Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by David G., Dec 29, 2007.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    #1
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...007122800693.html

    This is just crazy. According to the RIAA,
    Now they're actually going out and suing people for this.
    How did they know the music was on there to begin with? Seems to me they were spying on him in one form or another. My suggestion, stop buying music from record labels under the RIAA.

    Please discuss this without getting to political in nature. I'd like to have as many people comment on it as possible(keeping it out of politics subforum). If you feel a need to though, go right on ahead and create a thread on the political aspects of this over there.


    P.S. This is the first time I have ever started a thread, it goes to show you how important I think this is.
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    #2
    I think basically the RIAA just picks random people and sues them. Once they file they can get the information they need. I think most people are going to have music on their computers. Sadly the way this is playing out. You are guilty until proven innocent. back ass wards of the way things are supposed to be around these parts.
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    #3
    While the suit is insane--and may be thrown out before trial--I'd like to know more about the Jasmine suit. Was she tried for illegally downloading? "illegally" copying onto her personal computer? The article doesn't mention the specific allegation against her.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    #4
    It was in the article.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    #5
    Ooops... missed the "sharing online" bit.

    Well, the RIAA is within their rights to persue cases against those who illegally share music or other information. The woman broke the law, and she paid. That's what happens.
     
  6. Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    #6
    There must be more to the Howell case than is revealed in the article. The RIAA says on their own site:

    While they claim there is no specific legal right to copy CDs to your hard drive for personal use, they sure give the impression that they're not going to go after you.

    Edit: Further investigation shows that what caused the suit was that MediaSentry, the company the RIAA uses to catch illegal file sharers, was able to download 11 copyrighted music files from Howell's computer via Kazaa.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    #7
    Why don't they go after him for sharing the music, instead of just having it on his HDD?
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    #8
    I feel a journalist wanting a big story...
     
  9. Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    #9
    They are. There's some ambiguous info in the filings about the mere presence of the files, but the vast majority of the complaint revolves around the fact that he was in fact sharing them.
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    #10
    Ok, that makes me feel so much better. The people over on Engadget are furious.:mad:
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    maestro55

    #11
    Despite all of these suits, they are not stopping Music and Video piracy and they won't stop it. They can try but they wont succeed. I wonder how many people have been sued by the RIAA and still kept downloading and sharing music online.
     
  12. macrumors 603

    #12
    Why the **** do people still buy CDs?

    The RIAA are a bunch of scumbag corporate douchebags. I love how their new business model is to sue people.

    I don't understand why people put up with it. Stop buying CDs from them. If enough people do, they will start losing even more money and might realize people are sick of their ****.
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    cycocelica

    #13
    Boggles my mind that our legal system makes people pay more (jail time or money) for a song than a DUI.
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    #14
    I think that its ok for the RIAA to sue for a large amount of money. They are trying to make a statement, that if you share or download illegal music, you may have to pay very large fines.

    If the fines were only a couple hundred dollars, people would go crazy with the downloading and Artists would loose even More money from less Royalties.

    Its much easier for people to just go onto itunes and buy music for a couple bucks a song.. So cheap, and your music is legal. I always recommend itunes to download music. Its not a ton of money, and you only get the songs you want.... And very good quality.. Hastle free.

    BTW, I do think that that DUI fines should be way higher as well..
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    R.Youden

    #15
    Very true. I know that this is illegal, but in the grand scheme of things....

    I have very little time for people who a DUI, over here in the UK a man was 6-times over the limit and got an 18-month ban.

    So, to put it into context:

    If you had to commit a crime (hypothetically speaking here) and you had a choice, driving at 6-times the legal alcohol limit of downloading and sharing 24 songs?

    Well the ban for driving is 18-month (plus a fine, not sure the exact amount), whilst the fine for the songs is over £100,000!

    Hmmm, tough choice there.

    This is the problem with modern 'sue' culture, things are loosing their perspective and people need a reality check with this one.

    I am not condoning this behaviour, but when the fine for downloading and sharing 24 songs is more severe than being in charge of a deadly weapon (yes a car) when you are 6 times over the limit is wrong.

    Rant over!
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    Xander562

    #16
    But millions of innocent people are killed each year by the sharing copyrighted files! It must be stopped! :rolleyes: :p
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Fleetwood Mac

    #17
    The RIAA is a joke. Since when is ruining potential customers lives in an attempt to scare the others a good sales tactic.. How is this going to help anyone? They need to find alternative proactive methods of fighting piracy, if that's their real goal.

    Artists who continually put out good music, play concerts and get out there can still become disturbingly wealthy (if not more than before). Record labels are hurting, but thats because their trying to cram crap like DRM and lawsuits down the public's throats.

    Don't get me wrong. I support copyright reform and think everyone should get their fair share here, but its getting ridiculous.
     
  18. Moderator emeritus

    #18
    There's no evidence for that at all.
     
  19. macrumors 603

    #19
    Aren't CD sales down like 40% or something?
     
  20. Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    #20
    I believe this to be true.

    Just saw an article that stated current CD sales are down 30% from 2001 levels. I would say that a decline in 30% over 6 years is significant.
     
  21. NAG
    macrumors 68030

    NAG

    #21
    Maybe if they stopped mass producing garbage...
     
  22. Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    #22
    That might have something to do with it! ;)
     
  23. macrumors 603

    #23
    Nah, they probably like producing **** because then they can be like "CD sales are down because people are pirating music.. lets go sue them!"
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    #24
    It's a very rare occurrence that any artist from a major label draws my attention. I guess one of the reasons I haven't been sued for downloading excessive amounts of music at school is because almost nothing I get is from a major label if any label.
     
  25. macrumors 68020

    sikkinixx

    #25
    Because of illegal downloading Britney Spears is not able to keep a Gulfstream IV, so she must replace it with a smaller Gulfstream III, which doesn't have a remote control for its surround sound DVD system.... the horror....
     

Share This Page