That'll teach them to sue 11 year old girls <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Dec 20 2003, 07:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Dec 20 2003, 07:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, the RIAA doesn't ruin kids lives, downloading music does. Face it, it's illegal. The RIAA , however, has a right to go after people who download songs.
I'm not preaching that we all stop file sharing and live in la-la land, but at least stop bitching about the RIAA and how it ruins innocent lives. The RIAA is doing it's job. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> At the moment, the typical penalties for downloading a single song are an order of magnitude steeper than the penalties for shoplifting an entire cd from a store. When a corporation has enough access to the government to prevent intelligent legislation from being passed, legality ceases to have any moral significance.
When you steal something from a store, you're stealing a good. When you're downloading music from the internet, you're breaking copyright law. I see what you're getting at, but just by stealing a CD from a store, you haven't really broken copyright law. Especially if you get caught before even opening the case. On top of that, theft from a store affects the store itself, through stockloss. It must be prevented by the loss prevention team in the store. The theft of music online directly affects sales for the music industry. The music industry is responsible to stop it.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited December 2003
My point is that copyright law has ceased to have any moral relevance. Obviously you aren't breaking copyright law by stealing the cd from the store. You are taking someone's property. And this isn't wishy washy idea property. This is solid, physical, I-have-it-or-I-don't property. Which should be a much bigger deal.
Think of it like this. Suppose you had the ability to copy a CD without removing the packaging. Now person A walks into a store and copies one of the tracks from a CD and walks out. Person B walks into the store grabs the CD, stuffs it under his shirt, and walks out. Which person has committed the bigger crime?
Person A has more stuff, and the store has the same amount of stuff. Person B has more stuff and the store has less stuff. Person B is obviously hurting the store more.
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Dec 20 2003, 09:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Dec 20 2003, 09:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gender or age plays no difference when downloading music. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Couldn't have said it better myself. <!--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-->One word. P W N T.
That'll teach them to sue 11 year old girls.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I laughed my arse off when I heard that. She's the one that's "PWNT."
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Dec 21 2003, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Dec 21 2003, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point is that copyright law has ceased to have any moral relevance... *edited for space* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I understand your point. I think the issue is that when a person steals a CD from a store, the store is out $10-$15. That's all it cost the store to get that CD (probably less). When a person illegally downloads a song from the Internet, they take songs that cost thousands of dollars to produce. That has to be the way the fine can be up to $150,000 per song. I thought copyright infringement cases would only win back the amount lost on the theft. I may be wrong (at least, I think this is the way of photography).
But I see your point. It's due to different laws. Intellectual property now seems to be more worthy of protection that actual property. I believe the issue is that when someone steals a CD, it can be replaced with another CD. But when someone steals a song, it's not something that can be replaced. And, the music industry is much more affected by p2p networks than CD theft, because the stores have already purchased the CDs when they display them in the store. The RIAA already got paid from that. As long as someone doesn't steal and take away another sale, it's not their problem.
--- Different point below ---
Oh, and for the whole 'now they won't sue another 12 year old girl' kick, might I remind everyone the girl had over 1,000 songs on her computer. $2,000 is mere pocket change for what she could have been fined. Ignorance of the law does not exclude the criminal. It works that way with everything.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Liku+Dec 21 2003, 08:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Liku @ Dec 21 2003, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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-->One word. P W N T.
That'll teach them to sue 11 year old girls.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I laughed my arse off when I heard that. She's the one that's "PWNT." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> LOL seriously!!! she should have at least put up a better firewall to deter any RIAA traces thru her enhanced DC++.. right?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--MedHead+Dec 21 2003, 03:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Dec 21 2003, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, I understand your point. I think the issue is that when a person steals a CD from a store, the store is out $10-$15. That's all it cost the store to get that CD (probably less). When a person illegally downloads a song from the Internet, they take songs that cost thousands of dollars to produce. That has to be the way the fine can be up to $150,000 per song. I thought copyright infringement cases would only win back the amount lost on the theft. I may be wrong (at least, I think this is the way of photography).
But I see your point. It's due to different laws. Intellectual property now seems to be more worthy of protection that actual property. I believe the issue is that when someone steals a CD, it can be replaced with another CD. But when someone steals a song, it's not something that can be replaced. And, the music industry is much more affected by p2p networks than CD theft, because the stores have already purchased the CDs when they display them in the store. The RIAA already got paid from that. As long as someone doesn't steal and take away another sale, it's not their problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When you download a song though, you aren't "taking" anything. You are just copying it. That's why nowhere in all of copyright law is it ever referred to as theft. Everyone has exactly what they did before hand, except that you also now have it. The person who made it still has the song. When you steal a CD you are also taking songs that cost thousands of dollars to produce, but in addition you are screwing the store for 15 bucks.
