PDA

View Full Version : Fallout from online music sharing



Exhaust Port
09-08-2003, 01:38 PM
Universal Music is throwing a bone to the consumer on October 1st by lowing the prices of CD's by close to 20%. Now it could be possible to buy a brand new CD for less than $10.



USA Today Article (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2003-09-03-cdprices_x.htm)


So will this work? I think at this point it's too little too late.

2-1B
09-08-2003, 02:32 PM
The people getting sued right now won't even have the chance to get CDs at a lower price . . . not if they have to pay legal fees. :D

Rogue II
09-08-2003, 02:42 PM
I heard about this on the news last week. It certainly makes sense. Blank CDs are so cheap, plus the abundance of .mp3s on the internet.

I really don't buy the sob story about people losing their jobs at record stores. Most record stores (like Sam Goody) overcharge for cds compared to Walmart, Best Buy, or Circuit City. I wonder if people felt bad for the horse and buggy supply retailers back in the early 1900s after the invention of the automobile.

By the way, the most shocking thing to me in that article was the fact that they still make cassette tapes.;)

QLD
09-08-2003, 02:59 PM
I plan to never buy a CD again (except for very VERY rare circumstances), until they lower the average price below 7.99.

Kidhuman
09-08-2003, 03:15 PM
Well kind of related but I heard on the radio today that they selected 261 people who were downloading music and are filing charges against them.

I think reducing the price and doing this to people is definitly gonna make an impact on CD sales. CD sales are down 31% from 3 years ago and they blame it all onfile sharing and downloading music. I say horse-poop, it had to do with the price of them mostly.

stillakid
09-08-2003, 04:52 PM
I'm curious about something. Say you (anyone of us) buy a CD at normal retail price. Then, because you enjoy it so much you set a little lemonade-type stand out by the road, wherein you have a CD burner set up. Anyone at all can arrive at your stand with a blank CD in hand, and for no exchange of money or anything, you copy your CD onto their blank CD.

This is essentially the way that we all shared our LP's back in the day, albeit it was to 8-track :eek: or to cassettes. Nobody seemed to bat an eye. More than that, the record industry has given away their biggest hits for free for years via FM radio. Anyone with a decent stereo receiver and a cassette recorder (and a little patience) had no need to ever visit a record store.

So is the problem they're having the shear volume of content that is being shared now? Or has it always been the same principle that's under fire, just now they have decided to make an issue out of it because they have the ability to actually track people down? Would they even bother trying to seek and destroy downloaders if it was a super-huge hassle to do so, much like it would have been in the old days when people just did this door to door?

See, it's fairly obvious that they discovered that they could overcharge for CD's and get away with it. But now that their bottom line is lessened (quick reminder that nobody has yet to actually lose any money...they're just making a little less of it these days), and they have the ability to identify the sharers, they feel very threatened despite the fact that online filing sharing has actually improved interest in music overall, but instead of trying to make peace, they are scaring the bejesus out of people and will only further alienate their customer base.

Seems weird to me. I'm just trying to understand the logic on their part.

Exhaust Port
09-08-2003, 04:59 PM
When the record company took a hit in the early 90's they blamed it on the explosion of used CD sales. :rolleyes:

I can honestly say that the price of CD's has kept me from purchasing anything new in the last 4 years with a few exceptions. I use to buy about 50 CD's a year but that was at a point when I could find a new release for about $9. At some point in the late 90's those deals were long gone and I found that I couldn't buy a CD for anything less than $13 quickly. My CD habit was squashed and I've averaged about 3-4 new CD's a year since then.

I've only downloaded 2 songs ever and they were both over 10 years old. I just never quite got into that whole deal. Call me a sucker for packaging. This price drop could very well bring me back to purchasing a few more CD's. I did read some where else that one of the other big CD manufacturers decided not to follow Universal Music's lead and has kept their prices the same. Lower the prices or else we won't buy, it's as simple as that.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
09-08-2003, 10:25 PM
Well the music industry finally has listened to all the criticism it has received in the last few years regarding the inflated prices they charge for CDs (with a large percentage going mostly to them and not the artist). I suspect the overall drop in sales spoke more loudly than fan complaints. But with the availability of music that is free, that is easily accessible, and the fact that you can find pretty much any song that you ever wanted to own, you kind of wonder why people buy CDs anymore?

This price drop won't really effect me. I remember the last time I bought a CD that actually came out the week it was released was way back in 1997. Most of the CDs I buy now are a decade or two old, and are not as badly priced.

