sue music sharing people

[Jason]

music companies to start suing those who have lots of music on p2p progs. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/25/download.suits.ap/index.html
bsaically they will get the user information stated in the account agreement and use that to sue the downloaders. Thoughts, comments...can this really be done? I think its a load of crap and is pretty infeesable, they would need IPs and stuff...


Jason

[jkd]

Originally posted by Jason
they would need IPs and stuff...

Which they can get. If you're downloading from someone, you're connected to them. `netstat`, bam. Got their ip.

[Jason]

but most IPs are dynamic...so how whould it work then? Take that to the service provider and then look at their logs and then to the user?

Jason

[TheCrow]

once they traced it back to the ISP then you would be as good as caught cause they could trace it back to you from that point. i dont really like it but hey what can you do?

[Spookster]

Out of the what 3 -4 million users usually on at any given time they are going to stop illegal filesharing by tracking down a few people? Yeah right. First of all if the user not a U.S. citizen then unless your government is ready to hand you over to a U.S. law firm for downloading a few mp3 files then I don't think you have anything to worry about. An attempt to stop illegal music trading in this manner is like trying to cut down a redwood tree with a pocketknife. Not gonna happen. All these people will end up doing is irritating a lot of people and probably make themselves a target of hack attacks.

[mouse]

They think they're making an example of heavy sharers. What rubbish though, people hav been sued before over Napster, and before that when some kid uploaded all his mp3s... maybe record companies should charge less for CD's.

[allida77]

I would like to see the total dollar amount the record industry claims to be losing compared to the amount of music that is being shared. I think they are trying to make an example of people as well. The RIAA should just setup something like imusic but for ms and linux. If they would introduce alternatives there maybe a percentage of people that would pay 99c for a song (since most albums now only have about 1-2 good songs). p2p has gone on so long that there is no way some people would start paying for their CD's or software. It would take years to recondition people to realize that just because you can download to it does not mean that it is actually free.

[brothercake]

Originally posted by Spookster
First of all if the user not a U.S. citizen then unless your government is ready to hand you over to a U.S. law firm for downloading a few mp3 files then I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Yeah right ... like no-one in the US would possibly dream of trying to sue someone abroad for doing something which isn't illegal in the country they live in ... :rolleyes:

It needs to be said - there is absolutely no evidence that illegal filesharing is doing anything to reduce CD sales - CD sales have fallen while P2P networks have grown, and that may suggest a connection, but it doesn't prove one - the evidence is entirely circumstantial.

Indeed, afaik the only direct research into the subject, done by Gartner, suggested the opposite - that CD sales have been steadily falling anyway, due largely to the increase in console games - and that filesharing has actually propped up what would otherwise have been a much bigger dip.

I have personal experience to back that up - by chance I came across the name "Vanessa Carlton" a while ago, and decided to check her out (beautiful girl; fantastic voice; but her songs are a bit immature). It was only because her website offered full-version demos of some of the songs that I was able to decide I liked it, and ending up buying the album and four of her singles - had I not been able to hear it before buying, I would never have bought it at all.

And there are other artists I've heard, but not bought anything buy them, because I can't find any tunes on the net, and their own websites just offer 20 second clips that don't give you any idea. Record co.s need to back off and offer free, full-version samples - there's no direct threat because streaming audio is nothing like the quality of a CD.

[whackaxe]

tis why its good to have an anonymous proxy ;) i think that it would be unfeesable because they would spend so much on lawyers, the tirals would take so long, and the compensation would be pretty slim from each person that they would abandon. all this stuff about them infecting or hacking your computer is quite scary though. i think that if hey tried that though. A) they would get hacked by loads of unhappy people, B) they would get sued for accidental hacks (someone who had the original for example)

[Spookster]

Originally posted by brothercake
Yeah right ... like no-one in the US would possibly dream of trying to sue someone abroad for doing something which isn't illegal in the country they live in ... :rolleyes:


Case in point....I won't post his site due to the cracks being available there but there was a guy awhile back in the news was a guy living in russia that would crack macromedias trial software every single time they come out with a new way to prevent it. Macromedia had a team of lawyers that kept emailing and sending letters to this guy threatening him with lawsuits and jail terms and the guy kept replying to those emails and letters and saying basically "yeah whatever, come and get me. haha". He was professional about his replies though and the point is no matter what threats the lawyers from the US made, they could not touch him because the laws in russia allowed for this guy to do the stuff he did in the name of education or something like that.

[brothercake]

True ... but they tried didn't they ... they tried very very hard to make him accountable under US law.

Remember this - and I'm very very serious here - the rule of International law no longer means anything, because Bush has openly declared contempt for it. If the US government decides that filesharing is serious enough, they will quite happily march militarily into foreign countries and arrest people for breaches of US law.

[whackaxe]

sounds like the IT equivelant of switzerland for banks!

one of my friend's step dads recently prosecuted microsoft for a software company(in france btw). I think he won buy a long shot ;) wouldnt be hard either

[mouse]

The UK are passing laws that will mean extradition on demand, without the prosecuting council even having to provide evidence against the accused. This won't work two ways, as US citizens are superior to those of us out side America, US citizens are notoriously hard to extradite and of course can't be tried for war crimes in the ICC. So not only is this bad for file sharers, but if you consider many of the largest filesharers are US based, it's also bad for non-American companies who might like to take the same course of action.

[ionsurge]

If they somehow do shut down p2p progs which is as likely as having a pig fly right past my windows as I type, streamloading will simply take its place.

Its a futile attempt by an industry that is being supported by those who wish to pay the price of music cd's today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, I wonder how many people are going to get sued, who cannot afford to pay for legal fees/costs.

Those who cannot will have to be sent to jail, of bailiffs produce an insufficuent result. Jails would eventually become filled with people who distribute files over the internet. What are they going to do next, crack down on warez sites, which are more costly to companies than music distribution?

I do buy my music, yes, but no matter how peeved you can be at p2p apps, it will be impossible to stop.

My employer forkes out literally thousands of pounds to pay for our programs (never mind the actual workstations), including SoftImage | XSI, Maya, 3D Studio Max, Plasma 3D, Combustion, Smoke, Renderman, Photoshop, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, Pro/Engineer Wildfire, AutoCAD, MasterCAD, Paint Shop Pro, Bryce, Corel Draw, Macromedia Flash, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Freehand, Adobe Illustrator, the list goes on and on. We pay for licenses for our software, whereas others freely download them from p2p apps. It is annoying, but it cannot be stopped, and will never be stopped. It is a fact of life, some go the quicker way, others go the hard way.


As for the suing, pheh. :rolleyes:

[Spookster]

Originally posted by brothercake
they will quite happily march militarily into foreign countries and arrest people for breaches of US law.

I'm gonna tell my buddies at the agency to put you at the top of the list. :D

[brothercake]

Originally posted by ionsurge
Jails would eventually become filled with people who distribute files over the internet. What are they going to do next, crack down on warez sites, which are more costly to companies than music distribution?
Oh yeah .. like heaven forbid people would be sent to prison for such trivial offences. I mean, whatever next? They'll be sending people down for smoking cannabis and not paying their TV license :rolleyes:

[brothercake]

Originally posted by Spookster
I'm gonna tell my buddies at the agency to put you at the top of the list. :D
Well .. when the brown stuff hits the fan I'll know who pointed it at me :p

[whackaxe]

i'm all for file sharing. the only people lossing money are people who are exploiting artists. as thom yorke said, "i wront be living off music in 10 years bcos of the internet. the major labels hd it coming and its all they deserve" software piracy is differn't though. intelligent people have invested lots of time and money into creating their software and it must really annoy you when you see "APPNAME_FULL+CRACK!!!!" pop un when you search kazaa. it also stunts the open source scene a bit

[Spookster]

Originally posted by brothercake
and not paying their TV license :rolleyes:

what's a TV license? Is that like a drivers license. Do you have to take a test to be able to watch TV in england? :D

[mouse]

Hmm, don't think bro' has much to worry about, in their factbook the CIA claimed the UK gained their independance in 1812, they'd likely not be able to find him, let alone Osama and Saddam. ;)

Here's what bug's me: HMV, maybe the biggest, most prevailent music store in the world, owned by EMI records, the largest record company. Signed to EMI are the White Stripes, whose album Elephant goes for sale at £16.99. In Virgin this is £12.99 and Tesco £9.97. So either EMI/HMV are subsidising their competators low prices, or they're artificially inflating the price of their CD's.

Similarly Microsoft, producers of a vital piece of software; the OS, sell millions of copies for 3 times the cost of a new PC game (which likely cost more to develop). I've no problem with low volume software costing alot, but buying more prevailent/necessary software shouldn't be extrotion.

Spookster, to own a TV you need a license, there are alternatives for black and white tv's, digital tv and iirc old people get a license free so that they stay indoors and don't get in [my] way. The license funds the BBC and iirc a regular colour tv license is £124 (ish).

[whackaxe]

crikey. how they check youve got a tv tough?

about EMI, i just read that some of their big signatures (forgot which, i think ozzy and his daughter + others) are leaving them :D serves them right as well

[Jason]

Now I bought a CD a long time ago and a while back my Ex gf stole the damn thing from me...that *&^%$ but anyway, didn't I buy the rights to that cd and thus Im entitled to the songs on that CD? I mean I still have the case and cover and all, she just left with the CD. And doesn't the same apply to all those scratched CDs? Wouldn't that make downloading leagal then?


Jason

[raf]

Nope. I believe that you are entitled to make a 'backup' copy of the CD's you legally purchased. But this is just for personal use. This is one of the biggest arguments agains making CD's copy-proof.

By the way, in Belgium we have a laws against genocides and illegal downloading of multmedia. In fact, the last one is enforced much more frequent (--> we always have our prioritys in the right order) and downloaders are tracked down through there ISP.
ISP's are curently having serious problems cause frequent downloaders go over there 10 GB/month limit, and they will probably be easely motivated to put a stop to it and close the downloaders accounts.

Piracy isn't necessary bad for business.
I remember when windows 3.11 came out. Everyone was copying the floppy's to install it at home. All these criminals learned working with it and made it popular and turned it in to a standard. If it would have been better protected, windows wouldn't have boomed like that.
The same hapened with Win95. I remember these newsmessages where shops in japan were selling the CD's almost for free (in a plastic bag).

[whackaxe]

in france, to be entitled to copying a CD for backup puposes, you have to have to original. wheres the point in having a backup if you can't use it?

[Jason]

and in England you have to have a liscence to own a tv :thumbsup:

[brothercake]

I wonder how AOL Time Warner must feel as the RIAA leans on ISPs to divulge information about filesharers to copyright holders ...

... as the world's biggest copyright holder and also the world biggest ISP ...

[brothercake]

Originally posted by whackaxe
crikey. how they check youve got a tv tough?
Working from the assumption that almost everyone has a TV license, they drive past houses which don't and can detect by bouncing microwaves (i think) off your TV arial whether it's receiving a signal or not.

But often they don't bother - they just knock at your door and ask you if you've got a TV, and if you admit it, or they see or hear it, they give you a warning and go away again.

Then, if you still don't get one, they threaten, and eventually fine you - I think it's £1000.

And if you don't pay the fine, you get sent to prison.

[Spookster]

Originally posted by brothercake
Working from the assumption that almost everyone has a TV license, they drive past houses which don't and can detect by bouncing microwaves (i think) off your TV arial whether it's receiving a signal or not.

But often they don't bother - they just knock at your door and ask you if you've got a TV, and if you admit it, or they see or hear it, they give you a warning and go away again.

Then, if you still don't get one, they threaten, and eventually fine you - I think it's £1000.

And if you don't pay the fine, you get sent to prison.

I don't want to get too off topic but now that you mention it I remember seeing a comedy skit on some comedy show where they send someone out in public to do something shocking or bizarre and watch peoples reactions. On one of the occasions I remember it was in england and this guy dressed up as some kind of fake law enforcement official for tv's and was carrying around some fake electronic gizmo saying he could detect how many tv's were in a household and trying to scare people into admitting they had a tv or more than one tv.

See now if us non englishpersons knew about that tv license thing that would have made more sense. lol

[mouse]

Anything that recieves also transmits, and vice versa. They use hand held devices now, used to have vans full of gear. Still, it's better than advertisment breaks every 5 minutes when you're watching a film, a favourite programme or listening to the radio...we have a laws against genocides Erm, think Genocide is quite widely frowned upon. ;)

[cubeddesign]

I'm going to call the music industry's bluff on this one.. I myself will continue to share and download... so they can kiss my *agianst the rules*

[oracleguy]

RIAA is mainly using p2p services as the scapgoat for them losing money because not as many people are buying cds. There is no way they can prevent the millions of users and 100s of terabytes (maybe even into the petabyte range?) in files to be taken offline.

It's just not possible.


I read in the last PC Magazine that there was this guy running this site that had old version of Windows and DOS for download. Nothing new, they had like Windows 1.0 and 2.0 and DOS 5.0 and stuff. None of the stuff was currently for sale anymore. And Microsoft sued and made him take the site offline. I think that is kinda rediculous, I mean wouldn't it be fun to see what Windows 1.0 looked like? I doubt if they did still sell them that anyone would really buy them, except made if you had an extremely old computer and you wanted to use it for some reason. It isn't like he had copies of Windows XP on there.


So, I'm curious, these TV licenses, do you have to re-new them annually or something?

[brothercake]

Yup, it costs that £120-odd every year. But I'm with mouse on that - I'm quite happy to pay it because the BBC is wicked; to lose that, and have nothing but commercial stations and PBS-style begathons would be a very sad day for British TV.

[mouse]

I'm no way on the side of pirates here; I have a reasonable collection of mp3s taken from my own CD collection, which has cost me a few hundred £. I'm not going to give it away, particularly not my more favoured artists who deserve the sales. The few mp3s I've downloaded have been as verification of identity, investigating tips, very rare tunes, and are generally quite low quality anyway. Imo 128-160kbps sounds pretty terrible. I share quite alot of music videos, which I don't think I'd likely be sued for by anyone...

The music industry should realise that they've been selling alot less for many years. Apart from the odd blip, getting top of the singles chart during the past ten years, has meant, in Britain anyway, selling a few tens of thousands, where previously this would have been over a hundred thousand. Same with albums, but that's mostly down to price; people are expected to pay £16.99 based on having heard one or maybe two tracks, so why not download a few more before buying?!

[brothercake]

That's fair ... i was gonna hold off on the ethical debate of illegal mp3 and warez trading ... but actually I think it's pretty despicable, and my first instinct to anyone who gets caught is basically, serves you right.

Which is not to say it's not a reasonable way of distributing music which is no longer available any other way. And not to say the RIAA, and the DMCA, goes way way too far, way beyond the point where the costs involved outweigh the interests being protected.

But all the same - copying a CD and giving it to your mate is one thing, ripping a CD and make it available to billions of complete strangers is something else entirely.

[whackaxe]

Originally posted by mouse
my more favoured artists who deserve the sales.[/B]

most artists get peanuts from cd sales. one of the only groups to get their fare share of money from a CD is....(surpise! surprise!)...Metallica!

[allida77]

So since they only make peanuts go ahead and take those too? I find Lars to be annoying but I dont blame Metallica for taking issue with piracy. If I was losing money on my product I would be mad and do what I had to do to get it back(except for releasing another bad album).


Is tax on a hdtv higher then on a regular or is it just a flat tax?

[whackaxe]

if you download music, you get to know the band, and thus go to see them at a concert, their main source of money apparntly.

[allida77]

I agree as long is it dowloaded with permission from the artist.

[Jason]

almost no band would ever give permission, maybe those that are new and just starting out...maybe those bands that are doing it for the sake of loving music and not the money. But then again, there are non of those bands today, none that I have heard of recently anyway...


Jason

[whackaxe]

the offspring said that they liked napster :D

[Jason]

they must be leechers :thumbsup:

[whackaxe]

maybe, but they are certainly some proof that its record companies who are peeved about mp3s and not many artists have spoken out against them

[Jason]

well, there are quite a few, maybe not all, but then again, if they complain to their record label comany or agent we don't necessisarily hear about it. So there are probably more complaints then we know about. We just hear the big ones like metalica or britney spears (whom people would rather see "special" pictures of anyway ;) ).


Jason

[whackaxe]

brittney?! ha! shes probably getting paid to say that shes annoyed. she one of the most exploited.

but i can imagine what a convo between the band and his agent would be like:

-hi, i'm the singer from x band and i'm annoyed that i'm getting my music ripped!
-youll have to talk to the RIAA about that, ill put you through

-this is th RIAA, how may i be of service?
-hi, i'm the singer from x band and i'm peeved that i'm getting my music ripped!
-yeah....err.......were working on it, why don't you telle veyone your annoyed?
-good idea, bye!

which brings us back to what i said

[Jason]

probably more like....

-hi, i'm the singer from x band and i'm annoyed that i'm getting my music ripped!
-youll have to talk to the RIAA about that, ill put you through


-due to a high call volume we are unable to take your call at this time, but if you hold we will be happy to answer your call in the order in which it was recieved, right now the wait time is approximately longer than your patients allow.


-this is th RIAA, how may i be of service?
-hi, i'm the singer from x band and i'm peeved that i'm getting my music ripped!
-yeah....err.......were working on it, why don't you telle veyone your annoyed?


- since I am your b!#%& and can't think for myself I will, thanks bye!


Jason

[MvD]

Originally posted by Jason
almost no band would ever give permission, maybe those that are new and just starting out...maybe those bands that are doing it for the sake of loving music and not the money. But then again, there are non of those bands today, none that I have heard of recently anyway...


Jason

Have you heard of NoFX? You can download some of their MP3s of their site! And they support P2P! And among punks their VERY famous!

You know I find it hard to imagine how you guys can live in the west! Here in Russia NO ONE has ANY licensed software! We have this huge pirate market where you can buy the latest software + games for $2.8 per CD! That's good! I don't want to pay $300 for windows XP! And I love P2P! I hope those f****** from RIAA die a slow and agonising death (btw, in the loist of record companies that are part of RIAA there are no independant labels [that I know of] - so its ok).

Anyway how dare RIAA talk about P2P harming them? America's multinationals have been exploiting third world countries for decades! Isn't that what we should fight against? Not trying to make some rich capitalist **** from sony music save another million!

