Topic awaiting preservation: WARNING! (Page 1 of 2)

Yes, a warning. I've been gone, so I don't know if this has already been said, but if it has, please forgive me:

The goverment has started prosecuting sharers, and downloaders, of pirated music on Kazaa. Evidently they are charging $75 to $150,000 per song that they find on each confiscated PC's. This is what I've HEARD, if this isn't true, please inform me.

do the crime. do the time, don't start whining about it...

cfb: See:
www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum1/HTML/007604.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Wait does this include songs you've uploaded onto your computer from CD's? I have half of my CD collection on my computer.

quote:

---

Wait does this include songs you've uploaded onto your computer from CD's?

---

Nah, as long as you're not sharing those files (I know you'd never do that ), you're okay. I can't imagine it being illegal to rip CDs that I paid for to MP3s on my own computer.

Thanks Emps.

VP: I'm not whining. I was wondering if what I'd heard was true. It was, and I'm not going to whine.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) ? A Danish anti-piracy group has sent invoices to hundreds of people whose names it obtained by court order, demanding payment for music, movies and games they downloaded from the Internet.

The AntiPiratGruppen, a Copenhagen-based organization funded by Danish entertainment companies, billed more than 150 private users, schools and companies that it said downloaded material from file-sharing sites like Kazaa and eDonkey last month.

"We went for people who had used the programs in such a way that they offered illegally copied material to others," Morten Wind Lindegaard, a lawyer and spokesman for the APG organization, said Tuesday.

In the past, copyright holders in the United States have typically gone after individuals by exerting pressure on the users' Internet service providers ? or universities if they are students.

Under U.S. law, a service provider loses immunity from copyright lawsuits if it fails to respond promptly to such a complaint.

Lately though, copyright holders have shown themselves inclined to go after individuals directly ? and thus reduce the reliance on third parties to enforce copyright laws.

In a closely watched U.S. case, the Recording Industry Association of America is seeking a court's authority to obtain from Verizon Communications the names of people suspected of trading music files online.

In the Denmark case, the anti-piracy group obtained a court order that forced the providers to turn over users' names. The group tracked the users by examining their Internet Protocol addresses, the individual fingerprint of computer users online.

From there, the group sent each user a bill, as well as a settlement offer ranging from about $130 to $13,300. The users were asked to pay by Dec. 1 and told to delete the content from their computers or face a lawsuit.

So far, some 75 people have paid, Wind Lindegaard said. The deadline was pushed back to Dec. 9 amid concerns the anti-piracy group may have violated Denmark's privacy laws.

APG has six people who daily scan Danes' Internet usage "and specifically look for violations," Wind Lindegaard said.

At least one hotel in Copenhagen, the Danish capital, was on the list of parties sent invoices, he said, adding that several schools also contacted the group after they got letters.

A Danish disc jockey who had 3,200 music files on his computer's hard drive got a bill for $13,300, he said. None of the names of the 150 users were made public.

Thomas Riis, a law lecturer at the Copenhagen Business School, said APG didn't violate Danish law. Under Danish law, people can make digital copies of music, movies or pictures but may not distribute them to anyone else, he said.

Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard University law professor, said using Internet service providers to police users has an innate appeal to content holders.

"This is the next logical front in the battle of peer-to-peer copying," he said. "Your average ISP has very little interest in getting caught in the middle."

But the bigger issue may lie in how to determine if a user has illegally downloaded legitimate, copyrighted material.

"A yellow submarine need not be the song by the Beatles," said Zittrain.

The ISPs involved heeded the court order, but some expressed dismay.

"Illegal things happen on the Internet," said Martin Lippert of TDC Internet, the Scandinavian country's largest ISP. "We would like to discuss what is permitted on an open network like the Internet and what kind of anonymity users can have."

Danish newspapers have reported on the issue and consumer groups have expressed concern about whether records of people's online activities should be considered public or are protected by privacy laws.

((sorry about the size of this post, original link is gone...)

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 07-20-2003).]

