Local girl sued by the recording industry.

I honestly cannot believe that - in the guise of spewing hot lava at record companies and their industry lackeys like the RIAA - people in this thread are actually accepting/justifying/rationalizing somebody STEALING the intellectual property from the people who create it and the people who legally distribute it.

When somebody pays $15 and downloads their CD of "The Rising" on their computer...and through a peer-to-peer network another unauthorized person downloads those music files onto their own computer, that is THEFT...and it is ILLEGAL.

Period.

And any attempt to rationalize that criminal act is pretty damn weak, IMO.

:no:

You wanna say that the record companies are scum? Fine. The RIAA? Lowlife lobbyists whose job it is to get legislation passed that screw consumers.

I've got that.

But if you want to OWN somebody else's creative property - property that has been packaged specifically for the purpose of compensating the artist who creates it and the intermediary who distributes it - then you have to pay for it.

I'm not even going to get into the part of this case that revolves around illegal distribution - that has already been well covered...it's not whether the person who "distributes" the music gets ONE PENNY for the distribution...it is against the law for anybody except the artist who creates the music or the distributor who is contracturally permitted to distribute the music to do so.

What am I missing here?

The protection of IP is a huge issue in today's world...and whether it is shady Chinese entrepreneurs who sell illegal copies of Microsoft Vista on the streets of Shanghai (ahhh...who cares about Microsoft...right? Gates already has more money than God...if someone can steal a few bucks from his mouth, it's just the morally right thing to do...yes?) or the peer-to-peer network junkie who has a T-1 line, a 6-gazzill-o-byte hard drive and thousands of CD's that didn't cost him a dime...it's all good...

Right?
 
Not everybody agrees that it is stealing.

File sharing legal in Canada

"[the Judge] said the recording industry had not presented evidence linking the alleged file swapping to the ISP subscribers that was strong enough to warrant breaking through critical privacy protections.

"making music available online also appeared to be legal.

"...the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled. The same rationale should apply to peer-to-peer users.

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."

Where I live, it is not stealing, and is not illegal.
 
Bill (bebopdeluxe)...I agree with you, mostly. But the tactics and attitude (that word again) of the music industry make it impossible for me to back them up.

Stealing software is plain wrong, and a different unrelated subject as far as I'm concerned. What pisses me off (besides their arrogance) is the attack/erosion of the firmly established 'Fair Use' doctrine, the legal nullification of which is the unstated goal of the music industry.

Want to see how to do it right? The movie industry is getting there. Rarely do you see a movie DVD that costs more than $25 new, and releases a year or two old can cost less than $10. There's added content, digital soundtracks, and other incentives to convince people that it is to their advantage to buy the movie rather than download a poorly ripped copy of it.

The music industry, OTOH, is stuck with the same business model they had in 1985, and sign artists that nobody wants to hear. And the media? Costs the same or more than what it did 20 years ago, with little incentive (certainly not sonically) for a consumer to buy the original thing rather than download even a crappy rip.

I don't download music and I never have. But I have dumptruck-loads of understanding why others do. And zero understanding of how the music industry intends to get the public on their side, since it seems they went to the Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili* School of How to Make Friends and Win Over Supporters. Don't believe that? Do some research on the crap they've pulled. Boy Scout merit badges indeed... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Like I said...when the music industry changes their attitude, I'll change mine.



*Look it up
 
bebopdeluxe said:
And any attempt to rationalize that criminal act is pretty damn weak, IMO.
Click to expand...

Perhaps some are trying to rationalize it but you are correct, it is against the law. What I object to is that (IMO) the mere act of threatening these people with multi-million dollar lawsuits is totally out of proportion to the offense.

