Excuses\Rationalizations for piracy:

- RIAA screws the artist and the consumer.

So that means you can screw RIAA and the Artist by downloading music you haven't paid for, thus depriving the already screwed artist of the small amount of income they would have gotten had you paid for it? Brilliant, Einstien. What's your next trick? Gonna rip milk from the mouths of babes?

- I wouldn't have bought it anyway/it's not available in stores.

Ever heard of self-control? What makes you think you are entitled to something you have not paid for when others did? Are you special because you want it more or less than those who would pay for it do? Three year olds are taught to have enough self control to not take things that are not rightfully theirs. Who forgot to teach *you* this lesson?

- They have enough money anyway/they over-charge for it

They have money because honest people buy they're products. They over-charge because people are willing to pay what they charge. Just because it is, in *your* opinion, too much, does not give you the right to own it for free. You are not entitled to something just because you 'Don't wanna pay for it.' Take some personal responsibility and deny yourself that which you *chose* not to pay for.

- The law is stupid, we should just not obey it.

Stupid or not, it's a law. Downloading that song off of P2P instantly removes your credibility with regards to this argument. Anyone doing this is using the excuse for their own personal gain. If you truely feel the law is wrong/inadequate/etc, other forms of protest will have an impact, downloading your favorite songs will not. All it does is give the RIAA more ammunition in their fight for stronger DRM and tighter control of *your* rights.

- I don't care. I save money and no-one loses anything or gets hurt. It's just copying, for Christ's sake!

Wrong. You disrespect every person involved in the production of the song, as well as every person who purchased this song legitimately. How do you get off feeling you are somehow above this? Just copying? Bull. More like; Just making sure the artists/distributors get less from each sale due to the fact the labels need to spend so much more trying to get rid of your leeching ass, not to mention raising the cost for the folks honest enough to actually *buy* music. You seriously need to take (and pay attention in) a few economics classes.

Want to discuss this some more? Great. Email me on gmail (same username).

Peace. Out.

That comment deserves a Score of 10 from the mods.

How about test driving a car before you buy it? Sure, it might be in an illegal way, which suddenly makes it wrong.

I may be different from majority, but since riaa started suing, i've started boycotting

Good for you! Boycot away!

As far as "Test Driving" Music? Turn on yer damn radio or tune in your favorite Internet Radio station.

One thing I always find silly about the RIAA suing is many songs that are in circulation are recorded from vinyl, 8 track or other sources that are non-compact disc and have never been released on cd.

For instance, I'm into the Supremes 1970's (post-Diana Ross) featuring Jean Terrell and Scherrie Payne as lead singers. In the late 80's, early 90's, 5 of the 15 1970's albums (3 of these were solo albums) was released on cd but quickly went out-of-print. Now we have a new generation of fans, with none of the albums in print. Thanks to technology, some of us have recorded these albums from vinyl onto cd and shared amongst ourselves - and some guys with Motown knew this. After begging them repeatedly (and bombarding them with emails), we stepped up and started a big campaign to have all the albums reissued on cd, or else we would continue sharing amongst ourselves. Last October, the sole live album was released as limited edition (it was only released in Japan in 1973), and sometime between this fall and winter, allegedly ALL of the albums will be released (in 2 different volumes on different release dates, limited edition).

I think it's silly to be a fan of a certain group, absolutely NONE of the albums are available to buy anywhere in any format, yet the record labels would want to sue you for sharing what they won't make available - when the fans are waving their money at you. I know it takes some time, effort and resources to make the albums available, but g** d***! Why do labels waste their time releasing different versions of a recent cd by one of "today's" artists (regular edition, special edition, deluxe edition, new edition with bonus remix disc, etc), when there's plenty of classic music plenty of fans are willing to buy? They need to get off their asses and expand their in-print cd catalogues. We almost literally had to kick them in the a** and drive them absolutely insane to get what we want LOL. Make some music available that you were quick to pull off the shelves at one time (just because it wasn't selling as expected), and maybe the labels would be making some money. I'm not sorry to say this, because quite frankly, the selection of in-print music is scarce. Not all of us are interested in buying Britney, Missy, Justin, Ashlee and all that other crap. If record labels made a majority of their catalogue available again, they wouldn't be whining about losing money as much. You need to SPEND money to make money. Not put out minimal effort and expect maximum profits. That's just plain retarded, and it deprives younger generations of REAL music that they refuse to make available. Sorry for my rant - I DO pay for my music LOL - and I like to buy music that's worth listening to.

Why is it so hard to simply go without? If it's not legally available why can you not simply make due without?

Where does your sense of entitlement come from? What makes you think you have a right to these tracks?

This argument is getting ridiculous. The only points I've seen relate to some illogically rationalized sense of entitlement that simply does not exist.

Here, maybe I'll just tell you what I've toldmy children...

"If it isn't yours, leave it alone. You don't have the right to use it unless you are given permission from the person who owns it."

Apparently several of you missed that lesson.

that is actually a good point. i mean it isn't food, we dont really need it. I guess a lot of people really feel they NEED it, and until that changes, until people really see that it's just music and not nutrition, this will continue. But on the bright side, that very same demand might just be what saves it. Who knows, until someone comes up with some real good ideas so people can have it very cheap while still being able to turn big profits, this will go on and on.

It's not just that they think the need it, it's that they somehow feel they are entitledto it without having to pay for it like everyone else.

If you're referring to MY comment, you're preaching to the wrong person. Thanks to my campaign that I started (which has several hundred members), two groups will be winners in the longrun: the fans get what we want (these long out of print albums, 10 of 15 never been on CD at any time), and the record label will be making plenty of $ (especially with the OVER-premium prices they are charging us, which we are VERY willing to pay to have these albums).

I'm convinced this Phoenix guy is either with a major record label, or is paid by them to bark like a dog, even towards the paying customers and paying fans. You know what, f*ck you! If it wasn't for dedicated fans like our campaign, you wouldn't have a job. You ain't gonna be telling music consumers "buy what we make available, and that's that". 90% of available music is utter crap, isn't worth downloading or buying - but the GOOD STUFF can be found on vinyl record, which thankfully is for the most part used and the record labels won't make a dime off that, because they're too lazy to get with the times and release them on CD. Once people snap out of their infatuation with Britney, Justin and that retard Fiddy and rediscover "old school", which is where REAL music is at, they won't need to download or buy crap CD's anymore.

To younger music fans, please give the following acts a try: The Supremes (60's and ESPECIALLY 70's), Freda Payne, Honey Cone, Glass House, Edna Wright, Laura Lee, Millie Jackson, Cass Elliot, 100 Proof Aged In Soul, The Three Degrees, Friends Of Distinction, Sharon Cash, and many more. You will also need to buy a turntable, but it's worth it. Not only will you strangle the lazy and greedy music execs, but you'll be getting better quality music. No vocoders, no lipsynching (can we say Ashlee?), real instruments, some of the best bass players in history, and more. If they're too lazy and cheap to make this stuff available for a younger generation, do it yourself. It's also cheaper than buying these overhyped overpriced CD's by no-talents.