Stealing a CD is the equivalent of downloading an entire album, and then in addition going to a store and snapping one of the CDs in half.
I'm with moultano here (and should I note that I bought half a dozen CDs this month?). The claim that a single incident of a copyright infringment has to be fined high enough to basically balance the costs that went into the production of the copyrighted material may have been valid when copyright infringments were isolated cases of one label against another; nowadays, when a single song is downloaded by thousands of users, it's ludicrous to make each and everyone theoretically pay multiple percent of that songs production costs.
Note by the way that a number of studies conducted by universities (i.e.: entities not affiliated with the RIAA) showed that the recent monetary losses in the music business were <i>not</i> to be attributed to P2P, which had on the contrary on the whole the effect of advertisement, but to the music industries overly focussed 'one-hit wonder' policy during the early and mid 90s which now hurt the immensely profitable backbook sales (the big labels get traditionally the most money out of 'Best of'-compilations and the likes, and the ridiculous number of small starlets that popped up during the mentioned timeframe make such almost impossible to compile). Thus, the RIAAs witchhunt for P2Pers is <i>not</i> a fight for money.
Instead, it's an attempt of retaining the distributory monopoly the RIAA has achieved since the last ten years. While CDs were the only realisitically viable medium to sell music on, the major labels could dictate the conditions of the artists contracts with almost no fear of rejection - thus todays situation where an aspiring band might be Top10 in the Charts, but is indebted to the label unless the tour is a success. This changed with MP3 - CD sales from bandsites are very often in the hands of the band itself, and thanks to the basically uncontrollable advertisement medium of P2P and webradio, a band can get big without the help of a big label (good examples for this are Nickelback and System of a Down, which both funded their first records themselves and gained large internet followings before any major label had knocked on their doors). This is what the fight against filesharing is about - the attempt of a technically obsolete distribution structure to retain its power.
Yes, it's against the law, but look in a random history book, and you'll find out that lawmakers can actually err.
Oh, and seeing that this isn't really O-T anymore, <span style='color:white'>***moved.***</span>
I hate the RIAA because they think they can thwart file sharing technology altogether. That and the fact that CD prices were/are artificialy inflated for years. ANd the fact that they have consistently churned out complete rubbish for years and years. And the fact that they have practically rendered music completely irrelevent. And the fact that signing bands to shelve them just so thier competiters cant sign and market them is a common practice. And the fact that beleive that the artists work for them instead of the other way around. And the fact that ive spent thousands of dollars on tapes and Cds in my life but they will sue me for millions because I have an MP3 on my computer...they suck on so many levels its rediculous.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Dec 20 2003, 11:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Dec 20 2003, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gender or age plays no difference when downloading music. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, so my 2-year old brother should be sued his **** off because he played abit with Kazaaa, yeah. Here in Denmark you wont be held resposible unless you are over 15 years, so age matters, atleast in my country <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Also, I dont see how they can project profit loss so my bet is they are making up those numbers to help their propeganda about those bad bad pirates (or ordinary people as others put it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) I usually find music over the intarwab, and if I like it enough I usually buy the CD for better quality where I would not usually buy any CDs, so long live the P2P <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Dec 21 2003, 05:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Dec 21 2003, 05:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Note by the way that a number of studies conducted by universities (i.e.: entities not affiliated with the RIAA) showed that the recent monetary losses in the music business were <i>not</i> to be attributed to P2P, which had on the contrary on the whole the effect of advertisement, but to the music industries overly focussed 'one-hit wonder' policy during the early and mid 90s which now hurt the immensely profitable backbook sales (the big labels get traditionally the most money out of 'Best of'-compilations and the likes, and the ridiculous number of small starlets that popped up during the mentioned timeframe make such almost impossible to compile). Thus, the RIAAs witchhunt for P2Pers is <i>not</i> a fight for money.
Yes, it's against the law, but look in a random history book, and you'll find out that lawmakers can actually err. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I understand that. But right now, downloading music without paying for it is illegal. Regardless of it being right or not, until someone lobbies for it to be legal, it's <b>still illegal.</b> People can wave their fists at the sky all day long, screaming against "The Man", but it won't change the fact that it's still considered illegal.
And I think it should be. VCR's were the bane of film companies existance. Radio/tape players were the ruin of the music industry. They proclaimed that it would ruin their business for good. It was found to be legal, and it was allowed.
So the record/movie companies compromised.
Radio stations that purposely talk over the beginning and end of each song to discourage recording. Cassette tapes are of poor sound quality, so it really is pointless to record the song. On top of that, it's time consuming. If I wanted to record a song from the new Barenaked Ladies album, I'd have to stand around the radio for hours to wait for the station to play it.
