K
Kizzy
Guest
Recently, and controversially, the recording industry has switched tactics in its fight against illegal downloading. Despite fear of a public relations debacle, it is planning to sue student downloaders.
willie
Well-Known Member
Are these college students selling the downloaded music? Comparing Loretta Lynn's success to what these students are doing is a far reach IMO. I don't download anything but I have copied a lot of music on tape and converted it to CD for my own personal use. I have Zero guilt feelings and even less sympathy for these poor soon to be destitute artists, managers, agents and anyone else that isn't making as big a fortune as they think they deserve. If I sold it then that is a different story.
J
justhangn
Guest
Now there's a proposition for ya.
I'm sorry guys, buy the CD's, they aren't that expensive anymore. :shrug:
J
justhangn
Guest
Oddly, I seem to be able to find people who have that CD that I want with three songs on it and they always let me pirate the songs from the CD. :shrug:
J
justhangn
Guest
Gotcha, I guess that will be right before they put those chips in our necks at birth to monitor our every move.Originally posted by tys_mommy
You better watch out they'll be inserting chips into CDs and monitoring that soon, then they'll be out to get ya for that.
Me too - they're called Kazaa buddies.
Millions and millions of friends...I don't know why the recording companies don't just put their catalogs online and charge per song. I'd pay if there were something like that.
J
justhangn
Guest
There are several out there, so I've been told.
On 98 Rock this morning they were talking about this and had download and paid for a song but could NOT cut it to CD.
The only one I've ever seen was the Apple deal - but that's only for Macs.
To me this is just a control issue by the record companies. They want us to listen to what THEY want, not what we want. Even compilation CDs suck because they give you one or two good songs and the rest dreck. K-Tel used to have a service where you picked the songs online and they'd burn you a CD. But the pickin's were slim and a lot of them weren't even by the original artist.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
THAT is...
...the bottom line:
...the bottom line:
Danzig
Well-Known Member
What pizzes me off is back in the 80’s I would sometimes buy a cassette two and three times because it would get worn out and dirty and just sound like crap after awhile. Then CDs came out and they weren’t cheap but I bought most of the stuff I had on cassette and albums on CD So now I have paid “royalties” on some albums up to 4 times. Like Pink Floyd’s The Wall, I have the album, the cassette, and the CD, the cassette was once replaced, so I bought it 4 times. The sad thing is I have no idea where any of them are, so if I want to STEAL it from the internet you bet I will. The other thing that SUCKS is I had one of the first SONY CD multi disc players. It would hold 10 CDs in a cartridge, I had 20 or so cartridges and before I realized it I had 200 scratched CDs. The record companies have screwed us for years and I hope they all go bankrupt, THEY SUCK, THEY SUCK, and THEY SUCK.
I will download (from newsgroups) and trade MP3s all I want and the record companys can kiss my butt, just kiss it.
THEY STILL OWE ME!!!!
I will download (from newsgroups) and trade MP3s all I want and the record companys can kiss my butt, just kiss it.
THEY STILL OWE ME!!!!
They also owe me for the zillions of albums and 45s I've bought over the years that are now obsolete.And now that I go over my collection, most the the MP3s I've downloaded are songs I actually bought at one point. I download very little new music.
J
justhangn
Guest
Originally posted by crabcake
JH, how is downloading a few songs any different (legally) than borrowing a CD and copying them?
(and no, it's not 'pick on JH day' hun)
Eh, it's all good, I can take it and give it.
It's no different actually except you usually don't get caught.
Otter
Nothing to see here
Download Suit Targets 12-Year-Old
(CBS/AP) The targets of the first lawsuits against music fans who share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely uses his computer, a Yale University professor and a 12-year-old honor student from Manhattan.
Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that could cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of its aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits across the country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as "major offenders" illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each, but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.
One of the named defendants in the case was 12-year-old Brianna LaHara, who goes to St. Gregory the Great Catholic School and lives with her mother Sylvia Torres, who plans to fight the suit.
"For crying out loud, she's just a child," Torres told the (New York) Daily News. She paid $29.99 for the service three months ago. "If you're paying for it, you're not stealing it, so what is this all about."
"If this was something we were profiting from, that's one thing," said Torres. "But we were just listening and sometimes dancing to the music."
Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home. He said his grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the recording industry association.
"I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible," Pickle said in an interview. "It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that."
Pickle, who was unaware he was being sued until contacted by The Associated Press, said he rarely uses the computer in his home.
"I'm not a computer-type person," Pickle said. "They come in and get on the computer. How do I get out of this?"
Yale University professor Timothy Davis said he will stop sharing music files immediately. He downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet before his Internet provider notified him about the music industry's interest in his activities.
"I've been pretending it was going to go away," said Davis, who teaches photography.
Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider warned her two months ago that record industry lawyers
had asked for her name and address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She acknowledged downloading "lots" of
music over file-sharing networks.
