And finally, what is the RIAA, its own government? They seem to have their own secret police/Gestapo that regularly conducts raids on big-time music sharers, their own congress that determines what THEY think is illegal (not what they think is legal because they don't actually consider any activity legal), etc. I guess they just have LOTS of purchased congressmen?
luca, here's an idea:
i am willing to bet good money that there are currently HORDES of p2p mp3's on computers being operated by microsoft employees in redmond as we speak.
let's get the riaa AFTER THEM. it' be like watching matter and anti-matter collide.
Oh wow. Can't copy CDs to tape? Can't download music you already paid for? I didn't think it was possible, but I hate the RIAA even more than I did two minutes ago now!
No, you can do these things. The RIAA isn't happy about it. They go after uploaders because they're 'giving' away something that's not necessarily theirs to give.
But it's true of a lot of things. Am I to police who has the right to take music from my machine? I trust you to be honest.
The FOX web link is freaking out on me. But what is this "my mom paid a service fee for it" statement about? I know there are subscription services that allow you to download all you want for a flat fee. If they are paying something to compensate the artists this whole lawsuit should be thrown out the window.
To my understanding, kazaa offers some kind of music service for a fee. The service promotes unlimited downloading, legally. However, that's with the songs that they provide through their service.
So this mom/kid thinks that they paid some fee to download digital music for free. However, in reality I think all they've done is agreed to use the kazaa music service, not general downloading.
The RIAA is still screwing up horribly in this case. Nothing like beating up on a 12 year old girl and her mom to really get the people behind you.
For those who say this is within their legal rights, that may be the case now, but you piss people off enough, and they'll talk to their Congressmen and Senators and there could be serious change in the wings.
For those who say this is within their legal rights, that may be the case now, but you piss people off enough, and they'll talk to their Congressmen and Senators and there could be serious change in the wings.
This would require great change from a government that has been extending copyright protection far beyond its original scope.
Shouldn't there be some Mickey Mouse films in the public domain by now?
If anything, I think this will only nudge the government towards increased DMCA-like laws. If all computers sold in the USA had to include some form of rights-management hardware/software, then the RIAA could claim victory and the Government would be able to say that only those who were avoiding the controls could be charged.
the copyright extension act (the sonny bono copyright extension act) was signed into law by president clinton in 1998. it was precisely because mickey mouse was about to enter the public domain that the law came into being.
Should they have held out in order to pay the RIAA more?
Should they have spent more than $2000 on a lawyer?
So many questions, and so few answers.
The RIAA have nipped this PR disaster in the bud, but may have just opened themselves up to a new problem.
It seems fairly obvious that although this girl was sharing a large number of files, the amount that the RIAA typically claims (per song) was drastically reduced in this settlement.
In past cases they've claimed up to $150,000 per infringing song.
Now that they've discounted themselves to approx. $2/song it's actually almost more useful to:
F**K RIAA!!! They've been screwing artists out of copyrights for decades and screwing the consumers with their MAP programs they run with retailers. All of their businesses deserve to rot.
In past cases they've claimed up to $150,000 per infringing song.
Now that they've discounted themselves to approx. $2/song it's actually almost more useful to:
1) illegally download mp3s
2) pay the RIAA $2 for each track
3) enjoy your DRM-free MP3's
Better rights than iTMS! Better selection!!
Interesting take...
I wonder if this could be used as a precedent for "pricing" an MP3 collection, or if it's one of those each-case-on-its-merit situation to determine the claim.
I used to buy several CDs a week. I'd rip the cd's to MP3 to use on a Compact Flash based MP3 player so i could jog and not have to deal with the weight or skipping associated with my old discman. Now I dont buy anymore CDs because they're installing "copy protection" on them Fuxcing up the end product MP3. WTF i bought it i should be able to use it.
Since when do you buy a product but can't use it for "specific purposes" i don't recall any stipulations or agreements listed on the last copy protected cd i bought, no mention @ all in fact. I just brought it back and asked for my moolah. If im not out I usually just play the CD in a CD player but some wont even play in my 'puter now.
