RIAA to Sue You Now 831
An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC reports that apparently the music industry feels so satisfied with going after file swapping software makers that they want to sue the pants off the file swappers themselves. Of course, you'll need to be a big fish with lots of illegal music to get their attention." This is what they should have done in the first place- go after the people who are actually doing it instead of making P2P seemingly
illegal.
Hm well this is easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem solved. :-)
Mike.
Re:Hm well this is easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if the RIAA will look into recruiting "spies". That is, people who are rewarded for turning in the big fish. Heh, they could even work out a system of more mp3's=more money. In that case your hosts.deny file just got a lot bigger...
My response to the RIAA: (Score:3, Funny)
A special humour game.
Body:
This is a special humour game
This game is my first work.
You're the first player.
I hope you would like it.
Re:My response to the RIAA: (Score:5, Funny)
Subject:
Metallica - Fade to Black.mp3.vbs
Body:
Hi RIAA! How are you?
I send you this file in order to have your advice.
Does this MP3 violate the home recording act?
See you later. Thanks.
Jokes on them! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not wearing any pants!
Re:Jokes on them! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jokes on them! (Score:2, Funny)
Wrong file type (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not wearing any pants!
No, no. They're talking about suing the pants off people who file-swap music MP3s. Not porno AVIs! :)
GMD
well now... (Score:2)
Re:well now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trading mp3's or copying millions of albums where no one profits... that it is okay.
Because that is where theft comes into play. That _is_ money that could go to the RIAA's pit-o-cash.
Gaaah! FUD from hell (Score:4, Informative)
I expect this from MSNBC, but this is a WSJ article.
Re:Gaaah! FUD from hell (Score:2)
Re:Gaaah! FUD from hell (Score:3, Insightful)
John makes music for a living. His record company rips him off with a crappy contract, but it's better than starving or having to work at a regular job full time so he couldn't focus on his music.
But Bob down the street doesn't care to pay for John's music, even though he enjoys it, so he downloads it off a p2p network. Then he "shares" it with everyone else on p2p networks, so they can do likewise.
Except that it's JOHN'S music being "shared" and John never said it was ok to just give away is music against his will, and doesn't see a fucking CENT from the exchange of that music.
Yes, p2p, and the entire digital realm for that matter, is great for avoiding the zero-sum problem of most markets. However, this doesn't mean it's alright to take other peoples work and do what you will with it. (with respects to Fair Use, of course.)
Finally, YES, a handful of artists use p2p to give out their music, but go browse a Kazaa users' shares sometime... tell me how many of those songs you REALLY think were put there by the artist/publisher for legal distribution.
Re:Gaaah! FUD from hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could look at it from another viewpoint, that of the record industry. See, the record industry has been bitching and moaning about this big problem that they created due to their own greed. It's called payola. They have to pay so that the music they sell gets exposure to listeners around the country and around the world. They have been doing this forever. First they were paying radio stations to play their songs. Then when that was outlawed, they started paying some middleman to pay radio stations to play their songs. Now they're complaining that it's just too expensive and that the government should put a stop to it, boo hoo hoo. Oh yeah, and in the meantime, they are going to shut down napster and kazaa and anyone else that gets their music out to listeners around the world. Can't have that happening, can we.
Now you might say that people who download songs will just listen to them on their computer and never pay for the CD, but I don't think there's any evidence that that happens on a wide enough scale to really have that much of an impact, and there is a decent amount of evidence that seems to say that Napster and others have had a positive impact on CD sales. I think that what the record industry should really do is work on their public relations problem. Get rid of Rosen and put an artist or several artists in her spot. They don't even have to be Britney-class superstars, and in fact, they shouldn't be. They should represent the vast majority of artists that make something around minimum wage or a little better. Kind of like the artistic middle class. They could help to persuade people that artists really need their support in order to continue to make the music that the fans love. That could probably make a huge impact on people. But if they really want to make it work, then they should knock off all the damn price-fixing crap and lower the price of CDs. They should probably stick an MSRP price on each CD too, so that stores couldn't just double the price without facing some serious questions. I think that the statement to fans would be that the record industry wants to do good by them and help them find the music they like and help artists to make a good living. Oh, and they would save all those millions that they've been flushing down the payola toilet too. Now most of us can't imagine this happening in a million years, but if anyone has the muscle to get a message out to fans, it's the record industry.