People like Phoenix only wants people like Britney and Snoop to be recognized as "music", and would rather see REAL music dead. Stop supporting and downloading crap music, invest in REAL music, and that's what kills people like him. Webster's was thinking of people like this person when they added "n*gger" to their dictionary. Pure stupidity and pure disregard to people who were the pioneers of what people call "music" today.

The point is that while you were "campaigning", you were also priating. Get over yourself and your inability control yourself.

You are a pirate, pure and simple.

As far as what music is available.. The market pretty much controls that. If they're buying up britany by the bucketfuls, that's what they will sell. If they are lobbying for more supreme's, that is what they will get.

Your lobbying is what got you your cds, not your illegal pirating of the albums. That, had the labels known about it, would have ruined your little 'movement' completely.

Get a life, moron. Wake the hell up and realize pirating is pirating, and it destroys the legitimacy of whatever "cause" you happen to be using as an excuse. Personal gain in no way excuses piracy, and that is *all* piracy is, regardless of rationale.

And, ya know.. I like the supremes too. Matter of fact, I can head down to the flea market and pick up as many of their albums as I like. You should really try it sometime....those vinyl things have outlasted many a CD. And getting them from markets is legal. Imagine that...

Now...your personal comments about me.. Too funny, I must admit.

I am not paid, nor am I employed by anyone even remotely involved in the recording industry. And why would that make my arguments any less valid, hmm?

Er... F*ck you too, thankyouverymuch.

> ut the GOOD STUFF can be found on vinyl record

(And yet you were downloading it instead of getting it at teh local fleamarket...)

> People like Phoenix only wants people like Britney and Snoop to be recognized as "music", and would rather see REAL music dead.

Er, no. Music is subjective, "Real" music even more so. Personally? I go from Elvis to George Thorogood to Run-DMC to 'old-skool' Metallica. Oh, and Ilisten to a lot of UK punk as well...and some Irish Folk (Google Gallowglass).

Notice that Britney and Snoop were not on that list, not that that makes them any less 'Music'.

Who said I was pirating? We ALL own the albums - but just a few of us own the equipment to transfer the albums onto CD. Therefore, the owners of the albums ARE entitled to be able to play that music on their CD players as well as their turntable. Guess how much I charged those fans who already own their vinyl copies for their CD copy? Zilch. Nor do I post the music on Kazaa, Limewire or any of those other P2P programs. I love the music - greedy execs do not. They'll bob their heads to any crap that "cha-chings" them $18 a pop per CD.

And also guess what? Pre-campaign, Motown knew this because I TOLD them what was going on, right in front of their faces on the currently-down official Motown Chat Board. Brave little b****, aren't I? LOL But it got their asses in gear, didn't it? They somehow got the $ when those old vinyl LPs sold in the 70's, so now they want the $ to sell us the CD's. Why did it take so long? I'm not some aging hippie who still owns their old records, I'm a music fan in his 20's who has an eye for REAL music. I may be in the record execs target audience, but I ain't paying for crap! It's a successful campaign, I'm passionate about GOOD music, and we are getting what we FINALLY have been begging for, for years. A happy ending, and EVERYONE is satisfied.

Oh, and those people at Motown who I told about the vinyl-to-cd transfers - we're on good terms now. Motown even allows me to promote the campaign when the board is up and working!

After these albums are out, we're going to do the same for another classic artist whose albums on vinyl are long overdue to be on CD. Freda Payne, her ABC label years, anyone?

I'm not the idiot, nor am I a pirate. I'm the foot up Motown/Universal's a**. What are you doing to keep music alive, other than playing "better than you; b****, b****, b****" to music consumers? Take a look in the mirror...idiot.

So you keep your yapping, because I'm not reading any more of your replies. I just stumbled upon this website and was curious of what kind of feedback I would get (I knew YOU would reply, you "know it all" LOL). Now I'm done with this subject. I'm right, you're retarded. Anyone who agrees with any of my posts (or music interests) are welcomed to email me, if that's possible on this website. Except Phoenix - it'll be sh*t-canned in the garbage.

wtbh?!? (What the bloody hell)

> Nor do I post the music on Kazaa, Limewire or any of those other P2P programs.

Fine, but you were defending people who did that in your first post. (at least, that's the impression I got from reading it). It's bull. It's another rationale for pirating that doesn't hold water. Any of these albums can be legally purchased via places like eBay and fleamarkets. They can then do what they want with them. If they cannot afford the equipment to transfer them to CD, that is their problem, not the record companies.

If you are not transferring these files to anyone who does not *own* the album, you are protected by fair-use and RIAA doesn't give a s*** about you.

If that's the case, and you did *not* distribute to anyone who did not own it, you're fine by me. Perhaps I misread your original comment, but it sure as hell sounded like you were defending piracy of vinyl simply because it wasn't on CD yet.

Think of me what you will. I really don't care. And know-it-all I have never claimed to be. If I misread your comment, I admit it. If I did not, I stand by everything I have said.

> I'm right, you're retarded.

Whatever. Very Mature.

can't we all just get along and sing kumbaya... wait maybe not it might be copyrighted. DOH!

Next thing you know someone's gonna tell me pot is illegal! Man that would suck! {puff}

government has plenty to do with it! if you deny that you have no argument. i dont agree with piracy, i buy my own music and software. however, i cannot support the music industry when they charge 15 bucks an album (cd), the record companies have already settled a price fixing settlement on their pricing of cd's. the music industry keeps most of the profits and the artists and their creativity is compensated only minimumly. Hell, i remember when metallica used to invite people (fans) to record their live shows and then trade the tapes. wow, guess they are running low on beer money. If you have to look up civil disobedience-you really should stay in school-jr. high is when it really gets tuff! Yes, i with millions of other consumers decide daily with our dollars that we work hard for and spend-basic economics-not esoteric bs! yes there is a winner-global corps and their troll like money grubbing lawyers-and dont forget-they (pirates) are violating laws set forth by the government! yeah, pheonix-jr high is gonna be a killer for anyone who is that self righteous>

rofl..

Jr. High was a breeze, pal. Probably one of the reasons my posts aren't insanely huge run-ons, and my grammar isn't atrocious.

> and the artists and their creativity is compensated only minimumly

Riiiight... Then you go on to spew sarcasm about Metallica running low on beer money. Well, at least they have enough for their cubans, eh? Not compenstaed, my ass.

And I have to point out how extremely *lame* this argument is. Seriously.. RIAA doesn't pay them enough, so it's okay to download their music thus depriving them of even the small amount they'd get from RIAA? That's just brilliant. You're an absolute friggin' genius.

> If you have to look up civil disobedience-you really should stay in school

I don't have to look it up. I posted the definition because you are apparently confusing it with anarchy.

> Yes, i with millions of other consumers decide daily with our dollars that we work hard for and spend-basic economics-not esoteric bs

Um... Cost vs. demand is esoteric? Wow... a lot of economists are gonna be quite put-uot to hear that. And what about the millions skewing those stats by downloading and not buying? Give me a break.

Take some advice, man...

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain

RIAA = bad... I got no beef with that.

Pirating = justifiable... BS. It's illegal, and it's just plain wrong to claim rights to something you simply have no rights to.

sorry huricane victums, but are goverment is more concerned about file sharing then you having no house and no food , and some third world country needs more rubers so they dont spread aids.
---
weather its right or wrong it makes me sick!!!!

Government has nothing to do with it, troll. This is RIAA vs. pirates.

By the way, since you're so concerned...what have you done for the victims of Katrina?

More blah blah blah....As a former staff writer for several record labels,I know what vultures they are, especially Capitol, EMI and Sony. They literally destroyed the independent music business, I wish they would rot in hell.More power to the downloaders, they cant get you all.

> I wesh they would rot in hell

Please, tell me more about this "weshing" you speak of...

Come on phoenix you have to agree that in the end of all this RIAA vs. FILE SHARERS, someday.... the only ones who will have won will be the lawyers. And i personally know lawyers who share songs on limewire... when i saw that i had to laugh. What a mess.

Sorry. I just can't laugh. I find no humor in the destruction of creativity and freedom.

No-one will win.

All we'll get out of this is stronger DRM, fewer rights, and heftier punishments. All because several thousand people feel as though they are not accountable for their own actions.

Of course, no lessons will be learned and the next time we have the opportunity to expand our access to knowledge and creativity we'll just blow off the other foot.

you seem to like to sucking up to something(the RIAA for one)..I bet you like sucking swinging, flaccid, objects also ....oops maybe you are lazy and prefer the erect ones.

"because several thousand people feel as though they are not accountable for their own actions."

Actually, I would probably say millions of people do. EVERYONE I know downloads music. It's really frustrating, especially when they download it from the artists they really like. They disprove their own stupid excuses: "Well I just want to see if their good enought to buy." They like them, and they still don't buy the CD....

Thanks for your well-thought-out, topical, nad genuinely inspirational commentary.

Next...

I guess no one here know's about price gauging, civil disobedience, consumer demand does affect cost, I could go on for ever. I have a good idea what my hard work is worth, however I see two very narrow views being presented here and neither is correct. Growing up and maturity are two different things.

Lmao...

> civil disobedience: Deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws.

This does *not* include hiding behind your anonymizers downloading the latest Spears track as '|\/||_|5!(|)00|)'.

Using Civil Disobedience against RIAA would be more along the lines protesting outside the Label's major distribution centers making it hard for *them* to distribute music.

> consumer demand does affect cost

It sure does...as does making the company spend any profits it would have on legal fees to stop '|\/||_|5!(|)00|)'.

Cost vs. demand is determined by sales. This is critically thrown out of whack when the most popular tracks are downloaded billions of times instead of being purchased. There is now no way to determine demand based on sales. Thank you for pointing this out.

> I have a good idea what my hard work is worth.

And that gives you the right to determine what others work is worth? Bull.

You, alone, decide squat. The consumer market as a whole decides that, and right now they're jacking prices up by forcing lawsuits and *not* buying the CDs they listen to.

> Growing up and maturity are two different things.

Sure are. Might I suggest you try some of the latter. Throw in some personal responsibility as well. Sadly, it seems to be in short supply these days.

People:

Just because you do not agree that something should be illegal does not justify those who do it.

You are not entitled to anyone elses property,

You do not have the right to say, 'Hey! You made it and I found it online so I don't have to pay for it!"

You do not set prices. You have NO say in how much someone elses hard work is worth. If you think it costs too much, live without it.

In short: Grow up.

If you didn't make it, and you didn't pay for it, and it isn't being given to you by the person who made it, you have *ZERO* rights to it. Period. End of Story.

you know, in a way, you hit the nail with the comment "grow up"

Most the people i see, who are runnnig things like limewire and kazaa and such are not them, but their KIDS. I think a lot of parents need to grow up and pull the switch and stop letting their kids suckle on the www nipple. I for one have warned many about the dangers of file sharing and always suggest not doing it for your own good. But we live in a society where parents let the PC do the babysitting, not always but a LOT of times that i have personally seen.

kids..

...or adults who don't know a damn thing about personal responsibility.

Little of both. People suck.

Awww, [insert bad word here]!! I'm boned, Do'H! In truth, there are going to be ALOT of DJ that are in deep Poo! And the people that get that song are in even more poo! I'm sooooo glad I have old tapes (tons of tapes)!!! (yes, I even have some 8-tracks [retro])

Heh...

Just don't post that you're a pirate. Oops..too late.

lmao...

I wonder, if someday someone developes a chip that they can implant in your brain... which plays back all audio and video ever experienced from the storage of your own subconscious, and would allow you to link up to someone elses skull to tranfer thoughts, would then we finally have real thought laws/police? Isnt that where all this is going? After all isnt a CD track or Mp3 just a "digital thought" in of itself it is just a stream of 1's and 0's with the computer being the brain. I don't know, i said i wouldnt get philosophical but i just can't help myself. I mean eventually there going to have Apple Brain-pods, eventually it's going to lead to the very mind itself and what can and cannot be recalled or tranferred from your very brain. Just a thought of the future, i guess we'll see.

Think wireless networking,

If you leave your thoughts open for others to 'hear', then you're inviting them.

So wear a tinfoil hat, my man. They're 'in' now.

well i was thinking more along the lines of wired, for transfers, but i suppose wireless would be an attractive feature of such a system, although i wouldnt touch that personally. My home is networked all hard wired for that reason. Of course nothing is totally secure, but more the better.

P.S. my girlfriend said the foil hat is very "me"

Why doesn't that suprise me? Could be the 'wired' comment...

:P

Tell ya the God's honest truth, my house iswired as well. Freeloaders are easy enough to keep out, I just hate the added latency.

Just a comment on my own behavior. If it is an album (or in my case, a videogame) that is worth money to me, I buy it. If it is something I just want to test out, I download it, and usually find it wasn't even worth the time it took to download.

Why this behavior doesn't bother my moral sensibilities is because I am supporting those artist which I value, and I am not making purchases that I don't desire. Since I am downloading content which I would not purchase in the first place, I am hardly stealing money from anybody.

