Actually, that would be perfect really.
I've got way more music than $3000 worth. I'd actually still be saving money.

wtf. you like more than 3 grand in music? wow i would never be bored then..l theres like a dozen bands i like tops and they are 80's

25% of my family have hemorrhoids...

The other 75% are just plain a s s h o l e s.

roflmao..

At least someone has this topic in perspective. :p

the other 75% dont know they are even sharing music

95% of students backlash at the music industry for employing these underhanded tactics.

The RIAA would look a whole lot better if they just reframed from speaking. Because every time they do they look more and more like jack asses.

Ok, for all of you confused, download what you want. Enjoy it all. JUST DON'T SHARE YOUR STUFF! You leach, you don't get in trouble, you share, you do!

i leech 95% of the time. i share only when i download a large torrent that has less than a dozen seeds because i feel i should contribute my thanks to peering me that wonderful movie i just downloaded.

the real loophole is with usenet. i get almost all movies and music there. riaa seems oblivious to those services. hopefully usenet never becomes the popular main trend or its going get shut down

Okay, I have question. Let's say I have a bunch of 45 records of songs from the 80's (OK, I do, but that's not the point). So at some point in the last 90's I downloaded those MP3's. So am I still stealing since I originally paid for those 45 records?

No dimwit. No one is going after you for ripping the songs to your iPod for you to listen to them!

The problem is when you distribute these songs to others who have NOT paid for them!

GET IT????

The fact that you paid for them for your use does not give you the right to Redistribute the songs to Others who have not paid the owners of the material to use them! (And your buying the record only granted you the right to listen to the files - it does not grant you ownership of the material itself. Just like a copy of software!)

Sit down and reread this very slowly.

Why is this such a complicated subject for so many astute college kids to get? DUH?????

Dude, he asked a civil question and with all the FUD being spread, it was actually a decent one.

For once, someone actually wanted to know what was legal and asked the question on a forum where such things were being discussed.

...and you call him names and slam the door in his face.

A simple, "No, that's legal, it's when you distribute those files via P2P that it becomes a violation of the content owner's rights" would have sufficed, man.

foxfyre, stop being an a-hole. kprovance, as far as I know the RIAA considers downloading to be illegal regardless of whether you already bought the albums or not (perhaps because sharing them is illegal and you are participating in that crime by downloading them). I don't know how that would hold up in court though since hardly anyone will stand up to the RIAA when challenged.

they can technically hold you to having a higher quality mp3 then the originals you had, BUT... they dont really care enough to do so, and in fact they would have to prove that you didnt just use a very high quality record player and recording suite to do so. there are alot of such technicalities. once i was downloading knights of the nine for oblivion, cause i had the disk but my drive kicked the bucket the day before, and comcast sent me a letter telling me to stop yadda yadda yadda, all i did was tell them that it was within my rights as i owned the cd already and had a receipt to prove it if they needed it. they told me they didnt and to carry on.

Since kprovance 'legally' downloaded the music from others that were sharing (redistributing) because he/she already owns media that was purchased with those songs on them, what's to say that others that download from kprovance won't also legally download the music, as well? Doesn't the RIAA have to prove that the music that gets downloaded from kprovance is being illegally redistributed as opposed to being redistributed to those that already have those songs on some legally purchase media, such as records or tapes?

Nope.
There is no legal user DISTRIBUTION!

No one is suing anyone over simply downloading material for their own use.

They have pursued the distribution of material.

Point taken.

If that was meant as a Legitimate question as opposed to just another "so what is wrong with..." style rhetorical question that is the norm regarding 'anything DRM'...then I owe you an apology!

I'se sorry.

What a rarity, someone who does not know actually asking a question instead of displaying their ignorance as they delude themselves into thinking they have point. And the subject of DRM brings them out in spades.

3K? $750 per song? Where do they get these figures? No wonder Phil Spector can afford to live in mansion and buy a new Rolls whenever he likes, despite not having had a hit for a couple of decades. Sheesh!

Ironically, all of Phil Spector's cash is now going to his legal defense on charges of murder in his upcoming trial!

What's the lesson? Buy music legally and people end up dead! LOL Ah, the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. Fredo's a lawyer, too. Go figure.

As long as the fact that these cases are extremely difficult to prove in court does not become common knowledge people will give in. This includes the ones that actually are guilty of uploading songs.

Proving which public IP address was used to upload music is not hard, even linking it to a computer is not insurmountable (except where there was a wireless network with open access) but proving that a specific user uploaded music is nearly impossible. Even the likelihood of another user being responsible (open wireless network, or your PC is pwn'ed by a trojan) is enough to torpedo their case against you. You would have to give them the evidence with which to win a case against you. They could not get it on their own. A college environment in a Dorm typically has multiple people having access to a computer. They have to PROVE that it was your computer, then they have to prove it was you that did it. Unlike an Automobile a computer owner is not automatically liable for damages committed with your computer unless it can be proved that you knew and allowed the damage.

So all in all it is a much more satisfactory result for the RIAA to scare the students into settling. It is a positive cashflow in the ledger book and it helps to set a pattern for their marketing folks to use.

If you people would follow our Chinese example and simply not buy from legitimate vendors the RIAA would not have the money/clout they have in your countries.

It's MUCH harder to find an expensive 'from the studio' CD/DVD here than to buy a reasonably priced one. Reasonable being about US$1 for a CD and US$2 for a DVD

See how many lawyers they can afford at those prices. Ha!

lmao..

If you don't like the law, just ignore it.

Nice.

How's that working for those Chinese folk, eh? More laws, tougher punishment, rampant government restrictions on business and free speech.... Hey, come to think of it, perhaps wee *are* heading in that direction...

Tell us more about the local government corruption which even the central government decries. And the problems with everything from toxic environmental pollution, sexual preference birth control, land 'reform' cronism, and all of the other techniques used by local corrupt politicians to screw business and the people.

Yup, its a great system. Of course, then you have to ban the news organizations from reporting the deaths that have resulted from the beatings and subsequent killing of those little citizens who have the audacity to stand up to the corrupt local government. Of course, that only applies to those who do not live in a major city whose entire water has been poisoned and the 'minor' inconvenience not reported to the people.

Care to go into more detail. I can....

Me Chinese, me play joke, me put peepee in your coke lol

ugh are you still around?

So these stories never go into the 75% that don't give in. Are they fighting? hiring attorneys? not responding? WHat exactly are they doing? That seems like a far more interesting part of this story.

Excellent point. Why is it that "25% Give In" and not "75% Refuse to Give In"?

Ridiculous.

Hmm, they say sharing is illegal, eh? Well, I guess I Could aCt as a vendor and start selling the musiC :P

Yeah, you do that.

Let us know how that works out for ya, eh? I hear they get high-speed internet in prison now-a-days.

Ouch, the stupid, it burns! Obviously, your prison buddies told you wrong. You never actually read what you write, do you? You make no sense. Ever.

***Found later that day, pc tool doa in cell block 4***

cb4 where ya at?
cb4 where ya at?

(You can feel the..)
Sweat from my balls!

For god's sake, man. Get some counseling.

Sooner or later some Law student is going to get one and then maybe the injustice of the RIAA's tactics will get exposed for all to see. At least some schools are already refusing to pay intermediary for the RIAA.

There should be a class action suit on behalf of everyone that has settled demanding damages for the violation of their right to due process.

What right was violated? Their right to a trial? They gave that up when they settled.

Lets see here...I'm a student making about $1000 a month, some big rich company says to me, give us $3000 or we'll take you to court for many thousands more, and even if you win your lawyers will cost more then $3k.

Yea I can see where the student will want to fight it. Stop going after poor students and sue someone with money, then see what percentage settles.

I'm not a student (anymore) but no matter how pissed it would make me, the smart thing to do would be to settle, even if I've never downloaded a song in my life.

the smart thing to do would be to settle, even if I've never downloaded a song in my life.

Wrong. It is possible to recover legal fees, it is even possible to hire attorney's without paying them prior to a case being tried.

The smart thing to do when you are not guilty is to fight it. Every time. The fact that very few do doesn't mean it can't be done, it most likely means they knew they were guilty to begin with.

Most college students, at least in my experience, aren't complete idiots.

Actually, PC, they don't give up their rights to a class action. If someone intimidates another party away from their legal rights, those legal rights can be reinstated.

I love it. The same illogic applied to the solution as to the cause!

So the problem is that a law STUDENT has not gotten a letter? The act that a student may have gotten a lawyer was not sufficient! But a law Student is the answer!

Just what DO you do with the books you are supposed to buy? Use them to prop up your monitor?
Or do you use them to raise your chair sufficiently for you to reach the keyboard?

"Most college students, at least in my experience, aren't complete idiots."

Hahaha!
You'll have to convince me!

Judging from their assessment of the cause of the problem (of course its the RIAA, and Not the students' actions!), and of the their knowledge(sic) of how the legal system works, and of their options to avoid being charged in the first place as opposed to the their incessant rant of the 'entitled', I get the feeling that they haven't a clue.

In fact, they can't even figure out how to use Torpark and portable Firefox to avoid be tracked while illegally sharing files!

These guys make the Watergate burglars look like real wizards!

How were they intimidated? Settle, or go to court is common practice in law.

They've got nothing.

For most people, the threat of "settle or go to court" by the RIAA is little more than extortion, and last I checked, their activities might just constitute racketeering. Of course, they've probably bribed their way out of that with someone in D.C.

I find the hipocrisy of the media conglomerates staggering, they go after YouTube for infringement yet don't sue the colleges that provide the networks that the students are using to "infringe"...

