"OMG DON'T USE NAPSTER! IT'S ILLEGAL!" would be what you may've heard from RIAA a few years ago. So now that they've sued the pants off Napster they want to make more money out of them; and co-incidentally: You.

Just an FYI to some newbie P2P users:
- p2p cl;ents that don't use encryption will broadcast what you do over a network if you start sending out the name of a file when searching
- messages can be intercepted when talking to others using p2p clients by and ISP or in this case the Uni
- strong 1MByte encryption with 10,000 char keys can be used to secure anything 'broadcasted' and hense nobody without that key could persucute you (unless the uni has explicit rules on bandwidth usage)

I can't wait for Blueray/Violetray disks to come out on the market. It would be useful for a uni student to be able to transfer 1TB of data to another by simple passing it to them.

if you really like a band and decide to download their cd off p2p networks, you should just send $10 to the band itself. it won't be shared among the distributer and publisher and everything, the band is actually getting the money that it should be deserving, not these multimillionaires that sue people day after day...

So I saw this Article on Boston.com earlier today and the title read "Music group to sue college students on Internet2 research network." I think that was very misleading. It made it seem that a music group was sueing these people not an Industry.

"The RIAA says legal services such as Napster and Apple's iTunes cannot thrive while such piracy is occurring on university campuses."

first off i thought they were thriving. secondly i know from experience that most students are broke, and simply couldn't afford to buy cds or go to the movies anyway.

So, since they cant afford it, they should get it for free? Sounds good to me. By the way, I cant afford that new porsche, I want one for free now!

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think he meant that's "why" they do this, and I doubt he's saying he supports it.

if i could copy a porsche as easily and cheaply as i could music, guarunteed you'd have one for free.

Exactly. These guys just don't get it. Nothing is actually being taken. And according to many many studies and reports P2P doesn't affect sales either.

This is beside the point, they are getting something for free that usually requires you pay for it. They didnt pay, they are stealing, just as in the porsche example. Get over it, no matter HOW YOU TRY to justify it, you cant. Stealing is stealing, case closed. No, I dont support the way the RIAA is handling this, but its up to them how they decide to punish people.

agreed.

They weren't really stealing until the the music industry started to sell MP3s. Now it looks like stealing. I think i'm going to sue Xerox for making copies of something I wrote.

Werent really stealing? Your joking right? So If i start stealing cars, and then a company decides to start selling them, that I wasnt really stealing until that company decided to start selling them? EHHHH!!! WRONG!!!! TRY AGAIN!!! YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK!!! They were obtaining merchandice that they didnt pay for and thus werent supposed to have. How is that not stealing? The music industry started selling mp3's because they saw its the way of the future. Keep trying to justify it, I will keep proving you wrong. Regardless of when the industry decided to adopt and sell mp3s, doesnt change the fact that what users have been doing for some time now is illegal

You miss the point. Totally. Reproduction of art, and ideas is completely different then the sale and manufacture of finished goods.
The fact that you would use such a straw man argument shows that you have no grounding in logic, and like most uneducated individuals you rely on "belief" and "faith" to argue your points.
Stop trying to compare apples and battleships, material posessions created by material means through the processing and finishing of physical materials has nothing to do with shared media.
The music companies deserve to get paid if we want thier CDs, and thier CD covers, and thier stupid little lyric sheets. But I have my own CDs, and I don't need your shiny packageing. Take it and shove it.
Artists can make thier money the old fashioned way, by selling thier art directly to the consumers, through performance and showings. Then we wouldn't have these talentless individuals becomeing muillionares off of a CD with two good songs on it that gullible teenages beg thier parents to buy.
Care to debate?

Umm, different? The works that are being swapped over the net are copyrighted, people paid to make them, and created a way to distribute them, by not paying for the product, you are in deed stealing. Dont use that faith argument on me, I dont believe in faith of any sort. Just because you dont want the shiny package or lyrical inserts doesnt mean you still should get a product for free. I am sure, argue this one, if you were an artist, you wouldnt want people stealing your music or artwork, or what have you and trading it for free. You would probably be pissed. Or you could just use the argument "No I wouldnt care, People that really like my art form will support me" But think about it, how many people that sit there and collect albums on the net actually purchase something to support the artist? Not very many, I know several users who collect thousands of albums just to sit back and sell them to people for 2-3$ a pop, do they give any portion of the monies to the artist as support? No, they keep it, and that is wrong. Thats illegal redistribution. The works are copyrighted, and as such, the artist is entitled to charge for it, if you dont like the way they distribute their art, contact them, tell them about it. Stealing is stealing, I dont care how you try and justify it. Digital media is still copyrighted work, perhaps not the file itself, but the content within the file IS COPYRIGHTED.The artists are selling their own work, not their ideas, remember that.

