What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
149 Comments
- Nephlabobo, on 07/15/2009, -5/+116***** the RIAA.
- inactive, on 07/15/2009, -1/+62I always wear my headphones when listening to music so no one can hear it, that way I can't be sued by the RIAA. I also never tell anyone what bands or songs I like. And anytime I hear music in public I put my fingers in my ears so I can't hear it. But I still worry that I will be sued by the RIAA.
- NiceGuyVan, on 07/15/2009, -2/+48Do these people not buy the products they sell? Do they not own ipods, psps, or any portable device you need to rip content to? It's like these people aren't consumers at all on their own time.
Unless they like being screwed up the ass - inactive, on 07/15/2009, -6/+41Laws like this are laughable to me. I work off common sense.
If I buy something, it's mine. Period.
My iPhone? Mine. I'll jailbreak it if *I* want to.
A game for the 360 but also on PC? Well, I already bought it once, I shouldn't have to buy it twice just because it's on a different platform. I have CoD4 on 360, but I downloaded it and play it on the PC as well (didn't buy the PC version). Which is perfectly fine - I can't be in two places at once, and I'm not just giving it out to people.
What else? Hm... I have a scratched DVD. Why should I buy a new one when I can download and replace it? I still bought the original so no one's losing out on anything.
Anyway, whether they stand a chance is irrelevant to me, because unless someone is standing here pointing a gun to my head saying, "Don't copy that floppy!", that law can suck my ass and will be ignored. - DivisibleByZero, on 07/15/2009, -5/+38Making a copy for yourself is fair use, but giving it to other people isn't...
- drmangrum, on 07/15/2009, -2/+33The RIAA has a pretty solid case here. The only real hole I see is they make the assumption that P2P software is used solely to distribute music, which of course, it isn't. Having P2P software is no more proof of piracy than owning a gun is proof of murder.
- Lunarsight, on 07/15/2009, -3/+27I'm of the opinion that it's probably going to be an uphill battle to defend filesharing using the fair use argument. However, with that said, that's what lawyers do - they try and raise doubt that anything illegal was done by nitpicking precisely what the law says (or precedent establishes), looking for justification for the action there.
Considering all the preposterous and inaccurate statements made by music industry lawyers in cases against alleged file-sharers, I'm happy to see them on the receiving end of it for a change.
Isn't it funny how lawyers only seem to be aware of ***** when it's coming from the mouths of rival lawyers?
--
On a sidenote, you're going to have the established music industry constantly battling concepts like file-sharing, seeing it as some kind of interference with their business model. Then there will be smaller upstart record labels who will be saying -- how can we work this into the model in such a way that it yields us a profit? IMHO, the potential for that is there for those willing to look. - inactive, on 07/15/2009, -1/+20But I don't want AIDS!
- XkenX87, on 07/15/2009, -5/+2485% of my music I listen to I know of Via downloading. I go to a concert about once a month, directly supporting those bands I listen to. Had I not downloaded a bands $15 CD, I would have not spent $50 on a concert ticket and $25 on their shirt.
*If I don't like a CD I will not go to their concerts, but how am I to know if I like them unless I hear them first. - dalittle, on 07/14/2009, -7/+24Think the same thing about Tenenbaum and the RIAA's failed business model, it is laughable (but that is a truth unlike fair use). The RIAA is finally on its way out.
- dlan4327, on 07/15/2009, -1/+17+1 and ***** THE MPAA while we're at it.
- ethanji22, on 07/15/2009, -2/+18According to the RIAA and the terms on a cd you don't own the cd and never will or can. Also according to the RIAA you can't rip it, tape it or change it to alternate formats. If you look at the agreement- which no one does. You do not own the rights to the media, but only a license to listen. According to the terms of agreement provided on most cds it is arguable that you should not even be able to resell it. However negating this fact a bit, we are fortunate to have the right and doctrine of first sale. If you are allowed to sell it to others, why can't you give it away to others for free? Under what conditions in America is a group not allowed to own property? Overall this seems very draconian and un-capitalistic in nature and by right.
Also can I not play it for friends while they are around? They don't own a license to listen to that copy. By your logic and the logic provided by the RIAA, the friends I invite over to my house that happen to hear the cd are violating the terms of the agreement and would constitute illegal sharing. - ethanji22, on 07/15/2009, -4/+19Even if the other party already has a copy themselves in a different version? Also what about time-shifting or location-shifting like with TV recordings. If I own a copy and left it in the cd player at home would I not be allowed to quickly download a copy of the same music while I'm traveling? There is a convenience factor at play here as well and not everyone doing this has criminal intent with their actions. Most people just want an easier way to have access to their own property...
- ethanji22, on 07/15/2009, -3/+18But you don't own the cd any way. You only own the license to listen to the music. Therefore how are you changing the original agreement when you download?
- inactive, on 07/15/2009, -0/+14(That is why I put "benefit the artists" in quotation marks.)
- rocknog, on 07/15/2009, -4/+17Whenever you get these preachy idiots babbling about how anyone who downloads anything is a criminal because they've broken copyright law, and that it's all just about getting stuff for free, I just have to laugh. Copyright law is so ridiculous, I'm sure 99% of those holier-than-thou jerks have broken it themselves without even realizing.
- kinerry, on 07/15/2009, -3/+15the riaa doesn't have a business model...
- hellengineer, on 07/15/2009, -3/+15No need for anyone to get dirty trying to ***** the RIAA. They're doing a pretty good job of it themselves.
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/15/2009, -2/+12Think what you will, but if you download a game for your PC because you have the XBox version of it and the publisher ends up suing you I doubt a judge/jury will accept your claim as easily as you expect.
- uberduger, on 07/15/2009, -5/+15@rbiii: So what about the iTunes music store? When you buy music, you are buying a license. That's what music vendors and software vendors have been pushing for years.
They can't have it both ways - if you own that CD, then you own the right to listen to that music as much as you damn well please. - yunus, on 07/15/2009, -3/+13I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy. But looking at this from a non-legal standpoint the intent of fair use would not apply to P2P. It was inteded so that a person could change the format of a piece of music or video without having to pay for it twice. I do agree that state of mind(did defendant know it was illegal) should be considered.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -4/+13Crazy pic...
- acknotSW, on 07/15/2009, -3/+11It goes a little deeper than that. They created a system where the only path to fame and riches in the music business was through them. To become a famous recording artist, you had to have 3 things, the ability to mass produce an album, the ability to distribute that album all over the country/world, and the ability to market that album to millions of people.
By exclusively controlling all three of those pillars, they were able to control the artist themselves and force them to sign over their rights to the music they created in exchange for signing bonuses, royalties on album sales, promotional services, merchandising, and for handling concert arrangements. It also gave them first crack at any new talent that came along.
The internet has completely destroyed 2 of those pillars and is starting to erode the third. As that third pillar crumbles, so does their control over the artists and that is where their current business model truly fails. Right now they sign hundreds of bands hoping that one or two might turn into winners with long term profitability. If they can't gain total control of a hit bands music and marketing potential, they won't be able to afford to take a risk on all those other bands.
The bottom line is that music has been grossly overpriced for decades now, and it's coming to an end. Within 2 to 3 years, download prices will drop to 5 to 10 cents per song and all you will really be paying for is bandwidth and server maintenance. Bands are probably going to make less money when they hit it big because there will be so much more competition. They will have to give their music away to fans in order to compete. On the good side though, bands will no longer sign away their rights to a music label but will instead partner with them for marketing, concert promotion and concert logistics, and merchandizing services, but the bands will decide how their music is used and what it sounds like. Some bands may still decide to sign away their rights for quicker easier money, but they will be able to negotiate as an equal instead of begging a music label to make them rich. - jeremymccurdy, on 07/15/2009, -0/+8Unless someone steals the hard drive...
- gilbes, on 07/15/2009, -3/+11You are allowed to make your own copies of your CDs for your own use.
COPIES OF YOUR CDS.
You are not allowed to give those copies to anyone who wants them for their own use.
You are not allowed to acquire copies of songs from someone who is giving it away when they are not allowed to. - maeon3, on 07/15/2009, -2/+10If you download music you should listen to this Audio of Joel Tenenbaum’s Deposition. (Interrigation under oath to get him to admit to the crime). It's dull at first, but it kept me on the edge of my seat for an hour.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cyberone/2008/09/25/t ...