The RIAA says that music downloading is costing them millions of dollars, OK then, where's the proof? Why don't they open their books and show a verifiable direct link between file sharing and dollar losses. You can't simply say that each download is costing them the price of a CD because there is no way that is accurate. You also can't point to year to year declines in revenue without also controlling for other variables like the decrease in releases and the generally bland, uninspired material that they hype. You'd also need to correct for the fact that the 90's music sales were higher because people were buying CD's of previously released music, once that cow was milked to death sales had to go down. If they could put together a cogent argument based on the facts then I think people would be more willing to see their side.

I will also say that I don't download any music with a copywrite and I try my best to purchase music directly from the artists whenever possible. If I were an artist I'd be looking closely at the Robert Fripp/DGM model of distribution.
 
Well.. let me start off with a little revelation... I myself work for a IP law firm.. so no telling me what is right and wrong.. but we all have our moral convictions... To each their own in their beliefs.. The firm I work for has even done some work for the RIAA... but that was before I started there. As far as I know, we no longer do.Matter of fact, I've checked Peer Guardian, and yes, the IP for the firm I work for is blocked by it.

Many bands over the years have asked people to share their music. Libraries share albums, and tapes.. That is NO DIFFERENT than what this lady has done, letting her music folder hang out there on the net.. IF she really did. They have NO CONCRETE PROOF...


With that said.. today they will be holding the closing arguments. Now to see what the outcome will be. Wondering how long the jury will deliberate, and I hope they have a clue, and finally stick it to the group that has been sticking it to everyone else for years and years.
 
My unpopular view is that it is fundamentally wrong for an artist to get paid over and over for the same recording. The "copies" the public buy are made for very cheap with those friggin' jewel cases that snap hinges the first time you open them. Artists ought to make SOME money from the endless copies but ought to be doing live shows to earn the big bucks.
There is something wrong with making big bucks from the same cheaply copied recording. If you disagree then realise that this is a very modern phenomenon. Prior to mass production, artists made money from performing many times, not performing once then selling the copies.
 
similost:

If a band knowingly and willingly encourages fans to share their music, that's one thing. Personally, I believe that those artists who take advantage of ALL avenues of distribution (including their own MySpace pages, YouTube, etc...)are the best off - because you never know when you are no longer the "flavor of the month" in Sony or RCA's eyes...and you will be dropped lile THAT. As I said, I saw how brutal these scumbag labels can be first-hand through my brother's eyes ("oh, and by the way...on your way out...there is that small matter of the $750K in recording and advance money that you owe us...so don't be expecting any money from any record sales any time soon...").

Actually - using the prior example - Trinket lost a LOT of money for RCA. Could they have handled the band better? Of course. But I digress from the subject...I understand that the laws in Canada are different. Is this case taking place in Canada? And your defense for that woman - that she should be viewed the same way as a "library" - are you serious?

Glenn (EW):

Bro - I hear you about the RIAA. I go back to the mid-80's and the PMRC hearings on Capitol Hill (if people have never read Frank Zappa's testimony - and his SCATHING rip at the RIAA and the industry in general - you should Google it)...there is NO love lost for those people. I am simply taking a very basic, stripped-down position - artists should be compensated for their property. Period. And if you acquire said property (such as "The Rising") - by downloading it from something like a peer-to-peer network - without paying for it, you are breaking the law.

Personally, I think that more artists should simply bypass the scumbag labels and build their own independent distribution network. With the current technology that is out there, an artist could sell the equivalent of 50-100K records and (supported by performances and other things), they could have a pretty nice life...and it would be completely theirs.

But if they agree to have their music distributed by a label...and it is sold through traditional distribution channels...and you download it (from any source) without compensating the artist...

It is illegal.

At least, in the United States, it is.
 
I guess since the RIAA also wants a cut of the used music world
we all ( millions of us ) should send our used cassette tapes , and old scratched LP's and CD's to the RIAA Ups or FedEx collect :D And tell them they can try to make more money on these sucka's :yes:

OOOPS ! We would probably be sued for sharing music with the RIAA
 
bebopdeluxe said:
similost:
And your defense for that woman - that she should be viewed the same way as a "library" - are you serious?
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the woman.. that's her attorney's job.. but I am saying that by a library loaning out albums and tapes, they are allowing people the opprotunity to copy the media. WHICH, I would suspect many people do. I've known a lot that do tape them. Until they stop public loaning of recorded media, then it's pretty hard to justify stoping individuals from "loaning" copies.