JediTricks
09-09-2003, 01:22 AM
Under $10 is a good start, if I can slap down only 1 bill (one without a "2" in the denomination) for an album, get change back, and not have to futz around with downloading, that's how I'd like it. I don't DL music at all, but I also don't buy CDs anymore and rarely listen to commercial radio. The system doesn't work and the executives want to find a way to keep their cushy salaries, but once they finally realize that the consumer is sick of paying them so much, things should get better.

Tonysmo
09-09-2003, 02:02 AM
I dont listen to music anymore.. Ive started to boycott everything.

ok.. Im lying through my teeth. I'm currently sitting at my desk at work, this very moment.. jammin to a very small amount of my mp3's..

I have probably at the most over 6 gigs at home. Why? well.. The way I see it. Im a HUGE thief. other than that..
through my teen years, I bought into hundreds of cassette tapes. HUNDREDS..
now. being that it was about 15 years ago, tapes have a certain quality.. they dont last folks. they just dont. so, most of my mp3s are to replace ALL those tapes I used to have. Do I feel they owe me this? nope. but I think I should have to go out and buy all those tapes over again on cds to replace what I once had? nope. Will I ever try to make a profit off of the music I have? nope.

most of the stuff I have is 80's.. 70's.. even some 50's and 60's. can you even find stuff like that on cd's? maybe so.. but Im not going to try.

With todays technology, they can shut down all the file sharing programs.. you can still record CD quaility music from FM stations directly to a CD. So whats different? nothing. They cant stop it. They cant even contain it.

Whats funny.. is the fact that all these file sharing programs are just nice interfaces for the ( not to hurt anyones feelings ) non-power users.. IRC still remains a huge staple in file sharing, and it always will be. Whats even more exciting than that? Newsgroups. 90% of the people trying to stop downloaders probably are unaware newsgroups even exsist, and if they do know about them, they probably have no idea what kind of content they can hold. The newsgroups will never go away.

I dunno... there really seems to be no point to any of this. It isnt going away. I dont feel the slightest bit bad about what I have. I will continue to find out of print, and other hard to find albums from my youth and beyond. I will continue to build my mp3 collection. I will have the ULTIMATE home jukebox. ha.. I already do.

feel the way I do? http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

certainly dont mean to spout off, as everyone has there own opinons on how to conduct themselves, and the rights and wrongs of this.. just stating my thoughts..

2-1B
09-09-2003, 03:26 AM
if I can slap down only 1 bill (one without a "2" in the denomination) for an album,

but JT, what if Best Buy did a "Thomas Jefferson" promotion in which they sold CDs for a $2 bill ? :crazed:

JediTricks
09-09-2003, 03:46 AM
I love my $2 bills, I'd never part with them for just CDs. :D

mabudonicus
09-09-2003, 10:16 AM
Stillakid, that post is PERFECT.... exactly the way I feel about this whole deal...
The RIAA can cry a wholeocean of crocodile tears...
This all relates to the "singers who can't sing" thread...
At the Iron Maiden concert I went to on aug 3, Bruce Dickinson made a pretty cool speech... I will paraphrase...
He said "The record industry is about to go to war... they claim they are "losing" money hand over fist...You know who the RIAA is blaming??fans, who can't get enough of what they want, fans who want stuff that isn't profitable to release anymore, fans who will search the whole internet for that one concert that someone MUST have recorded somewhere.... well, you wanna know who I think is to blame?? An industry that dumps all of it's fortunes on no-talent, one hit wonders who make one big album and then get discarded so the process can start all over again"
I guess it was a bit more complicated than that, but the gist is true, the industry has become more and more geared towards subtle differences in style, with almost no substance whatsoever....
Most music is not made to enjoy for the rest of one's life anymore... anyone still throw on "mambo #5" every day... (I sure hope not, but hey, I'm no critic).. most music is both designed and over-presented to make it as disposable as toilet paper... now, once the average music listener realizes that they are paying full-sized album price for something that only has one song that is halfway decent (and trust me, this isn't just an observation, it's solid fact... many pop albums only have to have one definite single and one secondary choice and then enough tracks to make the jacket look at least halfway filled) then mebbe it really isn't worth paying for the distribution and all the salaries from the top down just to have available asong that you KNOW you will hate sometime down the road, mebbe just getting the one song either by downloading it, or as Stilla said just waiting by the radio for 2 hours and taping it (specially since with most true "pop" music, the songs you hear on the radio are the only listenable/worthwhile pieces onthe disc they're from) is a more economical solution....
I believe I would pay for music IF A-the price reflected the product and the bloated RIAA infrastructure was NOT included (you wouldn't believe how much it costs to trick people into "liking" %&$*)
And B- the music I wanted was available.... anyone know how hard it is to find old(late 60's and 70's) Burning Spear??? IMPOSSIBLE, without at least a lot of bread and a healthy travel budget....
WHEW... gotta go and post something about Dengar