You didn't really have to post the whole story, a link is enough, okie dokie?

Bah, CFB he was referring to the users that were being prosecuted, not you .

ok, lets be blunt......


downloading any 'copyrighted' material, technically, is violating copyright law.

Whether it is right/wrong/who gives a damn is irrelevant....

fact being, if you (as in 'you'), decide to download copyrighted material, you are infringing on the copyright's holder (be it artist or record Co/owner) ownership..... that being said, you decided to 'steal, rip, deny' the owners.

Don't even try and justify it.. there is no justification ,,,,,,

let me repeat myself and then go for therapy,

do the crime, do the time... its not rocket science................ is it?

Actually it's only violating the copyright law if they decide to sell the songs, or burn them to a disk. At least I think so...

No. It's possession of the song, InSiDeR.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 07-20-2003).]

How can there possibly still be confusion over this issue, with all the threads we've had here discussing it??

If you download commercial software or music (or whatever else) from a source that offers it "free", you are violating copyright law.

Period.

The person/people who created and/or payed for that software or music to be created are entitled to get payed whenever the material is distributed. If you acquire it without it benig properly payed for, it is illegal.

Regardless of whether you then decide to redistribute it or use it to make money.

Never have I seen an issue that so was so fiercely rationalized as "ok" by the people who do it. Including me when I used to do it

Pretty interesting really, when I want something, I can just kick back and let my brain deceive the rest of me into thinking of a way that I can have it. It's almost effortless and always brilliant reasoning to the mind that's thinking it. Creepy stuff self deceit. Doesn't sound possible when you think about the term "self deceit", yet it's one of the most possible and probable things a human can, and most likely will, do in their lifetime.

That's why I like the Asylum I reckon. Plenty of people to check you and tell you your piles do indeed stink.

Jason

Well, whether or not it's "ok" is a far different issue than whether or not it is "legal".

It is clearly illegal.

The ethical side of it tends to be a little less black and white...

=)

I?m thinking anyone that is actually worried about this, needs to rethink the facts

MILLIONS of people use kazza and many many many more MILLIONS of people do file sharing from with other sources, to actually believe that any government would be willing to take the time or spend the money that it would take to prosecute them all is pure stupidity...

This is just another hoax to make people stop sharing illegal files, and it isn't going to work because they know that can't realistically do anything about it. The more you try to stop something like this, the worse it is going to get, plain and simple. Anyone remember napster? Suppressing it is what spawned all these other sharing programs, which now number into the thousands.

I personally wouldn't care either way if it was true as I actually buy my software, but viewing this from a realistic stand point I can tell you it's just not possible. Yeah sure they may go after a few high traffickers to throw a scare into you, but too believe they would go after the average user sharing a few songs is just ridiculous

I'm not saying I support either side of the argument, I?m just stating the obvious. Trying to end file sharing is like trying to stop underage drinking, or teenage sex, illegal or not they are still going to do it

Synthetic's Chess Player Page

[This message has been edited by Synthetic (edited 07-22-2003).]

I have to agree with Synthetic, more or less.

Unfortunately, though, many people are believing it, and some news sites are reporting a drastic decrease in file sharing traffic.

I'd be interested to know where they get those facts from though, as I just downloaded kazza to check and there are currently over 6 million people online currently sharing 6,649,497 GB of data lol

How many were on yesterday I wounder?

Synthetic's Chess Player Page

If I own loads of CD's and I convert my entire collection to MP3 for my new expensive mp3 player and my own personal listening pleasure. Then someone steals my whole CD collection, how will I be able to prove that I had the originals and made all the MP3 copies of my own collection?.

Well...The Oregonion said that 75 people have been charged for both sharing and downloading.

synthetic: 6 million isn't so many, not when you're talking kazaa

Don't know what their sources are, but they're out there...
http://www.silicon.com/news/500019/1/5140.html
http://dean.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/07/16/files/
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=75528




[This message has been edited by ozphactor (edited 07-23-2003).]

