Topic awaiting preservation: WARNING!

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).]

Yes it's not really right to take others protected material but... what a bunch of hippocrites we al are!!! How many of us made cassette copies of music? or recorded from the radio or vinyl record friends albums onto cassette to play on our walkmans before the CD and MP3 downloading took over the world? I bet there are non pre-recorded cassetes in every home in the US and Europe. We all did it... for years.. and it was illegal then too, and there were threats to imprison the world back then as well... and cries of how cassettes would destroy the music industry. Don't believe the hype an scaremongering.

Speeding is illegal, parking over there is illegal, smoking that stuff is illegal, being anti-US law is illegal... There is not one single person here or anywhere that does not break the law...
...the law of man never was and never will be my god...


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

Copyright as a civil matter is up to the copyright holder to enforce. Why shouldn't they protect their intrest. It's well with theirs rights to do so, just like you can choose to violate that copyright but you risk concences. As part of socity we agree abid by that law, if not one needs offer a better alterative, but how do you protect the rights of the artist or there works fairly is the question.

Just because they make more money doen't mean the work shouldn't be protected any less. I know I would be pissed if someone told me I could only make $1000 on that image, the I would have to give it away for free.

It's not ok to RIP someone website, or claim a someone else image is their own is it? I know if I didn't provide promission to use images from my gallery and someone started treating them as stock images. You can bet they would be here from my lawyer too if I found it to my advantage.



J. Stuart J.


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

I think that the issue stems more from people simply ignoring it as wrong. To most people (including myself) it's like jaywalking. It's illegal (at least where I live) but everybody does it, and, plus, are you really hurting anything? When you download a song, you are denying the artist/record company the money that you would of payed, yet you didn't hurt anything.

I get so unbelievably sick of hearing you bastards whine about CDs being overpriced. Any company will charge what the market will bear. If a price is too high, people won't pay it. If people are paying it, a company will, and should, charge the full worth of an item -- that worth being dictated by what people are willing to pay. People speak with their dollars. If CDs really were overpriced, record companies would lose money because people wouldn't buy the product. That's free enterprise.

And this talk about people having made enough money already on their creations? Outright stupidity. If someone creates something that so many people are willing to purchase in order to enjoy it, then the creator deserves every dime he gets. Being rich doesn't make you evil. Being successful doesn't make you evil.

In my opinion, however, villifying someone for being so good at what he does that millions are willing to pay him for doing it -- that's evil. (By the way, if you want to argue whether or not a rich band is "good," save it. If they're making money, they've created something the people want, plain and simple, regardless of what your opinion of their music is.)

If you want to lower the price of CDs, continue not to buy any and encourage others to do the same. In the meantime, listen to the radio.

Sooooooooo...


...Is it illegal to record off the radio? I guess I'm wondering that now,

Yes, recording off the radio breaks all copyright laws... so does video taping from the TV. But the whole planet is doing it or has done it ...but you can't sue the world.

double post! pardon me

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

exemple:

you draw a picture...scan it and post it on the internet...people start coping it, riping it, and sharing it...some people print posters of your picture for their personal use and/or give it to fiends and so on...some people sell it...you get no money for it what so ever...

how would you react?

would you say..."I am generouse...let everyone fuck with my property and product and do whatever they want." ?

it doesntmatter if they make millions...its their creation, their music, they own it. why should they let people get it for free?

you want one? go buy it...thats the way it is....

another exemple:


a person has an apple tree. He grew alot of apples and sold them made alot of money...now people come to his yard an d steal apples when he is not home, as well share them with friends....

you telling me its ok to steal persons product and share it, when he had worked his ass of creating it?


[edit]as for radio? here is an exemple:

an art work is being posted somewhere in a public area, owner is not here, so you think its ok to photograph his work and then make alot of prints and share them? or keep for yourself pretending you own it?..cmon man... use your cabeza.[/edit]

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

Wes - exactly.

Now, I have said - many times - that I personally don't have a huge problem with most issues of downloading mp3's. I've also said, many times, that it is much like everyone has always done with copying friends tapes and the like.

The difference is the mass scale of it now. The potential for true damage is a bit more real. You can download entire libraries of music overnight...