So let me get this straight. If i want the music i have to go buy it on CD. but if i want the SAME music I ALREADY PURCHASED in MP3 format i have to REPURCASE it in that format?? Fuxc you RIAA. your never getting another dime from me.
Wasting their time really. You can say they're trying to use scare tactics to deter pirating until they can come out with a majorly successful music service of their own...but it's still a waste of human resources and infrastructure to go after people that will always be one step ahead of them.
Give the people what they want...inexpensive music downloads (DRM is fine...)
Now if only iTunes let you share across the net without jumping hoops. Imagine if people's iTunes libraries had 30 sec previews and "Buy Now" buttons next to each iTMS purchased song in the file share... Guerilla marketing...
Well, I guess now it's pretty safe to say these tactics aren't working.
Per a CNN article.:
Quote:
Traffic on the FastTrack network, the conduit for Kazaa and Grokster users, declined over the summer and climbed again last month, as has the number of people using less popular file-sharing software like eDonkey, Garland said.
At the same time, a decline in CD sales worsened. Between June 15 and August 3, the decline in CD sales accelerated 54 percent. And as of August 3, CD sales were down 9.4 percent over the same period in 2002, according to the Yankee Group.
So not only are they just driving people to different music services, they've tanked CD sales to boot. What a bunch of freaking morons.
RIAA considers that illegal. In their view you can't even copy one of your own CDs to tape to listen to in your car.
This is one of those things which majority of us will never get. The same goes for "you may install this software on one computer only". And if I have 2 computers, a desktop and a notebook, every time I leave with my notebook, should I delete this software from the desktop even if nobody else will be using it?
Personally, I think this is a legal dead end. I will never buy several copies of a CD for myself. I will never buy a second copy even if my wife listens to mine, too. The only technical criterion of DRM is whether I illegally make money on someone else's property. If I make several copies of a commercial CD and sell them without the license, it's a crime and, I think, it's clear enough. Music sharing is a tricky thing. May my friends listen to CDs I bought when I invite them to my house? May they listen to them outside of my house? May I give them my CDs for evaluation purposes? May I make crippled copies of my CDs (I mean MP3)? If not, why are there printed reproductions of Dali's works? Is this a different thing?
If some of these RIAA bozos were here right now, I'd have a hard time refraining myself from strangling them. This is flaming white-hot hatred I'm feeling.
Comments
Originally posted by audiopollution
The public relations nightmare they're about to fly into is going to be huge.
Should be fun to watch.
Hell YEAH, I hope they burn for this one!!!
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
And finally, what is the RIAA, its own government? They seem to have their own secret police/Gestapo that regularly conducts raids on big-time music sharers, their own congress that determines what THEY think is illegal (not what they think is legal because they don't actually consider any activity legal), etc. I guess they just have LOTS of purchased congressmen?
luca, here's an idea:
i am willing to bet good money that there are currently HORDES of p2p mp3's on computers being operated by microsoft employees in redmond as we speak.
let's get the riaa AFTER THEM. it' be like watching matter and anti-matter collide.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Oh wow. Can't copy CDs to tape? Can't download music you already paid for? I didn't think it was possible, but I hate the RIAA even more than I did two minutes ago now!
No, you can do these things. The RIAA isn't happy about it. They go after uploaders because they're 'giving' away something that's not necessarily theirs to give.
But it's true of a lot of things. Am I to police who has the right to take music from my machine? I trust you to be honest.
So this mom/kid thinks that they paid some fee to download digital music for free. However, in reality I think all they've done is agreed to use the kazaa music service, not general downloading.
The RIAA is still screwing up horribly in this case. Nothing like beating up on a 12 year old girl and her mom to really get the people behind you.
For those who say this is within their legal rights, that may be the case now, but you piss people off enough, and they'll talk to their Congressmen and Senators and there could be serious change in the wings.
Originally posted by Longhorn
For those who say this is within their legal rights, that may be the case now, but you piss people off enough, and they'll talk to their Congressmen and Senators and there could be serious change in the wings.