Secondly.. let's try this one on for size.. How many of us here have reel to reel tapes they bought at garage sales, or GW that were recorded in someone's home? How many here have cassettes... or VCR tapes.. same story.. you bought at a sale somewhere, and don't have the original media?

Quite a few from a lot I've read... Granted, that doesn't make it right because everyone else does it, but it is pretty well accepted that having a copy of an album or tape or what ever has been around for a long time, and slamming the hell out of a few people they caught on the internet isn't going to stop it. If anything, it's going to cause even more sharing, because too many are boycotting the RIAA. Had the RIAA tried to solve the problem a different way, I would have bought several thousand CD's by now since this started in the 90's... BUT, because they are such jack asses, I refuse to support them.. BUT.. I still love my music, so they have pushed me to be against them, and get my music fix how ever I can...

I do buy music direct from indie artists. I do buy T-shirts and other gear.. but I REFUSE to give the RIAA once red cent of mine...
 
Another thing that's always "got" me is-If home taping/copying is so bad, why don't they outlaw tape decks that record, CD burners, VCRs, etc, etc, etc...Why were/are blank tapes/media SO easy to come by ? All those zillions & zillions of C-60/90 tapes WEREN'T bought simply to record little Mary's Piano recital, or Johnny's speech at the VFW...
 
Actually Sandy, they did make a go at the CD burning market. That's what the "music" CD-R's were all about. They got a piece of the pie from all the CD-R's that were for recording music. Unfortunately they were a day late as everyone had already figured out that you didn't need a "music" CD-R to record music.

Ray
 
Sandy,

You have confused legal with moral. You've also made the seriously silly logical confusion that government made laws makes sense. Although, you may wish to research what happend to digital tape.

To most of the rest of you. 'Because everyone is doing it' and 'Well Johnny did it first' is neither a legal defense, nor moral, nor for that matter, logical.

Do you really want to live in a world where either of those is the norm?
 
A lot of blank cassette tapes and CDs are bought to copy music that people legally own for one simple reason - you can't stick a 12" LP into the dashboard of your car. Now if that is illegal - tough.

Went to play an RCA cassette yesterday - thought my cassette player was going bad - tried a second one - same warbles as the speed changed. Figured the cassette was sticking, put the tape in a new cassette tape holder - still bad so some years ago I apparently bought a bad tape and no hope of getting it replaced, so I bought the LP version off eBay.

Now that both cars have CDPs I have a couple of dozen blank cassettes left over from the old car.

Now I buy CDs only when BMG gets the price down to the 4 and 5 dollar point and I sincerely doubt that Beethoven or Mozart are getting any royalties.

Oh, and I will probably copy the RTR tapes for the same reason.
 
cfranz said:
Sandy,

You have confused legal with moral. You've also made the seriously silly logical confusion that government made laws makes sense. Although, you may wish to research what happend to digital tape.

To most of the rest of you. 'Because everyone is doing it' and 'Well Johnny did it first' is neither a legal defense, nor moral, nor for that matter, logical.

Do you really want to live in a world where either of those is the norm?
Click to expand...

Yeah.. well.. massage parlors aren't exactly built on the moral fabric of society either.. but everyone loves a happy ending...
 
It's the same sort of stupidicus nonsense..I'd say 98% of us have cars that will easily blow any speed limit in the US or Canada outta the water...Even the Mighty Valdez will supposedly go 94 B4 the governor shuts it down..Why don't they simply make cars governed to 55 or 60 ? Deaths would go down, we wouldn't need to have a whole industry making radar detectors, wouldn't need half the cops, gas consumption would go down....We have the tools to "break the law", & yet we're NOT supposed to use 'em ?
 