"This is ridiculous," said Schamis, 26, who added she is unemployed and would be unable to pay any large fine or settlement. "I didn't understand it was illegal."
She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.
"It's wrong on their part," she said.
But CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen disagrees.
"It's a perfectly legal, legitimate way for music companies to try to protect their copyrights, and it is likely to have a chilling effect on those computer users who illegally download a lot of music," says Cohen.
An estimated 60 million Americans participate in file-sharing networks, using software that makes it simple for computer users to locate and retrieve for free virtually any song by any artist within moments.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy," said RIAA President Cary Sherman, who compared illegal music downloads to shoplifting. "There comes a time when you have to stand up and take appropriate action."
Monday's lawsuits resulted from subpoenas sent to Internet service providers and others seeking to identify roughly 1,600 people the group believes engaged in illegal music sharing.
"The industry did its homework, identified certain people it believes are illegally downloading music, and is going after those people in the hopes that thousands of other people who also may be doing this may think twice," says Cohen.
Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican, has already promised congressional hearings into how the music industry has identified and tracked the Internet users it's suing.
"They have a legitimate interest that needs to be protected, but are they protecting it in a way that's too broad and overreaching?" Coleman said. "I don't want to make criminals out of 60 million kids, even though kids and grandkids are doing things they shouldn't be doing."
The RIAA did not identify for reporters which Internet users it was suing or where they live. Lawsuits were filed in federal courthouses in New York City, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and elsewhere.
With estimates that half of file-sharers are teenagers, all sides braced for the inevitable legal debate surrounding the financial damage to parents or grandparents. The RIAA named as the defendant in each lawsuit the person who paid for the household Internet account.
The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply to people who already are targets of legal action.
Sherman called the amnesty offer "our version of an olive branch."
Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning that song publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won't be constrained by the group's promise not to sue.
U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer.
(CBS/AP) The targets of the first lawsuits against music fans who share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely uses his computer, a Yale University professor and a 12-year-old honor student from Manhattan.
Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that could cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of its aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits across the country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as "major offenders" illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each, but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.
One of the named defendants in the case was 12-year-old Brianna LaHara, who goes to St. Gregory the Great Catholic School and lives with her mother Sylvia Torres, who plans to fight the suit.
"For crying out loud, she's just a child," Torres told the (New York) Daily News. She paid $29.99 for the service three months ago. "If you're paying for it, you're not stealing it, so what is this all about."
"If this was something we were profiting from, that's one thing," said Torres. "But we were just listening and sometimes dancing to the music."
Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home. He said his grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the recording industry association.
"I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible," Pickle said in an interview. "It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that."
Pickle, who was unaware he was being sued until contacted by The Associated Press, said he rarely uses the computer in his home.
"I'm not a computer-type person," Pickle said. "They come in and get on the computer. How do I get out of this?"
Yale University professor Timothy Davis said he will stop sharing music files immediately. He downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet before his Internet provider notified him about the music industry's interest in his activities.
"I've been pretending it was going to go away," said Davis, who teaches photography.
Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider warned her two months ago that record industry lawyers
had asked for her name and address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She acknowledged downloading "lots" of
music over file-sharing networks.
"This is ridiculous," said Schamis, 26, who added she is unemployed and would be unable to pay any large fine or settlement. "I didn't understand it was illegal."
She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.
"It's wrong on their part," she said.
But CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen disagrees.
"It's a perfectly legal, legitimate way for music companies to try to protect their copyrights, and it is likely to have a chilling effect on those computer users who illegally download a lot of music," says Cohen.
An estimated 60 million Americans participate in file-sharing networks, using software that makes it simple for computer users to locate and retrieve for free virtually any song by any artist within moments.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy," said RIAA President Cary Sherman, who compared illegal music downloads to shoplifting. "There comes a time when you have to stand up and take appropriate action."
Monday's lawsuits resulted from subpoenas sent to Internet service providers and others seeking to identify roughly 1,600 people the group believes engaged in illegal music sharing.
"The industry did its homework, identified certain people it believes are illegally downloading music, and is going after those people in the hopes that thousands of other people who also may be doing this may think twice," says Cohen.
Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican, has already promised congressional hearings into how the music industry has identified and tracked the Internet users it's suing.
"They have a legitimate interest that needs to be protected, but are they protecting it in a way that's too broad and overreaching?" Coleman said. "I don't want to make criminals out of 60 million kids, even though kids and grandkids are doing things they shouldn't be doing."
The RIAA did not identify for reporters which Internet users it was suing or where they live. Lawsuits were filed in federal courthouses in New York City, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and elsewhere.
With estimates that half of file-sharers are teenagers, all sides braced for the inevitable legal debate surrounding the financial damage to parents or grandparents. The RIAA named as the defendant in each lawsuit the person who paid for the household Internet account.