Television stations that are on normal cable or broadcast television do play movies. But notice that the only movies they play (apart from their own originals) are several years old! The companies that made those movies aren't getting any money for it anymore. With digital cable, you can watch whatever movie you wish - BUT. Yes, a but. You pay a premium price for it. Way expensive. On top of that, my experience with digital cable is that you can't watch one show and tape another, and every button pressed on the remote control is relayed to the tape. Meaning that if you turn the volume up or down, it records not only the sound level change, but also the on screen guide. If you mute the volume, it's muted on the tape. Meaning that to tape a movie, you're gonna have to turn on the tv, turn on the vcr, press record, and walk away. You can only record one movie every two or so hours. It's not that great, time wise. And, it's pointless, seeing how you can turn it on and watch it at any time on the digital cable network.
The companies compromised. Sure, we can record television shows. But who wants the poor quality of a video cassette? Who wants to tape their radio stations, filled with static and poor sound quality? Not very worthwhile.
But with downloading music, you get sound quality rivaling a CD! And free! And not only can you download a song and continue to use the computer, you can download hundreds of songs at the same time! This is obviously much more damaging to the music industry than having the ability to tape MTV.
Sure, lawmakers can err. But for the most part, laws are passed to help the citizens (and in many cases, because of the citizens). If one disagrees with this, find an alternative that benefits both sides of the argument, rather than continue to rationalize that "The Man" already has more money than they need. The record companies are based in the United States of America. There is no rule that says that people can't have a lot of money.
There is, however, a rule that I remember clearly.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Exodus 20:17
Let them have their money. Work hard, and you'll get some too.
<!--QuoteBegin--MedHead+Dec 22 2003, 05:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Dec 22 2003, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I understand that. But right now, downloading music without paying for it is illegal. Regardless of it being right or not, until someone lobbies for it to be legal, it's <b>still illegal.</b> People can wave their fists at the sky all day long, screaming against "The Man", but it won't change the fact that it's still considered illegal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> File sharing is perfectly legitemant, The RIAA needs to take thier heads out of thier **** and create a business plan, not try to shake thier big stick.
<!--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-->And I think it should be. VCR's were the bane of film companies existance. Radio/tape players were the ruin of the music industry. They proclaimed that it would ruin their business for good. It was found to be legal, and it was allowed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither of these were ever illegal...
<!--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-->So the record/movie companies compromised.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you mean, they had no choice and dealt with it...indeed, they <i>compromised</i> Ironically, both of these turned out to be the most profitable facet of business either of the industries had ever seen up to then.
<!--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-->Television stations that are on normal cable or broadcast television do play movies. But notice that the only movies they play (apart from their own originals) are several years old! The companies that made those movies aren't getting any money for it anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your kidding right? They get money everytime anyone anywhere plays even a single clip from any movie, The movies are old because movies go through a strategic marketing process, gaining highest profits from all media before they fade out entirely....they hit TV "several years" later because at this point rental and video/DVD sales have tapered off.
<!--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-->With digital cable, you can watch whatever movie you wish - BUT. Yes, a but. You pay a premium price for it. Way expensive. On top of that, my experience with digital cable is that you can't watch one show and tape another, and every button pressed on the remote control is relayed to the tape. Meaning that if you turn the volume up or down, it records not only the sound level change, but also the on screen guide. If you mute the volume, it's muted on the tape. Meaning that to tape a movie, you're gonna have to turn on the tv, turn on the vcr, press record, and walk away. You can only record one movie every two or so hours. It's not that great, time wise. And, it's pointless, seeing how you can turn it on and watch it at any time on the digital cable network.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ROFL!!!, have you ever usd a VCR in your life? I can record chanel six and flip through chanels, change volume and settings all day long!, and in the end all Ive recorded is channel 6 at a set volume. I think youve been using a camcorder pointed at the TV screen.
<!--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 companies compromised. Sure, we can record television shows. But who wants the poor quality of a video cassette? Who wants to tape their radio stations, filled with static and poor sound quality? Not very worthwhile.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Noone comprimised anything, they simply created a business model....they broke out the drawing board instead of the handcuffs. The quality of radio signals is exellent where Im at.
<!--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-->But with downloading music, you get sound quality rivaling a CD! And free! And not only can you download a song and continue to use the computer, you can download hundreds of songs at the same time! This is obviously much more damaging to the music industry than having the ability to tape MTV.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only people damaged by it if anyone, are overpaid execs, bands barely see a dime from CD sales. And the bands pay for production costs out of thier own pockets and make thier profits by touring.
The most ironic thing about any of this is that the "best selling album" records are broken cosistetly and have been broken more in the last 6 years than at any other period in the past. "Dark side of the Moon" had sold more copies than any other album ever over 25 years...Back streat boy broke that record and then N Sync did it again a year later. Neither of them have been around for 25 years yet both of them are selling the number of copies it took 25 years to amass? T
he number of albums a top artists sells surpases the number top artists sold 15 years ago 10 fold. Record companies have always counted on a handful of artists to bring in the money, and currently, that handfull is bringing in more money than they have ever seen...Thier losses are exaggerated imo.
The music industry and consumers changed the way they deal with music when the video gained popularity, wich initially kicked them in the **** if theyd care to realize it. A big part of the reason they lose money is the way they dealt with music videos initially. Now that they have a solid business model, they are exploiting the video thing to immense gains.
<!--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-->"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Exodus 20:17<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow thats completely irrelevant!!
<!--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-->Let them have their money. Work hard, and you'll get some too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Didnt that used to be America's mantra?
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Exodus 20:17 . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry but the bible reflected the society they had when it was written and in moral stance I feel downloading music to be fine even though it's illegal if it's copyrighted, besides, I dont believe music or sounds to be a property.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited December 2003
Your insightful post have persuaded me.. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Epidemic+Dec 21 2003, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Dec 21 2003, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Dec 20 2003, 11:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Dec 20 2003, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gender or age plays no difference when downloading music. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, so my 2-year old brother should be sued his **** off because he played abit with Kazaaa, yeah. Here in Denmark you wont be held resposible unless you are over 15 years, so age matters, atleast in my country <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Also, I dont see how they can project profit loss so my bet is they are making up those numbers to help their propeganda about those bad bad pirates (or ordinary people as others put it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) I usually find music over the intarwab, and if I like it enough I usually buy the CD for better quality where I would not usually buy any CDs, so long live the P2P <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My views are obviously different than yours, but I do think that a person should be punshed for a crime the same way, no matter how old or in what condition.
So, yes, if your two year old brother got online, searched for a copyrighted music file, and downloaded it, he should have to pay for the crime as well.
I was hoping this thread would die, because I was done with it. Have your fun guys. One day you'll understand. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Riiiight, Im supposed to have some biblical epiphany right?
Read more about it, for those still thinking that anyone has your best interest as a consumer or taxpayer at heart:
<!--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 Sound of the Industry by Douglas Wolk No Trust Congress and movie star dance the anti-download bolero December 24 - 30, 2003
You can say this much for Canadians: They know that the Recording Industry Association of America's power stops at the border. The Copyright Board of Canada ruled on December 12 that making personal copies of music files—no matter where they came from—is legal, although manufacturers of MP3 players will be required to charge a tariff of up to $25 a 'Pod to compensate songwriters and performers. In the meantime, the Canadian music publishing organization SOCAN is agitating for Canadian ISPs to pay them a flat annual royalty, on the grounds that, well, everybody downloads music anyway.
Down south in the States, everybody's still downloading music anyway (as illustrated on the cynical but very funny anti-CDs-for-Christmas site whatacrappypresent.com). But our legislative bodies are a lot cozier with the entertainment industry—Bradley Buckles is leaving his job as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms at the beginning of January to run the RIAA's anti-piracy division.
The RIAA's pocket is becoming a cozy bipartisan hangout. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) recently proposed the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act, which would make it a felony to put not-yet-released recordings (or films that haven't yet been released on video) on a publicly accessible computer network, with prison terms of up to three years attached. (It would also authorize up to three years in the slammer for using a camcorder in a movie theater.) And—here's the kicker—it would presume that the movie or recording in question was copied at least 10 times, simply because it was on a network, whether or not anybody actually downloaded it.
Feinstein and Cornyn announced the bill at a November 13 press conference at which they were joined by RIAA chairman Mitch Bainwol, MPAA president Jack Valenti, and Bo Derek, who's evidently bummed about all those file traders who kept Malibu's Most Wanted from being a box office blockbuster. Coincidentally, according to opensecrets.org, entertainment was the fourth-largest industrial supporter of Feinstein's 2000 campaign.
What this translates to in reality is that, under current law, music copyright owners (including record companies) are exempt from antitrust laws in setting royalty rates for "phonorecords" (i.e., CDs). EnFORCE expands that exemption in dramatic but vague ways. Essentially, it's meant to protect the RIAA from antitrust lawsuits like the one the Webcaster Alliance recently filed, alleging that anti-competitive behavior by the big labels was meant to drive small webcasters out of business. (The protecting-the-children stuff seems to be in the bill basically to guarantee that a vote against it is a vote for pedophilia.)
Meanwhile, independent musicians have lost a high-profile Internet resource. Until December 2, a quarter-million unknown artists had songs on MP3.com, free for the plucking. Vivendi Universal bought the site back in mid 2001 and made extensive use of its technology, but had no use for 1.6 million nonhit songs; it recently sold MP3.com to CNET, which shut it down and dumped all of its content. The front page is currently filled by a placeholder announcing that there'll be some kind of music thing there eventually, and that the CNET-owned download.com will have an artist-services site opening next year.
