This could have an Interesting outcome(RIAA) - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Slyboots · 10-03-2005, 10:29 AM

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...back-sues.html

Quote:

ATLANTIC V. ANDERSEN

This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for. Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.

Ms. Andersen's counterclaims demand a trial by jury.

Ms. Andersen made the following allegations, among others:

1. For a number of years, a group of large, multinational, multi-billion dollar record companies, including these plaintiffs, have been abusing the federal court judicial
system for the purpose of waging a public relations and public threat campaign targeting digital file sharing activities. As part of this campaign, these record companies retained MediaSentry to invade private home computers and collect personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly filed lawsuits against more than 13,500 anonymous “John Does.”

2. The anonymous “John Doe” lawsuits are filed for the sole purpose of information farming and specifically to harvest personal internet protocol addresses from internet service providers.

3. After an individual’s personal information is harvested, it is given to the record companies’ representatives and the anonymous “John Doe” information farming suits are then typically dismissed.

4. The record companies provide the personal information to Settlement Support Center, which engages in prohibited and deceptive debt collection activities and other illegal conduct to extract money from the people allegedly identified from the secret lawsuits. Most of the people subjected to these secret suits do not learn that they have been “sued” until demand is made for payment by the record companies’ lawyers or Settlement Support Center.....

5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security.

6. Ms. Andersen has never downloaded or distributed music online. She has not infringed on any of plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted interest.....

7. Ms. Andersen has, however, been the victim of the record companies’ public threat campaign. The threats started when the record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had been an “unnamed” defendant who was being sued in federal court in the District of Columbia. She was never named in that lawsuit and never received service of a summons and complaint.

8. Neither did Ms. Andersen receive any timely notice that the suit even existed. That anonymous suit was filed in mid-2004. Ms. Andersen first learned that she was being “sued” when she received a letter dated February 2, 2005, from the Los Angeles, California, law firm Mitchell Silverberg & Knupp, LLP. The LA firm falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had downloaded music, infringed undisclosed copyrights and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Andersen was understandably shocked, fearful, and upset. ....

9. After receiving the February 2, 2005 letter, Ms. Andersen contacted the record companies’ “representative,” which turned out to be Settlement Support Center, LLC. This company was formed by the record companies for the sole purpose of coercing payments from people who had been identified as targets in the anonymous information farming suits. Settlement Support Center is a Washington State phone solicitation company which engages in debt collection activities across the country.

10. When Ms. Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies’ agents, MediaSentry.

11. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had “been viewed” by MediaSentry downloading “gangster rap” music at 4:24 a.m. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had used the login name “gotenkito@kazaa.com.” Ms. Andersen does not like “gangster rap,” does not recognize the name “gotenkito,” is not awake at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.

12. Settlement Support Center threatened that if Ms. Andersen did not immediately pay them, the record companies would bring an expensive and disruptive federal lawsuit using her actual name and they would get a judgment for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

13. Ms. Andersen explained to Settlement Support Center that she had never downloaded music, she had no interest in “gangster rap,” and that she had no idea who “gotenkito” was.

14. Ms. Andersen wrote Settlement Support Center and even asked it to inspect her computer to prove that the claims made against her were false.

15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

16. Instead of investigating, the record company plaintiffs filed suit this against Ms. Andersen. F. The Record Companies have no Proof of Infringement.

17. Despite making false representations to Ms. Andersen that they had evidence of infringement .... plaintiffs knew that they had no factual support for their claims.

18. No downloading or distribution activity was ever actually observed. None ever occurred. Regardless, the record companies actively continued their coercive and deceptive debt collection actions against her. Ms. Andersen was falsely, recklessly, shamefully, and publicly accused of illegal activities in which she was never involved.

Ms. Andersen further alleged:

20. Entering a person’s personal computer without their authorization to snoop around, steal information, or remove files is a violation of the common law prohibition against trespass to chattels.

21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen’s personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen’s permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.

22. According to the record companies, the agent, Settlement Support Center used the stolen private information allegedly removed from her home computer in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Anderson into paying thousands of dollars. ....

Under the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) it is illegal to break into another person’s private computer to spy, steal or remove private information, damage property, or cause other harm.

26. Ms. Andersen regularly used her personal computer to communicate with friends and family across the country and for interstate e-commerce. Ms. Andersen had password protection and security in place to protect her computer and personal files from access by others.

27. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to bypass Ms. Andersen’s computer security systems and break into her personal computer to secretly spy and steal or remove private information. MediaSentry did not have her permission to inspect, copy, or remove her private computer files. It gained access secretly and illegally.

28. According to the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, used this stolen private information in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Andersen into paying thousands of dollars. ....

31. According to the record companies, Ms. Andersen’s personal computer was invaded by MediaSentry after she was identified with a nine digit code (an Internet Protocol Address (“IPA”)) obtained from the anonymous information farming lawsuits. MediaSentry did not have permission to inspect Ms. Andersen’s private computer files. It gained access only by illegal acts of subterfuge.

32. The record companies’ agent has falsely represented that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment associated with plaintiffs’ claims and public relations campaign.

33. The record companies have used this derogatory, harmful information to recklessly and shamefully publicly accuse Ms. Andersen of illegal activities without even taking the opportunity offered by Ms. Andersen to inspect her computer. .....

36. Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

37. The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment.....

40. The record companies knowingly represented materially false information to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to extort money from her.

41. For example, between February and March 2005, the record companies, through their collection agent Settlement Support Center, falsely claimed that they had proof that Ms. Andersen’s IPA had been “viewed” downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files for which it sought to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars. This statement was materially false. Ms. Andersen never downloaded or distributed any audio files nor did the record companies or any of their agents ever observe any such activity associated with her personal home computer.....

49. Despite having never observed any downloading or distribution associated with Ms. Andersen’s personal home computer and despite refusing Ms. Andersen’s offer to allow an inspection of her own computer, the record companies wrongfully continued their improper debt collection activities against her.....

50. The record companies pursued debt collection activities for the inappropriate purpose of illegally threatening Ms. Andersen and many thousands of others. This tortious abuse was motivated by and was a central part of a public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

51. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit the debt collection activity against her because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

52. The record companies were aware of Ms. Andersen’s disabilities and her serious health issues. Settlement Support Center knew that its conduct would cause extreme distress in Ms. Andersen. As a result of defendant’s conduct, Ms. Andersen suffered severe physical and emotional distress and health problems.

53. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages, including harm to Ms. Andersen’s health and property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial......

55. Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act prohibits those in trade or commerce from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in the course of business with consumers. ORS 646.605 et seq.

56. The record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, is a company doing business in Washington which was established to engage in debt collection activities in manystates, including Washington and Oregon.

57. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent made false and deceptive statements to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to mislead, threaten, and coerce her into paying thousands of dollars.

58. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent has made similar false and deceptive statements to many other residents of Washington and Oregon, and across the country. The public interest has been and continues to be directly impacted by plaintiffs’ deceptive practices.

59. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages and harm to Ms. Andersen and her property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial. ....

61. The Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act prohibits companies from engaging in organized racketeering or criminal activities. ORS 166.715 et seq.

62. As fully set forth above, the record companies hired MediaSentry to break into private computers to spy, view files, remove information, and copy images. The record companies received and transmitted the information and images to Settlement Support Center. As the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center then falsely claimed that the stolen information and images showed Ms. Andersen’s downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files. The record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Anderson owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to coerce and extort payment from her.

63. The record companies directed its agents to unlawfully break into private computers and engage in extreme acts of unlawful coercion, extortion, fraud, and other criminal conduct.

64. The record companies and their agents stood to financially benefit from these deceptive and unlawful acts. Proceeds from these activities are used to fund the operation of the record companies’ continued public threat campaigns.

65. These unlawful activities were not isolated. The record companies have repeated these unlawful and deceptive actions with many other victims throughout the United States.

martinguerre · 10-03-2005, 10:40 AM

nice to see some lovely folks hanging themselves by their own neckties. whatever one thinks of file sharing, trawling for cases like this isn't what the courts were made for.

Destrox · 10-03-2005, 10:44 AM

Wow this is going to be really cool to see how this plays out. Keep us updated!

Glory's Sun · 10-03-2005, 10:49 AM

man I hope the RIAA chokes on this. It's doubtful though. They are pretty powerful.

alansmithee · 10-03-2005, 10:53 AM

This case is interesting, but I doubt it will get too far. As was said before, the RIAA is a pretty powerful force, and they know how to work the system. But hopefully this will at least scare them into cutting down the scare tactics (going after them under the RICO statute could end up being big).