We've made it much easier to get a hold of music without paying for it. We've also made it much easier to get in trouble for it. Seems reasonable to me.

As far as your uninformed whining goes, asptamer, you are quite wring on many levels. I won't bother to explain any further as you'll simply retort with an ignorant jibe anyway (as you never seem to actually bother trying to understand the point of what someone has said...)

bah, fished in

quote:

---

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 don't understand this attitude, I mean, I understand the perspective, but I don't see how it's right or helpful, or how you could see it any other way. How can it be ethical to take from someone what belongs to them without their consent? Ever?

quote:

---

The difference is the mass scale of it now.

---

This says to me that you think it's an ethical grey area on a personal level to take from someone, but on a large scale, it's clearly wrong. You can always make an argument for big problem vs little problem but lack of personal ethics en masse equals lack of societal ethics on the whole doesn't it?

The train of thought leads me to the conclusion that you're saying, in effect, the classic: "everyone's doing it". I know you believe in personal responsibility so this kinda argument makes me beat my head against the desk trying to understand what you're saying.

note: don't think I'm picking on you DL, in a thread this long I do quite a lot of skimming, stopping to read posts that are actually understandable to me =)

Jason

If you steal something worth 15$ from a store, you will rarely be sued for 1 million. Can somebody tell me why?

You wont likely be sued for $1,000,000.00 for stealing something worth $15, enless you do so violently, and rack up a nice serving of punitive damages to be sued for too. In most societies, the laws are structured in a way in which the value of the product you steal has baring on the crime you are charged with - although, in all cases the punishment is far greater than the crime, which it should be since a criminal punishment is two-fold, punishment and deterrent. It wouldn't be a great deterrent if people saw a benefit in committing a crime vs the consequences of committing the crime.

However, if the punishment ever was a $1,000,000.00 fine for stealing something worth $15.00, then don't steal something worth $15.00. Bah... it's mind-numbingly simple. But whatever you choose to do, don't call the punishments too severe, no ones forcing you to break the law.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
If you were charged only for the price of a CD, when you stole a CD, then everyone would be stealing CD's, and just paying for them on the occasions they were caught.

[edit]Nothing to see here....[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Thumper (edited 07-24-2003).]

Im pretty much with wes on this, the record producers will charge what the market will pay.
Ruski, not really good examples, the apple tree has a limited amount of apples whereas an mp3 can be downloaded an infinate number of times

I don't listen to music in the house, just the car radio but I have downloaded a few songs from the net in the past but I dont believe I've ripped anyone off because

a) I didn't burn them to disc
b) I didn't share them
c) I would never have bought the songs anyway even if they cost 1 penny

DL - I'm not seeing your sig


~We're not here for long, we're here for fun~

From Wes:

quote:

---

In my opinion, however, villifying someone for being so good at what he does that millions are willing to pay him for doing it -- that's evil. (By the way, if you want to argue whether or not a rich band is "good," save it. If they're making money, they've created something the people want, plain and simple, regardless of what your opinion of their music is.)

---

And the RIAA is the flock of pesky vultures following that money.

I don't believe we are referring to artists. By all means the artists should get what they deserve, and they should get more for it. The RIAA is the annoying hemorrhoid that is stealing from the artists on account of undeserving copyright laws passed through Congress (one's that assure artists will go nowhere without the "consent" of the RIAA - that means fork over your masters fellas, your asses are ours now); most of them in the midst of tradegies like 911, with little or no consent from artists, so nobody would "care." And they come out saying they are protecting an artist's First Amendment Rights. They are protecting their viability by strangling musicians where they are weakest - their influence in Congress. What a mastery of a business plan! Even though they have a right to free enterprise, I see it unfair that they are so closely acquainted with Congress that legislation is passed whenever they are feeling bored. You won't see a small business owner skipping to the White House with a grin on his face. That is networking at the highest level, and is unfair in my opinion. And as long as the public remains uneducated about the issues, the RIAA will get away with it until the end of time. (so pass your judgements about "well, the people are payin'!!"). The people are payin' because the people are made docile and controllable by law. And when you do not challenge law, there is much left open for theivery by those that make it. The back doors fly open; and the 40 Theives take their picks.

