RIAA to stop acting like a jackass

[archdukezeb]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20081219/tc_pcworld/riaastopssuingindividualsarewehomefree_1

What's everyone's opinion on the decision on pirating in general?

[ミュー]

What's everyone's opinion on the decision on pirating in general?
Does anyone have a torrent for the talking points on this issue?

[SlickWilly440]

I think the RIAA should have been more focused on having the ISP control the customers internet in the first place instead of going after the individuals, not that I'm supporting them. The RIAA were going after the drug dealers and not the major suppliers of the drugs.

[MNJetter]

I am against pirating, for the most part, though I won't form a one-person protest against the masses who seem to have decided that stealing is okay so long as it's data.

As far as the RIAA goes, I have no opinion about them specifically, but it seemed like kind of a losing battle to sue individuals for downloading stuff.

[qwert]

Pirating is wrong, but a lot of people have become so accustomed to it that they don't see why it is wrong. Besides, it's hard to feel bad about something when you are doing it from the safety of your home, the chances of getting caught are almost zero, and everyone else is doing it.

Having said that, I'm not willing to spend money on music, so I don't download/buy music. I listen to the radio either online or analog instead.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I don't really care about pirating really and I'd be a hypocrite if I said it was actually wrong (hinthintwinkwink). RIAA was being pretty stupid in its actions regarding the whole thing and I think they were close to losing more money than they were gaining because of all the costs of lawyers, fees, etc. and the fact they were suing people who had no money. Nonetheless they had every right to do so.

Going after the ISPs is certainly more clever, though. I'm even less worried now since I'm not anywhere close to what they consider to be an "egregious" offender.

[Jetsetlemming]

I think the RIAA should have been more focused on having the ISP control the customers internet in the first place instead of going after the individuals, not that I'm supporting them. The RIAA were going after the drug dealers and not the major suppliers of the drugs.
The problem is is that if any organization forces internet service providers to filter out ANY questionable content from their users, they have to filter it ALL.

[archdukezeb]

The problem is is that if any organization forces internet service providers to filter out ANY questionable content from their users, they have to filter it ALL.

It's not about filtering content it's about letting their users commit crimes with their service. But the real question is if they'll use discretion with their penalties because things like torrents have legal applications as well so it would be dumb if they cut off everyone's connection who uses one. I don't see how this could possibly be a good business move for them. Do you have to pay them once they've cut off your connection? I imagine everyone who gets cutoff will quickly move to all the services that don't have a deal with the RIAA.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

Since I can't afford it, no-one's losing money if I download something, it's just as if watched my friend's dvd instead of buying my own, if they weren't stupid they'd have realised the best thing for companies to do is just provide the downloads themselves, for free, from a site people have to register on and can trust and generate revenue from ads, premium accounts and such.

[archdukezeb]

Since I can't afford it, no-one's losing money if I download something, it's just as if watched my friend's dvd instead of buying my own, if they weren't stupid they'd have realised the best thing for companies to do is just provide the downloads themselves, for free, from a site people have to register on and can trust and generate revenue from ads, premium accounts and such.

For one they could never generate near enough cash doing that and for two I know some people like myself would never switch over to that and deal with all the DRM bullshit that would inevitably be involved.

Pirating isn't on the same level of stealing as shoplifting as they try to make it out to be since they're only losing hypothetical money but it is still stealing none the less. The act of reproducing the music and giving it to someone else is counterfeiting. The difference between this and buying knockoff Prada is that you are the one making the fake handbag.

[SlickWilly440]

The act of reproducing the music and giving it to someone else is counterfeiting. The difference between this and buying knockoff Prada is that you are the one making the fake handbag.

Technically the program/application/client is doing all the dirty work. The user is just the customer who is requesting an item from the application and the application carries out the dirty work and gives us the item.

[Kyletherealninja]

I used to illegally download music but I quit and deleted all of it once I realized that people are depending on selling their stuff to make money. I don't listen to rich, big-name artists; it's all obscure indie musicians who don't make a lot of money and really depend on sales of their work. I wouldn't want anyone illegally downloading my music, so I figured I should at least have the common courtesy to treat artists I like with the same respect.

The only concession I'll make is for out-of-print albums (usually Japanese) that are nearly impossible to obtain; not to mention that the artist doesn't make cash off of used album sales, so this isn't hurting them anyway.

[japanat]

Technically or not, call me a pussy or whatever, but it's still not paying for the use of someone's creative work, and is wrong. Sure, everyone says it doesn't hurt anyone, it's just the recording companies. But the artist isn't getting paid for their work. If someone was taking my classroom materials and using them without my permission, I'd be ticked, even though I'd probably give it to them for free if they just asked.

That said, I agree that it would have been smarter for the recording companies to have set up something like ITunes early on, with free preview of, say, 2/3 the song, and low-priced individual songs.

[archdukezeb]

Technically the program/application/client is doing all the dirty work. The user is just the customer who is requesting an item from the application and the application carries out the dirty work and gives us the item.
This makes absolutely no sense. What is this the "people don't kill people, guns kill people"?

"Well officer I just pointed the gun and asked for him to kill Jeffrey I was merely an accomplice!"

[blank slate]

No, the RIAA are being even bigger jackasses. With this new stance, they can call you in to your ISP and get you kicked off, and you don't even have any way to defend yourself. What if they mistaken you for someone who is a massive infringer? Then what do you do? This is a big issue since most people only have one ISP, and nothing more.

It's basically the RIAA's way of getting what they want without dealing with the courts.

[archdukezeb]

Dunno I'd much rather get a warning with the threat of getting my internet shut off (which is mostly likely temporary til you shape up) vs. get sued for ridiculous amounts of money.

[SlickWilly440]

Like all things in life, always wear protection when your doing something risky, especially on the internet. That is why I recommend PeerGuardian2. It's an application that monitors all the packets getting transferred to and transferred out of your computer through you TCP/UDP/etc ports, and if it catches a certain IP address the computer is trying to transfer data to or from, the program block it. You'd be surprised how many IP's get blocked when your engaging in risky business on the internet.

It's totally free: http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/

[Digital Masta]

See I download things that people don't care about...programs and episodes of Heroes because the NBC website doesn't work for me in Japan.

[SlickWilly440]

^
Well you could have waited a couple of years until the show was aired in Japan so you could have watched the show during it's allotted time and watched the commercials and then subconsciously bought one of their products.......LOL

[Trump]

Illegally downloading is a problem. However, RIAA thinks it is the consumer's problem of rampant greed. They are completely backwards as it indicates a problem with sales practices. Obviously, the demand for recorded music has changed and the prices and sales methods are obsolete.

So yes, illegally downloading music is wrong. However, so is paying $15 for a CD.

[Samurai_Pooh]

The way I see it, data is information, and you can't keep information under control on the internets. Guaranteed all of you people posting that illegally downloading is wrong have done it before and will do it again at some point (you might not even realize you are doing it).

Its all risk versus reward, the risk is extremely low and the payoff is relatively quick and good. Until they can change that, these organisations trying to police the internet will continue to fail.

[archdukezeb]

Illegally downloading is a problem. However, RIAA thinks it is the consumer's problem of rampant greed. They are completely backwards as it indicates a problem with sales practices. Obviously, the demand for recorded music has changed and the prices and sales methods are obsolete.

So yes, illegally downloading music is wrong. However, so is paying $15 for a CD.

Some of these arguments make no sense. If their really wasn't demand why would their be so many people walking around with 1000 hours of music on their iPod? People need to admit they steal music for the same reason anybody steals anything they want it but they don't want to pay for it.

[h2orowe]

People don't have the money to buy 1000 hours of music on their iPod. Through the magic of p2p and torrents, they can obtain as much as they want. I've more or less stopped downloading music, save for legal downloading (like artists putting it up on their websites) and when I did download before, it was a few songs or sometimes an album to get a feel for the artist, then if I enjoyed it, I'd go out and get the album. That's how I discovered most of my artists and I don't feel guilty because I did go and buy their music.

[SlickWilly440]

I think some people are upset about piracy mainly for the fact that they feel like the only ones paying the money up front while their friends are getting the product for free.

A lot of it has to do with whether or not if the consumers sees a products worth paying money for or either they can't afford it in the first place, so even if they did pirate it the companies are not losing any money b/c they wouldn't have had the money to buy it in the first place.

