By Ted Bridis, AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON - The recording industry sued 531 more computer users Tuesday it said were illegally distributing songs over the Internet in what has become a routine reminder reminder that college students, teenagers and others can face expensive lawsuits for swapping music online.

The Recording Industry Association of America filed the latest complaints against "John Doe" defendants in lawsuits in Atlanta; Philadelphia; Orlando, Fla.; and Trenton, N.J. It said the defendants were customers of one of five Internet providers based in those cities.

Philadelphia is the headquarters for Comcast Cable Communications Inc., the nation's largest cable company. Atlanta is headquarters for Earthlink Inc., another of the nation's biggest Internet providers.

Music industry lawyers identified the defendants only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.

The RIAA's president, Cary Sherman, said illegal downloads continue hurting new, legitimate Internet services for selling music. "We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal, it can have consequences and it undermines the creative future of music itself," Sherman said in a statement.

Last month, the recording group filed lawsuits against 532 computers users who were customers of Internet providers based in Washington and New York. The latest actions represent the largest number of complaints filed at one time since the trade group launched its legal campaign last summer to cripple Internet music piracy.

The recording group has said previously that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse. Settlements in previous cases have averaged $3,000 each.

The RIAA represents the world's big record labels, including Time Warner's Warner Music, Bertelsmann AG's BMG, EMI Group Plc, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music, and Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group.

once again, comcast tops the list.

you bet the eff will make sure they have to work damn long and hard to find that personal info, but more likely the previous court precedents against subpoena of personal info will have a lot of clout in keeping them out.

Note they have only filed against john does, this was announced a month ago, and still the conservative media reports NO PROGRESS!

I thank the appellate courts for making it far more slow and expensive to sue mid to low income families with children.

i also wander how long it goes before the child of a politician or company owner gets sued and they have someone who actually fights back.

Until the government steps in, this is going to continue. Unforunately the industry has politicians in their back and front pockets...

If any of you people on this message board is one of those affected by this constant suing, you tell the RIAA that it's none of their goddamn business what you are doing on your own computer.

The only people that should know what you are doing are you and the person that you are sharing with . . . no one else.

Tell them to mind their own fucking business.

And the police if you are doing something that is a federal crime.

I don't call sharing music a crime.

"According to the group, three of the four suits filed in January have been approved by the courts and have moved to the discovery process, which means that subpoenas for the "John Doe" identities have been issued to the Internet service providers involved. Two of those individuals, which were notified by their ISPs before being officially identified through the court, have agreed to settle." (taken from Zdnet link http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5160262.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed)


Kind of funny how this did not take long for them to be approved. And I thought in the current Legal model you had to bring individual suits against each. It is almost like before but with one more step. Seems fishy to me.

"We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal, it can have consequences and it undermines the creative future of music itself," Sherman said in a statement.


Creative music. Come one Sherman since when have you been concerned with the creative future of music. All you care about is one hit wonders and more money in your pocket. But i did like the lie. It goes good with the rest that come out of your ass oops I mean your mouth.

LXI,

I take the following from the link you provided in your post above:

"Previously, the RIAA said that settlements in the music-swapping lawsuits have averaged about $3,000, but that the new "John Doe" process might trigger higher settlements, since the legal process is becoming more expensive than the model used for the RIAA lawsuits filed last year."

This is what I suspected would happen ever since Verizon's victory in court last December. The RIAA will pass on the increased cost of the 'John Doe' lawsuits on to the settlement costs of those being sued. So perhaps Verizon's victory in court was a pyrrhic one as far as P2P users are concerned.

fuck 'em. I still wonder how they are going to use all this so called evidence in court when it was clearly obtained by violating the EULA which they had to agree to to get on P2P networks in the first place. Fact is courts don't like to allow evidence that was obtained illegally. For some reason they see it as breaking the law to enforce the law and you don't have to look far to find precedents here.

I WON'T PAY THEM ONE RED CENT . . . AND YOU CAN TELL THEM THAT TO THEIR FACES!!!!!!!!!!!

"We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal..."

They never sent a message that downloading is illegal. In fact, when this started they said downloaders would be fine.

If I am ever sued, and I've said this before, they will have to pry their settlement out of my cold bloodied hands. Because it all boils down to this: Fuck RIAA.

*knock knock*
Who is it?
"Cary Sherman!"
Ok, coming!
[insert your own ending here]

"...illegal downloads continue hurting new, legitimate Internet services for selling music..."

Really? I wasn't aware of any "illegal" downloads hurting eMule or Kazaa. How odd.

Ooooh, by legitimate, he must have meant illegitimate! And by illegal downloads, he must have meant Apple trying to royally rip off their customers via iPod scam. Ok, just a typo. It all makes sense now.

Thanks for the info Sherman! I'll stick to Kazaa!

I agree, LXI, creativity, diversity, or even good music has never been a priority of the big labels. What they care about is if people will buy it. The stuff on the radio is normally not creative, but it sells.

Tyler

TheSherminator, is Kazaa and eMule legitmate service now?

nvm

I said the other day I was waiting for the third shoe to drop...and I guess this is it. The last time they sued 532...this time 531...hey, we may be on a countdown here .....
and this from Cart Sue..
""We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal, it can have consequences and it undermines the creative future of music itself," Sherman said in a statement."

He's become the quite the little Johnny one note...hasn't he.
~CW

hey I'm sharing 50GB of quality content now, that's another ten gigs. fuck the RIAA, i will never bowdown to thes assholes. I'm sharing more than ever because the RIAA is pissing me off, and infact I am sharing lessand less of their crap, and more and more from DM artists.

nlm mln

I hear the clear message:

"We hate the consumers. We think you are all thieves. We don't care what your mother taught you -- sharing is BAD! Now give us all your money or we'll sue your grandma, too."

RIAA just needs to give up. They have no reputation, everyone has abandoned them, they lost the battle two months ago and they still continue to do so.

Fuck the RIAA.

The recording group has said previously that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant

once the defendant has been identified isn't their name part of public record?? even though they are not formally named in a suit? can Any good legal experts out there answer this? I'm confused.

Did the RIAA forget about their little tax law on music CDRs? Doesn't that tax law protect people from copyright lawsuits? Why doesn't anyone of these people who are being sued show the RIAA the music they are sharing, "Yeah it's right here on this "music CDR"".

Man, this is bullshit, of all the freakin people that the RIAA chose to take action against, they chose me, and now my roommate and I have to deal with this big inconvenience at my college where they cut off my internet until the problem is "resolved," there's like a bunch of others around me who have way more songs than me, and I get picked for a measly couple of songs. What do you guys want from me? I don't exactly appreciate people like the RIAA invading my privacy and looking onto my hard drive. It's not like I'm downloading music to make a profit like burn cds and sell them. All I wanna do is just listen to some freakin music. You know what, if you want your fuckin music so bad, then take it and go screw yourselves. It's bad enough I have a shitload of work to do at school, my personal life, then on top of that now deal with the fuckin RIAA's triffilin ass. Thanks alot you dumbasses.

edx,

You were subpoenaed?

What school do you go to...

This nonsense will stop whenever the Big 5 labels tell them to stop it

This is really their last crusade against filesharing. The purpose of this lawsuit business is to scare people into leeching.

When they first started last June, it probably did scare people a little bit.

