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:
What!! No more commentary from dougj?Quote:
Originally posted by dougj
{Dear mods. No more from me on this, I promise! :D}
ISP Answers RIAA Subpoena With Suit
*sigh
Quote:
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.
Hey MICROSOFT dosn't sell Doss 6.22/windows 95/and Dos and utilities, just because microsoft dosn't allow you to buy them, does that mean you have to STEAL them?
So when a site Allows downloading of Old Microsoft stuff, that they NO LONGER SUPPORT!!!! Microsoft IS doing what the RIAA is doing, going after the sites, What is different from Microsoft and the RIAA, besides music and Programs? not much!
Now the folks a www.oldos.org They were a Illegal site, but since Microsoft Threatened them, they are now a "Love Microsoft" site, and that is all they offer.
It's deja vu all over again:)
I wonder when they'll start going after the software pirates - arrrr matey. I don't think there's an equivalent organization for software developers - a necessary prerequisite it would seem.
Oops just saw OilPatch197 post above - never mind
:rolleyes:
Boy, that defaultuser guy must really be in some trouble :D :D :D
Beats me. So tell me, how does a company suffer financial losses if they don't offer something for sale, and someone gets it some other way? If they offered it for sale and people stole it, yes, they'd have a gripe.Quote:
Hey MICROSOFT dosn't sell Doss 6.22/windows 95/and Dos and utilities, just because microsoft dosn't allow you to buy them, does that mean you have to STEAL them?
When they refuse to offer it, people seek it any way they can get it. Then you gets used to something free, and now someone wants you to pay for it. I'm not saying it's right, but that's waht happened. I believe that if the RIAA had embraced digital music from the start, teamed with Napster to develop some kind of paid membership or per download charging, they could have made a lot of money and they wouldn't be whining like little kids now, trying to play catch-up.
Oh well.
oooo, economics!
A demand = No supply
Apples and oranges, my friend. The RIAA is still offering their product for sale. If some people don't like the terms of sale, then they should do without. Just cuz they don't like the price or format doesn't justify stealing it. You know, I really would like a lime green Lexus, but the price is too high, so I should just go take one, right?Quote:
Originally posted by spragers2
Beats me. So tell me, how does a company suffer financial losses if they don't offer something for sale, and someone gets it some other way? If they offered it for sale and people stole it, yes, they'd have a gripe.
When they refuse to offer it, people seek it any way they can get it. Then you gets used to something free, and now someone wants you to pay for it. I'm not saying it's right, but that's waht happened. I believe that if the RIAA had embraced digital music from the start, teamed with Napster to develop some kind of paid membership or per download charging, they could have made a lot of money and they wouldn't be whining like little kids now, trying to play catch-up.
Oh well.
Snagging a couple of candies from a bin that sells them for 6.99/lb is illegal, but hey, everyone now and then does it. (admit it!)
NO! Not everyone does it. I've not taken candy for those bins, though I may have been tempted.Quote:
Originally posted by Spooky Man G
Snagging a couple of candies from a bin that sells them for 6.99/lb is illegal, but hey, everyone now and then does it. (admit it!)
Anyways, I believe this ground has already been covered several times. Lets not take dougj into "Act III" on this one! :D
Yes, and soon to be, dougj and his 15 page rebuttal...
Awww, you guys sound like you miss me! {blush}
:)
A read of Title 17, Chapter 5 will answer many questions. Apples and oranges, and straw man fallacies - it doesn't really matter. Once the cases begin to be heard, this is going to look a lot like McCarthy hearings, despite the letter of the law.
...dauf
So DougJ, you SUPPORT illegal software downloads?Quote:
Apples and oranges, my friend. The RIAA is still offering their product for sale. If some people don't like the terms of sale, then they should do without. Just cuz they don't like the price or format doesn't justify stealing it. You know, I really would like a lime green Lexus, but the price is too high, so I should just go take one, right?
YOU can't buy them anymore, Windows NT 4,Doss 6.22,Windows 95.
So you do support us stealing them, because they are not available? hmmmm????:D
Doug said:
And I said:Quote:
The RIAA is still offering their product for sale.
I am not referring to the trading of current songs here, I'm simply using as an example, older songs that might still be copyrighted and *owned* by the RIAA, but no longer manufactured, sold or marketed. If you can't buy it from them, how do they lose anything if you obtain it elsewhere?Quote:
how does a company suffer financial losses if they don't offer something for sale, and someone gets it some other way?
Also, that applies to old software. If a program is no longer made, sold or supported, how does the original owner suffer any loss if you obtain a copy by some other method? Saying you're losing money because people are copying something you no longer sell and they can't buy (and won't be able to in the future) is a groundless threat.
That's the beauty of a digital music format. You don't *run out* of product, you don't have to worry if it's out of print or not, because it's *always* available.
And I go back to a previous argument, after being convicted of price fixing CDs to begin with, well, then they were stealing, too.
Keep in mind my examples are all hypothetical. I don't share anything online. And I ordered another CD last night on half.com (brand new CD for $10 shipped), so I'm doing my part to fight illegal downloads.
When Apple's Windows version of iTunes comes out, I'll check it out and see just how many of the songs I want would be available...
And the beat goes on....
Well, THAT site scared me. All I could think of was a guy sitting at the other end of that site: 'yep Frank, we got another one.' And to think we can donate to the EFF too. That would REALLY suck if you find yourself the next time you check AND know you gave them money to boot! That would be my luck.
2 of my favorite sayings: Trust No One and Watch out for #1. It cuts down on 'issues'.
maybe the guy downloaded 9 songs that were on some kind of list and they just didn't bother to name the other 900 - probably all vids anyway... :cool:
Or look out for #1, and don't step in #2
Ok, I can go with that....
www.oldos.org
This used to be a QUOTE: "Illegal site"
they were offering what Microsoft wasn't selling, they finally got caught and no longer offer the downloads.
So what harm was this site doing? Comon the software can't compete with XP, we got old 133's around that can't handle the new Microsoft products! What do we do If we can't get the old products that would run nicely on our machines? Throw away a good computer, or FORCED to download/borrow/ copy the programs that ran on these machines!:eek:
So why shouldn't sites(like microsoft) allow downloading of products and OS'es they no longer support or sell?
APPLE computers, offers their older OS'es for download, on their site! :eek:
I can see how the RIAA can track users from file sharing sites such as WinMX and others, but how can they track on newsgroups? I can see where those posting can be tracked, but no one has access to others computers. Also, Blubster claims to be an MP2P and undetectable. Any truth to that?
In the past we discussed the RIAA and P2P in great detail, many justified using P2P because of the Price Tag on CD's and that is why they will continue using P2P and not buy another CD. Well, Universal must have taken note of the issue in price and now Universal Slashing CD Prices. Will others follow their lead, who knows.
My question is, how will those same people who justified using P2P because of the pricing issue of CD's and continue to use P2P... what reason do they have now or how will they now justify themselves?
{Don't' bother answering...}
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/bu...partner=GOOGLE
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5071138.html
YAY! an incentive for buying moosick. now I may be able to purchase a CD and get lunch at the mall with the same $20! Now, if only they published music that didnt sound like something that came out of the bowels of an overweight bowler.
Oh, but I simply MUST answer, even though it's painfully clear...Quote:
Originally posted by Fuelm@n
My question is, how will those same people who justified using P2P because of the pricing issue of CD's and continue to use P2P... what reason do they have now or how will they now justify themselves?
{Don't' bother answering...}
They will continue to do what they do, they'll just come up with some other justification (read: lame excuse) for doing it. And the wheel goes round and round...{sigh}
This is an interesting thread, so just to jump in to stress a couple of points...
A) I think the reason people are so opposed to the RIAA is that it is clinging desperately to legal clout to prevent to advance of technology. Record companies produce CD's for less than it costs to produce a casette, yet they charge more. Why? Because they could. Suddenly, they were hit with a digital method of copying CD's, while preserving quality, that they weren't expecting. They chose to hide behind lawyers rather than face realities.
B) As mentioned, Universal Music, a major conglomerate, announced yesterday that they are dropping the price of CD's across all of their various labels "in response" to market feedback that says customers feel CD's cost too much, and makes them feel justified in downloading free MP3's. This despite the fact that every other major conglomerate claimed they couldn't afford to drop prices. They're also planning on making music available online for .99 per track or 9.99 per album by October.
IMHO, Universal's actions undermine the RIAA's fire-and-brimstone diatribe and bravely reflect market reality. The RIAA is a dinosaur watching a giant asteroid approaching and fighting vainly against it...
Yes, some people will always trade warez, movies and songs for free but I also (optimistically) believe many of them do so as a feeling of empowerment because they're tired of paying so much for so little. The industry fought long and hard to prevent recording-capable VCR's from being available to the greedy public because it would cause the fall of the movie industry. The courts thought otherwise. Sure, tape trading happened (still happens) but Hollywood didn't seem to suffer in the last couple of decades.
On a sidenote, it's also interesting to note that the big video-rental chains lobbied the movie companies to raise the price of DVD's to discourage people from buying them right away, and encourage them to rent them, in order to preserve value in the films themselves. The movie companies laughed, kept producing reasonably priced DVD's, and DVD sales soared to record levels thanks to a grateful public. Sure, people can still rent DVD's and record them (there's ways around Macrovision) but why bother if you can buy the actual DVD for $20 or less?
Also, getting back to the beginning of the thread, the EFF is one of the biggest non-profit lobbying organizations protecting our privacy, rights and freedoms on the internet. I always advocate a cautious approach and a little cynacism when online, but there's little need to worry that they're acting as an "agent" for the RIAA to track inquiries, or anything along those lines.
Just my $0.02...!
KV
Just to clear things up:
The EFF is an organization that is fighting this- entering your name on that site isn't going to get you in trouble. It's not a trap.
They are getting the information from court records, which are public records.