Tapping into the chat functions built into software programs such as Kazaa and Grokster, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on Tuesday started sending automatic messages to people who are providing copyrighted songs online, warning them that they're breaking the law.News.com
F**k this, I don't give a s**t what the RIAA says!
29.4.2003 13:53 #1
tribal-t,
You have every right to voice your opinion here at Afterdawn forums but please keep your words clean m8.
Tapping into the chat functions built into software programs such as Kazaa and Grokster, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on Tuesday started sending automatic messages to people who are providing copyrighted songs online, warning them that they're breaking the law.
News source:http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4028.cfm
While you're at please go door to door and remind anyone taping music off satelite, cable,
radio that they are breaking the law! I read an article that Bill Gates "might" be launching some type of "file sharing" (music) with WMP in the near future. I use KaZaA Lite and welcome any conversation with any RIAA employee. Bring it on RIAA!
Shoey :)
29.4.2003 14:07 #2
Has anyone here recieved any of these messages yet?
I download music and such but I place it into another folder so it looks like I'm not sharing anything.
29.4.2003 15:35 #3
Strange, AND1, as the whole point of p2p sharing is exactly that. Sharing. I understand these networks increase priority according to the amount of file sharing you allow. I guess you have low priority ;-)
Paul.
29.4.2003 16:06 #4
Sorry, but my comments are on the RIAA are a farcry from what other users have posted here.
29.4.2003 16:15 #5
Ever heard of KaZaa Lite? Way better than KMD. The RIAA can't even copy-protect CD's proplerly, how are these people going to stop millions of users from using file-sharing networks? They should learn to live with it!
29.4.2003 16:29 #6
Sorry RIAA, but my automatic messages are blocked....lol.
Scare tactics won't work....makes me want to put it to you more......
It's us against them.
29.4.2003 17:16 #7
go to http://kazaalite.tk
browse to news and then Monday February 17th 2003
install the reg trick there
after that go to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.leonard1/pg/index.htm
and install that .
basically this should prevent anyone from finding out how many files ure shareing. after this u should be able to share files and not be a target for RIAA as u won't be telling them exactly how many files ure shareing.
29.4.2003 21:30 #8
time to switch to bearshare... untill the next one comes out...... hey the RIAA released the Kazaa worm on the net and as long as they didnt do more then $250.00 to your machine then by the law that was in actted when no one was looking they can fry hdd's all day long Basic idea change the down load software and hopefully someone will crate a p2p that dosnt track connections ,names or ip address ... we just need to be willing to wait them out.... or pay more cds.
30.4.2003 10:14 #9
Ok so, let me get this straight, say there is 6 million people with mp3 shared on kazaa right, what are the riaa gonna do?? get em all arrested?? good idea lads maybe you will clean it of mp3 in 20 years time when something better will be around!
30.4.2003 17:54 #10
From Marcia Wilbur (me), author of DMCA (the book), free speech advocate and computer law enthusiast, activist:
My school states it will expel students for using file sharing programs and sharing files.
I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT:
STORING and RECORDING of digital audio files is actually NOT a crime at all, as long as it is personal and non commercial.
I challenge anyone, lawyer, whomever to find differently. I will debate at any forum, panel discussion or school. I will travel wherever to spread the word. People know this... it is not illegal.
Now, while I understand certain ethic
questions might arise regarding the sharing of music, I would very much
like to see the section regarding Audio recordings. As it currently
stands, the AHRA secures the recording and storage of audio files because
a computer is NOT or should not be considered a "device SPECIFICALLY
desinged to store and record audio..." as long as the audio files are used
in a NON commercial way... and isn't a subscription, the AHRA seems to
stand. The RIAA knows about the AHRA and tried to stop Diamond RIO
unsucessfully using the AHRA.
<P>
This matter of AHRA or Audio Home Recording ACT was brought up in a
cyberlaw class I attended in 2001 by Dennis Karjala who teaches at the college
of law here.