The loss is more symbolic than real. MP3.com wasn't all that important anymore: Storage and bandwidth costs have dropped so far in the last few years that it now makes more sense for most Web-savvy musicians to set up their own sites than to go through a big, cluttered clearinghouse. But MP3.com's huge, egalitarian giveaway—its sense of 250,000 artists sharing their voices freely—now seems like a relic of an earlier Internet, before songs cost a buck apiece and were all controlled by paranoid corporations. Everybody's still downloading music anyway, but now Americans have yet another reason to think longingly of the Great White North. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--cshank4+Dec 19 2003, 03:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cshank4 @ Dec 19 2003, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> RIAA did go a lil far, and yes what they where doing was Unconstitutional. Now, I'm sorta against file sharing to an extent, these peoiple that download whole CDs and could give a flip less should be dealt with, but people like me that download say the occasional song to listen to while playing a game or something, or just to listen to while studying, ya know should be left alone.
Plus if the RIAA or anyother money lubbers try to come to my house (along with any mailman carrying those AOL discs) will have to consult my agent. Mr. R.V. Raging Bull. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> EXACTLY my thoughts.
I own 143 LEGIT Cd's. For a college student, thats not too shabby.
When the RIAA had my internet shut off at my college because my room mate downloaded a few songs (a little more than a few, 30 :-\) on my computer, I was quite **** off.
I was hoping this thread would die, because I was done with it. Have your fun guys. One day you'll understand. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Read:
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> Alright! This is extremely good. Now that I don't have to worry about it, I can download as much music as I want. Muahahah.
Comments
That'll teach them to sue 11 year old girls <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->.
I'm not preaching that we all stop file sharing and live in la-la land, but at least stop bitching about the RIAA and how it ruins innocent lives. The RIAA is doing it's job. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the moment, the typical penalties for downloading a single song are an order of magnitude steeper than the penalties for shoplifting an entire cd from a store. When a corporation has enough access to the government to prevent intelligent legislation from being passed, legality ceases to have any moral significance.
Think of it like this. Suppose you had the ability to copy a CD without removing the packaging. Now person A walks into a store and copies one of the tracks from a CD and walks out. Person B walks into the store grabs the CD, stuffs it under his shirt, and walks out. Which person has committed the bigger crime?
Person A has more stuff, and the store has the same amount of stuff. Person B has more stuff and the store has less stuff. Person B is obviously hurting the store more.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
<!--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-->One word. P W N T.
That'll teach them to sue 11 year old girls.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I laughed my arse off when I heard that. She's the one that's "PWNT."
Yes, I understand your point. I think the issue is that when a person steals a CD from a store, the store is out $10-$15. That's all it cost the store to get that CD (probably less). When a person illegally downloads a song from the Internet, they take songs that cost thousands of dollars to produce. That has to be the way the fine can be up to $150,000 per song. I thought copyright infringement cases would only win back the amount lost on the theft. I may be wrong (at least, I think this is the way of photography).
But I see your point. It's due to different laws. Intellectual property now seems to be more worthy of protection that actual property. I believe the issue is that when someone steals a CD, it can be replaced with another CD. But when someone steals a song, it's not something that can be replaced. And, the music industry is much more affected by p2p networks than CD theft, because the stores have already purchased the CDs when they display them in the store. The RIAA already got paid from that. As long as someone doesn't steal and take away another sale, it's not their problem.
--- Different point below ---
Oh, and for the whole 'now they won't sue another 12 year old girl' kick, might I remind everyone the girl had over 1,000 songs on her computer. $2,000 is mere pocket change for what she could have been fined. Ignorance of the law does not exclude the criminal. It works that way with everything.
<!--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-->One word. P W N T.
That'll teach them to sue 11 year old girls.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I laughed my arse off when I heard that. She's the one that's "PWNT." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL seriously!!! she should have at least put up a better firewall to deter any RIAA traces thru her enhanced DC++.. right?
[adjusts glasses with tape in the middle]
But I see your point. It's due to different laws. Intellectual property now seems to be more worthy of protection that actual property. I believe the issue is that when someone steals a CD, it can be replaced with another CD. But when someone steals a song, it's not something that can be replaced. And, the music industry is much more affected by p2p networks than CD theft, because the stores have already purchased the CDs when they display them in the store. The RIAA already got paid from that. As long as someone doesn't steal and take away another sale, it's not their problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you download a song though, you aren't "taking" anything. You are just copying it. That's why nowhere in all of copyright law is it ever referred to as theft. Everyone has exactly what they did before hand, except that you also now have it. The person who made it still has the song. When you steal a CD you are also taking songs that cost thousands of dollars to produce, but in addition you are screwing the store for 15 bucks.