But as it went on, and people realised that the chances of them being sued were slim to none, coupled with the fact that most people don't know or don't care about copyright law, people just became apathetic to the entire debaucle, therefore the campaign is not having its desired effect.

I really don't see it going on much longer than the end of the year.

The Big Labels know damn well that filesharing doesn't hurt their sales because of people who were going to buy a CD, downloaded it, and then didn't buy it because they in effect, already had it.

It hurts them because it opens people up to lesser known independent music that people would not otherwise be able to hear.

The Big 5 want only their music to be available. They want a virtual monopoly where their show is the only one in town. That way they can release the same, manufactured, cookie-cutter bands, and they don't have to worry about any competition from anyone else.

The music that I listen to (trance, house, j-pop) is released mainly on independent labels in Europe and Japan.

There certainly isn't any hope of hearing it on the radio in the United States. I may see some of it in record stores(and I have bought some it from record stores), but that's a only a little of it, and since it isn't on the radio, there's no way to tell whether I like it unless I download it to hear it first.

Prior to filesharing, I didn't really listen to any music. I may have heard a few songs here and there that I liked, but never a large number at once. It wasn't until last summer that I heard a CD where I liked all of the songs.

After that one, several would follow, but the point is, without filesharing, I would have never ever known about any one if.

And that's how the Big 5 want it. They want their product to be the only one available.

Of course they'll never admit that. They'll continue their pointless crusade against twelve-year-olds and the elderly while their sales just keep on dropping.

This shit pisses me off.

They call so many Americans criminals. We are all such criminals, that we deserve to have our futures ruined via financial rape. Especially college students. Maybe we'll all switch majors, at this point of opportunity in our lives, to law and in a few years they'll be reconsidering which demographic they pick on.

"Man, this is bullshit, of all the freakin people that the RIAA chose to take action against, they chose me .... All I wanna do is just listen to some freakin music. "

Edx - try listening to the radio. If you don't have any good stations in your area then try internet radio. There a lots of great stations on the net. I recommend www.wfuv.org : )

"Doesn't that tax law protect people from copyright lawsuits?"

Yes it does. You are free to download and share all the music you want. Go for it. : )

To mroop: I already listen to the radio and internet stations, but of course the radio either plays the same stuff over and over, and does not have most of the music that I listen to, which is from anime, or jpop. I do agree that internet radio is a good alternative, but my favorite song or any song that I want to listen to is not gonna just come on when I want it to, so it's not just about listening to music, but it's about choice, something that I should have.

Where do you go to school, edx?

University of Illinois

Oooh, you're nearby. I'm in Columbia, MO - in St. Louis frequently.

Urbana or Chicago campus?

for confidential purposes, i'm not going to say.

There are hundreds of free, legal (mostly indie) mp3s for the taking at

http://www.epitonic.com/

Several genres available.

http://epitonic.com/

"I already listen to the radio and internet stations, but of course the radio either plays the same stuff over and over, and does not have most of the music that I listen to, which is from anime, or jpop. I do agree that internet radio is a good alternative, but my favorite song or any song that I want to listen to is not gonna just come on when I want it to, so it's not just about listening to music, but it's about choice, something that I should have. "

This man speaks the truth.

thanks tylerfd

"but my favorite song or any song that I want to listen to is not gonna just come on when I want it to, so it's not just about listening to music, but it's about choice, something that I should have."

There it is. The "entitlement attitude" that I have discussed previously. Edx believes he should be entitled to listen to whatever he wants to listen to whenever he wants to listen to it for free. What the hell. It's just a bunch of 1's and 0's anyway. : )

I think RIAA has some entitlement attitude as well, mroop. They just have Congress and endless billions of dollars.

"This man speaks the truth."

He sure does. We should all be entitled to anything we want as soon as we want it. Immediate gratification of all our desires should be mandatory. Man, life really sucks. : (

"I think RIAA has some entitlement attitude as well, mroop."

You didn't hear me say anything in defense of the RIAA. : )

I don't think that attitude evalation means much when laws are unfair/unjust/being applied wrongly. I know you know this. Forgive the extreme example, but people who flee middle-eastern countries have the same "entitlement attitude" about the rights they should have. Despite the fact that their government has laws that specifically say otherwise.

Just keeping it balanced =)

"We should all be entitled to anything we want as soon as we want it. Immediate gratification of all our desires should be mandatory. Man, life really sucks. : ("

Whoa, mroop, you're making it sound as I'm being selfish about it. I do recognize that the world does not revolve around me and that others should get what's due for their work. You make it seem as if downloading music is some sort of self indulgence I enjoy just because I believe I am 'entitled' to everything I want. Believe me, If I could afford to shell out hundreds of dollars to listen to my favorite songs the "right" way, then I would, but let's face it, I'm not exactly sitting on a family fortune here, and with out financial aid, I probably wouldn't be able to be here in college.

Which brings me to another point.

Filesharing makes radio irrelevant.

Instead of having to hear the same 20 songs all day, you can create your own playlists of whatever you want, and you can hear the songs you like whenever you want.

I don't even listen to the radio anymore. I have a 10-disc MP3 CD changer in my car, and 13 CD's of MP3's.

That's my radio.

I understand edx. I also went to college on financial aid and there was lots of music that I wanted to hear, but I couldn't afford it and that was that. I am in my 30's and I am just now buying music that I wanted when I was 12 years old. That's life, kid.

You are whining because you broke the law and you got caught. You knew what you were doing and chose to take the risk. Now is the time where you suck it up and take your punishment. I've been there too and it wasn't fun. : )

"If I could afford to shell out hundreds of dollars.."

It's true. I wouldn't say in court. But rather inform them of their price gouging practices, the reprecussions for which they brush off like nothing. There's a lot more principle behind P2P than 'entitlement attitude.' Laws change overtime because culture changes. Just because someone pays a country's officials to maintain archaic laws doesn't mean culture isn't going to change anyway.

mroop's a lawyer I believe. He's a valued mind here.

It seems that the courts think that your actions make you legally guilty, though nobody is even in agreement on intrepreation of copyright law yet. And once we all agree, we'll have to begin agreeing on some upgrades to the law anyway. The bottom line is RIAA is wrong, not edx.

shiiiiiit, it's not like I have a choice anyways, so yeah, tough luck for me.

"I am just now buying music that I wanted when I was 12 years old."

If I want quality music, I may have to buy the music that you wanted when you were 12 too.

Yeah, that brings up the monopoly issue. Laws to be changed and (and!!) enforced.

What I don't understand is why none of the people being sued have fought back. If you think about it, all the music being shared on Kazaa or old-Napster or Songspy was purchased! All the music had to be bought before it was copied on the computer and before it made it's way to the net. So, basically, you are listening to someone's music, like a friend of theirs would listen to it in the car. Should the RIAA sue people who listen to their friends music with them but don't pay? It just doesn't make sense!

Seinfeld
"You kept making the stops?"."Well, people kept ringing the bells!"

It's fair use, mrjjman.

They can't fight back because the RIAA is a multi-billion dollar not-for-profit organization and it takes many thousands of dollars to fight back.

The only people they've sued have been relatively poor people and college students.

"He sure does. We should all be entitled "to anything we want as soon as we want it. Immediate gratification of all our desires should be mandatory. Man, life really sucks. : ("

You're goddamn right that the customers should have what they want whenever they want it.

You ever heard of 'the customer is always right'?

That's the problem. People are sick of being forcefed the same top 40 no, talent, manufactured bands du jour all day long.

The labels aren't giving the people want they want, they're telling them what they're going to get, and then when something does come along that the people do want, but it isn't owned by the labels, they want to use anti-competitive measures to force it out of the market.

Those are just shitty business practices.

You keep that crap up for long enough, and people will find ways to get what they want, even if they don't have to pay you for it.

mroop

As for the music CDR tax. If a small hometome band wanted to get together a few years ago and make a few hundred copies of there music on music CDRs, the RIAA made money from them because of the tax. What gave the RIAA the right to steal from someone who never had anything to do with them? Well thats the other part of the law that they agreed to which was waving all rights to bring up copyright charges on anyone copying music to music CDRs. Oh, but now its not in their favor and they want to go against their own law. Shame.
As long as anyone downloading music puts it onto Music CDRs, the RIAA would have to break there own agreemant. At which time I would ask them to give back all of the profit they have received from it.

edx, put your music on Music CDRs. At that time you have payed the RIAA for the right to have it.

"If I want quality music, I may have to buy the music that you wanted when you were 12 too."

There was good tunes back then, but I'm finding that most of the stuff I wanted to hear but couldn't was not too good anyway. Tycoon friggin' blows, man. : )

"It's fair use, mrjjman."

No way. If it could be reasonably be construed as fair use then you would see someone like EFF stepping up to the challenge. It's clearly infringement, as even the EFF have acknowledged.

"The only people they've sued have been relatively poor people and college students."

Another misconception. Well off people have been sued, but who is going to bother to fight it when you can get rid of the problem for a few grand?

"Well thats the other part of the law that they agreed to which was waving all rights to bring up copyright charges on anyone copying music to music CDRs."

There is no law where the RIAA agreed to waive infringement suits for people distributing copyrighted materials without consent.

"As long as anyone downloading music puts it onto Music CDRs, the RIAA would have to break there own agreemant."

Again, no such agreement.

"You're goddamn right that the customers should have what they want whenever they want it.

You ever heard of 'the customer is always right'?"

Yes I have. You are a customer for goods when you are paying for them. Customer - One that buys goods or services. So when you are downloading from a P2P and not paying then you are not a customer.

"You keep that crap up for long enough, and people will find ways to get what they want, even if they don't have to pay you for it."

Just one problem with your argument. You are complaining about RIAA crap music. But the RIAA is suing people who download crap RIAA music.

Another thing the RIAA does not understand is that a lot of people are now getting several digital music CABLE channels (lack of CD sales?). I get around 50 of them I think. I pay quite a bit for music each month whether I listen to it or not. More of my money going into the RIAAs pocket.

But! since the PIAA is pulling all this crap I am going to start recording every song 24 hours day (and it's digital, good quality and its all the new releases). By "fair use" I am able to do this legally (that was settled a long time ago with the VCR). It won't be long at all and I will have a huge library of music. More than I had from the old downloading days.

moopie is in his 30's? I'll need to see some ID young man, I find that hard to believe.

edx, I didn't read all the posts, but I'm sure you can get legal help from the people here or eff.org. Don't be bullied into settling.

And your school shouldn't cut off your internet for long -- is there someone you can appeal to?

In the meantime, get a cd walkman and have your buddies burn you cd's.

edx more of us are behind you than you think. if you've been on this forum long enough you would know there are those here who have no clue what compassion means. did you break the law? leave that for a court to decide. there may be circumstances some of these self proclaimed judgemental individuals are not aware of in your situation. do what you think you have to do, what's best for your situation. when you have the money and power the industry has you can write your own rules but that doesn't make it right.

What I think is crap is that every time the riaa lets out a new flock of lawsuits everyone flocks to this website and BITCHES. We need to do this, we need to do that, etc. I am tired of the crying going on on these threads.

What we need is a plan!!!

How about things like a DO NOT DOWNLOAD FROM I-TUNES WEEK. Where the word out to ALL the sites is no Download from i-tunes for one week.

Or send your riaa cds to cary sherman month. With we aren't going to take it written on each one.

Just a couple of legal suggestions, other groups do stuff like this but what is needed is a plan to get the point across. And maybe someone to lead this. I know that there are people aching to do something like this.

I know this much, we have no plan but cary sherman does.

United States Public Law 102-563
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992


Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

See, yes there is such law.

You can find all of it here

http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/bad_laws/ahra.html#sect1008

Also, everyone is losing interest in the suing situation, it is not even on the top of the list on many sites.

Unless of course you are being sued. One question, has ANYONE fought back?

30's?? my god that explains alot.

"Yes I have. You are a customer for goods when you are paying for them. Customer - One that buys goods or services. So when you are downloading from a P2P and not paying then you are not a customer."

Oh, so no one who downloads actually pays for their music then, huh?

Funny, because I've bought about 10 CD's(all non-RIAA) since I started downloading music.

That being said, ' big bad, illegal, sinful, deplorable file sharing' is the REASON that I, and many others ARE customers.

"Just one problem with your argument. You are complaining about RIAA crap music. But the RIAA is suing people who download crap RIAA music."

That is a misnomer, because they are only suing uploaders.

And by 'what they want' I mean music in general, not just RIAA music.

Most music shared over P2P networks is either not under RIAA copyright, out of print, or discontinued.

By RIAA crap music, I'm mainly talking about the shit that they put out TODAY. I'll be the first to admit, a lot the older stuff that they put out(before they started manufacturing talentless artists)is actually good.

As I said before, this is why the labels don't like filesharing. It has nothing to do with it taking away from their music, it has to do with the fact that it gives light to OTHER music that they might have to compete with.

They want total control of the market, and P2P is a threat to that, so they'll do anything they can to get rid of it and obtain their stranglehold on the market.

Even you have to admit, the big labels are really taking the cake here when it comes to assinine business practices.

The movie, software, and video game companies suffer from copyright infringement just as much as the music industry does, but even they have enough sense not to sue their current and potential customers into submission.

For christ's sake.

Hey folks, bring out all of the laws, acts you want but your just farting in the wind. Until you convince a judge that your case is right you have nothing...

There is safety in numbers, but none of the filesharing sites is making a big deal of this. Maybe they want to just share pictures of their cars. That is where we are going with this, riding on the back of apathy.

"See, yes there is such law."

I am aware of AHRA. You can copy it pretty good, but you don't know what it means and frankly I'm too lazy to explain it to you.

"30's?? my god that explains alot."

Hey, it's my buddy! : ) Yep, in my 30's. I don't practice law either fyi since you constantly refer to me as standing in front of judges, etc. I started my own business and I basically sit around and rake in the dough and still have plenty of time to hang out here and irritate you. : ) I'm a total idiot!

"moopie is in his 30's? I'll need to see some ID young man, I find that hard to believe."

I have an arrested development. It keeps me young. : )

This is, of course, all moot until a court decides whether mroop is right or the rest of us are.

Fine - let's say it can't be reasonably construed as fair use. Great. It still should be, and the RIAA is still wrong for abusing the DMCA and having their greedy hands in on the law as it was being made in the first place.

You keep saying we're screwed because we share and get in trouble and that's just how it works. Well, the RIAA is screwed because they refuse to satisfy the consumer in any way. And that's also the way it is.

Feel free to label us criminals, we've already been down this road. A woman who speaks out of turn in Afgahastan is a criminal. So f'ing what? I have common sense and a conscience. The RIAA and/or Congress can't take that. Laws are meaningless if people won't follow them. And people won't follow this garbage. Laws are a reflection of a society's values. If the laws aren't keeping up, then .. that's a damn shame... because nobody cares. Everyone's guilty. It's not so much whining at the punishment as it is peacefully demanding change... that way the RIAA can't continue to try to enforce old laws, accomplish nothing, but hurt people in process. It's also illegal to have oral sex in Missouri. Better come round everyone up... especially those whiners who will speak up when they get arrested for it. Ancient laws are ancient laws. And fuck those who enforce them.

Hey is it illegal do download the music i am confused thats what they said "That's why we are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal". Someone help me here is this more RIAA BS?

THE NEXT WAVE HAS COMMENCED.

START THE BOYCOTTING!

Actually, I thought you were in your late 40's. Ok, now you'll say it's because you sound mature--that's not it. I think it was the oldies music knowledge. You must have older siblings.

That may have something to do with the Canadians now having the ability to legally download music for free. That is due to a new CDR and mp3 player tax levy. Kinda like the same thing I was mentioning about the Music CDRs having a tax.

Kind of a odd note, but if they are hurting so bad as to sue their own customer base than why are all thier stocks up.

"Actually, I thought you were in your late 40's."

Oh. Well then, I'm flattered. : )

"Ok, now you'll say it's because you sound mature--that's not it."

That I would never claim. It's too easy to disprove.

I do have a brother a couple years older, but I have much more oldies music knowledge than him. I just like the classic stuff so I learned about it myself by reading books and watching documentaries and stuff like that. 60's soul and r&b - Stax, Motown, etc. I'm a big fan of the classic Chess blues like Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf and all that. It's just great stuff that I discovered in my mid 20's just by picking up some BB King and Muddy cd's. I also like the classic pop of the Brill Building with all those great songwriters and girl groups and all that. Now those were the days. Sigh.

Let's let's talk about anything but the RIAA.

Ah, did you not see the title of this page?

Well, Motown was indie once. Maybe The Supremes were more popular, but Martha Reeves and the Vandellas blow them out of the water imho. Martha easily has a better voice. When the Motown Revue went to the UK, Dusty Springfield wanted to sing a duet with Martha because she liked her the best. This got Diana real pissed off. My favorite Vandella's songs are probably My Baby Loves Me and Motoring. Motoring was covered by The Who, but I haven't heard their version.

"Let's let's talk about anything but the RIAA"

Dude, did you hear about Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl?!

wow... i guess i'm a bit late on offering my views about this latest lawsuits by the riaa. First 532 lawsuits in January; now 531 today; we can only predict 530 in march. Among these lawsuits, it would be interesting to learn all those parties involved; whether once again the RIAA screws up with IP addresses from senior citizens. DOES anyone know how much it costs for the riaa to file a lawsuit with the respective states? How much legal fees would be involved for each lawsuit? For gdZiemann sake, i'm trying to discuss law and legal fees (not riaa). If ~1200 lawsuits get settled (including previous ones) before the proper procedures of naming defendants, and the settlement is averaged at $3,000; that equals $3.6Million. If they recover legal fees, then $3.6million is a nice chunk of change.

As i read in the earlier thread, EDX, if you got subpoenaed that's too bad. You did not follow the vision and mission of this website.... if you recall from http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/10394 , you boycott RIAA by not downloading, uploading, buying, or stealing any of RIAA-label music.

It would be cool to see if any of the possible 1062 lawsuits would get names of the sons or daughters of any politician

And how quickly any of those lawsuits would be dropped and replaced with a fat check make them happy.

but the problem is WE NEED SOMEONE TO NOT GIVE IN TO ANY SETTLEMENT, AND TAKE IT TO COURT! it would be nice if somehow all the eventual-people who get subpoenaed would join together, chip in $100 x 1062 people, plus contributions from supporters of fighting the cause of legal issues and crap, then we have a nice chunk of change of $106k to get a nice legal team to fight against the freakin riaa and their lawyers.

Well, if edx comes back, e-mail the webmaster here to get some help.

moop....still digesting the thought of a 30-something who knows Brill songs, early Motown, etc.

alternatively, if you've been notified by the riaa, based on how many songs you have downloaded.... would it be economical to just buy the cd's containing the crap music that you downloaded vs. settling with the riaa fokes .... o wait, then that means you would have to take it to court to say that you already owned the rights to the song to have "fair use".....

ilikethissite: Aah, my theory of having someone intentially get sued and not settle... We'd need a lot of dollars to make it work though, maby by the time the RIAA reaches WAVE 25 or so...

DAMMIT!!! Every time the riaa announces more lawsuits many of you come to this website and cry and moan on how unfair this is. You cite lawsuits, boycott, and laws and even verbally joust with some of the lawyers who frequent this site. Then, when you realize that you are not being sued you go back to your old habits and abandon this site. (the ones who got sued cannot write on this site due to their agreement)

You are not helping the situation. AT ALL.

You need to do something to get the point across!!! Stop buying the materials of the riaa!!! Or at least change your riia ways!!!

What is needed is another day/week/month of protest with ALL the p2p sites supporting. You can target music stores but most of them are going out of business.

Any ideas???

George you are 100% right. the courts have to decide. that's been mine (and many other's) stance the whole time

mroop, glad you've finally admitted it

surfside,

I verbally jousted with the lawyer, I have frequented this site for a year, I've never abandoned the site, I'm not buying. I only defend myself because I think I was the one who was primarily 'jousting' with the lawyer.

I am in 100% agreement that there needs to be several courses of action. Like the old "Calls to Action" which no longer happen at all.

ok.....cds I wouldn't of ever known of without file sharing.(and yes I bought all these too) this is just a few....
2 weezer, 4 white stripes, 3 NOFX, Less than Jake, Something corporate, MxPx, violent femmes, Primus, Stroke 9, and the list goes on.....and then none since they started suing....their loss...

all these issues are bogged down in legal mumbo jumbo corporate bullshit and laws with loopholes. and the fact that they're suing their own customers...christ...next thing cary sherman will bite his own dick off while he's sucking it. i always viewed copyright laws as being a protection against someone stealing music (or any other creative product) to claim as their own creation to gain a financial profit from it. in these cases...i don't see anyone except the riaa making any money. but maybe i'm just naive.

my take on the situation is if you find a good band, support the damn band however you can. it's the artists that suffer. it's not about the music anymore for alot of these bands and the big companies, it's about the money. which is a damn shame.

as for fighting a legal battle? good luck with that. you'll be going up against a whole firm of the country's best lawyers. court costs will creep up into the thousands of dollars. if i could afford it, i'd be fighting that battle in a heartbeat. but i can't.

and finally...there's nothing wrong with "whining bitching and complaining," for pete's sake, it's therapeutic. we can all agree that venting and getting your opinions out there just feels good...

Wow. We've really delved deep into the topics surrounding filesharing and copyright law. Just like what happens every time someone gets sued.

We need a IndieCourt for www.dmusic.com so we can decide who is right and who is wrong. Otherwise, our arguments may never end.

As for the lawsuits- screw the RIAA. I share indie music and I'm not afraid of Cary-Sue. He can have my assets- over my dead body.