<P>
While some might believe the DMCA or "newer copyright" might override the
AHRA: Audio home recording act, I have yet to read anything but
subscription services entered in that section. If you or anyone knows any
differently, please let me know.
<P>
There are several different architectures of file sharing, as you know,
and one highly available file sharing system is a Windows share based on
the SMB protocol developed by MS to allow remote access to disk resources
over a network. It was developed before the Internet was flooded by
um, the general public. This was only really used for a LAN
environment. However, it is routable over the Internet which means you can
offer files to others.
<P>
While MS had this proprietary networking system, TCP/IP was developed for
UNIX systems. There are similarities between the 2, however TCP/IP is
simply a backbone for communication and doesn't include interfaces for
actual sharing such as pwd options. Nevertheless, to say that file sharing
systems such as GNUTELLA, KaZaa, Napster, AudioGalaxy, SwapNut, Edonkey2000,
DirectConnect, and FreeNET are unique or somehow specialized for copyright abuse or
infringement is rather absurd since these are riding on top of TCP/IP
which bears similarity to SMB which many universities use to provide
students with access to instructor classroom storage drives, student personal
storage space and they are sometimes used to allow remote applications to be used by students across a network. <P>
The particular implementation of the user interface might be questionable.
The popularity of such an interface may be greater than the popularity of
a more mundane interface used for jobs and tasks performed by the users. This
does not justify labeling sharing services as evil. The blame and responsibility falls upon the users. Some have been claiming that widespread use of these interfaces might as well
be accepted. That might be unfortunate for the interests of the RIAA, MPAA
and other copyright management organizations, however, these organizations
are merely equal players in the world just as anyone else. Though they may
have rights granted by "law", they are in no way entitled to special
treatment, nor do they have the authority to take actions against the producers
of the software
<P>
In other words, it's just freakin' software. Can a tool commit a crime in
and of itself? If not, as seems to make most sense, then is it not absurd
to make laws that can only arbitrarily criminalize a tool, for no other
reason than a fear of infringement?
<P>
In some file sharing services, such as SMB, Gnutella and Gnutella based
file sharing services, the content is ONLY on the users' drives.
<P>
The indexing of content is performed on each and every connected computer,
unlike Napster which collected search results to a central server and
could have been considered not so much accessory to infringement, but able
to control the distribution of those files.
<P>
There is a middle ground for some file sharing systems which connect in a
distributed fashion like GNUtella based, but may use caching or multiple,
centralized indexes as a way of improving performance but these services
have much less control over indexes than Napster did so it's unlikely they
can be considered as controllable gateway to the files and so cannot even
be considered even partially liable or responsible.
<P>
It is important to take into account the architecture of the systems, the
fact that every Windows system had a file sharing system to begin with,
though may not be as user friendly as these "infamous" ones and to take
into account there are reasonable limits to what the copyright management
organizations should be allowed to prosecute regardless how much supposed
damage these "tools" are causing, if any.
<P>
And again, we must remember that the AHRA legalizes non commercial
recording and storage of audio files.
<P>
Granted, ASU is well within their "rights" (private property) to spy on,
monitor and punish students and believe me, they will spy, I have a testimony
to that fact by ASU an employee on tape.
<P>
However, I believe the assertation that it is "illegal" to share music
files or store and record music files as false and challenge any legal
department to find otherwise.
<P>
The letter:<P>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>To all faculty, staff, and students:
<P> ASU computing and telecommunication resources are intended to support the
educational, research and service missions of the university. While some
personal use of these resources is tolerated, use that infringes on
copyrights, use for personal or commercial profit, and use that is
excessive, disruptive, or that interferes with the intended uses is not
permitted. In addition, spam or the sending of numerous unsolicited
e-mails is not permitted. Authorized use of ASU resources is described
more fully in ASU's Computer, Internet and Electronic Communications
Policy, ACD 125 [<<http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/acd125.html>>].
