Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

RIAA Sues Another 751 File Swappers

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

December 15, 2005, 4:03 PM

The Recording Industry Association of America refuses to give up its legal efforts to stem the illicit use of P2P networks for trading copyrighted material, filing suit against another 751 individuals, including college students. The John Doe suits serve as placeholders until the RIAA can discover the users' identities.

The RIAA also re-filed 105 lawsuits against former John Does, whose names have come out during industry's investigations and court proceedings. The latest round of filings brings the total number of cases above 17,000 and follows 693 lawsuits the RIAA announced in September. NPD Group reported yesterday that use of file sharing networks has dropped, although the survey's accuracy has been questioned.

Add a Comment (193 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By jshurst

posted Dec 19, 2005 - 9:19 AM

http://wiki.etree.org
and
http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php

Free music, totally legal...

Score: 0

By AdrianoD

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 11:19 PM

How much werethose fines again ?
I mean lets say 10k ...
17k * 10K = 170 M Dollars...
Is selling cds even worth ?

Score: 0

By SamppaX

edited Dec 18, 2005 - 7:22 PM

I quessed none agree with me... Thats very logical thing to do... for human. Why digital was priced first of all?

Ok ok.. i know you all tell that work hours and plaa plaa... Bull****!

First Music was enjoyment, happy thing and first of all Free.

There are free legal music websites And programs... For these music/program sites i give BIIIIG plus mark... They do it for others, like it should be...

Like i do websites for free for my friends and so on... we have other jobs for making money. Are we humans so addicted to money. Im not rich if you are asking that.

I just looked other posts and i noticed that same people argue with opinions. Are we losers or what? We all are so stupid...

Oh well... I'm going to kill myself now...cya... I end this topic now. how can we arque with this topic because it's just opinions, right? Peace to all & Happy christmass!

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 7:32 PM

I agree with you.

I personally can't think of any talented person, in any area of human activity, whose motivation for doing what he does is making money.

I know some good musicians and they are doing it because they LOVE it, if they are getting paid in the process, even better, but they would be doing it anyway.

I know some great software developers, who are creating some great programs, and they are genuinely surprised how much money they are making doing something they would be doing for free anyway, because they LOVE doing it.

I also know some so called "software developers" who rushed to that profession when they heard how much they would be paid. Those guys suck at what they do, only know what they had to memorize to get a job, they are in it for the money alone.

Those are the guys who cry about everyone else "stealing" something from them (p2p users are stealing their programs, Indians are stealing their jobs, etc.). Those are the guys that think their income is more important then other people's freedom.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 11:11 AM

Rather than the continued arguments over wether or not it's stealing (actually the correct term is copyright infringment)

What about a discussion on possible solutions - that would be good for BOTH sides.

1. people want stuff in a variety of formats
2. people want to be able to copy stuff, without limits
3. the copyright owner wants to be paid

so what if, we pay the copyright owners, who then allow us to copy into any format we like their item.

a licence to copy...

doesnt that solve the problem ?!

AND the copyright owner would save money on distribution costs since we are doing it for them.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 11:44 AM

Unfortunately (or rather fortunately) it puts RIAA out of the equation as they quickly become irrelevant in a world where link between people and authors is simple and direct and distribution costs are virtually zero.

Once that new model is established, people and artists will suddenly find out that less then a dollar per CD artists were getting from RIAA is actually very little money, they can easily make that much and even more in this new direct digital world without extorting charge per copy. As soon as RIAA gets thrown out of the equation people will spend very little money on music while artists will make the same if not more they are making today.

That's exactly what RIAA is fighting against - change in business model. I bet some of RIAA owners aren't as dumb as they look, some of them probably understand they will eventually lose, but for now they are making billions (in profits, not in revenue) and will try to prolong it as long as possible.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 1:30 PM

I agree

It has puzzled me for some years why musicians seek a record label, and dont just 'go it alone'

I wonder how much a musician would earn if they simply opened a 'paypal' account and relied on peoples goodwill.