Ultimately, this means that the money I can afford to spend on digital content is better spent supporting those artists which produce truly good content. At the same time, I am not deprived of exposure to the hottest new thing, which I desire to experience once simply to see what the hubbub is about.

In the end, does this solve any of the issues at hand? No. But it does result in the artists being supported and me being happy with my content, I really don't see who is losing out here.

The digital age is at hand. Digital content is free to distribute, so distribute it far and wide. No longer are we constrained by manufacturing costs. The fact of the matter is that we need to make digital content available to every person on earth, and until companies devise business models which allow this, there will be conflict between pirates and publishers.

Just to show that such a business model is conceivable, imagine a national digital content tax. This tax will be used to pay digital content creators. Digital content consumers will dictate which content creators get paid simply by their choice of which content to consume. So, everytime somebody downloads the newest 50 cent track, he gets a penny. Everytime somebody downloads a Medeski Martin and Wood track, they get a penny, etc. While this is undoubtedly not the ideal model, the only problem I see with it, is that it removes the need for any kind of RIAA, MPAA, etc, and this is only a bad thing for corporate leeches, not the consumer.

"I wasn't going to buy it anyway." It's a cop-out. Take responsibility for your actions.

Games? Try a demo. Buy the latest PC-Gamer mag. Read the reviews.

Downloading the ISO or RIP is pirating, pure and simple. No rationalization excuses this behavior. It is people who are simply to immature, to irresponsible to deal logically with their own actions.

If you pirate, say you pirate. Don't give some whiny excuse as to why you do it, cuz there ain't no excuse, yer just another damn money-sucking pirate.

(think of the millions/billions that gaming/music/movie industries are spending trying to get rid of you people that could be going to any number of better uses)

Your behaviour sucks. But feel free to comment on it. I'll be happy to comment as well.

I absolutely admit that I pirate. My point is that I still pay for content I value. I don't enjoy this arrangement, and would prefer one similar to the suggestion at the end of my previous post. Nonetheless, I get the content I want, and the artists I value get some money. This is a comprimise, one which satisfies me better than the alternative of not pirating.

EX. I bought Half-life 2, but pirated Far Cry and Doom 3. I bought Warcraft 3 but pirated C&C: Generals. I bought Gish and Bridge Construction Set, but pirate all kinds of NES Roms and FF vs the Third Reich.

Games which are worth the sticker price, I buy. Games that have some value, but are greatly overpriced, I pirate and enjoy, and spend the money I save somewhere else. It's not like I'm not supporting content I value. It is the case that I acquire for free (free to me and free to the publisher) content I would not buy, but would still like to experience.

Call me a pirate, I won't deny it. Saying my behavior sucks is a little bit of a stretch. Who exactly is getting stepped on here?

"I wanna play it, but I don't wanna pay for it...waaahh...so I'm not GONNA!"

My 3 yr-old knows better.

Just because you can't tell who's getting hurt doesn't give you the right to do it. Other people, who like the games, are paying for them. Just because you don't like it means you can play it for free?

Bulls***.

I'm sorry, I should have said, 'Your behaviour is childish, selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate, and just plain stupid.'... but I thought 'sucks' pretty well summed it up.

Well, how about this? A dj makes a remix of several songs and puts it out on a P2P. I download it. Am I in trouble? One part of the mix is from a tv show and some other parts are from a top 40 song. Or what is a radio dj makes a mix of song (radio stations do that alot) and I download it, again am I in trouble? What if an artist of a group that disbanded releast some songs that the group recorded but the label didn't like?

> A dj makes a remix of several songs and puts it out on a P2P. I download it. Am I in trouble? One part of the mix is from a tv show and some other parts are from a top 40 song.

DJs need permision from the artists involved.

This could mean dealing with the management companies the artists have employeed to deal with copyrights.

If the DJ sought and got needed permissions, it is legal. If not... he is guilty of infringement, as are you for downloading it.

> Or what is a radio dj makes a mix of song (radio stations do that alot) and I download it, again am I in trouble?

In the case of radio stations, they are bound by the same rules, though some do not strictly abide them and sometimes these violations go ignored. Less often if they make the mix available for download as that would involve distribution.

> What if an artist of a group that disbanded releast some songs that the group recorded but the label didn't like?

If the label owned the rights to the song, it would be illegal.

Keep in mind, infringement is against the law. I'm not debating weather or not it should be here, I am just stating a fact, since you asked.

That about covers it. Of course, this is all based on my understanding of the laws and I have been wrong before....well...once.

LOL we could argue all day, and all night. In the end people just need to stop all the madness, copying purchasing sharing everything, and let the RIAA slowly die. Get a guitar and make your own music, or some pots and pans and bang on them until you feel the rhythm in your soul... Yeah man that's the future! (until they pass a law against banging on your pots, because it is not legal to use something designed for cooking as a musical instrument)

Edit: Phoenix, you make good points so ill just say, bang on the pots while we can!

:LOL:

Exactly. Though I prefer an actual drum-set to the pots 'n pans.

Again, copying is not theft. Period.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175

["A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position."]

Again i say, show me the law where it says copying = stealing????? Wrong? Yes. Illegal? For now sure. Ok - but theft? No chance in hell. Now can we argue on the real issue and stop calling it something it isn't (and clear our minds of RIAA brainwashing ads)????

http://www.usdoj.gov/cri...ybercrime/iplaws.htm#Xb

Probably a major source of confusion for some.

The act itself is called the "No Electronic Theft" act, but refers to the crime as infringement.

Why are we arguing about this? It's pointless in the long wrong. Theft is against the law, stealing is sgainst the law, and for now, cp infringement is against the law. In that respect, they are equal aside from the fact that we can change one without changing the others.

Focusing on namimng the crime draws everyone away from the real issue. We agree on that.

Good enough for me.

Well in any case, the playing field here is in a constant state of change... tomorrow there could be a law for crying out loud that says your not allowed to humm a tune you heard on the radio, that could be infringement, since the song is in your head that could cost the RIAA big bucks in lost sales. I mean this can go on and on, many opposed these laws, as did i, but they are laws so fine don't break them. The law is the answer to everything in some people's minds. Personally my ultimate point is that some shmuck shoulnd't be sitting in prison because he bypassed some stupid cd copy protection. I disagree with that, and always will reguardless of what the law says. Crime is a serious thing, rape is serious, murder is serious. Copying some 1's and 0's from one media to another, againt the law it may be, but i would not stick someone who did such a thing, for non profit gain, in the same jail cell as a guy who molested some kids. Sorry that's just me. Little Suzy who shared a poo fighters track is not quite such a danger to society.