<P>
As you may be aware, the Recording Industry Association of America, the
Motion Picture Association of America, and other such organizations object
to the practice of individuals trading music and movies over the Internet.
These organizations are now focusing particularly on college campuses,
where much of that activity takes place. They have urged college and
university presidents "to bring this piracy under control." They have not
limited their legal challenges to the creators of the programs used to
facilitate trading movies and music. They have begun to pursue individual
users, including students.
<a href = "http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/04/04/online_sue/print.html
">http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/04/04/online_sue/print.html
</a><P>
These organizations maintain that much of the file-trading that occurs
through the use of these programs constitutes copyright infringement.
While it generally is accepted that ripping an MP3 from a CD you already
own for your own personal use is "fair use", it generally is not legal to
then share that MP3 indiscriminately over the Internet. Neither the fact
that the technology is easy to use and free, nor the fact that you are
"publicizing" the artist in the process is a viable defense to a copyright
infringement suit.
<P>
Sanctions for uses of ASU resources that violate the Computer, Internet
and Electronic Communications Policy may include suspension or expulsion
for students, employment sanctions for employees, and reduction or loss of
the privilege to use ASU computing resources.
<P>
If you are interested in learning more about copyright law, you can find
good discussions at the following web sites:
<P>
(c) Primer <a href = "http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/primer.html">http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/primer.html
</a><P>
Ten Big Myths About Copyright Explained
<a href = "http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html">http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html</a>
<P>
Signal or Noise? The Future of Music on the Net
<a href = "http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/netmusic_brbook.html">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/netmusic_brbook.html</a>
<P>
Planning And Electronic Records Issues for Electronically Enhances Courses
<a href ="http://www.public.asu.edu/~jeremy/coursedesign/courseplanning/"> http://www.public.asu.edu/~jeremy/coursedesign/courseplanning/</a>
<P>
We appreciate your consideration of this information.
<P>
<P> William E. Lewis
<P>Chief Information Officer and Vice Provost
<P> Phone: (480) 965-9059
<P>E-Mail: William.Lewis@asu.edu
30.4.2003 23:35 #11
hehehehe all this babble and still not one mention of IRC. thats why i use it instead of the other junk. let them try to messege someone there!
1.5.2003 09:08 #12
How does the RIAA know that we dont own the CDs with all the songs we download....isnt it legal to have the mp3's if u own the cds? They cant prove n e thing....
1.5.2003 19:08 #13
they my take our lives, BUT THEY WILL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!
hahahahahah -brave heart
1.5.2003 20:23 #14
It is unbelievable what the RIAA are doing to try and cut down on piracy: Crippling/Copy-protecting CDs, Sueing for copyright infringement, spying on users for what they share, hogging huge Internet bandwidth for sharing fake song titles, scanning networks for copyrighted songs, scaring people (potential customers) from sharing/downloading music, CD price increasing, and so on…
They could have avoided all of these problems, brought piracy way down, bring CD sales through the roof, etc. by doing one simple task that nearly all furniture, clothing, grocery, etc. company in the world do all the time:
Cut your CD prices way down!!
Surely, they either have fun driving people crazy and exploiting the rich (those who can afford CDs), or the company is run by managers who didn't study/didn't do well or cheated in business studies, accountancy and math.
2.5.2003 03:29 #15
Yeh....These people are obviously stupid MFer's with a wish to make us mad at them.
I for one will NEVER EVER EVER EVER! give them money grubbing, good for nothin', white-collar supremacists a single dime.
If I was an artist...I'd stay far away from them.
