What is Digg?277 Comments
- mthode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+138Imagine that, the RIAA wants money at any cost.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+89the RIAA are unscrupulous uncaring bastards.... the problem really is they have no one to answer to, it's hard to boycott a company that operates behind the scenes....
- drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+76Welcome to the new fascism, just like the old Mussolini fascism, where corporate influence controls you and has more rights...
- jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -2/+58I'm not sure of other states, but in California the RIAA always makes sure to charge you with a large enough amount to make small claims court not possible. Makes it easier to get your money without due process, if by some reason you don't want to spend years of salary's worth of your income fighting it in higher courts.
*I'm all for protecting copyright but the lawsuits the members of the music industry are bringing to the company (Apple) who is doing the most to make downloading legal, shows that they are just in it for the money. They are trying to get more than 99 cents a song, trying to get a piece of iPod sales, and trying to stop them from using the name Apple. Doesn't make for a inviting way to sale music. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+54It shouldn't cost so much just to defend yourself. Defending yourself should be possible for everyone, rich or not. It's a sad country we live in, the gov't acts like a business, and allows larger business to manhandle smaller business and consumers. This is an obvious sign that we are leading to one big system, commonly known as the NWO. Sooner or later, it'll start putting labels(rfid chipped) on it's products(you and me). Just owning a computer, or modding something into computer like functionality, will be illegal. Take all tools and rights away from the people, make it a highly managed system, and never have to worry about anything again. It'll turn into some "Running Man" + "They Live" *****. Cool movies though :P OBEY
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51Not so hard to boycott. Every month I buy a few CD's. Before I do so, I check them on http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/. if they turn out red...I don't buy them. So far, I reckon I dodged around 40 cd's.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37"But last time i checked you were the one downloading music, and again, if you were at MIT, i suspect that you have a vague understanding of copyright laws."
Really, now? She has already gone to court and been tried and convicted? Oh, I see. You mean, she is ALLEGEDLY the one downloading music.
Also, sure they might have a vague understanding of copyright laws. And those laws seem to imply that DISTRIBUTING/PIRATING copyrighted content is wrong. However, I don't believe anyone has been successfully convicted of merely DOWNLOADING content that SOMEONE ELSE provided. The targets have always been people who were SHARING a ton of copyrighted music. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27"If they fight and lose, that's GRAND LARCENY"
-1, Inaccurate. Even if they did fight and lose, it's still COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, it is still a CIVIL OFFENSE anywhere except Germany, and if you did fight and lose in court, you are still only able to be ordered to pay the possible loss in profits that you've caused them, which is $1/song per instance downloaded (iTunes and every other online music reseller), and not the $750/song on your computer as the RIAA tries to enforce. Either way around it, in America, we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A COURT OF LAW, which means that unless they can prove a loss of profits caused by her, she's in the right. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I think that if artists discovered people are not buying their music because of the R**A, they might become more active in stopping all of this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31Why on earth don't people just buy the CD with the song/s in question on ebay for pennies as soon as the extortion demand from the RIAA turns up in the mail??
Its not copyright infringement if you own the original CD (no matter how much the RIAA tries to change the law so that it becomes illegal to rip a CD you own to your MP3 player). - MarvinMan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Oh my God. What a bunch of dicks.
Are they in a contest to see how unlikeable they can become? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19~~If you were being sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek, I apologize for not getting it.~~
Could you spread any more rhetoric?
"She broke the law."
Says who? She hasn't even gone to court yet.
"Suffer the consequences."
Before even being charged, tried and convicted?
"I am not siding with the RIAA, but if a person is of sound mind and willfully breaks the law, she must make amends."
Amends for what? What did she deprive them of?
"Theft is theft."
Yes. And Copyright Infringement is Copyright Infringement. There is a reason they are legally distinct.
"It doesn't matter if it is 1s and 0s or a sweater from a store."
Sure it matters. You take a sweater and you deprive someone of an item that they manufactured and could have sold. You can't steal a string of 1s and 0s. You can copy them. Just because the RIAA says it is stealing doesn't mean that it is stealing. The law identifies it as copyright infringement. The RIAA can't change the legal definition of theft and copyright infringement just because they say so.
"Do the crime, do the time."
Wow. Do you get ALL your talking-points from Bill O'Reilly or do you actually form thoughts of your own at some point? Your entire post (which I presume was serious?) was just a string of cliched rhetorical comments from RIAA commercials strung together into a paragraph. - Jams, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15It aint gonna work.. for every 1 of us there are 1000 other brain dead people who will continue buying.
