RIAA update: 12 yr old girl SETTLES for $2000 - all the money she had [Archive]

D J 1 3 8

09-09-2003, 11:01 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A day after being sued for illegally sharing music files through the Internet, a 12-year-old girl has settled with the Recording Industry Association of America.

She's the first of 261 defendants to settle their lawsuits with the association.

Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared.

"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service.

The RIAA said it was pleased with the settlement. There are 260 cases still pending.

"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."

mhd

09-09-2003, 11:14 PM

this is bullshit, whoever advised her to settle, especially for that amount, should be fired, what a disgrace

Fletch

09-10-2003, 03:23 AM

How much of that is in fees???? Don't tell me one third, either. Peace.

Red D

09-10-2003, 03:56 AM

Whatever the fees or the settlement, just pay for the music you want, this whole 'everything for free or I don't want it'-attitude is shite.
I worked my ass off as a student to get the music I want, so I couldn't care less about people being sued for steeling it.

RD

jurren

09-10-2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers." all the RIAA is doing right now is creating fear amongst [possible] filesharers. their claim that no one is anonymous when file-sharing is not true. right now they're trying numerous ways to find out just who they should sue next. first their amnesty program, (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3399602) and then that search engine to see if your IP adress has been registered by the RIAA as a filesharer.

as for the settlement... how do they determine the amount of money a copyright violator has to pay in court? i know that here in the netherlands the owner of the copyright can claim either the amount of money it's lost due to the copyright violation [both in loss of sales, as in damaging the good name of the company. both of which have to be proven in court, so that's not very easy], or a restitution of the profit the copyright violator has made with his product.

so using these two possibilities, the RIAA would have to prove in court that this girl's filesharing has caused the drop in sales of the recording industry, by [at least] as much as $2 for every downloaded song. defence would would question the relation between filesharing and the drop in sales, and would point to the bad economy, a shift of sales from cd's to dvd's, and might even come with data on filesharing, to prove that the drop in sales divided by the number of shared files is somewhere around $0.02 [just a guess] and not the claimed $2.00.

jurren

altrrdst8

09-10-2003, 04:40 AM

im sorry, but these record labels are to big, fat and lazy. nowadays all they do is essentially extort the cash out of 12 yo girls like brianna by forcing bland pap down their throats. i dont see why 250 people should be made an example of, when all they are doing is returning the favor. The industry complains that sales are dropping, yet they they have never considered that the drop may be a backlash to aggressive marketing and frankly crap music. i say f&*k 'em. if they cant adapt then its their loss.

altrrdst8

Dave K

09-10-2003, 04:55 AM

It's funny how the lables go after the indidual's who download music (the thieves they all should be killed) because the downloaders are taking money out of the artist pocket but nowhere have i seen or heard the idea that instead of spending all this money on lawyers and court cost which has got to be alot, give that money to the artist. I hate the recording industry.

Cheddar

09-10-2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Red D:
Whatever the fees or the settlement, just pay for the music you want, this whole 'everything for free or I don't want it'-attitude is shite.
I worked my ass off as a student to get the music I want, so I couldn't care less about people being sued for steeling it.

RD Dont make this relative to your pursuit of music..this whole ordeal is BULLSHIT. Going after the poor because they cant catch Robin Hood.
Furthermore, what are they stealing?? Compressed versions of music..not even the exact quality which is available for sale.
I cannot believe our judicial system is wasting taxpayers money to facilitate these cases.

graemlins/sleep2.gif

beaniboy67

09-10-2003, 06:51 AM

I personally use file sharing systems to check out tracks that i may want to buy.I have spent hundreds of pounds on records recently that i would not have bought if it wasnt for fle sharing systems.If i hear a track on a mix and i can look at the name from the playlist i then go to my online record store and see if they have got it.I then check what mix of the track i want by going to file sharing sites and downloading the various edits/remixes to makesure im buying the correct one.I just wont buy blind and i detest record shops unless i defo no the track and have already sussed out what mix i want.I have bought lots of records from shops that i later didnt like cos i hadnt heard it properly.Shops suck and everyone wants a sale.If you go to a shop as well and the attendant gives you 25 cuts and u only like 3 (usually the case with me)you will sometimes buy an extra couple of cuts you think are ok just cos the guys in the store are trying to help you out.I say fuick the major labels cos they are all fuikin ripping of the public.£13 for an album that costs 50p to make and the artist gets hardly a penny anyways!!I will keep using file sharing systems and i will also keep spending my money on the artists i like. As for the rest of the stuff i have downloaded it gets deleted!

Major example - I d/loaded the new masters at work album and didnt like it.I then deleted it from my system.i already have a few of the tracks from it on vinyl but the rest of it i wasnt keen on.Would it have been better for me to buy it blind from Japan on the whim that i may like it? or would it be better if i d/loaded it and checked it out like i would do in a record store and then buy it if i really liked it?.I no what makes sense!!

mhd

09-10-2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by einnod23:
How much of that is in fees???? Don't tell me one third, either. Peace. not hardly, trust me, no one made money on this case, she was a defendant, the only attorneys that would potentially make money were the RIAA lawyers. and their costs to pursue this matter exceeded 2000 dollars

Martin Red

09-10-2003, 08:12 AM

Good way of getting publicity for your cause.

They said it's as bad as stealing a CD from the shop.

The guy on Breakfast TV pointed out:-

"no it isn't, you have to get the bus or drive into town, go into a shop sus the security guards then steal it and walk around the shop for half an hour with it down your trousers until it's safe to leave, nothing even similiar to downloading it".

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 08:18 AM

Is stealing songs any different from shoplifting CDs? I really don't think it is.

If you put it in those terms, it is like going in to Tower Records and stealing over 1000 CD singles. SHould that be free from prosecution as well?

I'm not claiming that I haven't done this myself, mind you. I am, however, fully aware that I am breaking the law and taking the risk of being caught, just as if I was shoplifting.

I really don't see moral argument for stealing music.

