 sj |
||
|
||
RIAA suing individual music downloaders
|
|
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: mack/misophist Date: 14 Sep 03 - 02:19 PM Isn't it strange that the RIAA has neglected to mention that an estimated 40% of the cd's sold in the world are counterfeit; that England and the US are the only countries where most sold are genuine (I suspect Canada, too). I guess this doesn't affect their profits one way or the other. Hypocritical bastards. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST,pdq Date: 14 Sep 03 - 01:22 PM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: mack/misophist Date: 24 Jul 03 - 10:26 PM If you read the reports carefully, you'll notice that the warrants RIAA is getting are based on download volumn not titles. Once they grab your hard drive they have plenty of time to make a post facto case. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST,pdq Date: 24 Jul 03 - 02:46 PM David Grisman has his artist-owned label Acoustic Disc: http://www.acousticdisc.com/ This is one way to prevent non-payment by the company. Own the company! Each business is only as good as the people who run it. Government is only as good as the people we elect. Music is only as good as the people who make it. Trouble is, people are not perfect. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 03 - 12:41 AM Hmmm, none of 5.00 CD's songs... from KatLaughing relative on the West Coast were copyrighted....WERE THEY?
|
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 03 - 12:37 AM The point of Gargoyle is... the MudCat....Max, Joe, Pene, and ANYONE...who has fascilitated the posting of copyrighted lyrics to the MudCat...is PUNISHABLE! Restitution is expected!
You share a refrain...you feel the pain.
The little guy, without a big lawyer, is most vulnerable.
|
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: NicoleC Date: 23 Jul 03 - 07:49 PM Not true, unfortunately. Many "legally" downloadable songs have restrictions on their use -- how many copies you can make, how many devices you can put the song on, etc. It's a software license model designed to prevent piracy, and we all KNOW how little software piracy there is! Legal rights regarding physical media to make a copy for your own use do not apply, and there really aren't laws and regulations covering this sort of stuff, which is why every legal case seems to have a different outcome. On the other hand, I haven't met an artist yet that cared how many MP3 devices or computers you burn a song to for your own enjoyment, provided you don't sell it or give it away. I'd love to see out of print and older material available with these services, too. I think it will come. The services are just trying to make deals with the big companies at the moment to have a good sized catalog available to users while they get a profit going. Anything that isn't likely to pay it's own way isn't going to happen for some time yet -- but I think it WILL happen. But the overwhelming majority of music piracy is not audiophiles seeking an old recording or happen to have a hankering to listen to a tune while they are at the office and can't possibly WAIT until they get home and transfer it from their legal CD. It's downloads of the latest Dave Matthews or Britney Spears single. The demographics of the users aren't the deadbeat college and teenage crowd everyone seems to assume. The practice is very high among working folks with disposable income -- which makes me think a lot of what is driving the file sharing scene is the homogenization of record stores. Sam Goody doesn't got it, but Kazaa does. And the subscription music download services stink -- you gotta install special softare, pay a monthly fee, also pay for the music, and frequently you have to burn direct to CD instead of saving it to your computer and burning later when you have a CD's worth. Worse, they have hundreds of thousands of tunes in their 'catalog,' but most aren't available for download. I've subscribed to a couple, and they are mostly useless. I think people will pay, will be glad to do it, and I think BuyMusic.com is going to make a fortune. Any lost revenues involved with these file sharing services are the fault of the RIAA dragging their feet and not getting with the program years ago. Like any product, when you can't get it legally, there will be a black market. I can't wait until the day comes when I am driving down the road and hear a great tune on my satellite radio, and I push a button and it sends the song details to my home computer, where it gives me the option to download and buy the song... we're getting close. Right now I push a button and it tells me the title and artist. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: harvey andrews Date: 23 Jul 03 - 07:11 PM Plus, there's no attempt by the RIAA or anyone else to address the other class of downloading I have done - material I currently own. By my rights as a purchaser, I'm allowed to make copies for my own personal use. This never gets mentioned, but most of my friends do the same thing. We download songs that we already own, because the computer may not be convenient to the stereo... or because our roommates wish to listen to something else... or so we can listen to the songs on headphones while browsing/playing whatever. No one I've ever met in the business objects to this. Once you've bought it you should be able to play it wherever and whenever you want on whatever equipment you have. Just don't rip it for a friend! |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: SeanM Date: 23 Jul 03 - 06:56 PM The reason I used to download was to sample songs for CDs to buy, and to download out of print materials. The first is making strides - you can find samples for most current CDs out there somewhere legally. However, until the recording companies (and RIAA) gets their collective heads together and start making out of print material available, I will never be able to feel that anything was wrong about the downloading I did. No, the artist did not make a profit. But in a situation where that is no longer possible, the second best thing happens - the artist's music is being listened to and enjoyed again. Plus, there's no attempt by the RIAA or anyone else to address the other class of downloading I have done - material I currently own. By my rights as a purchaser, I'm allowed to make copies for my own personal use. This never gets mentioned, but most of my friends do the same thing. We download songs that we already own, because the computer may not be convenient to the stereo... or because our roommates wish to listen to something else... or so we can listen to the songs on headphones while browsing/playing whatever. There are still many issues to be addressed. Some have to do with fitting persecuting P2P users for things they legally are allowed to do. Others involve access to back material, and the artist's wishes. Some have to do with RIAA itself, and it's failure to provide adequate payment for many of it's members. It's not a simple call. M |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: harvey andrews Date: 23 Jul 03 - 06:40 PM I've already downloaded and paid for all the recorded work of Blind Blake, the calypso writer i met years ago. (see other thread)I think this is the future. We need someone to organise a site for folk/acoustic music not appealing to the major companies. I'd be first in to put up the tracks i own to be selected and downloaded for a decent financial consideration and the first to use such a system to get the songs of the artists I admire. I have new songs, and the thought of being able to record them as I write them and add them to the list is very seductive.I'm singing the songs from the next album now and people are asking for them as they hear them. It would be great to say "go to the website and download it". Then I could produce a cd, when I had the necessary number of tracks, for those who don't use computers, financed by the downloads of the people who do. it would be a continuous process of creation and dissemination allowing a writer to write songs about the issues of the very day they're posted. I would have found that a very exciting concept in my early years when the songs poured out. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: NicoleC Date: 23 Jul 03 - 05:30 PM For a long time, I could at least have some sympathy with music downloaders... although not so much sympathy that I didn't think that they deserved every pop up ad and spyware install and virus they got while doing it. After all, the record stores are a) flled with crap b) at $16.99 per CD with 10 songs of filler, c) NEVER have what you are looking for unless it's the latest hit record and d) you can't sample EVERYTHING and if you buy something you don't like -- tough! But the excuses are gone. Between iTunes for Mac users and BuyMusic.com for PC users, I can't view it as anything but stealing any more. Instead of downloading a music file of dubious content and quality, just cough up the $.79 per song already! |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: harvey andrews Date: 23 Jul 03 - 04:54 PM It's certainly lowered prices however. Yesterday i bought a legit new cd, part of a German series, in a remainder bookshop in Shrewsbury. It was "the Everly Brothers reunion concert". Price.....£1.00!! Out of this comes the pressing and printing costs, the shop makes a profit, the record co makes a profit, the Govt gets VAT, the songwriters get royalties and the Everly's get royalties.....Can't compete with that! Beautiful record. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: hesperis Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:59 PM The record companies are concerned about loss of profits through piracy. However, copyright was originally meant to encourage the arts to become public domain, not to provide a cash cow for multinational companies! I don't know about you, but the indie market is picking up quite a bit lately, maybe THAT's where the "lost" sales are going? Not to mention that when people don't have jobs because large companies are hiring other people overseas at slave wages, those first people don't have the money to buy CDs? Hmmmmmmmmm... |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST,MMario Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:47 PM Annamill - it's not the old, out of print, etc that are the concern with downloading; it's the current; not only copyrighted but currently in production stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: annamill Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:40 PM I have Marlene Dietrich singing "Where have all the flowers gone?"...in German! Now where the heck else will I find that? Love, Annamill |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: annamill Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:37 PM I guess I'm a big offender! I download tons of music. So far though, I haven't downloaded anything you would consider new that would make me go out and buy a CD. Mostly old stuff. I just can't get my conscience around downloading this stuff because, I guess, I have been TAPING it for so long! No one accused me of theft when I tape music for me or a friend. 'sup! I guess I'll have to quit KAZZA! !SOB! I love playing the great variety of music I have collected. !SOB! Anna !SOB! mill !SOB! |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: mack/misophist Date: 23 Jul 03 - 01:40 PM Please note that MIT is resisting the RIAA warrant on the grounds that it's illegal. ie. that it gives the target students no time to decide what to do or to prepare a case. This is (mostly) just another example of the big stick. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: M.Ted Date: 23 Jul 03 - 01:27 PM Sorry, Harvey, didn't realize that my post was anonymous-- Every once in a while, I check the names of people who I know don't want their stuff circulated on P2P systems(hasn't been very often lately) with a view toward letting whoever is sharing them that the artist doesn't want to be shared that way--You can often do this because many of the P2P clients allow chats or messaging--The good news for small label and independent folks is that their stuff is not really out there except to the degree that they may circulate it themselves on their websites-- The thing is that this good news is the bad news too, because it means that their stuff is not getting heard--The reality is that the folks who do the "download MP3" are also serious consumers of music, and spend lots of money on CD's, concerts, videos, T-shirts, souvenir books, and any damned thing you can think of--If they hear it and like it, they buy-- The realities of the market place are capitalist ones, though, Harvey, and what is fair is not a big factor--You can work hard at an honest trade for years and end up without the proverbial pot, while the next guy may set up a dotcom with someone elses money, sell his shares six months later when the overvalued stock peaks, and retire at 30 with more money than you ever thought of-- |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: harvey andrews Date: 22 Jul 03 - 07:43 PM It's not just self interest you know. As the son of an old fashioned socialist I was brought up to believe that all labour should be fairly paid for and all talents respected. A songwriter or singer is no different to any other worker if they are paying their bills through their own efforts. All I ask is that they be seen to be as honourable as the plumber who presents his bill for the labour he has carried out to enrich and improve the life of those who enjoy the fruits of his labour. ( Now I'll go back to cloud cuckoo land) |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST Date: 22 Jul 03 - 05:45 PM You've got nothing to worry about Harvey--no one is sharing anything of yours on the Gnutella P2P network--never saw an of it on Napster either. You can sleep well tonite-- |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Date: 22 Jul 03 - 05:26 PM My question is this, though: what if I, as an independent artist who owns all my work, have files for download on my website? Files that people have MY permission to download? Is the RIAA going to go after those downloaders, too? |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST,pdq Date: 22 Jul 03 - 05:05 PM As an honorable man and a Republican, I will not copy anyone's music unless it is out of print (as with a few records I already own), or unless I am making a collection CD, or making a Best Of, again from CD's I already own. The copies don't leave my house. In this way, we all have control over the situation as far as Folk artists are concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: harvey andrews Date: 22 Jul 03 - 04:09 PM Barry, many of the folk artists today finance and produce their own recordings. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 22 Jul 03 - 03:53 PM I download almost continuously and like KazaaLite. However, THIS development has much greater ramifications as the frontier becomes fenced in.
Folks - archive the mudcat with your favorite bot - it might not always have what its got.