The RIAA aims to steal more than just money from these artists. They are keeping them from their original audio masters (not like masters of the universe), a huge cut on recorded material. Not many of them speak up for fear of losing their credibility with the RIAA, since they suffocate the industry. The RIAA "pimps" for artists. That is why an artist will go nowhere without their networking power. So either abandon your love for music and get out, or sign a contract that assures you will have no say in the distribution and finances of your...er...their recorded material (I say "their" because the RIAA is a concoction of some of the largest record companies in the world, as well as some former political leaders). Its convenient having an organization linked to a key industry that throws slumber parties in the White House.

I'm in a band, and have dealt with management agencies and small record producers. They are like mini-RIAA's...they want to "own" you. It's one thing to hire an agency that helps you network and takes care of the paperwork/booking. But seriously, most of the time we were sifting through rumors and backstabbing. Forced by contract to play "freebie gigs" and whatnot. It was enough when we pulled out our calculators and found out how much money we could've saved if we'd done it on our own. The thing that really pissed me off was that the -polite- termination of our last management agency resulted in our being stigmatized on the venue circuit as being a "shitty band" even though we have a strong following.

Legal or not, the existence of file sharing cannot always be viewed as horrible. You never know what the future will bring. Perhaps an existence where intellectual property becomes library to the public (sound stupid? that's because you haven't experienced it yet)...well no wait. The internet is! I have learned more about things than I ever will sitting in a classroom on the internet. A whole helluva lot from Ozone Asylum.

Here's something interesting...a statement from one of the RIAA's henchmen Jack Valenti:

quote:

---

"The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology," Jack Valenti said, threatens an entire industry's "economic vitality and future security." Mr. Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America, was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, and he was ready for a rhetorical rumble. The new technology, he said, "is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."

This is not about the internet or file sharing, it was in 1982, and he was talking about videocassette recorders. If Jack Valenti had his way back then (he almost did as the Sony BetaMax case went all the way to the Supreme Court) we wouldn't have VCRs today, Blockbuster wouldn't exist and 50% of Hollywoods income wouldn't exist.

---

and DL-44

quote:

---

The difference is the mass scale of it now. The potential for true damage is a bit more real. You can download entire libraries of music overnight...

---

The potential for true damage = the RIAA is removed and artists get richer from their hard-earned creative energy, as they make beans off their recorded material as it is today. Musicians stay alive by touring - you can't download the experience of a live concert. The RIAA has very little dealings with touring. The Grateful Dead were the highest earning group of musicians ever to sweep the world (haven't checked for a while)...Why? Touring. The potential for true damage is not with music and the value of it. The damage is the crumble of an organization whose existence is obsolete, and quite unwarranted; yet so ridiculously accepted.

The RIAA has dominated for too long. People have been passive for too long. Artists have been hustled for too long. And I have been typing for too long.

Boycott!


[This message has been edited by Thumper (edited 07-24-2003).]

Thumper -

my comments on 'oppression' were directed at Asptamer's comments, not yours, and his general attitude.

Also, the problem is, I don't see the RIAA going away. I don't see the public at large boycotting major label records either.

It's a lose lose situation quite frankly. The music industry has long been a terrtible thing, and it's only getting worse.

Oh...um...sorry about that DL. I wiped it clean.

What I don't get about this is why bands don't use the net to sell and distribute their own music. Charge a reasonable fee for their own music and get direct payments rather than going through labels. Why is there a necessity for labeled music when the internet can remove the need for a middleman between listeners and the bands. We all know that the band gets very little money from the sale of their CD's. So why don't they take the money grubbing corporations out of it and make their own money. If they priced their songs at 1/2 of the cost of a total cd set of songs they would STILL make more money then they do now. Right around 50-60 cents a song? $5.00- $7.00 a disk on average. Is this a *real* possibility? What is stopping these bands from trying/doing this?

As an aside BuyMusic has a pretty good library of purchasable and downloadable music at around a buck a song. I don't know how they validate the purchase on the file itself... or if they do at all. Even legal internet purchases could be dangerous at this point. Sad.

{EDIT}Search and thou shalt find Restrictions for BuyMusic.com{EDIT}


[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 07-25-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 07-25-2003).]