477 more people sued by our best friend...

[stoid]

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!

 

[MrMacMan]

Browsing that downhillbattle.org site I ran across this.

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

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?


ahhhh.


They are soo stupid.

They also think that everyone has their iPod full?

*sigh* stupidity... mass stupidity.

 

[Sun Baked]

Out of all the lawsuits, this is the most disturbing event...

Defunct Napster's Saga Back in Court

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.


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

 

[Blue Moon]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....