Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Washington Post)   Fileswappers who were doing illegal stuff persist in doing illegal stuff despite warnings of legal consequences   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 257
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11690 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2003 at 8:51 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-07-06 05:33:46 AM  
No kidding. As long as everyone keeps it up (they will), there is no way on earth the RIAA can sue everybody. I'd love to be their lawyer though, it could make my retirement.

If they hadn't screwed things up by being so troglodytic when Napster was around they might have convinced a bunch of people to pay a fee to download songs. Now they've alienated everyone with their strong-arm tactics, and I for one say "fark em." Dinosaurs will die.
 
2003-07-06 07:00:48 AM  
The old way, of retaining intellectual property? Sure, that might make them "dinosaurs", but it doesn't mean that stealing from them becomes right.
 
2003-07-06 08:54:49 AM  
It's not stealing if i was never going buy it in the first place.
 
2003-07-06 08:59:34 AM  
I find it veddy veddy interesting that talk of a mandatory license fee charged on CD burners and the like has been going around, and RIAA won't have anything to do with it.

That proves what I've already suspected. It's not about RIAA getting paid, it's about RIAA biatching. fark you, Hilary Rosen.
 
2003-07-06 09:04:27 AM  
what purpose does the RIAA serve anyhow? I know I'm horribly ignorant but it seems they only exist to biatch about filesharing and "protect" artists that get paid only a small fraction of what the RIAA takes in.
 
2003-07-06 09:06:11 AM  
The fact that I can buy a DVD for the same price as a CD boggles the mind. The difference in the amount of content that you get between the two is astronomical. When I can get a DVD with 3 hours of content vs. a CD with sometimes as little as 40 minutes of content, then fug the RIAA.

The sad part is, I don't even pirate music most of the time. 90% of what I have is classical music (thank you public domain) or fan-made remixes of songs. All the new shiat just plain sucks.
 
2003-07-06 09:10:05 AM  
btw, if they're going to tax my ISP (who will in turn hike rates of course) then they should investigate ISP's that provide subpar service, keep lowering bitrates, and do other nasty things. Who's fighting for the little guy anymore =\
 
2003-07-06 09:10:10 AM  
Hey, I just had a novel idea. How about laws are created based on the feelings of the people? So if 60% of people smoke marijuana it's insane to make it legal. Same with file swapping. Just because something is illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong. Wait, sorry, the drugs are wearing off. WE MUST MAKE LAWS BASED ON WHAT THE ALLMIGHTY CORPORATIONS SAY. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE BOTTOM DOLLAR. BOW TO YOUR ENTERTAINMENT MASTERS.
 
2003-07-06 09:11:32 AM  
My appologies if that doesn't make any sense. The drugs did literally just wear off.
 
2003-07-06 09:13:58 AM  
Illegal stuff?

Like whackin it in public?

/guilty

Seriously, if they ever shut down p2p networks, I WILL give up on music. I've thought about it a little and realized that at least the last 15 bands/groups/dj's I've taken in interest in have ALL been through Kazaa/IRC/Napster/Audiogalaxy..........with Audiogalaxy being number 1 of course.

:( BRING THE FCUK BACK AUDIOGALAXY (the real audiogalaxy)!
 
2003-07-06 09:14:42 AM  
Don't you know the cartels pay good money to keep pot illegal? How else can they make a buck!

/posting way too much
 
2003-07-06 09:15:12 AM  
It's not about the RIAA making a bit of money off of blank CDs. Their problem is not one of making up for a bit of money lost due to lower album sales. Their problem is that their control of their market is slipping away. Ever since the internet and CDs came into being, the RIAA has been fighting a losing battle to keep dictating the terms of sales to their customers. If they lose the old album model of selling songs, with 2 good tracks and 9-10 fillers, all of a sudden they're hit with a 400% reduction in revenue, which will destroy their current bloated businesses. When people are able to pay $1 or $2 for selective content, it blocks you from selling the filler and tacking on $12, it exposes the expense of your prefered method of distributing your product, the CD, and it reduces your own importance in the music creation process. Single song downloads for even as much as $1 are death for the RIAA and they know it. But change is coming, the current legal download sites are admissions of defeat by the RIAA. They'll try and restrict them and make them unwieldy, so people will keep buying CDs, but with efficient P2P systems out there, it's going to come down to a choice of either providing a quality download service online and losing a huge chunk of their revenues, or fighting P2P and refusing to adapt, which would probably be the end of the RIAA within 5 years...
 
