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

Free music, totally legal...

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

"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

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)

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

"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

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

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

...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.

I don't think you get it.

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

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.

"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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

...oops.

lol

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

"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.

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

"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.

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

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....

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

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....

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?

""Stop complaining people..."

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

But maybe that's just me....

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.

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%.

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

ok Smart ass...

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

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.

And then there are others that just hide on usenet.

Ah yes, land of the free..

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

it's cAught...

I wouldn't know...

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...

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

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.

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.

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

The Computer Rodent

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.

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

Somehow I think not, hypocrite.

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

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

That's what makes it illegal.

In some jurisdictions.

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?

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".

> 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

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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

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. :)

"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.

> 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.

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.

This is all Fokin VullCHIT- U.s.A Has the Gayest Rules ive seen......

Aye, "dont steal" is such a Gay rule...who the hell thought up that one?

"U.s.A Has the Gayest Rules ive seen...... "

Yeah...who in their right mind would make a law about stealing? I mean, God put it on those stone tablets, and He doesn't know anything (sarcasm)

oops didnt see this when i posted. BTW, to answer your question look above (LOL)

LOL

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

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...

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

"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

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.. =)

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...

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?

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

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.

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

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

Well, happy holidays to all pirates!!!

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.

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.

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.

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

Then call it punitive damages.

Call it a new revenue stream.

Or 751 of them...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Many major music artists actually want to let people download and listen to their music for free. The record companies don't. The music artists should have the right to do whatever they want with their music without the consent of the record companies.

The RIAA isn't suing people on behalf of the music artist in many cases, they're suing people on behalf of the record companies which is wrong.

That's the thing though. The artists signed contracts with the record companies. If they didn't agree with how they would distribute the music, they shouldn't have signed.

The artists are in the wrong if they are encouraging people to steal the music.

Many artists do, in fact, give their music away. When they do though, it is with the consent of any record company that also has rights to the music (if there is a record company). Violating a contract by encouraging people to steal the music without the consent of all the owners is wrong.

Period.

**EDIT**
Oh yeah, and I used the word "steal." I guess Alexq is going to flame me again.

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.

No one stole anything.
They were MAKING COPIES.
Stop spreading your lies.

Right on cue, wincement.

Making copies of something they had no right to have in the first place, ergo stealing it...

Stop spreading your ignorance.

Word "stealing" does not refer to MAKING COPIES.

If I make myself a copy of say chair you have in your home, would you say I stole YOUR CHAIR?

AND I SAID THAT.

Bottom line: Either way, it's still illegal

"stupid a**"

NOW I can see why your thinking is so skewed.

It wasn't clear to me before, but this is where you're getting confused:

Intellectual property != physical property.

Copyrighted material is intangible. Violating that copyright by obtaining a copy WITHOUT permission or repayment IS wrong.

I called it. =)

wincement has hit the nail on the head! This short read http://www.microsoft.com...y/how_intellectual.mspx sums it up. Yes, I know it's MS, but the concept applies equally well to this subject.

good post wincement...you've done the job of making him look stupid, now I don't have to try. :)

Although, judging his intelectual level from his way of thinking...he might not understasnd what != means...we'll see. :)

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?

What I'm saying is:

The difference is so negligable, it's not worth creating an entire side-argument for.

However, we are now 48,379,241,923,648,764 miles past that point anyway, so I guess it didn't accomplish anything.

I said in the very first reply to your challenge that the proper term was "copyright infringement." But you didn't care. You still had to go on your "it's not stealing" crusade.

Both stealing and copyright infringement are punishable by law. That's the bottom line. Call it whatever the hell you want. It doesn't change how many people will be prosecuted for it.

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 novel but only made copies of it, right? Hopefully this makes sense.

The term "intellectual property" was invented by the likes of RIAA to protect their business model. It bears no relation of any kind to the term "property" as it is used throughout human history. I am saying there is no such thing as "intellectual property", it is a legal nonsense and should go away.

I happen to agree with you that using a copy of someone's creation (if you find it useful) and not compensating the author (if he asked for compensation) is wrong. I also happen to think that many other things are wrong. Like smoking, for example. Do I think either of those things should be illegal? No.

