RIAA lawsuits, Unfair, unjust, and communist. Options

[sikdragon]

I just did some research finally and found out that the RIAA is only sueing people who shared more than 1000 files.
I was under the impression if it was people who had a lot of music on their computer. Don't you feel a lot safer now?

[*kryogenix*]

yes. because fewer people will pirate music now.

piracy is bad, people need to eat.

[sikdragon]

piracy is bad, sharing music isnt.

[queen]

i don't understand how it's communist. riaa sueing individuals is more of an example of capitalist greed ;o

[sikdragon]

lol in the 50's everything bad was red.

[*lolita kitty*]

uhm im not understanding
hah

[xl0vejunkiix]

much better.
well i dont really dowload music like i used to.. it sucks that they are doing that. they earn enough money as it is, i dont get it.

[inlonelinessidie]

i don't understand how it's communist.  riaa sueing individuals is more of an example of capitalist greed ;o

Yeah, I still don't understand how communism got into this topic. Anyhow, I too was under the impression that whomever had a ton of music on their computer were going to be sued. I guess we've been had. Don't you love how they used fear to stop most people from downloading a ton of music?

[sikdragon]

yup, this country is so messed up.

[angel-roh]

that's messed up... that's reallie messed up... RIAA sux... hehe well good thing i dont have more than 1000 whew... but ayy... i thought singers became a singer just to share their voice and just to get money, right?? i mean i wanted to be a singer so ppls can listen to my voice and become famous and such... T_T well i guess there is a lot of selfish singers out there sigh

[sikdragon]

its not even the singers it is their representatives who tell the singers what their interests are.

[Caustic]

that's messed up... that's reallie messed up... RIAA sux... hehe well good thing i dont have more than 1000 whew... but ayy... i thought singers became a singer just to share their voice and just to get money, right?? i mean i wanted to be a singer so ppls can listen to my voice and become famous and such... T_T well i guess there is a lot of selfish singers out there sigh

Singers don't become singers to get their music stolen.

[MasterNe0]

I don't care for the RIAA. Some ISP Providers like VERIZON DSL are fighting the RIAA since RIAA are breaking people privacy and will not give the RIAA verizon users address or anything. They still in court and been fighting and fighting so no worries for me.

[*kryogenix*]

piracy is bad, sharing music isnt.

breaking copyright laws is bad.

that's messed up... that's reallie messed up... RIAA sux... hehe well good thing i dont have more than 1000 whew... but ayy... i thought singers became a singer just to share their voice and just to get money, right?? i mean i wanted to be a singer so ppls can listen to my voice and become famous and such... T_T well i guess there is a lot of selfish singers out there sigh

singers have to eat too.

[*tweeak*]

Singers don't become singers to get their music stolen.

its not stolen because people arent taking credit for the music themselves. the way music has become so overpriced has made people not want to pay for it, hence, downloading.

and if they have to eat, they can either get another job like everyone who hasnt made it big yet or move back in with their parents =D

sorry, i feel no sympathy for the "singers" who get their music "stolen" because they make more than enough money as it is, and they should sing not for money but because they love it

and, uh, communism??! pshh

[*kryogenix*]

its not stolen because people arent taking credit for the music themselves. the way music has become so overpriced has made people not want to pay for it, hence, downloading.

and if they have to eat, they can either get another job like everyone who hasnt made it big yet or move back in with their parents =D

sorry, i feel no sympathy for the "singers" who get their music "stolen" because they make more than enough money as it is, and they should sing not for money but because they love it

and, uh, communism??! pshh

that argument is weak.

So what if they make enough money? What about the smaller bands, unsigned bands, etc.? Do you realize how discouraging it is to new artists? they put in their sweat and blood into creating an album, only to have some 10 year old girl download it for free. And did you know they have to spend a lot of money too? The record label takes a lot of money away from the artist.

[nyctophiliac]

i don't understand this? lol

[*corizzle20*]

i dont understand this either

[shawty_redd]

oh i thought it was anyone that just downloaded alot.
man do i feel alot better now

[*Podomaht*]

that argument is weak.

So what if they make enough money? What about the smaller bands, unsigned bands, etc.? Do you realize how discouraging it is to new artists? they put in their sweat and blood into creating an album, only to have some 10 year old girl download it for free. And did you know they have to spend a lot of money too? The record label takes a lot of money away from the artist.

Most of it nowadays isn't really "sweat" and "blood."

Just them sucking in air. Yes, it does take away money, but the bigger bands don't even wince about losing that money lost in recording.

Smaller bands get support from companys.

RIAA needs to remove the dildo from their ass'.

[*kryogenix*]

no, the pirates should stop pirating music.

the "they make a lot of money anyway" argument doesn't work. [sarcasm]I decide I'll kill a few people. since there's a lot of people in the world, it's not like it would matter. [/sarcasm]

[queen]

its not stolen because people arent taking credit for the music themselves. the way music has become so overpriced has made people not want to pay for it, hence, downloading.

it's still a violation of copyright law. under the digital millenium copyright act of 1998, it's forbidden to duplicate digital audio (the original copyright laws already protect any audio and video from being duplicated without permission, the dmca just extended that protection onto the internet). any .mp3 or .rm or any other media filetypes for that matter are simply DUPLICATES.

and there ARE people out there who dl instrumentals just to record their own uglyass vocal chords on top of them. it's great to express your creativity in that way, but it's still a disrespect to the music artists out there.

it's a very delicate issue since americans want freedom of speech AND protection of their works.

...and isn't there already a topic about this under debate? ;o

[*tweeak*]

that argument is weak.

So what if they make enough money? What about the smaller bands, unsigned bands, etc.? Do you realize how discouraging it is to new artists? they put in their sweat and blood into creating an album, only to have some 10 year old girl download it for free. And did you know they have to spend a lot of money too? The record label takes a lot of money away from the artist.

perhaps it was a weak argument, and i am fully aware that record companies take a large amount of the profit, but half the music these days is completely synthetic and so the "artists" hardly have to put forth much effort. take britney spears for example. all her new music is completely synthetic and computerized and she barely even sounds human. compare that to her older albums, and as produced as they may be, you can tell the difference between what has been processed and what she actually sang. the people who work behinds the scene are the ones who really deserve the credit, because what are singers these days beside pretty faces anyway? and ashlee simpson. have you heard her live?? ahhh!!! but so if these artist who supposedly worked so hard to put their sweat and blood into their albums can no longer profit, then they can find another way to make a living just like everyone else. the smaller, unsigned bands should be well aware that they cannot count fully on their undiscovered music to support them, and downloading my actually be a good way for them to get their music out there and noticed. the useless britney and ashlee simpson types deserve nothing more than what profit they recieve, and i would not pay anything more than the $1.99 a month my win-mx costs me to hear their over produced singing. bands with talent who deserve for people to buy their albums are less commonly found on music sharing programs and so i end up buying their cds anyway. also, half the music listening i do is while im on the computer anyway, so its far easier to have all my music in one place than to look for discs. and as good a potential idea paying for download songs is, its not practical because what if you discover the song isnt what you thought it was? or your parents wont let you pay for stuff on the internet, like mine? downloading full albums may not be right, but if you only want a few songs then its the only way to go that makes sense

[faithin_felix]

nope, because i dont share files.

[DesperateXMeasur...]

You are quite the random one, aren't you?

[tofumonzter]

perhaps it was a weak argument, and i am fully aware that record companies take a large amount of the profit, but half the music these days is completely synthetic and so the "artists" hardly have to put forth much effort. take britney spears for example. all her new music is completely synthetic and computerized and she barely even sounds human. compare that to her older albums, and as produced as they may be, you can tell the difference between what has been processed and what she actually sang. the people who work behinds the scene are the ones who really deserve the credit, because what are singers these days beside pretty faces anyway? and ashlee simpson. have you heard her live?? ahhh!!! but so if these artist who supposedly worked so hard to put their sweat and blood into their albums can no longer profit, then they can find another way to make a living just like everyone else. the smaller, unsigned bands should be well aware that they cannot count fully on their undiscovered music to support them, and downloading my actually be a good way for them to get their music out there and noticed. the useless britney and ashlee simpson types deserve nothing more than what profit they recieve, and i would not pay anything more than the $1.99 a month my win-mx costs me to hear their over produced singing. bands with talent who deserve for people to buy their albums are less commonly found on music sharing programs and so i end up buying their cds anyway. also, half the music listening i do is while im on the computer anyway, so its far easier to have all my music in one place than to look for discs. and as good a potential idea paying for download songs is, its not practical because what if you discover the song isnt what you thought it was? or your parents wont let you pay for stuff on the internet, like mine? downloading full albums may not be right, but if you only want a few songs then its the only way to go that makes sense

althought they might sing bad, but you don't really have to buy them to listen, otherword, you don't have to listen since they sing bad. well, they sing bad, but that doesn't mean that you'll have to download the songs.

it's like making skins. if the skin is bad, you still can't jock, because they are not yours.





- moved to debate -

[ComradeRed]

The RIAA is only suing people who SHARED files, because IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO DOWNLOAD FILES.

The reason it is illegal to share is because you commit a breach of contract. When you download a file, you never agree to the contract when you buy music that says you will not pirate in the first place. Therefore, they CANNOT sue you just for downloading.

So just turn "share files" off on your Kazaa, and you will be fine ^_^.

[queen]

The RIAA is only suing people who SHARED files, because IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO DOWNLOAD FILES.

The reason it is illegal to share is because you commit a breach of contract. When you download a file, you never agree to the contract when you buy music that says you will not pirate in the first place. Therefore, they CANNOT sue you just for downloading.

So just turn "share files" off on your Kazaa, and you will be fine ^_^.

erm, it's illegal to dl music FOR FREE, the same way it's illegal to download photoshop FOR FREE. there were a couple of people that were sued for "downloading". duh duh duh duh duh.

[ComradeRed]

No, it's technically not illegal to download... you never agreed to an EULA that said you agree not to upload.

The term downloading was used in place of uploading, which is really waht the people were charged with... Look at the actual court records.

[ryfitaDF]

Singers don't become singers to get their music stolen.

all the respectible ones give it out for free. pigs like metallica are in it for money.

[queen]

No, it's technically not illegal to download... you never agreed to an EULA that said you agree not to upload.

technically not illegal? do you live in canada or finland? downloading copyrighted music in AMERICA is illegal. you do realize that when you DOWNLOAD an mp3, you're essentially making a COPY of it aka REPRODUCTION. it's illegal to DUPLICATE/REPRODUCE and DISTRIBUTE copyrighted music.

http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html

all the respectible ones give it out for free. pigs like metallica are in it for money.

i can understand envisioning a carefree sharing world, but america's a capitalist nation. people come here to fulfill their dreams, that, believe or not, are money-based. if you want to live in a world where no one makes the profits they're entitled to, move to a communist/socialist country.

[ComradeRed]

technically not illegal? do you live in canada or finland? downloading copyrighted music in AMERICA is illegal. you do realize that when you DOWNLOAD an mp3, you're essentially making a COPY of it aka REPRODUCTION. it's illegal to DUPLICATE/REPRODUCE and DISTRIBUTE copyrighted music.

Yes... it is illegal to DUPLICATE or DISTRIBUTE it... but when someone else duplicates it FOR YOU, and you just download it, THEY are the ones doing illegal activity -- not you.

[queen]

Yes... it is illegal to DUPLICATE or DISTRIBUTE it... but when someone else duplicates it FOR YOU, and you just download it, THEY are the ones doing illegal activity -- not you.

by downloading you're already duplicating ;o

if it wasn't illegal, why are there sites to PAY for copyright music?

[ComradeRed]

You aren't duplicating... Someone else is duplicatying to give to you.

[tofumonzter]

You aren't duplicating... Someone else is duplicatying to give to you.

no. there's only one music on that guy computer and you by downloading the duplicate make another duplicate, and listen to the duplicate you made with the original duplicate. get it?

[sikdragon]

all the respectible ones give it out for free. pigs like metallica are in it for money.

That is soo wrong... Metallica only sued cuz the album that was stolen wasnt even out yet, they didnt even have all the songs down.

no. there's only one music on that guy computer and you by downloading the duplicate make another duplicate, and listen to the duplicate you made with the original duplicate. get it? 

Whistle all you want. Kazaa takes that one copy on the sharers computer and copies it, when you click download it sends you the copy. Then they copy another one after that so on and so forth. besides kazaa is run by ads so they arent doing anything worse than those who charge for music. Thus lawsuits are aimed at those who put the files shared on. It's all a matter of fear put in the hearts of the young to further increment youth enslavement.

Downloaded music isnt stolen, one party sold it to another and then let another party borrow it. The artists aren't losing money, if someone isnt willing to buy it in the first place then the artist wouldn't gain anything but a deaf ear. With free music on the internet people are listening to more than their single and are enjoying the music to the point of being moved to buy their next album. RIAA is criminal, but yet we do live in a capitalist country and they have found a new way to make money. Although i do not agree with their motives nor their actions, i must applaud them. they have made court cases that have no bearing on race or gender cards being played on good employers.

[queen]

Whistle all you want. Kazaa takes that one copy on the sharers computer and copies it, when you click download it sends you the copy. Then they copy another one after that so on and so forth. besides kazaa is run by ads so they arent doing anything worse than those who charge for music. Thus lawsuits are aimed at those who put the files shared on. It's all a matter of fear put in the hearts of the young to further increment youth enslavement.

Downloaded music isnt stolen, one party sold it to another and then let another party borrow it.

we're not just talking about kazaa here ;o. when someone puts a link to an mp3 on their site, and another someone right clicks and saves as, that person just duplicated the file. yes, the person who linked the mp3 is at fault, but so is the person who saved the file. how are you not understanding that? you take the file, yet you claim no responsibility for your actions? lol gj.

[*kryogenix*]

That is soo wrong... Metallica only sued cuz the album that was stolen wasnt even out yet, they didnt even have all the songs down.




Whistle all you want. Kazaa takes that one copy on the sharers computer and copies it, when you click download it sends you the copy. Then they copy another one after that so on and so forth. besides kazaa is run by ads so they arent doing anything worse than those who charge for music. Thus lawsuits are aimed at those who put the files shared on. It's all a matter of fear put in the hearts of the young to further increment youth enslavement.

Downloaded music isnt stolen, one party sold it to another and then let another party borrow it. The artists aren't losing money, if someone isnt willing to buy it in the first place then the artist wouldn't gain anything but a deaf ear. With free music on the internet people are listening to more than their single and are enjoying the music to the point of being moved to buy their next album. RIAA is criminal, but yet we do live in a capitalist country and they have found a new way to make money. Although i do not agree with their motives nor their actions, i must applaud them. they have made court cases that have no bearing on race or gender cards being played on good employers.

No, according to the DMCA, if you download an unauthorized copy off of a file sharing network, you've broken the law.

DMCA Violations

You could violate federal copyright law if:

    * Somebody e-mails copyrighted material to you and, in turn, you forward it to one or more friends.
    * You make an MP3 copy of a song from a CD that you bought (purchasers are expressly permitted to do so) but subsequently make the MP3 file(s) available on the Internet using a file-sharing network.
    * You join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of copyrighted material you want from the computers of other network members.
    * To gain access to copyrighted material on the computers of other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing network that is not authorized to distribute or make copies of the copyrighted material. You then download unauthorized material.
    * You transfer copyrighted material using an instant messaging service.
    * You have a computer with a CD burner that you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs which you then distribute to your friends.

Source: http://iatservices.missouri.edu/dmca/

So it is against the law.

[ryfitaDF]

That is soo wrong... Metallica only sued cuz the album that was stolen wasnt even out yet, they didnt even have all the songs down.

their are bands who put their music up for download weeks before they come out. i've been listening to songs from the new Used CD that's supposed to come out soon for months now.

[tofumonzter]

their are bands who put their music up for download weeks before they come out. i've been listening to songs from the new Used CD that's supposed to come out soon for months now.

those are exceptions. but i don't think all bands give up freesongs do they?

[sikdragon]

their are bands who put their music up for download weeks before they come out. i've been listening to songs from the new Used CD that's supposed to come out soon for months now.

Metallica hadn't even written all the songs for their new album yet. The front man doesn't care if people download their stuff, he just wants it to be complete versions.

No, according to the DMCA, if you download an unauthorized copy off of a file sharing network, you've broken the law.