Ustwo · 10-03-2005, 11:04 AM

I don't understand why people get so worked up by the RIAA. If you weren't stealing music you wouldn't give a shit. If you don't like the price of something, you don't steal it, you just don't buy it. Music is not a staple of life.

Glory's Sun · 10-03-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't understand why people get so worked up by the RIAA. If you weren't stealing music you wouldn't give a shit. If you don't like the price of something, you don't steal it, you just don't buy it. Music is not a staple of life.

Music <b>IS</b> a staple of life for some of us.

denim · 10-03-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't understand why people get so worked up by the RIAA. If you weren't stealing music you wouldn't give a shit. If you don't like the price of something, you don't steal it, you just don't buy it. Music is not a staple of life.

What has that got to do with this thread?

I don't steal music, and I give a serious shit about this kind of thing. If you can't see what the implications of the RIAAs behavoir is, the best thing you can do is be silent, or ask questions.

Ustwo · 10-03-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denim

What has that got to do with this thread?

I don't steal music, and I give a serious shit about this kind of thing. If you can't see what the implications of the RIAAs behavoir is, the best thing you can do is be silent, or ask questions.

Oddly it always comes down to stealing music.

The RIAA is trying to protect its own from under conditions of inadequate laws. So someone is saying they didn't do it, and prison is full of innocent people, just ask them.

I love seeing this

5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security.

As it really has nothing to do with the merits of the case and has been invoked (repeatedly) to garner sympathy.

15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

Nothing says proof of conspiracy like an unnamed employee.

I could go on, but its just a counter suite, nothing to see here.

raveneye · 10-03-2005, 12:36 PM

Well that's pretty amazing, I never would have thought the RIAA would stoop so low as to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse act in order to prosecute teenagers for copyright infringement.

Assuming the allegations are true, then I would say RIAA is more a danger to society than said teenagers.

Yakk · 10-03-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't understand why people get so worked up by the RIAA. If you weren't stealing music you wouldn't give a shit. If you don't like the price of something, you don't steal it, you just don't buy it. Music is not a staple of life.

I dislike the time-unlimited unlimited monopolies over ideas. The ownership of thought and culture is an evil. Only when restricted to a tiny force can this evil be balanced by the good of encouraging creativity.

As for your claim, to the limits of my recollection, I have never installed or used any peer-to-peer "music sharing" applications. Well, BitTorrent, but I haven't downloaded music using it (Bittorrent was useful to get RvB episodes).

I disagree with copyright lasting an unlimited period of time. The current US government has decided to make a mockery of the "limited times" clause of the constitutional basis of copyright by retroactively extending it by 20 years every 20 years (like clockwork!) at the behest of Disney and other media monopolists.

A limited time, use-neutral monopoly on the right of redistribution of created content is reasonable. The current copyright model, and professed by the RIAA, is an unlimited time unlimited monopoly power over all uses.

And that is why I dislike the RIAA. I'm happy you believe you know why I dislike the RIAA. You happen to be wrong.

Quote:

If you weren't stealing music you wouldn't give a shit.

If I am not stealing music and I do give a shit, then you are wrong.

rockogre · 10-03-2005, 01:12 PM

Damn skippy!!! May they and all organizations like them go down in flames. I could care less about the RIAA as such, but their methods belong to old time Russia, and very possibly the US of A at times.

I hope her lawyers are able to nail them to the wall.

FoolThemAll · 10-03-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

The ownership of thought and culture is an evil.

I disagree with copyright lasting an unlimited period of time.

Why and why? I'd be interested in some elaboration here.

Pragma · 10-03-2005, 04:41 PM

The tech points are a little shaky - though assuming she doesn't settle out of court instantly for money (as it looks like the entire point of the lawsuit is money, given the repeated references to her disability and social security income), I think that the RIAA may get in some minor hot water. However, the lawsuit should have been pointed at whoever ran the MediaSentry program, as they're the ones apparently doing electronic B&E.

I don't think that the lawyers should try to hang the case around the "anonymous" employee at the collection agency, as that seems pretty suspicious. I'm interested in hearing how this case continues, though - please post updates as they come.

Jinn · 10-03-2005, 04:50 PM

EDIT: Nevermind, I can't be mature.. too angry..

n0nsensical · 10-05-2005, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Why and why? I'd be interested in some elaboration here.

Cause the Constitution says so, that's a good enough reason for me.