:-:~ Phantom

"i always viewed copyright laws as being a protection against someone stealing music (or any other creative product) to claim as their own creation to gain a financial profit from it."

That's how I have always interpreted it too. But apparently that's not what they think. If their claim is that it is their work and no one has a right to use it without paying, then I think we should all copyright our work.

Hey, I do my job different and better than anyone I know. I want to copyright my job because someone else could see me doing my job and start copying me. Or they could take parts of my job and claim it as derivative work and then work for less than me. Every memo I write, every letter, all correspondence and presentations, meeting agendas, the manner in which I perform my duties, the whole kit and caboodle. I want it all copyrighted so that anyone else who uses any part of it has to pay me.

How about it everyone. Let's all copyright our work/jobs.

"Yes I have. You are a customer for goods when you are paying for them. Customer - One that buys goods or services. So when you are downloading from a P2P and not paying then you are not a customer."

mroop, i am a tech head, a comp sci major, and an econ major. The economics of this are not cut and dry as the RIAA states.
I payed to download my music. lets set up a balance sheet shall we?
g4 dual 1.25 ghz - 2200 dollars
ipod - 360 dollars
cdr spools - ? (now on my umpteenth 50 pack at 25 - 35 bucks a piece)
broadband - 42.95 a month and rising
dormroom t3 access - 2400 above market value for housing in my area of town.

shall i go further?

free.. far from it.. and i also bought the albums i downloaded, that is until i discovered all this lovely j-pop that isnt sold here.. and the out of print stuff or stuff they never released.

how lovely it is downloading for free.. oh wait its not so free is it?

NOTE: the eff admits current activities are infringement.

the eff also states that the current state of copyright laws is corrupt and needs reform badly to remove the rediculous regulation that is placed on the end user.
i refer you to lessigs conversation on the main news page.

note that the dual cassette deck, vcr, etc etc were fine until recently. they can build on the past and copy it but we cant now? wtf?

edx doesnt understand the importance of his position. he is in a position to directly affect legislation and legal precedent if he has the guts to stand up for his rights.

i have friends in corporate and ip law who could potentially assist me. too bad most of my music isnt american anymore =/
im tempted to grab a bunch of random songs to attract attention. Im perfectly willing to pay the cost of defense. I am already financially raped by my school for some 18 grand a year after aid. I dont mind taking out loans to shoot these morons down once and for all.

Viva Revolucion. I would love to use my position to fight against the RIAA, but I don't want to walk into this situation being ignorant, I first want to make sure that I am fully aware of the situation, my rights, and all the interpretations of these laws that everyone can't agree on. Even once I become familiar with legal terms, I really don't have that much help from anyone, besides maybe an uncle who's a lawyer, but I doubt it if he would want to have anything to do with it.

As far this site's mission statement for boycotting the RIAA, I just joined the site yesterday and did not have time to check all of it out, but it's kind of hard to avoid music from the RIAA since they control most of the music market. Frankly, I could give a care if a song belongs to the RIAA or not, because to me, it's about the music that I like, not where it came from. I do buy the cds of artists that I really like, the last cd i bought was Korn's Take a Look in the Mirror. But on the subject, Most of the music I download is music that you wouldn't see in your regular music store, such as jpop and anime, ddr, and tv themes! Tell me where the hell am I suppose to find a cd with themes to tv shows? But I tell you what, that's all I'll stick to for now on since the RIAA thinks I'm trying to steal "their" precious music. For now on I'll make sure to check this site out regularly and keep up with this worthy cause.

edx: Remember what I said. What you do on your own private home computer is none of their business. Emphasis on the word PRIVATE.

edx - Just a note...
if a person gets subpoenaed on a possible pending lawsuit...
it is not a good idea to be making comments on a public website about
the care, about your actions which may be complained of....

Just a word to the wise...and best of luck with however it shakes out.
~CW

meant.."about the case..." not about the care

edx,

Based on the supoena you have received, it the RIAA focusing on what you have downloaded, or what you shared on P2P?

Unless edx just decides to settle...any comments he makes here may be considered admissions against interest...and could be the subject of
a subpoena duces tecum, under requests for production of documents,
and/or interrogatories....and could come back to haunt him during a deposition if he fights this....this is a publicly accessible site...
and can be viewed by the RIAA lawyers and legal assistants.

If edx chooses not to make any more comments on alleged infringing activities...I think that would be a good course of action.

A word to the wise ....
~CW
Note- not giving legal advice, and no comments I make are intended as, nor should be interpreted as legal advice. People should always check with their own legal representative for counsel on proper courses of action.

Don't you just love legal disclaimers?

Ya have to make things clear...and cya...and of course, I was talking about a hypothetical person in a similar situation to edx...not edx as a specific case

"You are a customer for goods when you are paying for them. Customer - One that buys goods or services."

Music is not a good and Copyright Law is evil. In nature artists have no right to their crerations after they leave the nest. Not even God, that's why we have free will.

While EDX,s position may be infringement ity may not be. You the EFF or the gals over at MSK may think so but you do not know and it is not absolutley clear. To come to any other conclusion is either a prediciton or just plain egotisical, ignorant gibberish. The fact of the matter is these cases have not been tested.

If it weren't for file sharing I would still be listening to eminem. I wouldn't have bought many CDs, and theyd probably be all RIAA. I wouldnt have gone to the dozen or so concerts I've gone to in the last few years and id probably look and act like everyone else as well.

I noticed something. I have searched the Riaa website up and down, and left and right, and I was not able to find a single link on there to contact someone. The most that they allow you to contact is the webmaster, which is useless.

they dont want the hate mail =).
they also dont want truly constructive ideas from the public.
they just want to run their business into the ground, or go for broke against the constitution and nature.
it looks from the state of things currently they could actually win, because they also control the news.

We need to dedicate a month to COMPLETE RIAA BOYCOTT!!!

No buying, no sharing, no downloading of anything RIAA. And we need to spread the word. Two weeks isn't long enough to properly set up a BOYCOTT RIAA month, so I suggest we make April, 2004, NATIONAL BOYCOTT RIAA MUSIC MONTH!!!

Boycotting RIAA music to most people visiting this site is nothing new. Getting everyone else to join the boycott is the real challenge.

Code, I won't tell You're right though. Good advice.


"NOTE: the eff admits current activities are infringement.

the eff also states that the current state of copyright laws is corrupt and needs reform badly to remove the rediculous regulation that is placed on the end user"



Ah yes. Scroll up to my post in my discussion with mroop. Ok let's say it's infringement. That's great, now so what? If people don't follow laws, the laws aren't relevant. Laws are a reflection of a society's values and if people don't obey, they are unenforceable. Reform is the only answer, because right now we have the equivalent of some 100 year old guy walking around calling the police on everyone who spits on the sidewalk. It's still law in many places. But ancient laws are not enforced.

Sherm well said. My thoughts exactly.

Ineedalover I agree, but how do we get the word out? The mainstream media consider this movement a joke (I've personally been told that by an edior of a nationwide news publication USA today) the last boycott through stopriaalawsuits.com passed with hardly a notice dispite all the letters and press releases.

"because right now we have the equivalent of some 100 year old guy walking around calling the police on everyone who spits on the sidewalk. It's still law in many places. But ancient laws are not enforced."

lol, good one. unfortunately i actually hear my friends here at emory of all places being so ignorant as to think what the riaa is saying is true, and that they will somehow be one of the 0.0001% of the filesharing community to be sued.

