RIAA lawsuits

[Diamond]

I don't know if this is 100% true, but still is shocking.

Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, but was nevertheless sued by the RIAA in Brooklyn federal court for using an "online distribution system" to "download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution" plaintiff's music files, has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act.

Recording Industry vs The People

[~Di]

An interesting one-sided blog (read, "commentary") on a site that admits being anti-RIAA, lest anyone confuse the link for actual news. Oddly enough, I cannot find a single news story on the web about this particular person's terrible abuse at the hands of RIAA. Perhaps someone mores skilled in the art of Googling can come up with something more factual, and less inflammatory.

 

Me, I happen to think that people who break the law by stealing stuff that they are not entitled to should reap the consequence. If they are unjusticely accused, of course, then they should naturally pursue their own legal options.

 

I also happen to think that those who rely on their own intellectual properties to earn a living have a right to be paid for those properties, even if a whole bunch of people think they personally have a right to enjoy them for free. *shrug* But then most folks know that about me.

[Oerwinde]

Canadian Record Executive Helps Fight RIAA

[Laozi]

"The lawsuit accuses Mr. Greubel of having 600 illegally downloaded music files on the family computer, including Ms. Lavigne's Sk8er Boi."

 

They'll only help you if you downloaded canadian music

[Commissar]

An interesting one-sided blog (read, "commentary") on a site that admits being anti-RIAA, lest anyone confuse the link for actual news.  Oddly enough, I cannot find a single news story on the web about this particular person's terrible abuse at the hands of RIAA.  Perhaps someone mores skilled in the art of Googling can come up with something more factual, and less inflammatory.

 

Me, I happen to think that people who break the law by stealing stuff that they are not entitled to should reap the consequence.  If they are unjusticely accused, of course, then they should naturally pursue their own legal options.

 

I also happen to think that those who rely on their own intellectual properties to earn a living have a right to be paid for those properties, even if a whole bunch of people think they personally have a right to enjoy them for free.  *shrug*  But then most folks know that about me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can I tape songs off of the radio on my fancy tapedeck?

[~Di]

Can I tape songs off of the radio on my fancy tapedeck?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure!

[taks]

Can I tape songs off of the radio on my fancy tapedeck?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're allowed to make one recording of anything (there's an act, cannot remember the name, passed years ago for this very purpose). however, you are not legally allowed to distribute the file(s).

 

taks

[metadigital]

I read that Finland just passed a law (last few weeks) that stipulates the sonsumer has NO OWNERSHIP RIGHTS WHATSOEVER of music they have bought. They are forbidden from making ANY COPIES AT ALL.

[213374U]

I read that Finland just passed a law (last few weeks) that stipulates the sonsumer has NO OWNERSHIP RIGHTS WHATSOEVER of music they have bought. They are forbidden from making ANY COPIES AT ALL.

Yeah, we have this funny tendency to pass stupid and impossible to enforce laws here in Europe.

 

Guess the real world is too complicate to legislate for.

[Azarkon]

We have to make a distinction between everday common sense capitalism and legislated ultra-copyright capitalism. One can be enforced, the other cannot - except under a totalitarian form of government.

 

Honestly, how are you going to prevent people from sharing things with their friends? And do you really think that people want to live in a world where sharing is illegal? Mass digital sharing is simply an extension of what people have been doing for ages, and while going after popular distribution sites might mitigate the effects, going after individuals will merely stir public opinion against you.

[metadigital]

The current Next Big Thing in British music (the Artic Monkeys) gained their groundswell of popularity via the free filesharing sharing / downloading mechanism of the internet ... the first they were aware of their popularity was when the audience started singing their song lyrics ... better than they knew them.

[~Di]

"Sharing things with friends" implies loaning a book, a video game, or a music CD one has legitimately purchased with a few personal friends. That is fine and legal (well, legal in the USA). However, if you take that book, video game and music CD, plop it out on the web and invite millions of people to share it, you are damaging those who own the rights to those items and who depend upon the legitimate sales of those items to make a living. That is not legal, and it's not okay.

[Surreptishus]

Filesharing isn't illegal insofar as it isn't contrary to criminal law. Nobody has been prosecuted in a criminal court for filesharing. Civil action has been pursued by the RIAA of all the letters they have sent out a small proportion have settled or ended up in court. They only go after the distributors.