We, as a free society, have to put freedom of people first and everything else (yes, even profits) second. When someone makes a copy of a file, even though he did not get permission of the author, he made himself something, he didn't take anything away from the author, author still has everything he had before.

We have to allow that, even though we may not like it, because in a free society people should have a right for "freedom of information exchange". And while having a "right to profit" would also be nice, when the two come in conflict freedom should win every time.

> Call it whatever the hell you want.
> It doesn't change how many people will be prosecuted for it.

Prosecuted for what?

Copyright infringement?
Stealing?
Murder?

Those are different things and different number of people will be prosecuted for each of them. As long as you are inventing arbitrary names, why call it stealing, why not call it murder? Should bring even more sympathy for your cause.

If I needed another $50M that would make me feel sad. It would not however make me change my mind about the fact that he should have a right to make that copy.

But that example describes a different situation, when someone tries to profit using a copy and misrepresenting himself as an author. There are simple ways to deal with that problem, third parties could be established to authenticate real author (first to submit, digital signatures, etc.), so people who decide to compensate the author could be sure they are compensating the real author, not someone who made a copy.

But here we were talking about different situation, when no one tried to make a profit, no one tried to pass someone else's work for his own, people were just making copies for themselves.

You have, by far, the most unrealistic view of the world.

Lets break your stupidity down line by line shall we...

"The term "intellectual property" was invented by the likes of RIAA to protect their business model. It bears no relation of any kind to the term "property" as it is used throughout human history. I am saying there is no such thing as "intellectual property", it is a legal nonsense and should go away."

Really?? So if you go out and make a game, write a movie or song, there should be no way to legally destinguish ownership?? You obviously don't realize that people need to make a living. Movie/song writers, game/application developers would never have become that if there was no money involved. If I make a game, you better pay me to play it. I want my money, I worked VERY hard for years creating this game for your enjoyment, the code becomes my intellectual property since there is no other way to distinguish it. If you think you can just take it and copy it for yourself so you can play without paying me, you're crazy.

"I happen to agree with you that using a copy of someone's creation (if you find it useful) and not compensating the author (if he asked for compensation) is wrong. I also happen to think that many other things are wrong. Like smoking, for example. Do I think either of those things should be illegal? No."

So you think it's "wrong" to take my game that I worked so hard to create without paying me is "wrong" but should be legal??? I think smacking your head with a baseball bat is wrong but should not be illegal.

"When someone makes a copy of a file, even though he did not get permission of the author, he made himself something"

LOL what?!?! This has to be the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. You copy a file and suddenly you think you made yourself something and it's legally yours?? Say that in court I want to hear the jury laugh.

"he didn't take anything away from the author, author still has everything he had before."

But you forgot something very important...the right of the code you copied belongs to the author, and to use it you have to pay him. He's not working for charity, he wants to make money. Once you get out of HS and your mom stops giving you money, tell me that you'll be ok with someone taking your creations without paying you.

"We have to allow that, even though we may not like it, because in a free society people should have a right for "freedom of information exchange". And while having a "right to profit" would also be nice, when the two come in conflict freedom should win every time"

So freedom should win everytime? I want everything for free and I should have it because it's a "free society"??

I belive cuba is sitll a communist country...maybe you should move there?

Myth #1: There is no way for authors to make a living if they can not force everyone to pay when making a copy.

That is a lie RIAA wants you to believe. In reality, charging for copy is only one of many possible business models. For an example, look at companies like Red Hat, which allow everyone to make free copy of the software product they make money from. These are not charities. These are businesses with billion dollar revenues and tens of billions market value.

> So you think it's "wrong" to take my game
> that I worked so hard to create without
> paying me is "wrong" but should be legal???
> I think smacking your head with a baseball
> bat is wrong but should not be illegal.

There are many things that various members of our society see as "wrong" but we do not make them illegal because unlike Cubans you mentioned, we value our individual freedoms.

> You copy a file and suddenly you think you made yourself something
> and it's legally yours?? Say that in court I want to hear the jury laugh.

I never said it is legal today, I said it should be. Please read and at least try to understand before you react.

