Milk turned into sour is pretty much the case of RIAAThey had billions of dollars/year just by living from somebody's else work, and now they're angry because we don't need music distributors anymore in digital ageNow they're trying to sue every person in the whole wide world to stop music sharing and keep with the same jurassical habits we had before internet, RIAA wants you to get back into cassete tapes, so they can be back earning big bags of money, that's 99.9999% of population losing and the rest getting *REALLY* well paid (not the musicians), and somehow they call it justiceGovernments should take a step further, like Italy..
This site is a LOT sensationalist. But, that's besides the point. I want to know if the RIAA has to turn over records, or just the lawyers for Capitol Records. There's a huge difference. But, the point of the matter here is that you can't be held liable for legal expenses that had little or nothing to do with your case directly. Imagine the scenario where the legal team is involved for hundreds of hours in a scheme to obtain IPs from a distributed network. Now, not all of the time was spent on your one case and not all of that time can be charged to you. But, that's exactly what they've been doing. It's not really a win, but it's certainly another chink in the armor.
"Be extra careful on the whole "worse" thing.You beat the crap out of an old lady and steal her purse, they can only get you with a misdemeanor and a slap on the wrist.You pirate a little music (less than what was in old lady's purse), you can get jail time" ...so beating the crap out of an old lady, stealing her purse, and using the money in it to buy a CD > downloading?"Stealing a CD isn't a violation of copyright law. You are only stealing a piece of property, you aren't violating anyone's rights of reproduction, distribution, display etc. It makes sense that they are punished differently because, as the RIAA would argue, the value of intellectual property rights in a song is much higher than the value of a piece of plastic on which the song is encoded." I disagree with that claim. If someone steals a CD, they also did not, technically, legally acquire the rights to use the material recorded on it and are quite as guilty of copyright infringement as anyone who downloads the mp3s. However, by stealing a CD, they are causing a real and tangible loss to the business they are stealing from, whereas by downloading, it is not ascertainable that any tangible loss is caused, due to the questionable validity of the "you would have otherwise bought it" argument. This is another thing that makes me hate the RIAA, btw, the assumption that the goods their clients offer are in universal demand regardless of price. That's not the way the real world works. If someone's handing out CDs for free, they're likely to get a whole lot more people to take them than if they were selling them for $20 a pop with DRM, especially if the music was mediocre at best. Summary: f**k the RIAA.
@azurepalmWhy don't more people understand this? Everyone gets all pissed off over a $15 CD, but no one balks at the $1M asking price for an original Picaso or Rembrandt, and I'm sure their materials cost them a fraction of a percent of that price. While it's one thing to try to argue that a CD is overpriced, it's completely different to try and say that it should match the cost of the media.
Reasonable time? How long does music stay under copyright before becoming public domain, something like 70-80 years? How is it reasonable if the actual artist is most likely dead by then? Music, movies etc need to reevaluated for this whole "reasonable time" thing.by the way just to clearify I'm not attacking your comment just the way the whole public domain thing works out.
skawalkerMar 16, 2007
Milk turned into sour is pretty much the case of RIAAThey had billions of dollars/year just by living from somebody's else work, and now they're angry because we don't need music distributors anymore in digital ageNow they're trying to sue every person in the whole wide world to stop music sharing and keep with the same jurassical habits we had before internet, RIAA wants you to get back into cassete tapes, so they can be back earning big bags of money, that's 99.9999% of population losing and the rest getting *REALLY* well paid (not the musicians), and somehow they call it justiceGovernments should take a step further, like Italy..
drdabblesMar 16, 2007
This site is a LOT sensationalist. But, that's besides the point. I want to know if the RIAA has to turn over records, or just the lawyers for Capitol Records. There's a huge difference. But, the point of the matter here is that you can't be held liable for legal expenses that had little or nothing to do with your case directly. Imagine the scenario where the legal team is involved for hundreds of hours in a scheme to obtain IPs from a distributed network. Now, not all of the time was spent on your one case and not all of that time can be charged to you. But, that's exactly what they've been doing. It's not really a win, but it's certainly another chink in the armor.
sophiaperennisMar 16, 2007
@simpleidThis article answers all your questions: <a class="user" href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#How">http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#How</a>It is a long but very interesting and revealing read.
Closed AccountMar 16, 2007
"Check out Slashdot for more accurate comments."Ummmm... That seems like a contradiction in terms.
accelleronMar 16, 2007
"Be extra careful on the whole "worse" thing.You beat the crap out of an old lady and steal her purse, they can only get you with a misdemeanor and a slap on the wrist.You pirate a little music (less than what was in old lady's purse), you can get jail time" ...so beating the crap out of an old lady, stealing her purse, and using the money in it to buy a CD > downloading?"Stealing a CD isn't a violation of copyright law. You are only stealing a piece of property, you aren't violating anyone's rights of reproduction, distribution, display etc. It makes sense that they are punished differently because, as the RIAA would argue, the value of intellectual property rights in a song is much higher than the value of a piece of plastic on which the song is encoded." I disagree with that claim. If someone steals a CD, they also did not, technically, legally acquire the rights to use the material recorded on it and are quite as guilty of copyright infringement as anyone who downloads the mp3s. However, by stealing a CD, they are causing a real and tangible loss to the business they are stealing from, whereas by downloading, it is not ascertainable that any tangible loss is caused, due to the questionable validity of the "you would have otherwise bought it" argument. This is another thing that makes me hate the RIAA, btw, the assumption that the goods their clients offer are in universal demand regardless of price. That's not the way the real world works. If someone's handing out CDs for free, they're likely to get a whole lot more people to take them than if they were selling them for $20 a pop with DRM, especially if the music was mediocre at best. Summary: f**k the RIAA.
azurepalmMar 16, 2007
creativity can't be measured by the price of materials.
laniikMar 16, 2007
The article would hopefully be more likely to say "RIAA finally has been destroyed".Bad grammar makes me angry.
angrychimpMar 16, 2007
@azurepalmWhy don't more people understand this? Everyone gets all pissed off over a $15 CD, but no one balks at the $1M asking price for an original Picaso or Rembrandt, and I'm sure their materials cost them a fraction of a percent of that price. While it's one thing to try to argue that a CD is overpriced, it's completely different to try and say that it should match the cost of the media.
raybeckermanMar 17, 2007
It's the RIAA that pays the bills and controls the suit.
meshyfMar 17, 2007
Reasonable time? How long does music stay under copyright before becoming public domain, something like 70-80 years? How is it reasonable if the actual artist is most likely dead by then? Music, movies etc need to reevaluated for this whole "reasonable time" thing.by the way just to clearify I'm not attacking your comment just the way the whole public domain thing works out.