Know their strategy, lets beat them at their own litigation-for-profit game. Save those audio files too because the RIAA is trying to get these audios taken down because it exposes their litigation-for-profit scheme. - LouisCipher777, on 07/15/2009, -0/+7their legal statement that you can not make copies of your own music for yourself is preempted by fair use.
and it is wrong to give your copy to millions of people regardless of whether or not you deleted your own copy. if you gave it to ONE person and deleted your own copy then your argument might hold water, but giving it to millions of people, not so much.
one of the big differences with music (and other digital products) and almost anything else you own is your ability to copy it. you can not copy your car, or your house, or even a book in hard copy (and even if you had that ability you would fall under patent infringement laws). the ability doesn't exist so the RIAA needs to play by a different set of rules because of the different set of circumstances. you still have the ability to sell your CDs and video games because you own them (regardless of how hard groups like the RIAA are fighting against that ability it is still your property and nothing they write in an EULA can change that), but retaining a copy for yourself and still selling it is illegal, just like it would be illegal to.... well.... these standards don't really have any other precident because you can't make copies of physical objects without considerable effort.
many of the companies who are represented by the RIAA have been screwing consumers and artists for decades, but that still doesn't justify giving away copies to millions of other people. if you're a music pirate, then at least admit to it and stop trying to justify what you are doing. - sanosuke001, on 07/15/2009, -1/+8I'd have to disagree. If you don't have a DVD-ROM in your PC, wouldn't downloading a digital copy be the same as ripping it yourself? The way I see it is that sharing your files allows you to help others find different formats for property they already own. It is then the downloader that is responsible for piracy. If they own a license, then fair use. If they don't, then illegal. However, that also means that you can only be fined for one copy of something which would then make these suits a waste of time; something the RIAA wouldn't like I'm sure.
It shouldn't be the uploaders fault that a downloader decided to illegally download a file. Everyone should be responsible for their own actions; not the actions of others; - migitalwarfare, on 07/15/2009, -0/+7It's this simple. You pay for a CD, the band gets paid, the label gets paid, the store gets paid, and you have a limited use license for that music. If you leave that CD at home, you still own that limited use license, which grants you the right to listen to that music from various formats. So long as that right exists, it doesn't matter what the original source is for the current format you are using.
No one expects you to have to go out a buy the CD again because you don't happen to have it with you on a trip when you want to listen to it. - Jektal, on 07/15/2009, -0/+7Was the bit about the legal team uploading songs to a webserver and then publishing the login information the "fair use" issue, or the defendant's downloading?
And if I'm reading TFA correctly and the legal team -did- upload all of the songs the RIAA is suing for as a matter of "fair use" (making all evidence part of the public record?), could this be used as a weapon against the RIAA? - uberduger, on 07/15/2009, -5/+12So you know him, do you? You know what sort of person he is?
You know that someone like him would never pay to support stuff they enjoy?!
Wow, I'm glad you're so intimately atuned to XkenX87's life, because otherwise that would have sounded like a really douchey comment. - XkenX87, on 07/15/2009, -2/+8I don't buy a shirt and go to a concert of all the bands I torrent it wasn't my intentions to express that. My point was I wouldn't be going to these concerts had I not first downloaded their songs illegally.
- uberduger, on 07/15/2009, -0/+6Crandom, the safer sex condom! Sounds like a fun mascot.
- ethanji22, on 07/15/2009, -1/+7@LouisCipher777 Not according to the agreement in the terms of purchase you don't. This is the law and the direct interpretation of the purchase agreement. This is not the common use interpretation, but the actual statements within the agreement and terms in the RIAA legal purchase terms. You do not have a right to make copies for yourself.
Also under your interpretation you still don't answer how it would be wrong to give your music away to millions of people as long as you delete your own copy.
This isn't about piracy. It is about my personal rights under law. I'm tired of living in the hypocrisy that the RIAA and companies can live under a different set of standards than any common person. If you tried to sell your goods in a similar manner, how do you think actions like the ones the RIAA are taking would work out for your sales or your personal company. There is a double standard of rules and hypocrisy which must be pointed out for a fair market to exist and for consumers to have expectations and rights. Certainly we can live by the standards set, but those standards and laws must be set as rights provided to all not rights provided to some. We do live in America after all... - inactive, on 07/15/2009, -2/+7Yeah it does. Screw the consumer in order to "benefit the artists."
- dissolutionman, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4Thou shalt not question Stephen Fry.
- chriskzoo, on 07/15/2009, -4/+8Let's be honest people. Downloading music/media for FREE is about that and nothing else - getting something for FREE. It's isn't about the RIAA "ripping artists off" or selling CDs for "way too much" or even about you "legally being able to make a copy, put it in another format to listen to" etc. - those are all just your petty justifications for stealing.
- lyonsban, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5The movie industry has argued against that definition of fair use.
- inactive, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5Half of the Music I purchased disappeared over the years. Have a party, loose 10CD's..
10CD's = $300. - ProjectGSX, on 07/15/2009, -2/+6Fair Use is a tough sell for file sharing. I think most people agree that use should be able to make a back up of a CD you legally own. So seeding a torrent for an album is just a way to make sure that people who legally own the album can download a copy of it. Its not your fault if some of the people downloading the torrent dont own the music in question. They would be the ones breaking the law in that case.
I see the argument, it just isnt a particularly solid one. - HCProgramr, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4We have a winner!
Most people take the path of least resistance. This holds true for games more than it does music [and though I neither download nor approve of downloading instead of buying], but...there will always be the cheap*sses wanting things for free, and they don't care if they have to do things the hard way so long as they don't have to pay. That can be minimized, but never eliminated. There are other people who don't want the hassle of finding [if it's older than 90 days, good luck finding it without a search] it, jumping through hoops to install, exposing their computers being crippled in the name of stopping the people that had it a week before release, and generally praying it will work. Those are the people the companies should be courting, not suing.
Find out why they downloaded instead of bought. Fix those problems, and piracy will return to being a minor nuisance and not a real problem. Honest people will remain honest until their 'pain' threshold has been crossed...be too much of a hassle, and they'll become dishonest.
The one thing I wish they'd do is start up freeware/abandonware again. Having a 100 year copyright on a game isn't going to do any good. If it's older than 2 or 3, sales are going to drop off considerably. After 5, you're not going to make money on it anyway; release it, build some goodwill, build some buzz about a sequel. Smith and Tinker have the right idea in doing that for Mechwarrior 4. They've made it free to advertise their next game [MW5, just called 'Mechwarrior'], and it's working.
Now if only some executives would figure that out... - Bovorik, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5So who does support (you or the seller) for whatever you've bought if, as I understand you're putting it, "ownership" (in the strongest sense of the word) has passed to you?
- FredFredrickson, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4But it's not your job to make sure other people have a backup copy. Fair use should allow you to make a personal copy for yourself, and not to copy and distribute the files on good faith that everyone who downloads it already owns a copy as well.
- XkenX87, on 07/15/2009, -4/+8Even Pink Floyd, I am a huge fan but had I not downloaded their hit songs (Kazaa) while I was in 8th/9th grade. I would be ignorant to them. I have bought all their CD's they were all stolen from me while I was in H.S. gym. I torrented them, now they can not be stolen because I have them on my external hard drive.
- LouisCipher777, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4when I was younger (i was around for Napster Beta), I downloaded tons of music. I discovered hundreds of bands I would have otherwise never heard of, and collected thousands of songs. I was young and getting new music was expensive and inconvenient.
then they went and made it convenient to download music at a decent (still too high IMO but not painful) price. The iTunes store and applications like shazam (iphone app that listens to and identifies songs) have made it so easy at this point (much easier than it often was trying to find specific songs on Napster or limewire), that there is no point in risking it.
they have converted at least one pirate through convenience. make things easy and people will flock to them in droves. - senae, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3I don't have sound right now so I can't listen to it, but they're probably looking for any opening to show that he profited from file sharing.
- LouisCipher777, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3(1) they have no way to prove that it's in your head and you can't give it to anyone else (fair use) whereas a tape can be proven and can be given or sold
(2) no you can not. it is not legal to play copyrighted material in public without paying royalties. you can however sing it as long as you don't make money from it. - FredFredrickson, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3That's fine logic, and I think that fiar use should cover all those things, Sucka. But you should have been able to make a copy of the DVD from the beginning (without having to hassle with DRM / copy protection, etc.) instead of needing to download it from somewhere else later.
- LouisCipher777, on 07/15/2009, -3/+6you do in fact own the cd, but if you sell it or give it away to someone you are required to delete any digital copies you have made. regardless of what their contract says, fair use is your ability to do anything with it FOR YOURSELF. make mixed cds galore, put it on all three of your ipods, or whatever. but when you give it to someone else you break that contract.
stop justifying piracy. if you are a music pirate (like I used to be before they made the itunes store), admit it and move on. - LouisCipher777, on 07/15/2009, -1/+4ploy to make more money.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is