[scroots]

Everyone should find out who(record compainies) is sueing and trying to do stuff like that. People should not by there CD's and they will soon change tune.

scroots

[cubeddesign]

make this stickey lol

[brothercake]

Originally posted by MvD
Anyway how dare RIAA talk about P2P harming them? America's multinationals have been exploiting third world countries for decades! Isn't that what we should fight against? Not trying to make some rich capitalist **** from sony music save another million!
This may well be true, but two wrongs do not make a right - just because somebody else does something wrong, doesn't mean it's okay for you to do something wrong as well, just because what you're doing isn't as bad.

And please moderate your language.

[whackaxe]

NOFX have enough money to do that though. and i don't see P2P as a wrong personnaly because the big labels are stealing the money that should be going back to the artist

[brothercake]

like I say, two wrongs do not make a right.

[Jason]

I think it would be funny if NoFX would set up a p2p server and host all their songs on it so that when the RIAA go to crack down on people sharing obscene amounts of songs they would try to bust NoFX for sharing their own stuff...hehehehe


Jason

[Jason]

Its begun. The ads are now hitting the streets and the RIAA is prepared to take action http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/26/ad.music.reut/index.html the details are there and well, what might be done to avoid getting caught? Im not saying I do this by any means. hehehe, any thoughts about the news? And here is the article about the college kid that was sued by the RIAA over sharing music. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/27/music.sharing.column/index.html


Jason

[Veneficus]

Well, I just got the latest news on this from Yahoo...

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030701/lntu005_1.html

Over 16 million downloads of "privacy" P2P software in a 90 hour period. That's 9 times as many people as signed up for the governments new anti-telemarketing campain over the last 4 days.

[Jason]

es5 huh, I might have to get that...I knowing my IP and other info is out there on p2p networks, if I ever have time to log in. But thats totaly awsome, like nature, people foud a way to tell the RIAA to go shove it up there butt's...hehehe :thumbsup:


Jason

[VivaAvril]

this really sucks. I mean, what if you just like one song from the album. It's a total waste wasting 13 dollars for just one song. =(

What else besides mp3s are they sueing for?

[whackaxe]

i live in france and i only have 250 or so mp3s so i think im not on the top 50 most wanted :p

[Jason]

this really sucks. I mean, what if you just like one song from the album. It's a total waste wasting 13 dollars for just one song. =(

What else besides mp3s are they sueing for?


if you don't want the CD then buy the single song, what is it? like $1.00 to buy 1 song, still a rip off in my oppinion...but anyway they are also trying to catch those with Movies since those are pirated aswell over the net in mass quantity...


Jason

[VivaAvril]

what about tv episodes? =) lol

just making sure since I'm starting to get paranoid on what or what not to download off KaZaA. lol

[Jason]

if you read the entire thread you might have come accross a prog that will mask all your info...go to www.es5.com and get their prog.


Jason

[scroots]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3052145.stm

it has some info about a survey conduceted and the results showed that thouse who downloaded went on to buy albums.
(not read it all yet).

scroots

[raf]

The other day, i was talking to a friend of mine who is in a band. He was telling me it was getting harder to find a recordcompagny that wanted to invest in 'new' groups, cause thy make absolutely no profit on the first albums that most of these groups make.
They used to take a share of the profit from succesfull groups, to invest in newer talent (of coarse, hoping that there will be a huge return on investment), which meant that a lot of upcomming talent could buy/hire some decent equipment and could concentrate on there music.
Now, most smaller alternative labels, take a more commercial attitude and aren't interested in non-mainstream or new groups. Or they just stopped. A few years ago, they also didn't make a lott of profit (cause when a new group gets some succes, they are likely to sign up on a bigger label) but they could get by (most of them were in it for the music, not the money) but since recordsales is dropping (in more alternative , they just can't keep running. Most upcomming groups make bad (technical) moonshine recordings and put them on there website, spoiling there own chances to get a good contract (and almost noone finds his way to there downloads + people who download it tnhink it's rubbish cause of the bad recording and mixing and whatever)
The big, commercial labels, well, they see there profitmargins get smaller, or they fear that they will get smaller or whatever. Fact is they don't want to invest in new talent (and since the smaller labels adapt or disapear, there no organised circuit for upcomming groups).

Is that all caused by (il)legal downloading? Probably not, but the fact remains that if this music if freely available, recordcompgnies wount be eager to invest and will be trying to minimalise the risks (which also means that marketting and expensive concerts becomme a bigger source of income).
And still downloaders are complaining it's all one commercial joke and there's nothing worth buying anymore ...

(Maybe young artists should just do it for the music, do 3 gigs a week to be able to buy crappy material, and give up everything so that you can keep downloading there music for free. Or six gigs a week and stop eating to hire a recording studio and some technicians. "Damn", said the farmer. "Just when i learned me cows to stop eating, they died !")

[mordred]

I think a crucial and very weak point in the arguments of the music industry is the equation "more filesharing == less sales". I don't think you can easily equate a song downloaded with a possible loss of profit. The reasons:

1.) Your income is finite. Say that for 10 Euro, you can afford downloading 30 albums on one day, but not buying these albums. Thus, the perceived loss in sales is an illusion, because if you were prevented from file sharing, you wouldn't have had the money to get the albums "the ordinary way".

2.) Sales are decreasing. Profit margins get smaller. So what? Look at any industry branch at the moment, that's nothing spectacular. World economy is a little down at the moment, unemployment grows, people have less money in their paychecks to spent for luxury goods like CDs. The music industry is whining and uses file-sharing as a scapegoat.

3.) What are the alternatives? I mean legal music download from the labels. All the years they tried to make us think that no one would use such a service as long as file sharing would be possible. And now Apple's iTunes hit the masses, was a success. Duh.

What bugs me also is the notion that grabbing new albums of the Top20 would be the primary intent for filesharers. Nonsense, I can't stand modern pop music. If I want to get annoyed by that, I can always turn on MTV or radio. File sharing (for me at least) is much more important to get rare songs, bootlegs, remixes of somewhat less known bands. Of course I might directly order the whole album from a distributor if I can find it at all, but if the CD has to be imported into my country, you get a nasty surprise when customs and tax are added to the CD price. Ever paid 35 Euros for single album? That's a little bit too much.

Though raf has got a good point. There must be a workable way to encourage labels to sign new bands, and to pay the artists for their work (either directly or indirectly). That's only fair, but the current system is rotten, and must be changed. It can't withstand the change in customer behaviour by hoping that laws will regulate and uphold the status quo, the music industry will have to adapt to this scenario and develop new concepts.

[Jason]

new bill to put sharers in jail? whats that about. And someone tell me that if one song is shared 10 times how that equals $2,500. Here is the newest news http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/17/music.internet.reut/index.html


Jason

[scroots]

they porbably calculated that you would sahre it 10 times and the next people would share it 10 times, thus 10*10 (10 sqaured, at $25 a cd).

they cannot lock everyone in jail otherwise there will be no market for CD's.

scroots

[Jason]

not just that, but there is no room in the jails. As for the fines, isn't it a bit beyond 10^2 since you give to 10 people, they give to 10 people and they give to 10 people...and so on....what makes them stop after 2 iterations instead of 1? It doesn't make sense....I guess to me it just shows they are trying to be greedy with everything...they want their money. Makes me mad..

Jason

[oracleguy]

When I was listening to the radio on the way to work today, they were talking about how DJs don't say the name of the song and who it is by as much anymore so record studios were adding the name and artist onto the song when they sent it out.

They probably did it because then people hear a song that they like and then they know who it is by, but as the person on the radio commented, it makes just that much easier to download the song too...

[whackaxe]

thats a pretty cheap trick. the radio i listen to has a radio text anyway :D except on some shows they just put a banner so i have to look on the playlist on their website

[scroots]

i learned today that if i buy a cd from a shop that isn't properly lablled that makes it clear it will not work on a pc, i can return it as it is not fit for its purpose.


scroots

[scroots]

i figure why record compainies are loosing so much money.

My theory is, they use (try to nowheredays) sell you part of your cd collection on a compliation disk or the same cd with thracks in a different order. So as now people have cd writers they can use there existing Cd's and tracks to make thouse compliation disks. As people can now make there own compilations disks using tracvks of the cd's that they have to mirror the track listing of disks on sale. So as they have a copy that they have just made they don't need to buy it and waste there money. Hence less sales of all thouse compilation disks and artisits albums.

scroots

[whackaxe]

they also are loosing money because people look at the track listing for a cd. rip it all off kazaa. burn it onto CD. less than a tenth of the orginal price.

[scroots]

yes whackaxe i know they are losing money by people doing that but the amount they claim they are loosing due to piracy is i think false, like they declare how muc hthey are so called loosing due to piracy, but the do ont mention how much they are lossing due to people not buying part of there cd collection again on 1cd.

scroots

[oracleguy]

I agree that they are claiming to be loosing more money from piracy that is really true. I mean, how can the accuratly determine such a thing? Unless Kazza actually published how much content was moved and its type each month or whatever. Or if they wrote some spyware to do it.

Like it was said before, they are using file sharing as the scapegoat.

[whackaxe]

well maybe they are estimated losses. what i mean is they might have studied the fluctuations of the market and predicted what the sales would be like if there wasnt P2P. of course there are tons of factors that play on this (and they probably knocked a few off as all *cough*scum*cough* do.

[whammy]

From what I've read (and I didn't bother to read the last two pages of this thread, too long!), brothercake, mouse, and cubeddesign are on the right track on this issue.

IMHO, the music industry is just beating a dead horse here.

They tried to kill cassettes WAY back, and even got the FCC in the United States to require that radio stations fade songs together, etc. so that noone could record a really good quality album or whatnot right off of the radio.

They do (or did) have a point in charging a little extra (although I'll agree, not as much) for CD's etc, since they originally invested all of the money in recording studios, etc. - the end result being the majority of their artists flop. So they had to try to make up the money somehow.

My final say in this, is with the new tech that we have, the music industry is definitely going to have to undergo a major facelift.

<edit>Mordred has some good points as well, about downloading/sharing stuff that the music companies DON'T distribute anymore! That's probably a major portion of their "profit losses" that they aren't even taking into account... lol</edit>

They can't follow the old formulas, because almost any band with enough supporters or initial cash can produce a good quality CD in their basement now, with a much smaller initial investment. We have the tech now.

The record companies are going to have to become purely marketing and/or distribution companies, or die. Their hand in the actual creation of the music will be gone before long. It's already happening.

They need to leverage the power of the internet (such as a few people here stated - I've bought cd's due to being ABLE to download some songs for free, and see whether I like them or not), instead of fighting it.

[allida77]

Well

http://www.buymusic.com/

was launched today. I am pretty sure I know what everyones first complaint of it will be(MS). Sites like this will probaly be popping up more often now for Windows and Linux users.

[Jason]

there are also complaints about the rights you are buying with the music, like the right to have it on multiple computers or the right to burn it to a CD, cause the one that is for the Mac has those rights, where the new Buymusic.com doesn't.


Jason

[Spookster]

From a former music superstar:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/07/22/jackson.fileshare.ap/index.html

These record labels seem to have lost touch with one very important fundamental concept of business....."The customer is always right". Don't sue your customers and put them in jail. That doesn't solve anything. Like some college kid is going to be able to pay the record label $300,000 anyways. It's a complete waste of time.

Just as Michael Jackson said instead of spending money on lawsuits (which by the way cost us taxpayers money and cost the record labels money) and putting people in jail they should be using that money to develop something like what apple did. Create easier and more flexible ways of purchasing their products. I think a college kid for example would be much more willing to spend a few dollars just for the songs they wanted.

I for one don't want to pay $15-20 for a CD where there is usually only one or 2 songs I want to listen to. I would be willing to pay a dollar a song and be able to pick the songs I want from different CDs.

How about some of those record label executives take a pay cut out of their probably overly excessive salaries and invest it back into the companies.

[Jason]

I remember I used to go into Tower Recods, one of the big retail stores for music, and have them make me a tape of any songs I wanted and then pay for this "customized" tape. Now why cant they do that with cds? Its like we are making them ourselves since they no longer support that process...


Jason

[VivaAvril]

New bill to put sharers in jail? ahhh......this is getting weird! =(

[Basscyst]

Here are a few points on file sharing.

For one we all have the right to back up any software we legitimatly purchased. If I have purchased the CD than I have full right to DL a copy of a song.

If you don't share your files then you are not breaking copyright laws. The person you are DL from is, unless of course they have legitimatley purchased the media.

In regards to the recent approved lawsuit on Kazaa. The technology it provides is an outstanding way of sharing information between users on a mass level. It fully serves a legitimate purpose. It is in fact the user that is mis-using the application. You don't see them going after Bill Gates because someone hacked their web server using windows.

[Veneficus]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1620&ncid=1620&e=2&u=/sv/20030801/tc_sv/pacbellinternetsuesoversubpoenas

At least some ISPs are fighting back against the RIAA and its frivilous lawsuits.

[Ben@WEBProp]

Audiowebs: not to be a prick or anything...but are you a lawyer? Have you spent hours researching every aspect, case, and law of copyright violations? I'm going to assume right now that the answers to my questions are "no".

Then riddle me this: would you go up to some super-astro-physist and start correcting him on his theories based on your under-knowledged mind? Please don't pretend to be what you are not...

If you are some arbitor the law or you have done your research, more power to you! But if you are just running off of what you are told by freinds and other companions, then don't try to spread false knowledge.

Thanks,

Ben.

[Spookster]

Originally posted by AudioWebs
Ben.

I indeed I have great experience with the law.

Did I get it from my friends? Yes.

But my friends ARE lawyers, and physicians......

I wouldn't speak on something I wasn't VERY sure about.

Yeah right :rolleyes:

You might want to check the law again judging from some of your statements earlier.

[Ben@WEBProp]

Spookster...

If you really think about it, AudioWebs superior intellect is no match for our puny brains! We should just give him all our money AND elect him leader of the free world, eh? Obviously he is the Master of the Law, right? Seriously, with a name like AudioWebs, who could doubt him? We should get out now while we still have a chance!

...
....
....
....

Oh wait, no! Spookster, you are right!

I see your :rolleyes: and raise you :rolleyes: :thumbsup: :rolleyes: .

As for "acting mature", you may want to take a good look in the mirror Audio, for maturity has nothing to do with doubting someone's validity and honesty!

-Ben

[Jason]

Since there is an argument going on in my thread I feel the need to join in :D

2. Sharing a file has NOTHING to do with breaking copyright laws. If you took a CD and made a copy of the music to your PC you broke the law.

this statement by the Audio guy is the largest pile of crap I read yet. Since this is the entire focus the RIAA is after. I mean think about it If I bought a CD and I burned it to my computer its legal because its my copy. No one elses. If I share it with others then Im breaking the rights written in the copyright laws they say I will not copy and distribute this media.

So next time, try and be more clear and pay attention to the things you right.

Another word of warning, don't pick a fight with a moderator, they are the supreeme beings here...hehehhee:thumbsup:

Jason

[Jason]

Section 1201 devides technological measures into two catigories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or serivices that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure are prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision brohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

there it is Audio fool. Right there out of the Act itself. If you pay attention, MAKING A COPY isn't against the law. Distribution is. Get your crap straight and stop being wrong. Grow up and read the information before you shove your foot right back in your mouth.

Jason

[Ben@WEBProp]

Hahahahaha! Who's the clown now! Oh what's that you say? You know everything about the law? Does that include or is it just limited to "absolutely nothing"?

Nice one Jason! :thumbsup: Right back at 'em!

[Spookster]

Here it is from the horses mouth:


Owning a CD means you own one copy of the music, and the U.S. record industry believes you should be able to make whatever personal use you choose. For example, you may make a compilation recording (on tape or on a CD) to use in the car or while exercising.


Cited directly from the RIAA:
http://www.riaa.com/issues/music/downup_faq.asp

Enough said

[Spookster]

Originally posted by AudioWebs

I should ad - I own a record label that has been in business for 13 years this november.

I know EVERYTHING about digital and music law.

You guys know nothing about this, or logic and critical thinking

So let me recap here. You are a neuroscientist, a web developer, you own your own web development company and now you own a record label? Wow. So when are you due back at the institution and have the guys in the white coats realized you escaped?

Originally posted by AudioWebs


Secondly Spookster - your comment is purposeless.
It merely states what the industry thinks is alright.
That has nothing to do with the law genius.



Well let's see....who's one of the big players behind all these lawsuits against people sharing music...oh yeah the RIAA... Of course since you are the obvious expert here they probably don't know what they are talking about. You should correct them since you do own a record label and know everything there is to know about copyright law. :rolleyes:

[Jason]

spookster...what happened to the Audio guy...I missed his no comeback...he was starting to amuse me...


Jason

[Spookster]

Originally posted by Jason
spookster...what happened to the Audio guy...I missed his no comeback...he was starting to amuse me...


Jason

He deleted all of his threads and posts. I have part of one of his latest replies quoted in my previous post. Amongst all of his other claims he now claims to own a record label. :rolleyes:

That was after he called us all stupid and that we should all shut up or go to hell.

My guess is a 14 y/o boy with no friends who likes to get attention and probably forgot to take his Ritalin.

[Ben@WEBProp]

Well, in an effort to start relating the posts to the topic once again, I think that instead of sueing music-sharers, we should sue annoying dumb people like Audio, no matter what they're age, sex, race, creed, sexual affiliation, height, weight, or name.

Has anyone heard of the most recent Napster Clone? I haven't, and I am not going to go get it, I was just wondering what the latest development was as far as P2P software goes.

-Ben

P-S-: Just a few more posts and we break the 100 mark!

:thumbsup:

[Jason]

In the very begining of this thread there was a suggestion of a program found on www.es5.com called earthstation 5, it has the ability to encrypt all info that can be used to trace users. The problem with it is is the encryption. I don't know, maybe I was stupid in my efforts but I couldn't get the damn thing to work for me. But all the features are there for some safe sharing and downloading. Otherwise, I heard of some groups. Basically groups of like 10 people in chatrooms that won't share until they know that you aren't working for the RIAA so you have to earn their trust and share. So thats what Ive heard. Nothing more.