Stealing a CD is the equivalent of downloading an entire album, and then in addition going to a store and snapping one of the CDs in half.
Note by the way that a number of studies conducted by universities (i.e.: entities not affiliated with the RIAA) showed that the recent monetary losses in the music business were <i>not</i> to be attributed to P2P, which had on the contrary on the whole the effect of advertisement, but to the music industries overly focussed 'one-hit wonder' policy during the early and mid 90s which now hurt the immensely profitable backbook sales (the big labels get traditionally the most money out of 'Best of'-compilations and the likes, and the ridiculous number of small starlets that popped up during the mentioned timeframe make such almost impossible to compile). Thus, the RIAAs witchhunt for P2Pers is <i>not</i> a fight for money.
Instead, it's an attempt of retaining the distributory monopoly the RIAA has achieved since the last ten years. While CDs were the only realisitically viable medium to sell music on, the major labels could dictate the conditions of the artists contracts with almost no fear of rejection - thus todays situation where an aspiring band might be Top10 in the Charts, but is indebted to the label unless the tour is a success.
This changed with MP3 - CD sales from bandsites are very often in the hands of the band itself, and thanks to the basically uncontrollable advertisement medium of P2P and webradio, a band can get big without the help of a big label (good examples for this are Nickelback and System of a Down, which both funded their first records themselves and gained large internet followings before any major label had knocked on their doors).
This is what the fight against filesharing is about - the attempt of a technically obsolete distribution structure to retain its power.
Yes, it's against the law, but look in a random history book, and you'll find out that lawmakers can actually err.
Oh, and seeing that this isn't really O-T anymore, <span style='color:white'>***moved.***</span>
RIAA can eat it...that is all
Right, so my 2-year old brother should be sued his **** off because he played abit with Kazaaa, yeah.
Here in Denmark you wont be held resposible unless you are over 15 years, so age matters, atleast in my country <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also, I dont see how they can project profit loss so my bet is they are making up those numbers to help their propeganda about those bad bad pirates (or ordinary people as others put it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
I usually find music over the intarwab, and if I like it enough I usually buy the CD for better quality where I would not usually buy any CDs, so long live the P2P <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, it's against the law, but look in a random history book, and you'll find out that lawmakers can actually err. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand that. But right now, downloading music without paying for it is illegal. Regardless of it being right or not, until someone lobbies for it to be legal, it's <b>still illegal.</b> People can wave their fists at the sky all day long, screaming against "The Man", but it won't change the fact that it's still considered illegal.
And I think it should be. VCR's were the bane of film companies existance. Radio/tape players were the ruin of the music industry. They proclaimed that it would ruin their business for good. It was found to be legal, and it was allowed.
So the record/movie companies compromised.
Radio stations that purposely talk over the beginning and end of each song to discourage recording. Cassette tapes are of poor sound quality, so it really is pointless to record the song. On top of that, it's time consuming. If I wanted to record a song from the new Barenaked Ladies album, I'd have to stand around the radio for hours to wait for the station to play it.
Television stations that are on normal cable or broadcast television do play movies. But notice that the only movies they play (apart from their own originals) are several years old! The companies that made those movies aren't getting any money for it anymore. With digital cable, you can watch whatever movie you wish - BUT. Yes, a but. You pay a premium price for it. Way expensive. On top of that, my experience with digital cable is that you can't watch one show and tape another, and every button pressed on the remote control is relayed to the tape. Meaning that if you turn the volume up or down, it records not only the sound level change, but also the on screen guide. If you mute the volume, it's muted on the tape. Meaning that to tape a movie, you're gonna have to turn on the tv, turn on the vcr, press record, and walk away. You can only record one movie every two or so hours. It's not that great, time wise. And, it's pointless, seeing how you can turn it on and watch it at any time on the digital cable network.
The companies compromised. Sure, we can record television shows. But who wants the poor quality of a video cassette? Who wants to tape their radio stations, filled with static and poor sound quality? Not very worthwhile.
But with downloading music, you get sound quality rivaling a CD! And free! And not only can you download a song and continue to use the computer, you can download hundreds of songs at the same time! This is obviously much more damaging to the music industry than having the ability to tape MTV.
Sure, lawmakers can err. But for the most part, laws are passed to help the citizens (and in many cases, because of the citizens). If one disagrees with this, find an alternative that benefits both sides of the argument, rather than continue to rationalize that "The Man" already has more money than they need. The record companies are based in the United States of America. There is no rule that says that people can't have a lot of money.
