PDA

View Full Version : 477 more people sued by our best friend...


bennetsaysargh
Apr 28, 2004, 06:06 PM
that's right, on the one year anniversary of itunes, i guess they decided to celebrate.

link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/04/28/downloading.music.ap/index.html)

Calvinatir
Apr 28, 2004, 06:27 PM
yea, I ran a direct connect Hub on my campus and it was up for 2 years until 3 students went to the Dean and told him about it...totally weak...

Macmaniac
Apr 28, 2004, 06:38 PM
And to make sure this illegal file sharing is stopped the RIAA announced today that all Legal File purchasing sites will now charge $2 per song, a little thank you from your buddies at the RIAA :p :p :eek:

Dippo
Apr 28, 2004, 06:53 PM
And to make sure this illegal file sharing is stopped the RIAA announced today that all Legal File purchasing sites will now charge $2 per song, a little thank you from your buddies at the RIAA :p :p :eek:


YEA!!! :p :p :p

I always wanted to pay more for less!
You know we have problems when a gallon of gas cost less than a song.

aldo
Apr 28, 2004, 06:57 PM
Personally I think the way the RIAA goes about thier 'business' is truly disguisting.

I personally download a fair bit of music - this will change once we have iTunes Europe though. iTunes is going to really change my download habits. Hopefully they will keep the price sensible for us UK customers.

While I don't like those that make a business out of selling pirated music, I think p2p has been the best thing to music for quite some time. Hopefully it will make indie artists more popular and get rid of the domination of the big 5 record companies.

idkew
Apr 28, 2004, 09:45 PM
i love the riaa.

they should get a nobel prize for being a friend to all.

musicpyrite
Apr 28, 2004, 10:05 PM
I've heard the RIAA is charging $2 for every song you downlaod, the way iTunes is starting to look (with up to $2.50 per song) it looks like it's almost cheaper to download music illegaly.

Dippo
Apr 28, 2004, 10:10 PM
I've heard the RIAA is charging $2 for every song you downlaod, the way iTunes is starting to look (with up to $2.50 per song) it looks like it's almost cheaper to download music illegaly.

Assuming a $3000 settlement, then you would have to download 1,200 songs per lawsuit to break even. You would need to download 3,030 songs if you want them at 99 cents, and 12,000 songs if you want them at 25 cents.

At those rates, the RIAA could just stop making music and turn into a law firm.

OutThere
Apr 28, 2004, 10:19 PM
I used to download music, but then my hard drive crashed and I lost all my music. Afterwards it was different, and now I only split music with my close friends (CDs that they buy, I rip, and I let them rip CDs I buy, if they want to). If the music couldn't be taken off the CD I'm sure that my close friends would let me borrow the CD to listen to anyway, it's only a matter of having it available when you want it. I don't like Kazaa or Limewire, and I feel really guilty if I ever use some downloading program like that. It feels like the music is greasy or something. Just my opinion. I love the iTMS, and the feel of taking a newly bought CD out of it's case and popping in the car's player. Joy.

MrMacMan
Apr 28, 2004, 11:32 PM
*sigh*

Lets Drain money from customers!

Yay!



Dippo -- they are a law firm.

Its just crazy, they can sue you for a trillion dollars for downloading like 30 songs or some nonsense.

stoid
Apr 29, 2004, 05:22 AM
Do the execs of the RIAA realize that they are *******s? Or do they go home after work thinking, "Yeah, I think our company is a good wholesome company." :mad:

BASTARDS! (http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a251) (Warning, link may contain profanity)

tom.96
Apr 29, 2004, 07:16 AM
I actually wrote an essay on this for a Uni degree. Its very interesting - many bands actually like having their music distributed through P2P systems as it spreads the word about them. Many bands also care more about music than money.

I concluded in the essay that the problem would not go away until there was a viable alternative. I reckon iTunes is that alternative, and I will enjoy using it when it comes to Europe.

As for me, well I am an old fashioned record collector and I love vinyl! So I just stick to my old records for now - I don't download any music. I don't even have broadband!

question fear
Apr 29, 2004, 09:45 AM
I actually wrote an essay on this for a Uni degree. Its very interesting - many bands actually like having their music distributed through P2P systems as it spreads the word about them. Many bands also care more about music than money.

I concluded in the essay that the problem would not go away until there was a viable alternative. I reckon iTunes is that alternative, and I will enjoy using it when it comes to Europe.

