Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by guy incognito, Sep 4, 2003.
Looks like some folks can start breathing a little easier.
Admit now, or forever hold your breath....
How kind of them...Just Say No...To the Download
Jeez...that reminds me...I have overdue library books and amnesty day is coming up....
Save yourself some jail time! Just frightening how priorities can be...So many other avenues need correction. I guess it's easier to bully the minor
I can see tons of people downloading scads of stuff now, and then signing the amnesty.
Could this be a way for the companies to save face while trying not to admit that they are going too far?
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. This country is getting weird
Sounds like one big, planned publicity stunt to me.
Roody, you look innocent to me. Don't sweat it!
It's not that stupid. What they're also trying to crack down on is the people who rip and distro this stuff on a large scale and also crack down on larger users.
You see, without larger download hogs, P2P gets thin real quick. So the hacker kid who's distributing this brand new Eminem EP or J-Lo, they like to put the "group" tag on the file name.
Then, the download hogs who are on quite a bit with 30gigs of Mp3s, especially new material, they are also targeted 1st.
They're not busting people randomly. They can't. That costs more money. But if some homebody woman with 3 kids and a computer on all the time with Mp3's in it, it's the kids who may have done the crime, but she gets hit with the lawsuit.
It's like trying to clean the floor with a dirty mop. It trades one mess for another. Its sad, but I'm fully appreciating the traffic and bandwith waste for people who engage in MP3 P2P.
I'm also sad for the fact that the local retailer in many places doesn't have what people want, and it's overpriced. The one-good-song argument too.
Soon it won't matter. Maybe someday P2P Mp3 will be boring and old hat for something else. Hopefully, it will be in the label's favor with fresh ideas.
Ugh, I miss buying Lp's for $4.99 in the wrap and being enveloped in the sound, the art, the experience. You can't live live by the file-by-file. Files on PCs last a short time by default. The music lasts much longer in people's minds.
I'm starting to feel like the music will outgrow most anything much like Mother Nature....ect...
This has gotten out of hand. Sheer lunacy. It almost makes me want to download MP3s. The thing is I wouldn't know what do with them. I certainly wouldn't listen to them. I guess I'd just delete them.
From local magazine article about copyright:
Something I found on the net.
Your post was so well thought out and well said. The the last part of it above. That's the real sad part that some of these kids don't get because of the instant gratification of downloading at break neck speeds to get the latest thing they listen to. The don't get the Experience of the music the way one would by going and shopping for it and just letting it engulf your entire being by listening while reading anything about the artists and looking at the artwork and pictures of the old days of the LP's.
An Offer You Can Refuse
The RIAA's amnesty deal may not keep you from being sued.
By Paul Boutin
Posted Monday, September 8, 2003, at 4:47 PM PT
If you're one of the 4 million people connected to the KaZaA network at any given time, you were about as likely to be hit by lightning today as by one of the 261 lawsuits from the record industry. But even if you got off, you might have reason to worry: The Recording Industry Association of America has at least 1,600 subpoenas in the works to force ISPs to identify file-traders whose IP addresses have been spotted downloading or sharing the copyrighted recordings of RIAA member labels and artists.
The barrage of lawsuits, coupled with an amnesty program for people who haven't yet been busted, is aimed at changing the mindset of Americans who, according to a recent study by Pew Research, care less than ever whether they're breaking copyright laws by downloading tunes from the Net. Three years of lawsuits and media campaigns have, if anything, backfired by turning peer-to-peer music sharing into a game of cops and robbers—one where music fans see Hollywood record moguls as the robbers. Judging by online chatter and breaking news reports, today's lawsuits were the first effective attack against song-swappers who previously felt they had safety in numbers.
To those determined to make an end-run around the music biz's lack of attractive online offerings (Apple's iTunes Music Store is still the best of a weak lot), the lawsuits just mean it's time to abandon KaZaA by moving their game of keep-away to the next playground. KaZaA rose to prominence only after Napster was shut down. Now that RIAA lawyers have proved they can subpoena the names of KaZaA users from their ISPs, expect a mass migration to anonymous, encrypted P2P networks designed specifically to fix the known vulnerabilities in KaZaA. Earth Station 5 is the most outrageous example. It uses a mesh of proxy servers, encrypted data, and other identity-hiding tricks to keep copyright owners from tracking who's downloading what. To top it all off, the company—which recently issued a press release declaring itself "at war" with the entertainment industry—is headquartered in Palestine.