By the arguments given, simply providing a network connection to the internet could be construed as "providing a means for infringement", which is the basis of the whole Napster/Grokster cases, right? A ways and means for infringement?

The reason why those pukes in the **AA's are threatening suit with the individual consumers (boy talk about biting the hand that feeds you), is that they typically will not have the temerity and means to fight them in court.

Just litigate your opponent into submission, forget about due process, and by all means don't mention "racketeering" as a description for their activities, "lawdy noes massa weez all gonna pay up!"

It's abhorrent that the government has become as corrupt as it has to let this kind of corporate BS to go on.

Notice you haven't heard much about the case in the last few days where the judge basically told them to put up or shut up. I wonder if it was finally dismissed.

For most people, the threat of "settle or go to court" by the RIAA is little more than extortion, and last I checked, their activities might just constitute racketeering

No offense, but who cares what most people think? IOf they actually knew the meaning of it, they'd know better. Ignorance is no excuse to go around making false accusations.

As for racketeering, do you even know what it means?

By the arguments given, simply providing a network connection to the internet could be construed as "providing a means for infringement", which is the basis of the whole Napster/Grokster cases, right? A ways and means for infringement?

That case actually weighted the use. While it was a means, as is the internet, the vast majority of use was solely for infringement. Big difference.

The reason why those pukes in the **AA's are threatening suit with the individual consumers (boy talk about biting the hand that feeds you), is that they typically will not have the temerity and means to fight them in court.

Good for them. Your point? They are not breaking any laws by doing this. Just because it smacks to you of injustice does not make it so.

...and then you go and blame the government. Do we need to regulate music now? Wonderful...as if there isn't enough government oversight (aka Big Brother) already.

PC, why even try? The basic ignorance exposed here with regards to standard legal practice is astonishing.

I wonder what those you get their news form Entertainment Weekly and People Magazine do when they hear the lasted gossip suit was 'settled out of court'? What do it mean? ;-)

But the righteous indignation is rather entertaining. And the, 'but I didn't download it from a friend, I downloaded it from my mother' defense is fascinating as well.

Obviously, these are ill-informed arts students.

Could someone explain to me how this is not extortion, or why these students don't use that $3000 to retain a lawyer instead of just handing it over?

It's not extortion because they have a legal way out.

It's the one and only reason it works so well for them.

...as for why they don't retain a lawyer? Probably because they're guilty as hell.

Because the RIAA knows how to scare the people that have the most to lose and the least resources to fight them.

If you're a student and someone tells you to pay $3k, or face a possibility of paying $30k, why not just put it all behind you and get on with your life? The RIAA knows their scared and vulnerable...that's why they're not suing people who actually make money.

"Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either obtains money, property or services from another through coercion or intimidation"

Funny, that sounds like what they are doing to me.

The RIAA doesn't want cases to go to actually go to court, because as you may have read they tend to lose all of those cases. They'd rather scare people into settling.

There are alternatives to paying them where the end result could be them paying nothing.

One person has already gotten a judgment for the return of legal fees from the RIAA.

The RIAA doesn't want cases to go to actually go to court, because as you may have read they tend to lose all of those cases.

All the more reason to not pay it....so long as you're not guilty.

Even if you are guilty it's up to the RIAA to be able to prove that in court. If I remember right a judge ruled that simply having an IP address is not enough.

Wrong again. In civil cases, the defendant must prove their innocence. RIAA files civil suits for that purpose alone. The burden of proof is not on them, it's on the party they accused.

Guilty until proven innocent? I've never heard of that.

It's likely the biggest difference between civil and criminal cases. Google it. There's far more out there on it than I could relate here.

Many of the rights of the defendant in criminal cases that we take for granted are not guaranteed to defendants in civil cases (Where, ostensibly, the penalties are not as sever and it doesn't go on any criminal record.)

"Assumed Innocence" is only one of those rights.

I wonder what percentage of little old grandmas that they also keep seeming to target give in to the RIAA's threats.

One. One grandma. And she was dead. :p

Let's not forget mothers too.

and don't fo'get yo mama...

make the world a better place, punch the RIAA and PC_Fool in the face

Yay! I hooked two complete morons for the price of one! It's a good day...

My question is (and I am prepared for the flame) is the so called settlement a blanket one or does it vary for each suspected person. If it's blanket then if joe Blow pays 3k for downloading 10 songs and the guy next door gets to pay 3k for 300 songs..it dont sound right. If it's not blanket then what formula is used?? Is it per song or what. If I got a bill for 3k Id want to know...

The RIAA may have some legit points however they have become Storm Troopers with unrealistic tactics

Not sure.

I believe 3K is probably an average. Even so, the 3K isn't based on the "per song" formula. The $750 per song is what they are alleged to be owing if they were to fight and lose the case, which in most cases would total *well* over $3000.

The $750 per song is the maximum allowed under current law per act of infringement. I highly doubt any judge in their right mind would award the full amount.

Hope that helped.