Or maybe some people pirate b/c it eliminates "buyers remorse." Like paying $50 dollars for a game only to find out it sucks or not to the liking of the buyer, is like losing $50 dollars. On the other hand pirating that game and finding out it sucks isn't that disappointing b/c no money was paid and nothing monetary was wasted.

Sure, you can read/watch review and hear things from friends, but you cannot experience the end-use of most products.

Heck, I think some people just pirate products just because they can get it for free, and not because they have any prior interesting in using the product.

If the RIAA want's to stop piracy they should stop distributing their products in a digital format.

People don't have the money to buy 1000 hours of music on their iPod.

And yet, MP3 companies/manufactures are making music players that can hold 30,40,60 GB of music/video, when they knowing know their consumers are not going to be able to totally fill up the player with legal content. They are indirectly encouraging the consumers to get illegal content; "I'm not full yet...feed me!!!".

[Kannon]

Pretty much.

I know pirating is stealing. You're right, I don't care if it is just digital information. If I want a song for free, I want a song for free. Generally, how I work is I use P2P to sample a lot of music, and I'll actually BUY the CDs that are good enough for me to support. Most don't even do that. I usually spend about 100 bucks in CDs in a trip to Homers/Best Buy and thanks to free music from P2P, I rarely end up with shit CDs.

[haterllnation]

Pretty much.

I know pirating is stealing. You're right, I don't care if it is just digital information. If I want a song for free, I want a song for free. Generally, how I work is I use P2P to sample a lot of music, and I'll actually BUY the CDs that are good enough for me to support. Most don't even do that. I usually spend about 100 bucks in CDs in a trip to Homers/Best Buy and thanks to free music from P2P, I rarely end up with shit CDs.

QFT.

[japanat]

Baen Books (a major sci-fi publisher) has started posting many of their books on the internet for free download, with the reasoning that people can download it and read it; and if they like it, they'll probably go out and buy the physical book.

If the music industry were doing such things as posting 1/2 an album on the net for free download in the hopes that people would like it and buy the whole album (which many indies have started doing), I would have no problem with the practice. But I used to play music, and some of my friends still play professionally, and the way the major music companies do business means that P2P and torrents usually equal money out of the artists' hands.

To me, it's a matter of whether the music is offered for free download/sample (like much of the software on my PC, btw - and I have voluntarily contributed to those individuals/companies whose software has proven useful), or whether people are just stealing it because it doesn't seem wrong to them.

[blank slate]

I think this won't be much of a problem in a few years anyway. You can get a ton of free music legally from sites like lala and imeem, it's streaming of course.

But with the way MP3 players and smart phones are evolving, it's getting easier and easier to visit the sites with streaming music.

Why even bother wasting hard drive space when you can stream it as many times as you want for free and not have to deal with the RIAA?

[Wee wee]

freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
stufffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffff

:D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SlickWilly440]

"Piracy" of digital content is not stealing because you cannot physically touch it. How are you suppose to touch a piece of music or data file?

[SlickWilly440]

I think this won't be much of a problem in a few years anyway. You can get a ton of free music legally from sites like lala and imeem, it's streaming of course.

Don't forget Pandora, Seeqpod, and Jamendo.

[Citizen]

And yet, MP3 companies/manufactures are making music players that can hold 30,40,60 GB of music/video, when they knowing know their consumers are not going to be able to totally fill up the player with legal content.

I can fill a 60GB MP3 player using only a small fraction of my music collection, all of which is 100% legal, and I'm lower middle class.

There really is no valid excuse for pirating. Theft is theft, a crime is a crime. I personally have no problem with the RIAA going after pirates like rabid pitbulls.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Pit bulls are cool dogs. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-colbert.gif

[darighaz]

I have a problem with the RIAA doing anything, as the RIAA represents no one but itself, and doesn't have a damn clue what its doing when it investigates people.

[Citizen]

Pit bulls are cool dogs. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-colbert.gif

If you like ugly, fairly unintelligent, poorly bred, violent dogs, I guess.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Stereotypes sure are fun to believe.

[koku]

I pirate stuff I never would have shelled out $$$ for in the first place so I don't see the problem. In fact, I at least become a fan of what I pirate and I give free advertisement and exposure to the company.


Either I pirate it and maybe rave about this show or game or whatever being good,

or I say "fuck it, too expensive" and never buy it anyways.

[Citizen]

They're not stereotypes, sorry. Temperment, intelligence, and health in dogs are all closely connected to breeding. Pit bulls were the result of improper breeding conducted mainly by people involved in dog fighting and the cattle industry, which has since continued to be plagued in modern times by inbreeding, puppy-milling, and violent conditioning at the hands of modern dog fight participants, people who want guard dogs, and more recently, gangbangers who use the violence and power of their dog as a status symbol.

There are nice, properly bred (by their standards), properly trained pit bulls, but that doesn't change the fact that they were ill-conceived, or the fact that you're more likely to get attacked by a pit bull than by any other breed, or the fact that, since they were bred to fight, they're also much more capable of hurting you than most other dogs.

Nor is there really anything you can say to make me not think they're just plain ugly as sin. Sorry, I know it's much easier to just dismiss something as a stereotype if you don't agree with it.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

They're not stereotypes, sorry. Temperment, intelligence, and health in dogs are all closely connected to breeding. Pit bulls were the result of improper breeding conducted mainly by people involved in dog fighting and the cattle industry, which has since continued to be plagued in modern times by inbreeding, puppy-milling, and violent conditioning at the hands of modern dog fight participants, people who want guard dogs, and more recently, gangbangers who use the violence and power of their dog as a status symbol.

There are nice, properly bred (by their standards), properly trained pit bulls, but that doesn't change the fact that they were ill-conceived, or the fact that you're more likely to get attacked by a pit bull than by any other breed, or the fact that, since they were bred to fight, they're also much more capable of hurting you than most other dogs.
Yes they are stereotypes. I'm pretty well aware of what breeding does too. And yes I do acknowledge that's the general history of pit bulls, but they're certainly not unintelligent (That's difficult to measure anyway). "Poorly bred" doesn't really mean much since you didn't really specify what that means; whether they've been bred for the wrong reasons or they've been bred to a point where they are more prone to certain diseases, such as hip dysplasia (Which would include plenty of other breeds, such as GSD).

If you want to get into the likelihood of a pit bull attacking you, that's pretty sketchy as the statistics themselves are sketchy. Do you mean on the street? Is it just because they're such a common breed? Does it mean in the context of if you were to adopt a pit bull and another dog from the shelter, then the pit bull is more likely to turn on you? In terms of actual temperament, pit bulls do extremely well in that area and make pretty good pets; I wouldn't mind owning one myself. To use their breeding history, they're bred to be extremely obedient to people (Which is why they're considered to be such sweet dogs).

Now, dog aggression is where the pit bull has problems, as that's what they've been largely bred to do, but there are plenty of lines that have bred them to not be dog aggressive or at least. They are also extremely strong dogs, so they are capable of hurting you, but if you're an average dog owner with a pit bull instead of some gangster with one, I wouldn't feel very afraid around it. I definitely would keep an eye on it if it were around kid though, but that goes with any dog really.

Nor is there really anything you can say to make me not think they're just plain ugly as sin. Sorry, I know it's much easier to just dismiss something as a stereotype if you don't agree with it.
Yeah they're not the most attractive dog out there.

[Citizen]

but they're certainly not unintelligent (That's difficult to measure anyway).

Not really. There are commonly accepted levels of intelligence for most animals, which can be compared against other breeds or even other species. A pixie-bob cat, for example, is roughly as intelligent as a golden retriever.

"Poorly bred" doesn't really mean much since you didn't really specify what that means; whether they've been bred for the wrong reasons or they've been bred to a point where they are more prone to certain diseases, such as hip dysplasia (Which would include plenty of other breeds, such as GSD).

Breeding a dog to fight and get mangled by bulls is breeding them for the wrong reasons, in other words, poor breeding. Furthermore, when you breed two dogs together and the end result is an overly aggressive, fairly unintelligent dog, then continue breeding them in spite of that, that would be poor breeding. The breeders were concerned with nothing more than the pit bull's durability, ability to inflict damage, and aggression.

Do you mean on the street?

Anywhere, in general. You can find just as many instances of legitimate pet pit bulls attacking in a controlled environment as you can anywhere else.

Is it just because they're such a common breed?