- kashi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15don't buy cds... and they will go out of bussiness.... or they'll start suing even more
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15im getting this picture of a 100 million dollar profit center. RIAA doesnt want filesharing to stop.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"Simply ask for proof of their figures, for starters, and you'll start a fire. If you put up a decent fight, you would walk away with a significantly less fine or settlement than if you defaulted."
Not really, they'll simply present you with 5 reams of paper all labled "Market Research", and there will be no way one person alone can sort through all of the paper and find the numbers you're looking for. While things make common sense in real life, a Multibillion dollar company has a lot of lawyers with a lot of tactics to make anyone who stands against them wet their pants and cry. While one person can stand up to them, your best defense really is to stand up there and say "Prove every instanance of copyright infringment caused by me, and I will open my wallet and pay you a dollar for each one", and then to rest your case. And whatever you do, exercize your right to a jury trial; anyone with half a brain will realize what's really going on here, even if a judge is stacked against you. - DarkZen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14ehh, one more reason why i dont buy anything that i know is directly related to the RIAA...gg america...
- Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Their are a lot of CD's I really want to buy but never will because of what the RIAA is doing. Now that's a Great business model huh?
- richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11That donation box isn't for the RIAA...
- Durrok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"1) Do you agree that morally downloading music is OK? My vague point here is that the artist may have (not the case for 90%+ of all pop music) poured their heart and soul into their message, managed to convince the giant recording companies to produce and sell their music only to be gipped entirely by the people who believe that those same recording companies should receive no profit whatsoever? "
.10 per cd was the standard profit margin for artists last time I read an article on it 6 months or so ago. I imagine this has only gotten worse, not better. However they get considerable more money from the concerts they perform at, which is where I go. Usually get an overpriced T-Shirt too which makes them an assload more money then 10 people buying one cd. Want my money? Come tour in Indianapolis. (Hello Nightwish, Lacuna Coil? You guys hear me out there? Coffee shops in European countries are nice but GET YOUR ASSES OVER HERE)
Deviating to another topic, my friends and I use pirating music more like a radio. We download a bunch of stuff, 99% of which is *****, and share with each other the stuff we like. Can you imagine trying to do something like this with buying CDs? Wait, I know, why not listen to the radio? Anyone else but me remember in the late 90s how many bands were out there that had one good song they played on the radio and used their cat and a pan in the kitchen for the rest of the songs? The internet has (mostly) stopped those bands thank god.
So big long rambling post to come to this conclusion: I pirate music. I take steps to ensure I won't get busted by the RIAA but if for some reason they turned their all seeing eye on me I'm boned. Does this mean I'm going to stop doing so? No... most bands aren't worth my .10 I would donate to them by buying there CD. If you are good though I will come see you everytime you go through Indy. - godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9um actually, most of the top colleges in the country offer need-blind financial aid. Thus you just need to be accepted, and then even if you have no income whatsoever, they'll cover any costs you can't cover. So for all you know, she could be an orphan with no income. 4000 dollars is a lot of money for most college students, and just because you go to a top college, doesn't mean you're rich. That would be wrong, wouldn't it? To only let rich people get the best educations.
She is an adult, and never in the document denies having done it. But this whole "guilty until proven innocent, but we'll offer you the easy way out cause we're nice guys" racket going on needs to stop. If not because of philadelphia (look up its etymology,) or even business sense, simply because they're abusing the US legal system by throwing out thousands of tendrils at people who *might* be filesharers, and using intimidation tactics on them in the hope of milking them of some money. CD sales are going down and they have a scapegoat, so they're clinging onto it and trying to make the extra billion that way instead. It's despicable, even if the person did steal music. - DaveyDeadite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13if this is actually true, thats really ***** sad. To think some people have to resort to something as absurd as quitting school just to pay these greedy fat cats.
- djrbx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Since no one said this yet.. ***** THE RIAA!!!
Ccase close..I hope they burn in hell.. C'mon, Let the people just move on with their lives.. Drop out of college? Please.. At least let the people get a degree and let them pay it off when they get a stable job.. - DougPenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"ARTISTS STOP USING LABELS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RIAA" < -- perfectly said!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"Do you agree that morally downloading music is OK?"
I wasn't speaking to morality - only legality. And legally, I don't believe anyone has been sued for _downloading_ music. In fact, I'm not even sure if the act of downloading copyrighted material is illegal. It is illegal to distribute it, however. I'm sure there is some rational for that distinction in the eyes of the law, but I'm on too much vicodin (root canal) right now to go research that.