2003-07-06 09:19:34 AM  
If only they'd lower CD prices, they'd see a change in attitudes, I think. And a lot of people (myself included) use P2P as a preview method for new CDs and a medium to find new and interesting artists. If someone tells me "Check out Band A", I don't want to buy their disc, b/c I don't know what it's like. Once I download 2 or 3 songs, I may choose to buy the disc if it's good music. The RIAA has got to realize that every time they open their mouth, they make 1000 more enemies. Soon, no one will buy music altogether.

/my $.02
 
2003-07-06 09:25:01 AM  
All intellectual property laws should be abolished.

(Steal this Idea)
 
2003-07-06 09:28:36 AM  
I agree mercy, I do the same, if I download an artist and I like their music then chances are that I'll go out and buy the CD. I find that I can't really get the same quality on p2p dowloads. But what stops me a lot of the time is the $ cost of CD's. Way too much, and even with the "pay per song" idea, a lot of my CD's that I've made with p2p have about 20 to 25 tracks. I'm not going to pay $25 either. Sorry RIAA, the genie is out of the bottle and it's a little late to try and stuff it back in now... they should have tried to find an equitable solution to p2p sharing when the whole napster thing started.
 
2003-07-06 09:29:52 AM  
There is no moral high ground here. I dont give a poop about the RIAA and Hillary Rosen.

Say it with me - "We acknowledge that we are stealing music. We don't really care that we are stealing music. We wont buy any complete CD that we can get from a P2P sharing service. We will only buy CD's that aren't available or are so obscure that nobody is sharing them. The only reason we are doing this is because Free is Good.
 
2003-07-06 09:32:36 AM  
What I'd like to know is how the hell do they plan on actually watching and analyzing all the p2p traffic? That can't be an easy (or cheap) task if it is even really feasible at all. Have they ever actually said how? Or does anybody have any idea how? Personally I think it's a bluff. I guess we'll see.
 
2003-07-06 09:34:05 AM  
New rule:

All posters who support stealing music are required to identify their line of work and then explain how they would keep their jobs if all of their products or services were stolen, rather than paid for.
 
2003-07-06 09:34:44 AM  
Hey, I just had a novel idea. How about laws are created based on the feelings of the people? So if 60% of people smoke marijuana it's insane to make it legal. Same with file swapping. Just because something is illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong.

There are also millions of people worldwide that enjoy child pornography. So let's make that legal too. Idiot.
 
2003-07-06 09:34:49 AM  
Hey, I just had a novel idea. How about laws are created based on the feelings of the people? So if 60% of people smoke marijuana it's insane to make it legal. Same with file swapping. Just because something is illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong. Wait, sorry, the drugs are wearing off. WE MUST MAKE LAWS BASED ON WHAT THE ALLMIGHTY CORPORATIONS SAY. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE BOTTOM DOLLAR. BOW TO YOUR ENTERTAINMENT MASTERS.

The majority is, often, stupid.
 
2003-07-06 09:37:50 AM  
"The peculiar character of an idea is that ... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me."
- Thomas Jefferson
 
2003-07-06 09:40:42 AM  
Semi-threadjack: I make my own boring synth-o-plop tunes which a few friends are kind enough to say they like, but I know the stuff will never sell. Because CDRs have a much shorter life expectancy than pro-made CDs I'm thinking of shelling out the cash just so my excrement might outlive me.

So far I haven't found any company that will make less than a 300-disc run (hello, coaster business) and they want around $800; that's without packaging & trays; just the discs. So that's what... approx $2.50 a disc? Now start adding in everything else: design, licensing, and oh yes, the musicians (ie the workforce) who for some reason want to get paid. Point being, what's a reasonable price for the average album on CD that might get a little more return than the money that was put into it? Ten bucks? Eight?