Big Fish, eh? (Score:2, Funny)
That's good news for all of us humans out here, but what about our aquatic File-swapping friends? Unite with our fishy friends and protect their rights to music!
Advantage of Gnutella (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Advantage of Gnutella (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Advantage of Gnutella (Score:4, Insightful)
As I understand the Gnutella protocol, this is possibly although none of the present clients have such a feature. When Gnutella first came out I toyed with the idea of building a Python-based client which allowed you to limit searches to one host. I might be wrong, but this is how it would be done, assuming your target host has given all their MP3 files a ".mp3" extension:
If this is true, and if it isn't then no doubt someone will correct me, then I am surprised why nobody has implemented this feature.
ian.
Re:Advantage of Gnutella (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, Hilary Rosen is a gigantic fucking stupid neanderthal cunt who should be shot into outer space naked.
If I were a label musician, well, first off I'd be completely fucked having sold my career to the mafia, but second, I'd be wondering why an organization that I subsidize "for my protection" is spending my money to stop people from hearing about my music.
I haven't bought a single CD in the past two years unless I previewed songs via mp3. I buy far more CDs than the average person. Copyright infringement has made me spend more money, not less, on the CDs I want to own. It's also completely eliminated purchases I'm not satisfied with and made me a happier customer.
It's also let me buy music I never would have known about otherwise, because the music industry does such a shitty job of letting people know about its artists. Imagine a bookstore that had the best-seller list in display cases, the vast majority of their inventory in a back room where you can't see it or know what's there, and no ability to browse whatsoever (though you can listen to someone read chapters aloud in between endless advertisements). You have just imagined the current operation of the music industry and their partners in crime, the playlist managers. And you've just seen how phenomenally fucking stupidly the music industry is behaving; someone has set up a lending library around the corner and they are trying to shut it down on the theory that one person bought it and others are enjoying it for free (the CARP fees for webcasting are an offer to take $1 from the library each time a book is loaned (for free)). Don't tell me that getting mp3s and burning CDs from it is stealing unless you want to get smacked; it's like going to the library and photocopying a book; you aren't likely to do it to save money, because if you could just buy the damn thing it would be much quicker and easier and possibly even cheaper and definitely better than making a copy. ($20 CDs kinda fuck up that equation, but I don't recall the part of copyright law that says you can raise prices indefinitely without consequence)
If the RIAA really went after individuals, they'd be shooting their best customers and their best new promotional vehicle since radio. Really smart!
Re:Advantage of Gnutella (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the idea is to prevent end users from getting exposed to musicians who don't have contracts with RIAA labels.
That's the reality underlying "concerns about piracy" and artists being enlisted behind industry propaganda and payola, why LP FM radio has been given so much trouble, etc. and why Internet Radio is being shut down in the US.
The RIAA wants a situation where an artist who wants to make a living in music must be signed to an RIAA label. An artist who sells music otherwise isn't contributing towards the lifestyles of the suits at record companies. The RIAA suits consider this immoral and where possible, something to be made illegal.
I'm sure that the record industry knows that the P2P networks can be quite reasonably seen as a group of individuals promoting music for RIAA companies and artists at their own expense. This isn't what they have problems with.
The problem is that since the RIAA has no control over these channels, there's no way to prevent them from presenting the music of musicians not signed to RIAA labels.
Re:Advantage of Gnutella (Score:3, Insightful)
They only learn of what files you have when they do a specific search for them.
Presumably record companies will only be suing over songs they actually own the copyright to anyway, so I don't see how this is any advantage.
Re:Advantage of Gnutella (Score:4, Funny)
Time + Money = Not bloody likely! (Score:5, Insightful)
So in other words to find most individual users they will have to invest time+money, yeah this'll fly for an association thats primary concern is profit!!
good (Score:3, Interesting)
going after users doesn't work, ask the DEA
stupid wars on freedom waste time and money, why not go the way of BMG and at least attempt to make a profit from it insted of trying to slow your demise.. death to teh riaa
Commentary is completely off. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about an industry that is feeling smug and self-assured...This is a LAST DITCH EFFORT to assert their right to exist. And in the long run, I don't think its going to work.