What is so special about this new napster? Do you have to pay for stuff on it? Questions and Curiosities that can lead to the 100th post...;-)


Jason

[Kingkerry]

I have a question. If you download 1 .mp3 and listen to it and then delete it off your computer right afterwards will they sue you or go after you for doing it? I only have 1 solution that would stop the RIAA from ever picking on people ever again. I will never buy another piece of music ever again because of what they have done to these young people. I think the people of the world should cooperate and do an all out boycott on music. If a boycott was in effect for the entire world the music company would lose millions or maybe even billions for them being greedy. I wish I could find some tv stations to put my message out all around communities. It could defiantly work if I could somehow get it on CNN :D

[krycek]

Originally posted by Kingkerry
I have a question. If you download 1 .mp3 and listen to it and then delete it off your computer right afterwards will they sue you or go after you for doing it? I only have 1 solution that would stop the RIAA from ever picking on people ever again. I will never buy another piece of music ever again because of what they have done to these young people. I think the people of the world should cooperate and do an all out boycott on music. If a boycott was in effect for the entire world the music company would lose millions or maybe even billions for them being greedy. I wish I could find some tv stations to put my message out all around communities. It could defiantly work if I could somehow get it on CNN :D

OMG not one, but TWO mad, crazy posts from the mind of Kerry have "blessed" these forums tonight! :eek:

Is there no end to these stupid ideas? I am against the actions of the RIAA too, but "boycotting music"? OMG. I mean, OMFG.

If I ever saw you on CNN I would most likely choke to death on my own bile. Along with most other people watching the broadcast. And I don't mean that in context to your appearance, because I have no idea what you look like. I mean that some of your ideas are just so crazy, they blow my brain. Seriously, a bit just dripped onto my shoulder from my ear... :eek:

A couple of weeks back I saw an interview with a weird Australian guy how had a crackpot theory that babies dying from SIDS (a.k.a. cot-death) do so because they "dream of the womb" and stop breathing. Pretty much everyone was just amazed at how stupid this guy was - no-one was sure whether to laugh wildly or have a nervous breakdown because this guy said he had spent ten years researching it. Until then I had never seen anyone with ideas of the same insanity as yours - thankfully, you guys seem to be rather rare...

::] krycek [::

[Nightfire]

Rare but entertaining lol

[whammy]

Sounds like a good idea. Get every radio station to shut down voluntarily! Make everyone in the WORLD turn off their radio (and TV!).

Not likely to happen. ;)

[Kingkerry]

Well, it would be easy for me since I don't even listen to music ;)

[ k ], the guy could be right, you may never know. There was a very famous guy who everyone thought he was nuts. His name was gallieo and he said the Earth revolves around the sun and that the planets don't revolve around the Earth :D

[Ben@WEBProp]

Originally posted by krycek
If I ever saw you on CNN I would most likely choke to death on my own bile. Along with most other people watching the broadcast. And I don't mean that in context to your appearance, because I have no idea what you look like. I mean that some of your ideas are just so crazy, they blow my brain. Seriously, a bit just dripped onto my shoulder from my ear... :eek:

::] krycek [:: [/B]

Wow, can we see that on CNN instead? :D

-Ben

[Jason]

um yuck, and what does that have to do with suing music sharers? Oh and this should be number 100...yay...


Jason

[Jason]

And on another note here is some new info on technology to help prevent sharing. Anyone heard of this? Sounds like crap and at the same time sounds like it would work. But I don't get its reach and where the technology would be geared to. Anywho here is a link about it http://msn.com.com/2100-1105-5062426.html?part=msn&subj=ns&tag=netcal
thoughts anyone?

Jason

[Ben@WEBProp]

Sounds to me like they are carrying the "piracy" thing a little too far. I don't have a dictionary in front of me ( and I dont have the time to go to dictionary.com) bu a pirate is basically takes something that isnt theirs right? Well, once I buy a CD, isn't it mine? I can make copies of that music without breaking laws. I can even copy certain songs onto a custom CD and stay within the law. So what good is a digital fingerprinter? It will tell who bought the CD, right? I only read part of the article, so maybe I don't get it, but it seems like they are invading privacy rights by going onto personal computers without permission to search for illegalities...

-Ben

[Jason]

yes that is true, going onto computers is an invasion of privacy but Im not sure that is how they are going to do it. I almost think they are going to run monitors of p2p progs to find who is sharing what files and match those files to those in their dbs to test if they are songs or whatever. But in either case I think they have gone to far. Look at the movie industry. They have only really sued one person who had an illigitamate copy of The Hulk and otherwise they are "asking nicely" for people to stop stealing their movies from the net and instead go buy them. Why can an industry that charges more and everything costs more can simply ask while the RIAA gets pushy and sues everyone? Don't get it...


Jason

[brothercake]

I don't really get it either, except I'm inclined to think that the RIAA is clutching at straws so they don't have to face the reality that their industry has lost huge amounts of leisure spending to computers and video games.

File sharing grows and CD sales fall, but correlation is speculative - the evidence circumstantial - there's no proof that the two things are connected.

[oracleguy]

I was talking about this with someone at work and what we realized. In most cases CDs never drop in price. Even if the music is twenty years old. You could say that is because music never really becomes obsolete. Even if they convert songs that were made before CDs and put them on CD, they usually charge 12-15 bucks for them.

Yet with movies, it is the opposite. DVDs do drop in price after they come out. Yet movies too never become obsolete. And if the convert old movies to DVD usually they are <10 bucks. Which makes sense.

The movie inudstry is smart, the music industry isn't.

[brothercake]

CDs have always been overpriced - when they first came out they were like £10 for an album, when records were only £6 or £7. Initially, the cost of manufacture probably was greater, because the known market was much smaller, but that isn't the case now. CDs simply aren't worth the money you pay for them, and artists only get a fraction of the price (maybe 12% for major artists, more like 7%-8% for new bands, and remember that all the production, distribution and marketing costs are paid for out of the artist's cut).

It's just a rip off - they trade on perception of value to make you think a CD is worth more than a cassette, but it isn't at all; in fact given market sizes, I wouldn't be surprised if it costs less to produce a CD than a tape by now.

And don't get me started on MiniDisc - full-album price for mp3 quality sound? I think not.

[whackaxe]

maybe people are just starting to realise that when they pay 20$ for a CD next to nothing s going to the people it should

[Ben@WEBProp]

Actually, when $20 is paid for a CD, none of that money is goin to the people that it should. The "middle-man system" comes into play. I am not sure how the buyback procedure goes, but after a recording label has sold 500 CD's to a retailer, then they don't have to worry about anything, 'cause they have their money! So that $20 we pay really goes to retailers, and their money goes to the "music industry".

So when we pirates do our business, we really steal from the retailers more than the musicians themselves.

Arg me mayteys!

-Ben (Aka- Captian Jack Sparrow, VII)

[whackaxe]

yeah but retailers have stopped buying so many copies from the recording companies wich is making them loos money. divine justice i'd call it

[Jason]

My sole boycott isn't working, I mean, I just went to a music store to look at some CDs and DVDs, why is it I can find DVDs to be cheaper then CDs that have been out for months and months. I mean, I would love this CD but I am not about to pay $20 for a CD that has been out for like 6mos while I can buy a movie that has been out for like 2mos for $10...(*I would love to have some retailer cussing here*) Why can't the industry as a whole realize they have messed up and they need to fix their buisness strategy...

Jason

[whammy]

greed

[Jason]

music should be like open source...free and everyone can dl/modify it if they want....yeah...


Jason

[whammy]

Well, it already is open source. ;)

Always has been. If you can hear it, you have the source code - and you can interpret it any way your heart desires!

You don't need the original CD or have to be able to download the song to do that - if you can hear it, you already have the source code... _if_ you know how to "program" it. LOL (in other words, if you have talent, then do something with the new creative input - otherwise do your own thing, and perhaps be influenced by it!).

But you have to hear it first. :D

These legal battles might hope to prevent people from stealing large record companies' money by preventing software pirating, but as a musician (just like a programmer!), you either understand the source code, or you don't. And that's ONE thing that NOONE can prevent - understanding.

Period.

[oracleguy]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/960597.asp?0dm=T14MT

[brothercake]

Originally posted by whammy
And that's ONE thing that NOONE can prevent - understanding.
You obviously haven't seen Kablamo XP - currently being tested by the CIA on several internationally-known politicians.

Everyone knows that when you download illegal mp3 you're downloading COMMUNISM .. you didn't really think Uncle Sam would let you get away with that, did you?

[mouse]

Originally posted by brothercake
Everyone knows that when you download illegal mp3 you're downloading COMMUNISM .. you didn't really think Uncle Sam would let you get away with that, did you? Shhhhhh! don't mention communism, the Americans haven't realised that filesharing, open source and the like, are all somewhat left sided views infiltrating their right wing society... I'm running 'Castro Linux' with the 'Top Marx' file sharing program right now.:D

[whackaxe]

or PHP : a Pretty Hippy Program :p

[liorean]

Are they communism? And here I walked around thinking they were democratic! :)

[oracleguy]

Originally posted by mouse
I'm running 'Castro Linux' with the 'Top Marx' file sharing program right now.:D

lmao.

[allida77]

Oh no not another link.....this is very interesting though.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/03/1823202

[brothercake]

Ha ha - excellent :D Can't wait to see what happens.

[Spookster]

I bet Apple hadn't considered that issue. The bid on the song is up to $9,700 already.

[liorean]

Better link George's post, 90% Crud : Does the Right of First Sale Still Exist? (http://george.hotelling.net/90percent/geekery/does_the_right_of_first_sale_still_exist.php). This is certainly something to keep an eye on.

[whammy]

Holy cow... $9,700 ?

I guess that some people really do appreciate the principle of what George is doing enough to support it monetarily! :)

[raf]

bidding at $16 600 ?!?!

But it could be a great pricinciple. Imagen you could buy and sell albums/singles like you buy and sell stocks, where the prices are influenced by supply and demand. Nobody likes the album, then it goes down. Popular album, prices go up. And recordcompany should only be allowed to release new albums if there initial (fixed) salesprice is lower then the current stock-price for that album. If the album flops and prices drop, they would hardly sell anything, so they would be inclined to set a realistic salesprice.

Capitalism could be your best friend ...

[allida77]

Just an update:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/32674.html

The item was pulled by ebay.

[oracleguy]

I heard on the news today that Universal is lowering the price on their CDs by 5 dollars.

[Spookster]

The RIAA knows they can't win this battle so now they resort to other scare tactics....Admit to it and we won't bust you....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/05/music.amnesty.ap/index.html

[oracleguy]

Yeah, right. :rolleyes: That isn't going to work.

[ionsurge]

Looks like the RIAA have totally gone mad, attempting to sue a 12 year old:

From CNN

A day after being sued for illegally sharing music files through the Internet, a 12-year-old girl has settled with the Recording Industry Association of America.

She's the first of 261 defendants to settle their lawsuits with the association.

Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared.

"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service.

The RIAA said it was pleased with the settlement. There are 260 cases still pending.

"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."

Monday, RIAA filed lawsuits against 261 individual Internet music file-sharers and announced an amnesty program for most people who admit they illegally shared music files through the Internet. The amnesty would only offer protection for songs represented by the RIAA and not from publishers, musicians or others with rights to songs.

Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, said the civil lawsuits were filed against "major offenders" who made available an average of 1,000 copyright song files.

Record companies blame illegal music file-trading for a 31-percent fall in compact disc sales since mid-2000.

Sherman also announced the Clean Slate Program that grants amnesty to users who voluntarily identify themselves, erase downloaded music files and promise not to share music on the Internet. The RIAA said it will not sue users who sign and have notarized a Clean Slate Program affidavit.

The offer of amnesty will not apply to about 1,600 people targeted by copyright subpoenas from the RIAA. The decision was made a few weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings mandated that Internet providers turn over the names of subscribers believed to be sharing music and movies illegally.

Until now, the only music file-swapping lawsuits filed by the RIAA were against four college students accused of making thousands of songs available on campus networks. Those cases were settled for $12,500 to $17,000 each.

Sherman said Monday that the RIAA had negotiated settlements in the range of $3,000 with a "handful" of Internet users who had learned from their Internet service providers that they were being targeted for lawsuits. The industry is also pursuing subpoenas at universities around the country seeking to identify music file traders.

[mordred]

Aha. "Major" offenders with an average of 1000 files. These are not major offenders. Major offenders would be the ones with 25.000+ files. Roughly 1000 music files is what you average users share, so the intention of this action is not to get the Top50 filesharers, but rather to scare the hell out of everyone.

And who would be so stupid and take that amnesty offer? It's a scam and hardly going to be effective; I predict that the meager response to it will be interpreted that filesharers are really criminals who put such a generous offer down.

[scroots]

morderd take up the amnesty, don't share the music but don't delete it form your HD. how can they find out what you have on your HD, if they do and say you that you have 1000 MP3's that you downloaded a long time ago beforte signing the amnesty. you ask how they know? they say we basically hacked your computer, doesn't go down to well, invasion of privacy. won't go down to well they have no case as they broke the law to find out you broke it so they will be upto there necks and there evidence would be invalid.

MUHAHAHAHAHHA!

scroots

[oracleguy]

scoots is correct. They can tell that you logged onto a file sharing service but they can't be sure what you were transfering. Besides like you [scoots] said if they hacked your comp that is called computer crime and you can sue them for it.

Also it isn't like they can just come in and demand your computer. Nor can they request a list of every file on your hd or something. Besides, even if you gave them your computer, if you keep your music or whatever in a PGP encrypted file, they'd need a couple millennia on a SuperCray or whatever to break the pass phrase and get the contents of the file. Not to mention that if you had to give them to comp you could run a file burn program before hand.

I know some of those ideas are little extreme but it proves my point. They have nothing essentially, all they are doing is trying scare tactics because regardless of the fact if you were violating copyright laws or not, you are still protected by a ****load of computer and privacy laws. So they have busted what 10 people for it? And there probably is 20 million+ people using P2P software at any given time. :rolleyes:

[mordred]

Guys, I really appreciate your concern for me and your efforts to convince me of my computer privacy, but let it just be said: I am not scared by the RIAA tactics, the intent of my post was to expose the hypocrisy of their talk. Maybe I was just stating the obvious a bit too obvious. And be reminded that as I'm a resident of the wonderful german banana republic, I watch the issue from a presumably safe distance. Thanks anyways. :D

One point though: oracleguy, isn't encrypting a file while making it available for download totally useless? At one point you have to provide a measure to determine what the content of the file is, or the whole filesharing idea does not work. Of course, one could also deny sharing of anything and just leech from others. But that's also beside the idea.

[oracleguy]

Well the way a PGP file works is that it "mounts" it as a drive and you can access just the same. So you can still share all the files and stuff but when your computer is powered down and stuff the files are protected. Or you can set it to unmount the drive after say 90 minutes of inactivity.

The idea probably isn't practical, I was just pointing out that the RIAA can't prove anything with a good deal of the people.

[liorean]

Hmm, what if I share thousands of mp3s, but have a note on all of them that you are only allowed to download them if you are a lawful owner of the cd they come from? That's the way the emulation business uses to be able to spread ROMs without risking lawsuits...

[bcarl314]

Originally posted by liorean
Hmm, what if I share thousands of mp3s, but have a note on all of them that you are only allowed to download them if you are a lawful owner of the cd they come from? That's the way the emulation business uses to be able to spread ROMs without risking lawsuits...

That's what mp3.com tried and they got the butts sued!

[Spookster]

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

LOL Yeah!!!

[bcarl314]

For those of you wanting to signup for amnesty, here's (http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/03sep/uf005917.gif) the form. :D

[whammy]

Yeah, I'll be signing up for that shortly. NOT. :D

[oracleguy]

That amnesty thing is so dumb. If someone was to come forward then they'd just get their butt sued by any other companies that they might have copyrighted works for too.

Since they sued that 12-year old, the RIAA has become worse than Microsoft in my mind as far as doing shady, unethical, illegal, or just plain stupid things.

[whammy]

I would nix everything but the "stupid" part. ;) Anything else they're doing falls into the same category...

at least Microsoft manages to make money off of their unethical, shady, illegal, or just stupid practices, due to their stranglehold on the browser/OS market.

But the RIAA is just adding to their record of stupidity.

Hey, let's make radio stations run songs together so that people can't record from the radio onto cassette tape and not pay for our cassette tape.

They've been (or their equivalent has been) trying that for decades. :rolleyes: It hasn't worked yet, and never will. Until they realize that they can't rip people off anymore, this will go on and on, and they still won't win.

And they should be glad about it. Most of the reason (except for profits) that they had for charging so much for recordings, is because they had to foot the bill for the technology to record the albums, etc.

Now that technology has improved, anyone with enough initial capital can record the same (or better) quality product in their basement.

So, they don't have to foot the bill for that anymore.

They need to give up that portion of their business, and concentrate on the networking and marketing connections they have, and leave it at that.

Yeah, charge the ARTIST for that, or charge radio stations (who will charge their advertisers) for it.

No matter what, the old business model is obsolete, and they need to realize that, stop being pansies, and figure out a way to make the NEW model work for them. Or they will go the way of the dinosaurs. :)

Notice I didn't say anything about the "illegal file sharing" aspect of all this.

That's because if people really like something they will buy it. I do. I want to have all of the little goodies that come along with it - perhaps posters, biographies, a half price concert ticket, whatever.

Let's see... I really like this band! They kick butt! Oh wait, I can get these songs for free but I don't get any of the posters, biographies, half off concert tickets, etc.

They need to learn a thing or two about marketing in the new economy. I can guarantee they would make a lot of money if they just offered stupid little stuff like that... because the people that really like it will buy it. And isn't that what a product is about?

[Ben@WEBProp]

What about the fact that it is only illegal in the US? I mean there is not International Police of Catching Illegal File-Sharing Miscreants, is there? So, what my plan is, when I get a ton of money (hey, it could happen), is set up a bunch of servers in Sweden or some Nuetral Country and run a Napster-clone from there. I will have no obligation to release personal user information or ISP's to the US government!

KaZaA tried to do that, but they were a subsidiary of an American company, so that brings us to our current KaZaA status...

But doesn't that sound like a good idea?

-Ben

[Jason]

ehhh, your still stuck with the same problem. The same songs on your computers are the ones that travel the lines of the US. Since the digital recording industry now has digital copies of the music they can see the signatures of the transfer and link that to a song on their list and then render the d/l invalid. Thats what they are doing now with Kazaa. So Im not to sure that would work. Good try though. What we need to do is copy all the songs into Zip files and then send them out cause that makes it harder for them to find them...muwahahahahahaha.....


Jason

[whackaxe]

there already is a file sharing system like that. someone posted it up earlier but ill repeat:

http://www.earthstation5.com

based in palestine and protects your privacy :D

[oracleguy]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/966392.asp?0dm=B227T

Definetly worth reading. But I'll summerize.

Apple is to be making iTunes available on the windows platform as early as October. Record labels are starting to package more stuff with the CD to make them a better value (or at least appear that way).

http://www.msnbc.com/news/966394.asp

This is another good one. One of my favorite lines is, "If you are going to lose your house, how are you supposed to buy CDs?"

