 and only ended up filing 2xx.
Laslty, they cant prove that you have the files unless they take your HD, which would require search warrants and the like. Everything else is heresay, if their argument is "Well your ISP gave us your IP adress and look, we recorded packet A-Z, and those packetes contained our music" your response should always be "Nope sorry, never happened, someone must have spoofed my IP addy, or my machine was used as a zombie by some vile evil being, I never physically had your files, and since you dont have my HD your case is full of crap."
Or something along those lines, there are plenty of utilities out there that will write all 0's or all 1's to a certain section of your HD if you need to wipe it in a hurry BTW.
I hope the people who they filed against didnt get public defenders.
<a href='http://www.overclockers.com/tips00455/' target='_blank'>This Is Amnesty?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The important point is the term "willful copyright infringement." If you have "willful" copyright infringement, criminal charges can be made against you. That means jail.
If you actually did what the RIAA suggested, complete with notarized statements and all, and they caught you at it again, you've given them a ready-made criminal case tied with a bow proving "willfulness" which they can then hand over to the authorities to try and get you a stay at Club Fed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen, dont know how I missed your reply.
Is it just me, or does the RIAA seem to be run by a bunch of whiny little kids more and more every day?
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yep yep. *Yawns.
The fact that you consider the RIAA to be a bunch of "greedy business suit wearing drones" doesn't change the fact that you are a thief.
The fact that you only like one song on the cd doesn't change the fact that you are a thief.
The fact that many bands that make a big deal out of file-sharing, like Metallica, are obnoxious, childish, skill-lacking (in my opinion, which is what musical preference is all about) groups of 'musicians' doesn't change the fact that you are a thief.
The fact that bands and their record labels could combat file sharing by focusing more on live performances, or by including special goodies in their albums, doesn't change the fact that you, my friend, are a thief.
Now, if you realize that you're a thief, and just don't care, that's one thing. But lots of people seem to think they have a right to music they didn't pay for, which just isn't the case.
Secondly the RIAA said it was gunna file 1600 and only ended up filing 2xx.
Laslty, they cant prove that you have the files unless they take your HD, which would require search warrants and the like. Everything else is heresay, if their argument is "Well your ISP gave us your IP adress and look, we recorded packet A-Z, and those packetes contained our music" your response should always be "Nope sorry, never happened, someone must have spoofed my IP addy, or my machine was used as a zombie by some vile evil being, I never physically had your files, and since you dont have my HD your case is full of crap."
Or something along those lines, there are plenty of utilities out there that will write all 0's or all 1's to a certain section of your HD if you need to wipe it in a hurry BTW.
I hope the people who they filed against didnt get public defenders. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Under the DMCA or some other legal gibberish, they can take your HD under a suspicion :-/
No, you are not.
You are paying so that a myriad number of employees of a recording company can get their paychecks, and the CEOs can get their fat paychecks too.
If it was paying for the MUSIC, the money'd be going to the artists. The money is not going to the artists -- OK, a little is, a very small percent of the cost. I'm in an unsigned band and we're selling our music for $5. Minus $.25 makes it 4.75 for our music. We sell our music for $4.75. The value of a band's music does not jump $12 after it's been signed.
if music costs were prohibitively high, then sales would drop and the sellers would have to increase quality or decrease the asking price to bring profits back up. Record sales are at an all time low. You may have noticed extra content on your CD's, or that many record companies are cutting retail prices. this is a sign we are winning. keep not buying and it will force them to change their ways to bring the market back. a company can run on lawsuits only just-so long before they have to go back to selling things to willing customers.
( actually i learned that in ECON 020, the intro course! )
if music costs were prohibitively high, then sales would drop and the sellers would have to increase quality or decrease the asking price to bring profits back up. Record sales are at an all time low. You may have noticed extra content on your CD's, or that many record companies are cutting retail prices. this is a sign we are winning. keep not buying and it will force them to change their ways to bring the market back. a company can run on lawsuits only just-so long before they have to go back to selling things to willing customers.
( actually i learned that in ECON 020, the intro course! ) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
what he said. I bought my last CD many many many months ago. I believe it was in this forum that I swore to never buy another CD until they changed their draconian ways. They don't seem to be planning to do so. I won't buy any more music CDs. My/their loss.
while the guy who posted about "stealing" music is correct, I would have to argue that charging 40 dollars for bread doesn't make it less necessary, or worth that amount. The people who feel that they "need" bread will either have the option of acquiring it legally and not buying any other groceries, or stealing it and buying other things as well. I guess that could be argued for anything at any time (the cost vs. benefit of stealing ANYTHING), so I'll stop now.
Stealing music is wrong, paying 20 dollars for it (15 dollars for it) is probably just as wrong.
as it is, I only buy CD's now if I have heard a lot of the album from friends or the I-net or if its a band I like
*such as Linkin Park. I bought Meteora not having heard anything. Best Cd purchse.ever.*
but, OTOH, we dont care about laws when it comes to computers, just like the fifteen year old who clicks "ENTER - I AM 18+" on a webpage is doing something illegal, he doesnt give a crap.
the real argument is whether downloading songs is cutting into their profits, and i dont think it is. if i wanted a cd i would buy a cd. i dont want a cd, i want the random techno i find online, so thats what i get.
The record industry isn't trying to arrest everyone involved with illegal music downloading (not only would that be impossible, nearly half of america would have to be sued <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). What they're doing is a scare tactic. I mean, wth are the chances that they'll sue you out of the 57 million other people they could choose? However, paranoid parents and other "uptight types" are gonna freak. "omg i don wan by lil baby girl to get sued oh no" guess what that means?
Under the DMCA or some other legal gibberish, they can take your HD under a suspicion :-/ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah but that would mean someone comming to your house to physically take it. I'm sure they wouldnt break the door down, and no one can come in without your permission unless they have search warrant, which they still need to obtain for any of the evidance to stick, its just a scare tactic to detur the d-loading of music, and I would truly feel sorry for the poor fool who would try and barge into my house without ID or Warrant, in CA we have something called "home is my castle" prevision, its in the "lethal force in self defence" book, it says you are not requirted to flee your home, even if fleeing is a safer option than confrontation. And if yiu can convince a reasonable person (jury) that your use of lethat force was justified (you thought it was a home invasion, some guy with no ID or warrant barging in) then you dont do time <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf' target='_blank'>Firearms Regulations for CA</a>
its a good read and its something any gun owner(in CA) should know inside and out
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->