It's not really an issue, since the more commons breeds attack less as well.

In terms of actual temperament, pit bulls do extremely well in that area and make pretty good pets; I wouldn't mind owning one myself. To use their breeding history, they're bred to be extremely obedient to people (Which is why they're considered to be such sweet dogs).

Correct. And also in terms of temperment, wether it was intended or not, they're also very territorial and often aggressive towards other animals and people other than their owners (which is why it's always the owners who think they're such sweet dogs).

They are also extremely strong dogs, so they are capable of hurting you, but if you're an average dog owner with a pit bull instead of some gangster with one, I wouldn't feel very afraid around it. I definitely would keep an eye on it if it were around kid though, but that goes with any dog really.

And in a room full of convicts, I'd attempt to stand behind one of the innocent ones. I already pointed out that there are perfectly fine pit bulls. Doesn't change the fact that they're still the most problematic breed around, thanks to both nature and nurture.

[MNJetter]

"Piracy" of digital content is not stealing because you cannot physically touch it. How are you suppose to touch a piece of music or data file?
That's a very narrow definition of stealing. You can steal time, money (in digital form no less), information, the spotlight, and heck, even someone's life. None of those things you can physically touch.

* * * * *

For those of you saying that you pirate only things that you can't afford, or only things that you don't think are worth spending money on....just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you have the right to get it free. There are no food stamps for entertainment media. And if it's not worth spending money on, why is it worth breaking the law for?

I won't pretend to be all high and mighty and free of guilt here. I downloaded a few things during my college years. And I'll still download things to preview for possible purchase, but I always erase them afterwards, whether or not I find it worth spending money on.

[SlickWilly440]

Piracy allows the people to get back at the big corporations and economic machines that have been mistreating our trust and loyalty for the longest of times.

[akitaka]

In an idealist sense maybe, but barely anyone with internet access could care less of morale when they just want to be entertained. As for trust and loyalty that's marketing for you; corporations and the like never make promises because they're simply fueled by consumption and cash flow. It's not a bad or good thing as it is a system made to keep the companies fat and happy, minus the happy, considering the RIAA's state of mind.

I'm even less worried now since I'm not anywhere close to what they consider to be an "egregious" offender.
Same here. 5000-6000 tracks (roughly 50-60 albums, or 2-3 gigs) probably means that they don't care a lot for music, either (unless they have photography memory and get bored after one freaking listen)...suing them would be kind of like suing someone claiming to be an artist doing nothing but copying other peoples work *WITHOUT* making any cash or fame from them i.e. beating a dead horse. Even less scarey is how you can obtain a lot of music without the use of active file-sharing applications; these days you can literally google albums, only to find a few crop up on megaupload or some-such.

[Citizen]

Piracy allows the people to get back at the big corporations and economic machines that have been mistreating our trust and loyalty for the longest of times.

How? They don't owe us anything. None of these bands have to let us listen to their music, and no one has to let us watch their movies or play their games. They make these things, then provide them to us as a product, in order to make a profit. It's a business, not a charity. Should a new CD really cost $15+? No. But should 20 oz of soda cost $1.50? Should a pair of Nikes cost $60? Should a little LED flashlight cost $20? No. Every big business makes several hundred or even several thousand percent profit on the things they sell. The entertainment industry is no different than any other industry on the planet, yet it's the one that the largest amount of people, by far, seem to feel it's acceptable to steal from.

And why? Conveiniece, instant gratification, and the fact that they're just as greedy and selfish as the people charging $15+ for the CD to begin with. So people make up excuses and attempt to justify it. "Well it's just so easy to do, you can't help it." "Everybody's doing it." "It's not really stealing, right?" "Well, they have enough money anyway." And suddenly it becomes an acceptable practice.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

That's a very narrow definition of stealing. You can steal time, money (in digital form no less), information, the spotlight, and heck, even someone's life. None of those things you can physically touch.
It's actually fairly close to reality:
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
The holding can be summed up as thus:
Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as stolen property for the purposes of a prosecution under a statute criminalizing the interstate transportation of such property.

Although the NET Act seems to conflict with this, which is odd.

[SlickWilly440]

Piracy allows the people to get back at the big corporations and economic machines that have been mistreating our trust and loyalty for the longest of times.

How? They don't owe us anything. None of these bands have to let us listen to their music, and no one has to let us watch their movies or play their games. They make these things, then provide them to us as a product, in order to make a profit. It's a business, not a charity. Should a new CD really cost $15+? No. But should 20 oz of soda cost $1.50? Should a pair of Nikes cost $60? Should a little LED flashlight cost $20? No. Every big business makes several hundred or even several thousand percent profit on the things they sell. The entertainment industry is no different than any other industry on the planet, yet it's the one that the largest amount of people, by far, seem to feel it's acceptable to steal from.

And why? Conveiniece, instant gratification, and the fact that they're just as greedy and selfish as the people charging $15+ for the CD to begin with. So people make up excuses and attempt to justify it. "Well it's just so easy to do, you can't help it." "Everybody's doing it." "It's not really stealing, right?" "Well, they have enough money anyway." And suddenly it becomes an acceptable practice.

Getting back as in Indirect Revenge for those corporations and the media making the American People addicted to entertainment, which in turn draws the attention away from education and other activities that could benefit society as a whole. There are corporations promoting teenage singers that purposely target the children of the middle class, which targets the money from their middle class parents to buy products that support the music corporations. The same corporations promoting musical artists that seem to live lavish lifestyles and dress/act in a manner that reinforces racial stereotypes, etc The minds of the young are exposed to this garbage and their perception of reality is corrupted......The points is TV, Media, etc are all used as a tool of entertainment and hardly as a tool to promote eduction and further draws the young mind away from eduction.

As a result you have all these young adults who don't really care about their eduction or long-term plans about their futures. Those people will be left behind while those who care about their eduction and future will go onto higher eduction such as college/university. Even then most of those who go don't really have a love/passion for what they are studying enough to pursue an even higher degree after graduation. On the other hand you see those international students who's country and culture promote education (especially in the field of sciences) or students of parents who pushed their children towards eduction pursue their graduate degrees and even higher degrees. Knowing this, it isn't really surprising that a lot of the professors teaching higher level college/university classes have an international background.

So piracy will hopefully carry out this "Indirect Revenge" of bring down these corporations and economic machines that have been mind screwing the people to seek forms of entertainment and as a results make the people more focused on education and other activities that can benefit society.

[Citizen]

Hahaha, oh wow.

[darighaz]

Holy shit that was amazing.

Not sure what kind of amazing, but yea.

BTW, When you listen to a song on the radio, and you tape it on a tape player, No one bitched for years. The legality was never in question. You could do whatever the hell you wanted to do with it.

How is sharing it on the net any different.

I dont recall signing an EULA when i buy a CD, that says i cant let my friends listen to it. And thats all that filesharing is basically. One person buys, gives to everyone else FREE.

Its like not being able to lend a friend a video game, or a book. Or tell someone a story.

The problem with calling it stealing, is that you're not taking it from someone without their permission. One person got it perfectly legitly, then GAVE IT AWAY TO OTHERS.

Bootleggin / selling copies of anything obtained this way? Yea thats wrong. You're profiting on other peoples work. But sharing amongst friends isn't illegal.

This sucks for the industry really bad. It kinda kills their buisness model. But its not illegal.

Much like the court case where the lady harrassed some chick online and other chick killed herself. Horrible and wrong, but wasn't (Read: shouldn't have been) illegal.

[SlickWilly440]

Hahaha, oh wow.

Thank you!

Holy shit that was amazing.

Not sure what kind of amazing, but yea.

Thank you!

BTW, When you listen to a song on the radio, and you tape it on a tape player, No one bitched for years. The legality was never in question. You could do whatever the hell you wanted to do with it.

How is sharing it on the net any different.

Its like not being able to lend a friend a video game, or a book. Or tell someone a story.

I believe the industry was not complaining because this type of "sharing" was not done on a huge scale to actually affect the industry's revenue. But thanks to the internet/computers, this "sharing" among millions of "friends" has exploded to epic proportions, enough to put a dent in the industry's revenue. So basically, "Potential Revenue" is lost. "We had the potential to make this amount of money, but thanks to online sharing we only have the potential to make this much money."

[darighaz]

Everyone made copies of things they heard on the radio.

The true difference is, Music back then didn't suck on the massive scale that it does now.