Even if the RIAA makes good on its promise to sue “thousands” more people, they can’t sue everybody. “Every time I log on to Kazaa it says there are a million users online with me. The odds are in my favor,” says one 19-year-old student at the University of South Carolina.If infringers don’t want to play the odds, they can virtually guarantee the RIAA can’t finger them: simply turn off the “sharing” part of file-sharing software, and you can still download—but the copyright cops can’t find you. If Americans do this, the file sharers overseas will pick up the slack. “Even if every last Kazaa user in the U.S. turned off file sharing, there wouldn’t be a perceptible difference,” says Garland.

[whammy]

Duh, I did that many many months ago... I don't share my own files.

If someone I know really wants something I have, then I could have reproduced it anyway, or let them borrow the 8-track, Record, Cassette, or CD.

That's still my point though.

I actually BUY cd's if they are worth buying. Because you get lots of cool stuff to go along with it.

If you can't get any cool extras from buying the CD (posters, bumper stickers, blah blah blah), then don't buy it, download it.

As Princess Leia might say - "Help me, Obi Wan Extra Goodies and Good Marketing Strategies, you're my only hope!"

[mordred]

To disable the "sharing" part may be a appropriate measure to prevent getting sued, however, it's also against the basic spirit of file sharing. No give - no take. I would immediately ban users who won't share anything.

Keep in my mind that also overseas the music industry is lobbying for stricter copyright laws to sue filesharers.

[ionsurge]

Looks like the riaa have gone too far :D

http://www.wtfisthat.com/riaa.jpg

[oracleguy]

lol

[Kingkerry]

I see nothing wrong with filesharing. I think it promotes the artist to people who've never heard the song before. I am recently opening up a site called Americas Boycott where I want to try and match up the money that the RIAA is suing. In the next few months I am going to try and see if the RIAA will snoop around my files. I am first going to look into it and see if its ok to name some of the local band's songs as popular songs by popular artist to see if they snoop around ;)

[Jason]

awsome point, does the RIAA check the files against the ones they have for comparison or do they just check names? If I make my own wav file and rename it to something popular, will they sue me. I like that idea. Let us know how that works Kingkerry and tell me how you are going to monitor the snooping factor? Are you going on Kazaa and using their p2p to get noticed?


Jason

[oracleguy]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971165.asp?0dm=C22BT

this is ironic.

[ionsurge]

I've got to admit, Sharman Networks are throwing out things that I would never had thought of.

I suppose the RIAA are indeed breaking the law.

:)

[liorean]

You admin that Kazaa is thowing out things you'd never had thought of? Do you mean content-wise or lawsuite-wise?

[ionsurge]

lol not content-wise, I meant with their fight back against the RIAA. I have not downloaded Kazaa, nor ever will.

I should have said Sharman Networks. :o


*Post edited.

[liorean]

Oh, btw, I think you meant admit, not admin. (I tried to point that out by the bolding in my previous post...)

[ionsurge]

Fixed.

[Jason]

I stubled apon another article about sharing music on cnn.com. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/30/musicmatch.debut.ap/index.html
in the article it sates that you can share a song only three times, so whos to say you shared it more than three times. If you share the song on the net and it only gets d/l once from you, its not breaking the law is it? I mean, you can share it 3x cause you bought the rights to distribute it to 3 pc's. Just a quick thought....


Jason

[whammy]

I don't think that flies, Jason, I'm quite sure there's legal wording that limits the file copying to YOUR PC's... I quote:

"For personal use, it will seem like unlimited burning," said Dennis Mudd, MusicMatch's chairman and CEO.

Note the "for personal use" part. I'm quite sure that like every piece of software I own, there are plenty of legalities in their license agreement.

Sharing a file on the 'net is definitely NOT "personal use". Just to make it clear. :)

Although, I do agree with you on one point - I have burned some of my cd's numerous times, because of scratches, lost or otherwise damaged cd's, etc.

I won't play an original CD in my computer, CD Player, or car CD system, since it may become damaged and unplayable; therefore I always play a copy so I have a "personal master".

There should NOT be any ban on copying CD's that you already own, since you have already paid for the material on the cd itself. The CD can be damaged, and we MUST have the right to make legitimate copies of songs we have paid for - whether it be a CD that we bought at a music store, an mp3 we downloaded over the internet, or any other possible legitimate method.

That's the part that's really messing up the RIAA - how do you let people who have legitimately purchased this content copy it for their personal use, but not have it available to everyone for free?

Good question!

[whammy]

Also what about the following situation:

I purchased "Skyscraper" (The David Lee Roth album) on cassette.

Someone stole it from me years ago, so I bought the CD. When I moved, that was stolen from me again!!!

Does the RIAA have a foot to stand on if you've already purchased the CD, the cassette tape, etc.... and you then proceed to download the music for free that you've already paid for twice over?

There are a lot of legal technicalities involved in this stuff. But in the meantime I downloaded the entire album, split it into individual tracks, and copied it to CD. But I've paid for it twice(!). I think that is justifiable in ANY court of law. Just give me the lie detector; I'll pass.

[Jason]

totaly agree, I have to get some of my CDs that were broken in transfer, basicall I was moving and some of the CDs weren't packaged as well as I had hoped, so like my Michael Jackson collection the 2disc set, I only have 1 now, and then my Nelly, completely cracked in 1/2, my Ex stole some of my CDs....how am I to get my things back without having to pay for them? must resort to free wares....


Jason

[SDP2006]

Well, I think Michael Jackson deserved it :p

[Jason]

maybe, but he is one person that is for sharing music without the whole suing thing....


Jason

[SDP2006]

I wasn't being serious :p

[Jason]

I know, I was just stating the facts. :thumbsup: have no fear, I don't take it all that seriously....maybe if I get sued....;)


Jason

[scroots]

i think we should look into how they are getting people, e.g. by using digital signature and then created an MP3 with a famous name that gives them a message like, "hahahaha your wasting your time, listening to this and your sueing your customers"

then they will monitor networks download and listen.

the other day it was reported kazaa (sharman networks or whatever where sueing the RIAA).

scroots

[oracleguy]

Yes, because the RIAA used Kazza Lite which is an illegal version. And in the Kazza EULA it says that they can't use the software to do some of the things they were doing to catch people.

I guess the tables have turned for the RIAA.

[whammy]

The whole thing is a farce anyway. In order to see who's downloading illegal software with whatever digital signature, they are violating privacy laws.

I don't think this is a winnable situation for the RIAA - especially given cases like MINE that I mentioned above.

They can go ahead and sue me for downloading "Skyscraper" by David Lee Roth, Steve Vai, and Billy Sheehan "illegally".

They won't win, because I legally purchased it not once, but twice. If they want it that bad I'll delete it from my computer - I'm not selling illegal CD's, if anything I might make people want to buy the CD (among others I have made LEGAL backup copies of) by playing it in my car (which by the way has an incredible sound system!).

And I INSIST on being able to make backup copies of any CD I own, because I'm not going to drive around to wherever (work, parties, gigs, etc.) with the original CD's in my car.

They might get scratched, they might get stolen, etc.; so I always burn a duplicate cd first and play THAT instead. Isn't that our right with something we've purchased? I know I'd much rather let a thief take a burned copy of one or all of my CD's than have him take the original - and that kind of theft has jumped to astronomical proportions in the US, anyway.

But that's a REAL crime. Just like the music industry charging $20 or so for a CD. ;)

[Jason]

well, as mentioned earlier in the thread it is legal to burn copies of your own material, so having backups isn't illegal in anyway. The fuzzyness steps into play when you start downloading songs or artists that you already have or had at one time. Oh, and I like the "sound system" comment, Im still working on mine...muahahahaha.....:thumbsup:

Jason

[liorean]

Hmm.....
<http://bbspot.com/News/2003/06/leech.html>
:)

[Jason]

thats halarious, is it real? I couldn't tell, maybe I shall google around for it...hehehe, nice. Thats what the RIAA gets, now people can blame the software for all the meraculous downloads...


Jason


damn it was a joke....I wanted to laugh more....

[whammy]

It sounds like an RIAA-specific virus to me... of course I'm not a prolific file-sharer... so who knows. ;)

[Jason]

your a leecher...you must have tha virus too :thumbsup:

Jason

[whammy]

Nah... I believe in paying for stuff if it's worth it, if it's not worth it then don't keep it. If I download some music from an artist to check it out, and I really like said artist, then I will purchase the song/album. Because it's worth it to me.

That's my philosophy anyway.

The same goes for software. I have LEGAL copies of all of the web development software that I own. I paid for all of it.

My reasoning is if you don't pay for that stuff, then the guys who write it won't keep improving on it or offer support, etc., because they'll be broke. You can extrapolate a lot from that, especially since most of us here WRITE applications (even if they are just web applications). So in my opinion whether you pay for software or not (regardless of the niche) has a direct bearing on our income. :)

[Jason]

I just have to say "Open Source"


Jason

[liorean]

Open source, freeware, postcardware, or even adware...

There's a reason I've not got Office, Dreamwaver or Photoshop any longer... (Except that I never used them anyway...) There's even more reasons I've not got WinXP.






Oh, by the way: <http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2003/oct03/10-15MusicServices.asp>

Do I sense bitterness in there?
John Gruber of daringfireball (http://daringfireball.net/) has written a translation (http://daringfireball.net/2003/10/closed_is_open) for you...

[Jason]

though we are now off topic I just have to stay I hate XP and don't care for it to much....