As far as downloading - I download plenty of music. I haven't bought a regular music CD (in a music store or from an RIAA label) since 1998. That's also the last time I saw a movie in the theater. I use russian sites. I occasionally use P2P. And whenever I can, I buy music directly from the bands I love. For instance, I like Storm and the Balls. So I bought their CDs from CDBaby. I also like Anders Manga who is blowing up right now and produces and distributes and manages everything himself. I bought his CDs directly from him. In fact, I bought multiple copies of both CDs to give to people I knew would love the music. Best of all, these CDs directly from the bands or more reasonable labels are only about $10.
I definitely will not pay a big label $16 to $20 for a CD. I don't care who the artist is. I won't pay iTunes $10/album just for a bunch of half assed DRM'd AACs.
I think the big misunderstanding is that everyone thinks people who share music do so because they refuse to pay for music under any circumstances and just want a freebie. I don't think that's the reality. I think that people have an inherent sense of what is and is not reasonable and I think they feel that paying several hours worth of minimum wage just for 10 songs on a CD that they supposedly aren't allowed to rip and play on any device they want (presuming the CD will even PLAY on all of their devices and isn't one of those "special" CDs) is a rip off.
Of course, this is all relatively moot for myself, since there is only a limited amount of music that I listen to which is even part of the major labels. But I think it does apply for most people.
Back to why there may be a difference between distributing copyrighted material and downloading it? Well, probably for the same reason that there is a difference between being a drug dealer and a drug user.
"I do actually agree with you that the courts need to decide the facts of this case and objectively decide the issue with regard to this individual case. However, a BIG problem can be the bill at the end of the day."
Unfortunately, this is the way it is with almost any aspect of our legal system. In the many years of running my website, I've had to kick a number of users off for harassing other people or defrauding them. In two cases, the people turned into total vindictive psychos. One has been stalking me, registering similar domains, calling my phone and other things for almost four years now. In the other case, it was a female who felt so slighted at being kicked off for her behavior that she started spreading absolutely horrible rumors about me elsewhere on the net. I didn't even know these people, but they were simply nuts and couldn't take being kicked off a website.
I could clearly take the second issue up as libel/slander. But guess what? That's EXPENSIVE. Even if you can figure out how to handle everything without a lawyer, there are fees just for getting, filling out and filing a complaint and paperwork and serving the other person. Not to mention traveling the country to show up in court. Even if you win, you're screwed because you have to spend hundreds or thousands (at a minimum) up-front for even the most mundane or routine legal procedures when they involve a court. Hell, even getting a legally drafted cease and desist is expensive.
The court system and law in general is becoming increasingly one sided. If you're wealthy, you can use it as a tool against competitors, would-be competitors, detractors and individuals. As a non-wealthy person, the law typically only affects you when you are the "victim" of it at the whim of someone else. - ianweir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10That is a very good point. If all filesharing were to stop tomorrow, and everybody bought all of their music, the RIAA would probably make a heck of a lot less money.. In situations like this, the consumer is screwed either way.
Who governs the governing bodies? - The governed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11So don't settle. Take it to court.
Oh, that's right. There's no way a student could afford the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves against a multi-billion dollar international corporation. - MacNugget, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10zybch: People don't do that because it would make no difference. The RIAA lawsuits are all against people who have been caught sharing copyrighted works, not the people downloading the music. Owning a CD doesn't give you the right to give those songs to other people. Whether or not the defendant owns the CD is irrelevant to the RIAA's case against them. If they were really sharing the music, then they're guilty either way.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8> The "theft" claim comes from the idea that part of the value (in the form of potential profits) is removed.
By that definition, checking out a book from a library instead of buying it is also theft.
You can't steal something from somebody if a) they don't have it and b) you don't get it. The copyright holder doesn't lose the money that they might have if you bought the music (they don't have it to begin with), and you don't receive the profit from copying it (you get the music, you don't get the money).
Calling copyright infringement theft is a tortured definition that bears no resemblance to reality. How on earth is making an unauthorised duplicate of an intangible thing in any way similar to taking away somebody's physical property? It isn't.
Again, what's wrong with the term "copyright infringement"? Why is that term unacceptable? Why do you insist on trying to force a really crappy analogy on the discussion? What is your purpose in doing so?