Once again off topic.
Reselling something is different then personal use. Your good at changeing the argument to something everyone supports though, nice shot.
As far as I'm concerned DLing music for personal listening is akin to listeing to the radio, or tapeing songs off of it, which was defended in court in the 70s.
Next!

For personal use, yes, but redistributing it was the whole reason I started arguing in the first place. The people who distribute it illegally are in the wrong. If you hear a song on a webcast, yes you should be allowed to record it. But downloading over P2P is very illegal because 99% of the works you download are copyrighted and arent being distributed in a controlled manner that the artist or recording agency has approved

I think the current US law is wrong, coping is NOT stealing, and the law has to be changed.

There is a huge difference between actual loses as incurred by stealing and POTENTIAL loses as incurred by various other activities like coping.

For example, when I refuse to buy your product I am depriving you of potential profits, and using the same logic that should be a crime too, right?

Because of historic inertia and active propaganda it will take a long time and a lot of effort to make people realize there is absolutely no justification behind copyright and similar laws besides protecting a particular business model.

No, if you refuse to purchase a product, you are saying you dont like a product, not stealing anything. By downloading something, however, that you've boycotted or just dont want to buy or cant afford, that is very illegal and the US laws are correct in every aspect on that matter

Ok, I get you on the reselling, for a profit, copyrighted material. That's bad, stealing someone elses intellectual property for your own profit is wrong, will always be wrong, and we can all agree we wouldn't want someone else selling our art / ideas for thier profit, no problem.

I have to mention though, that VHS / Beta, Reel-to-Reel (tapes and the spools), floppy disks, optical disks, etc, and the personal cheap home use of those media were not addressed properly by the copyright laws as the media were invented.

But the right to make copies for personal use for no profit has been protected for a long time. Anyone can read the FBI warning on a rented tape / CD, and see that it speaks of illegal distribution.

So it seems we are argueing the legitimacy of how the media is distributed, and not that it cannot be legally copied for personal use. So at this point we have to ask the question, what makes tapeing something off the TV or the radio and recording something off the internet different? Why is is ok to do one and not the other? TV and Radio are free services, where if we tape it, we get it for free, same as the internet and DLing, the real difference being were not listening to commercials. TiVo and digital boxes allow you to do the same thing though, and they have been protected in court. If you record off of broadcast media (radio), that doesn't assure you listen to the commercials either. So the question stands, what is the difference?

Recording off the net is fine, as I've said, its when you go to programs like kazaa, or bittorrent (MOST SITES, NOT ALL, I know there are some legit uses for it) that you get into questionable territory. Downloading from a p2p net is very different than recording off a web stream. I agree, web stream recording is fine, and shouldnt be limited by law.

But, why is realtime streaming different then file swapping if the intention is to record the data for personal use? Its just a different way to deliver the media. It is the same media delivered either way.

Are you saying that if P2P networking is converted to realtime streaming, you'd support it?

So your test for deciding whether my depriving you of a potential profit is "stealing" or not, depends on whether I like your product or not? Very objective legal criterion :-)

I am not disputing that making a copy of file is often against the law, I am disputing that it is a just law.

Only if the author supported it and ok'd it, by distributing the content illegally over p2p nets, I do feel however, that you are breaking the law. However, if you obtain the content through recording from a web stream, you are in the right as with VHS tapes as the content was distributed in a legal manner.

No, that isnt it at all. If you dont like the product, and you download it to show the author up, yes thats stealing, but if your just boycotting the product altogether to include not downloading it, then thats fine because your not stealing it or feeling that you deserve it for free. I dont see how this is that complex of an idea

It is not a complex idea, it is a wrong idea.