As for me, well I am an old fashioned record collector and I love vinyl! So I just stick to my old records for now - I don't download any music. I don't even have broadband!


sounds like a really interesting essay.

go vinyl! i love my records, i go through phases where i only buy new music on vinyl, its just so wonderful...

Its interesting though, because even when I downloaded music off of kazaa back in my college days, i tried not to download stuff that was widely available on cd (at least not from my favorite bands). I think its all about how you perceive people as well as how $$$ this stuff is getting. i.e. my favorite band sees being an indie band as their job; they go on tour, make records, etc because they love it, but its what they do to support their families and lives. And because their dedication to that is clear in their songs, their websites, and on their tours, I would think twice before downloading a cd of theirs on p2p. Granted, they are the exception....but it leads me to another point. Do you think the movie ads with the stuntmen and stuff work, or do you think its just calling attention to a phenomenon further? When I first saw one of those ads, I figured it would be fairly effective to some degree, but in the theater where I saw Kill Bill 2 half the crowd booed the MPAA ad.

stoid
Apr 29, 2004, 10:02 AM
It seems like if it is "common knowledge" that artists are getting basically nil from CD sales because of the RIAA, then they really don't take too big of a hit when you illegally download their song. It's just the RIAA that gets hit in the profit. Have you noticed that there are no artists outraged over pirated music? Eminem hasn't done a song about it yet, so obviously he's not too concerned about file traders. I don't see online music tracks having an impact on file traders, and I don't see it having an effect on physical CD sales. I think that the idea of downloading music online is it's own entity that will live or die on the whim of the RIAA's pricing tier. The RIAA is the only corporation I view as inherently more evil than Microsoft. MS just makes crappy products, the RIAA is the most two-faced lie POS I've ever heard of. I hate the RIAA so much that if I were to see an exec, I would spit in his/her face without a second thought.

leftbanke7
Apr 29, 2004, 10:35 AM
It seems like if it is "common knowledge" that artists are getting basically nil from CD sales because of the RIAA, then they really don't take too big of a hit when you illegally download their song. It's just the RIAA that gets hit in the profit. Have you noticed that there are no artists outraged over pirated music? Eminem hasn't done a song about it yet, so obviously he's not too concerned about file traders. I don't see online music tracks having an impact on file traders, and I don't see it having an effect on physical CD sales. I think that the idea of downloading music online is it's own entity that will live or die on the whim of the RIAA's pricing tier. The RIAA is the only corporation I view as inherently more evil than Microsoft. MS just makes crappy products, the RIAA is the most two-faced lie POS I've ever heard of. I hate the RIAA so much that if I were to see an exec, I would spit in his/her face without a second thought.

Have you forgotten about Metallica? And just because an artist hasn't been vocal about it doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't outraged by it.

However, I am pretty much sure that the RIAA is just looking after their own rear ends and trying to tell John Q. Public that their actions are solely intended for the artists. The whole RIAA/P2P issue reminds me a lot of the BCS/Non-BCS college football issue. The BCS tries to tell us that they are looking out for the best interests of the traditions of college football and the "student-athletes" but they are much more interested in lining their own pockets. If schools like Utah, Boise State and North Texas and their conferences suddenly became powerhouses and schools like Miami, Ohio St. and USC had a sudden decline, the BCS would switch around fast as can be.

Capitalism has its positive side, however it also has it negative side and it seems that a good portion of the negative is hovering around the entertainment industry as a whole.

themadchemist
Apr 29, 2004, 10:38 AM
yea, I ran a direct connect Hub on my campus and it was up for 2 years until 3 students went to the Dean and told him about it...totally weak...

That sucks. I don't know why people can't keep out of others' business...I mean, jeez, it's downloading! I know it's sketchy, but it's not some moral travesty worth report. Heck, it's not even that much a negative economic effect for the RIAA.

One thing I don't understand is why the RIAA ignores evidence that downloading does not negatively affect music sales and continues to waste its money, time, and resources prosecuting downloaders. If it really wants to scapegoat, that's fine, but it's costing the RIAA a lot of money. You'd think it would want to find the real reason record sales are low and do what it can to fix it.

My argument, though, is that the economy is still not great and record sales are one of the first things to go. If you're worried about putting food on the table, then you're probably not going to go out there and buy the latest musical stylings of Britney Spears. That's just a hunch. All these comparisons of record sales to 1998 levels or 2000 levels are just bogus. The RIAA acts as if the only variable there is downloading. I would call a national downturn in the economy a pretty big variable simply to ignore.

Stupidity...You gotta love it.

stoid
Apr 29, 2004, 10:55 AM
My argument, though, is that the economy is still not great and record sales are one of the first things to go. If you're worried about putting food on the table, then you're probably not going to go out there and buy the latest musical stylings of Britney Spears. That's just a hunch. All these comparisons of record sales to 1998 levels or 2000 levels are just bogus. The RIAA acts as if the only variable there is downloading. I would call a national downturn in the economy a pretty big variable simply to ignore.

Stupidity...You gotta love it.

But you can't sue the economy ;)

themadchemist
Apr 29, 2004, 11:58 AM
But you can't sue the economy ;)

Fair enough. But at what cost is the RIAA going after 12 year olds? Getting two thousand bucks from some toddler isn't paying the fees for these corporate attorneys.

I'm not questioning that the RIAA is on some sort of symbolic crusade. What I am questioning is the economic justification for it. This endeavor doesn't seem to make sense for the RIAA itself!

Sincere
Apr 29, 2004, 12:09 PM
For all who are disgusted by the RIAA's fear-mongering tactics (that few musicians truly support), check out the great site http://www.downhillbattle.org/ and check out the RIAA radar (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/) to check your purchases before you buy them. Every RIAA-member's CD that you buy tells them that you support their lawsuits as each label belonging to the RIAA pays serious dues to be a member of such a horrible organization. Support independant musicians and labels that don't believe in strong-arming the public, artists, and industry collusion. Your purchases make a difference...

--Sincere

stoid
Apr 29, 2004, 12:17 PM
Browsing that downhillbattle.org site I ran across this (http://www.itunesperipod.com/).

This guy seems to be certainly of the highest caliber of intelligence :rolleyes:

themadchemist
Apr 29, 2004, 12:23 PM
For all who are disgusted by the RIAA's fear-mongering tactics (that few musicians truly support), check out the great site http://www.downhillbattle.org/ and check out the RIAA radar (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/) to check your purchases before you buy them. Every RIAA-member's CD that you buy tells them that you support their lawsuits as each label belonging to the RIAA pays serious dues to be a member of such a horrible organization. Support independant musicians and labels that don't believe in strong-arming the public, artists, and industry collusion. Your purchases make a difference...

--Sincere

If I were to buys CDs (which I rarely do), I would buy the CDs on the basis of my preference for the musician, not out of some sort of political statement. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but I like some of the music of its sold-our-souls-to-the-devil artists. Sure, if I liked an independent artist, then I'd buy the music, but if I didn't, I wouldn't throw my hard-earned cash in that direction just to say "F U RIAA!"

But as I said, I'm not going to buy CDs anyway.

BrianKonarsMac
Apr 29, 2004, 01:17 PM
hey guess what...you could always just ignore the RIAA summons to court. Brian Konar? he doesn't live here anymore :P.

seriously though...i've just decided i'll download songs from now on. Screw iTMS or anyone who cooperates with RIAA. If I have the choice of paying for the loss of freedom with my purchase...or share my collection for free? hmm...it's such a hard choice! (note: sarcasm). I need to geto ut of this country.

BrianKonarsMac
Apr 29, 2004, 01:24 PM
Fair enough. But at what cost is the RIAA going after 12 year olds? Getting two thousand bucks from some toddler isn't paying the fees for these corporate attorneys.

I'm not questioning that the RIAA is on some sort of symbolic crusade. What I am questioning is the economic justification for it. This endeavor doesn't seem to make sense for the RIAA itself!
if you didn't know, music labels are disgustingly rich...they can cauterize their wounds with cash (similar to the U.S. government, we're losing the war in Iraq? throw cash on it!) they may be losing tons of money per lawsuit, but the mental impact it has on your average computer user is easily worth it. A motivated P2P'r could D/L $500 worth of music in a few hours. Get a couple hundred thousand of them going, and that's big bucks moving around. Now if you could get 50% of them to stop by scaring them with lawsuits, you've saved yourself millions (theoretically) even though u spent several hundred thousand. Unfortunately I don't see their cash well drying up anytime soon.

musicpyrite
Apr 29, 2004, 01:50 PM
I hate the RIAA so much that if I were to see an exec, I would spit in his/her face without a second thought.

*sob*

It's just so......beautiful

I hat the RIAA, and so does everybody else (mostly) I know.

Sparky's
Apr 29, 2004, 05:22 PM
Anyone out there remember when a record album was $2.00. I started my collection in the mid '60s and now have over 500 LPs, 300 CDs and no telling how many tapes. It really fries my a** to think that you can buy CDs today for about .10 apiece, and the the cost of the song???= $19.95 for a CD? Why do these artists think they have to have so much money from you and me when I can't see any increase in my wages there's are going through the roof. As far as I'm concerned all this piracy is just the tip of the iceberg in bringing them down to our level.

stoid
Apr 29, 2004, 05:27 PM
Anyone out there remember when a record album was $2.00. I started my collection in the mid '60s and now have over 500 LPs, 300 CDs and no telling how many tapes. It really fries my a** to think that you can buy CDs today for about .10 apiece, and the the cost of the song???= $19.95 for a CD? Why do these artists think they have to have so much money from you and me when I can't see any increase in my wages there's are going through the roof. As far as I'm concerned all this piracy is just the tip of the iceberg in bringing them down to our level.

The problem is that the artist sees only a sickeningly small portion of that CD price. The VAST majority of it lines the pockets of the RIAA! :mad: :mad: :mad:

MrMacMan
Apr 29, 2004, 11:11 PM
Browsing that downhillbattle.org site I ran across this (http://www.itunesperipod.com/).

This guy seems to be certainly of the highest caliber of intelligence :rolleyes:

AHHH MY EYES!


MYYY EEYYYEESSS!!


Do people not own CD's and rip them to their computer?

Because thats what I do... all the time? :confused:


ahhhh.


They are soo stupid.

They also think that everyone has their iPod full?

*sigh* stupidity... mass stupidity.

Sun Baked
May 1, 2004, 12:05 AM
Out of all the lawsuits, this is the most disturbing event...Defunct Napster's Saga Back in Court (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-napster28apr28,1,3188306.story)

A judge will rule whether two investors -- Bertelsmann and a venture firm -- can be held liable in copyright suits.

By Joseph Menn, Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO The two biggest financial backers of the defunct online song-swapping service Napster appeared in federal court here for the first time Tuesday to defend themselves against a pair of copyright lawsuits from beyond the grave...

...The copyright suits against Bertelsmann and Hummer Winblad could change the legal standard for when investors can be held responsible for the improper acts of firms they back. As things stand, liability for corporate actions almost always ends with the company itself. Venture experts said they didn't know of any case in which the investors had been held liable.

"If they won, it would be a cause for concern," said intellectual property lawyer Evan Cox of Covington & Burling in San Francisco. "For companies who have business models close to the edge, it's one more thing for investors to worry about."

Santa Clara University law professor Tyler Ochoa said the case was "extraordinarily significant."

"The whole purpose of corporate formation is so that the investors have limited liability," Ochoa said. A loss by either Bertelsmann or Hummer Winblad would "lead to a chilling effect on venture capital and investment in new technology and could have a terribly destructive effect on a vital sector of the economy," he said...

[delete to end]Yay, if people didn't lose enough money from a dead company.
:rolleyes:

Let's take the rest of the investor's money away because there's no more left in the company's coffer.

Blue Moon
May 1, 2004, 12:28 AM
AHHH MY EYES!


MYYY EEYYYEESSS!!


Do people not own CD's and rip them to their computer?

Because thats what I do... all the time? :confused:


That's all I do, I stopped stealing music a couple of years ago, not really because of ethics but because I could never be sure of the quality of the file and I believe in maintaining the sanctity of the album as a whole piece of art (unless its a greatest hits album or compilation or what have you) and finding every song on every album you want can sure be friggen difficult, especially on Mac where the P2P services kinda suck.

OutThere
May 1, 2004, 08:24 AM
Every RIAA-member's CD that you buy tells them that you support their lawsuits as each label belonging to the RIAA pays serious dues to be a member of such a horrible organization.