> It's similar to the doctorine of "partial taking". Courts use that to force payments to landowners
Totally different. The courts *don't* apply this logic to copyright infringement. The prosecution tried to get them to in Dowling vs US, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
> So splitting hairs with dictionary entries might make you feel good. But it isn't going to convince any judges, anyone leaning toward the other side, or bring any significant numbers of fence-sitters around to your position.
I don't need to bring judges around to my position. They *already agree* that copyright infringement isn't theft. The law says so. The Supreme Court says so. What's your business trying to claim otherwise?
> In other words, even if you are able to convince people that "theft" isn't the precise word that should be used, you're still not any closer to convincing them that it's valid to be violating copyright or that there shouldn't be consequences for the people who are caught doing so.
Well done, you've shown a remarkable ability to jump to conclusions without understanding what is written in plain English. I wasn't trying to convince anybody that it's valid to violate copyright.
My point is simple:
Copyright infringement and theft are two entirely different actions, with entirely different consequences to the victim, defined by entirely different laws, with entirely different punishments, and it makes *no sense* to refer to them as the same thing.
The only reason there's a concerted effort to push the idea that they are the same thing is to promote the idea that copyrights are property, to aid schemes like the DMCA and eternal copyright terms that are anti-consumer and directly harm the growth of the public domain for corporate profit.
By the way, are you the original author of this tired argument that you copied word-for-word from Slashdot, or are you committing copyright infringement by reproducing it?
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133757&cid=11168564 - burnt1ce85, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Hahaha. at least my money is relative safe because it's in Canada. Fair trading using technology is not yet mature. =)
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10We can bitch-type all the blogs, posts and articles we want. In the end only 3 things will work to end the RIAA:
1] Ongoing technological enhancements. Force them to always play catch-up.
2] Take the legal challenge to the RIAA. Sue the bastards into oblivion.
3] Stop buying products and services from them. Dry up their revenue streams.
I honestly think that these people love to be hated. Fine - let's PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. - tobsterius, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Many of you seem to be making the claim that the RIAA is in it for the money... well duh. As is every other for-profit corporation. They want to *make* money.
I don't agree with the lawsuits, the are total crap, and by doing this, they are totally alienating a massive chunk of consumers that don't like the strong-armed tactics that they are using to get their money. However, Copyright infringment is against the law. You might disagree, but the simple fact is that in the eyes of the courts, it is very illegal. How else are RIAA going to protect their product? This is an honest question... I don't really see any other way. They've realized DRM doesn't work, it's crackable. Even with the existence of iTunes and other stores, people still download illegally.
I'm not defending the RIAA, but honestly, put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself, "what would you do to protect your product?" - JustinGN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Dare I say this isn't about the fact that she did (and admitted to) pirate music, but rather that the RIAA has the AUDACITY to demand students quit college to pay off a "settlement"? That's more wrong than downloading music if you ask me. Nobody should be denied the right to education, no matter what. It's quite obvious the RIAA disagrees with that point.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The RIAA can be persuasive. Very persuasive...
RIAA: "Oh come on, leave school."
Me: "No."
RIAA: "I'll be your friend."
Me: "No."
RIAA: "Oh, you're mean." - eiczko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Escalation is expected. Next expect this to become a felony. Why not throw ton's of people in prison and take away their voting rights so they can never change your business model? It is just sad the general population is deaf to the cries of the youth. This could be a serious problem if this continues....
I am almost expecting to see an act of terrorism against the RIAA at this point...it will only take one college student barred from MIT or some other top flight school to take action (I hear those MIT kids are smart- possibly smart enough to cause a major problem without getting caught?) Looking into the future it isn't hard to see that there is tremendous potential for corporate terrorism. Unfortunately that seems to be the only thing people pay attention to these days....
When countries and people in power refuse to negotiate and hold a hard-line on every point, this leads to an escalation of violence. When will people learn????? - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Wow the RIAA is going after kids' scholarships and financial aid money. Won't the Stafford people (who have way more money than the RIAA and could bury them) be pissed to hear about this??
- Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@johnp: boycott by
1. not buying from labels who are members of RIAA.
2. Try to find artists who allow/encourage taping and sharing of their music. Like the many bands listed at etree.org.
3. Listen to the radio for a month.
4. Borrow CD's from the library.
If you could convince a significant portion of those who buy cd's to do this for say 3 months, the labels might just notice. - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That is an awful lot of work for results.
Besides, the FBI doesn't bust down anyone's door for sharing music. You just get subpoenas from the RIAA.