I do see an alternate role for such organisations as RIAA etc, if we do get given licences to copy, there would still need an organisation to issue those licences, to collect the payments (and redistribute to the artist/s) and also to ensure those without a licence were suitably delt with.

There is still room for the 'middle man'.

I see shops and other outlets being the ones that are hit hardest. Why buy a ready made CD from a shop when (with the licence) I could download an exact CD image (maybe including all the artwork).

But I'm sure the shops would simply change what they are selling - to portable media storage for example.

'Shops' have had to change with the times many times - concider the traditional blacksmith who used to shoe horses and fix cartwheels - and now makes ornamental fireside tools...

Digital can be a good thing.
Copying CAN be a good thing.

we just need to come up with a solution thats suitable for all

and I think that a licence system could work

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 4:11 PM

Yes, I agree this is just another change an industry will go through as a result of technological progress. Happened many times before.

And like many times before, some will resist the change proclaiming the new ways as "wrong". Some will do it because they occupy financially comfortable position in the old system which is quickly disappearing, some will do it because they never saw it any other way and can't think outside of the box.

Either way, if history is any example, they both have no chance.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 10:28 AM

Bottom line on all this:

Copyright violators ought to be renditioned to countries where they can be properly interrogated as to ~exactly~ HOW they came to acquire unauthorized versions.

Then they must be held indefinately without trial at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib and forced to form human pyramids in the nude !

The war against copyright infringement has to be won at all costs.

Let's face it... file swappers are digital terrorists.

We need a RIAA version of the "Patriot Act" allowing Sony to place rootkits on ~every~ computer !

The Computer Rodent

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 1:47 PM

I can't tell if you're serious or not...

Score: 0

By PC Rat

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 6:04 PM

"I can't tell if you're serious or not..."

The PC Rat knows how you feel !

~He~ can't tell whether all the people defending thieving file sharers are serious.

Surely they got to be joking when they assert that stealing is somehow ok ?

The Computer Rodent

Score: 0

By SamppaX

edited Dec 18, 2005 - 7:13 PM

DELETED !!! Too many negative Comments... LOL

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 3:30 AM

"Digital thieving is another thing. Hello people The "digital" says it all. At least Linux has better brains on this topic than windows creators."

So everything digital should be free? Paying for a digital product is like paying for "air"? I'd love to hear what the millions of developers who put in thousands of hours into the product and thousands more into studying to be able to do it think about that.

I think everything YOU do should be free, if you come to me for a job I'll hire you but I won't pay you, how does that sound?

"If you pay about example 200$ for some little/large program... It is like paying "air"... Because digital is like air..."

I think what's in your head is "air"...because the words coming out of your mouth would not be said by anybody who has anything else in there.

"When i paid my windows... i was shocked how much it cost. I should have gone for linux.. oh well... late for that..."

That's your decision...and if you were so shocked by how much it cost why did you buy it if you "should have gone to linux?" Oh thats right...you have alot of "air" in your head.

Score: 0

By SamppaX

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 7:09 PM

You are funny... Air in my head... hmm.. might be right i think all humans got air in their brains...

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 8:22 PM

well, i think air (oxygen at least) would be expensive if Trees had any sense of capitolism and they could see the big demand for it. Lucky for us, trees are quite dumb and give oxygen away for free. Suckers.

Score: 0

By SamppaX

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 7:10 PM

good point... ;) That's why i love nature more than humans... no *** comments please...

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 6:45 PM

...I don't think YOU get it.

"If you pay about example 200$ for some little/large program... It is like paying "air"... Because digital is like air..."

Umm... Was "air" written using thousands of man-hours from people who spent 4+ years at school learning their programming languages?

Try again.

The truth is, Windows is darn cheap. Think about how much one game costs. That's just one game. It doesn't have to support millions of hardware and software configurations or actually do anything other than one entertaining function.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 6:15 PM

The PC Rat's point...

If it's ok to steal another person's copyrighted music, why not also ok for Sony to place rootkits on other people's computers ?

If it's a violation of a file sharer's Rights to be held without trial in Gitmo, why isn't it also a violation of copyright holder's Rights to take their songs without paying ?

The little file sharer twits want their Rights while denying other people's Rights.

So, yes, if massive theft is ok ...then so is rendition of file sharers to certain Eastern European nations for "harsh interrogation techniques" and other fun games !

The Computer Rodent

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 6:21 PM

Uh oh.

Be careful how you use the word "steal," unless you want to unleash the wrath of the almighty Alexq.

(p.s. I agree with you)

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 6:14 PM

"Be careful how you use the word 'steal', unless you want to unleash the wrath of the almighty Alexq"

Was he the guy wearing the hood in that Abu Ghraib photograph ?

The Computer Rodent

Score: 0

By SamppaX

edited Dec 18, 2005 - 7:13 PM

DELETED !!! Too many negative Comments... LOL

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 6:31 PM

I don't think you get it.

He's being the other extreme of this argument for the sake of humor/making a point.

Score: 0

By SamppaX

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 7:11 PM

Another funny person... Oh well... I leave and we'll see how this world going to continue/end...

Score: 0

By UTAKER

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 1:18 AM

u pay and you still get loads of liabilities so i have decided to quit buying/seeing such companies cds/dvds which are involved in riaa/mpaa and

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 4:35 PM

For me, personally, i've come to the point where i really don't want to be involved in any of it.

Use file sharing, and run the risk of getting sued for what to me is an enourmous amount of money that would wreck me financially.

Purchase a CD, and become bound to stupid rules telling me what i can and can't do with an item i purchased with my hard earned money - and to have the collection of music i would like would also hurt me badly financially.

Either way is a bad deal to me, so i opt not to participate in any of it. When i see a guy playing music in the subway, ill throw him a few bucks. TO me that's a better deal, for making my day a little more interesting.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 4:47 PM

Now this is the kind of thing that makes me mad.

People have become so greedy, selfish, and even childish that they are driving others away from music altogether.

I hear ya joeshmoe.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 3:45 AM

Hey man - this is the opportunity that people might go back to what music listening is all about: sit in front of musicians who actually play some music you chose on real instruments.

Here's a possibility to get away from perverse habits - like trying to freeze time visually and acoustically, which is, in my eyes, stupid - cause you'll never feel or experience the same things twice.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 3:24 AM

oh well im not totally driven from music, as long as there is still free airwaves and internet radio stations ill still listen to things.

Score: 0

By black demon

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 2:14 PM

well I protest by not buying any CD's anymore. They cost way more then they are worth, The artist gets practically nothing from the sale and the entire industry is set up to make a few stockholders rich. It is an industry... It does not care about talent, it does not care about their artists it only cares about PROFIT.
last night my doorbell rang and it was a young guy who is a musician and he composes and sells his own CD's so I gave him 10$ for the CD without even listening to it because I would rather give 10 dollars to a musician then 10 dollars to a corporation. If more musicians did that I would be more willing to buy music.
People seem to forget that albums were coming out in the 50's and 60's that were being produced by studios that had like 3 people working in them. Now you have to pay the 30 union idiots who do everything from shine shoes to get the coffee in the studio. everyone involved thinks they deserve more of a cut then the artists. The studios are the ones who should me making .01 cents an album, not the artist.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:24 AM

The men and women in this "forum" have made up their minds already...all hope is lost. I'll leave you be.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 1:13 PM

That's why I usually stay away from these stories. I forgot to this time.

...oops.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 3:06 PM

lol

Score: 0

By jjdavis

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 10:37 AM

I wonder, if the RIAA is ever able to shut down online piracy, are they going to attack eBay next for selling used CDs? Because you know that people who sell their CDs on eBay all keep the MP3 files they ripped from them. Right? That's what they'll a$$ume.

It almost sounds like science fiction, but it's not.

Score: 0

By debonair

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:00 AM

well, it's happening in some ways. I got my thing removed on ebay when trying to sell my copy of mcaffee antivirus I had bought. Appearantly you don't actually own the software you buy...

Watch out for this crap, it's happening more and more. I wanted to buy that one MMORPG game which has no subscription fees, but decided not to after reading the licensing agreement.

DONT SUPPORT THAT CRAP! Your support will make them continue!! READ THE AGREEMENTS!

People who don't know their rights, have none.

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 9:38 AM

Stop complaining people...Who cares right? Are you Pirating music or movies etc? If your not...Then don't worry about it! you got nothing to worry about. Just the people who are downloading illegal items, and then on top of that. Those that are STUPID enough to share their entire computer on the P2P, and leave their P2P service running 24/7 to get cought.

So if you're not one of those people listed above...There really shouldn't be any complaining out of you should their be?

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:00 PM

Let me post a reply to my own comment and let me S-P-E-L-L out what I was talking about.

"Stop complaining people...Who cares right? Are you Pirating music or movies etc? If your not...Then don't worry about it! you got nothing to worry about"

[ok, this first phrase I am talking about "Law-Suits" not DRM's, or the RIAA, etc etc. ]

"Just the people who are downloading illegal items, and then on top of that. Those that are STUPID enough to share their entire computer on the P2P, and leave their P2P service running 24/7 to get cought."

[Now in this phrase, I am talking about the people that DO get cought, because they do stupid things like I listed above]

"So if you're not one of those people listed above...There really shouldn't be any complaining out of you should their be?"

[This phrase is also concering the law suits ordeal]

When I post a comment, I am posting on the actual "Article" that I read above, not on your comments etc. So since the article is about the RIAA suing people for downloading music on a P2P service. That MUST be what I'm talking about eh?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:27 PM

""Stop complaining people..."

Sounds to me like your talking about the comments...not the article.

But maybe that's just me....

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:42 PM

ok Smart ass...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:55 PM

I suppose I can't honestly deny that...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:19 AM

"If your not...Then don't worry about it! you got nothing to worry about. "

I call BS.

Are you saying DRM doesn't affect legitimate users? What if I want to copy my Sony Music CD to my iPod?

Music Piracy affects us all. Yeah, it almost 100% due to the RIAAs reaction to it, and not directly the fault of the pirates themselves, but the fact remains the the more restrictions RIAA imposes on THEM, the more restrictions I have to deal with on *my* system.

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:50 AM

Did I say anything about DRM? I was talking about Using a P2P service. What does leaving a P2P service running 24/7 on your computer, and downloading music from a P2P service have anything to do with DRM?????

Sometimes I don't understand you people, you guys must skim through my comments or somthing....

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:29 PM

P2P has nothing to do with DRM?

The whole *reason* DRM exists is to keep the stuff *off* of P2P.

Wow...

Don't just react...think.

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:41 PM

OMG! I'm talking about people getting cought using P2P for illegal downloading!!! BAH!!!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:58 PM

I highly doubt anyone who's gotten caught is posting or reading here.

Of course, if that were the case, then yeah...they'd pretty much have zero right to complain.

Just don't assume that everyone b****ing here is one of "those" people. Some of us have valid concerns about how all of this affects the legitimate user.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 1:15 PM

And then there are others that just hide on usenet.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 9:17 PM

We don't hide, little man.

We were there before there was a web and Usenet was the primary technical medium for REAL techies.

Hide indeed.

Kidz today...

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 9:51 PM

lol. I was referring specifically to the P2P battle; not the whole Internet.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 1:56 PM

Ah yes, land of the free..

free music...
free movies...
free porn...

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 2:15 PM

I wouldn't know...

Score: 0

By Jedite

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:30 AM

DAMN PC_Tool again we agreeing on something...

The earth is trully gona explode hehe..

However I was wondering when you were gona drop your two cents on this =p

Score: 0

By Jedite

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:09 AM

You are incorrect. The RIAA labels all consumers as criminals. Even if you buy a CD, they will fill up your HD with crap DRM because the presumption of innocense is not in their vocabulary.

How would you like it if they passed a law that requiered all Car Manufacturers to limit the speed of all cars to 60mph(or whatever the speed limit is). Its the same exact thing.

FREEDOM PPL. ITS FREEDOM OF CHOICE on what we listen to and how we listen to it.

Our country was founded on the ideal of freedom, and yet alot of ppl are complaisant when big bussiness is allowed to shrink those freedoms on which our goverment was established. Fight it, its your right to do so.

The Goverment is by the people FOR THE PEOPLE. Not by the people for big bussiness.

Dont you think its rather funny, that even though these people are "Breaking the law", that the Federal Goverment doesnt get involved? That there is no jail time? Its just civil suits, nothing criminal. Makes you wonder doesnt it?

Score: 0

By Ballzy

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 2:44 AM

Actually there will be a GPS speed limiter in cars soon. Look it up. ;) It just won't be long for it to be manditory soon. Just like the chips they put in cars to shut the motor down when you go too fast...ie...police chases.
The man will win...no matter how you argue. Some laws maybe stopped, but they make up for in the next one to get ya.
For example...higher taxes on people that own hybrids...ie...fewer road tax on fuel. That was brought up in Wash DC last month.
So...good luck.

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:54 AM

Like I said to PC_tool, i didn't say anything about how the RIAA labels people, or anything about DRM. I was talking about how people do STUPID things and get COUGHT downloading music from a P2P SERVICE. I swear you people don't know how to interperate anything correctly.

All I was saying is, if you download from a P2P service, and don't wanna get cought. Don't leave your P2P Program running all the time so they can view all the stuff you have downloaded....

Score: 0

By Bugeyes

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 2:09 PM

it's cAught...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:30 PM

lmaooo..

"All I was saying is, if you download from a P2P service, and don't wanna get cought. Don't leave your P2P Program running all the time so they can view all the stuff you have downloaded...."

And if that was all you had said...we'd have all agreed with you 100%.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:31 AM

"The Goverment is by the people FOR THE PEOPLE. Not by the people for big bussiness."

And the people elected Senators, Justices, etc. who appointed RIAA...they represent the people. I'm sure you'll flame me with this one but just consider--maybe, just maybe democracy ISN'T the best form of government. The only perfect one is the Kingdom (capital 'K')...tells you something. Then again we have no perfect people around so no earthly king would be perfect.

My point is that we are the loons, we are the fools. WE ELECTED THE PEOPLE IN OFFICE SO WE INDIRECTLY HAD PART IN RIAA. That is if all you are saying is true.

Score: 0

By Jedite

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:50 AM

Actually the RIAA is appointed by the members of said organization, aka Music Companies.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:53 AM

hmmm...you are correct. I misspoke before...

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 11:02 AM

Tells you a little about the Betanews members...perhaps RIAA will come here next :) ?

Score: 0

By riel

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 9:20 AM

How much money could they actually be saving with 17,000 lawsuits out there. Besides the loss of revenue from all of this. And the people like me who will never buy another Audio Album again unless its from my favorite band or some other extreme circumstances.

Yes yes stealing is wrong of course.

But when record companies decided bands were signed based on profability instead on talent then all the other rules went out the window as well.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 7:20 AM

Congratulations to the RIAA for enforcing their copyright privilege against these free loaders !

The Computer Rodent

Score: 0

By dannyboydano

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 9:56 AM

Don't congradulate the RIAA you fool! You are the reason that clever little gangstas are all gettin nabbed up. You are a grimy little brokeback.

Score: 0

By computershack

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:28 PM

So you'd be happy with people coming round and taking stuff out of your house without your permission?

Somehow I think not, hypocrite.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 3:07 PM

Except these people are not taking any stuff, they are making copies.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 3:59 PM

Yes, they are taking copies of property without permission or repayment.

That's what makes it illegal.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 5:25 PM

In some jurisdictions.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 10:03 PM

It should be in all jurisdictions.

Are you going to tell me someone doesn't have the right to demand repayment for their work if they so choose? Some artists choose to give away their music, and that's awesome.

But if they want to be paid, how dare anyone say they can deprive them of that right?

Score: 0

By Alexq

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 8:57 AM

I shouldn't be in any jurisdiction.

> Are you going to tell me someone doesn't have the right to demand
> repayment for their work if they so choose?

Yes, I am telling you that someone doesn't have a right to demand payment just because he has worked, from anyone who did not willingly enter a contract with obligation to pay.

> But if they want to be paid, how dare anyone
> say they can deprive them of that right?

There is no such right "the right to be paid". There is however a right to "freedom of information exchange".

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 2:19 PM

> Yes, I am telling you that someone doesn't have a right
> to demand payment just because he has worked, from anyone
> who did not willingly enter a contract with obligation to pay.

What?

You're saying that someone has to enter a contract with the artist before they should have to pay for their work?

Is that really what you're saying? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> There is no such right "the right to be paid". There is however
> a right to "freedom of information exchange".

I seriously have no idea what planet you're on. If someone has worked to make something, it is theirs. I don't know about your country, but in the U.S., we have a right to personal property.

Maybe you live in a communist society. I don't know.

No one can take someone else's property without permission or repayment.

**EDIT**
> I shouldn't be in any jurisdiction.

I can't very well disagree with that =p

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 5:23 PM

Yes, I am saying someone has to agree to pay something before he "has to pay".

In a communist society which you mention, people have various thing they "have to do" for some "greater good", regardless of their prior agreement. That is the society RIAA and you are working towards.

> If someone has worked to make something, it is theirs.
> I don't know about your country, but in the
> U.S., we have a right to personal property.

I agree with that statement 100%. However, please read that statement carefully. If you make something it is yours. If I make something (say a copy of what you have) it is mine. This does not contradict your statement.

> No one can take someone else's property
> without permission or repayment.

Again, I agree 100% (not exactly actually, repayment has nothing to do with it, permission is the required and sufficient condition). But this applies to taking something you have (so you no longer have it), it does not apply MAKING A COPY of something you have (so nothing was TAKEN from you, you still have exactly what you had before). At leas that's how it should be in a free country.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 5:35 PM

> Yes, I am saying someone has to agree to pay
> something before he "has to pay".

Unreal. What about anything else? Say: merchandise at your local Walmart? Did you sign a contract saying you agreed you had to pay for it?

You still don't get it.

Are you able to grasp the concept of intellectual property?

You do not create the actual music when you make a copy of it. All you are doing is calling a computer procedure to copy 1's and 0's.

You're trying to equate that with having an inspiration for a song, composing the song structure, orchestrating each instrument's parts, writing the lyrics, and recording each part for 20+ hours?

Get a grip, man.

That song is someone's (usually more than one person's) intellectual property. You have no right to it whatsoever unless it is granted to you by all the owners. Usually, that right is granted to you in exchange for purchasing the CD.

Am I getting through at all?

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 7:18 PM

> Unreal. What about anything else?
> Say: merchandise at your local Walmart?
> Did you sign a contract saying you agreed you had to pay for it?

I never said you have to sign the contract, I said you have to enter into one. You willingly enter a contract with Wal-Mart to exchange merchandise for money when you show up at Wal-Mart and peek up merchandise.

When one makes a copy of files from his friend's computer (with his friend's permission), when and how does he willingly enter into any contract with RIAA?

I know it must be tough to think when you have been brainwashed for years by RIAA's propaganda, but please try it for a second.

I am not saying making a copy is like composing a song. Nothing like that. All I am saying is in a free society we should have a right to make that copy. That's all.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 3:36 AM

LOL you are by far the dumbest most ignorant individual I've ever seen in my life. I like reading your outlandish posts tho', kind of makesme laugh. I'm going to end my attempts to argue with your completely idiotic ideals...but keep up the unintelligent rambling to keep us laughing please. :)

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 10:57 AM

Alright, since so far you didn't understand a word I said, I will come down to your level of discussion so you won't feel so lonely down there.

You are an ignorant illiterate brainwashed moron, who lives like an animal directed by his instincts alone, understanding absolutely nothing about the world around him and in all his actions solely motivated by necessities to support his pathetic existence.

Just because you are too stupid to understand an idea doesn't make that idea wrong. But then you are probably too stupid to even understand that statement.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 18, 2005 - 2:22 AM

> I never said you have to sign the contract, I said you have
> to enter into one. You willingly enter a contract with
> Wal-Mart to exchange merchandise for money when you show
> up at Wal-Mart and peek up merchandise.

Umm... You can't just make up your argument as you go along.

> When one makes a copy of files from his friend's computer
> (with his friend's permission), when and how does he willingly
> enter into any contract with RIAA?

He doesn't. In fact, there is no form of listening rights granted to the copier whatsoever. That's why it's illegal.

> All I am saying is in a free society we should have a
> right to make that copy. That's all.

Then you, my friend, have no grip on reality whatsoever. I can't help you.

There's no hope.

No progress has been made here. I've wasted my energy on deaf ears again.

I really need to stay away from these stories.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 9:06 AM

> Umm... You can't just make up your argument as you go along.

What did I make up? Did I ever said you have to sign the contract? Just because you constantly misread what I say doesn't make my argument any less valid.

> He doesn't. In fact, there is no form of
> listening rights granted to the copier
> whatsoever. That's why it's illegal.

I know. For the tenth time, I am talking about how it should be, not how it is now. Unless someone willingly enters a contract he should not "own" anything to anyone. In a free country that is.

> I really need to stay away from these stories.

Please do.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 18, 2005 - 3:40 AM

"No progress has been made here. I've wasted my energy on deaf ears again.

I really need to stay away from these stories."

LOL tell me about it...I can't count how much time I've wasted arguing with people like that. I think betanews attracts the most skewed people on the internet.

Score: 0

By SamppaX

edited Dec 18, 2005 - 7:19 PM

DELETED !!! Too many negative Comments... LOL

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 11:15 AM

RIAA? I could care less about them. Thieves? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10--they'll burn in hell. BTW this is a very misunderstood book--the Bible that is. Notice it does not say "Whomsoever stealeth from any man shall be damned"...it says "...theives..." shall not inherit the kingdom--meaning if it is your very being, all that you are known for. Get it now?

Wow I'm way off topic here...but that "I hope RIAA burns and goes to hell" thing got me riled up...

Score: 0

By SamppaX

edited Dec 18, 2005 - 7:20 PM

DELETED !!! Too many negative Comments... LOL

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 3:57 PM

"Hmm... You know that RIAA isn't anything like a "HOLY" warrior & either is Illegal file-sharering people..."

I didn't mean to imply that. I'm not a radical push-Bible-down-your-throater either. I was only implying that your comments about heaven or hell can be taken seriously out of proportion. I believe there is power in words, so careful what you say. Not for my sake...but you may have more people listen if you're more careful...thats all

Score: 0

By SamppaX

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 6:08 PM

Power in words... Hmm... You know that "language" was created by people... So no power there...

And you are right about someones getting offended by words (lol) but you know what?

I Don't give a s*** about that... =)

Oh but Peace... no hard feelings.. =)

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 11:52 PM

When do they prosecute SONY/BMG? A crooked record company has no damned business selling CD burners and truck loads of blank discs to the pirates. This rackateer influenced corrupt organization is undercutting the sales of it's own licensed products. Their equipment is used to steal from competitors; who do not sell this hardware.

I ran into a SONY stand alone model on line, that can make 6 bootleg copies of any release at a time. Any thief can purchase this burner for about $1500.00. No need to prove that you are an independent record company bigshot either.

The feds ignore SONY's double dealing. Fifty state attorney general's are brain dead. Congress walks around head up it's a$$. All of the media is fixated on kids downloading some inferior quality MP-3 music files...

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 12:59 AM

You bring this up on almost every P2P story.

And unfailingly, either I, PC_Tool, or some other person with at least 2 working brain cells explains to you that there are other uses for blank CDs.

I use at least a hundred CD/DVDs per year on data backups alone.

Is it that hard of a concept to grasp?

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 3:46 AM

I use at least a hundred CD/DVDs per year on data backups alone.

Depending what country your in like Canada(or a few other countries) i hope you downloaded a couple songs after buying those cds or dvds seeing as how you have already paid for them with a hidden tax that goes to the music companies that is charged on all recordable media.

There are good reasons to buy blank media like data backup people with digital cameras make photo cds people with camcorders make dvds ect ect ect and when people buy cds/dvds for reasons like this it's the music companies that are stealing from them via the hidden tax mentioned earlier.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 12:47 PM

Fortunately, I don't believe the U.S. has gotten THAT greedy yet.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 2:38 AM

i know! I backed up all of my MP... err "files" onto dvd-r's. :)

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 11:49 PM

Don't feed them.
No radio, no CDs, no videos.
Let 'em rot.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 11:26 PM

Well, happy holidays to all pirates!!!

Score: 0

By expert01

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 8:50 PM

I don't see why you have to pay thousands of dollars if you download a few songs, at most you should have to pay the cost of each song you downloaded, plus however many times you uploaded the songs.

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 11:42 PM

It's called 'punishment'.
Usually meted out for doing things society wants to discourage.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 9:36 PM

so if I go to the store and steal some clothes the most I should have to pay is for the cost of the clothes I stole?

You get sued and you don't settle and you end up losing...guess what, you'll probably be paying all their legal fees on top of some crazy amount to make everybody else think twice before stealing again.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 11:23 PM

No one stole anything. They were making copies.

If you take someone's clothes without permission law calls it stealing (a crime). If you make a copy of a copyrighted material without permission law calls it copyright violation (a tort).

These courts found people liable for such extraordinary amounts of money based on RIAA's lies on the amount of money they are losing due to unauthorized copying.

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 11:43 PM

Then call it punitive damages.

Score: 0

By klingon379

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 5:49 AM

Call it a new revenue stream.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 12:52 PM

That thinking is flawed. The RIAA isn't going to make any money off these people. The defendants won't be able to pay the full fines. Most of them are poor which is why they stole the music in the first place. Even if they could pay the full amount, they _might_ make up for half of the RIAA's investigative/legal costs.

Make no mistake, they aren't suing people to make money. They're just trying to scare other illegal downloaders.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 3:11 PM

They didn't steal anything. Stop spreading your lies.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 3:57 PM

Taking property without permission or repayment is stealing.

If you want to be an a** and get caught up on terminology, then the proper legal term is "copyright infringement."

Either way, it's still illegal.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 16, 2005 - 5:33 PM

No, it's no "k".

You are lying when you call it stealing. Making a copy of something and taking the original away are two very different things. The word "stealing" refers to the second action and not the first. Not etymologically, not historically, not morally and not legally.

Stop spreading your lies.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 16, 2005 - 10:01 PM

Did you read what I said?

You do know how to read right?

What about reading comprehension?

Was that your high score on the SAT?

Have you taken the SAT?

Put your "steal" radar away. You're not accomplishing anything by quibbling over a word.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 8:11 AM

Not only the name of the action is different, the action itself is different. Record companies are intentionally lying when they call making a copy "stealing" and stupid a******s like you are repeating the lies.

Once again, for intellectually challenged: it is not about terminology, the action of making a copy and the action of taking away original are two very different things.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 1:36 PM

AND I SAID THAT.

Bottom line: Either way, it's still illegal

"stupid a**"

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 17, 2005 - 5:28 PM

You continue to call making copies "stealing" which is a wrong term on every level. Are you saying you agree that the term is wrong but still continue to use it because you are an ignorant idiot?

Score: 0

By varsity

edited Dec 17, 2005 - 6:20 PM

Since I like analogies, please allow me to use one in this “friendly” discussion. Let’s just say Alexq that you are a writer and you author a novel that becomes an instant #1 bestseller in North America but, for whatever reason, it will take six months before you can have it published in Europe. Well, long before that happens, some Hack decides to print off 10 million copies of YOUR novel (but that should be okay because they’re only copies, so he’s not really stealing from you, correct?). Anyways, the Hack gets those 10 million copies published in Europe under a bogus publishing company in his name long before you were scheduled to have them published there and, in the process, realizes a phenomenal 50 million dollar profit! That’s 50 million bucks YOU could have made had the Hack not copied YOUR novel. In that hypothetical scenario, how would that make you feel? Of course you’d be okay with it (insert sarcasm here) because the Hack didn’t actually STEAL your