InsaneJediGirl
09-09-2003, 11:42 AM
I'm with most of you here.The last CD I bought was the AOTC Soundtrack,nothing since.Why?Its way too expensive.I have better things to do with my $13-15 bucks than buy something that probably cost at the most $5 to produce.I've been wanting to get a few new CDs,but $10 is still pricey to me.Used is probably the best way to go.

As for downloading music,it isnt going to stop people from sharing.Back in the mid-90s a number of people transfered radio or CDs to cassette tapes.Its nothing that can be controlled,people will just burn CDs instead and distribute.

Last,who exactly are they targetting?I suspect a public backlash soon if they target casual downloaders instead of people sharing thousands upon thousands of files.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
09-09-2003, 12:41 PM
I personally think the RIAA is making themselves look like the damned Young Guns. All this suing and crap isn't going to make me go, "Oh, God no, i'm not going to download anymore!" it's going to make me find easier, more secure ways to dl mp3's. They are only going after these "big shots" when it comes to downloading. I read that each of these people had over 1,000 mp3's available for sharing at any given time. Any mp3's i downloaded, i burned to CD and deleted immediately. I don't have any shareware now, mostly cause i've exhausted every song i've wanted to download and any other tunes i can get by other means. However, if there is a band that is one of my favorites, i'm going to buy their CD, regardless. For example, i downloaded RAdiohead's "Hail to the Thief" when it leaked in april. However, i got it the day it was officially released, the limited special edition at that. the RIAA can go right to hizell for all i care. :D

stillakid
09-09-2003, 12:58 PM
Thanks, Mabudon. That hit the nail on the head in terms of the quality vs. value aspect of this issue.

Am I likely to go buy the newest Fleetwood Mac CD having heard just one cut on the Clearchannel controlled radio media? Probably. Why? Because that band has a track record of making music that I enjoy. There isn't much concern for me that I'll absolutely abhore the rest of the songs that I haven't heard yet (and will never hear on the Clearchannel Radio Network :rolleyes: ).

But what is being offered in terms of new music these days? When we have a conglomerate essentially programming the airwaves as if they were an audio version of your local generic mall (every one identically packed with a Starbucks, a Barnes and Noble, and a Pier One Imports), then how do the "career" musicians get their product out to the masses? Instead of a good filet minon complete with an appetizer and a Creme Broulet that will remain in our collective memory (ie, Led Zeppelin, Fleetwood Mac, Otis Redding, etc), we are subject to little more than one hit wonders whose music won't last beyond their own puberty. Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing at all wrong with pop tunes, nor the hot tight little abs and smokin' hot young bodies that accompany them (thanks Britney! :crazed: ), but this fast-food mentality that the music industry and media conglomerates, such as ClearChannel, have wrought have created this situation. Would people be more apt to download Pink Floyd's THE WALL if it was released today in light of the technology available? Maybe, but there is some inherent value to a band and an album like that which makes purchasing the entire thing worthwhile.

But when all I want to hear is one disposable song that reminds me of Britney's cavorting figure, the disposable download makes more economic sense than plunking down $18.95. The packaging for that? A search on Google for Britney Spears turns up about 2,940,000 results. I'm sure I can find some kind of titillating image that can accompany my CD burn of that song.

In the end, yeah, it's all content that needs to be paid for. But even as the industry takes consumers to court, music creators aren't finding much sympathy over the plight of execs as they too have been cheated out of profits for years and years. New talent needs exposure and the labels take advantage of that to it's fullest potential. So when labels start to talk about what's fair, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Hmm. But nobody ever accused that industry of ever being too religious or anything either. :rolleyes:

Rogue II
09-09-2003, 01:32 PM
Actually, didn't they just release a remastered verison of The Wall or was it Dark Side of the Moon?

Just to add to your point, I believe Led Zeppelin's latest 3-CD live album do pretty well as far as record sales go. Not to mention that their Live DVD sold quite a few copies as well. (I bought both).

scruffziller
09-09-2003, 06:12 PM
I dont listen to music anymore.. Ive started to boycott everything.

ok.. Im lying through my teeth. I'm currently sitting at my desk at work, this very moment.. jammin to a very small amount of my mp3's..

I have probably at the most over 6 gigs at home. Why? well.. The way I see it. Im a HUGE thief.
Heh heh heh THAT'S FOONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My brother hasn't bought a CD in 10 years. Because of various ways of duplicating music.

derek
09-09-2003, 06:54 PM
or this thread could of been titled, Why it's OK to steal

the reasons it's OK to steal:

1. cd's cost too much
2. not enough good songs on a cd
3. i like sticking it to the rich
4. everyone does it...we've always done it
5. i have better things to spend my money on
6. radio is controlled by money hungry corporations
7. Blank CDs are so cheap
8. i'm not making a profit off my theft
9. they can't sue everyone
10. because iron maiden told me to

Kidhuman
09-09-2003, 08:02 PM
I am with most of you on this. In the last 5 years I have bought a total of 5 Cd's. It was because I like the band that made them. Like Stillakid, if they have proven in the past that at least half the album is good, then it is worth buying, if not, it sits on the shelf.

How many remember when you went to the store and the sticker on the CD/Tape said includes the hits, and 4 or five songs were listed? Nowadays it is onlyone song on that list. The music(if you prefer to call it that) of today downright bites. Out of all the new stuff out I listen to maybe 5 bands. Thats right bands, not this synthetic crap that is made with a machine. Maybe if people displayed some actually talent with instruments the industry would be doing better. Bubble Gum is for chewing, not listening to.

It isnt because we download music that they are losing money, it is for the reasons that Mabs and Stillakid posted. I know of many talented musicians back home in NYC. But since it isnt what "people" want they get screwed, and not signed. But thats a different arguement. Wanna not get sued, dont share music. Download one at a time and sign off, harder to trace you that way. You cant stop this, you can only hope to contain it, which wont help. They shut Napster down and 10 more popped up. Heck if someone wants a song I have I will email it to them, or vice versa.

JediTricks
09-09-2003, 08:39 PM
or this thread could of been titled, Why it's OK to steal

the reasons it's OK to steal:

1. cd's cost too much
2. not enough good songs on a cd
3. i like sticking it to the rich
4. everyone does it...we've always done it
5. i have better things to spend my money on
6. radio is controlled by money hungry corporations
7. Blank CDs are so cheap
8. i'm not making a profit off my theft
9. they can't sue everyone
10. because iron maiden told me toHey, I specifically said I don't DL music yet I also don't buy CDs anymore, and I see I'm not alone in that thinking here in this thread, so maybe the RIAA should look at that type of person and think to themselves "gee, maybe we're dopes who want to blame anybody else but our own ridiculous greed and stupidity for the recent failings of the music industry, and it's time we do something about it", but naaah, that'd never happen. :D

stillakid
09-09-2003, 09:17 PM
Actually, didn't they just release a remastered verison of The Wall or was it Dark Side of the Moon?

Just to add to your point, I believe Led Zeppelin's latest 3-CD live album do pretty well as far as record sales go. Not to mention that their Live DVD sold quite a few copies as well. (I bought both).

I'm not sure. I bought the Dark Side of the Moon remastered CD quite some time ago. I wasn't aware of The Wall being redone. I'll have to check on that.

Just a note about that. The last WALL version I bought was the Berlin Concert, first on VHS then on CD. However, I still prefer the copy that I taped from the Live broadcast on Westwood 1 that night. Seems that they made a couple of mistakes and chose to reedit the live broadcast version with some cuts from the rehearsal the night before. So, see, without the benefit of these non-retail outlets (like radio in that case, or the internet now) some really great moments, from live events to unsigned bands, will get lost forever.

Darth Jax
09-09-2003, 10:12 PM
no one has blamed Lars for this yet. isn't it about time someone names him the figurehead of this latest attempt of the recording industry to control the music.

derek
09-09-2003, 10:29 PM
get your check books out, or start selling your toy collections...........
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Tech&cat=Digital_Music

stillakid
09-09-2003, 11:33 PM
The article implies that they have started by going after people using Verizon networks.