> So freedom should win everytime? I want
> everything for free and I should have it
> because it's a "free society"??

Is this how you understand freedom? "I want everything for free"? I wasn't talking about price of things, I was talking about freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of information exchange and other human rights. All those kinds of freedom that Cubans don't have.

> I belive cuba is sitll a communist
> country...maybe you should move there?

If you and RIAA have it your way I won't have to move. We will lose our freedom too, just like Cubans lost theirs.

Did you read this?:

"The difference is so negligable, it's not worth creating an entire side-argument for."

Ok. Now try to actually comprehend it.

mmmmkay.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

The idea of intellectual property has been around a LOT longer than the RIAA.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement have been punishable offenses since the early 1700s (1710 to be exact).

You keep talking about a right to "freedom of information exchange," but I don't think it means what you think it means. I think we already do have a very free exchange of information. However, you should not be able to take someone's "information" without their consent. This is where we disagree. You apparently think we should be able to take anything and everything from anyone and everyone at any time we choose without the need for permission or repayment. I call that "wrong."

> Myth #1: There is no way for authors to make a living if
> they can not force everyone to pay when making a
> copy.

> That is a lie RIAA wants you to believe. In reality,
> charging for copy is only one of many possible
> business models.

Wow. It doesn't matter if there are other possible business models. That has no bearing on the situation whatsoever. The fact is, the authors chose THIS business model, and they have every right to do so.

I'll say it again:

You have absolutely no right to someone else's work unless they grant it to you.

Fortunately, companies like Red Hat are able to grant you that right for no monetary compensation (actually, you do have to pay for Red Hat now... but that's beside the point). But if others don't want to give their work away, you have no right to it.

If you can't understand that, then there's no hope here at all.

"That is a lie RIAA wants you to believe. In reality, charging for copy is only one of many possible business models. For an example, look at companies like Red Hat, which allow everyone to make free copy of the software product they make money from. These are not charities. These are businesses with billion dollar revenues and tens of billions market value."

Red Hat makes money through support (and currently you have to purchase their product,it's no longer free). What would an artists charge you for if he gave you his work for free? Call him to ask what the lyrics mean for $5/minute? Whatever business model the artis/corporation chose to use, you have to follow it or you have no right to their product...simple, yes?

"There are many things that various members of our society see as "wrong" but we do not make them illegal because unlike Cubans you mentioned, we value our individual freedom"

Stealing copyrighted material is wrong, and ILLEGAL.

" I was talking about freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of information exchange and other human rights. All those kinds of freedom that Cubans don't have."

So you want "freedon of information exchange" where a movie company spends millions of dollars creating a movie and you should get to copy it for free because it's "information"? A software company pays hundreds of employees to create a product for years and you should get it free because it's "information"? Your view of what your freedom rights should be is moranic.

"If you and RIAA have it your way I won't have to move. We will lose our freedom too, just like Cubans lost theirs."

You'll lose your freedom to download music online that you should be paying for? God forbid that ever happens!!

There are people who are actually prosecuted for stealing. In a criminal court. Do you understand this?

People who make copies of files are not prosecuted for stealing in a criminal court.

Are you really too stupid to see the difference?

> The idea of intellectual property has been
> around a LOT longer than the RIAA.

Like I said, invented by the likes of RIAA. Or did you misread that too?

You don't want your information to be "taken" by others without your consent? There is a simple solution: keep it to yourself.

Your problem is that your business model depends on releasing your information and then being able to control what other people do with it. And in a free society, you don't get to control other people.

> Wow. It doesn't matter if there are other
> possible business models. That has no bearing
> on the situation whatsoever.

I was responding to the statement that authors will not be able to make a living if people's freedom to exchange information is respected. And my response had everything to do with that statement. Are you really too stupid to follow conversation?

The fact that someone worked very hard is not a reason to deprive people of their freedom.

A new technology (digital copying) made some old business model no longer viable, and you want to restrict people's freedom to keep that business model working.