Edit:
And by the way, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a law, that is how they are changed, and they change all the time. If more people stood up for their fair use rights, im sure it would change. But then, most people are lazy and don't want to be bothered doing something for a higher purpose. So we are led around like cattle.. and the saga continues...

That punishment, by far, would not fit the crime. Putting someone in jail for making a copy from which no-one made any money is a little overkill.

But..as far as I am aware, that has not happened yet. Just a lot of money changing hands, and I do think that knowing the consequences and still acting illegally should get you said consequences. I mean, you played the game, you lost, now pay up.

I also still think copying someone else's creation is wrong wen they have not given express permission, and theree should also be consequences for that. If I make a music cd, program, etc and want to be paid for it, I have every right not to distribute it except for money. And I also have the right to fight, in court, anyone who 'infringes' on my right to make money off of my own works.

No, I am not an artist/coder, but I do believe folks should be able to make a living in such endeavors.

That is exactly where this argument ends. The artist, or company that the artist has chosen to represent.manage their works has the last say in what money made from such works goes where, and how much exactly is to be made. They have every right to charge whatever they want. If we don't want to pay it, we won't, and they'll either lower prices, or lose money. If we 'infringe' on that copyright and somehow get it for free, they have every right to seek damages.

Anyone who purchases music in any way is supporting these lawsuits and rediculous copyright laws and is a communist from uranus. >:)

Seriously though, theres so many lemmings out there who will shell out a bunch of cash for the latest poo fighters cd with it's little FBI seal on it and go wahhh when they can't upload it to their little communist ipods. Why society keeps feeding the mouth that bites them is beyond me.

I'll rephrase that for you:

"Anyone who obey's the law makes it easier for those who wish to enforce the law to do so."

And...that's perfectly fine by me. Simple answer is...don't break the law.

It isn't up to individuals to decide what laws are just and what laws are unjust, those are called dicatorships. It is up the the group as a whole to decide, and right now, the business sector of this group carries more weight. When this reverts to a more balanced form, laws will change.

The real question here is what can be done to reverse the amount of weight businesses have....and I guarantee you, it isn't stealing from them.

exactly, thats my point, it's not the copying that's going to stop it, it's the purchasing of their product by society as a whole, which is up to society as a whole to decide, whether to purchase or not. And no it's not ok to copy material that is copyrighted by law, but i'm sick of all the propoganda being spewed that basically if you copy music you're no better then a thief. Unless you're doing it for profit, i disagree with the logic. Without getting all philosophical quite simply all i can say is, if copying something is wrong - fine, but it is not stealing.

Yes, it is.

According to Law.

And the law is what one must answer to if they decide to break it.

It matter not a whit if you *think* it is wrong.

Umm, no, it is not.
Again i never said it was not wrong, or legal, i said it is not theft or stealing, it is infringement- go read your precious DMCA.

Well said. Agreed 100%.

So much BS.

http://www.usdoj.gov/cri...ybercrime/iplaws.htm#Xb

*shrug* DMCA says infringe, NET says infringe, but stands for the "No Electronic Theft (NET) Act".

Take it however you want. The point remains that downloading copyrighted material is illegal and punishable by law.

Not calling it theft does not excuse it or make it a logical alternative to purchasing it or not purchasing it, and is in no way a valid argument against the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits.

What's really sad is that we agree, for the most part, on the fact that those using P2P, and justifying it because "**AA is evil, so it's OK." is wrong.

I say we leave it at that and forget the theft!=cpoyright infringement argument.

Well in any case, the playing field here is in a constant state of change... tomorrow there could be a law for crying out loud that says your not allowed to humm a tune you heard on the radio, that could be infringement, since the song is in your head that could cost the RIAA big bucks in lost sales. I mean this can go on and on, many opposed these laws, as did i, but they are laws so fine don't break them. The law is the answer to everything in some people's minds. Personally my ultimate point is that some shmuck shoulnd't be sitting in prison because he bypassed some stupid cd copy protection. I disagree with that, and always will reguardless of what the law says. Crime is a serious thing, rape is serious, murder is serious. Copying some 1's and 0's from one media to another, againt the law it may be, but i would not stick someone who did such a thing, for non profit gain, in the same jail cell as a guy who molested some kids. Sorry that's just me. Little Suzy who shared a poo fighters track is not quite such a danger to society.

RIAA is a bunch of greedy a** bas****s...who care nothing about the artists' interests. They are after one thing and one thing only, MONEY. Even after ligit song downloading sites were set up, the RIAA now wants to raise the prices of the most populars songs. Which says one thing to me, until that association is disolved there is always gonna be some sort of illegal downloading. So FUkK the RIAA

Agrees fully with athomes comment on this thread.

Despite my spelling, the truth is that it is stealing, justify it anyway you like, its againstthe law and thats it.

I do not support the RIAA as I think they are over the top and dont pay enougth to Artists on there books, but as far as P2P, torrent whatever it is stealing.

Not exactly, stealing and copying are not quite the same thing (in my own opinion and view of the world), but i've explained this so many times im not going to even bother now. Believe what you want i guess. But i will agree with you and mr. athome in as far as, yes the only way to stop them is to stop purchasing their crap.

stealing and copying are both seen by the the law as theft.

What more needs to be said? It's the law that matters, not your opinion of it. People convicted of crimes based on law, not on their belief in it's justness.

That said, whining about it isn't going to change it, nor is breaking it.

If you wish to stop purchasing it, by all means, feel free. Just take responsibility for that decision and live without the music instead of stealing it. By breaking the law, even as it stands, you nullify any right you had to disagree with it.

Show me the law that says copying is the same stealing, other then the RIAA propaganda TV ads.

You're not seriously that stupid, are you?

Ever heard of the DMCA?

Ever read the DMCA? It's called infringement, not stealing or theft. Find me the word stealing or theft in the DMCA???? Can you? Didn't think so. So no seriously, im not that stupid.

infringing...stealing..theft..

Does it *really* matter? NET act calls it theftandinfringement, DMCA calls it infringement. Both mean it is against the law.

Can we stop this now? Agree to disagree on this point? We both agree that regardless of it's name, it's a legal offence and not a valid form of protesting **AA's prices.

Let's leave it at that.

f**k off you piece of garbage.

In other words:

Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!

Isn't it past your bedtime?

The whole matter is getting ridiculous. We can record music off the radio and burn CDs until Hell freezes over. The RIAA doesn't sue stations; which refuse to digitally encrypt their music and charge monthly fees for a descrambler. Is this next?

Do you subscribe to those monthly ala carte services? A sound recorder plugin can make analog tapes of those DRM files right on your hard drive. Without any more restrictions! They can be cut using NERO wave editor in minutes.

Dare we ask what planet these RIAA mortons came from?

Apparently the same place that the betanews' users who misspell "mortons" come from...seriously, your logic makes no sense: "OK, I can illegally steal music in three ways, but since I can get away with it one of the ways, shouldn't they all be legal?" RECORDING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC FROM THE RADIO AND DISTRIBUTING IT IS JUST AS ILLEGAL. Just because there is no easy way to prevent it does not make it legal.

Sorry to go againgst the grain, but here goes. In a nutshell, I disagree with the apparent "heavy hansdedness" of the RIAA however if peeps PAID for music and didnt steal or trade the stolen music, there would never be an issue. You can argue this point from now till the end of time, but the fact is , You never created the music, you never paid the artists royalties therefore you have no right to Steal music from those who created it, marketed it and made it available for the pleasure of others.. its the hard fact people. Its stealing, so they have a case as water tight as a mermaids bra. There you have it.

How much did R.I.A.A. pay you to say this?

I feel the same way, you are not alone in this way of thinking...

You know every time I have mentioned that stealing is wrong someone makes that same stupid comment to me too...

Aye.

If it's too much, don't buy it. But don't use it as an excuse to steal it. It's that "logic" that this whole issue started with.

Yeah, you're not alone. Sometimes I get that feeling too though.

Well said.

Stupid comment? And I suppose that lack of punctuation in a sentence is intelligent?

No, but pointing out grammar/punctuation mistakes is the lowest form of response. Grasping at straws? Can't think of something intelligent to say? Hey, why not use the fall-back of all intellectually-challenged trolls?

It's alright to get paid for your work - although there are people in this world who work for free, on an honorary basis, and who are supported by others to be able to do so.

But with the modern music basis, especially in the so called "entertainment" sector, it could be called "ridiculous", if it wasn't that sad, to claim any sort of "intellectual property". There are no really "new" or "original" or "initial" musical ideas any more - be it harmonical or melodic structures. It's just the "sound" that changes, the acoustic wrapping which could be claimed for as "intellectual property". This is a question of deeper research and thought. Basically everything is "said" and you can only use the given structures of every single which you can be damned sure somebody has used before you. BTW - that kind of music is not even called "music" by musicology, they call it "MUZAK".

Compared to the spoken word every talk show would have to claim nearly every spoken word as their "intellectual property" to be on the same level as the RIAA or the corresponding lobbies in other countries.

I demand those lobbies to think about a different way to pay those who work for them - including to free the "sharing" over the internet from any legal stain. I cannot imagine that this couldn't be done with a really good will. BTW - why is it always the XYZA who speaks, not those who do the real work, the musicians? And don't forget: there are musicians who are NOT members of any lobby, and they are the people who have been properly had. No one speaks for them but themselves, which means noone will ever hear of them, because they don'nt have the means to make the world hear them.

If the lobbies are not willing to think about a different way of payment, abstaining from criminalizing people in likely practices as 200 years ago, one could accuse them of greed without a moral or factual basis.

So - maybe one day those who are in debt will face some years of debtor's prison, until they've payed what others claim to be theirs.
How does all this compare to the so called "developped", "civilized", "most advanced" etc. and "post modern" world, which many are so proud of to live in?

Different times, sophisticated technical developments require adequate moral and commercial "updates".

You cannot provide people with the means of seemingly "anonymous" "sharing"/"stealing", praise the "digital" age - and not change your whole building of social, economic, legal, moral and ethical human life at the same time. That would be irresponsible and irrational. Not to speak of the political basis of such a building - you can bet that will change from democratic to plutocratic at best, if not tyrannical.

WOW! You seem to be taking a college essay exam and your ramblings are in hopes of sounding intelligent on the subject at hand. It is not my intentions to demean you in any way, but you fail to grasp the real problem here. (BTW - you are entitled to your opinion) But the opinion and stand you take will ultimately get you into hot water if you continue to download music without paying for it. Though other options are more likely desireable to many, or maybe just you, the law of the land and the RIAA will prevail.

The only real way to hit the RIAA and anyone for that matter is to just stop buying their products. Stealing is not the alternative, and has only one outcome - paying for that crime. You cannot justify the criminal activity of others based soley on "I don't agree with them," or "the musicians, the musicians, the musicians." No one is thinking about the musicians as they are downloading (stealing) the song from a P2P program.

The RIAA does not hold a gun to the musicians head when they record their music. Contracts are signed and business deals are made. If the musicians wish to take a stand against the RIAA, then let them do it. Your quest in saying you are doing it for the musicians is idiotic. Please move on. Abide by the law, or die by the law - it is the law of the land.

Bravo! Someone who makes sense.

LOL -

Do you really deem me as stupid not to know what the laws are?!

Yes - you are perfectly right. I am in hot water making such statements.

What's the trouble is that people are not willing to think. And that is just why tyranny can rise its grinning head again and again in this world.

What's more the pity is that people judge by not even knowing what they are talking about.

But in your sense of "reality" - your opinion has been and always will be the only one that "makes" sense. But to "make" sense of something doesn't necessarily mean that there is a sense, anyway.

To be clear about one thing:

I have always and will always decline to use any P2P "sharing" network possibility. But it is really interesting that just because of a clear standpoint people judge without even knowing the person behind it.

GNOTHI SEAUTON! Socrates

Well done, my friend. Good job!

Er...you did read the whole thing, right?

I agree with your opinion. Unfortunately, nowhere in that post did he mention that stealing was a valid way to solve the issue. He simply stated that since the avenue exists, **AA need to consider alternatives that will not drive their customer base to that alternative.

This is true. He left the stealing=bad argument out of it, and probably for good reason; It seems to be a point many folks are simply not willing to thoughtfully consider.

Again, I'm not bashing your opinion, it is the same as mine, I just think you need to read his post again.

It sounds as if you are justifying the actions of those that are downloading based on the RIAA's inability to "change with the times." That point I disagree. Rather than get on board, find alternatives to gather revenue, or anything else for that matter is up to them.

They may well be trying to plug the holes rather than get a new bucket, but it is their bucket and filesharers should not be given the OK to fill their computers with such leakage because they can or don't like the RIAA position.

Welcome to the land of greed and personal gain at the expense of others. It is this place we call America. The bottom line will and always be the almighty dollar. It is why the RIAA exists and why filesharers continue to download. One wants money, and the other doesn't want to give it up.

I agree that there are alternatives and maybe changes need to happen, but not justify the illegal acts of some very selfish people as well? NO!

The comments of tyranny and communism as others have stated are just plain stupid and are not what this is about. Because one desires money, doesn't make them a communist or tyranist. It doesn't necessarily mean they are greedy either, but rather they are trying to make a descent living.

Clear standpoint? You seem to justify the actions of those downloading, but think the act not appropriate for you. One doesn't seem to support the other. I could very well be wrong, but it doesn't seem clear.

The act is wrong, the reasoning behind it is wrong, but the avenue to do such a thing exists.

Right or wrong (and wrong is definately the right answer), RIAA has to deal with it. Right now, they are taking the legal route, and failing miserably. They are losing face, wasting money, and have nothing to show for it.

It's time to try other alternative. Other solutions that don't waste so much money, that don't make RIAA look like an Evil Overlord, and that might actually start bringing people back.

RIAA was fine with most folks, no matter what they charged until a free venue for music distribution arose. All of the sudden, $18 a CD was too much.

People start downloading music - RIAA loses money - RIAA fight back - RIAA spends money - RIAA tries to make more by raising prices - more folks download free music - RIAA fights back...etc.

Want RIAA to stop raising prices and stop seeking legal compensation? Stop people from downloading copyrighted music.

Simple.

Or not. The only way to stop it, aside from everyone deciding to simply stop breaking the law, is to place heavy, unbreakable DRM on it. Which will bring it's own host of problems..and costs more money.

*sigh* It's depressing, really.

No one will win.

Why swap when you have the usenet? RIAA has no clue that trillions of dollars are being drained from their Amerikan lawyers, and all the while they're picking at a pimple on a fat man's arse. Hilarious.

removed

Do you honestly believe that RIAA does not know the usenet exists?

The simple point of fact is that very few people use it when compared to P2P networks.

1.) Good usenet servers cost money (albiet the average $10 a month or less)

2.) most involve use of some technical knowledge and a confusing client interface (this does *not* include those with web-interfaces)

3.) Most of the high-quality content on the use net finds it's way quickly to P2P where it is infinitely more accessible.

Well this is an example of what companies will do for money. Considering they're suing you or maybe settling for about $2-6 grand US per 500-1000 songs, when the songs ACTUALLY cost a max of .99c on any service, I mean, they're getting an extra 2-4 grand at minimum per lawsuit; I don't understand how they're getting away with it - but then again, they did get away with selling CDs for $16-$24 about 6 years ago. Now they're $8-13.
Personally, I've been in the middle on the matter. I don't think it's right to take and give away something that doesn't belong to you. Lets face it, acquiring and then sharing something you don't rightfully own just isn't right. In addition to that, if sharing something is going to deprive the intellectual owner of revenue that would have come from it, that isn't right either; but they are PLAIN greedy.
Human nature dictates that human beings will attempt to get something free over paying for it, that's a given - but to pursue each and every 'supposed' violator so aggressively is truly demeaning. It seems they've discovered alternative means to actually selling music. So, violators beware. Nothing's worse - they aren't out for 'teaching you a lesson' anymore - they're out for profits.

"...they did get away with selling CDs for $16-$24 about 6 years ago. Now they're $8-13..."

Not round these parts (UK) - equivalent in dollars, average per CD = $18-$22, so we're a bit more militant than the average.

Just a question... does anyoner know how much a "john doe" lawsuit costs just to file?
add to that cost the costs of man hours tracking down the john doe's
plus the man hours filling out 14,000 suits

this CANT be cheap to do.. lol I just had an idea.. the recording artists should file john doe lawsuits against every RIAA employee for theft of services from the artists. Now THAT would be news

if the user is found guilty, he is the one who covers all court expense.

Why not go ahead and sue everybody in the world? Let's get serious about this.

I wonder how much money RIAA will contribute to help the Katrina recovery effort. :)

We all know the answer to that one. NOT A DAMN PENNY.

How much did you give?

That question has as much to do with the topic as the original comment did.

Boy, it sure looks like all this downloading/sharing is hurting the artists. Just look how pitiful they are on MTV Cribs. Only five Escalades around the fountain. Only one elevator to the party room. Only one home theater with room for 50. So sad. We should all pitch in and help them out.

LOL

??

What does this have to do with RIAA and these lawsuits? The fact that certain artists are not suffering in no way negates the illegality of theft.

this may sound uneducated.... I am however in college and I feel I must say "Fu** THE RIAA"

Congrats on your education.

And congrats on your sarcasm.

Perhaps you should be getting an education, rather than stealing. Take a course in pre-law. If your education is getting free MP3's online, then I hope you have fun listening to them in prison.

Thanks I try

I've seen you.

You're very trying. :P

Sometimes.

:lol:

TheRecklessWanderer, you're wrong.
The thing is what information can't be sold. Every information you announced (it can be music, science idea, story, software) becomes part of the World. You not own it alone anymore, but everone now own it. So you can't sell it, because you don't own it (noone will buy). It is natural order of things. While i agree, what intellectual property must exist (because our society is not ideal), it is NOT natural. Filesharing - it's natural social information exchange, you can't force people not to share, as you can't force people not to tell news to each other.
Your work is not information. You have it. Then you do something to sell it to someone, and only this someone will "own" your work. You can't copy your work. If you can - for example you produce clones of your own body (first you have to train yourself to some good condition), then you can sell them endless and make profit. It's same as sell software or music : you made it once, then you can sell all the time.
Something like that, if you understand my english well enougth :) People just don't think they steal something, because noone looses nothing. To stop this, you must change human nature itself.

There are so many fallacies in your line of thinking (even when you get past the grammatical errors), I don't have time to address all of them.

" Every information you announced (it can be music, science idea, story, software) becomes part of the World"

So do cars. That doesn't mean everyone can use the car I just bought last year...

"Filesharing - it's natural social information exchange, you can't force people not to share, as you can't force people not to tell news to each other."

Wrong. It's not sharing in the slightest sense of the word. You're telling me you know and talk to the people you're downloading your stolen files from? You could name people? You don't care where the stuff comes from, you just want it free.

"Your work is not information. You have it. Then you do something to sell it to someone, and only this someone will "own" your work."

Wrong again. That's what we have copyrights for.

"You can't copy your work. If you can - for example you produce clones of your own body (first you have to train yourself to some good condition), then you can sell them endless and make profit."

... so... you made your body? ... *restrains self*

"People just don't think they steal something, because noone looses nothing."

"noone looses nothing"? Wrong. Dead wrong. Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Many differing opinions are posted here but the one thing that we can all agree about is, "wincement" loves the sound of his own voice. Incidentally, when is this website going to do something about his constant personal attacks and slurs on other posters??????
God, doesn't he just love himself. I'll bet that when he isn't posting here, he spends his time in front of a mirror! Why doesn't he change his handle to "little prick"?

Thank you. I appreciate your evaluation of my character. My life has changed now, and I will forever be grateful.

You say I do nothing but post personal attacks? What was your post about? I didn't see any relevance to the topic at hand in your comment. I, on the other hand, addressed very specific points that relate directly to the story.

...yet I'm the one that posts personal attacks.

The very thing you acuse him of, you are guilty. Hence, stay on topic.

Nice to see a bunch of corporate bully-boys using unchallengable financial and legal muscle to strong-arm the judicial process.

Thanks for playing mediator. Now go find something constructive to do.

Ooh Adamdawg, you are in a nasty mood today, aren't you? What exactly was I mediating between? At least I posted a particular point of view instead of trashing someone else's contribution. Now how about you go and try to develop one of your idle, faintly-destructive notions into a fully finished thought? I'm sure we'll all be interested to read it here.

My fauilt, I misread your post. I thought you were referring to the people who replied to this topic as "bully-boys using unchallengable financial and legal muscle". I completely missed the corporate part. Sorry 'bout that. :)

Fair enough, but even the 'nasties' should get a say, in my book. If we never tolerate them posting, who will we boo and hiss at? : )

Very true...

lol

You mean to get the feds to enforce existant laws? How dare they!

Idiot.

RIAA and MPAA lose the right to seek enforcement of existant laws the minute those laws cease to exist, and not a moment before.

I wonder how many people here would like to work and not get paid? I'll bet not very many.

who would like to buy a car without test driving it?

I belive the radio provides a test drive sufficianty, I buy CD's because I enjoy supporting artists that I like. Yah the Riaa sucks, but it comes down to people not getting money they deserve.

You can test drive it, you just can't steal it moron. You test drive it by listening to the radio, not stealing the CD. Great thinking spiffy!

Sorry Chestarr, didn't see your comment until after.

The artists receive 1/100th of what they should. Every artist should develop and market their own music and offer it for download for a reasonable fee. Cut out the middlemen and the RIAA.

lmao...

Right. P. Diddy needs more cash.

***No, I do not support copyright theft**

when will they realize that this is a lost cause? there will NEVER be an end to pirating. and I, for one, am amazed at how much money i have saved by downloading my music. "I'm Proud to be a Pirate!" (tm)

"when will they realize that this is a lost cause? there will NEVER be an end to pirating"

Same could be said about murder and bank robbery.

In Muslim countries, they cut off the right hand of thieves. The RIAA ought to amputate whatever hand these people operate their computer mouse with ...then let's see 'em pirate downloads !

The Computer Rodent

I don't get it. Why did your post get a negative score when you make the most sense? There are certainly a lot more boneheaded responses to this story, yet they are seemingly ignored...

It seems everyone else on here despises the RIAA because they themselves (everyone else on here - not the RIAA) are stealing music (among other things I can imagine). It's amazing how blatant and open theft has become...

"I don't get it. Why did your post get a negative score when you make the most sense? There are certainly a lot more boneheaded responses to this story, yet they are seemingly ignored"

Hey, at least BetaNews didn't delete the Computer Rodent's post ~this~ time !

BetaNews permits any kind of attack on Microsoft ...but deletes or downgrades posts criticizing Apple, Linux, Open Source, or music pirates.

It's just BetaNews' bias.

The Computer Rodent

And God forbid you should mention the fact that while the site may say "betanews", the news, in fact...is not.

"The Recording Industry Association of America has now filed over 14,000 lawsuits in less than two years."

Yeah, that image of their "association" REALLY makes me want to go out and give them my money. I'll stick to downloading my music, and they can stick it you-know-where.

Hows about the stick your thieving a** in jail, instead.

Then bubba can stick it "you-know-where."

You're not helping, you're just making RIAA spend more of what should be going to the artists to fight twats like you.

.... and all this time we have been blaming lawyers for the glut of frivolous law suits....

Hey... RIAA... Leave them kids alone!

Haha.

"The Recording Industry Association of America has now filed over 14,000 lawsuits in less than two years."

How many has it won?

probably most sadly, due to people not having resources to fight this annoyance.

They usually are settled out of court so I'd say the win record in court is rather small.

They're all settled out of court because they usually bankrupt their victims before they can even get to court at all. If their case ever did make it to court it would be thrown out and they know this.

Last I heard there were a few (very few) headed for the courts. It is a lenghty process just getting there. As far as I know, none have been won or lost so far. Most people do indeed opt to settle, rather than go to court and risk losing everything they have. Even if you were a millionaire (for arguement's sake) and took the RIAA/MPAA to court, they would still bankrupt you. The bottom line is that the outcome of such a court case is irrelevant. Win or lose, you lose and the Hollywood bullies win.

On the other hand, they can sue all they want, it will not curb file sharing and piracy. Nobody knows exactly how many people are sharing files online, but there are well over 10 million users on P2P networks at any given time. So the 14,000 simply pales in comparison. They could start suing 10x as many people as they have in the past, it wouldn't matter. New users are discovering file sharing every day and these networks are growing at an alarming rate.

This one wasnt...
http://www.gamespot.com/...08/30/news_6132277.html

That wasn't the RIAA.

Let’s see last time I read anything about file sharing they said there were about 6 million users on the most popular sharing net works. Seven thousand law suits buy the RIAA per year. They only have 855 more years to go to account for everyone sharing now. I don’t really think this strategy is going to succeed.

To be honest, i dont think they are looking to get everyone, just everyone they can.

My other question would be, how people that have settled out of court have resumed sharing? (Not there is any real way to tell) I think that would be an intersting statistic. That would also tell if this method is effetive or not in curbing downloading.

Also, I feel (and i know i'll get flamed for this) that pirates force the progess of technology. Consider the effect that these pirates have on society. If the industry were to embrace this techology and make it more efficient (if at all possible) and use it as a means of disturbution it would so quickly lower the number of people using P2P. If they made music so easily attianable, as it currently is on P2P, AND make it legal (and of course charge for it), P2P would so quickly not be an issue.

Finaly, laws only affect the law abiding. I think that there will always be people who will not want to pay, the current insurgence in P2P populatiry comes from the fact the it is SO easy to do. The industry needs to make their system as easy as or easier than the current P2P. This will curb the casual downloader, which i believe make up the bulk of the community.

The number of times these people would have raped my wallet dry if I had been dumb enough to go out, brainwashed by whatever the latest hype about this and that movie/game etc, is not right either. There is an imbalance. It seems to me that these people are happy to take our money in return for utter dross in terms of quality, but when we are unhappy with forking out large amounts of money for rubbish when too many producers are CLEARLY overpaid and undertalented, the tables are turned and again the consumer is placed in the wrong.

I will not pay for things that I am essentially being duped into buying in the first place.

Quality should be rewarded. Crap should not.
Spend money on this stuff and you give money to people who don't deserve it.

Furthermore, if games/movies etc weren't so ludicrously expensive in the first place (£18 for a movie you'll watch once anyone?) I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get so many downloaders.

Yes, to some extent downloaders are in the wrong. However, so are the idiots who perpetuate the production of low quality products by buying this stuff as well as those who make them.

It seems to me they want something for nothing...and we're talking about the producers as well as the downloaders here.