File sharers can check a new online database to see if they are wanted by the recording industry.
Printable View
hmmmmm. If your name isn't on the list before, I wonder if it gets put on the list after you check?
Since the RIAA's got so much money, maybe they'll start posting rewards. We could make some extra money as Bounty Hunters. I wonder if posts in a Forum thread are all the evidence we need.
just checked still not on the list, i wonder how long it will be before i get on it
Well, if Steve R Jones is correct, then you should be on by noon tomorrow!
:p
They'll probably just go after big time file sharers. If you only log on once in a while and share a couple files, they probably won't care.
Not that I'm encouraging this type of activity, but if you do get on the list (or if you're worried you might), take a look at this site. Evidently, there are lots of loopholes in the RIAA's ability to nail you. Interesting reading...
Not to open up the whole debate again, but I had to post this link, it'e very interesting reading:
Copying is theft and other legal myths
Subpoena Username Query Form
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/
Remember, "Don't Copy that Floppy" Children!:D
>>EFF does not log user information. At EFF we respect your privacy and the last thing we'd want to do is create a treasure trove of information about you that could itself be subpoenaed by the RIAA or anyone else.<<
Yeah, right.
When these programs became popular, the results were predictable. Who will profit? Lawyers, of course.
Interesting... "Jim" @ Kazaa is being subpoenad(?) for file trading based on the following list of songs:
Michael Jackson - Dirty Diana
The Time - Jungle Love
Evelyn King - Love Come Down
Berlin - Metro
Van Halen - Panama
Billy Idol - Rebel Yell
Bobby Brown - Roni
Avril Lavigne - Sk8er Boi
Poison - Talk Dirty to Me
That's it. That's their "evidence."
Wow, yeah, that looks like a really incriminating list. I assume they have more evidence than NINE songs to pursue a lawsuit against him. I'm not promoting illegal file trading, but until they come up with a way for consumers to buy songs, any song, in digital format, at a reasonable cost, then the RIAA is heading in the wrong direction - hopefully, into a deep pit they can never claw their way out of :D
INTERESTING INDEED. I wonder if the list of artists are those that support the RIAA going after thier fans on thier behalf. That almost has to be it.
The quantity is not the issue. 9 or 90 or 900, it's either legal or its not, in this case, clearly not. How 'bout someone came into your house and stole 9 of your CD's. Hey, it's not like it's alot right? Only nine, what are you upset about about? It not the same when you're the victim, is it?Quote:
Originally posted by spragers2
Interesting... "Jim" @ Kazaa is being subpoenad(?) for file trading based on the following list of songs:
<<clip list of songs>>
That's it. That's their "evidence."
Wow, yeah, that looks like a really incriminating list. I assume they have more evidence than NINE songs to pursue a lawsuit against him.
No, that is exactly what you're doing!Quote:
Originally posted by spragers2 I'm not promoting illegal file trading...
You mean like BuyMusic or Press Play or eMusic or MusicNow or Sony Music Direct or iTunes or... etc. Yeah I can't wait for somebody to start a web site like those. Ooops! Too late, they already did! Oh, but you want a guarantee of being able to get any song ever recorded, and if you can't get it legitimatly, then that's justification for stealing it, right?Quote:
Originally posted by spragers2 ...but until they come up with a way for consumers to buy songs, any song, in digital format, at a reasonable cost,
On this, at least, we agree.Quote:
Originally posted by spragers2 ...then the RIAA is heading in the wrong direction
I just can't understand why some people have such hate for the RIAA. They have a right to protect thier property, same as all of us. To claim that they deserve to be stolen from just because they've made a bunch of money is like saying the rape victim deserved it because she wore a short skirt.Quote:
Originally posted by spragers2 ...hopefully, into a deep pit they can never claw their way out of :D
{Dear mods. No more from me on this, I promise! :D}
Now how on earth did you come to that conclusion?Quote:
No, that is exactly what you're doing!
I in no way think that the illegal trading of music or any files should be promoted. However, the RIAA shot itself in the foot by first of all, waiting too long to do something constructive about the problem, and two, turning into some above-the-law police outfit that has a right to anything and everything it so chooses. As has been discussed before on this and other lists, the reasons for the very existence of the RIAA are fading away. The Internet and electronic means of distribution have done away with the need for a middle man, who sucks out all the profit. If an artist sells ten million copies of an album, at $15 a piece, even if they only received a third of that (after all, it's their creation, their performance), that's FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS. I know I wouldn't spend all year travelling around performing shows and running myself ragged if I had no need to. And don't say it's just to promote their CDs, MTV and the trash heap most radio stations have fallen into do more than enough of that. Since the RIAA skims so much off the top, leaving the artist with next to zilch, they have no choice but to tour relentlessly etc. etc.
No, it's not. But - I also did not say that stealing 9 or 90 or 900 songs was right. It's theft. However, our legal system has levels depending on how severe a crime is. Yes, 9, 90, or 900 songs might all me "stealing" - but, "stealing" 900 songs is a worse offense than "stealing" 9. If someone went on a crime spree and robbed stores, which would give them a harsher sentence, 9, 90 or 900 robberies? Surely you can agree with that?Quote:
It not the same when you're the victim, is it?
Yes, those music sites do exist - now. Had they been promoted two, three years ago to the extent they are now, there wouldn't be such an epidemic. The problem I still have with these sites is this - say they charge a monthly service fee. The local music store doesn't charge me monthly just to browse or shop, only for what I buy. Say they only carry one publishing group. I don't have to go to five or ten different music stores or video stores to find the artists or movies that I like, because one music store can sell records from many sources. Online music needs to be outsourced, and the RIAA could have spent their time developing this instead. Various resellers offering downloads of music, licensed by the publisher. But wait, then they'd get in trouble for price-fixing downloads I suppose... nah, that would never happen :rolleyes: They blew their chance and now many people resent them.Quote:
You mean like BuyMusic or Press Play or eMusic or MusicNow or Sony Music Direct or iTunes or... etc.
The only reasons I dislike the RIAA so much now is the way they chose to handle this situation. First they ignored the problem, then when it was already too late for them to do something constructive about it, they start throwing fits and tantrums and lawsuits left and right. That's a great way to improve your image.
C'mon, don't clam up on us now :D Discussion only leads to awareness and intelligence. Hopefully :cool: