DirecTV tried this years ago sending out letters to anyone who downloaded files, purchased equipment or visited websites regarding the hacking of thier smart cards.

I know two people who got identical letters, one told them to go **** themselves and the other was so scared he would lose his house, he took out a loan for $3500.00 to pay them what they demanded. Both of them ordered a smart card reader from Canada and got shafted by the website.

The guy who said screw you never heard from them again, the guy who paid got a second letter saying they wanted more money. He then borrowed $5000.00 from a freind to pay them the second time.

Five years later and he still cant put enough to the side to pay the bank back let alone the guy who loaned him the five grand. Some people are just so afraid of court. I think they took his car which he used for collateral. I havent heard from him in years but I managed to find him on a site that lists DirecTV litigation and what the settlements were.

Another poor soul who I didnt know very well but worked for the same company I did at the time settled for $186,000.00, he was into it big time and they had him with 30 or so pages of evidence. That was his own fault and he deserved it. He probably made $250,000.00 over the time he was screwing around with that stuff but pissed it all away on crap and had no money to pay DirecTV let alone the lawyers.

They will garnish his wages for the rest of his life. The college kids are in for the same trouble if they admit any wrong doing. I say make them come and find you, they'd have to get on a sailboat and scour the Caribbean to find me if I knew they were coming.

Oh these students are much much smarter than RIAA, I think you should bond together and show them. We college students are no idiots and we are the ones that are supporting the record labels. DON'T PISS US OFF OR YOU (RIAA) WILL LOOSE.

Loose? Really?

Credibility, exit stage left...

Wait, I really wanna know what they'll loose.

Would be great if all the students contested this extortion in court. 400 extra lawsuits, thank you! Regardless of win or lose, the method the RIAA is using to bring about these threats/suits would need to be reviewed.

Ok so Its alright to ILEGALLY invade privacy, aslong as you are trying to catch the pirates?

If there answer is yes, then you were just thrown out of Law School.

Why am I saying its Illegal? Simple because right now its an uncharted water. No one has determined if IP Logs are really legal or Illegal. Atleast without the consent of the person being loged.

So when the day comes that these Idiots in the RIAA try to sue the son of a very wealthy individual then we will see how good their tactics are.

Listen ppl ATM there is no law being broken here, atleast none that the RIAA can prove because if they could why not call the FBI? Isnt the FBI the one that should be incharge of arresting, and charging ppl for breaking Copywright/Intelectual property laws?

Oh thats right, because 99.9% of the evidence that the RIAA has gathered couldnt be submited in criminal court, since it was attained without any sort of warrant, and/or by any sort of legal means.

Why am I saying its Illegal?

No one has determined if IP Logs are really legal or Illegal.

So what you're saying, is that it's illegal because no-one made the determination on whether or not it is legal or illegal yet?

Um, yeah. Okay. That makes sense.

*slowly backs away*

You never can be too careful with these "special" folk.

RIAA IS SH*T THEY WILL CLOSE SOON I MEAN THERE GETTIN MORE MONEY SUEING THEN SELLING

It's extortion and someone who's life they ruined will do something crazy sooner or later.

Foxfyre, the RIAA shill aside:
Yes, it's wrong to distribute and download works that are copyrighted. I don't think many would disagree that that is considered "stealing" unless they live in a country where that activity is "legal" to them.

All and good, but I think that what's missing here is people are bringing up some valid points:

1) The RIAA is predicating their lawsuit "threats" and "outright extortion tactics" on the fact that most people won't stand up to them in court and disprove their allegations, because it'll cost more in the end to do that than it would to simply pay them their blackmail money and go away.

2) I'm simply amazed that the federal government hasn't listened to the people and brought the RIAA and MPAA up on Federal Racketeering charges.

3) The problem with this whole situation is not that the consumers feel entitled to "free music", but that the RIAA and MPAA both feel *entitled to their sales figures*, and if they are not where they say they should be, then obviously PIRACY is to blame?

The big problem I really have with this is that if people do exercise their economic choice to *not* buy music cd's because just maybe they're sick and tired of all the *UTTER DRIVEL* being produced these days, obviously now they're being labelled pirates, and something has to be wrong, because their sales just aren't where they're "supposed to be"????

HELLO, this is a double edged sword and it's not something in the consumer's favor here!

"The big problem I really have with this is that if people do exercise their economic choice to *not* buy music cd's because just maybe they're sick and tired of all the *UTTER DRIVEL* being produced these days, obviously now they're being labelled pirates, and something has to be wrong, because their sales just aren't where they're "supposed to be"????"

I think that most of what is being marketed today sucks quite frankly.

And I also believe in fighting to reform the DRMA to allow a more reasonable definition of fair use, allowing the legal archival backup and copying of legally obtained material for such things as playing it in your car.

But that is NOT what these poor victims are doing. They are, for the most part, trafficking in copyrighted material over the net. You know it and so do I!

And anyone who is not currently using the AnyCD and AnyDVD family of software is , well, obviously unaware of its capabilities!

the fact is that most are not simply complaining to legislators to reform the fair use stipulations! And the RIAA is not going after those who are simply making personal archival backups!

And if you deal with enterprise information assurance, you know that this supposed and imagined right to privacy over the net and in emails does not exist except in people's imagination!

But folks fail to read the EULAs and then cry over what they wish the rules were rather than making real choices. How many of you use encryption for your data and/or your email? Too difficult? You could simply use HushMail!

Bottom line, distributing copyrighted material to others over the net is illegal. Change the law, be more creative, or simply don't do it! But crying that you got caught is an absurd defense!

Bottom line here; RIAA is making much more money suing people than they do on their records at the moment. I wonder how long its gonna last... as nobody wanna buy something from a company that makes their business out of suing their customers. And yeah, most studies shows that the people actually interested in music, both download it AND buys it.

Recently a little MP3 based website AllOfMP3.com got a lot of publicity. http://www.AllOfMP3.com sells Music in MP3 form for a small cost (About $0.10 - $0.20) a track. Cheap huh? You would think with looking at the site they are on the Up and Up...

Well, the RIAA got a view at their little operation and decided that they needed to do their RIAA thing to them.

http://www.betanews.com/...Trillion_USD/1166739613

The RIAA brough a $1.65 Trillion Dollar Lawsuit against AllOfMP3.com. This monetary amount is based on "$150,000 USD for each single violation of copyright infringement for tracks the site posted without authorization."

Who's there Lead Counsel, Dr. Evil and #2???

I am also sure that even if that were a foreseeable amount and they won and got paid, I am sue they would take all that $$$ and hand it right over to the artists (Sarcasm).

I have to think now: $150,000 per Single… That means that my 200 CD Collection which most CD’s have about 12 Tracks on them is worth: $360,000,000.00. I am sitting on a Fortune, I better e-Bay my collection and set the Buy It Now option up. I might have to charge a little extra for shipping, you know with the price of gas still up there.

I have said it before and I will say it again: RIAA, STOP SUEING YOUR CUSTOMER BASE! EMBRACE THE TECHNOLOGY!

For the Music Industry, to produce one (1) CD cost them a little over $1.00. Then they sell it to the consumer for anywhere between $10 - $20 of which the artist themselves get about $0.89 of each CD Sold.

The RIAA has more money then the Oil Companies and they are nothing but a Middle Man (Lawyers). They are a Governing Body, there is no actual (Physical) work they do.

I know they are there to "Protect the Artist", but these lawsuits are getting ridiculous.

I have said it before and I will say it again: RIAA, STOP SUEING YOUR CUSTOMER BASE! EMBRACE THE TECHNOLOGY!

They aren't customers if they're not paying legal retailers. Say it all you want, still not going to make it true.

YAWN...

Talk about beating a dead horse...

I have to agree with RPDP, if the record industry reduced their pricing, more people would by CDs. Its look like they would rather have their cake and eat it, which in the long run is more damaging to record industry than a few pirates.
Have they actually had any survey to see how many people who download music, go on to buy it having "tried before they buyed"?

Millions of people buy CDs every day. They obviously think it is money well spent. Until that changes *any* twit who thinks piracy will drop if they lower prices either just doesn't get it, or is looking for an excuse to do the same.

Just because some people think it's too expensive is no excuse for piracy, nor would it be considered by any business to be a good reason for lowering prices.

Have they actually had any survey to see how many people who download music, go on to buy it having "tried before they buyed"?

Perhaps, but it's moot. There are too many alternatives to "try before buy" that don't include piracy to list. Radio, band web-sites, most online sellers have a preview function, internet radio, and on and on...

If you ran a business where the vast majority of customers paid for your products would you even consider lowering prices to placate the folks who were not paying you for it to begin with?

Of course not, it doesn't make any sense.

its funny how they target the u.s. we are the minority as far as piracy, i mean there are countries where there is nothing but piracy, and they come after people here just because.

and although i am against piracy in any way, i do think they should lower prices, not to limit piracy, but just because they are ripping us off.

its funny how they target the u.s. we are the minority as far as piracy, i mean there are countries where there is nothing but piracy, and they come after people here just because.

...because our legal system allows them to with too much undo effort.

i do think they should lower prices, not to limit piracy, but just because they are ripping us off.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of folks are still paying these prices. Until that stops, and people look for cheaper legal alternatives, they will remain.