Red D

09-10-2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by 1343:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Red D:
Whatever the fees or the settlement, just pay for the music you want, this whole 'everything for free or I don't want it'-attitude is shite.
I worked my ass off as a student to get the music I want, so I couldn't care less about people being sued for steeling it.

RD Dont make this relative to your pursuit of music..this whole ordeal is BULLSHIT. Going after the poor because they cant catch Robin Hood.
Furthermore, what are they stealing?? Compressed versions of music..not even the exact quality which is available for sale.
I cannot believe our judicial system is wasting taxpayers money to facilitate these cases.

graemlins/sleep2.gif [/QUOTE]As I said, I wasn't talking about this case or the fact that richer people take money from poorer people, I am just stating the simple fact that if you steal something (I hope we all agree it is stealing) you can get caught and may have to suffer the consequences.
And I do look at my own way of getting music because I do not steal it, simple as that, so I won't get caught and have absolutely no sympathy for people who do.

Regarding the argument of using file sharing as a means of listening to new music before buying it, there is a point in there, but when you are saying you have bought tracks because you felt kinda sorry that the store people were helping you out, well that's kinda weak don't you think?

RD

andrea

09-10-2003, 09:29 AM

a 12 year old with 2,000? that's more than some working people.

Cordell

09-10-2003, 09:36 AM

Well from what I understand of the little girl, her mother has to pay 2,000 dollars and they're living in public housing.
Another case is a 70 year grandfather is being held accountable for his grandchildren downloading of free music. Now you know someone that's retired can't afford to pay thousands of dollars on this bullshit. I would imagine that alot of these cases involves kids. The RIAA needs to come up with a better solution then just making everyone pay.

Martin Red

09-10-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
Is stealing songs any different from shoplifting CDs? I really don't think it is.

If you put it in those terms, it is like going in to Tower Records and stealing over 1000 CD singles. SHould that be free from prosecution as well?

I'm not claiming that I haven't done this myself, mind you. I am, however, fully aware that I am breaking the law and taking the risk of being caught, just as if I was shoplifting.

I really don't see moral argument for stealing music. I see what your saying , but i would say the crime is closer to taping music from the radio back in the day.

If you where poor (and I don't mean a 12YO with £2K in the bank WTF ! , ;) @ Andrea) taping music of the radio was normal, listen to most of the some radio mixes for example...

But no-one expected the police round for taping off the radio. I do see it as slightly different as it was cheaper to turn the radio on, if can afford Internet connection and PC - you ain't that poor and also, the quality and the fact you don't have to sit by your computer waiting to hit pause when DJ dork used to chat fart. ;)

mhd

09-10-2003, 09:46 AM

let's get real, don't believe for a second that she had 2000 in the fuking bank! if anyone gets one of these please let me know, the opposition is mobilizing

Bold Soul

09-10-2003, 09:48 AM

If this was happening anywhere else but the US, shit would be on fire in the streets. Really. Tell me I'm lying.

Bootlegging is the only way some countries get US popular music. Take these lawsuits to the Ukraine and see if you don't catch hell.

Jamie 3:26

09-10-2003, 09:49 AM

I saw a blurb this morning that there is a lawsuit against the RIAA for the misleading "amnesty.."

LEONARD REMIX RROY

09-10-2003, 12:22 PM

Never would had been me, her lawyer must suck because I used a public defender and beat my case...I of course gave him all the proper information to argue but - any half ass lawyer could have beat that case.

Did I get over like a fat rat YES!

In my case they found no plant, no cash, no blank media, and most important - not a single photo or video.

If that were a relative of mine, she would have beat that case with use of a public defender.

'Magic' Juan

09-10-2003, 12:26 PM

They're just using these poor folk to set an example and try to scare the music consuming public. If the sheep don't fall in line, they will be punished. Complete idiocy! They are going about this the wrong way.

magic_juan

Leslie

09-10-2003, 12:26 PM

Music Download Suits Could Raise Backlash

Sep 10, 6:15 AM (ET)

By ALEX VEIGA

(AP) Alan Logan of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., looks at a "Yellow Submarine," vintage LP vinyl record by...
Full Image

LOS ANGELES - The recording industry has taken its piracy fight directly to music fans, suing more than 200 people this week alone. Now comes the hard part: Persuading the very people it has threatened with legal action to revisit music stores or to sample legal downloading services.

It might prove difficult to do so, some observers say, because the industry's lawsuit campaign could spark a consumer backlash spurred by the discontent many music fans already feel over soaring CD prices and the reduction of retailers offering varied music titles.

"The real hope here is that people will return to the record store," said Eric Garland, CEO of BigCampagne LLC, which tracks peer-to-peer Internet trends. "The biggest question is whether singling out a handful of copyright infringers will invigorate business or drive file-sharing further underground, further out of reach."

Jason Rich, of Watervliet, N.Y., said the record companies' campaign prompted him to stop downloading music from file-sharing networks, but he called the issue "disconcerting."

"I think it's kind of silly to go after individuals," said Rich, 26. "There are so many Web sites out there, people don't know necessarily they're doing anything wrong."

Some of the music fans caught in the piracy net cast by the recording industry took steps Tuesday toward settling the copyright infringement lawsuits levied against them for sharing song files over the Internet.

The industry sued 261 people on Monday and has promised to sue hundreds more in coming weeks as it strives to stamp out music piracy it blames for a three-year slump in CD sales.

The Recording Industry Association of America settled the first of the suits Tuesday for $2,000 - with the mother of a 12-year-old defendant, Brianna LaHara of New York. Brianna was accused of downloading more than 1,000 songs using Kazaa.

RIAA Vice President Matt Oppenheim said he was not surprised to see young and old alike caught in the industry's snare.

"We know that there are a lot of young people who are using these services and we totally expected that we would end up targeting them," Oppenheim said. "As we have said from the beginning ... there is no free pass to engage in music piracy just because you haven't come of age. We're not surprised and we're not deterred."

The RIAA itself was sued Tuesday by a California attorney who accused the music trade group of "unfair, misleading and fraudulent business practices" for promoting an amnesty program aimed at music file-shares. The RIAA's "Clean Slate" program would allow file-sharers who step forward and pledge to cease downloading files illegally to avoid being sued.

An RIAA spokesman declined to comment directly on the suit.

Consumers already think so little of the music companies, that the lawsuits likely won't make much difference, said Josh Bernoff, an analyst with Forrester Research, Inc.

"The industry has been backed into a corner, and their image is so bad, the lawsuits are not going to be much of a problem," he said.

The industry opted to target individuals earlier this year, figuring music fans who prefer to get their music online now are beginning to have viable options to do so legally through for-pay music download services like Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store and Buy.com's BuyMusic.com.

But while iTunes has sold more than 10 million song downloads since its April launch, no service has emerged for the large majority of computer users on the Window platform. Most of the legal offerings come with limited selection and restrictions on what fans can do with their music.

There are signs some people have stopped file-sharing since June, when the RIAA announced its lawsuit campaign, and also have moved to other file-swapping networks perceived to be safer than the market leader, Kazaa.

Traffic on the FastTrack network, the conduit for Kazaa and Grokster users, declined over the summer and climbed again last month, as has the number of people using less popular file-sharing software like eDonkey, Garland said.

At the same time, a decline in CD sales worsened. Between June 15 and Aug. 3, the decline in CD sales accelerated 54 percent. And as of Aug. 3, CD sales were down 9.4 percent over the same period in 2002, according to the Yankee Group.

Just because a person stops file-sharing does not mean they will start buying CDs and boost industry revenue, Bernoff said.

"Many of these individuals have gotten out of the habit of buying CDs," Bernoff said. "They think CDs are too expensive."

That view led Universal Music Group to slash the wholesale price of its CDs and recommend retailers sell them for $12.98 from $18.98.

The price cut was an olive branch to music fans, many who have already soured on the industry because of practices that kept CD prices artificially high. The industry settled a lawsuit with 43 states last year who had accused the recording companies of conspiring in the 1990s to set a minimum price for CDs.

None of the other major recording companies have followed Universal.

LEONARD REMIX RROY

09-10-2003, 12:47 PM

Well, I feel sorry for the people who don't have the right answers.

I got over and laughed at them outside of the court-room.

I play dumb but, when I pull out the Big Joker, I beat any thing on the table.

09-10-2003, 12:58 PM

My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"?

mhd

09-10-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by JL:
My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"? 12 years old

Huey P. Freeman

09-10-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
Well, I feel sorry for the people who don't have the right answers.

I got over and laughed at them outside of the court-room.

I play dumb but, when I pull out the Big Joker, I beat any thing on the table. Did they come after you Leonard?

09-10-2003, 01:15 PM

I hear you, the case in question does make them assholes. In general though, doesn't it boil down to stealing?

LEONARD REMIX RROY

09-10-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JL:
My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"? 12 years old [/QUOTE]ditto, 12 years old.

Stuff like that make me applaud bootleggers...at least somebody got over.

Huey P. Freeman

09-10-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JL:
My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"? 12 years old [/QUOTE]Also what about people who record off the radio or dub music? Point is in MOST, not all cases the people who download the music would not have bought it anyway.

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JL:
My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"? 12 years old [/QUOTE]ditto, 12 years old.

Stuff like that make me applaud bootleggers...at least somebody got over. [/QUOTE]do you also applaud 12-year olds who shoplift?

There is no difference.

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 01:36 PM

Also keep in mind that her being 12-years old is the only reason she made the news. There were 260 others who did not, and I would estimate they were not all 12. The RIAA chose to make an example of a handful of people who were sharing an excessive amount of files. I'm not sure what else they can do to deter theft.

jpsf

09-10-2003, 01:39 PM

can monopolies set high prices by hording the resources? what if these monoplies owned most of the music ever made? what if they acquired this music using guerilla tactics such as outragous advances (that the artists must pay back).

who owns music? who should own music?

mhd

09-10-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JL:
My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"? 12 years old [/QUOTE]ditto, 12 years old.

Stuff like that make me applaud bootleggers...at least somebody got over. [/QUOTE]do you also applaud 12-year olds who shoplift?

There is no difference. [/QUOTE]big difference, shoplifters don't get sued civilly.

LEONARD REMIX RROY

09-10-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JL:
My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"? 12 years old [/QUOTE]ditto, 12 years old.

Stuff like that make me applaud bootleggers...at least somebody got over. [/QUOTE]do you also applaud 12-year olds who shoplift?

There is no difference. [/QUOTE]big difference, shoplifters don't get sued civilly. [/QUOTE]Ok we will do it like this........
All mixes are given to the site for listening pleasure, if anyone had downloaded a mix and put it on disc......I guess that make the person a theif because they did not send little as a - "Loved your mix" email.

mhd

09-10-2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JL:
My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"? 12 years old [/QUOTE]ditto, 12 years old.

Stuff like that make me applaud bootleggers...at least somebody got over. [/QUOTE]do you also applaud 12-year olds who shoplift?

There is no difference. [/QUOTE]big difference, shoplifters don't get sued civilly. [/QUOTE]Ok we will do it like this........
All mixes are given to the site for listening pleasure, if anyone had downloaded a mix and put it on disc......I guess that make the person a theif because they did not send little as a - "Loved your mix" email. [/QUOTE]exactly

john

09-10-2003, 01:59 PM

poor music lovin girl. that case is ridiculus, setting examples by hitting a few doesnt make any sense!!

the way I see it, the music industry missed the train. they could have worked out ways for people to get music on the net by paying fair to the musicians and labels and by so leaving out the distributors who takes a good piece of the cake.
could have been so easy.. log on to EMI or whateva and download the latest hitsong..
Insted they kept going as before and now they want to repair their own mistakes. suckers!!!

maybe people can pitch in the 2000$.. a 12 year old has better ways to spend that kind money. could have been a good start for her education..

/john

Huey P. Freeman

09-10-2003, 01:59 PM

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
big difference, shoplifters don't get sued civilly. They don't get sued becuz they can be prosecuted. For file-sharing, lawsuits are currently the only means that the RIAA and musicians have at their disposal.

Are those opposed to these lawsuits trying to make a case that all music should be down-loadable for free?

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by JL:
I hear you, the case in question does make them assholes. In general though, doesn't it boil down to stealing? that's an open question, see, i doubt if they could have proven their case, intent is an element, would a jury find that a 12 year old willfully and intentionally acted to defraud?

09-10-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JL:
My own opinions on file sharing aside, doesn't the RIAA do alot to actually protect artist's and label's rights? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the side of those that are technically "stealing"? 12 years old [/QUOTE]ditto, 12 years old.

Stuff like that make me applaud bootleggers...at least somebody got over. [/QUOTE]do you also applaud 12-year olds who shoplift?

There is no difference. [/QUOTE]big difference, shoplifters don't get sued civilly. [/QUOTE]I get the distinction now, should've read more carefully.

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 02:10 PM

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
big difference, shoplifters don't get sued civilly. They don't get sued becuz they can be prosecuted. For file-sharing, lawsuits are currently the only means that the RIAA and musicians have at their disposal.

Are those opposed to these lawsuits trying to make a case that all music should be down-loadable for free? [/QUOTE]wrong, they could be pursued in civil and criminal court, but it never happens. as for free downloads, the riaa was slow to react to the change in technology, how many years for napster, kazaa, morpheus before they figured out they had to close the barn door. then mac comes out with itunes sells 10 million tunes at a fraction of the cost of a cd, which have prices that are aritificially inflated, of course that benefits the companies and not necessarliy the artists. their solution is to sue 12 year olds and seniors?

LEONARD REMIX RROY

09-10-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JL:
I hear you, the case in question does make them assholes. In general though, doesn't it boil down to stealing? that's an open question, see, i doubt if they could have proven their case, intent is an element, would a jury find that a 12 year old willfully and intentionally acted to defraud? [/QUOTE]No they would not believe she tried to defraud.

Hell, they believed all the B/S I passed on the the public defender to use in my defense and I beat the case graemlins/rofl.gif she shouldn't have settled...especially since she was not making money off the music.

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 02:15 PM

So...everyone's saying that: since the record industry was slow to react to the change in technology, it's OK to steal from them. Run this by your Mom and tell me what she says.

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
So...everyone's saying that: since the record industry was slow to react to the change in technology, it's OK to steal from them. Run this by your Mom and tell me what she says. take your moral questions to your rabbi

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
So...everyone's saying that: since the record industry was slow to react to the change in technology, it's OK to steal from them. Run this by your Mom and tell me what she says. take your moral questions to your rabbi [/QUOTE]is stealing not a moral issue?

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
So...everyone's saying that: since the record industry was slow to react to the change in technology, it's OK to steal from them. Run this by your Mom and tell me what she says. take your moral questions to your rabbi [/QUOTE]is stealing not a moral issue? [/QUOTE]are you talking about how record companies steal from artists? that moral issue?

Leslie

09-10-2003, 02:25 PM

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Leslie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
So...everyone's saying that: since the record industry was slow to react to the change in technology, it's OK to steal from them. Run this by your Mom and tell me what she says. take your moral questions to your rabbi [/QUOTE]is stealing not a moral issue? [/QUOTE]Is it really stealing? [/QUOTE]its a legal question and a business practices question no place for morality in either venue

jurren

09-10-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by john:
the way I see it, the music industry missed the train. they could have worked out ways for people to get music on the net by paying fair to the musicians and labels and by so leaving out the distributors who takes a good piece of the cake.
could have been so easy.. log on to EMI or whateva and download the latest hitsong..
Insted they kept going as before and now they want to repair their own mistakes. suckers!!!the music industry has tried to offer music in a downloadable form through the internet in the past, but you're allready pointing out the biggest problem they encountered while doing so: distributors [and retail.]

when the recordingindustry tried to offer songs to the public through the internet, distributers and retailers threatened not to buy music from those labels anymore. as the internet was still in it's infancy [commercially that is] they could not afford loosing THEIR biggest customers: retail and distribution. hence they stopped offering their artists through the internet.

jurren

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by john:
the way I see it, the music industry missed the train. they could have worked out ways for people to get music on the net by paying fair to the musicians and labels and by so leaving out the distributors who takes a good piece of the cake.
could have been so easy.. log on to EMI or whateva and download the latest hitsong..
Insted they kept going as before and now they want to repair their own mistakes. suckers!!!the music industry has tried to offer music in a downloadable form through the internet in the past, but you're allready pointing out the biggest problem they encountered while doing so: distributors [and retail.]

when the recordingindustry tried to offer songs to the public through the internet, distributers and retailers threatened not to buy music from those labels anymore. as the internet was still in it's infancy [commercially that is] they could not afford loosing THEIR biggest customers: retail and distribution. hence they stopped offering their artists through the internet.

jurren [/QUOTE]like i said, a business practices issue, they did not want to tangle with such a powerful opponent, but 12 year old girls, BRING IT ON!!

Moksha

09-10-2003, 02:33 PM

Let's get real...this girl stol 1000 songs (at least). That's not just a few N'Sync remixes....that is ALOT of ****ing music!

If the same poor, innocent 12-year old stole 1000 candy bars, would everybody still be defending her?

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Leslie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
So...everyone's saying that: since the record industry was slow to react to the change in technology, it's OK to steal from them. Run this by your Mom and tell me what she says. take your moral questions to your rabbi [/QUOTE]is stealing not a moral issue? [/QUOTE]Is it really stealing? [/QUOTE]its a legal question and a business practices question no place for morality in either venue [/QUOTE]it is considered to be illegal bcause it is considered to be stealing.

My point is that either you consider downloading music for free stealing or you don't. If you do, in fact, consider it to be stealing, then I don't see how you can object to those that are being stolen from sueing those that are doing the stealing, since they are beyond criminal prosecution at this time.

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:35 PM

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 02:35 PM

D J 1 3 8

09-10-2003, 02:36 PM

jurren

09-10-2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by john:
the way I see it, the music industry missed the train. they could have worked out ways for people to get music on the net by paying fair to the musicians and labels and by so leaving out the distributors who takes a good piece of the cake.
could have been so easy.. log on to EMI or whateva and download the latest hitsong..
Insted they kept going as before and now they want to repair their own mistakes. suckers!!!the music industry has tried to offer music in a downloadable form through the internet in the past, but you're allready pointing out the biggest problem they encountered while doing so: distributors [and retail.]

when the recordingindustry tried to offer songs to the public through the internet, distributers and retailers threatened not to buy music from those labels anymore. as the internet was still in it's infancy [commercially that is] they could not afford loosing THEIR biggest customers: retail and distribution. hence they stopped offering their artists through the internet.

jurren [/QUOTE]like i said, a business practices issue, they did not want to tangle with such a powerful opponent, but 12 year old girls, BRING IT ON!! [/QUOTE]so true!

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Let's get real...this girl stol 1000 songs (at least). That's not just a few N'Sync remixes....that is ALOT of ****ing music!

If the same poor, innocent 12-year old stole 1000 candy bars, would everybody still be defending her? but it was not candy bars, where has it been proven that she "stole" anything? [/QUOTE]she had downloaded over 1000 songs that she didn't pay for. [/QUOTE]still yet to be proven that she stole

Tempest

09-10-2003, 02:40 PM

How about all you dj's that sell mix cd's by mixing other people's music!! haha, just kidding,
keep mixing!! The RIAA is doomed and so are the major labels. How dare they ruin the life of a 12 year old, she already lives in the projects, ... wth !!!

jurren

09-10-2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Let's get real...this girl stol 1000 songs (at least). That's not just a few N'Sync remixes....that is ALOT of ****ing music!

If the same poor, innocent 12-year old stole 1000 candy bars, would everybody still be defending her? she's not sued for stealing anything!

she's sued for having over a thousand songs on her harddisk, that she offers to other people to download.

you are allowed to download 1000000000000000 songs a day, but you are not allowed to offer a song for download to someone else.

jurren

fred da warrior

09-10-2003, 02:43 PM

Mabye I'm asking the obvious, but why isn't the RIAA going after the entities that are offering the music that is supposedly being stolen instead of the customers that goes to a "free" site to exchange/ download music? It seems that the RIAA in its zealousness is jumping over the middle man who is actually doing the stealing and going after the "little guy".

Please rescue me if I am missing the point.

[ September 10, 2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: fred ]

Moksha

09-10-2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Let's get real...this girl stol 1000 songs (at least). That's not just a few N'Sync remixes....that is ALOT of ****ing music!

If the same poor, innocent 12-year old stole 1000 candy bars, would everybody still be defending her? but it was not candy bars, where has it been proven that she "stole" anything? [/QUOTE]So...you think that if I write a nd publish a book, for example, it would not be considered stealing if somebody copied my book onto the internet and shared it with thousands without my permission and for free?

What next, should we do away with all trademark, copyright, IP laws? Or only in cases where it is a minor doing the stealing?

DeesKo

09-10-2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
but it was not candy bars, where has it been proven that she "stole" anything? It doesn't have to be proven, she settled.

Peace

Moksha

09-10-2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Let's get real...this girl stol 1000 songs (at least). That's not just a few N'Sync remixes....that is ALOT of ****ing music!

If the same poor, innocent 12-year old stole 1000 candy bars, would everybody still be defending her? she's not sued for stealing anything!

she's sued for having over a thousand songs on her harddisk, that she offers to other people to download.

you are allowed to download 1000000000000000 songs a day, but you are not allowed to offer a song for download to someone else.

jurren [/QUOTE]Let's be real: she didn't get those 1000 songs from her CD collection. And, isn't fencing stolen items really just the other side of the coin from stealing?

Just because nobody knows how to deal with these legal issues properly yet, does not mean that these activities should not be stopped. This "sharing" violates so many of the principles that are already in existence.

Moksha

09-10-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by fred:
Mabye I'm asking the obvious, but why isn't the RIAA going after the entities that are offering the music that is supposedly being stolen instead of the customers that goes to a "free" site to exchange/ download music? It seems that the RIAA in its zealousness is jumping over the middle man who is actually doing the stealing and going after the "little guy".

Please rescue me if I am missing the point. They are going after the entities that are "dealing." That is why all these lawsuits are going after people with over 1000 titles who are offering them to others.

JoeB

09-10-2003, 02:49 PM

didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her?

GROOVE VICTIM

09-10-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Let's get real...this girl stol 1000 songs (at least). That's not just a few N'Sync remixes....that is ALOT of ****ing music!

If the same poor, innocent 12-year old stole 1000 candy bars, would everybody still be defending her? but it was not candy bars, where has it been proven that she "stole" anything? [/QUOTE]So...you think that if I write a nd publish a book, for example, it would not be considered stealing if somebody copied my book onto the internet and shared it with thousands without my permission and for free?

What next, should we do away with all trademark, copyright, IP laws? Or only in cases where it is a minor doing the stealing? [/QUOTE]When you get the book published or copyrighted, put it in writing "NOT" to copy your book onto the internet. You then clearly state, in writing, the the possiblity of legal action should someone break this oath. If anyone breaks this rule to the point where it is copied hundreds of times over, you have the right to sue because, you put it in writing.

This has to work somehow.

Peace

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Let's get real...this girl stol 1000 songs (at least). That's not just a few N'Sync remixes....that is ALOT of ****ing music!

If the same poor, innocent 12-year old stole 1000 candy bars, would everybody still be defending her? she's not sued for stealing anything!

she's sued for having over a thousand songs on her harddisk, that she offers to other people to download.

you are allowed to download 1000000000000000 songs a day, but you are not allowed to offer a song for download to someone else.

jurren [/QUOTE]Let's be real: she didn't get those 1000 songs from her CD collection. And, isn't fencing stolen items really just the other side of the coin from stealing?

Just because nobody knows how to deal with these legal issues properly yet, does not mean that these activities should not be stopped. This "sharing" violates so many of the principles that are already in existence. [/QUOTE]are you saying that she profitted from the re-sale of allegedly stolen songs? cause that is what a fence does.

GROOVE VICTIM

09-10-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? You smoke cigarettes?

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
but it was not candy bars, where has it been proven that she "stole" anything? It doesn't have to be proven, she settled.

Peace [/QUOTE]whether it has to be or not, it has not been proven. you can make an improper or invalid confession.

Moksha

09-10-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Let's get real...this girl stol 1000 songs (at least). That's not just a few N'Sync remixes....that is ALOT of ****ing music!

If the same poor, innocent 12-year old stole 1000 candy bars, would everybody still be defending her? but it was not candy bars, where has it been proven that she "stole" anything? [/QUOTE]So...you think that if I write a nd publish a book, for example, it would not be considered stealing if somebody copied my book onto the internet and shared it with thousands without my permission and for free?

What next, should we do away with all trademark, copyright, IP laws? Or only in cases where it is a minor doing the stealing? [/QUOTE]When you get the book published or copyrighted, put it in writing "NOT" to copy your book onto the internet. You then clearly state, in writing, the the possiblity of legal action should someone break this oath. If anyone breaks this rule to the point where it is copied hundreds of times over, you have the right to sue because, you put it in writing.

This has to work somehow.

Peace [/QUOTE]Exactly...those songs are all copyrighted and should be afforded the same protection. The problem is, the internet is too decentralized to find out who originally illegally copied my book (or a song) into a digital format and made it available.

JoeB

09-10-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? You smoke cigarettes? [/QUOTE]only after a nice **** or when i have a drink.

GROOVE VICTIM

09-10-2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by JoeB:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? You smoke cigarettes? [/QUOTE]only after a nice **** or when i have a drink. [/QUOTE]My point is you paid for the cigarettes knowing that they can kill you in the near future if you do alot of smoking.

You eat at Burger King?

mhd

09-10-2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? You smoke cigarettes? [/QUOTE]only after a nice **** or when i have a drink. [/QUOTE]My point is you paid for the cigarettes knowing that they can kill you in the near future if you do alot of smoking.

[/QUOTE]fyi, you realize that you are making the same losing argument that the tobacco companies made

JoeB

09-10-2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? You smoke cigarettes? [/QUOTE]only after a nice **** or when i have a drink. [/QUOTE]My point is you paid for the cigarettes knowing that they can kill you in the near future if you do alot of smoking.

You eat at Burger King? [/QUOTE]i actually got your point. i was just answering your question.

and no, i wouldn't step near a BK much less inside of one. ****ing disgusting.

Moksha

09-10-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? Kazaa is just technology. They didn't do anything illegal. That would be like suing the phone companies for providing the lines that the files travel through.

GROOVE VICTIM

09-10-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Exactly...those songs are all copyrighted and should be afforded the same protection. The problem is, the internet is too decentralized to find out who originally illegally copied my book (or a song) into a digital format and made it available. [/QB][/QUOTE]

True but if there's a will there's a way. This is how they find alot of morons who put viruses out into the world wide web.

But the simple fact is that you protected yourself from being duped by putting everything in writing. Now whoever takes your product IMO is responsible for its use. Simply writing a warning in the book itself should be more than enough to get someone nailed, if they were the first to download or the thousanth .

Moksha

09-10-2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Exactly...those songs are all copyrighted and should be afforded the same protection. The problem is, the internet is too decentralized to find out who originally illegally copied my book (or a song) into a digital format and made it available. [/QUOTE]True but if there's a will there's a way. This is how they find alot of morons who put viruses out into the world wide web.

But the simple fact is that you protected yourself from being duped by putting everything in writing. Now whoever takes your product IMO is responsible for its use. Simply writing a warning in the book itself should be more than enough to get someone nailed, if they were the first to download or the thousanth . [/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree 100% It takes a long time and a lot of hard work and money to create a book, a song, a film, etc. All of these that are protected by copyrights should be protected.

GROOVE VICTIM

09-10-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by mhd:

fyi, you realize that you are making the same losing argument that the tobacco companies made [/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes but my point was the fact that Kazaa, Napster and other P2P programs are only a means to get files over the net. It's up to the individual whether he or she should download or download and share what ever they are downloading.

How many email attachments of mp3s and other files get shared throughout the world these days?

Peace

sammyrock

09-10-2003, 03:10 PM

My question is where the $2,000 is actually going to?the artist??how do you spilt $2,000 into 1,00 songs..Happy are the artist if ever they see one red cent from this lawsuit.Soon they will be coming after Djs for making cd mixes..that I paid for the music already..whats next peeps??BOGUS! mad1.gif

mhd

09-10-2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:

fyi, you realize that you are making the same losing argument that the tobacco companies made [/QUOTE]Yes but my point was the fact that Kazaa, Napster and other P2P programs are only a means to get files over the net. It's up to the individual whether he or she should download or download and share what ever they are downloading.

Peace [/QB][/QUOTE]

oh you mean like aiding and abetting?

jurren

09-10-2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by sammyrock:
My question is where the $2,000 is actually going to?the artist??how do you spilt $2,000 into 1,00 songs..Happy are the artist if ever they see one red cent from this lawsuit.Soon they will be coming after Djs for making cd mixes..that I paid for the music already..whats next peeps??BOGUS! mad1.gif i think this is the biggest problem people have with the RIAA.
the RIAA supports the rights of the owners to the copyright of the music/films. i think that in 99% of the cases those rights are no longer in the hands of the artist, but in the hands of the recording company.
the RIAA does not protect the [artistic] rights of the artists, it protects the economic rights of the recordingindustry.

the reason they are coming after people that make mix-cd's is that, eventhough you paid for your copy of the recording, you did not buy the right to make that recording available to the public. the RIAA feels that if you include a song in a mix-cd, people that buy tha mix-cd, will no longer buy the record the song came from, thus reducing their sales. reality is probably that people that buy those mix-cd's would either not buy those records in the first place, OR buy the record because they heard it on your mix. so instead of having [the suspected] negative effect on sales, it has a possitive effect. but the RIAA doesn't know that because they know nothing about the market the opperate in, and only care about the $$$$.

jurren

09-10-2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? Kazaa is just technology. They didn't do anything illegal. That would be like suing the phone companies for providing the lines that the files travel through. [/QUOTE]that's what the judge said!

what would be the ultimate joke, would have to be if someone was smart enough to think of a way to create a p2p program that works alongside msn-messenger for instance. so when you hook up to msn-messenger, you can share files with your close group of friends. let's just see if the RIAA would still be sueing if it's bill gates' billions they're up against.

jurren

Dave K

09-10-2003, 04:25 PM

I think that making examples of her downloading 1000 songs to stealing 1000 candy bars does not make much sense. This girl is no neo matrix hacker she downloaded music from a site that was made for doing just that. She did not go to a record store and steal 1000 cd's. I don't download music now because i do not know of any good downloading sites. But i feel that if i paid my money for a cd,an lp,tape or 8track i can share it with who i want. I get tired of people saying that it is stealing it is sharing free music. And i belive it is music that someone paid for and uploaded to their computer to share with people. I am not a big fan of the recording industry in the first place and i am pretty sure that this will stop my cd buying drasticly. I can understand people having problems with people uploading unrelesed music on the internet because i kind of think that is stealing but if somone wants to take music that they paid for and share it then i don't think they should be labeled as crooks.

Bold Soul

09-10-2003, 10:56 PM

The kid and the $2,000.00 is a ruse intended to be an example. If no one pays attention, they'll pick another - maybe a little old lady this time.

E-Phi

09-11-2003, 12:26 PM

I want everyone to list the titles in their videotape collection.

Bold Soul

09-11-2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? Kazaa is just technology. They didn't do anything illegal. That would be like suing the phone companies for providing the lines that the files travel through. [/QUOTE]that's what the judge said!

what would be the ultimate joke, would have to be if someone was smart enough to think of a way to create a p2p program that works alongside msn-messenger for instance. so when you hook up to msn-messenger, you can share files with your close group of friends. let's just see if the RIAA would still be sueing if it's bill gates' billions they're up against.

jurren [/QUOTE]You can already do this in AIM and such. Just drag and drop a file on a buddy name. I don't normally chat in groups, so I don't know if it will do the same.

Too late to stop the bleeding, IMO.

kev

09-11-2003, 12:44 PM

Okay, my question is with all of these lawsuits happening I wonder how much of the money is actually going to the artists (if any)?

mhd

09-11-2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by IIBS:
Okay, my question is with all of these lawsuits happening I wonder how much of the money is actually going to the artists (if any)? Why should the artist get any of this money?

jurren

09-11-2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by IIBS:
Okay, my question is with all of these lawsuits happening I wonder how much of the money is actually going to the artists (if any)? what mhd said; why should the artists get any money?

this is the RIAA sueing people that are illegally sharing copyrighted files. the RIAA represents the copyright owners, in 99% of the cases the copyrights to the songs you download will be owned by the recording companies.

artists sign a deal with a company, which in turn will pay for production costs, pr and advertisement. basically the recordcompany will take all the financial chances that come with the production of an album. the artist in turn will either reseve a pre-determined amount of money, or a percentage of the profit. the recording company will become the owner of all the rights to the product, including the copyrights.

jurren

mhd

09-11-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by IIBS:
Okay, my question is with all of these lawsuits happening I wonder how much of the money is actually going to the artists (if any)? what mhd said; why should the artists get any money?

this is the RIAA sueing people that are illegally sharing copyrighted files. the RIAA represents the copyright owners, in 99% of the cases the copyrights to the songs you download will be owned by the recording companies.

artists sign a deal with a company, which in turn will pay for production costs, pr and advertisement. basically the recordcompany will take all the financial chances that come with the production of an album. the artist in turn will either reseve a pre-determined amount of money, or a percentage of the profit. the recording company will become the owner of all the rights to the product, including the copyrights.

jurren [/QUOTE]in addition, the labels screw the artists, so if you support these lawsuits you are not really supporting the artists

Bold Soul

09-11-2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by IIBS:
Okay, my question is with all of these lawsuits happening I wonder how much of the money is actually going to the artists (if any)? what mhd said; why should the artists get any money?

this is the RIAA sueing people that are illegally sharing copyrighted files. the RIAA represents the copyright owners, in 99% of the cases the copyrights to the songs you download will be owned by the recording companies.

artists sign a deal with a company, which in turn will pay for production costs, pr and advertisement. basically the recordcompany will take all the financial chances that come with the production of an album. the artist in turn will either reseve a pre-determined amount of money, or a percentage of the profit. the recording company will become the owner of all the rights to the product, including the copyrights.

jurren [/QUOTE]in addition, the labels screw the artists, so if you support these lawsuits you are not really supporting the artists [/QUOTE]I know personally several different people, all with "deals" of one type or another. Only one buys into the RIAA bullshit. The rest all could care if you downloaded anything they make or not.

Most people don't know shit, Mark. They just like discussing things as if they do.

Martin Red

09-12-2003, 07:29 AM

Lawsuits 'not scaring swappers'

The RIAA filed 261 lawsuits against individuals
Music-swapping on the internet has not slowed despite a flurry of lawsuits, according to industry trackers.
The Recording Industry Association of America has filed lawsuits against 261 US individuals, claiming they have illegally downloaded and shared music.

The move is part of the industry's attempts to stop people illegally swapping copyrighted songs on the web.

But research firm BigChampagne, which monitors the peer-to-peer networks which file-swappers use, said the scare had not worked.

"There's no mass exodus, that's safe to say. Ironically, usage this week and this month is up," said Eric Garland, a spokesman for BigChampagne.

He said that the monitoring of the Fast Track network, which is used by file-sharing services Kazaa and Grokster, saw that figures had increased.

"The number of people using these file sharing services in the first 10 days of September is up more than 20 percent from the August average," said Mr Garland.

Stimulate conversation

The company says that more than four million people used the more popular services.

Brianna LaHara settled her lawsuit with the RIAA
The RIAA said it did not "put much stock" in the estimated figures.

"Clearly our enforcement efforts have stimulated conversation among parents, children and many others about the illegality of distributing copyrighted music online and its consequences," said an RIAA spokesman.

"The objective here is to create an environment where legitimate online services can grow and thrive," he added.

Mr Garland said he expects some people will be scared by potential exposure and increased parental pressure.

"But what we're hearing from users is they enjoy safety in numbers," he said.

"There's a perception that suing even a few thousand means the odds of getting sued are like the odds of getting struck by lightning."

Meanwhile, several internet music services have offered to pay the $2,000 (£1,255) fine paid by the mother of 12-year-old Brianna LaHara to settle the lawsuit the RIAA had filed against the girl.

Grokster president Wayne Rosso, a member of the peer-to-peer services trade group P2P United, said he felt the RIAA were acting like "bullies" by targeting a young girl, which is why it was offering to pay the money.

"It seems fitting that P2P United is willing to pay Brianna's settlement fees since it was their members who induced her infringement in the first place," said an RIAA spokesman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3102982.stm

mhd

09-12-2003, 09:54 AM

fact is, the riaa is scared to death of the internet community, problem is, this community is not organized. what i would like to see is a class-action lawsuit filed by artists against record companies

BigPoppa

09-12-2003, 02:37 PM

BigPoppa

09-12-2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by john:
poor music lovin girl. that case is ridiculus, setting examples by hitting a few doesnt make any sense!!

the way I see it, the music industry missed the train. they could have worked out ways for people to get music on the net by paying fair to the musicians and labels and by so leaving out the distributors who takes a good piece of the cake.
could have been so easy.. log on to EMI or whateva and download the latest hitsong..
Insted they kept going as before and now they want to repair their own mistakes. suckers!!!

maybe people can pitch in the 2000$.. a 12 year old has better ways to spend that kind money. could have been a good start for her education..

/john First, they don't have to pay...others have already steeped up to take care of the $2000 for them.

But you say the industry missed the train? Why didn't Mr Napster himself, Shawn Fanning, take his ripped off, reverse engineered software to the music industry and become the saving grace instead of the bastard step-child? Simple. Greed!

mhd

09-12-2003, 02:48 PM

simple and greed are two words to describe a lot of players in this drama

BigPoppa

09-12-2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
but it was not candy bars, where has it been proven that she "stole" anything? It doesn't have to be proven, she settled.

Peace [/QUOTE]Actually the RIAA gets the IP numbers while the "offenders" are online, discovered what she was "offering" to share (over 1000 songs) and she cannot prove she bought and she gets busted. It may be circumstantial, but its proof.

BigPoppa

09-12-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? Kazaa is just technology. They didn't do anything illegal. That would be like suing the phone companies for providing the lines that the files travel through. [/QUOTE]Kazaa is not a paid service though. It is simply a software device that allows you to join a network to share digital files. Kazaa and all the other file sharing clients actually help facilitate an environment where a crime can take place. What if she wasn't downloading music but porn?

BigPoppa

09-12-2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by sammyrock:
My question is where the $2,000 is actually going to?the artist??how do you spilt $2,000 into 1,00 songs..Happy are the artist if ever they see one red cent from this lawsuit.Soon they will be coming after Djs for making cd mixes..that I paid for the music already..whats next peeps??BOGUS! mad1.gif i think this is the biggest problem people have with the RIAA.
the RIAA supports the rights of the owners to the copyright of the music/films. i think that in 99% of the cases those rights are no longer in the hands of the artist, but in the hands of the recording company.
the RIAA does not protect the [artistic] rights of the artists, it protects the economic rights of the recordingindustry.

the reason they are coming after people that make mix-cd's is that, eventhough you paid for your copy of the recording, you did not buy the right to make that recording available to the public. the RIAA feels that if you include a song in a mix-cd, people that buy tha mix-cd, will no longer buy the record the song came from, thus reducing their sales. reality is probably that people that buy those mix-cd's would either not buy those records in the first place, OR buy the record because they heard it on your mix. so instead of having [the suspected] negative effect on sales, it has a possitive effect. but the RIAA doesn't know that because they know nothing about the market the opperate in, and only care about the $$$$. [/QUOTE]Actually it has been proven that mix cds DO take away from sales, but I'm only familiar with the USA,, not the rest of the world. The average customer who buys a DJ mix cd usually does not buy the rest of the album. The biggest exception would be a dance town like New York.

Mocambo

09-12-2003, 02:56 PM

jurren

09-12-2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by BigPoppa:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
but it was not candy bars, where has it been proven that she "stole" anything? It doesn't have to be proven, she settled.

Peace [/QUOTE]Actually the RIAA gets the IP numbers while the "offenders" are online, discovered what she was "offering" to share (over 1000 songs) and she cannot prove she bought and she gets busted. It may be circumstantial, but its proof. [/QUOTE]getting the IP adress isn't a problem, finding out who's behind those numbers should be. a private organisation is looking into someone's computer without any authorisation by that person, where i come from, that's an invasion of privacy.
she's charged with sharing over a thousand songs through a p2p program, it doesn't matter where she got the songs. it's as illegal to share songs you bought the cd of yourself as it is sharing songs you downloaded illegally.

downloading is NOT illegal, sharing is.

jurren

jurren

09-12-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by BigPoppa:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JoeB:
didn't she pay for a service that allowed her to download music? if so, shouldn't kazaa be held responsible before her? Kazaa is just technology. They didn't do anything illegal. That would be like suing the phone companies for providing the lines that the files travel through. [/QUOTE]Kazaa is not a paid service though. It is simply a software device that allows you to join a network to share digital files. Kazaa and all the other file sharing clients actually help facilitate an environment where a crime can take place. What if she wasn't downloading music but porn? [/QUOTE]kazaa and other filesharing progams help users to exchange files. it's up to the user what to do with it.

should microsoft be held accountable for all the porn swapped through hotmail accounts?

should the postal service be held responsible for delivering pornomagazines?

should waterman be held responsible for a murder, if some idiot used a pen to kell a fellow-man?

jurren