I also hear about someone skulking around here who actually agrees with the riaa's tactics. As much as i would like to educate this person i think the temptation to physically harm someone who is a proponent of shedding our civil liberties would be too much for me to resist.
Dont underestimate the power of a corporation to undermine public opinion, especially when they control the news.

Hey i have a question for you all. what part of p2p is illegal? the downloading of music or the shareing of music? or both. cause i've heard so many different stories on this its hard to determine what the truth is.

"The mainstream media consider this movement a joke (I've personally been told that by an edior of a nationwide news publication USA today)"

the mainstream media is OWNED by the same people who own the record companies.

They make sure the press releases are never seen. heck, i never saw one!

this is what pisses me off so much. they suck up to and serve their multinational owners, who serve the music interest

i want to see more attention drawn to that fact.. to the fact that in canada theyve already sided with the public. that the news seems to only put riaa staff with the "youre a thief" message on the tube and never ever examine the other side with any seriousness at all. the bias involved should be exposed!

"I also hear about someone skulking around here who actually agrees with the riaa's tactics."

awehr: I think you mean mroop...I don't think he's a bad guy, he's just a defender of the status quo. Unfortunately, the status quo has got to go! This is 2004 and we live in an Internet age where information needs to flow and new methods in the music business need to be developed, one more fair to the artists. This whole thing is not about the artists "getting paid", it's about the survival of big record companies who have outlived their usefulness. Artists will "get paid" when the record companies finally shrivel up and die.

this is just the problem. the news is defending this. they defend the criminalization of the public.
its really disgusting.

starsire79,

I'll go ahead and take a stab at answering your question, although I have to tell you that I am not a laywer.

"what part of p2p is illegal? the downloading of music or the shareing of music? or both?"

I think virtually all the experts agree that sharing mp3 music files on P2P without the permission of the copyright owner of that music is copyright infringement. Note that this does not mean all sharing on P2P is illegal, as there are many artists who actually want some of their music to be shared on P2P for exposure.

Downloading mp3 music files from P2P without permission of the copyright owner of that music may or may not be legal, depending on where you live. The Canadian copyright board recently ruled that downloading from P2P was legal in Canada (although the big labels may contest this ruling in court). Here in the U.S. I believe most experts on copyright law agree that downloading music without permission of the copyright holder is (like sharing) copyright infringement (but this has not yet been tested in a court case to my knowledge). Again, there are many copyright holders who do not mind having their content downloaded from P2P, and so if you know who these copyright holders are, you should be able to download and stay legal.

So why can you tape a broadcasted song from the radio without infringing copyright but not download from P2P without the possibility of copyright infringement?
Taping the song from the radio is considered "fair use" since you are taping from a source that has permission to distribute the song (in this case, via the airwaves). But if you, say, download a Madonna song from P2P, you are getting that song from a source that (presumably) does not have permission to distribute that song.

this is the problem that is addressed by Lessig's speech.

we have never been individually subject to copyright law for the history of copyright. now they suddenly regulate every individual user.

This is against what is considered fundamentally right in society, but the riaa slander campaign is out to change that perception and seems to be slowly gaining ground in the public mind.

I swear to God every word that comes out of that bastard's (Sherman's) mouth makes me sick! I wish those fuckers would all go on a one way flight (along with that SHIT they call music) to Mars or somewhere and let us humans enjoy our music again!

Cary Shithead said;

The RIAA's president, Cary Sherman, said illegal downloads continue hurting new, legitimate Internet services for selling music. "We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal, it can have consequences and it undermines the creative future of music itself," Sherman said in a statement.


"creative future of music"? What the hell? Creative MY ASS! The only "creating" being done is him and all those other shameless assholes "creating" ways to hold American citizens in their sleazy grip! THEY are the ones killing music! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out! No matter what, they cannot make me buy from them! I NEVER will EVER again! I DO NOT even want to hear any of that shit they call music! Rappin' hip-hoppin' bullshit MAKES ME SICK! They can have it! They are not going to sue me, I don't download their shit. I don't (won't) even listen to it on the radio, I would rather be deaf!

"I think you mean mroop...I don't think he's a bad guy, he's just a defender of the status quo."

I am not a defender of the status quo. I do believe the RIAA has the right to protect their copyrights and if they decide to sue individuals then that is their choice. Anyone who chooses to distribute RIAA material and gets caught - well then too bad. I also think that people who think they are entitled to distribute and receive other people's copyrighted material without consent need to get a job and work for free and see how they like it.

"I think virtually all the experts agree that sharing mp3 music files on P2P without the permission of the copyright owner of that music is copyright infringement."

Except for compmore and gdZiemann. : )

tds67, you hit the nail right on the head when you said;

This whole thing is not about the artists "getting paid", it's about the survival of big record companies who have outlived their usefulness. Artists will "get paid" when the record companies finally shrivel up and die.

" also think that people who think they are entitled to distribute and receive other people's copyrighted material without consent need to get a job and work for free and see how they like it."

Artists worked for thousands of years without any right to control how the art was distributed or received and got along just fine.

I think people who think they have the right to control how others dsitribute and receive art or information are desperate, morally bankrupt, greedy sellouts who have little or nothing to contribute.

mroop. the riaa lobbyists a couple years ago passed a law never seen in copyright in our hundreds of years. it gave them dominion over how you personally are allowed to use your own posessions. this is an infringement on your freedom and quite frankly is unconstitutional, but the constitution just isnt specific enough for the courts to throw the law out.

wrong, I never said that. you're jumping to conclusions with no facts to back them up again

even if I argue on the RIAA grounds. the copyright is their property right? what about my property? the computer is mine, do they have a right to invade it. its in my home is that not considered home invasion? arent my cds mine and dont i have a right to do what i want with them? even if one argument fails there are a quadrillion others for our rights to have them out of our lives.. if not then they should provide each and every one of us with a free copyright attourney to stand over us day and night.

I am not a defender of the status quo. I do believe the RIAA has the right to protect their copyrights and if they decide to sue individuals then that is their choice. Anyone who chooses to distribute RIAA material and gets caught - well then too bad. I also think that people who think they are entitled to distribute and receive other people's copyrighted material without consent need to get a job and work for free and see how they like it.

sounds like the satus quo to me. also sounds like they have the right to cheat and steal from their artists through their contract arraingments because the artists entered into the legal agreement to begin with. they also have the legal right to buy off congress to twist the copyright laws in their favor. since it's not "Illegal" it's ok. So basicly you're defending everything the RIAA is doing. That's your right and that's ok.

So tell me, if what they're doing is so OK under the law why do you sit here and claim you hate them so much if they are well within their rights. Don't say it's because you don't like how they do business because in order to change it means to take away some of the rights they are using under the law. Status quo time again. You're a worse hypocrite then any downloader

you know.. this issue is pushed under the rug in politics because they know what it will mean.. loss of campaign funds.. thousands and thousands.

it reminds me of gay marriage and the christian coalition, but wait! they are actually willing to take tentative positions on that! they wont even touch this issue with a 40 foot pole.

tis a sad sad world we live in. kinda brings up a good old national anthem which may become my own.. "oh canada....

this is a sad world when you have the RIAA getting people for sharing music. and we have people have our troops dieing everyday and people living on the streets with no food or any place to go. I hope is some kind of way this comes back onto the RIAA and just kicks them in there ass.
sharing music is like a river, you will never be able to stop it. you may slow it down, but the music will always be free no matter what the RIAA does....