Stealing by definition requires loss by original owner. Not potential loss - actual loss. Ignoring that criterion leads to distorted and wrong laws which end up stamping on freedoms of all to protect specific business models of few.

no. i'm not saying "stealing" it is right. i'm saying even if they weren't downloading it they still wouldn't pay for it. no money = no money no matter what.

i can't afford a porche, and i can't get one for free so i don't drive one.

Amen to that!!!!!!! You are totally right! Don't see the RIAA still causing a fit over this...

Actually Metshrine, I'm fairly sure it's not stealing, unless your laws are significantly different in the US to the rest of the world. Copyright infringement is the crime we're talking about here, not theft.

Although MIPI, MRAA or RIAA have all decided to 'promote' it as stealing, so the general public actually believes it is.

Regardless, it is still against the law. The laws aren't necessarily correct, but we/you did vote for the loonies who make them. Just like the wankers over here - you should see our draconian road rules! 3km/h over the speed limit = $125 fine. *rolls eyes*

Sounds like a trivial idea. Just get some new cutting edge technology that can copy that for nearly free. Like Internet2 is to movies/music.

agreed alex and dawolf

anyway.. it's the music industry that needs to change to accomodate users not the other way around

don't they get it that sueing these people isn't going to make those and other people go out and buy the albums instead? it's going to make those people NOT want to buy them even more and look for better ways to remain anonymous! whether u like it or not!
and no it's not wrong or immoral.. music is just way overpriced, and by using p2p we are simply expressing what we think the value of the music is and how we want it distributed.
music industry needs to adapt to this, not look for ways to battle the majority of the population.. because they will lose.
dumba**es

This whole arguement is getting on my nerves - it's moronic.

[1] - for as long as there has been music, their has been music thieft - in the early days it was a matter of going to a concert or listening to music on the radio, or borrowing a friends album or cassette and recording the tunes on your cassette player. Gasp. ban cassette recorders and sue everyone whoi owns one. Then there came the video cassette recorder. Clearly the name alone all but screams, " I am made for the explicit purpose of conducting illegal copies of video material, violating federal law". Now we have the whole file sharing thing. get a clue, there has been software and music piracy long before there was an internet, and how long has the internet been mainstream? I dont see the record companies out of business yet.

Thas because they wont be. it doesnt cost them that much - it costs them more in lawyers and court battles to do these lawsuits then the actual piracy itself does.

[2] - stop comparing apples to oranges. a downloaded song woirth all of 2 dollars is NOT a 50,000 dollare sports car. it is NOT a manufactured object.

people need to get a life. there are so many REAL LIFE issues happening out there that affect us all. this is nothing but the same old media propaganda, sponsored by the political-corporate machine designed to focus attention to one hand so you dont see how bad the other hand is beating the sh*t outta you

whoa... finally an INTELLIGENT post on this topic.

"Umm, different? The works that are being swapped over the net are copyrighted, people paid to make them, and created a way to distribute them, by not paying for the product, you are in deed stealing"

hey, here's something to debate on...

The RIAA made the cd, sure,m they copyrighted the cd - sure. I will give you that. the original person who copies the song or songs off the cd may have indeed violated copyright law... ok, now then.. that person gives the mp3 they just made to someone else. since the person who made the copy didnt copyright the copy they made, that - in all truth, makes the new mp3 a non-copyrighted item. this gets shared to millions over time. In theroy, the above statement is true. and since it is all but impossible without a person making the statement, "I am the person who originally copied the song" to find the original copyright thief, then the RIAA has no real legal grounds.

Here's another thought, and this makes EVERYONE IN THE WORLD guilty of violating music copyrights. Ever sing a song you hears on the radio, on a cd, or in concert? You just violated copyright law, since not only the music, media and content as a whole are copyrighted, but each individual aspect is also copyrighted. the words, the music etc. so before you get on your soapbox preaching all holier than thou, put yourself behind bars as well you lawbreaker :)

"I know several users who collect thousands of albums just to sit back and sell them to people for 2-3$ a pop, do they give any portion of the monies to the artist as support?"

$2 - $3 a copy almost covers the cost of buying a computer with a burner, buying the media, buying cd covers. in maybe 2 years they can get their investment back. They arent selling the albums, they are recieving money to pay for the media used. it's just like getting a free item on the net or tv or wherever, (plus 9.95 shipping and handling). you pay 9.,95 shipping and handling for the free item; you pay 2-3 shipping and handling. whats the difference :)

how is recording copyrighted material over a webcast different than recording copyrighted material from, a cd? it's all still copyrighted :)

shut up.

Isn't it because on a web/aircast royalties for one party & ad revenues based on viewer #'s are being paid? Supposedly there's benefits for the artist in both revenue for it & revenue for one of its marketing/selling partners--the braodcast entity.

I still believe we'll come to a solution like for videotapes: everyone will realize how 'free copying in a lesser-quality instrument or format' is the best marketing tool-- we'll likely wind up with a scenario analogous to tape recorders, when a format that yields true fidelity / symphony-level standards appears & predominates: we will disdainfully regard mp3 & other present formats-- anyone wanting free music will be free to have this 'tape-quality' format, and those wanting quality will just pay for it.... but will likely not pay the exorbitant prices we've seen up to now-- this is where the present sharing issues will have benefited everyone: by shaking up the status quo / awful waste in the industry.

well put!

Many up and coming artists are glad to know their work is being shared throughout the net. In doing so, many consumers are willing to go out and pay to go to a concert or even buy the album when it's released. Keep in mind there are many ways for the recording industry to make their money.

50 Cent was asked his thoughts on illegal downloads. The rapper said: "Like, if you're a new artist, it's effective. If you're an artist that's out, established, it's probably going to hurt your sales, you know what I mean? But being a new artist, once you get a buzz big enough for them to bootleg you, I think you should be bootlegged as much as possible 'cause I think consistency is the key to all success, so if they consistently hear good music, they're not going to feel like it's a bad buy when it's time to purchase your album."

P2P filesharing is the next evolution of society and technology. Businesses should be embracing this, not calling it heresy. Even the BBC is now coming to the times. It has created a P2P client to allow downloading of its shows for seven days after the program airs.

"cannot let this high-speed network become a zone of lawlessness where the normal rules don't apply."

Where exactly do those rules apply, anyway? Just curious, really, since they don't seem to be working very well pretty much anywhere nowadays.

how long do you think it will be befor someone makes an encrypted file sharing program

i just wanted to set a few things straight...

for those of you who have argued that recording music broadcasted over the net is legal, you are wrong. music broadcasted anywhere, whether that is TV, radio, internet, WHATEVER - is costing the broadcaster copyright fees to broadcast it. The fees they are paying to broadcast do not justify the listener allowance to record the broadcast, therefore by doing so you are infringing on copyright law. Just because you're recording content that has already been paid for does not justify ownership of the content. If you want to OWN something, you PAY for it, NO QUESTIONS!

for those people arguing that downloading mp3s wasnt 'really stealing' until the industry utilized the compression method and started selling music in the mp3 format, you are also wrong i'm afraid. When you buy a CD you are not paying for the filetype, you are paying for the content, which is the music. which method the record producer uses to compress the content is neither here nor there, which is why you probably wouldn't make the same statement about divx movies.

for those of you arguing that there 'has always been music theft', i am afraid that also does not justify the ongoing practice of it.

for those arguing that it actually 'doesnt cost them as much as they make you think' and (try to) back this up by claiming there have been studies showing this, are straying from the topic. the RIAA's mission is not to lose less money, it's to stop people breaking the law.

dawolf74's comment: "The music companies deserve to get paid if we want thier CDs, and thier CD covers, and thier stupid little lyric sheets. But I have my own CDs, and I don't need your shiny packageing. Take it and shove it."
-- i was nearly behind you on this one, but after some thought I have to disagree. Your argument suggests that you don't want to pay for the disc and packaging, but the RIAA have already answered this by allowing legitimate sites (mp3.com) and software (napster) to provide music in mp3 format without packaging, although i do agree they still charge too much for downloading single files.
I completely agree with your comment about artists making money by performing, by the way (but again, the fact that they don't do this often or don't at all still does not justify downloading their product without paying for it)

as far as eunichman's comment about works being stripped of their copyrights after being copied once, you seriously need to research copyright law, as that is the most ridiculous statement in this whole thread. you think the police will let me keep a stolen car as long as i'm not the person who originally stole it? no, of course not and it's no different for the illegal downloading of music or any other digital media.
in the same post you accused every1 who has ever 'sang a song they heard on the radio' of violating copyright law. the fact that you even suggested that proves your utter stupidity and-or complete misunderstanding of copyright law. the only time this could ever be taken seriously is if you were profiting from singing a copyrighted song. walking down the road singing a song is your right as a human being, profiting from a song written and performed by somebody else is violating copyright law.
(if you haven't read the post i referred to, scroll up and check it out, it's ridiculous)