[metadigital]

I see that David Israelite, President of the National Music Publishers' Association, made his contribution to the Dumbest Comment Ever contest, when he stated "the unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing."

 

Good effort for ledgerdomain, but major bonus points for outright imbercility. As John Walker from PC Format commented: "Yes. No differerent at all, David. Apart from nothing having been stolen, of course. But otherwise, no different.

"Copyright Watch would like to condemn writing stories about people dying. After all, it's no different than murder."

 

:D

[~Di]

Just because something isn't criminal and doesn't carry a 10-20 year sentence in San Quentin does not mean it is not illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal. Civil law is just as, well, legal as is criminal law. RIAA has brought several lawsuits, and has either won or negotiated settlements in all of them. Those settlements involve paying certain fees to a fund set up for artists on a per-download basis. This is a good thing. Except, of course, to those who believe they are entitled to anything they wish for free.

 

RIAA has also gone beyond the internet distributors, and has brought lawsuits against selected individual users simply to prove that whether you steal little or you steal big, you still run the risk of being caught and being sued.

 

This whole topic amazes me, actually. Most people who wouldn't dream of stealing a CD, video game or a book from the local mall seem to think it's their god-given right to take music, video games and books directly from the internet when frankly it's the same damned thing...stealing. Mock the word if you wish, that is still exactly what it is, stealing the work of others without paying for it.

 

As one who supported herself solely from royalties for well over a decade, I find the all-too-prevalent attitude of entitlement as depressing, to say the least.

[Walsingham]

If I may doppler into a liberal for a moment...

 

I agree that the artists have a right to earnings from their work, as any of us should (except where we agree to daft contracts as I've done in the past). However, record sales generate practically no money for the artist. Almost all the money goes to the label, at least on mainstream contracts.

 

Speaking for myself I have two policies. For mainstream labels I'll download what I please, period. For indie labels and self-publishing artists, I'll download up to the entire album, but I will always order a copy of the album later (unless it's total rubbish).

 

But essentially I look on this current state of affairs as the industry reaping the whirlwind of price-gouging. 17 pounds for a CD? 5 pounds is what it should be.

[~Di]

At one time, record sales generated the artists' primary source of income. If it currently doesn't, that rather supports the RIAA contention (and the contention of the vast majority of artists themselves) that pirated downloads of their music has stolen billions out of their pockets!

 

As to your assertion that it's okay to steal stuff if that stuff costs too much, I must protest. For one thing, prices will continue to escalate to cover the cost of... you guessed it... theft! For another, since when do folks have the option of stealing anything they think is overpriced? If you believe paperback books cost too much, does that give you the right to simply steal the book? If you believe that authors get practically no money for the sale of their books (which we don't, actually, but it's nonetheless the only money we get for our work, whether it's considered substantial by the consumer or not), does it then make it okay to take even that piddling amount away from authors by stealing the work?

 

Authors, for example, depend upon small amounts per unit, with hundreds of thousands of units being sold; music artists too, I'd wager. So yeah, one theft may only equal a pittance; multiply that times tens or hundreds of thousands of thefts, and an author's entire year's income can dwindle to near nothing, despite hundreds of thousands of readers voraciously enjoying his/her work. Meanwhile, careers are destroyed and hundreds of thousands of theives continue to justify themselves while moving on to steal what they want from others.

 

As for the cost issue, I think lots of things are overpriced. That does not give me license to steal them. It does, however, give me the option not to use and enjoy products that I think cost too much.

 

I'm sorry, but I've heard every argument known to human-kind as to why it is okay, justifiable, or even one's god-given duty to steal music, video games, books, movies, or anything else one wishes to have without payment. It all boils down to the same thing: People want free stuff, and if they can steal it with a fair degree of certainty that they will not get caught, they will do so and turn themselves into a pretzel rationalizing their theft.

 

BTW, I doubt I'll change anyone's mind, since the lure of taking whatever we want for free is quite powerful. But if I make one person think, and realize that when they steal even a pack of gum, the value of that pack of gum comes out of somebody's pocket, somebody who counted on the profit from that gum to help support his/her family. When a million people steal a pack of gum... well... I doubt any of y'all could afford such a loss from your own bank account.