If tomorrow, a cheap way to instantly move to any part of the planet is invented (teleportation), what about all the hard working men and women at Boeing, Ford, GM, etc.? You should be able to instantly move anywhere for free while they have worked their butts off creating all the great planes and cars? Should we outlaw teleportation so their no longer viable business model could continue to function?

In fact this has happened many times in human history, progress swept away old business models and often they tried to stay afloat by making new ways illegal. But eventually it always failed. It will fail this time too.

What is DVR, Tivo, Copy Machine, Cassette Recorder and VCR? Furthermore, when a person buy's a trading card from another person is he infringing upon copyright law's? When we buy it is it truly ours? Also, when a person replaces parts on a car that are not from the maker, is he in violation when he sell's it as a Mustang, etc. Moreover, the Public Library should do quite well when patron's copy. People will use the Library as their source for downloading [copying] material, and with the software that is out, find ways of sharing.With or without the P2P sites! I assure you it will never stop. We all know of someone who copies, shares or downloads. However, I could see if the person that downloads was doing something with the downloaded material. Like, selling it. Then, I would have a problem. Take a painter for instance, see's his work somewhere with someone's name on it. That is a problem! Nevertheless, back in the day, we would take records over to a friend's and let him tape it, and vice-versa. Most copy and recording devices were marketed that way, and still are. So, we are all in this together, and will weather the storm. Be it copyright or copywrong.

This should be easy:)

"when a person buy's a trading card from another person is he infringing upon copyright law's"

uhm...buying your friends trading cards is more comparitive to buying your friends CD (and taking it, without leaving a copy for him!)...buying cards isn't equivalent of illegaly downloading songs you haven't purchased.

"Also, when a person replaces parts on a car that are not from the maker, is he in violation when he sell's it as a Mustang, etc."

What's this have to do with anything? If you replace a transmission on a mustang...you can sell it as a mustang ofcourse...however you'll lose alot of value on the car when you sell it.

"People will use the Library as their source for downloading [copying] material, and with the software that is out, find ways of sharing."

I don't know if I understand your point here...people will use the library as a source for downloading? I didn't realize libraries offered downloadable music...unless your library is breaking the law...in which case they will not be a library for much longer.

"However, I could see if the person that downloads was doing something with the downloaded material. Like, selling it. Then, I would have a problem."

Granted if you donwload and resell ofcourse the crime is even bigger...however just by downloading material you have not purchased you are still stealing. Just because "everybody knows someone that downloads illegaly" doesn't somehow make it legal.

"Take a painter for instance, see's his work somewhere with someone's name on it."

Alot of your comparisons just don't make any sense...taking an artists work and putting your name on it would be the equivalent of taking an eminem CD and putting your name on it. Why are you making these outrageous comparisons anyway??

"Nevertheless, back in the day, we would take records over to a friend's and let him tape it, and vice-versa"

Yea...but it's ease and scale of distribution that makes downloadable music so much worse then taking a CD to a friends house and letting him copy it. Although taking a tape and letting your friend record it is still illegal, the industry is not so concerned with it since it almost harmless...however now you can just go online and download whatever you want in minutes wether you have a friend that actually purchased it or not.

So, I am to understand that Sharing [File-Sharing] is a criminal offense when it comes to downloading copyrighted music, etc. Now, I will attempt to explain my "outrageous" comparisons, in brief. I am an Artist, Printer and Photographer. I have no problem allowing anyone to use or alter any of my works, which are under copyright, as long as it is not for profit. In fact, I am flattered! Meanwhile,"File-Sharing" is as it is stated "Sharing." What is done afterwards, like, for profit is a crime if one does not have permission. Hence, the trading cards, comic books which are under copyright.

One of the DOOBIE BROS lives in the Santa Cruz mountains. He bragged to a local newspaper columnist about renting films at BLOCKBUSTER and then using a home computer, to make pirated copies of HOLLYWOOD movies for his own collection. The columnist forgot to ask a rock star, if he objects to people having bootleg MP-3 copies of his music. Is this another case of, "do as I say and not what I do?"

Our main library is owned by a (city/county) board of directors. They offer free rentals of most any music CD and movies on VHS or DVD. Making copies is easy enough if somebody feels like it...

somthing tells me it isn't as easy as *click**click**click* *wait a few minutes*...woohoo!