The only person I can see who seems to be making sense is Metshrine, who isn't trying to justify breaking the law when that's all this is.

in conclusion, if you want to own something protected by copyright, you must pay for it. once you own that item, you can copy it. once you have copied it, you CANNOT distribute it. Distribution is a reserved right held by broadcasters ie. radio & television who pay for the right to distribute. by buying a cd, you have not paid distribution rights therefore any copies made must be kept solely for the use of the owner of the original source. being in possession of material which you do not hold the original is against the law, and if you fall under this category, you deserve to be sued.

It is a bad law. It should be changed.

RIAA has managed to imprint to your mind new definition of the word "stealing", one that doesn't include any loss by original owner (only "potential loss"). Wait until they start to criminalize other instances of "potential loss", like when you refuse to buy their product. The logic is as good as the current one: artist worked hard, he deserves compensation, and if you don't buy the product he is going to incur the loss. Therefore, you are stealing from him. Sounds familiar?

If owner didn't lose anything - nothing was stolen.

You have sumed it up nicely!

it is only bad to you now, because you do not have any copyright material circulating on the Internet or Television. You would think differently if it affected you personally.
It doesn't matter that the egg is scrambled, hard-boiled, sunny-side-up, medium, or blended - it is an egg. Stealing is stealing, theft is theft. It is all symantics and you will lose.

it is only bad to you now, because you do not have any copyright material circulating on the Internet or Television. You would think differently if it affected you personally.
It doesn't matter that the egg is scrambled, hard-boiled, sunny-side-up, medium, or blended - it is an egg. Stealing is stealing, theft is theft. It is all symantics and you will lose.

Alexq said: "Wait until they start to criminalize other instances of "potential loss", like when you refuse to buy their product."

There's one big difference. When you refuse to buy their material you gain nothing. When you illegally download their material you gain possession of their material - material which must be purchased to possess! Can I make it any clearer than that?

It would become clear if you could provide a test criterion to identify what makes you call an action "stealing" even though owner didn't lose anything.

Just because your opinions are based on your personal interests doesn't mean everyone else's are too.

If majority of people are like you then indeed I am sure I will loose. I don't think they are, though.

The funniest thing about your rant is that the RIAA isn't actually suing people for downloading music. They are suing people for distributing the music. The law that they are using to sue people is aimed at people who make their living selling bootlegs. they have never sued anyone for the act of downloading the music.

I believe the RIAA are taking things to far.. believeing themselves to be a almost God amongst mere mortals (us). they seem to be able to make laws to do what they want. Fine fileshareing is illegal.. but there is nothing anyone can do about it.. It is also illegal to backup the media that you have legitemately purchased. To me this is also wrong. I have well over 300 dvds to my collection, All bought legally. The courts have shut down my favorite program (DVD X Copy Express Platinum) saying it was illegal and all that crap. But seriously. How can u not be allowed to make a backup of something you own? The answer lies within the companys that make them. "You purchase the right to view/listen to/use the media but you have no right to back it up incase the original gets scratched".

And the price of this media is stupid. no wonder why people are going to p2p, brand new dvd $40, new cd $20-30, new game $70+, new program $100+.

If they would just lower their prices and take off all the encriptions, people would stop going to p2p because things would be more affordable.

The RIAA are not taking things too far IMO, they are trying to take action against people breaking the law.. nothing wrong with that! Yes, illegitimate filesharing is illegal and yes something can be done about it.. arrest/fine/imprison people doing it and it will stop eventually.. it might take 5 years but it will slow to a halt.
I don't know where you get the idea from, but I'm almost certain that it is NOT illegal to backup media legitimately purchased as long as you don't distribute it. Then you go on to moan about this when in fact it isn't true.

