jbrooks544

Riaa are no charmers, but anyone who tries to defend theft sounds like an infiantile hypocrit to me. It is quite simple. If you illegally download music you are a thief. Don't try to justify it. If you get sued you probably deserve it. "yes" it is all about the money - so what? what isn't? Do you go to work everyday and expect to get paid? YES! How is owning rights to music any different? You don't have to like Riaa, I don't - but they are within their rights and it will probably work. The "regular" world of internet is about 2 - 3 years behind the porn side. The organizations that police copyright violations of porno pics cracked down on sites and people a while back. No different thatn riaa today. They won't get everyone, but they will do what they have to to try to protect their livelyhood.

QuasiMojo

None of this would have happened if....

Thousands and Thousands of people would have been able to pay a fair price for the Music That They Love.

__________________
AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

DownwardSpiral

So jbrooks554, it sounds like what you're saying is it's ok for the RIAA to target 12 year old girls who probably have no idea what the hell is so illegal about downloading music. Are you telling me you condone them sueing a 12 year old because she had music? Let me ask you, do you have any downloaded music on your computer? Or what if you were in the 12 year olds shoes and you were sued by the RIAA for something you probably didn't know was wrong, hmm? I'm looking forward to seeing your response now, enlighten me.

__________________
"So Keep on Pretending.
Our Heavens Worth the Waiting.
Keep on Pretending.
It's Alright."

-- H.I.M., "Pretending"

Mr. Spacemonkey

It's a sad fucking day when the stupid RIAA sues a 12 year old girl for downloading music, IMO. I will say that i think it's funny, but in a sad, sad, way.

__________________
"I hope that when the world comes to an end, I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to." -- Donnie Darko

digby

I shudder to think of the logical extension of this argument.

Of course it's about the money. What else would it be about? No one is arguing that the RIAA has taken the role of the moral police to teach us that stealing is bad. They are protecting their business intrests the same as any other company. They are just getting a bad rap because they're easy to pick on and this is a very widespread fight. Are they wrong in their methadology? Yes and no. Yes, because they are alienating the very customers the want to purchase their music. No, because they have no other (legal) recourse of action.

Is it wrong to sue a 12 year old? This question is irrelavant. The RIAA is suing her parents. This is just a straw man designed to win a weak argument using distractionary tactics to pull at our emotions. The ISP was the parents name. No one is suing children for downloading music. They are suing the parents responsible for the actions of their children.

I truly wish there is a better way, but I can't find it. I've been in discussions for 4 years now about how this would all come to a head, and here we have it. This beast is of our own creation. We are reaping what we have sown.

__________________
mmmm.... pudding

gloveshot3

The United States of America is a country which was born out of the idea that unjust and unfair laws should be challanged by the people of the land. If the avenues of the legal system protect unfair and unjust laws, the citizens have the right to pool their resources to have these laws overturned in manners outside of the courtroom. But this is a two-edged sword, because it also gives those who back unfair and unjust laws the same right to defend these laws, and as long as these laws are on the books, the courts will back them.
The methods for overturning laws start at the ballot-box, but also include using ones power of speech, free assembly, and of course civil disobeitience(sp?). I veiw the sharing of downloads a an act of CDO.

fuzzix

For me, the issue isn't about whether or not we have a right to share this music - but I'd have to agree with you, we don't really. That doesn't affect me, I don't listen to any of the RIAA's pap anyway so I couldn't care if the files are available to me or not. What I DO care about however is the well-being of the music industry, and let's face it - the RIAA are fuckers who milk people for all their worth, chew them up, spit them out and blow the earnings on hookers and imported cars. The RIAA don't actually have any use at all, most of their artists are filth - manufactured pop, and those who aren't would be far better off without them if they'd just open their eyes. Filesharing is a way to bring down these criminals, and it's working good, so keep it up. The way I see it, any artist who sticks with the RIAA is doomed, I couldn't care about them, times are changing.

__________________
I'm most definately not 'lovin' it'.

digby

This is the only argument I've ever heard that I can give any real credence to. In part I argee with you, but I can't justify stealing from artists whose music I enjoy to take potshots at an industry that won't really feel as much as they would a flea bite.