This would require great change from a government that has been extending copyright protection far beyond its original scope.
Shouldn't there be some Mickey Mouse films in the public domain by now?
If anything, I think this will only nudge the government towards increased DMCA-like laws. If all computers sold in the USA had to include some form of rights-management hardware/software, then the RIAA could claim victory and the Government would be able to say that only those who were avoiding the controls could be charged.
Slippery slope.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Shouldn't there be some Mickey Mouse films in the public domain by now?
There was a big "Free the Mouse" campaign a while ago. It lost (no, really?!?
link bono act
RIAA Settles With 12 Year-Old
Brianna added: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
She's been brainwashed by the RIAA
Originally posted by Scott
It's sad that they rolled over so fast.
She's been brainwashed by the RIAA
Why is it sad?
Should they have held out in order to pay the RIAA more?
Should they have spent more than $2000 on a lawyer?
So many questions, and so few answers.
The RIAA have nipped this PR disaster in the bud, but may have just opened themselves up to a new problem.
It seems fairly obvious that although this girl was sharing a large number of files, the amount that the RIAA typically claims (per song) was drastically reduced in this settlement.
In past cases they've claimed up to $150,000 per infringing song.
Now that they've discounted themselves to approx. $2/song it's actually almost more useful to:
1) illegally download mp3s
2) pay the RIAA $2 for each track
3) enjoy your DRM-free MP3's
Better rights than iTMS! Better selection!!
Originally posted by audiopollution
In past cases they've claimed up to $150,000 per infringing song.
Now that they've discounted themselves to approx. $2/song it's actually almost more useful to:
1) illegally download mp3s
2) pay the RIAA $2 for each track
3) enjoy your DRM-free MP3's
Better rights than iTMS! Better selection!!
Interesting take...
I wonder if this could be used as a precedent for "pricing" an MP3 collection, or if it's one of those each-case-on-its-merit situation to determine the claim.
Since when do you buy a product but can't use it for "specific purposes" i don't recall any stipulations or agreements listed on the last copy protected cd i bought, no mention @ all in fact.
So let me get this straight.
Give the people what they want...inexpensive music downloads (DRM is fine...)
Now if only iTunes let you share across the net without jumping hoops. Imagine if people's iTunes libraries had 30 sec previews and "Buy Now" buttons next to each iTMS purchased song in the file share... Guerilla marketing...
Per a CNN article.:
Traffic on the FastTrack network, the conduit for Kazaa and Grokster users, declined over the summer and climbed again last month, as has the number of people using less popular file-sharing software like eDonkey, Garland said.
At the same time, a decline in CD sales worsened. Between June 15 and August 3, the decline in CD sales accelerated 54 percent. And as of August 3, CD sales were down 9.4 percent over the same period in 2002, according to the Yankee Group.
So not only are they just driving people to different music services, they've tanked CD sales to boot. What a bunch of freaking morons.
Originally posted by Scott
RIAA considers that illegal. In their view you can't even copy one of your own CDs to tape to listen to in your car.
This is one of those things which majority of us will never get. The same goes for "you may install this software on one computer only". And if I have 2 computers, a desktop and a notebook, every time I leave with my notebook, should I delete this software from the desktop even if nobody else will be using it?
Personally, I think this is a legal dead end. I will never buy several copies of a CD for myself. I will never buy a second copy even if my wife listens to mine, too. The only technical criterion of DRM is whether I illegally make money on someone else's property. If I make several copies of a commercial CD and sell them without the license, it's a crime and, I think, it's clear enough. Music sharing is a tricky thing. May my friends listen to CDs I bought when I invite them to my house? May they listen to them outside of my house? May I give them my CDs for evaluation purposes? May I make crippled copies of my CDs (I mean MP3)? If not, why are there printed reproductions of Dali's works? Is this a different thing?
Originally posted by costique
If not, why are there printed reproductions of Dali's works? Is this a different thing?
Yes, as licensing fees have been paid to the Dali estate (or the artists representation).