I think gas is way too expensive.

I'm gonna go download some.

...wait.

lmao...

Wow, interesting thread. I'm not convinced either way, but one question seems not to have been answered: is it okay to steal music, to download the files and use the music without ever paying for it? And please, avoid the "civil disobedience" argument, because the crime preceded the punishment.

By the way, flaming just shows you have nothing to say.

"Wow, interesting thread. I'm not convinced either way, but one question seems not to have been answered: is it okay to steal music, to download the files and use the music without ever paying for it?"

The question is flawed by the use of the word "steal", since downloading is not stealing. If it were there would criminal cases in court, not civil ones. The so-called-crime here is Uploading, which is copywrite infringement.

That said I'll try to answer your question. If I download something that I would NEVER have bought in the first place, then who loses? Nobody is the answer. There is no physical "thing" that has been stolen that could have been sold to another customer, and because there was no chance I would have bought what I downloaded, there is no imaginary "lost sale" that the RIAA claim in their figures.

I DO buy CDs and DVDs. If and when I decide they warrant me doing so because I like them anough. I have a large historic and current collection of both. But the fact that I also NOW have a large collection of music and filsm that I didn't buy is irrelevant, as none of them are good enough to have ever warranted me spending the money. No-one lost out and nothing was stolen.

The RIAA and others like them are fighting a pathetic losing battle and making themselves look ridiculous. Good luck to them.

. If I download something that I would NEVER have bought in the first place, then who loses? Nobody is the answer.

Of course you won't buy it. You're getting it for free.

This has got to be one of the lamest arguments for piracy I have ever seen. If it's not worth it for you to buy it, then do without it. You are not entitled to it.

What, the guy who likes it has to pay for it, but because you would *never* have bought it you get it for free?

Bullsh1t. Pure and simple.

Funny how you seem to think buying a few CDs makes up for the songs you get for free. lmao...whatever you gotta tell yourself man.

That's completely ridiculous and PC_Tool explains why very articulately.

Your assertion that there is no "thing" being stolen is equally flimsy. The song is the thing and the fact that it is converted to a file makes it no less so. While the RIAA is stretching the point claiming that all stolen songs are potential sales, that does not negate the fact that the song is, in fact, taken without payment.

I wonder how you would feel if your employer told you that he did not want to pay you for your work? I know, you wouldn't work then. Okay, so what happens when we all decide to stop working?

No, I do not work for the RIAA, nor do I completely support their heavy-handed efforts. I just don't quite understand the argument that downloading the songs is not stealing. I have downloaded songs on P2P networks and did so with the full knowledge that I was stealing and acceptance of the possible consequences. It puzzles me that some people are not willing to accept the fact that they are taking something that is not theirs without paying for it.

So is it aganst the law to record music off the Radio ?

I recommend anyone who objects to the gestapo tactics of the RIAA do what I do. Stop contributing to the profits of these @##$$holes.
Every time you buy a cd or song you increase their profits which allow them to do what they do! I'm not condoning bootlegging but I refuse to contribute to any group who are so greedy they try and extort money using loopholes in the law.

With all those content encryption and content scrambling systems failing. RIAA thinks it shall claim money spent on these systems thru sending settlement notices all over. How poor!!!.

Why not spend more on designing a foolproof copy protection system. They fear loosing the battle again.
Why doesnt RIAA think of ways by which they can increase the sales like decreasing the prices, etc, rather than thinking about reducing piracy thru lawsuits, settlements, etc.

They dont care about the 100's of people who buy their CDs/DVDs, but go behind the 1 or 2 who copy it...
They can win lawsuits, settlements but they will also lose their (so called) legal customers.

Does this foxfyre clown work for the RIAA? He sure sounds like it. Does anyone in America still believe that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" BS this foxfyre character is spewing? Please. I'm not saying those kids getting sued are innocent, they're most likely guilty. But since we assume they're guilty (hmm, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?) we should also assume that not ALL of the thousands of people sued over the years were guilty. Let's just sue everyone we think might be guilty and extort some money. How is that fair?

Just take your case to court and you'll surely win if you're innocent, right? Are you kidding me? What about the people who turned out to be obviously innocent (or dead), did you notice how quickly the RIAA dropped their suit? Do you seriously believe that anyone, innocent or guilty, would stand any chance against a multi billion dollar industry with an army of lawyers? I don't even know why I bother asking these questions.

Between "the fight on terrorism" in Iraq (how did Bin Laden get morphed into Sadaam Hussein anyway?), the RIAA and MPAA suing their own customers, and a president who can't pronounce the word "nuclear" or knows the difference between "prosecute" and "persecute", I sure am glad not to be an American citizen. I'm going off on a tangent here and I better shut up, before the FBI/CIA/whatever comes after me and labels me a terrorist.

"Please. I'm not saying those kids getting sued are innocent, they're most likely guilty."

Nonsense! Almost every comment here has been how illegitimate, illegal, bullying, etc. etc. etc. the RIAA is for attempting to use the courts to enforce their copyright terms. And how the "most likely guilty' kids are sooooo innocent!

I have no idea what the actual terms of the alleged violations are, and neither do you! But your blanket condemnation that you cannot trust the courts IS a bunch of garbage! And if they are such innocent lambs victimized by the bad wolves called the RIAA, fight it!
And then sue the RIAA for malicious prosecution in civil court and win lots of money! If they are wrongfully sued, they do have recourse, and it pays handsomely!

Extortion my @ss! The RIAA attempts to collect usage fees just as they do from stores that play music and any other party who uses the material, That is their purpose. Funny, I don't hear the music industry crying too loudly! And even the 'oh so caring' artists who complain so feebly don't negotiate the demand in their contracts to have no DRM on their material! And they could certainly do it! Or are they poor victims too?

The amazing thing is that you can probably get any number of lawyers willing to take such a high profile case, IF it has MERIT, to take the case pro bono!

And if the RIAA is wrong and guilty of malicious prosecution, they cannot simply disappear as you allege - unless the plaintiffs are simply stupid! They are libel for their actions as well! The court system works both ways. And those that have been accused have recourse in civil court!

But I love how you couch all of your poor victim whine in an assumption that they are "MOST LIKELY" guilty!

The simple fact is that I support reasonable fair use laws.

And the willful violation of the terms of use and the willful coying and distribution of the material is WRONG, and I am tired of the rampant excuses made for this here, by you and others.

If they are not doing that, then they should stand up and fight it! But if they are guilty, tough sh!t! That was THEIR choice! And I hope they enjoyed it!

Bottom line either party who violates the terms of the usage terms are liable, whether they be poor whiny entitled kids or the RIAA.

And if the kids are wrong, it would be nice to see someone with the guts to admit it and to change their behavior until they work to change the law!

And I am quite tired of some lame a** foreigner telling me how the courts work or don't work here. It seems to me you have a bit of work to do where you reside! But its funny how all of those who are not subject to the terrible justice of the US are so quick to get their butts here rather than to go to whatever hole you live in.

"And I am quite tired of some lame a** foreigner telling me how the courts work or don't work here." - Foxfyre

Let me tell you something you pompous ass... You go right ahead and rant and rave about how we're arguing points that actually you're pointing out, but hey, let's throw in some Ugly American too. Basically, you're showing your true colors, and it's a shame. We're trying to discuss what most people here amounts to coercion. You're yelling about how it wouldn't be coercion if there wasn't a lawsuit. Thanks, genius. We understand that.

Irrespective of your xenophobic rants, the RIAA cannot attempt to systematically coerce people into taking a settlement. As the article states, the RIAA has demographically targeted recipients of a civil case. That is 100% illegal. You cannot simply target a class of people and harass them. People who have NOT been found guilty, nor civilly responsible for an action cannot be actively harassed into opting towards a settlement. It's unethical, and will get you disbarred.

So feel free, Foxfyre. Go on. Tell us about how much you know. In the meantime, be sure to add sophomoric theatrics and grandstanding along with your unrelated analogies. It's the internet, you know - there's no need to pass a test to post here. Luckily for you, anyhow.

what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Your knowledge of the law seems a bit limited. The "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases, and *not* to civil cases. In a civil case, it is up tot he defendant to prove their innocence, not the other way around.

...which is exactly why the RIAA isn't pressing criminal charges on any of these folks. The burden of proof in a criminal case would ruin them.

Do you seriously believe that anyone, innocent or guilty, would stand any chance against a multi billion dollar industry with an army of lawyers?

http://yro.slashdot.org/...07/2325204&from=rss

Defendant forces RIAA to drop the case and gets attorney's fees back. It can be done.

I don't even know why I bother asking these questions.

Because rhetoric suits you, as you seem wholly incapable of getting any facts or that pesky *reality* to back you up. Your last paragraph pretty much sums that up to a tee.

The artical states- The mother of five was described by the judge presiding as an 'internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo.
Her kids were d/l the music not her. She had a good case. The RIAA in this case is pressing charges on people who actually d/l the music.

No s*** sherlock?

The point was that, when in the right, people do, in fact, stand a chance against the RIAA. Hence my posting that specific link right below his quote stating the opposite.

Clear that up for ya?

you mean before the betanews crew proves your a moron?

actually, because she is responsable for what her kids were doing, she was technically guilty, and the RIAA could have held her to it, but they were generous for once and dropped the case.

Depends on the age of the kids, which I dodn't know, so...

"you mean before the betanews crew proves your a moron?"

I don't own "a moron", what ever that may be. The word "your" denotes possession. I think the one you're looking for is "you're", learn the difference before you go around calling others a moron.

"Because rhetoric suits you, as you seem wholly incapable of getting any facts or that pesky *reality* to back you up. Your last paragraph pretty much sums that up to a tee."

Oh please. Spare me. You're just upset because I insulted your patriotic American pride. (laugh) Land of the free.. yeah, whatever. Enjoy your Patriot Act and overall erosion of your civil liberties. Please point out which part of my last paragraph is not based in reality. I'd really love to hear it.

Fact is, your country unilaterally invaded another nation with the sole purpose of taking their oil, under the disguise of fighting terrorism and bringing "evildoers" to justice. Bombing for peace is like having sexual intercourse for virginity.

Americans who support the war in Iraq are simply proving they can't tell Arabs apart. I know it's tough to hear, but it's the sad truth. Also, your president is a moron. Deal with it. Want to know more? See the link below.

http://www.thebestpagein...cgi?u=limits_to_freedom

Bombing for peace is like having sexual intercourse for virginity.

So I guess your country doesn't have an army? And it's perfectly peaceful, right? Think about all the implications there for a while and then let me know how it's working out for ya'.

Just remember, when you boost all those songs on your P2P program, be sure to use your neighbors unsecured wireless connection.

Ha, do you think University students have the money or the time to make the money to pay the music industry and movie industry for merely renting media?

Foxfyre, two wrongs don't make a right. I didn't say anything about what they were doing. They may very well be guilty - that's for a COURT to decide. To be bullied into accepting an agreement without going to court is coercion, and that my friend is illegal as well.

Wow! The RIAA is guilty of SO many things according to you!

Yet poor Timmy can't fight it in court.
Poor Timmy!

Maybe Timmy should go to law school!

Let's see, if Timmy didn't engage in illegal activity he wouldn't be charged. But if the prosecution is malicious, he can win MONEY!

And it IS for a court to decide!

As far as I am concerned the RIAA should take them straight to court without an offer of a settlement (which is customary in almost any civil case! DUH! 'Oh, so now you expect us to know something about which we rant? That's so unfair!')

I have no problem with that! Then they can pay the settlement, the legal fees and whatever additional sentence is imposed!

Then you fools with excuses for everything will be whining that they didn't let poor Timmy simply pay a fine and let him off and that THEY ruined his otherwise wonderful career with a record!

If you are not guilty, DON'T PAY THE FINE! Funny, I don't see you folks lined up here to b!tch about traffic tickets. They give you the option of paying a fine in lieu of going to court too.

You guys have such touching and idiotic excuses for everything except doing the right thing to begin with!

My heart bleeds purple kool-aid for the poor kids who have you idiots excusing their 'Me Me Me Me' entitlement and victim mentalities!

You analogy of traffic tickets being compared to supposedly downloading copyrighted material and getting sued is very, very flawed. A third party monitoring network traffic and tying your IP to an illegal download or shared files, then disclosing that information to the RIAA is hardly the same as getting caught speeding by a cop. A more apt way of comparing the RIAA accusing these people would be to say, your neighbor saw you speeding, but he was watching through a warped piece of glass and then called the cops about it. Then the police gave you the choice of settling out of court, even though it may have been someone else driving your car.

WRONG!
Just as traffic cameras can hold the owner of the vehicle responsible for the action even if a friend was driving.

And you have a choice! If the evidence is so flawed and the allegations so bogus, I would certainly go to court! Warped glass, your neighbor, hearsay...whatever...couch your assumptions on BS conditions. Create whatever fantasy scenario floats your boat.

But as you are sooooo knowledgeable, take your erudite argument and go to court. You should have those RIAA folks running for the hills! Either that or ROFLTAO!

IF the students are illegally copying and distributing music, they are liable. Period, Deal with it iPod boy.

I can count on no hands the number of STUDENTS I know who can afford to pay a fine, let alone legal fees if they were inappropriately charged. And then more legal fees on top of that to counter sue (though I imagine there are a few lawyers who would gladly do it for 70% of your hopeful settlement, which should be returned to you from courts at best in 3-7 years).

If the evidence was misrepresented in their case, and they did nothing wrong, going into court essentially as a youth who "should be taught a lesson" without an attorney (which would normally cost more than the fine) pretty much results in a summary charge.

What you basically seem to be saying foxfyre, is if the students who are being charged aren't doing anything wrong but are being charged anyways... good luck to ya, cuz it's all you'll got. Oh, and counter sue them if you can happen to afford a lawyer a _second_time_ to go up against a dedicated team of loophole gatherers. So in the end, in yet other words "if you can afford the lawyers, it must be ok to do the crime".

SOME people have a choice (a majority being those with the money to buy the stuff they shouldn't be pirating anyway). Those who are barely eating while footing their schooling and working a couple jobs don't have many options (hand to mouth).

It's just WRONG that some of you don't quite get that point.

well then im sure you can count very well the number of students who shouldn't have been downloadning music illegally then huh?

Gosh maybe it would be poetic justice if colleges banned RIAA materials on campus *laughs.

Wouldnt it be even better poetic justice if college kids stopped buying RIAA goods AND learned to do without instead of stealing. Now THAT would be a cause worth backing.

Do WHAT?!?!?!

Whoa dude! You've gone Way too far this time!
Now you're getting dangerously close to making sense!

An dem kollej kidz wil nevr undrstand that!

it wold be poetic justice if you aquired some brains.

Would be poetic justice if someone rattled yours a little - smart guy!

Figures. These are all lackluster CS schools. Those with half a brain are too far ahead of RIAA's limited technical capabilities to be worried. :)

As far as I'm concerned the RIAA is no better than the parasites they are suing. They all are leaches and thrive on the suffering of others.

That's a pretty damn good analogy. Parasitic businesses chasing parasitic thieves.

This is precisely why I havent bought a music CD in 5 years. The music industry will never get another dime of my money.

You know, if they had done that instead of illegally distributing and receiving illegally copied music, they wouldn't be in the fix they are now!

And as far as extortion...LOL! Hey you legal eagles, they don't have to pay a fine! Instead you are free to go to court.

And since they are sure to go far with this ghetto "its unethical to prevent me from copying and redistributing copyrighted material" line, what's your bet that they will lose?

Dude you are a tool.

Multibillion dollar industry against little timmy going to college. yeah right go to court against them.

Do you have any clue how much court costs? Why do you think most ppl have settled out of court? Because they dont have the MONETARY means to fight a Multi Billion dollar industry.

As long as the RIAA(should be renamed to the KKK or Idiots Anonymous) continue to treat every costumer as a Pirate by using the crap they call DRM ppl will continue to Pirate.

Yeah free to go to court give me a break. Find me a Lawyer thats free and Ill find you cheese on the moon.

Illegal legal, whats the difference really? How about the Record Companies charging 15 bucks for a CD with 1 good song and 10 hacks? How about charging 50% more than they did for Cassette tapes while costing 1/10 of what Cassette tapes cost to make? How about an industry that right now does nothing to support their artist, and just likes to squeeze em for every single ounce of energy they have left?

You are defending the undefendable. Are you the same type of person that believes greedo shot first? How about the kind of person that believes the PS3 is a god send?

Are you related to MarkG?

Are you for real? Um...The RIAA didn't ask these kids to steal, the kids made the choice to do so. You think it's ok that they get away with it just because the RIAA is filthy rich and the kids are poor? That's retarded, had they made smarter choices and they wouldn't be in this predicament. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".

"You are defending the undefendable"

What? How is estolling the virtues of personal responsability, defending the undefendable? Are you for real?

have you been following what the RIAA has been doing for the past 2 years. You know, Suing dead people, suing elderly women who dont even own a computer, and to add insult to injury they are suing with a VERY VERY thin line of evidence that crumbles at the meer sight of it. However they have the all mighty dollar backing them up.

This is the same organization, that infects ppls computers with DRM software which in some cases cripples your system.

You are telling me their practices are ok?

How are you sooo certain that these clowns arent just making cases up as they go? How are they so certain that Little Timmy didnt have the album for X song and it broke so he just downloaded the song for CONTENT HE ALREADY had a license to?

It troubles me as a Consumer and a citizen of this country to see other consumers defend companies trying to shred the bill of rights and take away ppl rights so they can make the mighty dollar.

Oh BTW, I stopped buying music the day the Sony DRM fiasco was exposed, and I refuse to buy any music, not because of just that but because all these companies are putting out is complete and TOTAL GARBAGE.

Instead of Wasting money on all these lawyers, wait who am I kidding, I mean instead of Making your profit from suing helpless ppl for exorbitant ammounts of money, why not instead invest that cash you pay the lawyers into combating the REAL reason you arent selling music so well, THE MUSIC SUCKS.

"You are telling me their practices are ok?"

No it isn't, the RIAA are a vile group of unethical businesses partners. That said....that doesn't make stealing their products ok and it doesn't make what the kids did any less wrong. If these kids are so sure that what they did was right or even legal then they should have little problem finding a lawyer to represent them probono or as part of a class action suit if enough people were being unfairly wronged. You don't see that happening because the kids finally realize they haven't got a leg to stand on when the man finally catches up with them.

Why fight them. They are the epitome of the embodiment of both the entitlement and the victim mentalities.

well what you fail to see is the 99.8% of cases the RIAA serves up that were valid and the "victims" guilty. then on top of that you look ONLY at the .2% of cases which the RIAA screwed up on, that they MADE REPERATIONS for wasting time.

Hey kids here are your choices, pay your tuition and get an education (which won't work because you'll end up in jail if you don't pay them) or pay the RIAA and get a job at your local 7-11.

Man, the RIAA is ruthless, can't we send them to Iraq to hunt down the terrorist and break their will???

Here's another choice that totally slipped your mind...

Don't illegally copy and distribute/receive copyrighted material.

Huh? What? I don't get it.....

You are such an aggravating little corporate shill across a breadth of posts on a number of subjects, I think I'm going to download some really bad music in your name.

I think foxfyre is possibly the president of the RIAA. That's why it doesn't bother him that the RIAA is above the law.

This is nothing short of extortion. It's trying to scare people into paying up without giving them a real chance to defend themselves against what is usually very weak (and all too often, incorrect) evidence.

Why has RIAA not been labeled a terrorist organization yet? They are sabotaging our country's judicial system and depriving people of their freedom through their corrupt ways. I would love to see action taken against them. Until then, we could continue not buying music (or downloading music). Maybe that will make a statement.

If anything you said had any merit, the past cases would have been dismissed and the current charges moot.

I've got news for you most never make it to court. They usually extort money out of their victims beforehand because they know that they have no real case.

Whatever you say, court jester.

You're the one playing the fool.

extort eh? you mean by giving them the option to pay up or go to court? why would you pay up if you were innocent? your legal fees would be paid back in full if not more if you went to court innocently.

Threats and intimidation. RIAA should be in trouble for this.

Unauthorized distribution of property in violation of copyright laws and the receiving of such goods = theft.

Looks like students are in trouble for that!

Yup, the RIAA Made them do it! They are victims!

The RIAA has been known to sue dead people, and even those who don't even own a computer. As I had said, most of the time they never get to court because they extort the money of of their victims before it gets that far. It has also been proven that downloading alone has zero affect on sales.

Here is a news flash. People can die between the time they commit an act and the time it goes to court! Duh!

And if the charges are false, then go to court and sue them for damages and court costs for malicious prosecution!

Let's pursue your logic. If I download all of my music rather than buy a CD, it doesn't affect sales....

How old are you?

Foxfyre, two wrongs don't make a right. I didn't say anything about what they were doing. They may very well be guilty - that's for a COURT to decide. To be bullied into accepting an agreement without going to court is coercion, and that my friend is illegal as well.

Poor Timmy!

Maybe Timmy should go to law school!

Let's see, if Timmy didn't engage in illegal activity he wouldn't be charged. But if the prosecution is malicious, he can win MONEY!

And it is for a court to decide!

As far as I am concerned the RIAA should take them straight to court without an offer of a settlement (which is customary in almost any case! DUH!)

I have no problem with that! Then they can pay the settlement, the legal fees and whatever additional sentence is imposed! Then you fools will be whining that they didn't let poor Timmy simply pay a fine and let him off!

If you are not guilty, DON'T PAY THE FINE! Funny, I don't see you folks lined up here to b!tch about traffic tickets. They give you the option of paying a fine in lieu of going to court too.

You guys have such touching and idiotic excuses for everything except doing the right thing to begin with!

My heart bleeds purple kool-aid.

Wow, so short sighted. But it is quite unusual (and interesting) to see someone so stubbornly (faith is stubborn) believe that the overloaded judicial system is fair to everyone who meets it up close and personal. All while defending the RIAA.

Honestly, if a frivolous suit manages to ruin even one persons life, it is one too many to be deemed fair.

Lets pursue your logic... if their lawyer is better than your pro-bono lawyer, you must be guilty as charged.

What a schmuck. The RIAA sues those who can't fight back. What you seem to fail to see, and this is willingly, is that most people can't afford to go to court. Its usually much cheaper just to give in to the RIAA's extortion and "settle out of court". That is their tactic since they know that they wouldn't actually win in a court of law.

Yes, even if you download all of your music it wouldn't affect the sales of music overall. It has been proven so. What affects the sales is when it is resold. You don't have a clue.

BTW, schmuck, its not illegal to download in Canada for one's own personal use.

Boy, are you ever clueless.

it should be, what makes you think you deserve ANYTHING that someone else made for free?

LMAO. Those ones and zeros are a thing huh?

The whole idea of copywrite on music is ridiculous. If you write a song, you should be able to stop people making money from your work, but not stop people having copies of the sound. It's like painting a painting and then charging people who take photographs of it. You can charge for people to come to your gallery like musicians can charge for people to see them perform. But charge for the vibrations in air pressure? Methinks not.

It was slightly different when their was a physical product that cost money to produce. It had a value. One much beneath the HUGE price we were charged - we know that because the record companies were found GUILTY of ripping off their customers for years. For that I'd carry on getting everything for free anyway - even if it was morally wrong - which it is not.

Maybe famous people could charge to be photographed? Famous cities charge people entry for the photons hitting their retinas? LMAO

THE BUSINESS MODEL IS OUTDATED AND YOU ARE FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE! CHANGE IT dumba**ES!

/me chuckles

OK, I'm flaming, but there is still a point. The whole situation needs to be completely reviewed. They cannot win, but there still needs to be a music business of some sort left at the end of the day. The way it is going there won't be. Being pigheaded idiots about it trying to tell everyone that the world is flat and you can't sail around it when people already ARE is pointless. No-one CARES if it's illegal. If a law is unenforcable it's worth NOTHING.

but not stop people having copies of the sound.

Riiiight...because that's like, not their main form of income, right?

It's like painting a painting and then charging people who take photographs of it.

Ever tried to walk into a gallery with a camera? Good luck with that.

But charge for the vibrations in air pressure? Methinks not.

Yeah, and cars are atoms, we don't charge for the use of atoms, do we?

OK, I'm flaming, but there is still a point.

...which you are totally missing. This is their music, it's their *right* to decide who access it and how it is accessed. It is not your right to take that right from them.

No-one CARES if it's illegal.

Except the artists, the producers, the labels, the mixers, the technicians, and those folks who actually have a friggin' conscience and appreciate the work and creativity involved.

BTW, schmuck, its not illegal to download in Canada for one's own personal use.

...because they went the socialist route and decided to tax *everyone* to make up for it.

Talk about making the innocent pay for the guilty...

"Riiiight...because that's like, not their main form of income, right?"

Irrelevant point. it may be someone else's main form of income to sell air to people who breathe, or food to starving people. That doesn't make it right. And there's no reason why making music *should* result in riches or be a main form of income.

"Ever tried to walk into a gallery with a camera? Good luck with that."

Er, yeah. Sometimes you're not allowed because flash photography can damage pictures, but non-flash is allowed. How about charging to take pics at sporting events, or even just of people in the street? "I drove that sports car, if you want a picture of me doing what I do then you will be charged!" LMAO.

"Yeah, and cars are atoms, we don't charge for the use of atoms, do we?"

Err... back to basic physics. An atom is a material thing. A sound wave is... well a variation in air pressure. It is not a thing. It has no mass.

"...which you are totally missing. This is their music, it's their *right* to decide who access it and how it is accessed. It is not your right to take that right from them."

who decides who's right it is? In this case morally there is no rights to be talked of. The law may differ, but that does not make it right.

"Except the artists, the producers, the labels, the mixers, the technicians, and those folks who actually have a friggin' conscience and appreciate the work and creativity involved."

Oh - the people trying to make loads of cash. Now there's a surprise. Actually many artists don't care. The ones doing it for art rather than to get rich perhaps?

And there's no reason why making music *should* result in riches or be a main form of income.

Oh, I get it now. Musicians and artists *should* be starving. Or betetr yet, not have the time or resources to actually *create* anything. Cuz, like, art sucks.

Got it. Point made. It's a bit Neanderthal, but...

oh man...

If I were Canadian, that would hurt.

That's right, because before the music industry and the RIAA existed, there was no art and innovation to talk of.

Same goes for software of course; shareholder corps make the best and the most versatile and varied software, not the open source community who do it for free.

Thank heavens for consumer capitalism!

/me chuckles

This is not a flame, but you're brainwashed by the system mate... but don't worry, you have that in common with the huge majority of people :)

If thinking that an artist has every right to decide, to the letter, bit, or note, how their creations are distributed, transferred, or used, then brainwashed I am.

If thinking they have every right to do take whatever legal means are necessary to protect those rights, then brainwashed I am.

Same goes for software of course; shareholder corps make the best and the most versatile and varied software, not the open source community who do it for free.

I think you were trying to be sarcastic there, but IMHO, you're right. I'd much rather use notepad, than vi, MS Word than AbiWord, and Windows than Linux. I can do the things I need to do easier, faster, and more reliably.