 

So my lot in life is to offer another perspective on this topic in the off-chance that someone, somewhere will eventually "get it." Tough job, but somebody has to do it!

Edited February 6, 2006 by ~Di

[Walsingham]

Don't get me wrong, ~Di, I admire you taking a stand. But I don't agree it is so simple. And this is me talking as someone who has never stolen so much as a pen from the bank.

 

The point about it being too expensive is definitely debateable, but irrespective of its merits it is a fact that where prices go too far people use illicit means to secure the commodity. This is a universal truism of all nations and cultures. Typically in the past the state has attempted to gouge money by taxation on luxury products, and if they push too far people begin smuggling. They wind up generating a wealth of black market sources, and they wind up LOSING net revenue. I certainly will not accept whingeing by the companies.

 

What I will also not accept is arguably the abuse of our civil liberties to secure convictions for copyright theft. We accept levels of investigation that are frankly ridiculous for the nature of the crime. Murder, terrorism, we have to ask hard questions. Shoplifting? Give me a break.

 

Finally, I really don't give an admiral's backside if the profits in music sales decrease. Music is or should be about passion and real talent. the enormous margins present are turning the entire industry into an industrial process.

 

*thinks*

 

I guess I haven't really defeated your argument. :">

[~Di]

Hehe, no, you haven't. But when you figure out how to feed your family based upon spending 3000 hours a year producing free "passion" for the masses, you do let me know, m'kay?

 

Also, smuggling is a crime. "The government taxes made me do it" isn't normally considered a legitimate defense for smuggling. Copyright theft and infringement is also a crime. You wouldn't sneer at it if, as I've pointed out, your earned your entire living from the fruits of your copyrighted work.

 

But I've enjoyed the discussion, and shall move on to let others discuss their thoughts.

 

[213374U]

This whole topic amazes me, actually.  Most people who wouldn't dream of stealing a CD, video game or a book from the local mall seem to think it's their god-given right to take music, video games and books directly from the internet when frankly it's the same damned thing...stealing.  Mock the word if you wish, that is still exactly what it is, stealing the work of others without paying for it.

All the strength of your discourse, much like that of RIAA and MPAA lies in the fallacy that P2P'ing is stealing. Well, it's not. I am not taking anything from anyone when I download music. I'm not depriving anyone of a movie when I download it. I'm just copying it. As for the second part of the argument, that which assumes I'm causing economic losses because of that copying, it's debatable at best. Can you prove I'd actually purchase the music I download if I couldn't get it via P2P? I doubt it, as there's very little music that stays in my HD for long. And that which does, I end up buying eventually, as I believe in supporting the authors I like.

 

Is P2P'ing copyrighted material illegal? Most certainly. But then again, it's also illegal to walk across the Minnesota-Wisconsin border with a duck on your head.

[~Di]

All the strength of your discourse, much like that of RIAA and MPAA lies in the fallacy that P2P'ing is stealing. Well, it's not. I am not taking anything from anyone when I download music. I'm not depriving anyone of a movie when I download it. I'm just copying it. As for the second part of the argument, that which assumes I'm causing economic losses because of that copying, it's debatable at best. Can you prove I'd actually purchase the music I download if I couldn't get it via P2P? I doubt it, as there's very little music that stays in my HD for long. And that which does, I end up buying eventually, as I believe in supporting the authors I like.

 

Is P2P'ing copyrighted material illegal? Most certainly. But then again, it's also illegal to walk across the Minnesota-Wisconsin border with a duck on your head.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eh, can't let this go. I'm weak.

 

Copyright infringement is, at its core, stealing. Calling it a fallacy does not make it so. Taking what belongs to someone else without paying the price they have asked for its use is... stealing.

 

Your argument is basically this: It's okay to pirate music, movies or video games because since you did not take a hard copy off the shelves, you did not deprive anyone of that hard copy.

 

But you did, of course, deprive the owners of that music, movie or video game of their rightful fee for its use. In doing so, you also violated the Terms of Use that the owners of these products have established for your enjoyment of them. The Terms of Use usually include the annoying little caveat that you must pay for using the product, and if you don't wish to pay you are cheerfully invited to go elsewhere for your entertainment. You are not invited to steal it anyway with the promise that if you actually like it, you might pay later.