But seriously, the depth of the public domain is important for the advancement of culture. All of human history has involved making new and better things out of old things, and unlimited term copyright makes it illegal to ever make new and better creative works out of old creative works. Little has been added to OUR public domain in years and little will be for years further because Congress feels a moral obligation to protect corporate profits.

For some reason I can't explain, the courts are happy to hammer new powers and rights out of the Constitution all the time while also condoning Congress's de facto unlimited term copyright that is a blatant end-run around the same. Stevens and Breyer were the only Supreme Court justices on our side in Eldred v. Ashcroft, and I can only hope the new ones will join to do the people more justice.

Ustwo · 10-05-2005, 08:32 AM

Music is the least of the arts to survive for the ages. We have works of art 10's of thousands of years old, but do not know what music was like only a few hundred years ago. We can guess, we can make the instruments as best we can and see what they COULD have listened to but that’s a far cry from knowing. End result is music is the least important and most transient art form. Only in the last 100 years has music had any permanency, but even then its quite fragile and I doubt in another 10000 years anyone will have a clue of the music of the twenty first century.

Jinn · 10-05-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

End result is music is the least important and most transient art form. Only in the last 100 years has music had any permanency, but even then its quite fragile and I doubt in another 10000 years anyone will have a clue of the music of the twenty first century.

I do not believe you can extend this correlation into the future. The difference is that art has always had a permanent/semi-permanent medium to transfer with. Canvas and other mediums used by "traditional" arts have always had a very easy time aging well, simply because the mediums themselves provided for it. Music has not (until recently) had quality mediums capable of aging well. Since it was a sound, you had to have a way of transferring it from a wave to a permanent state. Records were the first step in this progress, followed by CDs. DIGITAL Music IS the medium of the future. It is very portable, reproducable, and copyable. I have full confidence that in 1,000 years we'll still be able to hear music from this century.

Yakk · 10-05-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Why and why? I'd be interested in some elaboration here.

Because I refuse to give someone else unlimited ownership of my thoughts.

Once you express an idea, it is in the mind of all who listen to it.

You have the natural right to not express an idea, and retain your monopoly over it. Your choice to express an idea gives you no natural right to control what I do with your expression once you express it.

In order to encourage expression of unique, creative and useful ideas, intellectual monopolies that are highly restricted may be justified. But do not lose track of the fact we are relegating everyone else's ability to express ideas -- the harm caused by intellectual monopolies is real, so such monopolies should be restricted.

More practically, the run-away infinite-duration copyright problem has resulted in a culture where the very fabric of the culture is in private hands. Patent and Copyright law both encourages and stifles creativity. Culture is not created in a vacuum, and technical progress rests on the shoulders of the giants who came before. As the field of ideas you can use to create from gains a less clear, more tangled, and more universal private ownership, the act of creation is more and more likely to rely upon permission from a behemoth rather than actual creativity.

The RIAA and related industry lobbiests are seeking to extend intellectual monopoly law from it's current all-time-high to even more suffocating extents.

I'm personally willing to give up the right to republish without renumeration for limited times. Not every right of use for unlimited times.

The majority of the profits reaped from intellectual monopolies lie in the first decade. The infinite extension, backdated to steamboat willy, benefits the behemoths who own the 20th century's cultural fabric. They have lots of money and are willing to bribe lawmakers to make laws that suit their own wants. And the ability to crush creative non-behemoths with threats of intellectual property assults helps increase the barriers to entry into the entertainment industry, reducing consumer selection.

I want a vibrant, shared culture. I want artists who create more than created "artists".

Oh, and yes, the US constitution does restrict government granted intellectual monopolies to limited times, for the explicit purpose of encouraging creativity and supporting creators. Currently, the US congress retroactively increases the limited time duration of copyright by 20 years every 20 years like clockwork, in order to make a mockery out of the constitutional restrictions.

Stompy · 10-05-2005, 09:49 AM

For every RIAA story I read about them suing someone, I make it a point to download a few gigs of music.

*shrug*

Have fun tryin to catch me!

flstf · 10-05-2005, 10:13 AM

It seems like the music industry and content providers have tried to stop almost every advance in media reproduction and/or play devices over the years (records, radio, cassettes, VCRs, to name a few). Digital music is just the latest in their quest. The funny thing is almost all the things that they are originally against wind up making them more money in the long run.

If they had their way they would charge us a royalty for singing one of their copyrighted songs in the shower.

skier · 10-05-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Since it was a sound, you had to have a way of transferring it from a wave to a permanent state. Records were the first step in this progress, followed by CDs.

Just as an adjunct to this, the first permanent recordings of music were probably music sheets, so that the music could be reproduced even if it couldn't be stored in a permanent state.

Also, I gotta say that this suit looks really strong. I think even the RIAA will have a hard time wiggling out of this, although they will probably draw it out.

fightnight · 10-05-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

Just as an adjunct to this, the first permanent recordings of music were probably music sheets, so that the music could be reproduced even if it couldn't be stored in a permanent state.

Also, I gotta say that this suit looks really strong. I think even the RIAA will have a hard time wiggling out of this, although they will probably draw it out.

Not to thread-jack, but this would bring up an interesting argument about whether or not the written music itself was the actual art, or just a written interpretation of what it might have sounded like. People who are amazing musicians, and write their music down make it possible to get an idea how it sounds, but my playing a tab of Hendrix is hardly Hendrix. I'd be inclined to argue that the actual piece of art would be the original recording, not the written down composition although that is obviously an awefullly subjetive argument. Anywho... on with the RIAA arguments!

jorgelito · 10-06-2005, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't understand why people get so worked up by the RIAA. If you weren't stealing music you wouldn't give a shit. If you don't like the price of something, you don't steal it, you just don't buy it. Music is not a staple of life.

Because she wasn't stealing music. That simple. And it could happen to you.

Gatorade Frost · 10-06-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Because she wasn't stealing music. That simple. And it could happen to you.

But the majority of the complaints aren't about this woman, it's about the RIAA stopping people from downloading music.

Ustwo · 10-06-2005, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Because she wasn't stealing music. That simple. And it could happen to you.

So she claims.

FoolThemAll · 10-06-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Because I refuse to give someone else unlimited ownership of my thoughts.

Once you express an idea, it is in the mind of all who listen to it.

You have the natural right to not express an idea, and retain your monopoly over it. Your choice to express an idea gives you no natural right to control what I do with your expression once you express it.

See, I can agree to an extent with all of this. I hate the idea of anyone being charged for singing someone else's song.

But a recording is not an idea. It's a physical thing. And making copies of that physical thing in order to freeload off the production costs of it is, well, piracy.

Go ahead and copy the idea, but make your own recording.

'Course, I'm a hypocrite here, but I'm fond of Ghandi's view on that.

Quote:

But do not lose track of the fact we are relegating everyone else's ability to express ideas -- the harm caused by intellectual monopolies is real, so such monopolies should be restricted.

I look at it more as a regulation of everyone else's ability to copy the products of ideas.

Or did you formulate all the necessary computer code for that mp3 in your mind?

Quote:

Oh, and yes, the US constitution does restrict government granted intellectual monopolies to limited times, for the explicit purpose of encouraging creativity and supporting creators.

And actually, I don't view this as necessary for the actual musical ideas (read: not mp3s, ideas) that the music community puts out there. A song being used in a cover band is vastly different from a knockoff copy of a drug that took millions or more to develop.

Yakk · 10-06-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

See, I can agree to an extent with all of this. I hate the idea of anyone being charged for singing someone else's song.

But a recording is not an idea. It's a physical thing. And making copies of that physical thing in order to freeload off the production costs of it is, well, piracy.

Go ahead and copy the idea, but make your own recording.

'Course, I'm a hypocrite here, but I'm fond of Ghandi's view on that.

Yes, copying an MP3 is violating an intellectual monopoly.

A recording is not a physical thing -- or at least, the thing people care about isn't the physical thing. The thing people care about isn't the medium, it is the message. The information contained in the recording is what the intellectual monopoly covers.

For example, I can walk over to a store and purchase a piece of plastic that has information written on it. I own that piece of plastic.

However, copyright covers the information encoded on the plastic. And information is the warp and weave of thought itself.

Quote:

I look at it more as a regulation of everyone else's ability to copy the products of ideas.

Or did you formulate all the necessary computer code for that mp3 in your mind?

Resampling a song, reediting a movie, whisting a song in the shower, taking a picture of a beautiful building, designing "taste-alike" cola, covering a piece -- the difference to me is one of fidelity and medium. And, in some cases, legality under the current regeme.