But what about Americans worried about the prospect of a bank-breaking lawsuit? Should you take the RIAA up on its amnesty offer? Maybe not. The "Clean Slate" program promises that the RIAA won't pursue legal action against P2P pirates who send in a notarized affidavit declaring that they've wiped all copyright-infringing materials from their disk drives and who vow not to file-share again. But lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco say there are multiple reasons to sit tight for now, rather than rush to sign and deliver what amounts to an admission of guilt.
First, the amnesty offer doesn't apply if the RIAA has already subpoenaed your ISP for your info without your knowledge. The EFF maintains a database of known subpoenas, but RIAA lawyers didn't respond to a request for how to definitively tell whether you're on their larger list. More important, the RIAA's offer can't protect you from other potential litigants, which include indie labels or vengeful songwriters. A close read on the terms of the deal finds this clause:
Information will not be made public or given to third parties, including individual copyright owners, except if necessary to enforce a participant's violation of the pledges set forth in the Affidavit or otherwise required by law. [emphasis added]
That last line is the kicker, an EFF lawyer says. There's no guarantee a third party won't successfully subpoena your information from the RIAA, using the same legal procedures the RIAA invoked to get it from your Internet service provider.
The RIAA doesn't make or enforce the laws, it's only the biggest potential litigant. A better offer for file-sharers would be to persuade Congress to pass legislation that offers file-sharers a chance to legally pay for what they download. Copyright holders could collect royalties for music that's traded online in exchange for absolving listeners from needing to personally verify the rights on every song they acquire.
The most obvious method would be the creation of a "blanket compulsory license" for digital media akin to those already used by radio and TV broadcasters. Compulsories, as they're called in the entertainment industry, would work like this: Music fans could download all the music they want for free online, but they'd pay a sort of "download tax" on computers, MP3 players, ISP accounts, and other transport mechanisms for digital music (the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 imposed such a fee on DAT tapes and players). The collected fees would be paid out to musicians and copyright holders based on their real or estimated share of downloads. If that sounds crazy, remember it's also the means by which radio stations and their listeners already share all the music they want, without fear of being sued.
I'd rather have compulsory licenses in effect for file sharing as it is the wave of the future. Record execs, please tell Congress this.
The whole concept of the RIAA suing its customers TO REVIVE ITS BUSINESS
is so ridiculous, its almost comical.
These are Music Industry professionals who came up with this idea? Dont they know that this is going to kill their business even more?
Here's what this strategy comes down to.
Courtesy of nydailynews.com...
Sued for a song
N.Y.C. 12 yr.-old among 261 cited as sharers
By SONI SANGHA and PHYLLIS FURMAN
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Brianna LaHara, 12, sits at home computer, where she uses $29.95 service to download music from Internet. Yesterday, music industry group sued her.
A shy Manhattan schoolgirl who gets a kick out of nursery songs and TV themes was among 261 people sued yesterday for downloading music from the Internet.
Brianna LaHara, a curly-haired 12-year-old honor student who started seventh grade yesterday at St. Gregory the Great Catholic school on W. 90th St., couldn't believe she's one of the "major offenders" the music moguls are after.
"Oh, my God, what's going to happen now?" she asked after hearing of the suit. "My stomach is all in knots."
Told she may have to go to court, Brianna's eyes widened behind wire-rimmed glasses and she said, "I'm just shocked that of all the people that do this, I'm on the list."
The Recording Industry Association of America said the suits filed yesterday included about 60 that targeted suspects in New York who downloaded more than 1,000 songs.
The group blames computer users such as Brianna, who use software programs to trade music with others on the Internet, for a 30% drop in music sales.
Each person sued yesterday could be liable for fines up to $150,000 for each poached track.
Experts had predicted a large number of the suits likely would name youngsters.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action," said Carey Sherman, president of the recording association.
Sherman warned that the group may file thousands more lawsuits against people who use programs like KaZaA, Grokster, Gnutella, Blubster and iMesh.
Brianna's mother, Sylvia, 40, director of a nurse placement agency, said her daughter was helping her 9-year-old brother with his homework when the Daily News arrived at their apartment on W. 84th St. with word about the suit.
"For crying out loud, she's just a child," the mother said. "This isn't like those people who say, 'My son is a good boy,' and he's holding a bloody knife. All we did was use a service."
The mother said she signed up for KaZaA, paying a $29.95 fee. "If you're paying for it, you're not stealing it, so what is this all about?" she asked.
She said Brianna downloaded music by Christina Aguilera and Mariah Carey, along with the themes to television shows like "Family Matters" and "Full House" - and even the nursery song, "If You're Happy and You Know It."
"That's really threatening to the music industry," she scoffed.
"If this was something we were profiting from, that's one thing. But we were just listening and sometimes dancing to the music," said the mother.
She vowed to get a lawyer to fight the suit, which she termed "ridiculous."
With Robert Gearty
Originally published on September 9, 2003
Paying for Kazaa??? I didn't know you could do that.
I hope this case becomes very prolific.
Boy, you talk about your BAD Publicity.
Here's more from today's CNN.com. Bad publicity indeed!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The targets of the first lawsuits against music fans who share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely uses his computer, a Yale University professor and an unemployed woman in New York who says she didn't know she was breaking the law.
Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that could cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of its aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits across the country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as "major offenders" illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each, but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.
The grandfather and the academic
Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home. He said his grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the recording industry association.
"I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible," Pickle said in an interview. "It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that."
Pickle, who was unaware he was being sued until contacted by The Associated Press, said he rarely uses the computer in his home.
"I'm not a computer-type person," Pickle said. "They come in and get on the computer. How do I get out of this?"
Yale University professor Timothy Davis said he will stop sharing music files immediately. He downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet before his Internet provider notified him about the music industry's interest in his activities.
"I've been pretending it was going to go away," said Davis, who teaches photography.
Unhappy file sharers
Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider warned her two months ago that record industry lawyers had asked for her name and address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She acknowledged downloading "lots" of music over file-sharing networks.
"This is ridiculous," said Schamis, 26. "I didn't understand it was illegal."
She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.
"It's wrong on their part," she said.
An estimated 60 million Americans participate in file-sharing networks, using software that makes it simple for computer users to locate and retrieve for free virtually any song by any artist within moments. Internet users broadly acknowledge music-trading is illegal, but the practice has flourished in recent years since copyright statutes are among the most popularly flouted laws online.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy," said RIAA President Cary Sherman, who compared illegal music downloads to shoplifting. "There comes a time when you have to stand up and take appropriate action."
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, has already promised congressional hearings into how the music industry has identified and tracked the Internet users it's suing.
"They have a legitimate interest that needs to be protected, but are they protecting it in a way that's too broad and overreaching?" Coleman said. "I don't want to make criminals out of 60 million kids, even though kids and grandkids are doing things they shouldn't be doing."
The RIAA did not identify for reporters which Internet users it was suing or where they live. Lawsuits were filed in federal courthouses in New York City, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and elsewhere.
"Get a lawyer," advised Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. "There's no simpler advice than that, whether you intend to fight this or not. You'll need someone to advise you."
With estimates that half of file-sharers are teenagers, all sides braced for the inevitable legal debate surrounding the financial damage to parents or grandparents. The RIAA named as the defendant in each lawsuit the person who paid for the household Internet account.
"That question will come up immediately, whether a minor can have the requisite knowledge to be the right defendant," said Susan Crawford, who teaches law at Yeshiva University's Cardozo law school in New York City. "A very young child who didn't know what they were doing would be a bad defendant for the industry."
The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply to people who already are targets of legal action.
Sherman called the amnesty offer "our version of an olive branch."
Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning that song publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won't be constrained by the group's promise not to sue.
U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer.
Great, so the old mans grandkids will stop downloading. That will really help the Majors bottom line......
Will the RIAA stop public libraries for allowing people to check out CDs which human nature to many people often leads the borrow into the copying for your personal use while you still have access or you can gain access to the disc again in case the copy goes bad even after you return the CD to the library? The answer to this is no.
If Mr Rodgers were still with us he would be saying "Can You Say Countersuit"? "Sure you Can"......
Separate names with a comma.