I didn’t know where to post this, but I figure it’s destined here anyway, so why waste any time:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110566,00.asp
Those four P@P music theives have settled out of court for a total of $59,000 between them. Hooray!
Burn a few more while I dance.
Heh, “thieves”.
Do you think this will have any impact at all on file sharing?
Oh my, yes.
Nothing will impact 18 year old pirates like seeing a series of peers owing $15k each.
Four thieves is just a good start. Now they’ve got a nice formula that brings in a bit of cash as well. Watch the gears start to engage.
And of course, the next step is showing liability of the schools, which will put a whole new level of control on this whole thing.
4x15,000 doesn’t seem like it’ll even pay the lawyers. I thought the better formula was getting people to buy CDs that they heard about online.
Of course, the best formula I can come up with is selling CDs at 9$ each, with the composer getting most of the $$$. But that’s just me.
BTW, how do you think having schools be liable for anything is a good thing? 
Meh. The only change I think we’ll see is that the RIAA website is going to hacked twice a day, rather than once a week. Hrm, can’t seem to connect, myself. All this is, is posturing after being denied by the judge who ruled KaZaa isn’t responsible for what its users share on its network. Four down? Several billion to go? The RIAA doesn’t have the wherewithal to undertake such a massive campaign that spans the entire globe. And for the record, sharing copywritted ones and zeros is wrong, but on the grand scale of things forgive me if I don’t feel any urgency to cry because poor Metallica and Brittany Spears are losing potential sales. Peer to peer technology is the “Robin Hood” of the digital age. Flame away, kids. 
Bill H — If you thought that was good you’ll really love this.
Lady freedom ain’t smiling,she’s laughing her ass off.
You’re confusing things friend. kazaa was ruled non-responsible because they were the carrier. kazaa will be shut down eventually, but that’s a side note.
The thieves paid money because they weren’t the carrier; they were directly responsible for theft of IP and distribution of same. Anyway, the path to success is simple at this point for the violated property owners:
[ul]
[li]Find the top ten kazaa hosting sites (not kazaa, the top kazaa users). For what it’s worth, you’ll find they’re all students.[/li][li]Take them to court and take a bunch of their money.[/li][li]Take the schools they attend to court as well and take a bunch of their money.[/li][li]Repeat[/li][/ul]
Sure, plenty of people will still share stuff on kazaa. But noooone will want to be even close to the top ten. And every school that currently hates kazaa on their networks will grow to REALLY HATE kazaa on their networks. And the amount of illegal property offered will dramatically decrease.
At any given time, there are about 3 million users on Kazaa, sharing an average of two gigabytes each. This is just a drop in the bucket.
The only way file sharing will stop is if the record labels come up with a better product. Apple is on the right track.
Legally possible? Maybe.
But technically possible? You’re kidding, right? It can’t be stopped. Even if they somehow manage to shut down Kazaa, another ten file-sharing systems will spring up in its place, without Kazaa’s flaws.
At any given time, there are about 3 million users on Kazaa, sharing an average of two gigabytes each. This is just a drop in the bucket.
The only way file sharing will stop is if the record labels come up with a better product. Apple is on the right track.
Legally possible? Maybe.
But technically possible? You’re kidding, right? It can’t be stopped. Even if they somehow manage to shut down Kazaa, another ten file-sharing systems will spring up in its place, without Kazaa’s flaws.
The beauty of P2P is that it doesn’t matter whether you have 5 people sharing 100 GB each, or 100 people sharing 5 GB each.
I’m too pissed to do this thread justice. Lady freedom my ass. Moron
So why bother, eh?
NO. I have twice now read an article in Technology Review, the magazine from MIT. The author makes the point that file sharing IS stoppable for the most part, because:
No matter where the company is legally registered, it has to have its technology base in the States. You just can’t get the right kind of bandwidth from the Cayman Islands.
It’s very easy to find out exactly where a computer server is physically.
Despite the claims that Gnutella and so on are decentralized, in practicality they have “nodes” and such that are dedicated to speeding things up. Otherwise it proved impractical, especially with so much of the private users on dial-up connections. Maybe broadband will make a dent in this, but you still can ID the biggest helpers.