To a technically proficient person, taking a live-air recording and turning it into an MP3 is a tool-based varient of you whistling the same tune. Or taking the information streamed into your house on a TV cable and creating a TV-on-demand computer system. Or reediting a hollywood picture so that it has no nudity or swear words.

It is my opinion that you should not legally be allowed to whistle a cover of a song to an audience for profit anymore than you should be able to mass produce and sell bootleg copies of the phantom menace 1 day after it hits theatres.

At the same time, I would hold that preventing you from making an MP3 copy of a song so you can listen to it on your cell phone, or on your computer, or in your car, is just as injust as preventing you from whistling the song in the shower.

Quote:

And actually, I don't view this as necessary for the actual musical ideas (read: not mp3s, ideas) that the music community puts out there. A song being used in a cover band is vastly different from a knockoff copy of a drug that took millions or more to develop.

No, it is not. At least, not more than quantitatively.

That cover band took the recipie for the song, and reproduced it. Possibly the cover band purchased a copy of the song and reverse-engeneered the music -- or possibly they simply purchased the recipie (sheet music) and performed the song without the reverse engeneering process.

That generic drug manufacturer either worked out the recipie via reverse engeneering, or got the recipie some other way. They then produced the results of the recipie.

The value is in the idea, not the item. Ownership of ideas is evil, because the wealth of an idea can be reproduced with little cost and potentially unbounded benefit. This evil can be balanced, I believe, in limited ways for limited times in order to encourage the expression, production, testing and deployment of ideas.

But the idea that copyright violation is akin to theft or piracy is ridiculous. Theft and piracy is a destructive act -- after the act of theft or piracy, the world is no richer. Duplication and sharing of ideas is a creative act, if only a minor one. Restricting that duplication can be just, but only if it generates an overwealming benefit to balance the evil of the restriction.

flstf · 10-06-2005, 03:22 PM

The RIAA claims that it is not the media but the content that is copyrighted. If that is the case then we should only be required to pay royalties to them when we first buy the song. But it seems that everytime we buy the song we have to pay royalties again. I have purchased most of the Beatle's albums over the years first on records, then cassettes and 8 tracks, and most recently CDs. And now if I download them they say I have to pay full price again.

If they were serious in their claim then they would only charge us once for the initial purchase and a small media price each time technology advances or that record, etc,, becomes unuseable and must be replaced. I wonder what legal grounds they have if you downloaded a song you previously owned on a record that has become worn out or damaged? Would the court say you had to pay them royalties again for the 5th or 6th time?

docbungle · 10-06-2005, 03:37 PM

The RIAA wouldn't be able to do what everyone is up in arms about if you didn't have file-sharing software installed on your pc. The software, by its very nature, allows others to see the files on your pc...including the RIAA.

You invite them in, and then cry foul when they find what they find.

Oh, the irony.

Jinn · 10-06-2005, 04:29 PM

Absofuckinglutely not. Installing P2P software is NOT an invitation to access my computer, and going outside of its boundaries would constitute FELONY CRIMINAL TRESPASS thank you very much.

Hardknock · 10-07-2005, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

The RIAA wouldn't be able to do what everyone is up in arms about if you didn't have file-sharing software installed on your pc. The software, by its very nature, allows others to see the files on your pc...including the RIAA.

You invite them in, and then cry foul when they find what they find.

Oh, the irony.

That's why I never share anything when I use my P2P programs.......

Good luck trying to peek into my box RIAA.

Fuckers.

stevie667 · 10-07-2005, 01:41 AM

Damn right someones sueing back.

Bastards.

madasahatter · 10-07-2005, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Absofuckinglutely not. Installing P2P software is NOT an invitation to access my computer, and going outside of its boundaries would constitute FELONY CRIMINAL TRESPASS thank you very much.

When u install McAfee on ur computer, the computer is not urs anymore,it's McAfee's. Microsoft owns ur computer if u use Windows and so on. Two of the Ten Immutable Laws of Security is "If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer anymore." and "If a bad guy can alter the operating system on your computer, it's not your computer anymore" and whoever said it had to be a bad guy?

10-03-2005, 10:40 AM	#2 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	nice to see some lovely folks hanging themselves by their own neckties. whatever one thinks of file sharing, trawling for cases like this isn't what the courts were made for. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

10-03-2005, 10:44 AM	#3 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	Wow this is going to be really cool to see how this plays out. Keep us updated! __________________ You bore me.... next.