The price of the media is not the issue here, it's the fact people are using illegal methods to download the material, the RIAA are not looking for justification.

stealing is obtaining possession of something which is not yours, without the owner's permission. better?

Do you believe ANY law could be enforced if you put enough people in jail? I believe the bad laws will eventually be changed regardless of how many people you manage to put in jail.

Not really, no.

There are multiple logical fallacies with this definition both in general and as applied in this case.

First, you along with RIAA try to redefine meaning of the word "stealing" which throughout all history to this day means "take away from owner without permission", not "gain something without permission".

Second, you apply terms "possession" and "ownership" to numbers. I own number "2" and if you are using it without my permission you are a thief. I have a lot of different numbers on my PC. MP3 files, MPEG files. And you are saying you "own" some of those numbers, and by using the same numbers I am stealing from you. Nonsense.

I know, the ideas have been embedded so deep that you find it difficult even to think about questioning them. It will take a lot of time.

eleven80: So you believe a giant company that sues old ladies and little girls and broke college students over files on a computer is all good?

It's always about the other guys greed and of course the money. There is no reason to try and think there is another reason for all this insanity.

Who will last longer? The Internet or corporate firm? The Internet is still a very wild place and no iron-fist of any company will halt it.

"Do you believe ANY law could be enforced if you put enough people in jail?"

The law is already enforced. Jail is often the punishment for breaking the law. Break the law, get punished. Obey the law, don't get punished. Simple.

"So you believe a giant company that sues old ladies and little girls and broke college students over files on a computer is all good?"

First off, the RIAA is not a company but an industry association, just like the MPAA. Semantics, you say. But I disagree, because the RIAA is a body and sets the rules and standards for the recording industry. This isn't some 'company' taking the law into it's own hands.. they own the rights to the material they produce, and they have final say on how that material is allowd to be distributed. Secondly, this isn't about little girls and old ladies. This is about grown adults (college students) abusing a system provided to them for knowledge growth and instead using it to ILLEGALLY share copyright material. There is no justification for breaking the law, whether you're male, female, young, old, rich, poor, smart or stupid.. sorry!

Ok folks, this is far 2 silly. There are about a million variables to factor in here. 1 is that there are way to many levels in the music industry. It's impossible for a new band to get it's name out without getting a record label. This is being corrected by the use of MP3's as long as the RIAA doesn't make sure that doesn't happen. The RIAA and all record labels missed the boat big time years ago when MP3's started coming out, instead of embracing the technology, and being early adapters, then tried to stop it. You can't stop inovation, at least not this one. They should have marketed their physical copies as being better, CD quality is still better. The artwork on the CD and case are nice, and a pain to duplicate on a standard home computer. They never focused on what advangates the physical copy had over the downloaded copy. And the file sharing networks are still tons better than the online stores. The entire purpose of an online store would be to allow you to find any song. Itunes just doesn't cut it. Kill bill soundtrack? ? no where to be found. Any trance/techno is no where to be found. And the RIAA is now saying they need to raise the price of mp3's? Are you kidding me? The cost of an mp3 is much less than a CD. Namely, no artwork required for the physical CD. You stop that, and you cut out a huge portion of the CD cost.

I'd love to see artist break relations with labels, and start independant websites offering their songs for like 10 cents a song. It'd be so awsome to see this.

The people the RIAA should be going after are the folks downloading files, then re-producing the product then resaleing it. That is the only thing that cuts into their revenue, you'll never be able to make be believe anything else. I'm personally so upset with radio/RIAA, that i only buy new albums of about 5 artist that come out. Mainly because of how the RIAA has handled this. I'd love to see them implode on their own egos.

"I'd love to see artist break relations with labels, and start independant websites offering their songs for like 10 cents a song. It'd be so awesome to see this."

It would be great to see that.. but unfortunately it won't happen because artists can't rely on a decent return from a format that is being freely distributed.

"The people the RIAA should be going after are the folks downloading files, then re-producing the product then reselling it"

I agree. But that shouldn't stop them from going after the people distributing the copyright material for free, too. Where do you think the re-sellers get the material in the first place? ;)