I think it's all bullshit. theyre just trying to scare you. Prosecuting people who share song? doh. what's next? perhaps arresting people for browsing the sites which the gov't says they cant browse.

sick of this shit.

OPEN SOURCE, Free Download. People who make those songs have enough money without stopping piracy. Greedy bastards.

I don't support mp3 file sharing. But I could give 2 sh*ts about the organizations complaining (RIAA - just to name a few). As a matter of fact, I have vowed never to buy a commercial CD ever again. The only music I will buy is that of independent artists...PERIOD!

A scare tactic they're using? You bet! And people have been falling for scare tactics since the dawn of time. As a matter of fact, African Americans have been long oppressed by it.

We are conditioned to curl up into a pussified ball when exposed to implied power. I do not have any sorrow for groups like the RIAA. Copyright infringement, bad of course. But the alternative is that you and I (yes) are being ripped off more and more everyday anyway.

Support your community! Support small businesses! Support your local bands! Let's even out the playing field here people!

quote:

---

People who make those songs have enough money without stopping piracy. Greedy bastards.

---

So.....who then decides when someone has "enough" money and doesn't need anymore, and can have their property stolen from them?

What if I feel you have enough money already, and rob you because - hell, you've got enough, yo ugreedy bastard.

Is that ok too?

Now don't get me wrong...I'm not some high and mighty "don't copy music" preacher. It's just that your reasoning is *very* poorly thought out, asptamer....

quote:

---

who then decides when someone has "enough" money and doesn't need anymore, and can have their property stolen from them?

---

Good question! I think they should. They being the people who have made "enough" money. I know it doesnt make sense, and I know greed kicks in once u make ur first million. But come on... dont you think it's unfair to keep ripping people off with the overpriced cds and try to eliminate their ways of getting music for free? Everybody cannot be rich, that is an unarguable postulate. So excuse that "everyone is given an equal chance of being rich and having their income secured" wont work. Many people are obviously not the "best" that could be hired (bought) for the job, especially in entertainment industry.
But okay. so theyre rich; I find it unbearably disgusting that it is the rich ones who try to stop piracy, just so they can get richer. Why isnt there an organization that fights for the tax deductions of the middle class (Im sure there is such an organization, but who listens to it? do they have real power? NO THEY DONT)? IT's the upper crust that gets the tax breaks (they pay smaller percentage altho a bigger amount... wouldnt hurt them to pay a bigger percentage either).
Dont you people ("not" 'dont copy music' preachers) get it? The world is full of injustice, treachery and corruption, and YOU, their voters and customers, are their puppets... their sheepflock. People like those, who say "yes it is not right to steal music" are the ones who give power to the ones who need it only to gain another million, in addition to their 50.

You think theyre losing money? no the are not. Its probably 2nd or 3rd derivative of their income function that dropped. Theyre still making a ton. I work in a music store, I know how many cds are sold. Maybe not as much as before internet, but still enough to keep them fed and dressed.

RIAA is not against pirates. They are against People. They are what this country originally fought against, the greedy bastards who will oppress just so they can get richer. Go fish for irony, u'll catch a ton.

nuf said. I'm talking to a wall anyway. It's impossible to change, they have too much power already.

i'm with thumper on this one

so what's next?

i've always listened to the radio and recorded what i liked

am i a pirate too?

this should go to show how revolutionary the internet is - and this is only the tip of the iceberg

viva la revolucion

viva

quote:

---

IT's the upper crust that gets the tax breaks (they pay smaller percentage altho a bigger amount... wouldnt hurt them to pay a bigger percentage either).

---

hahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

...

Smaller percentage? Damn, either you don't understand the meaning of the word 'percentage' or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/2002taxrates.asp
..or by state: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html

Please find me an example where the low-income person is taxed harder than the high income.

In Canada it's even worse, it's not uncommon to see people taxed for more than half the amount they make in a year, just because some degenerate deems their income to be "enough."

More to the issue.. justifying a crime, by blaming the victim. That's just not tasteful. If you don't have enough money to but a CD, that's too bad. If you steal it? That's a shame. But if you buy a CD, rip it, then distribute it around the world - you deserve more then a small fine.

oops. got me. wasnt aware of that statistic but I was referring to the tax cut proposed not so long a time ago, which was very convenient for those who make a lot. sorry for making myself look like a fool that I am.

but that proves a point: noone is listening until u make a mistake.

I wont answer other criticism because I think it is pointless. I cant change your impression, and even if I do it wont change anything globally. so why try.

What the government's doing isn't worth it, is Kazaa illegal? that's what I want to know.

I'm at a loss here.

Charging high prices for CD's is "oppression"???



This is exactly the type of thing that demonstrates the fact that people here have had it too damn good in life.

People elswhere are being murdered and raped and removed from there homes and starved by corrupt organizations.

And you're being oppressed by high CD costs? I'll send a letter to Amnesty International on your behalf. Hell, maybe I'll try to get GW to 'liberate' you

(of course, I exagerate there a little....but you need to 'hear' yourself.....your post comes across like a spoiled kid who wants more candy...)



{{edit - Yannah: no, kazaa itself is not illegal. But if you use it to download pirated material, that is in fact illegal. It has legitimate purposes, but is primarily being used for illegal ones.}}

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 07-23-2003).]

youre right. I had it too easy. Now that I thought about it, I think I'm gonna start buying cds. not that I need any new music, but just to support those poor companies that will drop dead if I dont buy a cd. At current prices, I may buy 2 cds for a day's worth of working in the music store. I think I'm gonna do that. Buy all the music I have on mp3s. I might have to take out a loan, but still, the cause is worth it. That should support the industry, and the prominent artists... dont u think?

Do they have anything that could prove whether the song has been copied illegally? How would I recognise such thing? and what should I look up to?
Because I do download from Kazaa and I don't check it first before downloading it, but now that I am aware of this, I'd probably will.
And another thing, I don't upload any of my files to the internet 'cept for picture files for signatures and email reasons.

[This message has been edited by Yannah (edited 07-23-2003).]

yeh. look for the .mp3 extension. if u see that - it's illegal. go buy a cd.

ohh...so .mp3 in Kazaa are illegal, god..oh my f***** G**.

*sigh*

I gotta start saving them then.

(WTF Yannah?)

Anyways, asp, a .MP3 extension doesn't mean that it's illegal. A ripped MP3 (ripped by YOURSELF of course) isn't illegal. Any MP3 freely distributed isn't illegal.

I'm not sure whether half the people here are being sarcastic, or if everyone here is being half sarcastic.

I've decided not to care.

I would think it would be a civil matter here in the US. The goverment has enough problems with out investgating copyright violations. Record companies would have registered the copyright or purchaced the distrubution and reproduction rights. They only have prove the own rights easy to do if registered. Basicly you would have to prove you didn't violate the copyright. Very hard to do with out the original copyright, the CD, and/or a copyright transfer contract.

A court order woud be needed to cease personal or search your home etc... Which in turn I would guess would be excuted by an officer of the courts ie. the police, FBI, etc.... It would be interesting to know what laws apply to obtaining info from your ISP or if some racketeering or laws covering organized crime could also be applied.

A public record of a violation would be tough to beat. Evidence collection is simple since sharing happens over a P2P network which one would think would be considered a public forum as contents of your hard drive is publicly accessable. I would imagine it would be similar to collecting illegal transactions taking place on public IRC channels (ie. sexual predeters, terrorists etc....) The info could be used to prove you violated the copyright, similar to trademark violations posting a image of Micky Mouse{tm}, or producing a Star Wars{tm} or Star Trek[tm} game Mod on a popular site will result in a similar actions.

It could get worse some of these company's are megacorps, they could start sending guy's named Vinie, No Neck, and Knuckes.

Here is a good link from the 3M Website on copyright it's a good read:
http://www.3m.com/meetingnetwork/presentations/pmag_copyright_criminal.html

J. Stuart J.

[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 07-23-2003).]