So my question is, are they searching for violators on all internet provider systems? And are they only looking at current violators or have they been tracking downloads for some time now (so that past violators won't be charged)? If you've ever logged on to Kazaa, you can see that there are an awful lot of users on at any given time. Assuming that even half are there trading music files, that's a lot of lawsuits. Seems pretty impractical to chase down all of the current "violators" as well as past users who don't do it anymore.


I found the answer to this query:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/963684.asp?vts=091020031130


Sept. 9 — The Recording Industry Association of America sued 261 alleged file swappers Monday, launching a legal campaign against ordinary Internet users that could ultimately result in thousands of additional lawsuits. But are you at risk?


IF YOU OR A family member have used Kazaa or any other file-swapping application recently and have left your computer open to the Net, the answer is possibly — although the odds of being singled out among an estimated 60 million people using peer-to-peer software remain small. If you’ve kept thousands of songs in the file you’re sharing with other file swappers, then the odds are a little better, though still slim.


Here’s a quick look at how the RIAA has done its investigations and what kind of information it has used to find people and file Monday’s lawsuits.

Step one: Finding file-traders isn’t hard. Anybody who opens a shared folder on Kazaa, Morpheus or any other file-swapping network is susceptible to potentially prying eyes.
In the most recent wave of investigations, the RIAA has used automated tools that look for a relatively short list of files. When it finds a person sharing one or more of those files, it downloads all or many of them for verification purposes. A complete list of these target files is not available, but a sampling of files cited in the early lawsuits includes the following artists and songs:
Bobby McFerrin, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”
Thompson Twins, “Hold Me Now”
Eagles, “Hotel California”
George Michael, “Kissing A Fool”
Paula Abdul, “Knocked Out”
Green Day, “Minority”
UB40, “Red Red Wine” Ludacris “Area Codes” Marvin Gaye, “Sexual Healing”
Avril Lavigne, “Complicated”
This is far from a complete list, but if you’ve downloaded and shared any of those songs recently, you may be at greater risk of finding your way onto the RIAA’s list.

Step two: The RIAA uses features within Kazaa, Grokster and some other software programs to list all the files available within a person’s shared folder and takes screenshots of that information. As filed in court, that provides a record of what in some cases has been thousands of songs shared at once.

Step three: The RIAA’s software records the Internet address associated with a computer that is sharing one of the copyrighted songs the organization is investigating. Some file-swapping programs try to hide this by using mechanisms such as proxy servers, but most downloads still expose this information.

Step four: According to information filed as part of a related lawsuit, the RIAA also has the ability to do a more sophisticated analysis of the files that have been downloaded. The group checks the artist’s name, title, and any “metadata” information attached to the files, looking for information that may indicate what piece of software has been used to create the file or any other. Some files swapped widely on the Net include messages from the original person who created the MP3 file, such as “Created by Grip” or “Finally the Real Full CD delivered fresh for everyone on Grokster and Kazaa to Enjoy!”

The RIAA has also analyzed in detail some files’ contents. The trade group has databases of digital fingerprints, or “hashes,” that identify songs that were swapped online in Napster’s heyday. Investigators check these fingerprints against those found in a new suspected file swapper’s folder, looking for matches. A match means the file has almost certainly been downloaded from the Net, likely from a stream of copies dating back to the original Napster file.

Step five: The RIAA files a subpoena request with a federal court. The subpoena allows the group to go to an Internet service provider and request the name and address of the subscriber who’s associated with the Net address that was used to swap files. A few Internet service providers (ISPs) have fought back against these requests, but most have been forced to comply with the RIAA’s request.
Many ISPs notify their subscribers when a subpoena comes in that targets their information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has set up a database that allows people to see whether their online screen name has been the target of one of these subpoenas.
The RIAA said it has filed more than 1,500 of these subpoenas to date.

Step six: Once the identity of the ISP subscriber has been exposed, the RIAA puts together all the information gleaned through the earlier technical investigation and files a lawsuit. In earlier cases, it has accepted settlement agreements that range between $12,000 and $17,000. In this case, it has accepted some settlement agreements for as little as $3,000.

mabudonicus
09-10-2003, 10:49 AM
JT- you don't download music 'cos yer old-fashioned wooden hard-drive would catch fire:D
Derek- you pretty much summed up the reasons why this problem is happening, for sure.... on thing missing from your list is 11- the ephemeral nature of most of todays "artists", mostly due to the overapplication of the revolving door business-model by the industry overall, has transformed what should be a distribution-and-promotional service for anyone capable of truly entertaining people into a sort of "fame catapult" system, where the "artist" goes up so high, so fast that no-one really gets a sense of what they are until , as quickly as they shot up, they come falling out of the sky to land in a twisted pile of has-been (okay, breathe here); therefore in the old sense of "demand drives price", if the demand dropped right off(supposedly back in the 90's).. well, if the demand dropped off, even stupid people should wonder why the price keeps going up....
Sorry, Derek, but sometimes the legality of a situation doesn't make it right.... I'm SURE you were just playing devil's advocate, but if everyone approached this situation based on the law and not the "reality", you might as well forget about prosecutions of ANYONE ELSE for YEARS....
And with that, I stop JUST short of the political...:D

stillakid
09-10-2003, 12:00 PM
Sorry, Derek, but sometimes the legality of a situation doesn't make it right....

Slavery was legal until 1865.

Polygamy was legal until 1879.

In 1851, Maine enacted a statewide prohibition law, the first in the nation's history. Many states soon followed. By the end of the 19th century, about one-third of America's population lived under a local or state prohibition law.

The stock market crash of 1929 and subsequent onset of Economic Depression assured the return of beer. Resurrecting America's brewing industry would create thousands of new jobs, and produce much-needed new government revenue streams in the form of beer taxes.

The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act allowed states to increase speed limits to 65 mph on portions of interstate highways in 1987.


Point being, things are not always allowed nor disallowed based purely on "what is right." Political and economic necessities drive the reasoning behind what is to be considered "legal" or "illegal" at any given moment in time. Take polygamy for example. What could possibly be objectionable enough about such a thing that would make it "illegal" to do so long as all the parties involved are there of their own free will? The same basic argument goes to temperance or the motorcycle helmet law in California and a few other states.

The question remains open as it applies to copyright and internet file sharing (mainly because the dust is just now being kicked up about it). It may take a gazillion lawsuits before any kind of consensus is reached on how to best deal with it. That's a lot of money going to lawyers. But at least it will be relatively non-violent. Nearly 700,000 people died in the conflict that decided whether the United States would allow slavery or not. This conflict pits businessmen and artists against their would-be audience. Hopefully we'll all find a happy medium sometime soon.

2-1B
09-10-2003, 05:12 PM
Bring back polygamy ! ! ! :happy:

:kiss:

Exhaust Port
09-10-2003, 07:32 PM
Move to Utah! :D

JediTricks
09-10-2003, 08:48 PM
First off, Mab, go kiss my assistant's ring! ;) I've got a 30gig slave harddrive on top of my 4gig original, both are running on a computer old enough to remember when some of this site's users were in single-digit ages and it runs FINE, while the majority of name-brand computers bought by the masses don't last half as long for one reason or the other and run into tons of problems throughout their lives. MP3s are really small, even on 50kbps connections, that's less than an hour of DL time for a 4meg file. Plus, I have uploaded and downloaded music before, just not music the RIAA cares about, stuff my mother's band did that I had legal right to access. So eat mealworms! Nyeah. :p :D


Secondly, has anybody challenged the RIAA on what stilla reposted about how they prove these things? I'm speaking specifically of:

Step two: The RIAA uses features within Kazaa, Grokster and some other software programs to list all the files available within a person’s shared folder and takes screenshots of that information. As filed in court, that provides a record of what in some cases has been thousands of songs shared at once.Since when are screenshots allowed to be considered official record in a case? They're incredibly easy to fake and there's NO way to authenticate them. The laywer who works that loophole will be a prince among men. :D

Kidhuman
09-10-2003, 08:54 PM
Isnt that considered invasion of privacy?

Exhaust Port
09-10-2003, 09:15 PM
Not since the user opts to have his/her files visible to those using the file sharing program. That's similar to someone posting file names on a website and trying to declare them as private data. You share, you lose.

stillakid
09-10-2003, 10:13 PM
Secondly, has anybody challenged the RIAA on what stilla reposted about how they prove these things? I'm speaking specifically of:
Since when are screenshots allowed to be considered official record in a case? They're incredibly easy to fake and there's NO way to authenticate them. The laywer who works that loophole will be a prince among men. :D

While there might be a loophole, I'd liken this to the concept of getting a traffic ticket. This is the one "crime" you can commit in which absolutely NO proof is required of the officer or officers who give it to you. The court relies on their "certification" in which they train to guess the speed of vehicles and then take a test to see how well they do. Because of that "experience," their testimony is admissible in court and absolutely nothing else whatsoever is required. Your word against theirs. Total Boolchit if you ask me. As it relates to the RIAA, I would think that they would have to prove to a judge that the RIAA had motive against someone specific which would motivate them to fabricate a screenshot. With the obvious numbers of users out there, it seems unlikely that any judge would buy it. But OJ got off too, so who knows.

scruffziller
09-11-2003, 03:21 PM
So how come the services such as Kazaa, WinMX, Morpheous, etc haven't been attacked themselves? Just because they have advertisements on there to give them a loophole? Ultimately I agree that downloading this stuff is morally wrong and is stealing. However, threats of lawsuits as they had mentioned in some articles are not the answer but marketing. What they should do is have something like with Kazaa but pay a monthly fee and that money would go to the appropriate parties. But I am afraid it would be too expensive for it to work. The "pay by the song" sites seem to be the best. I just wish they would offer a much more extensive selection. They only have basic songs on there. There were alot of songs that an artist had that were b-sides and if they had those on there, I would definately buy. Because Kazaa didn't even have them on there. I also have uninstalled all the appropriate programs from my computer to prevent any "problems.":dead::sur::rolleyes::D

Jedi_Master_Guyute
09-11-2003, 06:04 PM
They have been attacked, but they're not located in the states, so they fall out of jurisdiction of anybody trying to get them. I think Kazaa is located in australia or something. But, most of the attacks on the services themselves has failed. Plus, they are just the providers of the software, while others are actually downloading stuff themselves. So, TECHNICALLY, they're in the clear, i think. :D

JediTricks
09-12-2003, 03:00 AM
While there might be a loophole, I'd liken this to the concept of getting a traffic ticket. This is the one "crime" you can commit in which absolutely NO proof is required of the officer or officers who give it to you. A cop is an independent agent in the matter and a sworn officer of the law while the RIAA is a private organization who is the primary complaintant in the case. I would think the legal grounds there would be fairly strong, any judge accepting this so-called evidence as the hingepin of a case is merely taking the RIAA's word on it and doesn't really need to bother accepting the screenshot anyway.

Any judge doing that is just setting up grounds for being overturned at appeal.

scruffziller
09-12-2003, 07:19 AM
I also have uninstalled all the appropriate programs from my computer to prevent any "problems.":dead::sur::rolleyes::D
For now.:rolleyes:;):D

mabudonicus
09-12-2003, 09:00 AM
Is transferring stuff to ZIP drives etc good enough for now?? I know the "amnesty" is being offered if one deletes their collection.. what about just burning it and stashing it, or dumping it onto another drive???
And really, I WONDER how many folks are going to "act first",come out of the virtual bushes sobbing "okay, it was me, please don't send me to debtors prison!!!"
COME ON!!!


Also, just like to point out that if you downloaded any of the songs on the list posted earlier in the thread, you deserve whatever you get :D

stillakid
09-12-2003, 11:14 AM
Is transferring stuff to ZIP drives etc good enough for now?? I know the "amnesty" is being offered if one deletes their collection.. what about just burning it and stashing it, or dumping it onto another drive???
And really, I WONDER how many folks are going to "act first",come out of the virtual bushes sobbing "okay, it was me, please don't send me to debtors prison!!!"
COME ON!!!D

There was an article in the LA Times about this a few days ago. Lawyers for the opposition don't recommend that anyone take up this "generous" offer for amnesty as there are no provisions in it that prevent them from suing you into the ground later on. Essentially, you'd come out and tell them what you did, they would "require" you to delete all the illgotten booty, whine "I'm sorry," and then they could still sue you six ways to Sunday and successfully because they have your confession as evidence.

Exhaust Port
09-12-2003, 12:11 PM
So you're screwed whether you download and delete or download and keep?

Did someone say the Spanish Inquisition?!?!

Rogue II
09-12-2003, 12:16 PM
Did someone say the Spanish Inquisition?!?!


NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Exhaust Port
09-12-2003, 12:39 PM
Thank you, Thank you.....Rogue II and I will have our next show soon. :D

scruffziller
12-22-2003, 03:20 PM
:D RIAA File-Sharing Crusade Hits Major Stumbling Block

Appeals court says ISPs don't have to identify suspected pirates.
http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/img/spc.gif
by Joe D'Angelo


http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/img/spc.gif
The recording industry's crusade against illegal file-sharing suffered a major setback Friday when a three-judge panel determined the method used to identify online pirates could no longer be used.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/img/spc.gif
of Columbia overturned a previous federal decision that upheld the Recording Industry Association of America's practice of obtaining the identity of suspected illegal file-sharers through their Internet service providers.

Through such subpoenas, the RIAA was able to file more than 340 copyright-infringement lawsuits, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, since September. Many defendants have settled, fearing costly court proceedings (see "Sixty-Four Alleged File-Sharers Back Down In Face of RIAA Lawsuits" (http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1479419/09302003/id_0.jhtml)).

The ruling doesn't bar the RIAA from ever again suing users of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks who trade copyrighted works, though doing so will be more expensive and time consuming. No longer will ISPs, such as Verizon, AOL and Earthlink, be required to surrender the names and addresses of customers just because the RIAA provides a list of the Internet protocol addresses of suspected pirates. IP addresses are assigned to computers connected to an ISP’s server and, with a corresponding time, can be traced back to a specific subscriber.

"Regardless of this decision, we will continue to defend our rights online on behalf of artists, songwriters and countless others involved in bringing music to the public," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a statement. "We can and will continue to file copyright-infringement lawsuits against file-sharers who engage in illegal activity."

The appeals court's decision also means the RIAA won't be able to warn file-sharers that a lawsuit is coming. Many of those who were notified that a lawsuit was forthcoming settled before litigation began.

The controversy over the ISP subpoenas stemmed from a clause in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which stated that a copyright holder may "request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to [an ISP] for identification of an alleged infringer."

The RIAA acted upon that law in July 2002, when it ordered Verizon Internet Services to hand over the names of two suspected file-sharers. Verizon refused on First Amendment grounds, and the RIAA took the issue to court. In April, Verizon surrendered the names but vowed to appeal the court's decision (see "Verizon Surrenders Names of Suspected Song Pirates To The RIAA" (http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1471535/04252003/id_0.jhtml)).

Since the DMCA was written before the popularity of peer-to-peer file-swapping networks, the law was aimed at pirates who upload copyrighted material to Web or FTP sites, and not to those who store it on their personal computers.

"P2P software was not even a glimmer in anyone's eye when the DMCA was enacted," Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote in the decision. "Furthermore, such testimony as was available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA concerned 'hackers' who established unauthorized FTP or BBS sites on the servers of ISPs. ... The Congress had no reason to foresee the application of [the DMCA] to P2P file-sharing, nor did they draft the DMCA broadly enough to reach the new technology when it came along."

Down but not entirely out, the RIAA's Sherman took the decision in stride, but his statement exuded an air of "no more Mr. Nice Guy." "Verizon is solely responsible for a legal process that will now be less sensitive to the interests of its subscribers who engage in illegal activity," he said.

Exhaust Port
12-22-2003, 08:15 PM
It's nice to see other corporations sticking it to the RIAA. Go Verizon!!

evenflow
12-23-2003, 09:23 PM
I really don't buy the sob story about people losing their jobs at record stores.

Its not the people working at the stores losing the money. It is the people who work at the record labels who are losing their jobs. I know first hand that there really is a problem in the industry. I know people who really fear their job security and know so many who have been fired in the past year and people who continue to lose their jobs each week. I know that I have 4 years of radio experience and was the former music director and am having an extremely difficult time finding a job. It really is a problem.

Don't get me wrong, the industry does do some things wrong. Europe has the right idea with their view on album sales. Regardless, it is a problem.

On a personal note, I feel that buying a CD is an experience. I dont just like having the song. I like having the booklets, the lyrics, and being able to read the thank yous and everything else. Its ashame mor epeople dont feel that way and are satisfied to just download a song.

sith_killer_99
12-23-2003, 10:34 PM
I don't really own very many CD's. I have a lot of used CD's that I bought back in the day, but for the most part I haven't bought many new CD's over the last 5-10 years.

Part of my problem is that I don't usually like all the songs on the CD's. I may like 4-5 songs and hate the rest of the album.

I never got into "downloading" songs off the net. However, I really like the idea of these new sites (apple, the "New" Napster, etc.) where you can download a song and it's your's for 99 cents of less! I think this is gonna go somewhere, sort like the happy medium the Industry was looking for, and honest law abiding citizens don't have to worry about feeling like criminals.