But the copies are still illegal. It's just like renting DVDs. Making copies of them is really easy, but that doesn't make it legal.

it's not a crime. it's a tort. anyone who says it's a crime is either lying (RIAA), or repeating those lies without first getting their facts straight.

" So, I am to understand that Sharing [File-Sharing] is a criminal offense when it comes to downloading copyrighted music, etc"

Whoever said it was a criminal offense??

"I am an Artist, Printer and Photographer. I have no problem allowing anyone to use or alter any of my works, which are under copyright, as long as it is not for profit"

Great...other artists do not allow you to use their work unless you pay them....therefor you have no right to their work.

"Meanwhile,"File-Sharing" is as it is stated "Sharing.""

You must of forgotten about that copyright law...you remember, the one that states that you don't have the right to someone elses work without paying for it (unless they willingly gave it to you ofcourse).

" Hence, the trading cards, comic books which are under copyright."

Only when you bought your friends card he gave you the card...transfer of ownership...he didn't make an exact replica of the card and started giving it out to everybody in the world.

as i have said before and countless other have
1 stop pushing out the rubbish you do
2 stop robbing us with prices that are fixed

Music artist get together and create somthing among yourselves

by pass the likes of sony,EMI etc etc

then lets see what happens ...
let the people who make right and produce the music have their own corner

And they continue to ignore you, and in a single second make more money than you will your entire lifetime. The world moves on.

"Music artist get together and create somthing among yourselves"

This is being done. You just have to find the independants... who in some cases are amazing artists

For instance www.sectionzmusic.com (mostly electronic, hip hop, dnb some rock), www.magnatune.com (all kinds) -- both of which supply tons of music from independant (sometimes called bedroom) musicians for free.

Hay the way i see it is people have been using Radio and Tv to record copyrighted material for years and i suspect a greater number of people have done this yet think this is ok and you never hear about anyone being sued.

This used to be illegal in England! Record companies even offered to buy bootleg recordings of the BEATLES and other artists. A number of posthumous releases in the 90's were actually compiled from 30 year old illegal home tapes of BBC live broadcasts.

I'm mixed on the whole downloading thing, I dont like paying 15 dollars for a cd finding out that it sucks. So what do I do? get a few songs from the album and if i like it enough, then purchase it. I am 100 percent for supporting artists you ACTUALLY LIKE.

And the RIAA is suing these people for ridiculous sums of money that are completely unrealistic, considering that many of the people downloading simply do not have enough financial means to waste money on cd's they may or may not end up liking in the first place.

But also as a musician i can somewhat appreciate the RIAA to be doing what they are doing, but they perhaps are going about it the wrong way. I beleive that most musicians would love to be able to live off of their music and be able to focus solely on that for career path, unfortunately many can not, but i have very high doubts that it is because of file sharing.

I would assume that most of the songs being downloaded on p2p networks are from artists that dont exactly need any more money. Metallica for instance. (by the way Lars, maybe you should learn how to play your instrument before thinking you are of high enough standing to sue people)

Bands that would be hurt by potential fire sharing would be obscure black metal bands that dont have a very wide audience to market to, thus needing every cent they can possibly make off of their music. Only trouble with this is, not enough people really enjoy that style of music to put a huge dent in cd sales from these types of bands, simply because there wasnt enough people into that style to begin with.

But hey, just my opinion.

So the RIAA sued anoth...

yada yada yada.

So they thought they could intimid...

yada yada yada.

So they keep throwing good money after ba...

yada yada yada.

So they keep deluding themselves that they're making a diff...

yada yada yada.

Life goes on, the world keeps turning, the sun comes up in the morning, the Internet remains in existance and file sharing remains immortal (no, that's not a type: I said "immortal").

yada yada yada.

*yawn*

If we are serious about sending a message to the RIAA that we think they are scalping us, we should be outside music stores demonstrating legally, we should be organised, we should be generating negative publicity for them and getting them on the news when they don't want to be.

And if that's all just too much damn trouble for us then we shouldn't complain about the prices.