"I also think that people who think they are entitled to distribute and receive other people's copyrighted material without consent need to get a job and work for free and see how they like it."

Well, I think I will go to the studio, work for one month, make an album, earn a million a year in royalties for the next 50 years, after that my kids each get a million a year for 30 years, then my grandchildren each get a million a year for 20 years. While all the time my family turns their noses up at you for working 60 hours a week to feed your family. Better yet, if you share it in 45 years, I will sue you. If you share it in 375 years, my great (times 15) grandchildren will sue you.

Maybe someone else should work for free!

Look...making unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials without the prior express permission of the copyright holder is a violation of Copyright law as it is written, UNLESS you can claim the fair use exemption..that being said, since we have a "point of creation" copyright model, which makes an original work copyrighted at the point it of fixation..i.e. written down, or otherwise saved in a fixed form..as opposed to a thought running through your head...it is copyrighted and if anyone makes copies without your authorization...it is a violation. OK...now, copying of MP3s, to me, is not any more an egregious violation than if anyone took any of my published articles in magazines, and copied it on a xerox machine without my authorization....

Does anyone know how many times your average law office or patrons at a law office, make "unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials" every day?

What angers me most is that little snot noses like Cary Sherman act like copying of music is any more important or wrong than someone xeroxing a doodle you did on the back of a napkin without authorization....and before anyone jumps in there with "economic harm"....there isn't ANY ay of gauging the "lost sales" due downloaders not buying CDs....that's all speculative and gross speculation at that.

"I think virtually all the experts agree that sharing mp3 music files on P2P without the permission of the copyright owner of that music is copyright infringement."

"Except for compmore and gdZiemann. : )"

My position is that no one should share RIAA music because the RIAA artists a) don't deserve the attention and b) so that the rest of us can use the Internet for the free promotional tool it was designed to be.

I share my music and that of other musicians who feel the same as I do.

I do however, feel that the courts will not allow the RIAA to conduct a person-by-person campaign of suing 60 million people. Somehow, it seems as if the may want to use the courts for deciding the fate of real criminals.

But I could be wrong. Maybe the Supreme Court thinks it's time to start jailing elementary school children. The schools already look like prisons. They'll be used to it.

So far, out of all of those cases and lawsuits they have filed we have had exactly how many court decisions in favor of the RIAA in a civil suit against a downloader/uploader?

Zero.

So you're right, mroop. In the long run, I don't think that the courts will decide it is a punishable infringing activity.

Code, the point is that that copying was unregulated. the speech by Lessig talks about it in very powerful terms.
The RIAA has successfully managed to get congress and the judicial system to at least "think" it is regulated on a per user basis, which is exceedingly dangerous to our individual property rights.

"We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network with authorization is illegal, it can have consequences and it undemines the creative feature of music itself."

Ummm... NO. Let's not get out of hand with these unusual perspectives again, shall we, asswipe? We were the best possible fans to worship music to make sure its future would last forever, dumbfuck boy. We gave in our time and patience to make enough money to buy one CD with shitty stereo quality with only 6-12 songs on it. Not only did we support artists, but we even gave in our biggest respects just for your delicate crotch to handle with your greedy obsession over self-absorbing, corruption, and money.

You destroyed your reputation, Cary Sherman. Huge loss of money, downfall of CD sales, and disrespect of artists support is NOT our fault. You caused all of this madness, fear, and disrespect for the artists they have to go through day in and day out. We refuse to go to record stores because you never make us feel special. Instead, we get ripped off with CDs containing shitty quality and having only 6-12 songs when all we ever wanted was so many songs on one disk. Charging us 19 bucks for a CD, then throwing it away because it's shit is a true example of how much you don't care for us.

Everyone despises you, Sherman. You are too controlling, selfish, and too corruptive over everyone to actually give a shit about your past mistakes and selfish tactics to actually have shitloads of money in your hands. The money is supposed to go to artists. We give movie industries and video game inustries a chance because they are very supportive for the people that assist them, and they care enough for us to enjoy the movies and games they release. You aren't. You make the CDs without putting any effort and skill in it, rip us off for so much money, and never give the artists the treatment they deserve for distibuting their own music.

You don't care about music. You only care about the money you make off it and the most corruptive ways just to make money without putting in effort and support for the fans and artists that trust you. No one is ever going to buy your music again. No one is, no one will ever. The fact that we have a possible way for music to be free and loved is what support we are giving to the artists so they can appreciate the love and respect they get from their fans by providing a way for people to trade the song, enjoy it, and spread the word of how good the music is.

Maybe one day you will quit making everyone feel guilty by blaming us for the mistakes you've made. Although we have won the battle against your selfish, corrupt behavior 5 years ago, we still look forward to seeing your succes in money and corruption go far downhill while it creates great enjoyment for all of us to watch.

i say this is far from won. we deal with a matrix style "prison for your mind" being erected at the basic level of the next generation.

they are trying to brainwash kids today to serve their interests tomrrow, and because corporations last forever theyll be around when these kids grow up and hand them the rest of the world.

this fantasy they are feeding our youth must be dissipated on a person by person basis, and be exposed for what it is in the news.

"they are trying to brainwash kids today to serve their interests tomrrow, and because corporations last forever theyll be around when these kids grow up and hand them the rest of the world."

Indeed, awehr, and if they suceed in altering our values(as in our society) or the next generations values, then that cycle will be perpetuated. They have more immediate resources to help get their perspective across, but they remain a secondary group that doesn't have the same kind of contact or relationships as we do with our friends, family, colleagues, and acquiantances. Ergo discussing this issue with friends, family, colleagues, and acquiantances is vital for the progression and success of preventing their beliefs from becoming values.

have you ever tried to convince someone that what every media source spews is wrong?

its really hard. look at the war of the worlds airing.. thousands were thrown into panic by reports of "alien invasion"

its far harder than it looks. Since all members of my family grew up in households of domineering and argumentative women, we all have amazing skill at keeping our minds closed when we put our effort into it.

its somewhat humorous but still very grave. my cousin (a doctor) pulls that listening while not really listening crap. ....

here is an example of how the media glorifies technology restriction, it just flashed across msnbc.
anchors have just hailed those naziware keystroke loggers (the applications that secretly log every activity ever done on a computer by specific users) as innovation that is somehow for the people.

this is what we are dealing with.

I have a quick question - do they download a song before filing a lawsuit? If not, I'd like to see some directories full of gigabytes of indie get renamed to RIAA names. It wouldn't be all that hard to get little kids and old people wrongfully sued. That's my half-assed thought out vision.

awehr,

You're right on. People knew the press had this power 200 years ago. People are IDIOTS. You may think I'm cocky if I walk down the street with you and point at every person and call him/her a complete moron. But I'd be right a huge percentage of the time.

The War of the Worlds example is a great one. If you put something on radio or TV, morons will believe it. And by morons, I mean humans.

Just because we're evolved enough to construct televisions doesn't mean we're evolved enough to understand what we're seeing. Maybe common sense will be common in a few hundred million more years.