The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply to people who already are targets of legal action.
Sherman called the amnesty offer "our version of an olive branch."
Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning that song publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won't be constrained by the group's promise not to sue.
U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
This is just a rehash of all the tactics the MPAA used when video tapes first came out. Remember those days? The copying of video tapes was going to bankrupt Hollywood and lead to the downfall of civilization? People were getting sued for copying tapes? There were all types of technology that came out to prevent copying, and technology to overcome the MPAA's technology? Sound familiar?
The driving factor then was that Hollywood wanted to charge about $80-$90 per tape, and that price was too high. Then, along comes Blockbuster and all the other rental places, and they offered a low-cost alternative to buying a tape, and a legal alternative to copying one because they also started the used tape business. There was no way for the MPAA to win a lawsuit against the renters, so they had to do one simple thing to drive their profits back up... lower the cost of their product to a pricepoint that the consumer will accept.
When I was a kid, a 45 RPM single cost about 25 cents. Now a CD single costs about $4.00, a 1500% price increase over 25 years. That's a pretty big jump! Same deal with LPs/CD albums.
Also, what about titles that are no longer profitable for record companies to produce due to low sales? Most all of the MP3s that I download are older songs from the 70s and early 80s that are no longer produced. If the record companies aren't going to continue producing every song in their catalogs, then we'll find another way to get them. Maybe Blockbuster will start renting CDs so that kids can strip the songs off and make MP3s without needing the Internet?
The driving factor then was that Hollywood wanted to charge about $80-$90 per tape, and that price was too high. Then, along comes Blockbuster and all the other rental places, and they offered a low-cost alternative to buying a tape, and a legal alternative to copying one because they also started the used tape business. There was no way for the MPAA to win a lawsuit against the renters, so they had to do one simple thing to drive their profits back up... lower the cost of their product to a pricepoint that the consumer will accept.
When I was a kid, a 45 RPM single cost about 25 cents. Now a CD single costs about $4.00, a 1500% price increase over 25 years. That's a pretty big jump! Same deal with LPs/CD albums.
Also, what about titles that are no longer profitable for record companies to produce due to low sales? Most all of the MP3s that I download are older songs from the 70s and early 80s that are no longer produced. If the record companies aren't going to continue producing every song in their catalogs, then we'll find another way to get them. Maybe Blockbuster will start renting CDs so that kids can strip the songs off and make MP3s without needing the Internet?
Danzig
Well-Known Member
MORE BS
A shy Manhattan schoolgirl who gets a kick out of nursery songs and TV themes was among 261 people sued yesterday for downloading music from the Internet.
Brianna LaHara, a curly-haired 12-year-old honor student who started seventh grade yesterday at St. Gregory the Great Catholic school on W. 90th St., couldn't believe she's one of the "major offenders" the music moguls are after.
link
A shy Manhattan schoolgirl who gets a kick out of nursery songs and TV themes was among 261 people sued yesterday for downloading music from the Internet.
Brianna LaHara, a curly-haired 12-year-old honor student who started seventh grade yesterday at St. Gregory the Great Catholic school on W. 90th St., couldn't believe she's one of the "major offenders" the music moguls are after.
link
I have been researching this topic for an upcoming article.
I think RIIA is pushing this one beyond the law. At issue is the claimed violation of the copyright holders “exclusive right”. But there are exceptions to these “exclusive rights” such as what the law states regarding “Fair Use”. “The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
As long is the alleged violator is not making commercial gain, is it really an infringement? You are, after all, allowed to loan your personal possessions without violating the copyright laws.
Another point to consider is that the equipment and medium used to make the transfer and copies is supposed to be subject to a “tax” that goes into a fund to pay for these alleged infringements. Is it that they haven’t been collecting that tax or applying it to new technologies that has made the industry come after the little people?
While I don’t do any music downloading or burning CDs, the step-son did quite a bit via my ISP. I plan on stating, if subpoenaed , that he wanted his friend's opinion on the song in question and that the transfer was strictly for criticism and comment.
I think RIIA is pushing this one beyond the law. At issue is the claimed violation of the copyright holders “exclusive right”. But there are exceptions to these “exclusive rights” such as what the law states regarding “Fair Use”. “The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
As long is the alleged violator is not making commercial gain, is it really an infringement? You are, after all, allowed to loan your personal possessions without violating the copyright laws.
Another point to consider is that the equipment and medium used to make the transfer and copies is supposed to be subject to a “tax” that goes into a fund to pay for these alleged infringements. Is it that they haven’t been collecting that tax or applying it to new technologies that has made the industry come after the little people?
While I don’t do any music downloading or burning CDs, the step-son did quite a bit via my ISP. I plan on stating, if subpoenaed , that he wanted his friend's opinion on the song in question and that the transfer was strictly for criticism and comment.