--Sincere

Actually, I think that it is sending the message that I like the music that I am buying, and personally don't give a **** about the RIAA. No, I'm not brainwashed by the RIAA, no I don't work for the RIAA, and no I'm not a troll. I don't think that changing my tastes in music will make the RIAA realise that I don't support their lawsuits. I listen to Guster. They started out in the 90s independently, and now have signed with a major label. Am I going to stop buying their music? No. Am I going to download it off p2p as all you 'downhill battle' seem to rationalise? No. Am I going to send Guster 20 bucks? No. Your suggestions are idealistic and nonsensical. You all are making the RIAA sound like the Combine (One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest - Ken Kesey) or Big Brother (1984 - George Orwell), which it is not. It's just a large organisation, and every large organisation has major trouble changing its policies to adjust to the modern world. Once the RIAA figures out that their current strategy is not working, they will adapt and adjust, albeit slowly, to the modern musical technology. Buying CD gets everyone involved in the process paid for the work they did. Now, maybe the balance isn't even at all, but there is more to it than just the record labels and the artist. People actually have to work to get a major CD published and publicized enough to become popular. Stop rationalising your p2p, and just download the music already, I buy my music, and will continue to.

takao
May 1, 2004, 09:08 AM
what i really hat at the moment aren't those lawsuit things...it's those copyprotected cds which are relesed here in austria/germany like crazy

out of the charts 9 out of 10 cds are copyprotected and only independet and old cds are still unprotected....
even i already came across cds which i wasn't able to copy them on my pc with itunes... or wasn't able to play them in the car either...

if a cd is copyprotected or not available -> i download it.period.
and 19 is to expensive too for me as a student.... i only buy older cds up to 10-12

crazytom
May 1, 2004, 08:11 PM
I've had a thought about downloading music:

Say you take a digital audio file and reverse it (so it would play backwards). Post it for download and let the user figure out how to reverse it back. Would it be legal? Does a copyright only pertain to how the music sounds in one direction?

Blue Moon
May 8, 2004, 01:26 PM
I've had a thought about downloading music:

Say you take a digital audio file and reverse it (so it would play backwards). Post it for download and let the user figure out how to reverse it back. Would it be legal? Does a copyright only pertain to how the music sounds in one direction?

Its an idea but I hardly think that would constitute a legal loophole.

question fear
May 8, 2004, 10:53 PM
Its an idea but I hardly think that would constitute a legal loophole.

i agree...it seems it would still be considered copyrighted. if i photocopy a book and shuffle the pages, its still a violation of copyright to distribute that, especailly if i tell people the unshuffled pages will form a book.
i swear this makes sense, i will ask my roommate the law student when she gets home.

LethalWolfe
May 9, 2004, 01:49 AM
Anyone out there remember when a record album was $2.00. I started my collection in the mid '60s and now have over 500 LPs, 300 CDs and no telling how many tapes. It really fries my a** to think that you can buy CDs today for about .10 apiece, and the the cost of the song???= $19.95 for a CD? Why do these artists think they have to have so much money from you and me when I can't see any increase in my wages there's are going through the roof. As far as I'm concerned all this piracy is just the tip of the iceberg in bringing them down to our level.

1. Inflation.

2. Stop buying CD's at places that sell them for $20. W/the exception of imports and/or multi CD sets I've rarely paid more than $14 or $15 for a CD.

3. Citing the cost of the media as an example of CD's being overpriced is stupid. You aren't paying for the media you are paying for what's on the media, what it took to get it onto the media, and what it took to get the media to a store near you. If you think music is overpriced I'd love to know what you think about computer games ($50 for a 10 cent CD), operating systems ($129 for a 10 cent CD) and professional software like Photoshop ($600 for a 10 cent CD) or FCP ($999 for a few 10 cent CDs).

4. If you can't see an increase in your wages between now and the mid-60's I think you need to find a new job. Do you actually know what the average income of an artist signed to a major label is or are you just assuming that everyone w/a guitar is a multi-million dollar superstar? Maybe if you were as in demand as, let's say, Britney Spears you'd be making more money than you are now.

5. As another poster said, most of the money goes back to the labels. Why? Because 90% of the artists labels sign and advance money to never turn a profit. So 10% of the acts have to generate enough money to keep the other 90% above water.


Lethal

mkrishnan
May 9, 2004, 09:31 AM
Does anyone know if the RIAA goes after people based on the total quantity of MB they d/l'd or the number of files, or whether they acted as superservers or whatever the Limewire term was? Just curious why they seem to randomly announce going after 251 people here and 477 people there.... :)