Sandy G said:
It's the same sort of stupidicus nonsense..I'd say 98% of us have cars that will easily blow any speed limit in the US or Canada outta the water...Even the Mighty Valdez will supposedly go 94 B4 the governor shuts it down..Why don't they simply make cars governed to 55 or 60 ? Deaths would go down, we wouldn't need to have a whole industry making radar detectors, wouldn't need half the cops, gas consumption would go down....We have the tools to "break the law", & yet we're NOT supposed to use 'em ?
Click to expand...

Also, do you think we would be able to have a beer after work, or a glass of wine after dinner if everyone followed the law during prohibition?

Some times civil disobedience by the masses changes the way society works, and this is one time I'm all for the laws changing... Just doing my part :D
 
merrylander:

I believe that everybody here can make a clear distinction (both moral and legal) between someone who makes copies of a CD that they PAID for to use in other mediums (MP3 player, CD mix for car, etc...), and someone who goes onto a peer-to-peer network to see who else on the network has a copy of the new Springsteen album on their computer so they can RIP IT OFF.

I really don't get how there is ANY "grey area" here.

Artist creates something. To pay the bills, take care of the family and allow said artist to continue to create things that people like, he/she looks to SELL this creation to others who want it. Consumer who likes what the artist creates and wants to own said property (and most importantly, wants to insure that the artist is fairly compensated for the time and effort that goes into the creation - and the future economic structure that allows the artist to continue to create things that people want) then PAYS THE ARTIST for the PRIVILEGE (not the "right") of owning the creation.

It doesn't get more basic than that.

And while there are lots of unsavory characters (like the record labels, the RIAA, etc...) involved in the mix - people that you may not want to see get a piece of the action - how do you justify screwing the creator of the art by taking their legally-protected product without compensation? If the artist voluntary chooses to distribute his/her product through these channels, the consumer has two LEGAL options - buy the product or don't buy the product...and, IMO, no "I hate the f*ckin' RIAA" rationalization can justify going onto one of these p-t-p networks and illegally downloading an artist's content without compensation.
 
Let's seeee.... I fire up my Utorrent.. and I go download some... hhhmmm cool... Bach... hhhmm.. nope, I didn't take any money out of his mouth... I find some old beatles... OOPS.. Sorry John, Paul, George, and Ringo, I didn't mean to take any money from Sony and Mikey... Sorry you sold out, and got screwed...

That's what is hard to argue here.. the artist's are losing very little if any money at all... because most artists settled for pennies on the dollar years ago when they were scammed into these record deals.. I support the artist by going and paying insane prices to see them live, and buy their warez while I am there.. they make a lot more from me supporting them by seeing just one concert, than they will even if they sold 1000 CDs to me...

Let's take a look at one song in particular.... Say you take your little Johnny, and his twin sister Sally to Macky D's for their birthday party... MY GOD.. they can't even sing the traditional Happy Birthday to them, because some big ass corporate bully is so afraid they will lose 2 pennys to rub together... How about if Marylin were to sing Happy Birthday to John today? That would of either taken one of two routes. A) she would have spent MONTHS in negoation with the RIAA to be able to sing to him in public, and it cost thousands of dollars for that one song, or B) she would have just done it, and been sued to hell and back, because she sang a song that the writer, who is long gone, will see not one cent of.

I'm sorry, but you have your moral obligations, and I have mine... When it comes to the all mighty corporate schmuchs fighting to keep stealing and making more dollars, then I'm going to flex my civil disobediance muscle along with all the others. Funny though, this time, it appears to be more of a majority that feels the RIAA is wrong, and so many are falling into the same trap the RIAA is creating... however, it's the RIAA that will end up falling into the trap and eating their own foot off, just to spite their face..