Big record stores sell used CDs, used DVDs used VHS tapes and USED video games. Fools cannot see how this undercuts the sales of new copies. It used to be just the flea markets, garage sales and the San Francisco hippie book stores in the 60's. Now everybody seemns to be joining the game. Wake up RIAA! Wake up MPAA!

What the hell do used cds or dvds have to do with anything? RIAA / MPAA already made their cut on the original sale.

The *only* way this would apply would be if the original owner copied it before selling it to the used cd shop.

So if a terrorist were to attack the RIAA... Would any one care? Just a thought.

Their hq is empty, all people are out to capture p2p users.

guys, just listen to radio, better than CDs, free, and legal, :D

why cant they just make cd's cheaper. it doesnt cost that much to make them.

It's all about the $$$$$$. Why aren't gas prices lower? Why do they spike after a tragedy.

Love of money: Root of all evil.

uhhh...you're paying for the content on the cd not the cd itself...i hope you realize this???

The way I see it, these people are no different than say a bank robber, virus writer, car thief or a drug dealer. They are parasites that need to be stopped.

AND.. no different than someone who's gone 1 mile over the speed limit.

woah.. nice!

Lawbreakers are lawbreakers.. no room for error..

1 mile over, could be a speedometer error.. An honest mistake... we aren't required to have them calibrated.

I'll admit that I've gone over the speed limit before. If I ever get caught doing it I deserve to be fined. However, most of these people are claiming they have done nothing wrong, which they know full well they have. They were caught doing something illegal, so they deserve to be fined just as I would if I were caught going over the speed limit. Although I do not agree with the severity of the fines being imposed in this instance.

They are very different. Songs written by an artist, is stealing only if the song is copyrighted. Stealing money from a bank, or writing code that can steal your credit card number, or stealing another's car, does WAY more harm and is indentity theft and you could permanently damage someones credit or worse, take their identity. That's bad.

A song, where someone takes it, uses it for personal use, isn't going to cause anyone else harm. Yes, its still wrong, but its not the same field, its not even the same league, or even the same sport!

...if you get caught. Hmmm...

Well maybe I used to drastic of crimes to compare it to, but the point i was trying to make is that these people were caught doing something that they know is illegal and have the nerve to think that they shouldn't be punished. I mean if it's something that isn't copyrighted or anything, fine and dandy.

And the way I see it, RIAA is no different than the SS or the Mafia

Ok, what's going thru that head of yours.

there are actually strict laws on calibration, it's a common defense

By your case, giving 10% or less of all revenue/profit from said CD's is helping the artists how, again?

Being one who has been pulled over in the US for doing 1 mile over the speed limit, I can tell you that calibration *is* required if you wish to use it as a defense.

I could pay to have it checked, or pay the fine. Funny thing is, the fine was cheaper than having it recalibrated.

Of course, so is, usually, the cost of fighting any speeding ticket in court...nice racket in and of itself.

he means the act of getting caught has no effect on whether or not you deserve to be fined.

Sighs!

Since they can't make a profit off a 15 US Dollar music CD, they resort to shove their hands into our pockets for thousands instead.

Welcome to the land, er, make that world of lawsuits.

What you're saying is so similar to those who ridiculously complain that photo radar is a cash cow; "the police coffers need money so they gouge the defenseless motorist"Drive the speed limit and you'll never get a ticket. It's that simple. Every bit as simple as: don't download music illegally and you'll never get sued by the RIAA. Just as simple.

Photo radar is installed to make money. NOT to reduce violations. It's installed because the city/state KNOWS people will violate more than not. So why not stick a device there to catch them 24/7 and reap the rewards? Studies have shown over and over again that's all they are good for.

AND, when violations did dip so slightly, they reduced the time the YELLOW light remains on! Why? To keep making the same profit levels they were used too! Both Boston and Phoenix were accussed of this. And now Los Angeles is under investigation too.

Photo radar is the Police's version of an ATM and that's all.

What does this have to do with the RIAA witch-hunt? Not sure, but they must have *some* money for all these lawyers and court fees.

