You've got lawsuit

[Nightbat]

Mercedes is making less profit on a car that a Major label is making on a CD

and a mercedes rides a whole lot better than Britney Spears can sing

"more bang for your buck" is the the idea here

[JsARCLIGHT]

I found this quite enlightening (it was on my hourly news feed):

WASHINGTON (Sept. 9) - 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.

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.

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-Minn., 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.

Take special note of the things in bold that caught my eye on this...

[SkullLeaderVF-X]

I really like how they're going to target college students, because we all know how much money college students have

LMAO

[muswp1]

I am going to reserve my judgement on this until this mess actually goes to court. This could potentially be a all-or-nothing case for the RIAA. If they manage to lose one case, they are finished.

[muswp1]

Sorry guys, this need a bump...

[tom64ss]

I say boycott.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[zylos1015]

heres a case just settled in NY.......geesh louise, no mercy for kids.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/0...ment/index.html

[zeta]

I say boycott.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

I say good idea

[JsARCLIGHT]

So basically she settled for $2,000... and according to the article they estimated that at $2 per song she traded. That leads me to believe that she DL'ed 1,000 songs, right? 1,000 songs divided by an average of 10 songs per normal CD equals the equivelant of 100 CDs. She paid $2,000 to settle which means she paid about $20 for each approximate "CD's" worth of songs... which by my math is about the going market rate for CD's at the mall with sales tax ($18 x 7% sales tax = $19.26 each).

I'm getting the feeling that RIAA is out to get their money's worth and not "make examples" of people. The sour grapes of these lawsuits has become nothing more than a greedy grab for money in mind now.

[bsu legato]

I'm getting the feeling that RIAA is out to get their money's worth and not "make examples" of people. The sour grapes of these lawsuits has become nothing more than a greedy grab for money in mind now.

Conversely, those who feel "entitled" to get as much free stuff as possible are finally learning that there's no such thing as a free ride.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I was just under the impression that all this litigation was an effort to "crush the theives" and "make examples" out the most flagrant offenders... but the first settlement might give everyone an out so to speak. I know if I where a music swapper it would give me the impression that the worst that can happen is they make me pay for the stuff I "stole". Big woop. I was expecting thousands in fines, fees and settlements... you know, some ammount that makes people say "shhheeeeeee-it! I ain't doin' THAT no more!". You know, something akin to a file swapper death penalty.

Of course 2 grand to a college student might as well be 2 billion...

[Khyron]

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.

What a complete moron. "gee wiz, I can get items for free of the internet that most people have to pay for, how could it be illegal?" Since she isn't working, she has time to go to jail.

BTW: Macross Valks are way too expensive (I.E./ Toys are not worth $80+), so using the song downloaders' logic, I should be totally within my right to steal them.

[bsu legato]

BTW: Macross Valks are way too expensive (I.E./ Toys are not worth $80+), so using the song downloaders' logic, I should be totally within my right to steal them.

It's not just the cost factor. Some people believe that by merely paying for an internet connection and downloading Kazaa, that they somehow have the "right" to do this. Believe me, I've had this discussion with a few of my filesharing friends many times. By this logic, I should be allowed to drive my car at 150mph, simply because I can.

I think these lawsuits are assinine, but let's be brutally honest here. These folks got caught stealing. Period.

[Commander McBride]

BTW: Macross Valks are way too expensive (I.E./ Toys are not worth $80+), so using the song downloaders' logic, I should be totally within my right to steal them.

Not really. It'd actually be more like if you made yourself a recast of a macross toy, and left the original.

[JsARCLIGHT]

She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.

''It's wrong on their part,'' she said.

What a complete moron. "gee wiz, I can get items for free of the internet that most people have to pay for, how could it be illegal?"

I wholeheartedly agree. I put her quote in bold because I started laughing about that point.

You have to admit though that the story about the grandkids getting grandpa in dutch is just stupid though...

[CAG]

Whatever happened to that lawsuit alleging that the RIAA was essentially price-fixing their CDs?

'Cuz, ya know that's just as illegal as stealing.....

Two wrongs don't make a right, but the music industry is gonna have to pay the piper for not competing eventually...like when their out of people to sue, and people still don't buy CDs.

But there may be hope. I was able to pick up the new Maiden for 11.99 (new, at Best Buy). At 11 tracks on the CD that works out to about a dollar a track, essentially what I-music is charging.

[muswp1]

Just an interesting thought I had, it seems that the RIAA is going after everyone it can here in the US. What about all the P2P and file swapping overseas?? It would hard to believe that there aren't people in Europe and Asia doing exactly the same thing over there as what's happening here.