I don't know. But if I go through with my little project there will be at least one more (temporary) source of free crappy tunes...
 
2003-07-06 09:41:23 AM  
Let me prod again: How many more jobs would there be if it were entirely up to artists and recording companies to protect their own intellectual property, with engineering, P.R., or whatever, than by using judges and jailers (that you pay for)? And does anyone here think that P-Diddy gets paid just a teeny bit too much. (Bonus question: Why?)

To anyone that thinks these laws are necessary to sustain art and culture, I present to you: The Renaissance.
 
2003-07-06 09:41:45 AM  
For all you whiners saying that sharing MP3s is "stealing":

It's NOT!

It is copyright violation and there is a distinct difference. The US Copyright Code that deals with this issue does not mention the words 'steal' or 'stealing' even once.

The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. Industry freaked out when the audio cassette came out, they freaked out and tried to ban the VCR, etc.

RIAA is a dinosaur about to take it's last breath. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 
2003-07-06 09:42:12 AM  
Slight variation of HappyDaddy's comment:

All those that pirate the new music put out by [insert crappy pop band/person here] are required to identify their age group and explain how they can listen to this and not feel like clawing their ears off.
 
2003-07-06 09:42:21 AM  
aeschenkarnos

Nice quote. It's a non sequitur, but a nice quote nonetheless.
 
2003-07-06 09:45:18 AM  
HappyDaddy:

IT'S NOT STEALING!!!

When will you people get it through your thick skulls? If I steal something from you, you no longer have possession of that thing.

If I copy it then we both have the thing, and you haven't lost anything because of it. There's a huge difference. If I could copy my house and car for free, you bet your lifesavers I would do it.

But it ain't possible, so your "stealing" analogy is useless.
 
2003-07-06 09:46:20 AM  
volcano

That is a silly sematic argument, typical of those who lack a substantive one. Copyright violations are subject to criminal prosecution, because they are tantamount to theft. Face it, if you pirate music, you are thief.
 
2003-07-06 09:47:33 AM  
Boobiesontheside:

It's not stealing if i was never going buy it in the first place.

Um... No... It is stealing... It's just not lost potential revenue, as the payment (revenue) for the track(s)/record never existed nor would have existed...

It's like satellite piracy. There is no signal degradation from your theft, and if you wouldn't have paid for it anyways, any lost potential revenue claims are bogus. Cable theft actually costs money though, so those losses actually work.
 
2003-07-06 09:50:04 AM  
I located the missing "n" in semantic.

volcano

If I transcribed the new Harry Potter book and put it on the web for free access, would you not agree that those who downloaded it were stealing the property of the publisher?

I think that your problem is a failure to grasp the concept of intellectual property and the rights that adhere to it.
 
2003-07-06 09:51:23 AM  
happydaddy,

how would the harry potter book be any different than a cd? and why would that example change his arguement any?
 
2003-07-06 09:51:34 AM  
Hell, I never bought music cds before mp3s came around. Me and my 10,000+ mp3 collection just opened my eyes to thousands of artists I would have never heard before. If I like someone a LOT, meaning all the songs are worth hearing rather than filler substance, I will buy their cd. And if the RIAA can do anything about mp3s, which I seriously doubt, I STILL won't buy music cds.
 
2003-07-06 09:52:46 AM  
Darkhop :

These guys will duplicate less than 300... no minimum i dont think:

www.activedisc.com
 
2003-07-06 09:53:20 AM  
...forgot to close tag! sorry!
 
2003-07-06 09:53:58 AM  
Happy Daddy


How is downloading a song for preview's sake before buying a cd NOT a valid arguement? What the hell is the difference in snagging an MP3 of a band, or going to a local music store and listening to the cd on a listening wall? how is it different from going to a book store and reading the first 3 chapters or so of a book? if i don't buy the book/cd, the company's not getting money, but i did digest a couple of songs/chapters.
 
2003-07-06 09:54:11 AM  
So if p2p sharing is the reason that the music industry is going to shiat, why isn't the porn industry going down right behind it?
 
2003-07-06 09:55:10 AM  
No, it's not stealing. It is copyright violation. If it's just a silly semantic argument then why are there page after page of legislation to back it up?