Well I mostly agree with you, however, they are going after the helpless people, and not the people that are actually HOSTING the songs. Downloading them is one thing, hosting them is another. People can't download if they shut the companies down that are hosting the sites. You are in control of the car you drive, and you have no excuse. Songs are readily available all over the net. Is it fair that someone can find songs and not get caught while the RIAA uses the "path of least resistance" to go after the easy targets. That's where I have a problem.

There are still police that COULD give you a ticket and SAY you were speeding and you have no defense. But a speeding ticket is black and white, either you were speeding or you weren't. Connecting to a site to download music, isn't necessarily illegal. I could simply be looking, or someone could be using my IP address, spoofing in other words. The RIAA doesn't care whether or not you can prove you have the songs you alledgedly downloaded, they only care that YOUR computer at some IP address, on a ISP, connected via known software to illegal obtain copyrighted material. They sue, those people get railroaded, and whether or not they actually HAVE illegal material is irrelevant. That's bogus!

Its too easy to obtain Kazaa, bearshear, limewire, and about 100 other P2P programs, which aren't illegal either, only that they have been KNOWN to transmit songs back and fourth that were illegal. I could use Yahoo, AIM, or MSN to do the same thing. RIAA is only going after easy targets, if you are truly interested in stopping trafficing of illegal material, go after EVERYONE, not just those that are easy to find.

If you speed, its probably because you were driving a red car, or going 20 miles over the speed limit passing everyone, and you were a standout. I speed, but I don't make it obvious and I drive a more subtle car that doesn't stand out.

If I get caught, I know I was doing wrong, but if they were truly interested in catching ALL speeders, they could use more cameras, speed detectors that are hiden to take a picture of your plates, use radar detectors over bridges, ummarked cars.. they aren't interested in catching everyone, they want to make an EXAMPLE of YOU, so people THINK about their actions. That's the point.

Same with the RIAA. They are trying to disuade people from downloading, but they aren't interested in stopping it, so they should stop taking this position. Its impossible for them to stop ALL pirating, but if they REALLY REALLY wanted to, they could do a lot more to prevent it.

"If you speed, its probably because you were driving a red car, or going 20 miles over the speed limit passing everyone, and you were a standout. I speed, but I don't make it obvious and I drive a more subtle car that doesn't stand out."

Sorry, but I don't buy your reasoning. Speeding is speeding, whether you drive a red, black, white, purple, mauve...whatever car. You cannot possibly speed and make it "less obvious" to photo radar or manned speed traps. That's akin to saying: "I can run down a crowded city street naked less obvious than anyone else".

"If I get caught, I know I was doing wrong, but if they were truly interested in catching ALL speeders, they could use more cameras, speed detectors that are hiden to take a picture of your plates, use radar detectors over bridges, ummarked cars.."

It's literally impossible to catch ALL speeders; the resources needed including manpower and equipment would be prohibitively expensive. Likewise, the same reason it's impossible to catch all illegal music downloading.

"they aren't interested in catching everyone, they want to make an EXAMPLE of YOU, so people THINK about their actions. That's the point."

Exactly! The RIAA is taking an extremely heavy-handed approach by going after - in a serious manner - several hundred culprits with the intent of boldly stating to the rest of the P2P world: "Don't mess with the RIAA, or we're coming after you!" Their reasoning is if they lower the boom on a select number of individuals, it will scare everyone else enough into obtaining their music legally - or cause them to rebel and never purchase cd's again.

When you think about it, this type of approach is far more effective than dilly-dallying and p****footing around the issue, as that kind of feeble approach scares almost no one.

"Photo radar is installed to make money. NOT to reduce violations. It's installed because the city/state KNOWS people will violate more than not. So why not stick a device there to catch them 24/7 and reap the rewards? Studies have shown over and over again that's all they are good for."

But I disagree. Look, I'm a regular Joe, and when I got hit with a couple of photo radar tickets a few years back, draining my wallet of a whopping CDN $350.00, I sure learned my lesson, have driven the speed limit ever since, and haven't received any tickets since. Photo radar is effective at reducing speeding. Someone in this thread mentions the possibility of getting a ticket for going 1 m/hr over the posted limit. Give me a break! No police officer worth their salt - which is most - is going to ticket those going 1-5 m/hr over the limit. Only in extremely rare cases does that happen.

