I wonder, after all this bad press they’re getting, and after sales drop even more over the next year due to people being damn sick of the music industry…if they’ll still have the gall to blame it on piracy? Bastards.
God, I can’t wait for the collapse. Of course, all those out of work record label executives will just move on to occupations more suited for them, such as SMERSH and SPECTRE operatives.
Isn’t there a 71 year old man in the same batch as that girl? Apparently his grandkids were using his computer, so he’s in hot water. Sad.
Excellent point, of course. Considering the David v. Goliath nature of these individual lawsuits, I wonder if any enterprising attorneys have gotten the idea of filing a class action against the RIAA on behalf of music filesharers, seeking a declaratory judgment or an anti-suit injunction? That would be a pretty efficient way of resolving the legal question of whether their actions violate the copyright holders’ intellectual property rights.
Of course, the filesharers would undoubtedly lose that lawsuit, since they are pretty much indisputably violating the copyright holders’ rights under current law.
How is this different than what a Public Library does? Are we going to go after them next? I mean, my library doesn’t charge to rent books, CDs, Videos, DVDs and the like…
Seriously, someone HAS bought the CD. So, if they decide to share it, that should be their business.
They’re not letting someone borrow it, they are giving away copies. The computer, in essense, is programmed to create a digital copy of the file and transmit it over the internet to others. That’s the whole idea of copyright, it’s the right to make a copy, the RIAA has it, you don’t.
Radio stations do something similar, creating an electrical analog copy of the music and sending it over radio waves, but they are authorized to do it by the RIAA, FCC or whoever. Believe me, if the Public Library set up CD copying stations, the RIAA would be all over thier asses.
You do realize there is a difference between copying a blank tape for a few friends (takes an hour or so, dregradation of quality) and making mp3s available on the internet (file available to millions of people, no loss of sound quality from each copy) don’t you?
There has been a lot of wrong information in this thread. Kaaza, Grokster and those types of programs are not illegal. The software is fine. File sharing is not illegal, if it was every company with a LAN would be breaking the law. File sharing is one of the, if not the major reason that computer networks exist.
What is illegal, is downloading, copying or sharing intellectual property without compensating the creator. That said, I don’t think that the RIAA has gone about the whole modern era the correct way. All that there needs to be is a way for people to download the songs they want at a reasonable price and not have to buy a full album of shit to get that one song. RIAA is doing what they are supposed to be doing, ensuring that artists get compensated for their work.
There are other issues with RIAA that need to be addressed. IIRC, RIAA either lost a group of lawsuits or settled out of court with a number of artist (Shirley Bassey comes to mind) because they systematicaly under reported sales and did not pay artists the royalties they were due.
None of this should be reason enough to let RIAA search private computers that may or may not have MP3s that were not paid for, and it surely doesn’t mean that they should have the right to destroy or delete any files off of computers.
Also, the RIAA looks like bigger butt munchers than usual for going after a 12 year old child. Maybe they could play a bunch of 12 year olds in a game of tackle football.
It is very different. If you check a book, CD, or whatever out of the public library, then no one else can check it out so long as you have their copy. And once you return it, you don’t have the use of it any longer.
If you make a copy of whatever you check out of the library before you return it, then you have infringed the copyright owner’s rights. Because now, if you return the copy you borrowed from the library, two people now have copies of it, but only one has paid.
Ditto if you loan your CD to a friend. You are free to loan it to them for them to listen to, but if they make a copy before returning it to you, they are an infringer. Which is why Diogenes’ taping example doesn’t hold water UNLESS the purchaser or owner of the CD is making a tape for their own personal use - as, for example, making a tape to listen to in the car or burning MP3s from CDs I’ve bought onto my Rio player to take to the gym.
“Sharing” music is like the latter two examples, not the former. Because those on the other end of the “sharing” are generally keeping copies of what they take. So now two or more people can use it and enjoy it simultaneously, without interfering with the enjoyment of the same work by others.
That the RIAA needs to come up with a better model for distributing music is pretty much not in doubt. That they are on solid legal ground with these lawsuits is also not really a disputable issue. Sharing music is against the law.
So those of us who believe private property is not theft are brainwashed, huh?
Whether the music industry would make more or less with a different business model is utterly irrelevant and those who use it as a justification for their stealing are just rationalizing their act. In our model of society we are allowed to own the product of out work and our property. A landlord may have a vacant unit but you are not allowed to squat on acount that he is not making any money anyway. You are not allowed to squat an airline seat on account that it would go empty anyway and they are not losing money.
We are allowed to control our property without need to justify whether it benefits us or not. An artist who creates a work is allowed to control its distrubution and if he sells you the right to use a CD subject to certain rules then you cand refuse to buy but if you say you accept the relues then you should abide by them. the only responsible action if you do not like them is to NOT buy the product. Stealing is is just rationalising theft. And it is theft whether the person is harmed or not. If I see a book in your house and I am sure you will never read it again and you would never even notice it missing, if I take it I am stealing, even if you never suffered any harm.
Ya know, if you think the record industry is evil (and maybe that is a valid criticism), then protest it by not buying another CD ever. You have that right. Boycotting is a great way to voice your displeasure with something. But say you were to boycott, oh, I don’t know, a fast food establishment. Then you don’t eat there. You don’t sneak in the back door and grab a bunch of burgers. You stop using that product. In this case however, everyone wants to boycott the industry, as long as they can still get the product. Talk about hypocricy.
Somehow people have fooled themselves into believing that they have a “right” to free music. They think that by obtaining it for free, they are only hurting the big bad record exec. What you don’t realize is that it takes a team of experienced, talented, professionals to make a really good sounding record. Not just the band, but recording engineers, producers, mastering technicians, etc. Are all of these people just supposed to practice their craft out of the goodness of their heart, with no income, so that you can enjoy your free music? Are you willing to do the same thing with your career? Or do you expect to be paid for your hard work and experience? Why should they be any different?
I’m not trying to defend the record labels. I think they charge too much for their product too. I also think that Disneylands admission prices are too high. That doesn’t mean I jump a fence and sneak into the park so I can enjoy it for free. That is illegal. Rather, I just realize that I can’t afford to go to Disneyland and I, gasp(!), go without. We make choices like that all the time in our lives. Nobody can afford everything that they wish for. That still doesn’t mean that we still have a “right” to the stuff that we can’t afford to purchase.
I’ll tell you this. If enough people actually stopped purchasing CD’s in protest of the prices, the record companies would be much quicker to change their business plan. Everyone wants to make a buck and an unhappy customer isn’t the best way to get it. I think you would see a reasonable online service develop to cater to the demands of the public. Illegally downloading music is not going to accomplish this though. The artists and their record label are not going to stand for it and they have the law on their side.
Anthracite pretty much nailed it. You are breaking the law and all the moaning and whining isn’t going to help you one bit in court. Go ahead and try the “Fuck the industry, I have a right to have this music for free” defense and see how far it gets you in court. The record companies have the law on their side and regardless of how you feel about the law, if you are found guilty, you will be forced to pay for your actions, just like anyone else that breaks the law. The record companies aren’t forcing anyone to buy their product. You have every right not to spend your money on things that you think are unfair. You don’t have the right to deprive artists and other professionals of what they are legally entitled to.
Suppose you’ve written a computer program. It’s taken 5 years of your life. You hope to sell 100,000 copies at $10 each. Instead, you sell one copy and someone posts it on the internet for free downloading. Is that stealing? Are you somehow arguing that the intellectual work that went into the production of the program has no value?
Now, how is the above example any different than releasing an album? Arguably there is the same degree of professionalism and years of practise and dues-paying involved. Why should the performer give his or her work away for free?
The CD/cassette analogy is so ridiculously flawed that I can’t believe you even bothered typing it. In both cases, the CD and cassette * belong to you and are for your personal use *.
I also have downloaded songs. The music that speaks to me tends to not get any radio play here in the States, as most of it is underground metal in Europe. If it weren’t for Napster/KaZaA et al I wouldn’t have 75% of the CDs that I currently own. If I hear of a band, I download a song or two and see if I like them. If I do, I buy the CD. If not, I delete the songs from my computer.
I have bought way more music since the advent of file-sharing than I ever did before. Not only that, but the CDs I buy are way better than the crap I used to get. They have massive replay value, and they typically are good all the way through. I used to buy CDs for a song I’d hear on the radio, then get home and learn that the rest of the album is utter crap.
My music collection and tastes have dramatically improved since I learned of file sharing. My mind has been opened to new kinds of music I never would have heard of had I not been able to download them.
Also, I don’t share my music. I’m too afraid of being sued. This is a shame, because I’d really like to be able to make my music available to other people who are where I was 4 years ago.
Your library doesn’t distribute unlimited copies for free to whoever asks, though. They aren’t violating the copyright of the authors of those materials because there is no copying and distribution occurring. Do you honestly believe that checking out a book from the library gives you the right to copy and distribute that book? If you do, you may want to check the pertinent laws.
A CD buyer has purchased the right to ONE copy of the content thereon. As a rule, the buyer may give the CD away or resell it, but in neither case is the buyer permitted to make a copy for himself before doing so. Can you not understand this? You aren’t buying the rights to the content; you are buying the right to use the content in a specific manner.
Of course, people have been recording songs off the radio and copying CDs to tape forever, but it’s the prospect of unlimited, perfect copies that upsets the RIAA. And, please understand, I am in no way supporting the RIAA. I agree that they are responsible for the deplorable state of the music industry, but the fact remains that filesharers are in the wrong.
On preview, I see jeevmon beat me to it. And better.
Have any of you people ever tried pulling mp3s off a p2p? The connections suck, the mp3s often suck, and often files and id3 tags are all mislabeled. I don’t use them anymore because while I may be able eventually be able to get an entire album free, I think my time is worth $15 bucks, especially if it’s a CD I want anyway. Plus, once I have it, I can use a decent ripper like EAC, and there we go.
No copyright protection will yield no commercial music industry. Nor will there be file sharing, except illegal bootleg concert CDs, because nobody will ever record another song if they have to lose money to do it.
Of course, everyone should have a right to free recorded music of their choice, in Bizarro World.
Maybe if it is repeated enough times with enough different examples of intellectual property theft the theives will get it. Nah.
If you truly want to get the RIAA to heed, I suggest that a total boycott of music is not the best way to go. Rather, I suggest buying more CDs…but from studios not associated with the RIAA. A small dip in overall record sales could be due to any number of things, but a dip in RIAA member sales with a corresponding increase in non-member sales would be harder to ignore.
I’ve got a website filled with (my own) copyrighted photos. Isn’t it true that whenever anyone views the website, my photos are automatically downloaded to their computer? What would they have to do for this to cross the line into copyright violation?
As I understand the law (and this might be slightly different in Canada) if you are the copyright owner and make those photos available for free to anyone, you have fewer options. I don’t think it’s quite the same as release into the public domain, as you could insist on your copyright if someone is using a picture to make money.
Actually, I’ve finally got some music created myself. It’s not the best thing ever made, but I did it and I want people to listen to it. So I’m putting them on an open share on the school network, and if anyone wants to download it, they’re welcome to. I might also put it on the school-provided hosting, as I might as well use my website space for something.