2.5.2003 07:24 #16
aicra, your assertaion ("However, I believe the assertation that it is "illegal" to share music
files or store and record music files as false and challenge any legal
department to find otherwise") that it is not illegal to share copyrighted music is incorrect. The only reason music can be broadcast by companies such as MTV is because they pay licensing rights to the authors to do that. You pay MTV for the song by watching their network which generates ad revenues. A copyright exists to protect the intellectual property of someone. If music could only be passed around as embedded IC's or something there wouldn't be a need to copyright it; a patent would do. Copyrights exist to keep people from generating your product without your permission, thus robbing them of money they EARNED. You cant share music with people because you havent paid a licensing fee. If it wasnt 3 am right now this would be more coherent.
2.5.2003 08:19 #17
Quote: You pay MTV for the song by watching their network which generates ad revenues We don't pay any bill to hear music over the airwaves (radio) and people all accross the USA RECORD music all the time. Tell the RIAA to go knocking door to door with their messages as well m8.
Shoey :)
2.5.2003 09:09 #18
Grizzant, I am guessing then that you are from Adelaide, or possibly Darwin, Australia?
Paul.
2.5.2003 09:17 #19
While visiting Chicago, I see that they have at least decent radio stations. I.e. you could probably get away with listening to the radio all day, finding the type of music you like without doing anything illegal or purchasing a single CD.
Here in Ireland in the Nort West, there are only 6 stations. Radio One: discuss & chat programs, 2FM: charts, disco, techno, etc. (not my type) RnaG: Irish Irish language with only Irish music. Today FM: plays some interesting music now and again, but has lots of chat programs. Nort West: a week station is about the same also. I.e. you really need to have a good msuic collection to listen to decent music. Digital satellite helps too (tuned in about 400 radio stations) ;-)
2.5.2003 12:21 #20
Quote:While visiting Chicago, I see that they have at least decent radio stations. I.e. you could probably get away with listening to the radio all day, finding the type of music you like without doing anything illegal or purchasing a single CD. Since you don't live in the greatest land in the world (USA), you have no clue how many millions of people listen to radio broadcast and record songs. I have an 75 feet tower and an fm antena to bring in more reception to get the type of music I listen to. This is nothing uncommon for residents living in the USA to record songs of the airwaves.
Shoey :)
2.5.2003 12:57 #21
Greatest land in the world ?
OK, it would be inappropriate for the two of us (moderators!) to get into a fight about this and I wouldn't pretend that my country is the greatest either, but I would simply submit the following points:
1 : If you have to point out that it is USA, then perhaps the assertion is a trifle hollow.
2 : USA is home to RIAA
3 : USA is home to and presided over by a man whose name means cunt in many countries (including your own!)
4 : USA has a pretty poor rate of literacy
5 : USA is not actually the richest country in the world by any indicator, except cumulative wealth (not surprising with 350 million people) and it is spread thinly amongst the very elite.
6 : USA has dropped the only atomic bomb in war
The list could go on, but I am tired and have too many American friends to go further ;-)
Whilst I do actually love your country and many of the people in it, I find the assertion that it is the greatest, somewhat inaccurate.
Paul.
PS : I have drunk 6 beers this evening, which might have contributed to the post, I therefore take the 5th Amemdment (another American invention) on any further questioning ;-)
2.5.2003 13:16 #22
If the USA hadn't droped the atomic bomb, there probably wouldn't be any SEGA, Sony, or any other popular stuff that we all have bought!! Don't drink too much!!!
2.5.2003 13:45 #23
Sorry Paul - even with all of the misguided reasons you've provided, the USA is still the greatest land in the world.
It has the OLDEST and most stable government of any country on earth. Period. It has bailed the rest of the world out too many times to mention and if that requires an atomic bomb or two, so be it. Like Gene Hackman's character said in Crimson Tide, "By all means sir, drop that f**ker. Twice."
By the way, name me any country in the world where most of the wealth IS NOT distributed among a few elites - even in the case of Communist China who believes that the wealth should be spread amongst all people is this true.
But let's not forget what we're talking about here - screw the RIAA.
2.5.2003 14:15 #24
phuocle,
Your assumption that the USA has "the OLDEST and most stable government of any country on earth" is entirly, 100%, completley incorrect!!