Jason

[Spookster]

Alright you people let's get back on topic.

Where did they get this hogwash from

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/11/06/music.piracy.reut/index.html

Sounds like they are trying to blow smoke up our butts and make it sound like their tactics are working.

[Jason]

I didn't get a survey to fill out, I know that nor have I even deleted ANY mp3 off my computer. Infact my list has been growing. So theres some faulty lines there. Though I have shifted some of my tactics. I now go to private FTP sites that are hosted by people I know as well to get some. But I don't know who they were talking about when they said that their tactics are working. Probably only those that got caught ;-)


Jason

[KidsAmerica]

The night the communist RIAA began taking ip's and by which thereafter they began suing little girls for downloading Row Row Row Your Boat, or whatever it was...I downloaded over 238 songs...and in the morning I deleted them without even looking.


I hate and despise monopolies. America's gigantic recording companies have for too many years PREVENTED we Americans from hearing beautiful, popular music from all over the world. The RIAA bunch of Thugs like Motown and RCA et al, have legally 'stolen' billions of dollars of profits from naive young performers by conning them into signing any present and all future rights to THEIR OWN MUSIC!!! over to the insatiably greedy record labels.

Competition allows the best to come from man...always has.

The RIAA and all major record labels have co-erced most American radio stations over the past century from playing anything at all EXCEPT what they sell...the music that originates from the major record label contracts.

I despise all our major recording companies for doing that to me...basically because I searched all my life to find that rare music that I liked...no...that I loved! And now I found it...thank God! I'm in Heaven! :)

And it was RARELY exhibited by the major American MONOPOLY! I had to wait unknowingly until the advent of the internet...when finally I could search the entire WORLD for music of ALL sorts...not just those incredibly FEW performers under contract with our American major recording studios.


I found Mp3.com. I posted MY OWN music there to share with the world... FOR FREE!@!

I downloaded music I adore...finally.

I found music from 1/4th of this world's nations that I adore. I have made friends with some of the performers and some of the directors of those masterpieces of human perfection.

And suredly I would NEVER have discovered any of these songs and other recordings without the freedom of the internet.



The RIAA and its group of major recording label thugs is anathema to freedom...to free expression...to free disemination of ideas...and to the freedom to share that which was given to the world...mainly anything that is put out into the public airwaves that I can capture.

The RIAA and its group of thugs need to understand something that the Grateful Dead has known for a long time...if you allow the free dissemination of music, you will grow and incredibly larger audience of appreciative fans who will buy merchandise.


This is not the age of the steam engine any longer. It ain't the age of sailing cargo ships either.

And for sure it ain't the age of vinyl record albums. If the RIAA and its group of ne-erdowells want to continue to share in the piece of pie called "the recording industry", then in they need to grow with the times.


Sharing music is not only acceptable...it is healthy for a group or a performer. There is far more to sell than CD's at $25 a whack. Shirts, posters and much much more...but first get the damnable customer base up to large numbers by allowing, promoting the sharing of the music...then the fruits will come.


One last note...the cretins who want to live off one album, and who after 30 years are STILL charging $30 for each of those former megahits, needs to get off their lazy fat asspirins and get back on stage. I don't appreciate having to spend $30 again and again when I am not a wealthy man...in some cases I bought over time, 5 versions of the same album for various reasons...but never again.


Directed to the lazy fat artist of old...if you want more money from me...get back on stage. I ain't paying for you to live in a mansion any more...because now you have competition...and do you know who that competition is?

...it's YOU...on the internet. So you keep charging $25 or $30 bucks for that old CD...and I'll keep ignoring your selfish asspirin and sharing with my new friends...we'll keep your name alive...but if you want money...work man, work!

No one ever paid me for more than once for the great things I did when I was a kid...and especially no one ever paid me every year for the rest of my life...cause that would be fracking insane!

grrr...


iMesh/Kazaa lite/WinMX/DC++...I'm here baby!

:)

[whammy]

Actually I don't think I could have said it any better. Bravo.

[Mhtml]

Indeed, very well said!

They just nabbed 2 uni students over here the other day for sharing music...Why don't they target big piracy operations in the Asian part of the world? Taiwan and Singapore? That is where nearly all pirating is done, especially DVD ripping.

Also, I don't know if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but how is downloading music different to recording off the radio? They don't hunt you down for that, I'm quite sure if you whent to a producer and told them that they wouldn't care..

IMO piracy of music was always big, it's just with the widespread usage of the internet that they have finally realised it.

[Jason]

well, same thing would then apply to taking a video camera into a theatre, thats illigal cause then you are getting it sooner then everyone else. But hey, you paid for it. Along with your TV, you paid to watch the TV and look how easy it is to record something off tv. Thats never been talked about either. What is up with people recording TV. When infact, I believe they just came out with the technology to record the TV transmission with the box, using DVDs or whatnot or you can plug into your computer and record that way. Never said that was illegal...is there a difference?

Jason

[Basscyst]

The difference is that my TV isn't connected to your TV, nor is your recordable cable box or radio. The issues arise when you take that recorded media and put it on your computer and allow it to be shared at a mass level. This allows for unlawfull distribution (as much as I do disagree with the RIAA). I don't think you actually know the 3 million people that could have access to your computer using a FSP. Which would greatly limit your distribution abilities. If it's not taking money away from the industry why would they even bark up the tree.

Basscyst

[Jason]

but television is free, well a few channels are here in the US. Friends has been on air for a few years so I will use that show as an example. The show was free to anyone with a tv and a metal hanger shoved in the back as an atena. Why is it illegal to copy and distribute something free? Now you can go to the store and buy an entire season of all seasons clectors set on DVD, why couldn't I have recorded it onto my computer and distribute it.


Jason

[scroots]

it is all about the technology is ahead of the music industry etc. The tech industry creates all these gadgets and profits from them, e.g. mp3 players etc. and the music indusrty declare it some what illegal to use there music on them.

The music industry is out of date.

scroots

[Jason]

good old apple, they supply people with music using iTunes only to have their software cracked in not time at all, here is the aticle on how to get exact copies of iTunes music http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/11/27/itunes.code.ap/index.html


Jason

[allida77]

I recently started using Napster. IMO it is a great application. If anyone is willing to pay 99 cents for songs then I would recommend it.

[whammy]

I just bought a digital 8-track recording studio (BOSS BR-864) for $500 that has 64 virtual tracks, built-in effects for guitars, vocals, etc., bass emulation and much more that actually samples at a better rate than ADAT.

It's the size of a shoebox. The funny thing is my band just recorded a demo at a professional studio, and (probably due to time crunch) it doesn't sound as good as this box. :)

That's the kind of thing that rules about technology - and why the recording industry is going to have to change. Of course probably not everyone can figure out how to use this stuff (especially if you read this manual!)... but look how cheap it is. :)

[Jason]

you think britney spears knows how to read? she only knows how to shop in the kids department....;-)


Jason

[Jason]

new news for you to read discussing how the RIAA is now SCREWED as far as finding who is sharing info.... http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/19/music.download.reut/index.html


Jason

[Basscyst]

Hip Hip Hoorray,

That is good. Very good. Thanks for the info Jason. Any one else happen to notice that it's getting harder to find legit (oxy moron) copies of media on the major P2P's. I suspect that perhaps the Recording \ Movie industry is sharing "fakies" before the media is released so that by the time it is available any real copy will be lost in a sea of fakes. Any one have any documentation of whether or not this is true? I must say that would be the best way to fight the spread of pirated media \ software.

Basscyst

[Basscyst]

Hello-
After reading above I have another thought. In most art you can get different qualities of reproduction ie. If you have a painting you could have the priceless original, a certified print (maybe a couple of grand), a poster (10-20 bucks) or you can DL the image off the web (free). Am I going to display the DL web version over my mantle - no, no I'm not. But if I want to show it to my friend I'll take the crappy copy over there or email it etc.

My point is I would have no problem paying MORE for an original CD that was numbered and authenticated - and may increase in value. I then could search the web or listen to the radio and find the artists I would be willing to pay a couple hundred bucks for an original (maybe even framed) disc and cover along with a nice little right up.

The recording industry is dead or dying, as mentioned above - The quality of personal recording equipment has greatly increased. The MUSIC INDUSTRY is well and alive and should be thinking of becoming just that the peddlers of audio art. An artist will still have a need for the marketing, promotion and production capabilities of the Music Industry.

Basscyst

[liorean]

Well, it's in the news: <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854054236.html> The record indusrty are targetting Kazaa. Is it right of them to do this kind of action? Should the legal authorities give aid to things like this?


BTW:
<plug type="shameless">Member Jeskel here on CF has started a music forums site at <http://yourmusicforums.com/> with a staff of a few CF members. Why don't you come over and have a look?</plug>

[scroots]

i figured the other day why people in the uk download it other than its cheaper and other arguments.

They can sue you for ripping it onto your pc, they can sue you fro downloading it, (under the CDPA etc., we did about it in IT).

So it equates to

Buy Cd + Rip It = Track On Pc + Possible Prosecution
£15 + Free = £15 spent and possible prosecution.

where as

Download Cd + Rip It = Track On Pc + Possible Prosecution
Free + Free = Nothing SPent and possible prosecution.


If there gona do you anyway you might aswell not waste £15.

scroots

[mindlessLemming]

Originally posted by liorean

<plug type="shameless">
lol ;) Classic.