 

Downplaying the importance of such theft by comparing it to wearing a duck on one's head might go over well with those who have a disk full of pirated music, games and movies, but I doubt it would be amusing to those who have seen their annual incomes dissipate to the point that they can no longer afford to produce the creative endeavors they loved.

 

Just keep in mind that there are not just faceless entities behind those products you enjoy so much that you are willing to steal them rather than go without. Those are real, flesh-and-blood humans whose pockets you are picking. Think about it.

[Blarghagh]

Fact remains that most artists don't even make money of record sales. We're not stealing from the artists, we're stealing from the people who are stealing from the artists. They are in desperate need of a reality check. And most of us try to give it back to the actual artists by going to their shows and buying their merchandise.

 

The only thing downloading has done for me is introduce me to a bunch of good artists. Modest Mouse, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, the EElS. Stuff I never would have heard of without having downloaded it. I bought their merchandise and went to their shows afterwards (or at least tried to, I missed Clap Your Hands Say Yeah not so long ago... but I did buy their record, which is self-released and therefore goes straight to them)

 

I sometimes download music and don't go to the shows or buy merch. Why? Because it's not good enough. I wouldn't have bought their records either way.

 

The RIAA is an organisation that keeps biting the hands that feed them. They keep alienating and patronising the people who are, despite their apparent denial of this, still their consumer base. If you're going to do something, you should at least be professional about it. The RIAA isn't.

 

EDIT: Of course, there are some stupid people out there who don't. They called down the thunder, they got it. Thankfully, most of these are chavs who only listen to whatever poopy rap artist they saw on MTV.

Edited February 6, 2006 by TrueNeutral

[213374U]

Copyright infringement is, at its core, stealing.  Calling it a fallacy does not make it so.  Taking what belongs to someone else without paying the price they have asked for its use is... stealing.

No, it's not stealing. You aren't taking anything, you are merely copying. No matter how many times you say it is, it's not going to become so, because the word defines an entirely different action. You might want to invent a new word for it. But then again, the entire thing would lose strength as it wouldn't have the attached stigma and you would no longer be able to call P2P'ers thieves. It's a clear appeal to emotions, and therein lies your fallacy. I know pointing you to a dictionary isn't necessary, as due to your profession you are well versed in semantics. But not everyone is, and I thought I'd expose this particular malicious misuse of language.

 

 

But you did, of course, deprive the owners of that music, movie or video game of their rightful fee for its use.  In doing so, you also violated the Terms of Use that the owners of these products have established for your enjoyment of them.  The Terms of Use usually include the annoying little caveat that you must pay for using the product, and if you don't wish to pay you are cheerfully invited to go elsewhere for your entertainment.  You are not invited to steal it anyway with the promise that if you actually like it, you might pay later.

Except for the stealing part, which I have already discussed, that is 100% true. But what can I say, I'd rather ignore the terms of use and make sure the entertainment I put my money into is worth it, than be absolutely legalistic and find out that whatever I bought blindly is crap. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if I could have my money back, but that's not an option either. Maybe you have the money to indulge yourself in that kind of blind consumerism, but I don't.

 

 

Downplaying the importance of such theft by comparing it to wearing a duck on one's head might go over well with those who have a disk full of pirated music, games and movies, but I doubt it would be amusing to those who have seen their annual incomes dissipate to the point that they can no longer afford to produce the creative endeavors they loved.

I expect you to post figures, and to prove beyond any measure of doubt that P2P'ing is killing the movie, music, or video game industry. If you can't, you'll have to take those claims back.

 

 

Just keep in mind that there are not just faceless entities behind those products you enjoy so much that you are willing to steal them rather than go without.  Those are real, flesh-and-blood humans whose pockets you are picking.  Think about it.

You seem to have missed the part where I said I believe in supporting the authors I like. If I don't enjoy the product, I'm not going to buy it, or otherwise keep using it. No damage done there. And if I do like it, I'll pay for it. So no, I'm not picking anyone's pockets. I have thought about it.