Home › Forums › Archives › Community Center › The BigBlueBall Lounge › Music Room › Lawsuits hit a sour note
- This topic has 19 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 7 months ago by Rikky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 10, 2003 at 11:28 pm #12296detn8rParticipant
Not sure if anyone picked up their local city newspaper today, but found something quite interesting in the Toronto Sun.
The article follows:
Students reacted with anger and defiance yesterday to the music industry’s move to sue those who swap songs over the internet.
On Monday, the Recording Industry Association of America said it was suing 261 individuals for as much as $150,000US per song distributed online, targeting those with large libraries of allegedly pirated music.
The RIAA vowed to file thousands more lawsuits in coming months. The industry believes minimizing file-sharing will stem the decline in global music sales.
Students at New York University were outraged.
Many students upload music and make it available to others on the web through file-sharing programs suck as Kazaa, and iMesh.
The lawsuits switched the record industry’s focus from those file-sharing companies to the users of file-sharing programs instead.
“This is insane. They cant just hack into our systems and track our activities. Its our property,” sociology student Lucy Chen said.
One student, who refused to be identified, was not concerned by the lawsuits. “I consider myself technologically savvy, and I know to erase my tracks,” he said.There is also a picture that was displayed with this article. The caption reads: DEFENDANT Brianna LaHara, 12, of New York is one of 261 people being sued for trading songs on the internet. And shows a picture of her at her computer.
I’m pretty sure know what everyone’s opinion is on this matter, but does it change any one’s view on it?
September 10, 2003 at 11:32 pm #90662ShadowSlayer469MemberNo, I am sticking with there mine and I’m keepen um! !!!!
September 11, 2003 at 1:33 pm #90653rustedtightMemberCheck the date on the Toronto Sun article you read…. my guess is it was last years paper.
There is nothing new here, this is old news.September 11, 2003 at 1:56 pm #90648Jeff HesterKeymasterThis is the first time they’ve gone after the end users with such vigor. In the past, the RIAA has mainly gone after the Napsters and KaZaAs of the world… the people who make the software that enables file sharing. But now they’re going after regular people. Yes, it’s a couple hundred people now, but if they’re successful, they could go after anyone and everyone who has shared even one copywrited song.
But I don’t think they ever will.
In my not-so-humble opinion, I think they’re really just trying to scare people straight. The recording industry is striking deals with iTunes, BuyMusic.com and other legitimate and legal forms of commercialized, online music distribution. They want you to be so scared of “getting caught” that you become motivated to choose one of these new commercialized distribution channels. For a large percentage of people, it’ll probably work.
September 11, 2003 at 2:24 pm #90652rustedtightMemberFor a year now there have been summons served on many local P2P users for trading in copyright material. Many universities were ordered to provide details and allow access to their computers,… under freedom of information laws protecting privacy those Universities conducted “Audits” of their systems and I understand thru some accident of “Auditing” procedures vast file collections were accidently erased along with records of student users. A report of “no case to answer” has been returned to the record industry….. Round One.
Round Two… Several multinational ISP’s are now facing court for openly facilitating trade in copyright material… their customer records have been siezed…. children now face court action.
ISP’s are constantly being demanded by the record industry to close the accounts of P2P users… the record industry provides details of user IP, date n time and title of traded copyright material suggesting that if the account is not closed there is a case for complicity and legal action is threatened.
Its not news to us here.
September 11, 2003 at 6:37 pm #90656sciencefeelingMemberBut if you don´t allow uploading, what is the purpose of Kazaa or whatever other sharing program?
That is not really following the ethics and purpose of those programs…so if you are not going to let uploading because you are afraid, then you should just stop using it, and buy your music or download it from official sites.
If nobody allows uploading..then the whole thing is useless.
N.-September 12, 2003 at 2:58 am #90661shifterMemberThat 12-Year-Old Girl settled for $2000. See story here. The RIAA has stated that it is willing to settle for a more reasonable amount, if violaters admit they were downloading illegal copyrighted music and agree to discontinue the activity in the future. Those who fight the RIAA, are likely in for an expensive outcome. Although many disagree with the RIAA’s strong arm tactics, I’m finding it hard to feel sorry for those who think sharing tens of thousands of copyrighted music files with billions of users is there RIGHT.
September 13, 2003 at 3:59 pm #90651rustedtightMemberlike the man said………. Nobody has a RIGHT to break the law.
Break it.. and you WILL be caught.September 17, 2003 at 10:14 pm #90666RikkyMemberDoes anyone know if this counts in the U.K? Or if it’s going to be a law here?
I heard that one girl downloaded that song ‘If you’re happy and you know it’. (Clap your hands blah blah…) And she got taken to court. I didn’t even know someone owned that song.. Does someone have to own it to take them to court? The whole purpose of this thing is to stop the music people losing money, so someone has to own it to take them to court to make them stop downloading to make sure they don’t lose money. Right? Anyway, it’s just stupid… I mean, over here (England) you could buy that song on a tape or something for like, 50p. I think that they should make people pay an amount of money at the beginning of the year or something, and then allow people to download as many or a certain amount of songs and whichever songs they want. That way, Music people get their money, and people get their songs without having to move.. Of course, it isn’t too much to ask for people get up and actually go to their local music shop…September 17, 2003 at 11:24 pm #90665orderonenowMemberpersonally…I don’t think that using Kazaa or anything(to an extent) is any worse than taping songs fromthe radio. I used to do that when I was a kid. It’s the same concept.
September 18, 2003 at 3:08 am #90654detn8rParticipantIts all the same.
They dont sue us for taping off the radio, taping from CD to a tape for someone else. Why bitch for sharing on p2p?
It costs 2 cents to create a CD. They charge $25.00. Why? the crap they include. the booklet, and and ink they use to print on the CD, and CD case they use to protect it. Still not nearly worth the price they charge. Reduce the price, and or remove the crap, and maybe they will have increased sales. Whats the point of the booklet anyway? Lycris? Read em on the net – for free. Pictures? Search google images, or search google for fan sites. Thank You’s? Why do we care? We see the same thing on each release. Thanks co-writers, co-singers, recording company, God, and parents.I’m glad that Canada hasn’t followed the RIAA’s laws, and Canadian ISP’s dont want to patricipate in the United States laws, or atleast for now.
Another story on the 12-yo girl sued.
September 18, 2003 at 3:25 am #90664orderonenowMembersong writers get approx. 8 cents a song times whatever songs on a cd then times how many CD’s sold….they’re actualyl losing thousands and thousands of dollars in a profession that used to pay a lot…i understand why they are getting mad about it…it’s just rediculous….thats all.
it’s more of what you said…if they don’t crack down for taping radio and taping cds then why sue now…September 18, 2003 at 3:36 am #90660shifterMemberQuote:quote:Originally posted by orderonenowpersonally…I don’t think that using Kazaa or anything(to an extent) is any worse than taping songs from the radio. I used to do that when I was a kid. It’s the same concept.
Not quite the same in my opinion. Here’s why – You can’t tape whole albums off the radio anytime you please at anytime you want. And then after recording the radio to tape how do you allow millions of others to copy your radio recording for there own use? The sheer ease and volume allowable by P2P applications is what has gotten the RIAA up in arms. Its easy to go online and see that songs are being traded at an enormous rate, whereas the industry does not see this direct view when you tape record the radio or a friends CD. They see P2P as an obvious loss of sales.
So, now this bring the Record Industry to a deciding choice. Should they adapt to this new technology and innovate some new revolutionary sales tactics, OR should they fight this strange new technology and try to bring the consumers to there knees begging for forgiveness? Well guess which way they decided to go.
Does this make online P2P swapping of copyright material any more legal or moral? Nope, but it sure does piss alot of consumers off. There really is no question of legallity, it is ILLEGAL. The only thing you have to complain about is the tactics being used by the RIAA to rectify there situation.
September 18, 2003 at 12:40 pm #90650rustedtightMemberQuote:quote:Originally posted by sciencefeelingBut if you don´t allow uploading, what is the purpose of Kazaa or whatever other sharing program?
That is not really following the ethics and purpose of those programs…so if you are not going to let uploading because you are afraid, then you should just stop using it, and buy your music or download it from official sites.
If nobody allows uploading..then the whole thing is useless.
N.-How can you speak of ‘ethics’?? the ethics of these programs is/are theft, nothing else, the theft of copyright material. Upon using these programs you technically become a thief, and the courts have an obligation to society to prosecute you.
Do I think its right? This is not the question.
Do I think its fair?:-
From an artists point of view….. not really, you have robbed me.
From the RIAA point of view….. I dont give a rats ass what they think.
From an copyright point of view…. I believe that copyright should belong to the artist….and not demanded as a means of trade or an non negotiable asset demanded prior to promotion by an intelectual property thief called RIAA.
Am I then no less a thief that the RIAA?Quote:quote: Does anyone know if this counts in the U.K? Or if it’s going to be a law here?The application of copyright law is international…. yes, unfortunately…. your a criminal. 😀
September 18, 2003 at 1:04 pm #90663AIM_Know_It_AllParticipantDo any of you kno how to not get cought lol? i have over 1.5 gigs of music 😀
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.