After that, it’s just a legal problem.
WOW your right, the RIAA is reformulating their business model. Instead of selling CD’s as their main source of income they now will sue people who tracde music - brilliant. And they don’t have to pay royalities on the court winnings (or out of court settlements).
If this catches on I can see the RIAA only releasing a limited number of CD’s so the only way you can get one is to download it.
It is now obvious to me that the RIAA now wants filesharing.
These “kids” are legal adults, and while they are kids in the figurative sense, they were adults breaking the law and distributing copyrighted material. They got off with slap-on-the-wrist fines (albeit large enough to make it hurt a bit, and maybe dissuade others from doing what they did). Seems a reasonable judgement to me.
The RIAA has made a deft move here, IMO. They let the students off lightly, but send a message that they’re watching, will take action, and it will cost the kids.
Um, but they stole stuff. Lots of stuff. And they trafficked it to others. I truly don’t see how their actions are defensible. They’ve settled for a sum that most likely doesn’t even come close to the retail value of what they distributed. Sounds like excellent justice to me; they’ll not break the law in future, and yet the sums of money, while large, are not millstone-round-neck-for-rest-of-life large.
Now, regarding the cough “right” of the RIAA to hack into my pc and delete all my mp3s should I have any, there I agree with you. I notice however that this measure has not made it into law, and likely never will. I also note that this measure has nothing to do with the OP, which is about taking people who steal things to court. This has been a feature of the legal system for quite some time now.
I agree with what zuma has to say; until this, the people who are primarily responsible for the illegal trading have been allowed to get off scot free, while the RIAA mounts legal attacks on nebulous software concepts and service providers, and claims the right to internet vigilantism. This is perhaps the first action the RIAA has taken regarding music piracy which I wholeheartedly support, and the first one where they have targeted the actual people breaking the law.
At the same time, I entirely agree with those above who state that a viable commercial alternative is needed as well, and I think the record companies have finally gotten this message. I think Apple’s attempt is very promising; the model I’d prefer would be one whereby I pay a monthly subscription for streaming access to the whole catalogue, and supplements if I feel like ordering/burning a CD. This is a good start though.
I don’t see how it’s defensible either. In addition to ripping the stuff off, they also violated their schools’ computer policies. Thus, they are subject to expulsion.
Well, a 128 mp3 is not the same quality as an 1100+ wav / CD file.
If they are going to charge for music downloading, then it damn well better be CD quality I am getting for my buck.
Also, paying for music STREAMING is BS. If I am paying for a song file, then I get to keep it. Otherwise it is like PPV radio.
When I was a kid, I didn’t buy albums. Know what I did? I recorded songs I liked directly from my radio/tape recorder just like every other kid did.
How is that really any different? I was sharing music “files” and the radio stations were the “Kazaas”.
Well, no; it had better be CD quality, or cost less.
Regarding streaming; people pay a subscription for on-demand tv (or nearly on-demand) - why is the same model not applicable to what is effectively on-demand audio? I don’t expect it to be expensive, but it’d be so convenient; I’d have access to a much wider variety of music, and I could sample different things for much less money, as I wouldn’t have to pay for the perpetual rights to own a particular track.
Basically yes, I view it as radio, but radio with a very important distinction; I control what I listen to. Given the utter wasteland that is most radio these days, this is a very important distinction to me. Maybe it’s BS for you, but I’m prepared to pay for it, and I suspect I’m not alone, which means there’s a market. I think many people are too wedded to “how it’s always been done”. I don’t really care how the music gets to me, as long as it’s cheap, convenient and has a large selection.
Well, it has been essentially proven that the Kazaa network can be shut down. Used to be that Morpheus was leasing Kazaa’s software, then the two companies got into a dispute, and the Morpheus network got shut down deader than Napster. But you are right that others will take its place. My guess is that nothing better comes about, users will gravitate to G2 Gnutella. Once the RIAA starts going after more individual users on the G2 network, they’ll finally make progress in the war.