Is the DMCA part of the legislature? If they wanna go to court and sue somebody so be it. When they do we will see who is right and who is wrong.

[*kryogenix*]

Is the DMCA part of the legislature? If they wanna go to court and sue somebody so be it. When they do we will see who is right and who is wrong.

Just because someone doesn't sue you doesn't mean you did nothing wrong. If you commit a crime and get away with it, you still have commited a crime.

Don't you people feel guilty at all? You are stealing, maybe almost every day, maybe now thousands of dollars worth of software, music or movies, and no one feels guilty?

wow, what ever happened to moral values?

[ryfitaDF]

Metallica hadn't even written all the songs for their new album yet. The front man doesn't care if people download their stuff, he just wants it to be complete versions.

oooh so they sue their fans because they're not stealing the right stuff?

those are exceptions. but i don't think all bands give up freesongs do they?

they should. it actually is good self promotion and practicly the same thing as the radio or MTV.

[tofumonzter]

they should. it actually is good self promotion and practicly the same thing as the radio or MTV.

hmm. i don't think i'm asking if they should, and this topic is not asking about should they or not. it's about riaa lawsuit.

not everysingle bands are free for you to download. but mostly they do have copyright and blah.

well. i don't think that MTV and radios just download the songs from the internet do they? or do they not?

[sikdragon]

Is it wrong for someone to rip you off and make you believe you want something while you have never actually got to try it out?

[queen]

Is it wrong for someone to rip you off and make you believe you want something while you have never actually got to try it out?

hi, we're in america. sadly this happens everyday in every shape or form.

[ryfitaDF]

well. i don't think that MTV and radios just download the songs from the internet do they? or do they not?

theres this thing on MTV.com called the leak where they let you listen to a band's entire CD weeks before it comes out. and many bands with forthcoming albums on roadrunner records have e-cards where you can' listen to their CD in it's entirety. i know that's how i figured i wanted to get Killswitch Engage's "the end of heartache"

[tofumonzter]

theres this thing on MTV.com called the leak where they let you listen to a band's entire CD weeks before it comes out. and many bands with forthcoming albums on roadrunner records have e-cards where you can' listen to their CD in it's entirety. i know that's how i figured i wanted to get Killswitch Engage's "the end of heartache"

but then again. i wonder if they really let you "download" it or just listen to it "online"

[sikdragon]

hi, we're in america. sadly this happens everyday in every shape or form.

and we have found a way to test drive the cd's before we buy them... file sharing is not wrong.

[*kryogenix*]

and we have found a way to test drive the cd's before we buy them... file sharing is not wrong.

is it alright to test drive a car when the dealer says you can't?

you can borrow a friend's car and test drive that, but you can't hijack someone else's car and drive that around.

[sikdragon]

But the music is already bought and paid for, it's like having your friend let you borrow his car.

Are you saying borrowing CD's from your friend is not just illegal but wrong?????

what about lending a book to someone to read?

what about answering machines? are they wrong because you can screen your calls? What about caller ID?

Is something wrong with lending video games to your friends?

Is sparing a cup of sugar for a neighbor immoral?

What about listening to your radio outside? The other listeners didnt pay for the music.

Are we not allowed to watch movies at our friend's house because we didnt pay for them?

would it be wrong to wear a t-shirt that had a funny message on it because someone else might see it and think it was funny too?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???????????????????????????????????????

[scleex88]

IM SAFE!

[queen]

But the music is already bought and paid for, it's like having your friend let you borrow his car.

Are you saying borrowing CD's from your friend is not just illegal but wrong?????

what about lending a book to someone to read?

what about answering machines? are they wrong because you can screen your calls? What about caller ID?

Is something wrong with lending video games to your friends?

Is sparing a cup of sugar for a neighbor immoral?

What about listening to your radio outside? The other listeners didnt pay for the music.

Are we not allowed to watch movies at our friend's house because we didnt pay for them?

would it be wrong to wear a t-shirt that had a funny message on it because someone else might see it and think it was funny too?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???????????????????????????????????????

we're not talking about what's morally "wrong" or "right"; we're talking about what's illegal and what's not. you do know it's illegal to make photocopies of books? some teachers do it to give out in class, but you're only legally allowed to photocopy a limited number. which is why my college INSISTS on every student to purchase our own books so they don't get sued by the textbook companies.

and as i stated earlier, audio and video is different from the other copywrited works. for example:
once you buy a hand crafted designer chair, it's yours. you can paint over it, resell it, take it apart and use the pieces for some other piece of furniture.

"except for sound recordings and computer programs, once a copy has been sold, the purchaser may resell or rent a copy of the work without permission from the copyright owner" - world book encyclopedia, under "copyright"

you ever wonder why those hidden camera people get away with distributing tapes of innocent people undressing, using the bathroom, etc? it's because it has no audio. technically, they're not doing anything illegal by distributing the film. an .mp3 is a piece of audio. so are movies... unless you take away the sound ;x

[sikdragon]

but they arent reselling or renting.

you cant get sued for photocopying a book for private use.

[tofumonzter]

but they arent reselling or renting.

you cant get sued for photocopying a book for private use.

maybe the mp3 that you are downloading is public?

[sikdragon]

you mean isn't, well then that is a seperate matter, if the artist has no problem with it then it is not wrong.

[waccoon]

maybe the mp3 that you are downloading is public?

If you arent distributing it to other people, it's personal use

[*kryogenix*]

you mean isn't, well then that is a seperate matter, if the artist has no problem with it then it is not wrong.

if the artist doesn't press charges, you won't get in trouble, but it doesn't make it legal.

[sikdragon]

It does to, if the artist has no problem with it then it is legal.

[*kryogenix*]

It does to, if the artist has no problem with it then it is legal.

It would be like if a store owner saw you stealing their product, but didn't stop you. Illegal, just that you didn't get in trouble for it.

[sikdragon]

If the offended party in this country does not press charges it is legal.

[waccoon]

If the offended party in this country does not press charges it is legal.

Untrue.
If you go outside and shoot somebody, but nobody stopped you - Is it legal? You got away with it, it doesn't make it legal. If it were legal, then other people wouldn't have been charged.

[waccoon]

what about lending a book to someone to read?

Books are yours once you buy them, you can do anything with them, deface them in any way you wish.

what about answering machines? are they wrong because you can screen your calls? What about caller ID?

I don't see how this is related to the topic.

Is something wrong with lending video games to your friends?

Is sparing a cup of sugar for a neighbor immoral?

Those are different from what's being discussed, video games and groceries aren't copyrighted.

What about listening to your radio outside? The other listeners didnt pay for the music.

Are they storing the music onto their own stuff?

[sikdragon]

Whose side are you on?

Untrue.
If you go outside and shoot somebody, but nobody stopped you - Is it legal? You got away with it, it doesn't make it legal. If it were legal, then other people wouldn't have been charged.

Hey that has nothing to do with what i said. Shooting somebody is completely different. The offended party is dead and cannot choose to not press charges. If they could you would still get in trouble for discharging a fire arm within city limits.
Shooting somebody has different restrictions.


All of those are examples using the same idea as file sharing.

[*kryogenix*]

Hey that has nothing to do with what i said. Shooting somebody is completely different. The offended party is dead and cannot choose to not press charges. If they could you would still get in trouble for discharging a fire arm within city limits.
Shooting somebody has different restrictions.

Are you saying that if you shoot and kill someone, no one can press charges? The family of the victim or the state can, correct?

Is something wrong with lending video games to your friends?

Is sparing a cup of sugar for a neighbor immoral?

Nothing's wrong with that. But the thing is, you can't have the videogame in your possession at the same time. Nor can you give the one tablespoon left of sugar to your neighbor, and use that same sugar to bake a cake. Intellectual property should be treated like material property.

[sikdragon]

That's the state.



Ok what about a game like sim city 2000? you can download it and you dont need the disc to play it. the game is essentially still in your possession.

[*kryogenix*]

That's the state.



Ok what about a game like sim city 2000? you can download it and you dont need the disc to play it. the game is essentially still in your possession.

what about the liscence for the game?

[sikdragon]

what about it?

[*kryogenix*]

what about it?

the person who purchases the game has the licensce to use the game. if you download it, you do not have the software licensce for it. This is illegal.