There is, however, a rule that I remember clearly.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Exodus 20:17
Let them have their money. Work hard, and you'll get some too.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
File sharing is perfectly legitemant, The RIAA needs to take thier heads out of thier **** and create a business plan, not try to shake thier big stick.
<!--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-->And I think it should be. VCR's were the bane of film companies existance. Radio/tape players were the ruin of the music industry. They proclaimed that it would ruin their business for good. It was found to be legal, and it was allowed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither of these were ever illegal...
<!--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-->So the record/movie companies compromised.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you mean, they had no choice and dealt with it...indeed, they <i>compromised</i>
Ironically, both of these turned out to be the most profitable facet of business either of the industries had ever seen up to then.
<!--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-->Television stations that are on normal cable or broadcast television do play movies. But notice that the only movies they play (apart from their own originals) are several years old! The companies that made those movies aren't getting any money for it anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your kidding right? They get money everytime anyone anywhere plays even a single clip from any movie, The movies are old because movies go through a strategic marketing process, gaining highest profits from all media before they fade out entirely....they hit TV "several years" later because at this point rental and video/DVD sales have tapered off.
<!--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-->With digital cable, you can watch whatever movie you wish - BUT. Yes, a but. You pay a premium price for it. Way expensive. On top of that, my experience with digital cable is that you can't watch one show and tape another, and every button pressed on the remote control is relayed to the tape. Meaning that if you turn the volume up or down, it records not only the sound level change, but also the on screen guide. If you mute the volume, it's muted on the tape. Meaning that to tape a movie, you're gonna have to turn on the tv, turn on the vcr, press record, and walk away. You can only record one movie every two or so hours. It's not that great, time wise. And, it's pointless, seeing how you can turn it on and watch it at any time on the digital cable network.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL!!!, have you ever usd a VCR in your life? I can record chanel six and flip through chanels, change volume and settings all day long!, and in the end all Ive recorded is channel 6 at a set volume. I think youve been using a camcorder pointed at the TV screen.
<!--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 companies compromised. Sure, we can record television shows. But who wants the poor quality of a video cassette? Who wants to tape their radio stations, filled with static and poor sound quality? Not very worthwhile.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Noone comprimised anything, they simply created a business model....they broke out the drawing board instead of the handcuffs. The quality of radio signals is exellent where Im at.
<!--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-->But with downloading music, you get sound quality rivaling a CD! And free! And not only can you download a song and continue to use the computer, you can download hundreds of songs at the same time! This is obviously much more damaging to the music industry than having the ability to tape MTV.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only people damaged by it if anyone, are overpaid execs, bands barely see a dime from CD sales. And the bands pay for production costs out of thier own pockets and make thier profits by touring.
The most ironic thing about any of this is that the "best selling album" records are broken cosistetly and have been broken more in the last 6 years than at any other period in the past. "Dark side of the Moon" had sold more copies than any other album ever over 25 years...Back streat boy broke that record and then N Sync did it again a year later. Neither of them have been around for 25 years yet both of them are selling the number of copies it took 25 years to amass? T
he number of albums a top artists sells surpases the number top artists sold 15 years ago 10 fold. Record companies have always counted on a handful of artists to bring in the money, and currently, that handfull is bringing in more money than they have ever seen...Thier losses are exaggerated imo.
The music industry and consumers changed the way they deal with music when the video gained popularity, wich initially kicked them in the **** if theyd care to realize it. A big part of the reason they lose money is the way they dealt with music videos initially. Now that they have a solid business model, they are exploiting the video thing to immense gains.
<!--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-->"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Exodus 20:17<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow thats completely irrelevant!!
<!--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-->Let them have their money. Work hard, and you'll get some too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didnt that used to be America's mantra?
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Exodus 20:17
. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry but the bible reflected the society they had when it was written and in moral stance I feel downloading music to be fine even though it's illegal if it's copyrighted, besides, I dont believe music or sounds to be a property.
I was hoping this thread would die, because I was done with it. Have your fun guys. One day you'll understand.
Right, so my 2-year old brother should be sued his **** off because he played abit with Kazaaa, yeah.
Here in Denmark you wont be held resposible unless you are over 15 years, so age matters, atleast in my country <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also, I dont see how they can project profit loss so my bet is they are making up those numbers to help their propeganda about those bad bad pirates (or ordinary people as others put it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
I usually find music over the intarwab, and if I like it enough I usually buy the CD for better quality where I would not usually buy any CDs, so long live the P2P <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My views are obviously different than yours, but I do think that a person should be punshed for a crime the same way, no matter how old or in what condition.
So, yes, if your two year old brother got online, searched for a copyrighted music file, and downloaded it, he should have to pay for the crime as well.
I was hoping this thread would die, because I was done with it. Have your fun guys. One day you'll understand. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Riiiight, Im supposed to have some biblical epiphany right?