RIP RIAA -- 2006
Re:Commentary is completely off. (Score:3, Interesting)
This (I expect) will kill effectevely about 30 to 50% of possible users. Then, on much clean ground, they will sue couple ISPs and get them involved somehow. AND THIS IS IT. ISPs will fight rest of swappers to the end of contract. If file swapping will be reduced to 5-10% of current, It would be effectively "RIP Swapping -- 2006". And then, as you can imagine, they will come with "new, cost effective, legal" way to sell music over internet.
Screw us ?
Re:Commentary is completely off. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no one challenges their right to exist, what they are trying to protect is their "right" to impose an outdated buisness model on the public. They want complete control on the music, they want their oligopoly to be able to set extravagant prices on low quality products so they can keep getting their 8 digit salaries. And above all, they do not want to either 1-get with the times and adapt to new technology nor 2- give the public what they want.
I used to buy a lot more CDs when I could sample them freely on napster. Now that they've shut it down and called me a thief, I'm boycotting them.
I hope they go bankrupt...at least then N'sync will be forced to go back to being regular male strippers.
After suing 20,000 people... (Score:3, Interesting)
The funny thing is, they'll be more correct than any of the other times they have made that statement.
Re:After suing 20,000 people... (Score:2)
Re:After suing 20,000 people... (Score:4, Informative)
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your 0.02, so :P
Um, not anymore... [yahoo.com]
just imagine the court docket (Score:5, Funny)
In the case of... (Score:2)
judge --> will the defendants please rise
(defendants) --> Everyone rises
judge --> HOLY SHIT RIAA ARE YOU INSANE?
About Time!!! (Score:2)
If they find someone who is sharing music that could only be there if it was pirated.
That means you should only be under suspicion if you are sharing music that is not yet released (Eminem was a recent one that I heard of being out there well in advance). That's it. Otherwise who knows maybe some insane freak does buy every song on the top 100 list. There is no probable cause, no reason to sue.
Just my $16.99 (My thoughts might have become easier to produce but marketing and branding still cost money)
Re:About Time!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Buying the music doesn't give you the right to share it. So the insane freak still could get into trouble.
Where is this illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
How is offering them over napster servers any more illegal then what a library does? If user X downloads them, and keeps them permanently, or sells them, or otherwise violates HIS local copyright statutes, I don't see how that's my fault for simplying for having
Re:Where is this illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
As per the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992 (If I remember correctly), you are allowed to make infinite copies of a copyrighted material that you own the rights to for personal use, and, in that case, personal use INCLUDED giving copies to friends, as long as it wasn't for profit.
That's no different than Napster, if you ask me. I'm just giving copies to my friends, and I'm sure as hell not profitting from it.
Friends? (Score:3, Interesting)
And everyone who has ever downloaded an mp3 you've put in to a file-sharing system has been your personal friend? Someone you have met/spoken with frequently/some other activity generally shared among friends? Or are they strangers from around the world and you have no idea who they really are?
You are stretching the definition of "friend" just a bit.
-r
Law was amended by DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
Burris
libraries are also the targets (Score:5, Insightful)
Here and there in the midst of all this discussion, I've occasionally run across an estimate from the publishing industry that each book sold is read on the average four times. One of their interests is cutting this number down and making people pay for the books they read.
Now, I have very few books that I've ever loaded out to anyone, and I doubt if any of my couple hundred books have been read by three other people. So where could all these extra readers be coming from?
Right. Libraries. The publishing industry doesn't make much of a public fuss of it, but one of the goals that they are starting to consider reachable is using the growing copyright restrictions to shut down public libraries. In the eyes of publishers, libraries are nothing but open copyright violations. All the arguments being made about "piracy" apply directly to libraries.
In the 1800's, the development of the public library system was one of the really significant advances in public education. We are seeing an attempt to end this social experiment, and to restrict education to those who can afford the publishers' price.
Re:libraries are also the targets (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the Library is just a terminal room, what's the use in continuing to have it?
Re:libraries are also the targets (Score:4, Funny)
Oh shit! How we gonna mod this one down?
Re:Where is this illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is offering them over napster servers any more illegal then what a library does?
Libraries distribute, napster sharers copy and distribute.
Re:Where is this illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
From your comment I can infer that you feel buying the cd/tape/mp3 grants you copyright ownership and, therefore, distribution rights of said contents.
It does not. Fair use and personal use are not the same thing as putting songs into file sharing systems where who knows how many people will access them. Why do you think Diamond won the lawsuit over the RIO mp3 player and Napster lost theirs?
Libraries walk a fine line on this issue. It troubles me greatly that the book publishers and other industries (assuming the rumors are true) are trying to limit libraries' ability to provide materials to the public. More and more the U.S. drifts toward a "if you do not have money you are worthless" attitude toward its own citizens. That's why the health care in this country is so fscked up.
But I'm straying from the topic. I think the difference between a library's CD collection and file sharing is that only one person can have a copy of the cd at a time. Yes, 1000 people might check the CD out over the time it survives in the collection, but 1000 people don't have it all at once. Isn't file-sharing usage somewhere in the millions of people? That's a different scope now isn't it?
More importantly, you only get the CD for a limited time. If you don't return it you are usually charged the cost of replacing it.
Neither of those are true for file-sharing and I think they are significant differences.
-r
Re:Where is this illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, if memory serves, the Code was at one point modified to explicitly state that public online sharing constitutes public performance, which is a violation unless specifically authorized.
Here's where it gets funny. (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA v. l33t d0Wn104d3r
RIAA v. i oWnz j00
RIAA v. cr4pfl00d3r
Can't wait to see how those textbooks handle it...
Re:Here's where it gets funny. (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA v. HILARYROSENISACUNTIMFISTINGUPTOMYELBOW
RIAA v. JACKVALENTITAKESMYCDSUPHISASSHOLE
Fun for the whole court.
This is what they should do, but still won't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
So this might be good. Granted, the RIAA won't _stop_ prosecuting P2P networks, but at least they'll be shifting some of the blame to the people who actually use these networks for illegal activity.
But it won't help them. People like free music, and they'll fight tooth and nail when you try to take it away from them. Imagine the public backlash they'll have when they trace some huge fileswapper, have the Feds bust down their doors, only to find that their suspect is a 15-year-old whose father works at a university and whose mother is a nurse. They'll have to arrest someone, and no matter who they do, they'll be setting themselves up for negative publicity. Online file-sharers will be galvanized to the "cause" of free music, and the RIAA's troubles will continue to pile up.
Companies like the RIAA and the MPAA are going to go out of business. Period. When people have the ability to make an infinite number of copies of your product, at virtually no cost, you can't make money anymore. It's as simple as that.
Re:This is what they should do, but still won't wo (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether you like the RIAA or not, this is a pretty acurate description of what most P2P networks are. Log onto Kazaa or Gnutella and see what is there. It seems like a bunch of pirated MP3, some pirated movies, some pirated software, and lots and lots of porn (some of which is priated, the rest is wholesale stolen from porn sites). There is very little "legal" content on P2P networks. Even the few independant artists who have released their work on P2P networks get very little traffic, because P2P is set up mainly to be used by searching, and it's hard to search for new material since you don't know what it is your looking for (yes, you can find some stuff based on looking at a users files, but even then, you need to find the user somehow). The P2P networks are painted as havens for piracy because that is how they are used, and mostly what they were designed for.
From what subnet/s (Score:2)
Interesting Question... (Score:4, Interesting)
To better explain: if I leave my doors unlocked and someone steals my CDs I may be a moron for not locking my doors, but I certainly didn't commit a crime (the thief did).
Also, if User A has a Old97s CD and legit MP3 copies of the disc on his machine and I also own the same Old97s CD and download his copies (instead of burning my own) did either of us break a law?
I am sorta hazy over both issues.
Re:Interesting Question... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, if the RIAA-vs-mp3.com case is precedent. In that case, mp3.com had a CD, and a challenge-response protocol virtually guaranteed that a user had the CD. But my.mp3.com transmitting a song to the user, was found to be copyright infringement.
possible tactics? (Score:2)
I know that this would be a quick way to get a short list.
I can also imagine them then trying to get the FBI to help them out tracking down which of these are actually music file trafficers, vs merely trafficing in other warez, although there might not be that much difference.
After all, this fits into the war on terrorism. These folks are terrorizing American Industry (tm).
Holy Bat-Lawyers, Batman! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Holy Bat-Lawyers, Batman! (Score:2, Funny)
Good Luck... (Score:2)
I'm torn. (Score:2)
Actually, since they'll never succeed in stopping P2P networks, i'd much rather have them trying to do that. If they actually stop the people distributing them, I won't be able to continue to steal their music.
Lets sue them back... (Score:2, Funny)
solution (Score:2)
or you could move your server to Sealand
Suing Only Works in the US (Score:2, Interesting)
RIAA really can't pull that off because what do they do with Minors, sue the parents? What about other people who have their machines hacked? You could play stupid. It's worked with so many companes in the past (@home). Uh, I'm running a server thats doing something illegal, how do I fix it.
Canada (Score:2)
The owner of my ISP (small company in Ottawa) posted something to the Usenet last year or so. He'd received an email from some lawyers in the US about somebody sharing files on his service. I think the complaint was about a file sharing programme running, not the actual files. All he did was laugh.
I just wish I could talk to these people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good luck (Score:2)
S
Scare tactics (Score:2)
They can pick random users from Gnutella, and do a little detective work to find out who they are based on your IP-address.
Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
go after the people who are actually doing it instead of making P2P seemingly illegal.
While it could be argued that RIAA is just taking an expedient course of action, this is the one thing that they should have done.
Go after the burglars - don't penalize the manufacturers of crowbars.
I'd just as soon live in a free society where I have my choice of combining Napster with crowbars as long as I don't infringe on someone else's rights.
However, I will admit that trading an MP3 from a CD of mine that I've ripped to someone I don't know for a song which I don't have constitutes a commercial transaction (albeit cashless) and, while copyright exists, the possessors of the it should have the exclusive right to charge for distribution. Exactly and only that.
This is the endgame (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been waiting for this to happen, as this will push things to a final resolution.
BTW, Why can I buy a movie that has been out for 3-4 months for $15-16 on DVD, with extra features, etc, but a 20 year old album costs more than that? I can buy DVD's of older movies for around $10.
Yet, DVD sales boom. The best anti-piracy protection is reasonable prices. So long as the RIAA engages in illegal, anti-competitive practices (the FTC found them guilty of CD price fixing again), I say they deserve whatever happens to them.
It's a Mexican standoff... Pirates will pirate from P2P networks, the RIAA won't obey the law.
If it can be heard, it can be ripped. If it can be ripped, it can be traded. No amount of lawyering can change this, and indeed, the music industry will only become an even greater villian to the average Joe by the attempt.
Sell CD's for $10. Watch the sales rise. Quit wasting $millions bribing stations to play songs they will play anyway. Watch profits rise...
Re:This is the endgame (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually its not so simple as that. It's a matter of game theory: if you as a record company stop giving the record companies payola, none of yor songs will get played, and your competitors' will. Kind of like the prisoners dilemma, If all the record companies stopped shelling out payola they would all be better off. But if one does it it has an advantage. If you could all agree not to break the law you'd be better off. Of course such an agreement depends on the record companies being trustworthy...
As for lowering prices, they have no reason to do that. If you really want Britney Spears there is only ONE label selling her "music". so in effect they have a monopoly, so pricing is not dependent on cost but dependent on what the buyer is willing to pay.
To summarize: The RIAA owns the artists and Clearchannel owns the listeners... music-listeners get screwed twice over. P2P is a loophole to this system. A music listener has to choose between getting screwed or breaking copyright law.
Ooooohhhhh! (Score:4, Interesting)
Or could it be because people are getting fed up with the latest crap from Britnay Spears and N'sync? I have bought 5 albums in as many years. They were all albums that I knew I would enjoy, start to finish (w/ maybe 1 or 2 songs as exceptions). I didn't buy the same album over [amazon.com], and over [amazon.com], and over again. [amazon.com]
Hell, I download a few songs that I want to hear, but there's no way I'm paying for an album for one song. I know that argument has long been shouted loudly and proudly from our ranks here on
On a side note, RE: the article, I don't see how they can get someone beyond reasonable doubt. It's a simple matter to give the HD a complete wipe (7 times over, 1s and 0s) and users can just claim that they downloaded a song from Kazaa to hear it before they bought an album. The only way they could truly "get" someone is if the user had perpetually downloaded copies of the same song.
Anyway, that's my $.02
Later.
Metallica proved this foolish/encryption? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone care to speculate how hard it'd be to graft some sort of encryption into Gnutella? Stuff that deliberately obfuscates IP addresses, etc, at least enough to make it hard to identify users?
BTW, wouldn't breaking such encryption be a DMCA violation?
Just include a warning file (Score:3, Interesting)
Have it say something like, "By downloading files from my computer, the recipient agrees not to press charges resulting from the contents of the file."
Hell, it's about as legal as a EULA.
Geeze! (Score:3, Interesting)
Name one GOOD album that was released this year (Mainstream please)! I cant think of ONE MP3 that I have downloaded that was released in the last two years...
put out a quality producat and people WILL buy it, music today is like the "K-car" or the 80s... no soul...
FreeNet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FreeNet? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what your legal background is, however the following quote from an LA Weekly article might shed some light on the situation:
Countersue (Score:3, Interesting)
And might sway a jury.
Remember, in the USA, jurors have the right of "jury nullification", to judge that the criminal is the LAW in question, not the accused...
Six simple steps to win the lawsuit (Score:4, Funny)
2. Drive to local music store
3. Buy CDs of songs downloaded
4. Show up to court
5. Laugh in face of RIAA as they accuse you of stealing what you already own
6. Yawn.
Re:Six simple steps to win the lawsuit (Score:3, Insightful)
8. Point pinky to edge of mouth
9. Laugh evily.
Bury them in proof, nice programming exercise. (Score:3, Informative)
The downside of course, is that filesharing users would get sick of downloading garbage files, but then again it also might push people to start using P2P for legit purposes...
Laws are only good when followed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at prohibition as an example. The government tried to make alcohol illegal, but due to the overwhelming amount of people who simply ignored those laws and continued to consume it anyhow, it was eventually repealed when they discovered just how much effort would have to be put into stopping offenders. Similarly, music trading will never be stopped, simply because people will move between media as necessary, even going so far as to design an anonymous program which does not allow the tracking of IPs or other identifying sources.
Oh, and don't forget the good old days of searching through websites for mp3's.
Sue me for what??? (Score:5, Funny)
It's All Thanks to Slashdot Polls... (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, I dunno where the RIAA would get any ideas [slashdot.org] about how much disk space that we use [slashdot.org] to store our MP3's [slashdot.org].
Note to RIAA: "If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane."
New name for a P2P application (Score:5, Funny)
Position Statement (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Filesharing networks are a tool, as is a car or a firearm or an aircraft. There are legal and illegal uses for all of them. The fact that a majority of users misuse filesharing networks is no more relevant than the fact that a majority of American motorists break the speed limit. Period. End of story.
2. Certain songs are copyright their respective copyright holders, in this case the Recording Industry Association of America. Those songs are their intellectual property. This is not a gray area. Now, should it be demonstrated and upheld in a court of law that they, the RIAA, have abused this copyright, this may change. Hasn't happened yet.
3. End users that have not paid for said music or otherwise acquired a LEGAL license to said music do not have the legal right to possess their own distinct digital copy of said music for any purpose other than parody. In English: If you didn't buy it you don't own it.
4. End users who download music that they do not otherwise own are committing theft, recognized as a crime in most countries. End users who back up their music are not, so long as they have purchased said music.
5. End users who make available copyrighted material that they have paid for but others may not are abetting theft. Analogy: You set up a card table outside a record store. You offer CD's burned with music. You put up a notice stating that you may only take the CD if you already have bought the music legally. You do not attempt to verify whether or not anyone has done so. Right. Sure.
6. Suing someone for engaging in the above practice is indeed legal. That person is willfully distributing something that is not theirs to distribute. This is illegal.
7. To copy-protect a CD to prevent ripping is a violation of fair-use. However, fair-use is not defined in stone. Moreover, to circumvent the copy-protection is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998). Like the law or not (I don't), it is law. It conflicts with fair use, therefore the courts must decide boundaries.
I could go on, but that about sums it up. I dislike the RIAA intensly for the way they treat artists, end-users, et al., but they do have legal standing here. As for CD-ripping, I can only hope they get knocked ass-over-teakettle.
This is not a troll, but what I hope is a clear stating of the matter as I see it.
~Chazzf
Re:Meh. (Score:3)
I'm sure it can be done, but no way will they do it to EVERYONE. Just the major propogators.
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Oh, this is good, I bet the FBI will be _more_ than willing to take time out of their day to not simply laugh there arses of at such a request, I mean, its not like they have anything better to do now the the War on Terror(TM) has been won.
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
The FBI has nothing better to do! [slashdot.org]
My bad
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Also, what happens if they try to sue someone who owns the CD with the song they've downloaded? I'm not exactly sure on fair use, so maybe someone can help me out with some sound legal/copyright information.
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Funny)
Have you called your ISP lately??
Re:Going after users/file sharing (Score:3, Insightful)
Theres a TON more out on these networks than just illegal files, but I do agree with you that the majority is such (and it's unfortunate).
Re:Going after users/file sharing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Going after users/file sharing (Score:2)
on another topic.. The first two posts in this article have sigs that mention pee. im scared.
Re:Going after users/file sharing (Score:2)
And that's illegal now?
I'd better nuke all my Linux CDRs right away!
Re:Going after users/file sharing (Score:3, Insightful)
That argument doesn't fly with our government when peoples LIVES are at stake, why the hell should it when only some sleazy corps profits are?
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA and the authorities will spend exorbitant amounts of money just to find and prosecute one or two people. The hope is that after they make 'an example' out of one person, they can say, "See? We can find you and prosecute you." It's solely for deterrent value, because they're clutching at straws now. Leave the problem alone and it will only get worse. Try a solution, no matter how asinine, and it just may pay off. At least that's what I think. Someone enlighten me.
Re:About time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just digging themselves deeper into their graves. They're approach should be through sound economics, not through evil lawyers (that's another issue all together!).
Give us an incentive to buy your CDs and we'll buy it. Stop blatently rip us off!
Re:About time (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. You think that CDs are too expensive, therefore the RIAA is ripping you off. So you take music from the publishers (and, indirectly, from the RIAA) without paying for it, and this is okay.
Wait. I must have missed something.
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... um... yes. If you don't want to listen to free music, and you don't want to (or can't) pay for music, then you don't get any music. That how a capitalist market economy works.
I guess you could make the case that being deprived of music is a moral wrong, and try to get somebody with money to back a charity for people who can't afford music. A church would probably be willing to help you out, but I'm not sure you'd care for their selection.
Your other option is to hum.
Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)
You do. Ugh.
All kidding aside, you're just wrong, for reasons that I guess I won't be able to explain to you. Taking something without paying for it is wrong. In this case, it also happens to be illegal. If you would acknowledge that it's wrong, and that you shouldn't do it, but that you do it anyway, then you and I could see eye-to-eye. I have no problem at all with hypocrites. I'm a huge hypocrite myself in a lot of ways.* But I do have a problem with people who can't seem to understand basic issues of right and wrong. That saddens and disturbs me.
* Not with respect to downloading MP3s, though. I was on an MP3 kick for a while about three years ago, but I quickly got bored with it. The music was all of absurdly low quality, and it was more trouble than it was worth to find and download stuff I liked. So I ditched all of the pirated stuff and ripped my collection of 300+ CDs at high bit rate instead, and ran cables to wire my server (upstairs) into my stereo (downstairs). It's about nine days of music on continuous random shuffle. Much better than the crap I got off of Napster. Ugh.
Re:About time (Score:3, Insightful)
(I've already said some of this elsewhere. Apologies to anybody who thinks I'm repeating myself because, basically, I am.)
There are certain basic rules for living in groups that seem to go back 5,000 years or more. These basic rules seem to be common to all cultures and all times, although they're expressed in different ways. Some of these ideas made it into my particular culture via the Bible and the Ten Commandments. Don't lie. Don't steal. Don't kill. (Of course, there's some pretty specific Judeo-Christian stuff in there, too, like the ``no false idols'' thing. That's not the sort of thing I'm talking about now.) Other cultures have their own expressions of those basic rules, some explicit, and some merely implicit.
So I believe stealing is wrong because it goes against 5,000 years of cultural tradition. I think of this in Darwinistic terms. Thousands of years ago, the world was covered by little bands of people living together in groups. Some of those groups had the ``don't steal'' rule. Presumably there were some that didn't. The ones with the ``don't steal'' rule lasted, and the others didn't. So, as a society, having a ``don't steal'' rule can be considered to be a survival trait. You don't deliberately fly in the face of thousands of years of natural selection without a really good reason.
So I accept the idea that stealing is wrong, just on its face, with no need for any deeper analysis. In my opinion, it just is.
So then the question becomes whether or not copying somebody else's Britney Spears CD is stealing. As others have said, I can copy my friend's CD without taking it from him (permanently, anyway), so it's a non-zero-sum transaction. They extend this to conclude that copying a CD isn't stealing.
To me this is counter-intuitive. If I walk into a store and shoplift a pack of chewing gum, I've gotten something for nothing. That's stealing. If I copy a friend's CD, I've gotten something for nothing. But is it stealing?
I say it is. I don't believe that I had the right to make a copy of my friend's CD. I believe that the contents of that CD are the property of FooCorp, which owns the rights to all of Britney's music. Only FooCorp has the right to duplicate Britney's music. So when I copied it, I was doing something I had no right to do. I took it without permission. I stole it. The non-zero-sum nature of the transaction is irrelevant, and the question of harm doesn't come into it.
Consider a simple and imperfect analogy. My friend is going to give me a present. He wraps it and puts it in his closet, saving it for my birthday. He has every intention of giving it to me next week. The next day, however, I sneak into his closet and find the present, although I don't know who it's for. I decide that I want it, so I slip it under my coat and walk out with it. That's clearly stealing, despite the fact that my friend intended to give me the present anyway. This analogy shows that circumstance is irrelevant when deciding whether a particular act is stealing or not. Similarly, the fact that my friend still has his Britney Spears CD doesn't change the fact that making a copy for myself was stealing, and therefore wrong.
Lots of people on Slashdot like to play the non-zero-sum card. Even RMS used the non-zero-sum argument in his writings on why software should be free. I don't know if I've adequately explained it, but I hope you see why I think that argument doesn't hold water.
Lots of people on Slashdot also like to claim that intellectual property is a counter-intuitive concept, or that it's not a valid idea. I don't buy that one, either. Intellectual property actually goes back farther than many people seem to realize.
As an example, the cultures of the Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest included the idea that some stories and songs are the property of certain tribes, families, or groups, and that those stories and songs couldn't be sung by anybody else. The Gitksan and the Haida had this trait, and I think the Tlingit did as well. This is clearly the idea of intellectual property, just as we use it now, but found in a pre-modern culture. (I'd cite a source, but I can't find my college anthro book right now. The best Google can do is this [pbs.org] link, which mentions Tlingit intellectual property traditions in passing.)
So, in summary, I believe two key things. I believe that stealing is wrong. I believe that copying music without permission from its owner is stealing, and is therefore wrong. Furthermore, I also believe that the concept of intellectual property is a much older and more pervasive idea than many people acknowledge, and that it makes more sense than some people think.
This post is copyright (c) 2002 by FooCorp. All rights reserved.
Just kidding.
Re:About time (Score:3)
Everyone who is around when you play it.