RIAA finally went to far.

Gaara

Even if they were to post new laws it would be ex post facto, and music you have on your pc now should be safe, so long as you have the original cds.

cfrizz

Hmm. I just looked at the article myself & they say downloading. There are literally thousands of people at any given time downloading. How did they pick him out of thousands?

I can see them catching un uploader, since they can obviously trace the file, but how do they catch downloaders?

dkg999

cfrizz - one way they can catch the downloaders is by using one of several available technologies/software that can monitor traffic in/out of a website. From there I'm not sure they would identify who they want to take action against, but I'm guessing it's the unlucky person who they were able to trace the connection back to a physical address, then build the supporting case. The website doesn't even have to know that all inbound/outbound traffic is being monitored (although you can get a higher percentage if the website cooperates!).

Or much simpler, they po'd someone and they turned them into the RIAA! With that they could get a court order to have the ISP monitor their activity and flag when they hit the website in question.

The amazing thing is that these actions against people who have no hope of being able to fight back are feel-good moves for the RIAA and the music industry. If you look at them as a percentage of the overall activity, it's probably not really effective in resolving the core problem. JMHO.

DarqueKnight

dkg999 wrote: »

If you look at them as a percentage of the overall activity, it's probably not really effective in resolving the core problem.

One of the core problems is the attitude of many people that illegal downloading of music "really" isn't stealing because:

1. Everyone in the music industry is filthy rich and they can well afford to be ripped off.

2. The prices record companies charge for CD's is waaaaaay to high, therefore consumers are "entitled" to acquire copyrighted music at no cost.

We can talk all we want about what greedy, incompetent **** the record companies are and how they are getting what they deserve. Greed and incompetence notwithstanding, the record companies have the same rights to protect their commercial interests and property rights as any other legitimate business. Just because someone is not a nice person does not give people the right to break into their home and steal their property. No one wants to be ripped off...not even if they can afford the loss...not even if their insurance will provide full replacement.

This mindset of "You're not a nice person and I don't like the prices you charge for your merchandise, so I'm going to steal it" is ridiculous. If the record companies are turning out poor quality crap...don't buy it. If you think the price is too high...don't buy it. I guarantee you they will get the message and act accordingly...if they want to stay in business.

Lack of sales due to disinterested customers would be a more positive motivating factor toward increased content quality and lower prices than lack of sales due to theft. When a consumer steals a product, they are sending a message that "I like what you produced and want to acquire it, I just don't want to pay for it". When a consumer ignores a product, they are sending a message that "I don't like what you produced" or "I like what you produced but the price is too high or is unreasonable".

Theft causes a producer to disproportionately allocate resources to reducing illegal acquistion. It also artificially drives up prices. Pure lack of sales causes a producer (assuming they have some sense) to appropriately allocate resources to improving product quality and adjustment of pricing structure.

nadams

cfrizz wrote: »

Hmm. I just looked at the article myself & they say downloading. There are literally thousands of people at any given time downloading. How did they pick him out of thousands?

I can see them catching un uploader, since they can obviously trace the file, but how do they catch downloaders?

They put the files up themselves, then catch the people that are downloading FROM THEM.

So, basically, they're violating their own rules to catch you violating their rules.

dkg999

DarqueNight - I agree. My sister was in the music business with Arista and BMG for many years. She took an early retirement package (ie they bought out her job!) and is glad she was able to get out when she did. The industry and consumer preferences are changing, and like a big ship, the old-line music industry is struggling to change course.

bobman1235

DarqueKnight, you're talking about people sharing music, which I don't believe anyone in this thread has tried to defend. This thread is about the RIAA saying that you cannot, for your own personal use, take a CD, and rip it for your iPod, or make a backup copy, or in any way make a copy.

You seem desperate to make your point about file sharing, which is fine, but I just don't see an audience here since no one is advocating stealing music, and certainly no one has said it's right to do so.

cfrizz

:eek::eek::eek: Are you serious???? That is some spooky, messed up crap! They should be spending their time figuring out how to make people want to buy music rather than taking it.

nadams wrote: »

They put the files up themselves, then catch the people that are downloading FROM THEM.

So, basically, they're violating their own rules to catch you violating their rules.

Phasearray

where can i score some weed?

DarqueKnight

bobman1235 wrote: »

DarqueKnight, you're talking about people sharing music, which I don't believe anyone in this thread has tried to defend. This thread is about the RIAA saying that you cannot, for your own personal use, take a CD, and rip it for your iPod, or make a backup copy, or in any way make a copy.

I was not aware that the RIAA had taken an official position that people cannot make backup copies of thier music for their personal use. I went to the RIAA website and saw that they write at length about online and street piracy of music. I did not see one word about consumers who make backup copies of media for their own use. Please refer me to appropriate references, if you have any.