10-03-2005, 11:04 AM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I don't understand why people get so worked up by the RIAA. If you weren't stealing music you wouldn't give a shit. If you don't like the price of something, you don't steal it, you just don't buy it. Music is not a staple of life. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-03-2005, 01:12 PM	#12 (permalink)
rockogre I aim to misbehave! Location: SW Oklahoma	Damn skippy!!! May they and all organizations like them go down in flames. I could care less about the RIAA as such, but their methods belong to old time Russia, and very possibly the US of A at times. I hope her lawyers are able to nail them to the wall. __________________ Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G. I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

10-03-2005, 04:41 PM	#14 (permalink)
Pragma I am Winter Born Location: Alexandria, VA	The tech points are a little shaky - though assuming she doesn't settle out of court instantly for money (as it looks like the entire point of the lawsuit is money, given the repeated references to her disability and social security income), I think that the RIAA may get in some minor hot water. However, the lawsuit should have been pointed at whoever ran the MediaSentry program, as they're the ones apparently doing electronic B&E. I don't think that the lawyers should try to hang the case around the "anonymous" employee at the collection agency, as that seems pretty suspicious. I'm interested in hearing how this case continues, though - please post updates as they come. __________________ Eat antimatter, Posleen-boy!

10-03-2005, 10:49 AM	#4 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	man I hope the RIAA chokes on this. It's doubtful though. They are pretty powerful.

10-03-2005, 10:53 AM	#5 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	This case is interesting, but I doubt it will get too far. As was said before, the RIAA is a pretty powerful force, and they know how to work the system. But hopefully this will at least scare them into cutting down the scare tactics (going after them under the RICO statute could end up being big).

10-03-2005, 12:36 PM	#10 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	Well that's pretty amazing, I never would have thought the RIAA would stoop so low as to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse act in order to prosecute teenagers for copyright infringement. Assuming the allegations are true, then I would say RIAA is more a danger to society than said teenagers.

10-03-2005, 04:50 PM	#15 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	EDIT: Nevermind, I can't be mature.. too angry.. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-05-2005, 08:32 AM	#17 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Music is the least of the arts to survive for the ages. We have works of art 10's of thousands of years old, but do not know what music was like only a few hundred years ago. We can guess, we can make the instruments as best we can and see what they COULD have listened to but that’s a far cry from knowing. End result is music is the least important and most transient art form. Only in the last 100 years has music had any permanency, but even then its quite fragile and I doubt in another 10000 years anyone will have a clue of the music of the twenty first century. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-05-2005, 09:49 AM	#20 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	For every RIAA story I read about them suing someone, I make it a point to download a few gigs of music. shrug Have fun tryin to catch me! __________________ I love lamp.

10-05-2005, 10:13 AM	#21 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	It seems like the music industry and content providers have tried to stop almost every advance in media reproduction and/or play devices over the years (records, radio, cassettes, VCRs, to name a few). Digital music is just the latest in their quest. The funny thing is almost all the things that they are originally against wind up making them more money in the long run. If they had their way they would charge us a royalty for singing one of their copyrighted songs in the shower.

10-06-2005, 03:22 PM	#29 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	The RIAA claims that it is not the media but the content that is copyrighted. If that is the case then we should only be required to pay royalties to them when we first buy the song. But it seems that everytime we buy the song we have to pay royalties again. I have purchased most of the Beatle's albums over the years first on records, then cassettes and 8 tracks, and most recently CDs. And now if I download them they say I have to pay full price again. If they were serious in their claim then they would only charge us once for the initial purchase and a small media price each time technology advances or that record, etc,, becomes unuseable and must be replaced. I wonder what legal grounds they have if you downloaded a song you previously owned on a record that has become worn out or damaged? Would the court say you had to pay them royalties again for the 5th or 6th time?

10-06-2005, 03:37 PM	#30 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	The RIAA wouldn't be able to do what everyone is up in arms about if you didn't have file-sharing software installed on your pc. The software, by its very nature, allows others to see the files on your pc...including the RIAA. You invite them in, and then cry foul when they find what they find. Oh, the irony. __________________ Bad Luck City

10-06-2005, 04:29 PM	#31 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Absofuckinglutely not. Installing P2P software is NOT an invitation to access my computer, and going outside of its boundaries would constitute FELONY CRIMINAL TRESPASS thank you very much. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-07-2005, 01:41 AM	#33 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Damn right someones sueing back. Bastards. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.