But if you want to take that concept and make it effective, make a bunch of mp3 recordings of the fan on your computer and name them the same as popular music and share the crap out of them. Then if they do serve you with a lawsuit, you would have excellent ammunition that suits are indiscriminate and they didn't actually investigate it. That would bring their tactics to light. - flaxx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I second that! The only CD's i buy are from private artists that are starting up (and have no record company). What's the point in buying commercial albums/songs or funding the RIAA in any way? I'm not buying CD's so that they can gallivant, bullying everyone.
- DougPenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wait a minute, she says "Last fall I wrote an opinion piece on music piracy (How to Avoid Getting RIAAed, Oct. 21, 2005)"
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N13/RIAA1306.html
So an MIT student writes an article detailing how to avoid being sued by RIAA, then gets sued by RIAA? Is she a slow learner or what? - matthewsr2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@badbox. . ."the legal system is there and it doesn't take a genius to use it against people who spent years in school for it. "
I'm sorry, but a law degree is worth a lot more then the 50 cent piece of paper that it's printed on.
eight years of intense study and training in how to argue goes into a law degree from any college, and if you go to a really nice one you'll learn from the best.
in addition to this there is the experience that comes with working in the field for x number of years. as anyone knows, someone that's been in that field of law for 10 years is going to have a heck of a lot of experience.
Joe six-pack with three months to constantly search the net and talk to people who know law might be able to put together a coherent argument, and maybe argue his way through court. most of us don't have three months though to devote to one subject of study, jobs and kids or whatnot.
i wish that someone with legal credentials would become interested in doing these cases pro bono, even if they just advised the people on what to do. a few solid wins (3-5) on the side of file-sharers would really turn the tides in this. - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I am boycotting them already, I didn't buy any CD published by a RIAA company since 2004.
- nugget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think the last time I bought a CD that was licensed by the RIAA was my Toxicity from System of a Down, and my brother broke that and I said not to buy me a new one. I buy CDs from this friends band that he has and it is great music. I have never put that up for people to pirate because he asked $3 for it and I gave him $10. I felt that buying 7 songs for $3 was stupid and I do not think he got less than $5 for a CD. Most people he said gave him $10 anyways. I believe he ended up selling around $200 worth of CDs. So if it is quality of songs you want, go with indpendent people. If it is same old go with RIAA.
- Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6if i was in MIT....and was stupid enough to get caught.....hello no i wouldnt drop out of one of the best colleges in the US to "go to community college".
- Skwerl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10In reply to seumas
Thank you for pointing out something most people ignore, no one has been convicted of a crime for downloading files, only for sharing said files. Moral arguments aside, anyone who has a system in place for settlements, with "financing available" it's obvious it's a simple extortion racket. - smarusich, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7some day Marley will visit RIAA too, and i dont think they'll like what the ghost of christmas future will show.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The student, or anyone else for that matter, could represent themselves with ease."
Unfortunately, that is not typically the case. Even if you are in the right, an experienced and well-paid lawyer can wipe the floor up with someone who defends themselves. There is far more to court, cour papers and court proceedings than showing up and telling your side of the story. If it was really that simple, everyone would do it. I sure wouldn't. I would either hire a lawyer (if I could afford it) or cave in. - gullevek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Sounds like in the Mafia movies. If the Restaurant owner does not pay, he gets his fingers chopped off. Nice country this America. Must be fund living there.
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Or you could just not pay, it is only a civil judgement...
- wookiebush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Smhill
"She is getting a great lesson in responsibility, accountability and making wise choices. All for a mere $3750"
no, what she is getting is extorted. I am amazed that people think this type of extortion (bullying and intimidation) is a new thing.
A well know Satellite TV company has been doing this since 1999. They sent out over 200,000 letters to people who "claim" used an ISO reader to hack their system. They said that this ISO reader was only used for pirating their system, and had no other use. The legal system bought into this load of crap hook, line and sinker. This Sat TV company filled 23,000 lawsuits in federal court. Of these 23K suits, less than 10 have actually gone to court. The M.O. is if the defendant fights, to cause the defendant more legal costs than they would pay just settling out of court. If the defendant insists upon actual proof or proof of damages, or actually fighting this in court, the TV company drops the lawsuit at last possible min. The defendant then has NO redress for legal fees or anything from the originator of this suit.
Using the civil court system as a punishment tool, should be a high crime. and punished as such.
WB -
Show 51 - 100 of 278 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is