Your Goverment has only been around for approx. 200 years. The UK, which is the mother of all democrocies, ( not to be associated with Saddam's ranting's of 'The Mother of all......" ) has been around for several hundred more. We do not assassinate our leaders when we disagree with them! We just vote them out!
It has "bailed the rest of the world", once, only when it has got it's ass kicked, and only then to preserve American interests.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not 'Anti-American'. I am American! I just think I am more educated than most American's with respect to the world outside America. After all, the majority of Americans do not even hold a passport and have very little interest in the affairs of the world outside America. Untill 9/11, (which I abhor), the American public was almost isolationist in it's attitude towards the outside word, reflecting somewhat, China, 100 years ago, but not that extreme.
2.5.2003 15:55 #25
Eejit,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but first off, the UK IS NOT the mother of all democracies; that would be Greece.
The UK MAY (and I stress MAY) have some form of democracy for hundreds of years, but the current form of UK's government is younger than that of America's. In fact, the UK as we know it (England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales) was not even created until 1801 when America was already on her THIRD president. Only after the creation of the UK were these cultural regions brought under the rule of a central government and administered by one parliament.
America has the world's oldest surviving democracy (even a British newspaper, The Economist, agrees with this: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1592571), the world's oldest written constitution, and two of the world's oldest political parties.
I, too think that I'm more educated than most Americans and in this case, I have facts behind me. As the matter of fact, I've flown 48,000 miles in the first 2 months of this year alone and have visited 4 European countries, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore (No SARS thank God)... so I do get around on my American passport.
2.5.2003 17:21 #26
Obviously none of you on here that support P2P are musicians. Why is it ok for the industries to protect movies rights but not musicians rights? If I write a song and I pour my heart and soul into it what gives you the God Damn right to rip it off for free? Did you stay up until 3 in the morning trying to come up with the melody or the perfect backbeat? Hell no you didn't? Why do you think you should be able to download music for free? Becuause you have a F***ing internet connection? So now this gives you a license to rip off all the musicians that make their living by writing music so you can enjoy it?!
No one appreciates hard work anymore and everyone wants shit now and free. Wake up people anything worth having is worth working for and paying for. If the artists wants you to have his/her music then he/she will provide it on their website for you to download. Until then STOP STEALING!!!!! Everyone one of you is no different then the common criminal that steals from the local liqour store. You guys are just to chicken shit to do it in person so you hide behind your computers.
You are pathetic and make me sick!!!!!!
2.5.2003 18:19 #27
Thank you Piledrive for bringing the discussion back on topic. Although I am a moderator, I won't hide behind that status, as I too agree with the sentiment of yours, although I would expand it to show that both musicians and the general public are taken advantage of by big recording business. It is unfortunate that without big business (that is until recently) it has been very difficult for new musicians to get themselves distributed. In this respect the Internet could actually be the one thing that could save you from signing your life away to someone with big shareholders, who may or may not make you a star. That does not mean, however, that the record labels are entitled to package up and distribute any old crap and market it heavily and expect us to buy it, nor does it mean that good music should not be paid for.
The 'utopia' I envisage is one where musicians (through the internet mainly) get to have their music distributed the world over, for reasonable fees direct to the public and the public does not pay through the nose for lots of suits who actually have nothing to do with music, but a lot to do with its' astronomical cost.
It would be harder for this system to be applied to the film industry, but people are trying with new independent film companies popping up. A friend of mine works for the French company Wild Bunch (amongst their hits include City of God) who are considering selling movies through the net at reasonable prices.
Anyway, just don't bite the hand that feeds you too much, as those you are referring to in your recent post are your future customers (mine too!) and you need them on your side :-)
Paul.
PS : With reference to any justification of nuclear attack, no one (I mean not one single person on this planet) will ever be able to justify that act to me either in the past or in the present. In my opinion it is one of the most abhorrent things imaginable. No excuses. Period.