I think it would be foolish for the RIAA to take an official position against consumers making backup copies of their legally purchased media. How could such a thing be enforced? No one would ever know unless a consumer told someone.

bobman1235 wrote: »

You seem desperate to make your point about file sharing, which is fine, but I just don't see an audience here since no one is advocating stealing music, and certainly no one has said it's right to do so.

I am not "desperate", as you put it, to make any point. A previous poster made a statement to the effect that the music companies are obscenely wealthy and can well afford a little pilferage.

Other posters, in this thread and others, have made the point that, since they paid for a CD, they should be able to do whatever they want to do with it. I was merely pointing out that such thinking in in error...according to US law.

This thread started off with someone knocking the RIAA for allegedly suing someone for making backup copies of their purchased media. Upon further reading, it was revealed that the RIAA was actually suing for illegal downloading. I have noted that people seem "desparate" to take any opportunity to spread negative information about the RIAA, without taking the time to learn the facts. As I understand it, all the RIAA wants to do is to assure that the creators of creative recorded works get the compensation due them. This is their job.

It is unfortunate that you interpret an honest attempt to disseminate correct and well substantiated information as "desperation". However, to each his own.

xsmi

Sony and some other companies used to put tracking software on the disk as well as software that would not let you copy the disk. I do know they were asked to stop producing the cds but I don't know if the recalled the ones that were already sent out.

obieone

What I don't understand, is, WHY artists/ musicians don't just hire a copyright lawyer, get the music they've written copyrighted, then put up their own website with both direct downloads and complete cd purchase availble. That way, they cut the RIAA completely out of the loop, and keep 100% of the $???
It seems to me, that all the RIAA is, is a union steward for these people.

bobman1235

Sorry DK, I just think you're reading what you want to read (for some reason - who sticks up for a huge conglomerate?) rather than what's being said. There's always a few folks defending downloading music (I've done it, but am well aware it's wrong and rightfully so)., but the majority of this thread is about a position that the RIAA SEEMS to have taken (based on some comments made by executives and press agents) that uses previously defined as fair use are also "stealing". Whether this is their actual position or not is almost irrelevant when discussing people's feelings about it - I'm allowed to disagree with that position even if it's not their actual position, am I not?

bobman1235

obieone wrote: »

What I don't understand, is, WHY artists/ musicians don't just hire a copyright lawyer, get the music they've written copyrighted, then put up their own website with both direct downloads and complete cd purchase availble. That way, they cut the RIAA completely out of the loop, and keep 100% of the $???
It seems to me, that all the RIAA is, is a union steward for these people.

Because most startup bands can't market their material as well as a large music conglomerate can, and most popular bands got popular by signing very restrictive contracts that would not allow them to do this.

treitz3

bobman1235 wrote: »

Because most startup bands can't market their material as well as a large music conglomerate can, and most popular bands got popular by signing very restrictive contracts that would not allow them to do this.

So maybe THIS needs to change?

jakelm

I was recorded singing in the shower, I sued, and won.

obieone

I thought most new music gets heard @ clubs & colleges nowadays? The rason they needed record companies, was because until recently, there was NO OTHER way to get music. My 1st LP was Black Sabbath's Paranoid. I still buy cd's, but I just think the RIAA is an old corrupt organization

bobman1235

obieone wrote: »

I thought most new music gets heard @ clubs & colleges nowadays?

Yeah, and how to do you get from there to producing a record that the nation hears about? It's a LITTLE easier now, with the internet if you get buzz then ANYONE can hear your stuff and if you make your own album, anyone can buy it directly from you, in theory, but it almost makes it HARDER to make it big because there's just SO MUCH out there.

The rason they needed record companies, was because until recently, there was NO OTHER way to get music.

I don't really understand why you think this. Anyone with the means has always been free to make and market their own music; the problem is reaching an audience big enough to make you successful.

DarqueKnight

bobman1235 wrote: »

... but the majority of this thread is about a position that the RIAA SEEMS to have taken (based on some comments made by executives and press agents) that uses previously defined as fair use are also "stealing". Whether this is their actual position or not is almost irrelevant when discussing people's feelings about it...

Oh..ok..I thought people here were getting all worked up about what they erroneously thought was an actual policy of the RIAA. In that case, disregard my previous comments and carry on.

bobman1235 wrote: »

...I'm allowed to disagree with that position even if it's not their actual position, am I not?

You are absolutely allowed to disagree with any person's or organization's position even if it is not their actual position. Thanks for the clarification.

avelanchefan

Well it looks like the RIAA is actually going to try to get this case going. According to CNN anyways.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/01/02/lklv.hostin.music.chetry.cnn

Strong Bad

I really wish these boneheads in the media would get their **** straight (along with the websites posting said stories) regarding the issues related to the RIAA busting people. The one story I read was brief, but made it sound like they got him for copying CD's to his PC. It made no mention of him actually sharing them out.