First you would be suprised about how much of what you listen to is in some way touched by the RIAA. Any label with more than two artists and a distribution area larger than their backyard will be registered with the RIAA. When we think of the RIAA we think of the megalabel conglomerates like Sony, Universal, AOLTW, etc. but that's not the only group with a RIAA membership card. Even the small indie labels are registered because that's just the way everyone does things. Every CD you own has an ISRC code implanted in the first two minutes of the cd. Part of this code is to point to the original owner (label) and can only be given by the RIAA. And my final point, artists have nothing to do with the RIAA because they are a trade orginazation of labels, not artists. If an artist wants to make enough money to feed his family, he is going to sign with a big label given the chance because they have the ability to pay more and put his stuff out in a bigger market which leads to more units sold, etc.

__________________
mmmm.... pudding

jbrooks544

DownwardSpiral

You can't sue a 12 year old. The parents will have to answer for it. This 12 year old issue is just silly. You are saying that some laws are ok to break because you are 12? Can you give me a list of laws that your are exempt from just because you are 12? What if she was stealing bubble gum? Is that ok b/c she is 12?
I'm no fan of riaa - I think their strategies are "defensive" and these strategies don't usually succeed in business - I know this. But they are well within their rights and they will have some measure of sucess, much as the pornographers had some success suing copyright violators - I know this as fact.
You need to give me one single reason why it is ok for you, or anyone else to steal other's property - a real reason - not just the lame, infantile gibberish I hear from you and others. Don't say "umm, well, everyone does it so it should be ok and it isn't bad mmkay?". dumb, dumb dumb. dumb bunnies you are!
If you don't like the laws then change them and stop your whining and your illegal behavior.
I hope you publish something someday or sell photos or art, and I hope you have someone illegally use your stuff without permission or paying for it. Then you shouldn't sue them and you should not have any income and then you work for free and your kids go hungry. This is the real world. You can't just choose the laws that you think are good and expect to not pay the consequences for breaking the others.

TIO

To be honest, no. The CD is the only medium that music is sold on (save for a few copies on vinyl or tape), but the movie has a run in the cinemas. I'm not sure of the figures, but I'd say that's where the majority of a movie's takings are. The DVD is just scraping up the extra dollars after the cinema run. There aren't a lot of production costs in the DVD; you throw in a few behind-the-scenes and cutting room floor tracks, which already existed anyway, and spend a half-hour writing a few biography tracks on the actors, and then you ship it off. Easy. With the CD, the songs are written, the studio is booked, the mastering is performed exclusively to make the CD.

Like jbrooks said, it's the parents who are getting sued. But either way, are you saying 12-year-olds are above the law? A 12-year-old can shoot someone because they saw it on TV and didn't know it was illegal?
And in this case, the mother needs to take a fair bit of the blame. She obviously knew that her kid was downloading music, and should have known that that is illegal. If it were my kid, I would've sat down and explained to her that what she was doing was illegal, and that she should stop. Just like I would if she were in the habit of stealing bubblegum or throwing rocks at passing cars.

__________________
Strewth

TIO

Sorry...I should clarify. We all have a right to music. It would be a tyrranical government which prevented any one of us from performing music. We have the right to make music, and we have the right to listen to music when the artist has given us the right to listen to it.
What we don't have the right to, is ownership of Metallica's latest album, for free. We don't have the right to own specific music. Artists have the right, when they create music, to demand that people pay to hear it, whether that means charging for a CD or charging at the door of a concert. And of they charge too high a price, then let them know they are charging too much by not buying the CD. But you don't have the right to own that track in some form without paying what the artist is asking for it.

If there is a label between you and the artist, or if that label is screwing the artist out of their money, that is between the artist and the label.

__________________
Strewth

meff

Agreed. I got APC's new album and most songs totally rock, it's one CD I will be buying for sure.

__________________
Toy-like people make me boy-like.

ARTelevision

there's a certain inevitability to all this.
both sides will continue to pursue their own aims and ends.
technology eventually unleashes every genie in every bottle to roam free and wreak its own mischief for good and for ill...

__________________
create evolution

TIO

By your argument, ARTele, it's also inevitable that child pornography will spread across the internet. Should we also not prosecute people who share child pornography?

__________________
Strewth

wry1

TIO, I hate to break it to you, but not "all" record stores have listening posts - and even those that do don't always have the CD you want set up in the listening area. Try to get some snot-nosed high school employee to go out of their way to load one up for you sometime....it'll be an education, I'm sure.

As for the inferior product being pushed on the public by the RIAA, I agree with everyone who has stated the obvious: that the record companies could give a rat's-ass about our wants and that the only thing that matters is $$.

I don't know about you, but I find it highly suspect that it took Apple - a company which as far as I know doesn't have a single recording artist under management - to implement a per-song process which actually makes sense. When Napster suggested it, the record industry scoffed and stonewalled. When BMI announced they were planning a per-song downloading program, the industry was even more hesitant to take a stand other than "not gonna' work..."

But when Apple just went ahead and did it...and it worked...now everybody is scrambling to join in.

I don't download. I've never found it necessary as my friends and I - between us - have most of the songs I'm interested in listening to. So if I'm out with my pals, we're assured of a good musical selection just from the tunes we bring along. However, I for one can completely sympathize with some college kid who cannot fork out $20 continuously for the opportunity to get that song or two that they actually like - while having to suffer through the 10 or so songs that they'd rather puncture their eardrums than listen to.

In Wall Street Gordon Gekko said, "Greed is good."

Bullshit.

Apple actually went with what the customer wants. What's so hard about that? Keep in mind that these record companies spend millions annually to test-market, using focus groups and other test beds to gather the public's input on a variety of artists; would it really have been so difficult to use these mechanisms to gather some insight into this matter?

The RIAA has nobody to blame for this mess but themselves. If they had been more interested in maintaining and/or growing their customer base, then Napster, Gnutella, KaZaa and the other file-sharing systems would not have been such a disaster to them. Their stubborn refusal to see the flaws in their marketing process has created a subculture where the RIAA - and the lawmakers who toady to their lobbyists - is now "the enemy".

You doubt that last part? Take for example the case of the 70-something man who is being sued by the RIAA because his 12 year-old granddaughter downloaded music when she came to visit him. I'll grant you that this took place over quite an extended period of time, but still: there is a definite need for some restraint and insight on the part of the RIAA. That said, there is also a need for parents to teach their children right from wrong, and that entails dealing with issues such as this one.

It's a morass of pro's and con's. I for one refuse to wholeheartedly support the RIAA. They have their rights (bought and paid for, I assure you!) and so do those they would persecute - people who either cannot afford to shell out Money for Nothing or people who are tired of the pablum packaged around a decent song or two.

Would it make it any better if people just refused to buy any CDs? Bankruptcy is not an attractive alternative - if any of you RIAA Nazis are reading this......

......Think about it.

TIO

First off, the word you're looking for is prosecute. As in, "The people are being prosecuted because they broke the law."

The people who can't afford music do have their rights. But those rights don't include the right to music, any more than someone who cannot afford a ticket to the movies has a right to see Bad Boys 2 or someone who cannot afford a ferrarri has a right to own one of them either.

Yeah, if people voted with their wallets and stopped buying CDs, it would make a difference. Maybe then the RIAA would start up something like iTunes then, and I'd love to see it. But as long as people are illegally sharing music, it seems to me that the RIAA has a pretty secure stream of income through the courts.

And just for the record, I am a college kid who can't afford to fork out $20 for a CD. Even the good ones. So I listen to the radio or listen to the few CDs I do own. Sure, it's not as good as being able to listen to what I want, when I want, but then again, my $100 suit isn't as nice as a $1000 Armani. I have to live with what I can afford.

__________________
Strewth

wry1

TIO, I chose the right word....persecute. The RIAA is issuing subpoenas and requiring ISPs to divulge confidential information based upon the supposition that there just might be an infringement. No actual proof is required on the part of the RIAA, and therefore.....

IT IS PERSECUTION

By issuing its subpoenas, the RIAA is able to compile information which it may have no intention of using in criminal proceedings in the present or immediate future. Even the U.S. Government is not legally allowed such latitude! So please tell me how this is not a form of persecution, when your personal information - I dare say even your identity - is given up to a group of individuals who may use it at some undetermined point down the road in a manner which does not have your best interests at heart.

.....Better yet, why don't you write down all the pertinent facts of your life - Name, Date of Birth, Social Security # (if you're in the U.S.), Credit Card number, address, telephone number, etc. - and send it to the RIAA. Give them a hand in their endeavor.

The film industry tried the same strong-arm tactic in the past when it filed a lawsuit against Sony over VHS's ability to allow consumers to duplicate their product, and the courts (wisely) came back on the side of the consumer. I guess with some better lobbying, it wouldn't have turned out that way back then, huh?

What you seem to have overlooked is that I would be perfectly within my rights if I were to buy the CD, make a copy, loan it to a friend (either the original or the copy - it makes no difference) and let them enjoy it. From the standpoint of the law, I've done nothing wrong. From the RIAA's viewpoint, however, I'm about two steps shy of Crimes Against Humanity. After all, I just shared a copyrighted product, and the end-user didn't pay for the creative product he or she is now enjoying.

And just for the record: I'm no longer a college-age kid, and yes - I can afford the CDs. I opt to buy only those works with enough songs I like to justify the cost of the entire CD; I don't download, simply because it's not my style.....and I don't currently own a Mac.....but I won't condemn those who do download.

Especially when the alternative is more of the same garbage we've been spoon-fed for so long.

So go to eBay, buy yourself a Mac, and start downloading through Apple's service. At 99-cents a title, it's a great value (and a hell of a lot cheaper than what the RIAA would demand of you).

Stud

[quote]per·se·cuteûr s -ky t )
tr.v. ·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

How are these people being oppressed? Harassed? Bothered?

The fact is what the RIAA is doing IS legal. If this girl or someone in here family was downloading and distributing music it was not legal. You do not even address the specific but paint everyone with a broad brush of innocence.
You are saying that the U.S. Government is not able to compile evidence against a person or persons and then decide if there is enough information to prosecute or even if prosecution is warranted? WOW! Their prosecution rate must be 100%!
I dare say (You say it so much I think I'm starting to like it, I dare say! ) the person is not being persecuted just because their personal information is being gathered, especially if they are committing a crime!

As for whether they have the persons best interest at heart I do not read minds, and I assume you do not either, so stop lying.
What? That is idiotic! In the US a party is allowed to gather information to prosecute an alleged crime. The persons Name, date of birth and SSN are public information already anyway.
Blah, blah, blah….
So the RIAA is illegally using the laws to illegally prosecute people. I see…

wry1

Yes, Stud. A party is allowed to gather information so long as the intent is there to either prosecute in a criminal action or to bring the matter before a civil court for trial. However, the RIAA has already stated that they will not be litigating in every case.....yet they still gather the data in every case.

I could understand if the RIAA had to gather this information in order to determine the scope of copyright infringement on the part of an individual, but this can be determined by utilizing the user IDs or the ISP's terminal location information. So why would the RIAA need to compile data for people who don't fall into the criteria they've claimed to be using?

You work for those naughty little Nazi bastards, don't you?

And by the way, a SSN is something which is required to be given only to the IRS, to your banking institutions, and to your employer. I don't know where you got the idea that it's public domain, but it's also a Federal Crime for any of those recipients to divulge it without the permission of the SSN-holder. That's why when you apply for a credit card or a checking/savings account, they ask you to sign that little piece of paper which allows your SSN to be shared with credit reporting agencies and other portions of their financial enterprise.

Get a clue, Gomer. What part of "....to annoy persistently; bother." would not be accurately described by finding out from your ISP that you're being listed, researched, and potentially sued? Yes, the RIAA is not breaking the law with their actions....they sure as hell paid enough for that law to be written and enacted in Congress! Two years ago this would not have even been possible, and yes - they would have been breaking the law as it stood back then.

I for one have a hard time accepting that pre-teen children are capable of being fully cognizant of the ramifications their actions have, and as a result prosecuting them for infractions like this is asinine. But please, Stud....tell me how this is a just course of action: how can punishing someone who is not yet mature enough (or with enough life experience) to know the potential risks of their actions be anything other than diligence run amok?

Tell you what: you review your own life and the actions you've taken during it. If you haven't broken a single law (and jaywalking is included), then feel free to stand on your little soapbox and chide those of us who actually go out there and live in the real world. I will welcome your smug rebuttals with open arms and a smile on my face.

However, if you are like the multitudes out there who have broken a law or two, then by all means voice your opinions (I know I sure do, that's for sure!) but remember that scoffing at others is something which you're not really suited for, as you're pretty much in the same boat as everybody else.

Jesus Pimp

The next CNN headline... "The rich get richer, and tools who serve them"

__________________
Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

iamjero

I do think that the RIAA is getting ripped off, but its kinda hard to feel sorry for them beacuse of all the musicians they have been ripping off for so long. Not to mention how they have been ripping off you and me. The music industry is out of control and they need to be stopped. How many small bands have been shut out beacuse they didnt fit into the pop culture that the industry has created? How much good music has been kept off the radio beacuse Britney Spears and The Backstreet Boys have a monopoly on radio time? I have spent a small fortune on CDs and cassetts in the past, pre-Napster, and I have been ripped off for long enough.
The RIAA is a corporate giant and the only way to stop them from pillaging and raping the "little guy" is by sheer numbers. We are 60 million strong and the RIAA knows it. This is why they are resorting to lawsuits against children, the elderly, and students.
The internet is a powerful tool and the 60 million people using it to speak up against unfair monopolies is a beautiful thing. Its not often normal people have a chance to defeat something as powerful as the RIAA.

I would rather donate to help pay for peoples fines for sharing music online than to pay even 50 cents to the RIAA for 100 songs. Its a matter of principle.

__________________
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"

- Joseph Stalin

hobo

The RIAA already pays a lot of people to defend them. They don't need more defense.

Stud

How would they know what cases would be worth pursuing if they do not have the information?

Also you conveniently side stepped my other question that is are prosecutors obligated to prosecute EVERY case they gather information on? Why not?
Because they can. If it is illegal then you should complain to the local authorities.
See this is where you lose all credibility. No, I do not. I just do not think it is a good practice to start ripping people off because you:

A. Really want the product so you create some small justification to do so.
B. The person is not likeable. That reminds me of what happened in a little country called Germany around 1938-45. Also in the United States public opinion was used to create laws to steal from those dreaded Japanese Americans, or just "Japs" to racist b@stards like you, and steal property and items from them.
Do you know that the RIAA is seeking SSN numbers from ISP's? Hahaha!
You mean we should never prosecute criminals because it may "...annoy persistently; bother." The poor innocent child molester, rapist, murderer? Great move Einstein!
Intellectual property is a hard thing to understand. But when people's life's work is in the intellectual property realm it can mean their livelihood and the choice between producing music, movies, new medicines, computer programs, books…etc.

Justifying the theft of the intellectual property will be profitable to you in the short term. In the long term it will inhibit development and eventually hurt EVERY ONE.

But selfish people like you do not have to worry about that do they?
Well lucky for us they did not develop a time machine and go go back two years to do this!
Again, the girl will not be prosecuted. The parents will be. Do you even know if the girl was the one downloading the music or if the adults are making her a stooge?

I think you think this justifies your theft, so you WANT to believe it, but you do not know all of the facts.
Well if that was not happening I MAY agree with you.

But we do not know if it was the 11 year old girl, we do not know that she did not know what she was doing was wrong, we do not know why she, while living on the taxpayers dime, was not being supervised by her parents IF she was the actual one doing it.
I live in the real world. I may speed every once in a while but I DO NOT STEAL. And if I get caught speeding I don’t cry "But I'm only 22 years old!!" Stupidity at its best…
No, that is not true at all. In your immature mind you have just rationalized, murder, rape, torture, child molesting and a whole host of other crimes. If I get caught for speeding I pay for it, as this girls parents should pay for their crime.

Stud

I hear your words and see your pretty little face standing next to an oven as to huge German guards shove "one of those rich jews" (You know all jews were rich in Germany because they were ripping off good Geramans ) who happens to be a woman, and happens to pregnant, down on the ground so the dog you are holding can eat out the fetus.

She deserves it you know!

asshopo

Well, again, my last post summed it up quite nicely. I won't be buying the cd anyways, so they don't LOOSE money because of me downloading it.

Plain and simple. Stealing or not, oh well, but they aren't going to loose a meal over me downloading it.

CyN1caL

All excellent points on both sides. I enjoy reading it all

DownwardSpiral

This thread should be renamed 'RIAA supporters unite!' because that's all most of you are doing, is supporting and defending a company of already rich bastards who are pissed because we are ripping off of them what they probably ripped off the actual artists in the first place. If they wanted us to stop downloading that badly, they would be doing anything they could to make the people happy to buy their music. They think that overpricing music is ok because they thought we had no other option but to buy from them, thus they get richer and we get ripped off. So finally some people get annoyed and create programs to download and share music. My question to you all that compare the RIAA issues to things like child porn, rape, 12 year olds shootnig people and the such is how the hell can you compare compyright infringement to murder, rape, molestation and everything else? These crimes are a lot worse than a damn copyright law. The RIAA issues don't even compare to murder and things, so don't compare this to those crimes.

__________________
"So Keep on Pretending.
Our Heavens Worth the Waiting.
Keep on Pretending.
It's Alright."

-- H.I.M., "Pretending"