3.5.2003 03:46 #28
Perhaps it is time for all of us to shake loose from the RIAA, by not downloading or buying their stuff. There are numerous downloads made available by original Artists that are every bit as good as the mainstream Artist are but made unknown because they're not given a chance to compete. There are also some mainstream Artist that realize that they either sail with the winds of change or face the possibility of becoming obsolete. Secretly many are hoping that it is their stuff that's being downloaded.
3.5.2003 05:06 #29
Thank you Loaded for your reply. Apple Computers have just launched the iTunes store. 99 cents will get you a download of any song from their catalog of over 200,000. They are working with 5 of the major labels to make it legitimate to download.
This is what we need on the internet. Not p2p.
3.5.2003 10:41 #30
Piledrive - i agree with you but i dont think I've ever met a music lover that wouldn't want the atrist to get their money. but the fact is, out of a $15 cd, the artist sees about 28 cents of that. the rest goes into the pockets of the record companies (minus wholesale and packaging and all that crap of course) The record companies make about 20 times what the artists do on each cd. So in all reality, we are stealing from them, not the artist. I remember a day when metallica put out an album clearly stating on the cover "do not pay more than $5.98 for this cd", yet 10 years later they get "sue happy". i'll gladly steal from them and their label. If an artist would come out and say "here's my new cd, and all of it is availble on my website" i bet a flock of people would run out and buy it after they downloaded it even. Nothing sucks worse than spending $15 on a cd and 1 or 2 songs are good and the rest is just filler. and yet nothing compares to owning an original disc with good quality covers. yeah you can get and print any cover you want, but it's not the same. If you are so set against p2p, then you should never put out any music for radio play either, i used to tape that all the time. but if i can here it for free on the radio, is that ok? either way if i like the band, i'm going to buy the cd, or at least go see them live. if i knew for a fact that the artist gets the majority of the money from cd sales, i'd crusade right along with you against people downloading songs for free, but that fact is, the artist gets very little, and i'll be damned if i'm going to pay for some bigwig's vacation to bermuda, or his porsche.
3.5.2003 11:00 #31
Dartnip, perhaps you should consider rephrasing, in view of our not condoning piracy policy ;-)
Also, Porsches are over rated. I got rid of mine in favour of a Mercedes. Much more reliable.
Paul.
3.5.2003 11:07 #32
Dartnip if my songs get played on the radio at least I will get somemoney for it. And that is a hell of a lot more then waht I would get from Kazaa, Napster I mesh or any of these other common thieves.
I agree with Loaded....Porsches are way overated.
3.5.2003 12:27 #33
I'm not condoning any form of piracy at all paul. if i download a song, i usually have heard a clip and want to here the rest then i go out and buy the cd. i really have no use for mp3's unless it's to see if i want to on the whole cd. all my mp3's are deleted within 24hrs. Believe me, my wife wishes i just downloaded everything, then i wouldn't have 2000 retail cd's sitting around here for her to dust! It disgusts me to buy retail cd's and line the pockets of the record labels while the artists struggle, but i do it for more than that, i also consider the retailers that have to feed their kids, the sound guys that had to produce it, even the truck drivers that had to bring it to the store. people dont even realize when they download music instead of buying it, they are effecting a whole chain of people involved in getting the cd's to the store. and since i cant seem to edit my post, i'll make this amendment,
--- I DarthNip in no way, shape, or form condone, support, or endorse piracy of any kind, on any level. and if you do, may the fleas of 1000 camels infest your pubic hair!
3.5.2003 12:31 #34
I love the response :-D
rotflol !!
I must agree with you with one exception : Sod the truck drivers, they clog up our roads and are discourteous. In London anyway :-)
Paul.
3.5.2003 12:43 #35
yeah but admit it, if you were behind the wheel of a machine 65 feet long and weighing sometime 30-40 tons, wouldn't you be a bit "bigheaded, like you DO own the whole damn road" about it? man i would!! i could see me lmao when some civic tries to cut me off or something hehe "waaahooo, bye bye tiny". i think they need to make roads just for semi's, like super expressways just for trucks. then they wouldn't mess with us, and I'm sure we'd all get stuff faster. woah, way off topic.
3.5.2003 13:29 #36
Look the bottom line is this: If I write the song I am the only one that has the right to give it away or sell it. How would you like it if I came over to your house and jumped in your car and took it for a ride then when I was done I gave it to a friend? Or how I about I go through your clothes and take what I like? That would be stealing right? No difference from what P2P is. Except the outcome here is much much worse....a loss of someones livelihood .
3.5.2003 13:39 #37
yes i fully understand what you are saying, but the chances of your music being heard by more people greatly increases with people being able to get it for free. i'm not going to drop 15 bucks on a band i've never heard before. would you buy a car before test driving it? alot of great bands never get radio play at all and the only way their music gets spread and a demand for that music is thru things such as p2p's. any true artist would want their creations heard more than the money it would bring them. the money will come, but not if no one gets to hear the product.
3.5.2003 15:42 #38
the artists make their 'real' money by advertising, souveniers/posters/clothes, and most of all.. CONCERTS..
they do make only a small sample from a cd, thats why they should go digital and spread copies of their songs encoded in a lower bitrate (like 96khz) and then setup a website to sell a very high quality mp3 or wma for $1 or $2 each.. i would buy!! plus you cut out that damn middle man, aka music industry...
just my .02
13.5.2003 17:29 #39
One thing about P2P that I have not heard mentioned is the fact that you CANNOT buy much of what is available for download.
Want a copy of the new Jewel video ? Can't buy it for a million dollars.
Want a track from an out of print obscure artist? Can't buy it for a million dollars.
The P2P world is full of all types of media that cannot be purchased.
I suppose if is still 'stealing' even if the media is not for sale.
Much of the media files were put there by THE OWNER...for your free download, so there is no copyright violation.
I understand that artists feel they 'own' the music, but in some ways once you put it out there it becomes free. The artist owns the right to perform the song exclusively, but not the song itself or their performance of it. If I want to record the people talking next to me in a restaurant do they 'own' their conversation ? If someone wants to record the sound of my car as it drives past them can I sue them for illegally making a copy of "my" unique and personal sound of my car ?
The whole topic is moot anyway. The cat is out of the bag. There is NO WAY you can stop people from sharing the hundreds of thousands of songs that are sitting on hard drives all over the world.
I just hope all those sitting in judgement of the file sharers have never recorded a tv show and then shared the tape with someone else...or a sports event, etc. I hope they ahve never purchased an article of clothing and then given it away. ( maybe we should shut down all the Good Will stores ? )
Strange, it is perfectly legal for me to buy a cd and then give it to someone in exchange for money ( as do all used cd stores ), but it is ILLEGAL for me to buy a cd and then give it away.
Looks like every artist who ever gave one of their own cd's away was just as guilty of breaking the law.
14.3.2004 11:20 #40
The big bucks in music are still in recording sales IE, CDs. Many concerts cost so much to produce that they barely break even and wouldn't even happen except for the successful mass sales of CDs. Where it gets convoluted or unfare is that the record executives/companies get even more of the profits than the artists do which in turn translates into higher costs to the consumer.
14.3.2004 11:59 #41
i had a hard time finding some old 80s heavy metal.but guess what, found it on kazaa.i think any music over five years old should be on psp sites for free download.i typed up heavy metal and got all kinds of music i have never heard of before,downloaded some of it,and like it.so i went out a got the cd.if p2p was not available,i would have never known about this group.but i do agree,downloading music from p2p is stealing,i mean why buy the cd when you can get it for free?
29.3.2004 18:38 #42