I saw a great movie last night. The Informer. Basically, it was about Big Tobacco fighting to keep their secrets from the public... It's the exact same thing with the RIAA... No good companies only worried about THEIR bottom dollar, and can't give a rat's ass about anyone else... I'm so glad to see som many artists getting wise and finally venturing out on their own...

Will I buy the new Radiohead Complete Set.. You're DAMN SKIPPY.. will I go out and get a copy from the torrent sites? NO WAY.. will I pay a fair price for it? YES.. and will probably offer more for it than what it would have sold for in the stores....
 
similost:

As I said in a prior post, I think that it is a GREAT thing that artists are bypassing traditional forms of distribution...doing it themselves...perhaps selling less copies, but making more money, controlling both the ownership and distribution of the content...and there has NEVER been a better time for this to happen, with the electronic distrubution channels that are available out there and the structures in place (like MySpace, YouTube and the like) to get the word out and connect with potential consumers. No more payola. No more compromises by artists to "mainstream" their content so that the labels can sell it (boy, do I have stories from my brother there...).

I also recognize that there are situations where there can potentially be some flexibility...for example, should there be a shorter period of time (say, 7 to 10 years) where music can only be legally distributed through the traditional channels...after which time, it becomes "public domain"?

Yup.

I also can sometimes recognize some "grey"...for example, by the strictest definition of the law, many live recording that are bandied about in cyberspace are also illegal (as the initial taping of the concerts was probably explicitely stated as being illegal when it was initially taped)...but since there is - theoretically at least - no loss of revenue to the artist, I can see where that could be OK.

But if - as you read this - somebody is downloading a copy of Springsteen's new album from somebody else's computer on one of these peer-to-peer sites, and the artist is receiving NO compensation for that download. It is illegal. Period. And the distribution networks that facilitate this illegal distribution activity are - by extension - breaking the law as well. And all of the hatred that you spew at the "corporate schmucks" who have a hand in (and make money from) the LEGAL distribution of said content (as a result of a legally-binding agreement voluntarily entered into between the artist and the label) does not change the fact that the guy in Walla Walla who just finished downloading that Springsteen album on Kazaa just BROKE THE LAW.

I'm done. Peace.
 
bebopdeluxe said:
similost:

And the distribution networks that facilitate this illegal distribution activity are - by extension - breaking the law as well.
Click to expand...

Well.. here's where some of the grey area comes in... PirateBay, THE largest torrent site, is actually 100% legal in their country... and what is even wilder is some members of the MPAA and the porn industry are starting to stand behind them AND give them large sums of money to fight the RIAA and MPAA.. They have come to realize the system is broken.

Same with Canada.. sharing is LEGAL there... It's the US that is the thorn in this whole issue, and until people make a stand, it will continue. That's why I will continue to believe like I do, just as you will continue to believe as you do. Some follow the law to a T, because it is the law, and others stand against the law because they know the laws are assanine... We each have our own beliefs, and I don't fault anyone for the way they believe.

If I were to go download Bruce's new CD, you can bet I will also be going to see his show, and will probably spend more there than the average concert goer does. SO, I don't feel I am ripping him off. I am getting his music because I'm using it to get amped up and ready to go to the show.... Which, will more than likely get me to spend a LOT more while there, than if I wasn't getting amped up.. It's a win win situation...

I know others don't do that.. but I do... I don't take music just because I want to listen to it.. I very seldom listen to CD's or albums or tapes, or MP3's.. I mostly listen to the radio, and the music stations on the TV... I've found many bands using P2P programs that I would have never heard of other wise, and actually go out and buy their CDs, so long as they are not on a label that is owned by the RIAA.. most all the other stuff I have on MP3 is stuff that the artists are long gone, and don't see a cent from any sales...

Like I said, to each their own, but I do thank everyone that has been a part of the P2P scene, because they are the ones that are working so hard to break a giant's grasp, and will eventually and actually make things better for the artists, and the consumers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom