If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   RIAA forcing university students to pay $3000 each to avoid lawsuits. Suck it, largest demographic of music-buying public   (myfoxkc.com) divider line 371
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

13943 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Mar 2007 at 5:36 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



371 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-09 07:18:19 PM  
If I ever got one of those letters I'd fight back. I'd demand the RIAA to prove that I caused $3000 worth of 'damage' to them. I'd like to see them prove that any downloading might cost them anything beyond $10 worth of damage. Lawyers and court fees don't count.
 
2007-03-09 07:19:12 PM  
I don't know if this was covered, so I'll throw it in anyway.

My boyfriend did extensive research on file sharing, and discovered that if you buy a CD, you are (obviously) legally entitled to that copy. But, there is nothing legally wrong with burning a second copy for yourself (say I wanted a copy for my house and one for my car... as long as I purchased the album, that's fine).

But the RIAA has yet to be able to prove that someone who had a downloaded copy of music on their hard drive didn't in fact purchase that album at some point in life. Apparently, you could tell a court that you bought it, and the CD cracked on the way home from the store, or you don't have a CD burner on your computer but wanted a copy to listen to while you're in the office while keeping the hard copy in your car, or "yes, I bought TLC's "CrazySexyCool" in 1994 and since I was only 9, I've since lost it, and wanted a new copy of it."

Bullshiat like that has worked apparently. Innocent until proven guilty in America.

In other news, Paramount Studios sent my BF a letter telling him that they saw him download some movie and asked him nicely to stop it. He called Paramount (using the number on their website), and no one in the office where the number leads had any idea who to direct him to.

So he got Vongo and legally downloads all the F-in movies he wants.

*shrug*

/I still have my copy of CrazySexyCool
 
2007-03-09 07:20:06 PM  
untrustworthy: Copyright covers tangible executions of created materials. It doesn't cover ideas. So we're on the same page here.

I think I get what you're saying here (that they have to be executed tangibly to attain a copyright,) but I'd argue that to a fault the exact concept (or idea) of the song is copyrighted. (Despite that being, officially, outside of copyright law.) I can't make a metal version of a country song without license because, despite being different in execution, it's the exact concept; the same idea. Or is there other legal wording for that than 'execution'?
 
2007-03-09 07:20:55 PM  
jeffool

I hear ya. I've never really formed an opinion as to how long copyrights should last, to be honest I never really thought about it. I guess I don't have a problem with them lasting for a lifetime, but 70 years plus might be a little excessive.

If I made something and copyrighted it, and people wanted it, and there was a time limit on my IP rights, I'd be renewing that sucker until I was dead. Why not let me profit off my creation? If you want something better, think of it yourself!

/and get off my lawn!
 
2007-03-09 07:22:41 PM  
http://www.fightmusic.com/mp3/pac10/Washington_State__WSU_Fight_Song.mp3 (copy and paste)

Win the day for Crimson and Gray...

/GO COUGS!
 
2007-03-09 07:23:11 PM  
shipofthesun: Man that is just so wrong. Nothing is bit perfect when you copy it. Especially audio.

Analog and digital are two completely different animals. Analog will always have variations. Digital does not unless there is an error. But those errors are rare and often result in file corruption.
 
2007-03-09 07:23:20 PM  
Uhhh..oooops..

Wrong thread.

/GO COUGS ANYWAY!!
 
2007-03-09 07:26:21 PM  
Actually the RIAA is a non profit lobbyiong group formed to:

1. Lobby Congress for changes in copyright law that benefits their members.

2. Act as a lightning rod for the ire caused by the member actions.

3) Give out Gold and Platinum records

How often do you hear Damn Warner brothers, Damn Sony, Damn Universal, Damn EMI? As long as everyone is piling on the RIAA, the labels will keep telling them "Keep up the good work". Don't like what the RIAA is doing then let their membership know it you just might like what happens.
 
2007-03-09 07:26:23 PM  
KixStar: But, there is nothing legally wrong with burning a second copy for yourself (say I wanted a copy for my house and one for my car... as long as I purchased the album, that's fine).

That's what I've been saying. Fair use for personal use. Not illegal. It is their burden of proof to prove I have profited or "damaged" them. I've also wondered about the re copying thing. How many times do I have to buy Pet Sounds? I have the vinyl, twice, the cassette, and the CD twice due to scratches(perfect forever, eh Sony?). If I could have downloaded the CD when I bought it last time, I would have. What about stuff that got stolen? What about cassettes that got eaten, or the shells warped? What about all the vinyl I invested in, and then you, yes you, the RIAA abandoned the format. Do I have to keep buying that music over and over? Screw that.
 
2007-03-09 07:27:50 PM  
The minimum damages under the law is $750 for each copyright recording that had been shared

If you don't think the RIAA and the politicians they paid off to get that law enacted are all complete farking scumbags, read that sentence again.

DIAF RIAA
 
2007-03-09 07:28:07 PM  
untrustworthy: After all, if you record a great song, why should Ford get to use it to promote their product in 10 years from now without compensating you? Does that seem fair?

And this is where we agree to disagree. Because I say yes. :D

And I understand it's easier to create illegal copies as well, but that's largely a creation of the past ten years. Problems with copyright started long before then. And as we do go digital, I (again, harkening back to the initial posts,) have problems with charging people money for stuff that's essentially free to copy.

Y'know, I may well be happy with copyrights of 'the creators execution' lasting until their death... But I do think people should be able to record their own versions of other songs as they see fit (at most a ten year wait.) Same for movies, too. I'm sure we could have lotsa fun with remakes if studios didn't have to pay for rights. Tarantino could've made the Bond movie he wanted to make!
 
2007-03-09 07:28:41 PM  
downloading music instead of buying a CD is wrong. if you download a cd that you were going to buy, the artist is losing money.

however, if you had no intention of buying the CD, then when you download it nobody is losing any money. to me, downloading is like listening to the radio, and turning it off for the commercials. if i download a song/album and really like it, then i will buy the cd. if i don't really like it, it will just sit on my hard drive and come up every now and then on shuffle. this isn't hurting everyone
 
2007-03-09 07:29:57 PM  
thegoodthebadthedumb,

The 80's and early 90's had a lot of good rock music on the radio I liked. As downloading became more prevalent the good rock was replaced with the Backstreet Boys and other techno-pop over produced stuff.

Well, I am here saying that I don't support the downloaders and explaining why. You are trying to counter me and argue against my point. Thus you are defending the downloaders by proxy at the least. If you are not defending the downloaders and are not one yourself then why are you arguing with me? Trolling?

If I am wrong prove me wrong. Show me the empirical data proving me wrong and I will admit it, until then I wont. It might be just a coincidence that the type of music I like being produced has significantly dropped. In the meantime more and more people I run across who also like the same music don't buy it, they just download it for free.

But then if you are not defending downloading yet arguing with me then you are trolling so what I say doesn't matter.
 
2007-03-09 07:30:39 PM  
untrustworthy: Analog and digital are two completely different animals. Analog will always have variations. Digital does not unless there is an error. But those errors are rare and often result in file corruption.

I'll try again. Nothing gets copied bit for bit perfect. Errors result in jitter in audio files. It's a timing error. Errors are common, and result in audible artifacts, such as dropouts, odd little noises, jitter, and distortion. Please, don't attempt to explain audio to a 30 year veteran of the field.
 
2007-03-09 07:31:16 PM  
RocketRod: So you think D/L'ing illegally uploaded media so you can fully consume it BEFORE you even think about paying for it is okay? Try that philosophy with other commodities, and let me know how far it gets you.

I read books cover to cover that I borrow from the library.
I rent and borrow videos to watch knowing full well that I never plan to buy them.
I pick up newspapers that other people leave behind and read them.
I listen to songs on the radio and change the station when commercials come on.
I read magazines at the store and then put them back on the shelf.

The difference with music albums is that the only legal way I can listen to the whole thing even once is to pay the full purchase price. IP laws are heavily stacked in favor of the music industry to make it illegal to hear their music unless you've bought it at retail. The exception being songs they've released into the broadcast channels. The reason piracy is considered socially acceptable is because people feel they've been getting ripped offso badly for so long.
 
2007-03-09 07:31:46 PM  
Jeffool: I think I get what you're saying here (that they have to be executed tangibly to attain a copyright,) but I'd argue that to a fault the exact concept (or idea) of the song is copyrighted. (Despite that being, officially, outside of copyright law.)

Recordings of music are copyrighted. That's it.

I can't make a metal version of a country song without license because, despite being different in execution, it's the exact concept; the same idea. Or is there other legal wording for that than 'execution'?

There are some different protections for recorded music. And different situations call for different action. As far as doing cover songs, you are free to do so as long as you notify the copyright holder and pay standard royalties to them. But you don't actually need to obtain permission. You need only make your intent known and pay them for your usage.
 
2007-03-09 07:32:45 PM  
shipofthesun

Why does it matter if the mp3 is "changing" or "losing" data? It doesn't make a difference, if its the same song that is copyrighted, it's still infringement. If it's worse quality, it's still copyright infringement.

That's been settled by the way. When the movie business sued the website owners of 2600.com for distributing De-CSS software, the court didn't care that the quality of the movie might be degraded after decrypting and copying it. In fact, they considered that since you could use DivX to compress these files down to 600MB and stuff them on a CD, distributing the DeCSS software was even more dangerous.
 
2007-03-09 07:34:37 PM  
The RIAA is gangsters.
I spent 10 years in the music business. Almost all the peoples in in the record companies, 'specially in the old days, were crooks. They got rich, (and I mean RICH) in some cases by giving an artist pennies for a song and then making thousands.

If the shoe were on the other foot. If we owned the music and the music executives and the producers were nobodys like us, (and I know the nature of these people very, very well), they would download it without a second's thought. The people that make the music are more crooked and amoral then that average college kid. You can take that to the bank.
 
2007-03-09 07:35:11 PM  
untrustworthy, I learned a bit about that when I read up on ole' Richard Cheese, but only for X copies of the record and such. I readily admit to now knowing enough about the caveats like that, sadly.
 
2007-03-09 07:35:20 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer: If it's worse quality, it's still copyright infringement.

Not if you aren't profiting. Fair use, remember? Personal use is not illegal, has never been, no matter what the RIAA says.
 
2007-03-09 07:35:31 PM  
thegoodthebadthedumb: People who criminally violate copyright laws are charged with criminal infringment. Not theft, not conversion, not anything else. Criminal infringment is a separate and distinct crime - 17 U.S.C. 506.

Semantics. You're still knowingly taking possession of something you haven't paid for... call it what you want.
 
2007-03-09 07:36:07 PM  
Should have read: "The people that SELL the music are more crooked. . . "
 
2007-03-09 07:36:49 PM  
what i want to know is how they quantify the value of these songs? i mean, if you can go to I-Tunes and pay 99 cents for a song, how does distributing that song make it worth any more than 99 cents? I-tunes distributes the songs... FOR 99 CENTS... really less because they keep some for profit.

this vague $3000 number they come up with should be challenged. they are overvaluing their product. just because you share it doesnt mean anyone downloaded it from you. they can't prove you did anything wrong.

they should realistically sue these college students for like 50 bucks... and that might be pushing it. the RIAA is just extorting money from scared kids who are unable to mount a serious countersuit against their immensely funded legal assault.
 
2007-03-09 07:37:08 PM  
GoodasGold: The people that make the music are more crooked and amoral then that average college kid. You can take that to the bank.

They got to be in charge for a reason, right?
 
2007-03-09 07:37:11 PM  
Jeffool: And this is where we agree to disagree. Because I say yes. :D

Why should another company get to benefit from something you created without compensating you for it? I don't think that is even close to being fair.

And I understand it's easier to create illegal copies as well, but that's largely a creation of the past ten years. Problems with copyright started long before then. And as we do go digital, I (again, harkening back to the initial posts,) have problems with charging people money for stuff that's essentially free to copy.

The fact that it is so easy is why it needs to be restricted.

Y'know, I may well be happy with copyrights of 'the creators execution' lasting until their death... But I do think people should be able to record their own versions of other songs as they see fit (at most a ten year wait.) Same for movies, too. I'm sure we could have lotsa fun with remakes if studios didn't have to pay for rights. Tarantino could've made the Bond movie he wanted to make!

Studios aren't actually paying for the rights. They're paying royalties. There's a big difference there.
 
2007-03-09 07:37:29 PM  
heavymetal

Look, guy. I'm not trolling you. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm just asking you to provide me with ANY kind of evidence - stories of bands you've heard about, something you read about in a magazine, economic studies about the music industry...SOME SORT of evidence that shows that musicians are quitting the music biz because downloading forced them out. Frankly, I don't buy it. And I'm calling you out on it.

And guess what? Top 40 music hasn't changed in the last 20 years. Your musical tastes have. Milli Vanilli, Boy George, Vanilla Ice, Ace of Base, NEED I GO ON FOR CHRISTSSAKE?!?!
 
2007-03-09 07:38:42 PM  
shipofthesun: Personal use is not illegal, has never been, no matter what the RIAA says.

Making unauthorized copies is a copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if it is just for personal use.
 
2007-03-09 07:39:41 PM  
heavymetal: The 80's and early 90's had a lot of good rock music on the radio I liked. As downloading became more prevalent the good rock was replaced with the Backstreet Boys and other techno-pop over produced stuff.


Sorry man, but rock started to fade before downloading took off.

//Sold my soul for rock and roll in '89 I also bought QQQ in 2000 and a new house last year.
 
2007-03-09 07:39:42 PM  
thegoodthebadthedumb: ...SOME SORT of evidence that shows that musicians are quitting the music biz because downloading forced them out. Frankly, I don't buy it. And I'm calling you out on it.

I'm getting back in, because of the tremendous opportunity the web offers to reach fans. Live shows can be transmitted over TCP/IP and you can charge a nominal fee, you know. :)
 
2007-03-09 07:39:42 PM  
shipofthesun

Not if you aren't profiting. Fair use, remember? Personal use is not illegal, has never been, no matter what the RIAA says.

Copyright infringement doesn't require proof of profit from or damages. It requires unauthorized copying, that's it. Personal use may sometimes be fair use, it may not be. Just because you're not profiting from it, or it's for your own use, doesn't make it fair use.

If I download a song from emule, it's for personal use, sure. But it's not fair use. It's copyright infringement. If I rent a netflix movie and burn it, it's for personal use. But it's still copyright infringement.
 
2007-03-09 07:42:02 PM  
relhak: I read books cover to cover that I borrow from the library.

You can't borrow them without a library card.

I rent and borrow videos to watch knowing full well that I never plan to buy them.

You still have to pay for those video rentals.

I pick up newspapers that other people leave behind and read them.

If you're into dumpster diving for your news... okay by me.

I listen to songs on the radio and change the station when commercials come on.

This one makes no sense seeing as the radio station paid for the right to broadcast those songs, regardless if you listen to their commercials.

I read magazines at the store and then put them back on the shelf.

Damn, you're just cheap, aren't you?
And isn't THAT what it REALLY comes down to? As much as the digerati generation claims the moral high ground on politics, the environment, et. al. ... they'll do a 180 in a heartbeat if they can save a buck.
 
2007-03-09 07:44:02 PM  
Sticky Hands: rock started to fade before downloading took off.

Yes, But... Why will save Rock?
 
2007-03-09 07:44:20 PM  
RocketRod

No...it's not just semantics. It's a distinct legal concept. If you kill me, you aren't charged with theft, even though, metaphorically, you STOLE my life from me.

Same with copyright infringment. The crime is criminal infringement, not larceny, theft, etc.

A better example than your lemons: if I steal a work of art and sell it? Larceny, theft, conversion, etc. If I make an exact copy of that work of art and sell it? Criminal infringement.
 
2007-03-09 07:44:39 PM  
WHO.

I ment to ask Who will save Rock?
 
2007-03-09 07:45:31 PM  
Irregardless: Stealing is stealing. By your rationale if I can break into a bank and download/transfer cash into my account by a "click" of a mouse then that's ok. It's not OK. It's theft.

I didn't say it was OK.

To use your example, if technology was developed that allowed you to teleport into a bank vault with the click of a mouse and take all the cash, the banks better find another business model than leaving cash in vaults.

It doesn't mean that the people taking the money are correct.

It just means that technology has rendered the business model of leaving cash in vaults obsolete.
 
2007-03-09 07:46:08 PM  
Racketeering, FTW.
 
2007-03-09 07:46:13 PM  
RocketRod: That's true. The cat's already out of the bag. I'm all for time-sensitive, self-destructing media files.

I like that just for the coolness aspect.

So long as there's smoke :)
 
2007-03-09 07:46:26 PM  
Bukharin: I ment to ask Who will save Rock?

I dunno. I think "Why will save rock?" is a much deeper question. It really makes you question things, y'know? Like... Why?
 
2007-03-09 07:49:26 PM  
Jeffool: I dunno. I think "Why will save rock?" is a much deeper question. It really makes you question things, y'know? Like... Why?

You sound like this guy
www.sumavanet.cz
from Northern Exposure.
 
2007-03-09 07:50:14 PM  
Amazing.. Let's make them bribe us, and them sue them.. Brilliant..
 
2007-03-09 07:50:45 PM  
Hah, thanks! I only recently got into that show. I really need to grab the DVDs. (As in purchase them. ;) )
 
2007-03-09 07:51:15 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer: It requires unauthorized copying,

Couldn't you argue then that, as an "uploader", you are not violating copyright, since the downloader's machine makes the copy?

Would you liable if you left a CD on you desk at work and someone copied it and put it back while you were at lunch?

Or perhaps a better example, if you displayed a painting in your living room and someone took a picture of it through your window and reproduced that?

//Not a file sharer.
/// Just think it's stupid to try to fight the market with the courts.
//// The market is stronger, in the end, it will win.
 
2007-03-09 07:51:18 PM  
The RIAA are extortionists and they should go to jail for that.
 
2007-03-09 07:51:26 PM  
Took me a while, but bburied in the AHRA:

The AHRA contains one positive provision for the consumer electronics industry and consumers, section 1008, a "Prohibition on certain infringement actions:"

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

That seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
2007-03-09 07:52:41 PM  
Jeffool: Hah, thanks! I only recently got into that show.

I just got the entire run of the show about a month ago. I'm almost finished with the last season. I have no idea why I didnt watch it when it was first run, but I can see why it was a great show. (somewhat dated now, but not too much. especially for that part of the world.)
 
2007-03-09 07:52:43 PM  
shipofthesun: I'll try again. Nothing gets copied bit for bit perfect.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. W. Wrongie Wrongenstein.

Computers are extremely good at copying entire files, bit for bit. The web would completely fail if they couldn't do that. Every piece of software you have ever downloaded has been bit-for-bit correct, or it would not install. While errors can happen, any decent protocol can detect them and correct for them.

Now, it may be that some p2p networks have holes in them that can result in bad copies, but I assure you, computers are perfectly capable of making bit-for-bit copies of files.
 
2007-03-09 07:53:52 PM  
Property is theft
 
2007-03-09 07:53:57 PM  
Untrustworthy


Whatever arguments you bring to this debate, you're going to have to face the reality that digital music, shareable massively, is the new reality. The RIAA, in protesting the reality through lawsuits, is not helping the situation. They're in their rights, as much as the police are in their rights to arrest or fine every jaywalker.

However, they are having no appreciable effect on the state of things by doing so. They are hurting their "clients", the musicians, they're hurting their customers, they're hurting their stockholders. There's no possible way back from here. They are being jackasses for refusing to deal with the reality of the situation.

There is no longer viable copyright protection for individual use of music, pictures, movies, etc. It's busted and gone.
 
2007-03-09 07:54:28 PM  
Two Beans: Property is theft

FTW
 
2007-03-09 07:54:38 PM  
thegoodthebadthedumb: A better example than your lemons: if I steal a work of art and sell it? Larceny, theft, conversion, etc. If I make an exact copy of that work of art and sell it? Criminal infringement.

How did you get the original art in the first place?
 
Displayed 50 of 371 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report