[MNJetter]

That's a very narrow definition of stealing. You can steal time, money (in digital form no less), information, the spotlight, and heck, even someone's life. None of those things you can physically touch.
It's actually fairly close to reality:

The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
etc.
Like I said, a very narrow definition of stealing. I wasn't talking about legal terms.

[Citizen]

BTW, When you listen to a song on the radio, and you tape it on a tape player, No one bitched for years. The legality was never in question. You could do whatever the hell you wanted to do with it.

How is sharing it on the net any different.

Legally, no, you couldn't do whatever you wanted with it. You could tape it and play it for yourself and others, yes, but if you got caught trying to sell it, broadcasting it over the radio without paying royalties (or simply over pirate radio), or distributing large amounts of mix tapes, you could be fined. It's just kinda hard (read: impossible) to track wether or not someone is recording something off of terrestrial radio. File sharing, on the other hand, can be tracked, and is also much more widespread since it's much easier to do.

That's how it's different.

I dont recall signing an EULA when i buy a CD, that says i cant let my friends listen to it. And thats all that filesharing is basically. One person buys, gives to everyone else FREE.
FBI Anti-Piracy Warning: Unauthorized copying is punishable under federal law.

Shared files are unauthorized copies. You don't need to sign a contract to not be punished for breaking the law.

Its like not being able to lend a friend a video game, or a book. Or tell someone a story.

Lending is not the same as giving away, and an original copy of something is not the same as a bootleg. Do you scribe up a copy of a book when you lend it?

One person got it perfectly legitly, then GAVE IT AWAY TO OTHERS.

Yes. Illegally.

This sucks for the industry really bad. It kinda kills their buisness model. But its not illegal.

Much like the court case where the lady harrassed some chick online and other chick killed herself. Horrible and wrong, but wasn't (Read: shouldn't have been) illegal.

Actually, both are illegal. Read up on cyberbullying and harrassment.

[SlickWilly440]

The RIAA and all companies who are fighting piracy should just accept the fact that the masses have control over their products and total elimination of piracy is futile. They can only keep on fighting and try to sway people to buy their products legally, but if there is a way there is a will to obtain it freely. It's like how crime and illegal drugs will never be totally abolished.

[Citizen]

By that logic, we should stop trying to prevent any/all forms of crime, because they will never be totally abolished.

[darighaz]

Actually in the case i was referencing, they had to go REALLY out of the way to find an applicable charge. They ended up charing with illegal use of myspaces page, and impersonating someone, because nothing else really applied.

Cyberbullying and harrasement didn't apply in the situation.

[SlickWilly440]

By that logic, we should stop trying to prevent any/all forms of crime, because they will never be totally abolished.

Exactly, they should only try to reduce any/all forms of crime, and not try to abolish it b/c that is practically impossible.

[Citizen]

Actually in the case i was referencing, they had to go REALLY out of the way to find an applicable charge. They ended up charing with illegal use of myspaces page, and impersonating someone, because nothing else really applied.

Cyberbullying and harrasement didn't apply in the situation.

Link to the case? I just assumed it involved a direct form of harassment, since you mentioned that one lady was harassing another. Sounds like a strange one.

Exactly, they should only try to reduce any/all forms of crime, and not try to abolish it b/c that is practically impossible.

I'm not really even sure how to respond to this. I think you may have broken my brain.

[SlickWilly440]

Link to the case? I just assumed it involved a direct form of harassment, since you mentioned that one lady was harassing another. Sounds like a strange one.

I think he is talking about that case where this older women posed as a teenage boy on myspace and tricked this other teenage girl in the same neighborhood to have an online relationship together. Then all of a sudden, the woman, using that fake myspace page, broke up with that girl, and she committed suicide.

I'm not really even sure how to respond to this. I think you may have broken my brain.

I'm just saying that they should set realistic goals, instead of setting goals that are practically impossible to achieve.

[Citizen]

I know what you're saying, it's just... kinda what they already do, broham. They would like to abolish crime, and they do their little "War on This and That" schtick, but no one really believes anything will be abolished. The main goal already is to simply reduce crime, as much as realism and the budget will allow.

But even with those boundaries, you still have to try and prevent as much as possible, or you simply won't be effective.

Hey, I guess I did know how to respond to it after all.

[darighaz]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-myspace19-2008may19,0,7075638.story

Kinda bizzare, But i agree that making fun of people online shouldn't be illegal. If the law is written the wrong way, and some poster on here killed themself, we'd all be liable.

[Roxie]

there's a difference between cyber bulling and just "making fun" of people online...like that mother who pretended to be a teenage boy myspace to get back at some girl her daughter had drama with.

[darighaz]

Yea its a fucked up situation.

I think everyone agrees that what happened there specifically should be illegal. I've just NO CLUE how you could word that law so as to not be retarded.

[japanat]

The RIAA and all companies who are fighting piracy should just accept the fact that the masses have control over their products and total elimination of piracy is futile. They can only keep on fighting and try to sway people to buy their products legally, but if there is a way there is a will to obtain it freely.Are you socialist, or what? Stop the revolutionary drivel a moment and think of it from an economic point of view!

These companies spend thousands of dollars recruiting new artists, putting them in recording studios, paying staff, back musicians, etc. Then they put 10s-100s of thousands into advertising, more if they run TV commercials. And you expect them to just eat the costs, because you and others like you don't care about the fact that what you're doing is just wrong and don't want to be assed to pay the $1.50/song.

What about your own pride? I don't steal because I think it degrades me to do so, not because "they won't catch me anyways".

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Like I said, a very narrow definition of stealing. I wasn't talking about legal terms.
Nevertheless though, he does have somewhat in a point in that it's a valid argument; maybe not in a game of semantics, but legally it is.
What about your own pride? I don't steal because I think it degrades me to do so, not because "they won't catch me anyways".

I think you're exaggerating a little bit. The argument of it being stealing is sketchy in the first place (Though I can certainly see where it comes from) but I certainly wouldn't say it degrades me. It might if I were one of the big egregious offenders and distributors of copyrighted music but my pride or anything isn't hurt by what I'm doing right now. It'd definitely be "degrading" me if I were selling it, too, but that's not really related to this.

[MNJetter]

Nevertheless though, he does have somewhat in a point in that it's a valid argument; maybe not in a game of semantics, but legally it is.

I know. And if he had told me "I was talking in legal terms, not general ones," I wouldn't have replied at all. Just wanted to make it clear that it hadn't been what I was talking about.

[amg]

I've never bought so much music as I have now that I can hear the songs through hype machine or myspace first.

I'd like to buy the single Tommy A worked on, but don't intend to until I can hear more than a 30 second clip.

[SlickWilly440]

Are you socialist, or what?
There is nothing wrong with socialism. It's just not popular because when looking back into history that type of government has not been successful. I'm sure if some country successfully carries out that type of government, more people/countries will be drawn to it.

And you expect them to just eat the costs, because you and others like you don't care about the fact that what you're doing is just wrong and don't want to be assed to pay the $1.50/song.
I never said I was doing what you are saying that I am doing.

What about your own pride?

Things like pride, dignity, integrity, etc has no meaning to me. They are just social mechanisms that restrain people from being truly free from mental/physical control, which I refuse to conform to.

[japanat]

Just a little too faux-bohemian for me. Like it or not, at least some common constraints are necessary to a functioning society.


No company is going to promote these artists if they don't think they can get a fair return on their investment. People can be altruistic, but companies almost never are.

[Charrington]

The music business (All the hangers on that exploit the artists is what I mean by music business) necessity with the widespread use of the internet.

One can record their own material, promote, distribute and sell it with an internet connection and a computer.

[MNJetter]

Yeah, but you'll never make a lot of money recording and promoting all your own stuff. Real customers want something of a quality that you can't get with your standard personal computer. Sure, you can make a catchy song that goes over well on youtube or your myspace account, but if it comes to getting it played on the radio or sold in stores, you can forget it.

[haterllnation]

Mushroomhead made more money being a DIY band than when they were with a label and they get radio play AND their stuff is in music stores...just saying. When you do it yourself and you do it right, you get the money. Labels are really only promotion machines.

I just needed to put that out there for those making music. Don't assume you need The Man to make it. It can help but you don't have to entirely rely.

Also, there are quite a few bands who got famous OVER Myspace and Youtube. If you can generate a big audience, you can generate money.