[zeta]

Just an interesting thought I had, it seems that the RIAA is going after everyone it can here in the US. What about all the P2P and file swapping overseas?? It would hard to believe that there aren't people in Europe and Asia doing exactly the same thing over there as what's happening here.

The courts are more likely to say, "This is bullshit!"...

[Beware of Blast]

Just an interesting thought I had, it seems that the RIAA is going after everyone it can here in the US.  What about all the P2P and file swapping overseas??  It would hard to believe that there aren't people in Europe and Asia doing exactly the same thing over there as what's happening here.

I don't know about Europeans, but here in Asia, ALL of us... like good Sunday school going little boys and girls, go to Towers Records and HMVs to buy our music. We DON'T download music off the internet. ::BoB says without blinking::

Edited September 10, 2003 by Beware of Blast

[Nightbat]

Fileswapping here in Europe? Nàh....

btw an old saying:

You can see how much something is overpriced by how much it is stolen

(BTW Valk swapping??? Can I choose the option not to share my library?

in that case Bring it on!!! )

[Deadzone]

Had to add my 2 cents on this topic. I used to do things like Napster because of one simple thing. I didn't want to buy a whole bunch of crappy songs just to get the one song I wanted on the CD. Let's face it. A lot of bands are one hit wonders. For the ones who had several songs I liked, I went ahead and bought the CD. It's not like the music companies deserve no money what so ever. They're a business that needs to generate profits like any other business.

This is what pisses me off. When companies like Microsoft or the Record labels tell you to follow the law when they break it themselves. Price fixing, monopolizing, you name it, they'll do it if they think they can get away with it. And this is why a lot of people download songs. They "share" songs as long as they can get away with it. So it comes down to both sides trying to stick it to each other which creates a very bad situation.

Personally, I do not regret my Napster years. I know most people did Napster because they just don't want to pay for music. I did it to send a message to the record companies. WE WILL NOT PAY $15.00 FOR ONE LOUSY SONG ON A CD! I think things like Napster are forcing the record companies to start doing things like the Apple Music Store. So far, I have downloaded and paid for around thirty songs from it. I love the Apple Music Store! It's cheap, legal, and the selection is pretty good for just starting less than a year ago. I see the Apple Music store as a way the Music companies are trying to meet the consumer halfway. Now it is up to the consumers to do the right thing and do their share. Who can complain about $.99 per song? Of course, I'm not sure if non Apple users can purchase from the store.

In conclusion, if the music companies make the effort to provide affordable music, it is time that consumers start doing the same.

[bankrupt]

BTW: Macross Valks are way too expensive (I.E./ Toys are not worth $80+), so using the song downloaders' logic, I should be totally within my right to steal them.

Not really. It'd actually be more like if you made yourself a recast of a macross toy, and left the original.

Your example is more correct. It's technically an issue of copyright infringement not thievery in the traditional sense. The end result for a lot of people ends up the same though, they don't buy the original product when it can be had for free.

The valk. example does illustrate the silly argument that if you feel something is too highly priced, you're entitled to get it illegally. Perhaps the RIAA has been price fixing all this time, but that's what courts and lawyers are for.

[Deadzone]

Had to add my 2 cents on this topic. I used to do things like Napster because of one simple thing. I didn't want to buy a whole bunch of crappy songs just to get the one song I wanted on the CD. Let's face it. A lot of bands are one hit wonders. For the ones who had several songs I liked, I went ahead and bought the CD. It's not like the music companies deserve no money what so ever. They're a business that needs to generate profits like any other business.

This is what pisses me off. When companies like Microsoft or the Record labels tell you to follow the law when they break it themselves. Price fixing, monopolizing, you name it, they'll do it if they think they can get away with it. And this is why a lot of people download songs. They "share" songs as long as they can get away with it. So it comes down to both sides trying to stick it to each other which creates a very bad situation.

Personally, I do not regret my Napster years. I know most people did Napster because they just don't want to pay for music. I did it to send a message to the record companies. WE WILL NOT PAY $15.00 FOR ONE LOUSY SONG ON A CD! I think things like Napster are forcing the record companies to start doing things like the Apple Music Store. So far, I have downloaded and paid for around thirty songs from it. I love the Apple Music Store! It's cheap, legal, and the selection is pretty good for just starting less than a year ago. I see the Apple Music store as a way the Music companies are trying to meet the consumer halfway. Now it is up to the consumers to do the right thing and do their share. Who can complain about $.99 per song? Of course, I'm not sure if non Apple users can purchase from the store.

In conclusion, if the music companies make the effort to provide affordable music, it is time that consumers start doing the same.

[muswp1]

I think things like Napster are forcing the record companies to start doing things like the Apple Music Store. So far, I have downloaded and paid for around thirty songs from it. I love the Apple Music Store! It's cheap, legal, and the selection is pretty good for just starting less than a year ago. I see the Apple Music store as a way the Music companies are trying to meet the consumer halfway. Now it is up to the consumers to do the right thing and do their share. Who can complain about $.99 per song? Of course, I'm not sure if non Apple users can purchase from the store.

In conclusion, if the music companies make the effort to provide affordable music, it is time that consumers start doing the same.

Now that's probably where music is going to end up. The only problem is that the RIAA is a bunch of greedy little s###'s that they don't want to be forced out of their ways by changing technology. Online music stores, like Apple Music Store, would limit the price gouging that the RIAA is trying so hard to protect.

[Mechwarrior]

Whatever happened to that lawsuit alleging that the RIAA was essentially price-fixing their CDs?

'Cuz, ya know that's just as illegal as stealing.....

Two wrongs don't make a right, but the music industry is gonna have to pay the piper for not competing eventually...like when their out of people to sue, and people still don't buy CDs.

But there may be hope. I was able to pick up the new Maiden for 11.99 (new, at Best Buy). At 11 tracks on the CD that works out to about a dollar a track, essentially what I-music is charging.

Remember, these RIAA guys are the same ones who rip off there own artist's (TLC for example forced into bankruptcy) and at the same time say that they are trying to protect the artist's.

Personally, I hate Macs. But Apple was smart enough to see this as an oppurtunity to promote downloadable music; something most people didn't even know was possible. Now these internet dummies are out there trying to buy a Mac and IPod because they see it as new technology

Man, what's this world coming to?

[Mislovrit]

You know, when it comes to the "Music Industry"

are we stealing from them?

....Or are they just plain ripping us off???

Accrording to the Home Recording Act, of 1992 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html' target='_blank'>

The RIAA is commiting extortion.

[Nightbat]

I believe i saw a remark somewhere between these replies which I like to comment on

that: music is a luxury

-Like hell it is

it's a drug, in every way, positive or negative, I consider it just as much a part

of emotional/chemical balances in your head as smell and sight can influence your mood

and like the medical industry: they're cashing in Bigtime!!!!

[JsARCLIGHT]

Music is not a drug. Music is all about control: the control on when and what you listen to. They "give music away for free" all the time on the radio... but much like television it is programming, meaning you have to listen to what someone else wants you to listen to. Recorded music on the other hand is about your choice of what you listen to and when you do. In a sense you are paying for that privelage, the freedom to decide what you listen to and when you listen to it.

The heart of the music/TV/movie industry is that they have your "Freedom" under their thumb. They "give away" the things they want you to see and charge you for the things you want to see. Pay for Play. All entertainment in today's world is based on money, someone has to make money off of it. Entertainment has lost it's soul, meaning the soul of free expression and artistic liberation.

It's all about the benjamins... and the industry sees people taking their freedom back for free and they want to stifle it. The US Legal System will uphold any motions about copywrite and domain for one obvious reason: how can the government tax something that is free? That is the harsh truth of the modern world we live in.

As Masamune Shirow once said: Man is a strange creature, wild at heart yet we build cages to trap ourselves in and then we pign for freedom.

[rocco_77]

Wow.....by the numbers:

1.Rocco

Posted: Sep 8 2003, 01:42 PM

Man, the music industry is really screwing themselves by doing this. Lawsuits are not the answer... Can you say another "War on Drugs" scenario?? You will never stop it all, you will never catch everyone. So I don't understand why the music industry doesn't stop wasting time and money trying to stop these people.

While I understand to a point the analogy you're making, I hope you're not suggesting that we don't even try to enforce drug laws. What's lacking in the MP3 case is a serious social evil. (Sorry for nit-picking, but I'm a philosophy minor and strongly considering DEA).

I know I'm back in this topic after much has been said, but I wanted to respond to CAG.

IMHO... All of these type of things just stem right back to prohibition, and the Boston Tea Party... It just really floors me that America doesn't learn from it's own history....

Prohibition DID NOT work. People still drank alcohol.... Boston Tea Party was about taxes, but my comparison here is what the PEOPLE do... When enough people band together to force change... change happens.

My point is that if you try to outlaw something that a good percentage of the people want you will only create a Black Market for such things. People will ALWAYS find a way to get what they desire even if they have to pay more for it. Also, if you try to stir up the masses by threatening them with lawsuits, I believe it will eventually backfire on you. If the masses want something they will get it, and with technology today it makes this type of thing pretty easy... There will always be a smarter better programer to get around this stuff.

I am a musician, and I'm also a commercial artist so I understand copyright law pretty well. And although I am against copyright infringement, I just don't see the point in what the music industry is trying to accomplish with this lawsuit thing. As a few of us have said here... people are not scared or detered by this in the least bit... What has also been said is that the music industry needs to enter the new age and figure out a way to make music available to the masses, the way they want it, and at a price the market will bare. And I also agree that CD prices MUST come down. It doesn't cost anything today to press a CD.. It's very cheap.. The problem here is that the labels don't want to give up any more of their profits... Rest assured that if CD prices drop, then the labels will try to skim a little more of the artists share of the sales to keep their own numbers up, and this will cause a big problem, that I just don't think the big labels are prepared to deal with. It's all about money, and they are just trying to keep their salaries as high as possible.

So what is the solution?

I think Apple has a good start with it's subscription program for downloading tracks and paying for them separately. This type of thing needs to be polished up a bit, but it is a good start.... But then how do you keep people from still sharing those files on the internet? You really can't... Just like you will never stop all drugs from coming across the boarders... So do you still try to enforce these laws? I say yes, you have to, but to what end.... I don't know. Is just putting SOME level of control going to be enough?

Like I said before, I think at the end of this tunnel is a world without large record labels... Indy labels will take over and drive the business just like small business today have the most influence on our economy.

[Agent ONE]

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?...910-000679-0539

Allong the lines of what I was saying before.

[Khyron]

I am a musician, and I'm also a commercial artist so I understand copyright law pretty well. And although I am against copyright infringement, I just don't see the point in what the music industry is trying to accomplish with this lawsuit thing.

Being a musician you should understand more than the rest of us. The more people download your songs, the less CDs are sold and less money goes into your wallet. If your contract does not pay you beyond your initial check, then less sales of your music could result in less $$$ for your when you make another CD. If you fail to bring in a certain amount, why would a record company pay you the same fee?

THe suit is not just trying to make people pay fines. They are trying to stop people from downloading songs illegally. The simple threat of them possibly suing you will deter somepeople. They are going after the big offenders now since they have such a selection.

Also, people are complaining of them looking at people's computers. They are not actually going into people's computers. If you remember, Napster (and other programs) allow users to view all the files someone has to share. Once a downloaded song is not in the the person's directory that they gave viewing access to, then the songs are not able to be viewed. Also, I'm sure programs have the ability to record how much activity a user has. Either downloading or people downloading from them.

[the white drew carey]

As long as cheapskate file-swappers (who would probably steal from a small, independent label who doesn't charge a lot for their CD's and pays their bands lotsa yen as unashamedly as they'd steal from any RIAA-participating label) will simply admit that what they are doing IS technically illegal, I'll be happy with that. But it seems no one will actually do that.

Then I'll wait for them to bitch and moan when their favorite band can't put out albums as much as they used to because they had to get a 9-5 job in order to make money.

I'm just sick and tired of the FIGHT THE EVIL RECORDING EMPIRE attempt at justification when, frankly, you just don't want to pay for things.

Ech... I'm just sick of arguing the point. People's battle lines are already drawn and that's that.

[JsARCLIGHT]

What about those of us who fight the evil empire by not buying any music that has been recorded after 1990?

Seriously though, you have to admit that the media industries in the US have a severe stick stuck up their pooper... and this whole situation may bring it all to a head.

(JsARCLIGHT closes fallout shelter door, puts a mag in the M16 and waits...)

[Mislovrit]

Also, people are complaining of them looking at people's computers. They are not actually going into people's computers.

Which is technically illegal.

If you remember, Napster (and other programs) allow users to view all the files someone has to share.  Once a downloaded song is not in the the person's directory that they gave viewing access to, then the songs are not able to be viewed.

The analogy would be "homeowner gives permission for friend(s), or stranger(s), to take a look around in the garage. Without said permission anyone entering the garage is criminally "trespassing and "breaking and entering" even if they don't take or destroy anything.

Also, I'm sure programs have the ability to record how much activity a user has. Either downloading or people downloading from them.

Which is illegal for law enforcement agencies without a warrent to track and monitor what a person does in person, on the phone or online.

[Jolly Rogers]

heres a case just settled in NY.......geesh louise, no mercy for kids.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/0...ment/index.html

That's bizarre, how can a 12-year-old settle, considering minors have no ability to enter into legally enforceable contracts (which a settlement is)?