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Read more about it, for those still thinking that anyone has your best interest as a consumer or taxpayer at heart:
<!--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 Sound of the Industry
by Douglas Wolk
No Trust
Congress and movie star dance the anti-download bolero
December 24 - 30, 2003
You can say this much for Canadians: They know that the Recording Industry Association of America's power stops at the border. The Copyright Board of Canada ruled on December 12 that making personal copies of music files—no matter where they came from—is legal, although manufacturers of MP3 players will be required to charge a tariff of up to $25 a 'Pod to compensate songwriters and performers. In the meantime, the Canadian music publishing organization SOCAN is agitating for Canadian ISPs to pay them a flat annual royalty, on the grounds that, well, everybody downloads music anyway.
Down south in the States, everybody's still downloading music anyway (as illustrated on the cynical but very funny anti-CDs-for-Christmas site whatacrappypresent.com). But our legislative bodies are a lot cozier with the entertainment industry—Bradley Buckles is leaving his job as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms at the beginning of January to run the RIAA's anti-piracy division.
The RIAA's pocket is becoming a cozy bipartisan hangout. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) recently proposed the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act, which would make it a felony to put not-yet-released recordings (or films that haven't yet been released on video) on a publicly accessible computer network, with prison terms of up to three years attached. (It would also authorize up to three years in the slammer for using a camcorder in a movie theater.) And—here's the kicker—it would presume that the movie or recording in question was copied at least 10 times, simply because it was on a network, whether or not anybody actually downloaded it.
Feinstein and Cornyn announced the bill at a November 13 press conference at which they were joined by RIAA chairman Mitch Bainwol, MPAA president Jack Valenti, and Bo Derek, who's evidently bummed about all those file traders who kept Malibu's Most Wanted from being a box office blockbuster. Coincidentally, according to opensecrets.org, entertainment was the fourth-largest industrial supporter of Feinstein's 2000 campaign.
The ART Act, as it's known ("ARTP" sounds too much like spitting), was formally introduced November 22, the same day as Orrin Hatch's (R-Utah) Feinstein-and-Cornyn-co-sponsored Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003. Hatch's pitch for the "EnFORCE Act" is that it will let the music industry "provide consumers with . . . innovative products and services," and incidentally will "protect our children from perverts and pedophiles on the Internet." The key bit of EnFORCE is a seemingly innocuous passage: "Section 115©(3)(B) of title 17, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by striking 'under this paragraph' and inserting 'under this section.' "
What this translates to in reality is that, under current law, music copyright owners (including record companies) are exempt from antitrust laws in setting royalty rates for "phonorecords" (i.e., CDs). EnFORCE expands that exemption in dramatic but vague ways. Essentially, it's meant to protect the RIAA from antitrust lawsuits like the one the Webcaster Alliance recently filed, alleging that anti-competitive behavior by the big labels was meant to drive small webcasters out of business. (The protecting-the-children stuff seems to be in the bill basically to guarantee that a vote against it is a vote for pedophilia.)
Meanwhile, independent musicians have lost a high-profile Internet resource. Until December 2, a quarter-million unknown artists had songs on MP3.com, free for the plucking. Vivendi Universal bought the site back in mid 2001 and made extensive use of its technology, but had no use for 1.6 million nonhit songs; it recently sold MP3.com to CNET, which shut it down and dumped all of its content. The front page is currently filled by a placeholder announcing that there'll be some kind of music thing there eventually, and that the CNET-owned download.com will have an artist-services site opening next year.
The loss is more symbolic than real. MP3.com wasn't all that important anymore: Storage and bandwidth costs have dropped so far in the last few years that it now makes more sense for most Web-savvy musicians to set up their own sites than to go through a big, cluttered clearinghouse. But MP3.com's huge, egalitarian giveaway—its sense of 250,000 artists sharing their voices freely—now seems like a relic of an earlier Internet, before songs cost a buck apiece and were all controlled by paranoid corporations. Everybody's still downloading music anyway, but now Americans have yet another reason to think longingly of the Great White North. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plus if the RIAA or anyother money lubbers try to come to my house (along with any mailman carrying those AOL discs) will have to consult my agent. Mr. R.V. Raging Bull. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
EXACTLY my thoughts.
I own 143 LEGIT Cd's. For a college student, thats not too shabby.
When the RIAA had my internet shut off at my college because my room mate downloaded a few songs (a little more than a few, 30 :-\) on my computer, I was quite **** off.
I was hoping this thread would die, because I was done with it. Have your fun guys. One day you'll understand. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read:
I lose. GG guys.
PH34R M3H RIAA, J00 WI11 N3VER C@7CH M3H AND M@H 1337 NINJ@ ABI1I7I3S.