US Copyright laws are archaic and outdated and will soon have to go through a radical change to accommodate the needs/desires of the people.

56 million people either don't care or don't agree with you, Hillary Rosen, and Jack Valenti. So the RIAA will go the way of the dinosaurs, and distribution of music will come from smaller, independent companies and artists who have to work harder to generate good content.

A good example is the band Phish, who openly encourage recording, sharing, and trading of their music. They still sell a ton of albums and have a very devoted fan base.
 
2003-07-06 09:56:23 AM  
madcharlie

OMG!!! That's bloody profound, if you think about it.
 
2003-07-06 09:56:36 AM  
HappyDaddy

well, get the national guard, army, marines, etc. in this country quick! enact martial law! we've got to arrest 20% of the entire nation quick!
 
2003-07-06 09:56:50 AM  
YAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNN...*smack*

Wake me up when the McRib comes back. I burned a CD of SWEE-TAH McDonald's jingles I downloaded....oh shiat...is THAT stealing? Who am I stealing from now?? Ron??

(puts on headphones already blaring download of Max Headroom and Art of Noise)
 
2003-07-06 09:58:21 AM  
also, whatever happened to RIAA's war on radio? after all, who needs to buy a craptacular cd of a craptacular band if the one good song on that craptacular cd is on the radio?
 
2003-07-06 09:58:39 AM  
You know what is going to wind up happening in the very near future? They'll start pointing the finger at the ISPs and make them responsible for policing this kind of activity. It's trivial for your ISP to set up a filter that blocks this kind of stuff. There will *always* be a way around any kind of filters that are put in place, but they'll make it so inconvenient to get around the filters that 95% of this kind of thing will grind to a halt. Quickly. You heard it here first...
 
2003-07-06 09:59:13 AM  
downstairs, thanks, I hadn't seen that one.
 
2003-07-06 10:01:06 AM  
stevarooni

The old way, of retaining intellectual property? Sure, that might make them "dinosaurs", but it doesn't mean that stealing from them becomes right.


Um, yes it does.

Viva la revolution~ :)
 
2003-07-06 10:01:26 AM  
Shaggie

doesnt really matter, nobodys going to buy a cd anymore anyways...

i mean, i dont give a crap if that song i like is on a cd for $20!

/havent bought a single cd since 1997
 
2003-07-06 10:02:32 AM  
Hey, I just had a novel idea. How about laws are created based on the feelings of the people? So if 60% of people smoke marijuana it's insane to make it legal. Same with file swapping. Just because something is illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong.

I suppose you support slavery and Jim Crow laws in the time that the majority of people were for them.
 
2003-07-06 10:03:33 AM  
Shaggie:

Never happen. Broadband customers are the BREAD and BUTTER of many ISPs and they are loathe to do something like that to their customers.

Most people get broadband just to download movies and music.

This is good for ISPs and computer companies. Although they will never publicly admit it, companies like Dell and Gateway like it that people want to download movies and music. It means they sell more computers, CD burners, Mp3 players, etc.
 
2003-07-06 10:03:36 AM  
madcharlie: Major difference in sizes there me bucko-

Average "decent" (128kbps 44Khz) MP3 size: 4 MB

Average "decent" (Divx5 @ 1000Kbps 640x480, MP3 @ 96Kbps) 30-min porn movie size: 225MB video + 21MB audio= 246MB

Not everyone has broadband you know...

But I do ;)
 
2003-07-06 10:04:51 AM  
OK, I'll follow HappyDaddy's new rule.

Composite molding. Fortunately I don't have a problem with people trying to download car hoods and installing them on their vehicles.

(I don't even have a problem with people trying to sneak into my plant and steal them physically in the middle of the night, because word's gotten around that I'll run them down with a forklift. Apparently they'd rather ditch the hood than be crushed. Go figure.)
 
2003-07-06 10:05:03 AM  
HappyDaddy


volcano

That is a silly sematic argument, typical of those who lack a substantive one. Copyright violations are subject to criminal prosecution, because they are tantamount to theft. Face it, if you pirate music, you are thief.


NARK!
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report