Anyways, this thread is really about the RIAA suing people downloading music illegally, not photo radar. I just used it as an analogy for in replying to someone's post.

In melbourne Aus, we have a zero tollerence on speeding, if you get caught 1+kmph (0.62mph) (it could be 3kmph, thats 1.8miles per hr) you get booked with a nice AUD$120 fine. it used to be 10kmph limit leway (6.2mph) then it was 5kmph (3.1mph) then 3kmph, but i am pretty sure now its zero tollerance,, its rediculess

"Well I mostly agree with you, however, they are going after the helpless people, and not the people that are actually HOSTING the songs. Downloading them is one thing, hosting them is another. People can't download if they shut the companies down that are hosting the sites."

What a stupid argument. It's akin to shoplifters being able to blame the shops for having stock in.

When you click on that file to download copyrighted material you haven't paid for or have the right to for free, you are deliberately going out to break the law. The arguments such as "I have the CD and I want it in MP3 for my iPod" etc are all bollocks.

All the people who are up in arms about a law actually being enforced are simply doing nothing more than trying to argue the point that it's OK to steal.

The fact that there's no physical object involved is irrelevent.

i'm not sure that's actually true. the RIAA assumes all mp3s being downloaded are theirs. i think it'd be pretty damn funny if they take one of these downloaders to court only to find out that they were downloading all non-RIAA music.

OK, why can't we contact the RIAA? I want to call this company and complain. I think they are hiding, they don't want the public opinion to sway their progression. I think its important they need to hear public opinion, because it will give us a chance to sound off. Yes, people are doing wrong by downloading copyrighted material, but the RIAA is going unchecked.

rijp, yes you can call RIAA, get their contact info from www.riaa.com and boycott the companies and their products who fund projects that harm innocent people by never buying their products so they cease their evil doings through such proxy companies

OK, did you actually LOOK at the site? There is NO contact info on that site, Period. No email address. No Phone number. No physical address. No Press Information, and No Public Relations department.

I have the website, but that webbsite gives squat for info.

Actually, if you click on the "Contact Us" link, your e-mail program will open and this address will be put into the "To" line: webmaster@riaa.com

RIAA Member Services
1330 Connecticut Ave N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 775-0101

Hey, it's an address isn't it?

On the note of the story. They are nothing but thugs. Instead of suing maybe they could consider lowering prices. And don't bring the artist into it, they don't see but a small percentage of the money from sales. If Itunes and the like can sell songs for $.99 per then stores can stop selling cds for $20-$30 for warmed over redone songs and movies.

Are you people actually trying this stuff, or do you just look at the site and say "hey, here is a link, lets post it!".

I tried webmaster, you try it, see if you get ANY sort of response. Do a little research, before you THINK you have a solution, because I have exhausted ALL the ones on that site. Other websites are posting the same thing, the address is a possiblity, but most, if not all of the phone numbers are just voice mail, and you can't actually TALK to anyone.

So give me a viable link, not just the first one you stumble on to, K? Thanks.

Well that's another good point. They could lower prices to something more reasonable.. At least getting people to pay for 10 cents a song is a step in the right direction, so maybe this is a form of protest, by not paying 1 dollar per song, that's just retarded.

If I could get 5 or 10 songs for the same amount of money, THEN I may think about paying for them.

By doing a reverse lookup of their phone number... I found Soundexchange at the same address posted on their site. Soundexchange has a lot of contact information with extensions..
http://www.soundexchange.com/contactus.html

I'm not going to call all these numbers... HAH!

Why should they? If people are willing to buy CDs at the current price, it's stupid business practice to cut it drastically.

And why is nobody complaining about the horrific prices of ringtones where a crappy low quality SAMPLE of a single song is retailing for a third of the price of a CD album?

Excellent point about the overpriced ringtones that so many people are more than happy to pay big $$ for.

http://tcal.net/images/RIAA.jpg

Funny, its probably true.

ah, but if people were willing to buy CDs at the current price, they wouldn't be "stealing" them.