Exerpted from:THE WALL STREET JOURNALM/big>
By ANNA WILDE MATHEWS Staff Reporter
Author Harlan Ellison, 69 years old, is waging an appeal over words. Though he lost the initial legal round in a U.S. district court last year, he's pressing ahead with a lawsuit against America Online for copyright infringement. He charges, AOL didn't act fast enough when a fan posted some of his stories without permission on an online forum carried by the service. America Online says it's not to blame and that it removed the stories once it was aware of them.
Mr. Ellison "Kick Internet Piracy" Web site lambastes "little Internet thieves, rodents without ethic or understanding, [who] steal and steal and steal." (See harlanellison.com)
Mr. Ellison filed his AOL lawsuit in April 2000 after someone told him that several of his stories were on an online discussion forum available on a network called Usenet and offered through America Online and other providers.
America Online says it blocked access to the online forum as soon as it learned of the stories through the suit. They say that because the newsgroup content moved through its servers automatically, America Online qualified for a special copyright liability protection for "intermediate and transitory" content.
He also sued Stephen Robertson, the individual who posted the stories.
The author settled quickly with Mr. Robertson. The 42-year-old, who works at his parents' 10-room motel in Red Bluff, Calif., says he was terrified when he saw the suit and couldn't afford a lawyer. He agreed to pay about $3,600, charging it to a credit-card account that he's still paying off.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: wilco Date: 22 Jul 03 - 01:33 PM I don't think that there is anyway for RIAA to stop this. For years, the "recording industry" has lived off their heavily promoted "stars." The crumbs are left to everyone else. I suspect that the internet will "open up" the business to everyone, and not the priviliged few. |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: GUEST,MMario Date: 22 Jul 03 - 12:10 PM consider that most of MS programmers probably don't EVER purchase what they can download..... |
|
Subject: RE: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Jul 03 - 12:02 PM By coincidence, 2 days after the RIAA announcement of their intent to file suits against individuals, my Windows auto-update announced a patch that would fix an "identified fault" that "might permit someone to view your Media Player playlists without your permission." This, coincidentally(?) happens to be one of the things the RIAA announcement implied they intend to do. Nahh - Mickey couldn't be on our (the little guys) side? John |
|
Subject: RIAA suing individual music downloaders From: Barry Finn Date: 21 Jul 03 - 09:42 PM My brother-in-law just call to direct me to www.riaa.org & to www.boycott-riaa.com I've never used Kazza or other similar sites & I don't know if the kids do (I suspect they might) but the RIAA wants to now, legally, invade my PC, violate my privacy, & come after my meger earnings if my kids did download any music. I do believe all artists should be paid for their work but are the artists (espically the small guys) getting their due from the industry that feeds off their backs, I don't think so. Example, Green Linett refuses to pay their artists. Some friends (the group the Battering Ram) who recorded an LP for Rounder yrs ago have not seen a penny from the release of their LP on CD & said none of us can afford to go after what's owed them (they can't even get a free copy of their own CD they'd have to pay twice what I'd pay if they did (once for the CD & again by losing royalties). These are just a few of the real small companyies in the recording industry what about the industry as a whole where only the major artists have the money & whereall to recover what's theirs. With the average CD bring in about $1.50 US (please correct me if I'm wrong) to the artist it seems that the artist gets the shaft all around. I buy CD's (my budget keeps that to a min) but am I better off buying direct from the artist's web site in a small effort to contribute to choking to death these vultures & boycott anything that supports these Artistic vampires (Sandy & Dick can you offer of your insites into this).As it stands now the copyright laws are killing not inhancing our cultural output while driving potential artists into other occupations or starving them out of existence. Their are boycotts being orginized along with other forms of protest. I can't believe that some law makers (Dem's) are asking for jail sentences for downloading & fines up to $150,000 for violations while trying to cap off a death cause by malepractice at $250,000, something's askew with our whole system. So what's a music lover supposed to do with out hurting the artist themselves? Barry |
| Share Thread: |