I figured thats how they popped his dumbass, but the story made it seem like he was this innocent man being targeted by the big corporate bully.

I personally feel it is wrong for people to be sharing music out on Kazaa and other forms of file sharing. YES, it is stealing. I find no issue with that. I don't do it period!

How about the woman that got popped by the RIAA and lost in court, thus dealing with tons of fines she can't possibly afford. Well sweetheart, ya should have thought about that before sharing out all those CD's. Is it really any different than going into a store and stuffing some CD's in a bag and walking out? Same concept.

Now, for the RIAA to say I can't make a copy of a CD for my use only that I purchased legally...UP YOUR ****!!!

halo

Strong Bad wrote: »

My question is this...

How do they know he copied this on to his home PC? If I take a CD and make a copy of it on to my home PC, how the F*** do they know I've done this? I don't follow this nonsense at all. Is there some type of tracking software they are putting on purchased CDs today that will contact them if it's been copied on to a PC?

Taken from the back cover of "Year Zero" by Nine Inch Nails.

Call the number

Strong Bad

avelanchefan wrote: »

Well it looks like the RIAA is actually going to try to get this case going. According to CNN anyways.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/01/02/lklv.hostin.music.chetry.cnn

Even they said it on the CNN video, how are they going to know if someone copied a CD to their PC and onto their Ipod for their own personal use?

It just boggles the mind at what stupid effing lawyers will come up with these days.

I see this scenario playing out next..

"If you play your audio system loud enough that other people can hear it, then that means you're illegally sharing music and can be fined thousands of dollars!"

We'll all be confined to listening to sealed headphones. No open air headphones because someone might hear them.

Only stupid effing lawyers can come up with this ****!

halo

SB - Call the toll free # above and listen to the whole message

Strong Bad

halo wrote: »

SB - Call the toll free # above and listen to the whole message

LMAO! Too funny!

Goodbye everyone....:D

Face

Big Brother is watching.

PolkWannabie

Strong Bad wrote: »

Only stupid effing lawyers can come up with this ****!

Effin lawyers ? ... You betcha ... Stupid ? ... Hardly ... They get paid win or lose for being pot stirring ambulance chasers ...

polksda

PolkWannabie wrote: »

Effin lawyers ? ... You betcha ... Stupid ? ... Hardly ... They get paid win or lose for being pot stirring ambulance chasers ...

Yup. The only ones who ever win are the lawyers.

Have you ever been a member of a large class action lawsuit? You get one of those claim forms in the mail, wade through all the legalese to find out that you may file to get a $25 check or $50 of coupons, but $8.3 MILLION has been set aside for the lawyers.

It doesn't matter who wins or loses the suit; the lawyers always get theirs. There's no such thing as a bad lawsuit.

reeltrouble1

its a mixed up world, I guess I am not up to date on these issues as I do not download but still just buy the CD or vinyl album. I have however made the occasional duplicate copy for the car stereo, I believe there is court precedence that this is perfectly legal, although I am sure the RIAA would love to get a new precedent and I am sure some bright eyed attorney would enjoy being the one to get a new precedent.

I did read where German authorities thought the RIAA was being "petty" and told them they would not prosecute any downlaoding cases, not sure how German civil or criminal trial law works but it seems much different than the way we handle our legal process. The article was quite clear though that the RIAA was told to go eff themself by the German court system.

RT1

MacLeod

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As I understand it, all the RIAA wants to do is to assure that the creators of creative recorded works get the compensation due them.

Im too lazy to respond to everything but it all boils down to this. This is the crux of the entire argument, and my point is, where is this not happening??? Where do you see artists and creators of music NOT being paid bazillions of dollars? Flip thru magazines, watch MTV or Cribs or Unique Whips. Most of these guys are rappers or whatever that Ive never heard of and have only 1 or 2 hit songs yet theyre multi millionaires. There is compensation-a-plenty being shelled out here.

Now if youre talking about somebody downloading 10,000 songs to redistribute I can understand that being a problem. But somebody downloading a few for themselves I say thats just **** happening. There will always be some kind of music sharing going on. Back in 1984, my uncle gave me a cassette that he recorded Duran Duran's album Rio onto for me. I loved it and listened to in non stop and eventually bought the real thing and all their other stuff at the time. By the RIAA and your reckoning, me and my uncle shouldve been immediately sued! Music sharing is something that will always happen and I think its good for the music industry. I have no problem with the RIAA going after people with 100,000 songs downloaded illegally, but leave the 12 year old girls with 50 on their hard drive alone. And dont feel too sorry for the poor pitiful rapper or latest bubble bum pop girl living in her $14 million dollar house. Im sure she's getting by just fine on food stamps.