The only way you can stop it is to have your cause on national TV. There's really no other way to reach the mass of idiots out there. It's frustrating

And this is exactly why extremely intelligent people are usually either insane, depressed, or neurotic. Look how f'ing stupid everyone is. And the public has the power to make you look like a moron - making matters even worse. Look at the witnesses who saw a missile hit TWA flight 800 - the media made them out to be a bunch of idiots. It's easy. Powerful source tells media what to do - media assists in controlling country.


That was a lot of rambling. But I will say one more thing: Since I turned off my television for good (except hockey) a couple of years ago, my intelligence and ability to form my own, well thought out, and solid opinions have skyrocketed.

Watching TV doesn't make you stupid. Watching propaganda makes you stupid. The line between the two is becomming finer. They'll be synonyms soon.

That has already happened with the Harry Potter file if I heard correctly. Turns out the file was a childs school report.

It seams as if the RIAA would have to download the file from you. Just because a file has a name doesn't mean the content is correct. If you download from my computer without my knowledge, thats hacking. Better yet, if the RIAA downloads a file of mine which has the content of myself talking to the wall, they have just violated my copyright.

If you own the copyright and you're sharing it, you can't sue anyone for downloading it. Or else you could offer your own song and sue everyone who downloads it.

But if that has already happened, then I would have to encourage everyone to do that. We could have a 'FUCK RIAA' week. Where we gets thousands of people sharing gigs and gigs of indie with false names. Maybe we could get some wrongful lawsuit cases out of that? Hey - either way it'd waste their time and money, at the least.

there was a recreation that showed the physics of flight 800. the plane climbed high after losing the weight which counterbalanced the front of the plane. this looked like a missile or rocket.

i dont consider this to be garbage. the physics behind it seems sound. the question i have is how precisely does a fuel tank simply explode.
you dont see that happening to me when i drive!

there could have been a small incindiary device within the fuel tank placed their by bought maintainance people. either way i dont buy what the news says since the jessica lynch story was exposed on bbc. But others believe fox when they say they are "fair and balanced".

this is truly sad. Freedom of the press never covered the fact that under corporate law the press could be owned by the same guy who owns the pharmaceutical and weapons industry.

i think if our founding fathers saw how sicophatntic the press is to its parent corporations today they would go back in time and yell "stop writing! we got a new clause for you!"

i wish to point out my spelling error before others notice.. their = there. sorry.. ive been hungry. =)

Since the copyright act was enacted here, people have always had the right to sue people for infringing on their copyrights...most people have , for years, treated it as a de minimus violation...for example...I go to the library and just want page 21 out of William Gibson's novel Neuromancer...for whatever weird reason, I want a copy of that page and don't want to buy the book. It's not for any fair use usage...I'm not doing a critical essay and using a quote...I just wnat the whole damn page..or better yet, I go and copy the whole book...and I have personally seen people xerox entire small books at a school library....ok...that is an obvious copyright violation of the copyrigtht Act of 1976...and William Gibson could sue the person...but, there never has been a copyright police been set up at every copy machine....and if someone doesn't have their copyright REGISTERED...they have to prove Actual Damages, which can be extremely difficult.

It was the statutory damages established in the DMCA that made it worth ones while to sue...you don't have to prove actual damages....just prove they did the infringement and go for 150 K per infringing incident...

The point is...people infringe all the time...and as a case in point...I have personally written Congress, Norm Coleman, Orrin Hatch, and lots of people, as well as writing extending articles on this site...claiming that every time a webpage is loaded by anyone who is not the copyright holder, an infringement occurs...

No one has yet proven this assertion wrong. There is no such thing as an "implied consent to copy"...and thus, since by definition every web page is copyrighted at the point of creation and fixation...and people copy all copyrighted images to their little hard drives and don't immediately flush the cache...you are making unauthorized copies of every piece of copyrighted digital content on that page...

So....as I wrote to Orrin Hatch and others....the only way to stop millions of DMCA violations every day...you have to shut down the Internet immediately!

There is nothing any more special about someone making a digital copy of an MP3, than scanning in a doodle I did onto their computer without my authorization....both are unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials...and it angers....yes...ANGERS me that Cary Sue acts like there is something that is inherently more sacred about a 50 cent tune, than a graphic I create and put on one of my web sites.

Note to Cary...you aren't special, your client's tunes aren't special...you are just a loud, whiney baby who needs his diaper changed....in fact, everyone at the RIAA and all the big labels are just giant anal orifices that have learned to whine loudly enough to be noticed....

They smell like sh*t, they whine loudly, and are a general burr under the saddle of life!-

BTW...another successful day of boycotting...denied them one penny ...
no downloading, no uploading, no purchasing and no buying of blank CDs or anything else that might bring them a penny.

"there was a recreation.... of TWA flight 800"

Well, that might be your first tip off that you're watching a propaganda machine. Were they 'balanced' and make a recreation of the WITNESSES SAW?

Witnesses, every single one there was, said the exact same thing!

But we're supposed to buy the 'recreation'? I elect not to. Especially because this topic fell from the face of the Earth very quickly. That's suspicious in and of itself.


"Freedom of the press never covered the fact that under corporate law the press could be owned by the same guy who owns the pharmaceutical and weapons industry."

They never covered the fact that American oil companies are immune to lawsuits in Iraq either.

This was off topic. Sorry.

Wow we got 100 guys all talking at once. Makes a lot of noise, but you are not saying anything.

Many of the folks on this site have good ideas but they are too broad. Rather like curing world hunger or boiling the ocean, sounds good but it cannot be done.

I suggest we look into affecting just a small part of the riaa, just one of the big 5 and maybe there just a small part of their business. Then just boycott the daylights out of the targetted segment (rather like the riaa lawsuits), and SPREAD the word to all the p2p sites to push for the same. When sales go down for that segment someone will start crying.

This may not be the way to go, but action is warranted and needed. And we will need to be as ruthless as they are, keep boycotting a small segment totally until they come to the table with a compromise. Or we could continue on, sos every day.

Code, the folks on this site respect you, if asked, will you serve? A leader needs to emerge, is it you? A counter person to cary sherman, a Christ to their anti-Christ.

Maybe a "what can we do now" thread is warranted but it must adhear to KISS (keep it small and simple) and legal.

So....as I wrote to Orrin Hatch and others....the only way to stop millions of DMCA violations every day...you have to shut down the Internet immediately!


Hey code Hatch loves that idea already.

"Maybe a "what can we do now" thread is warranted but it must adhear to KISS (keep it small and simple) and legal."

I support this notion. Actually seeing a call to action thread would be nice. I can boycott all day without the help of this website. My ideas will never make a difference either, I'm not rich. So let's try putting forth an ounce of effort...

if that is true that the DMCA is SOLELY to blame.. than our cause is clear. not boycotting a corporation which naturally pursues its own interest, but removing the means that make it worth while.

WE NEED TO CALL TO ACTION ANYONE WHO CAN WRITE TO WRITE CONGRESS AND REMOVE THE DMCA ONCE AND FOR ALL!

every time it is challenged a new part of it is nullified and declared unconstitutional. why cant they just chuck it already!

Instead of sending one letter and washing my hands of the burden of having to go through the trouble and write a letter to get my rights back....

I will run off 40 - 50 copies. Send them all individually. We can all do this.

And don't forget that writing congress isn't the only way. There's always getting on TV at a ball game and lifting up your shirt only to reveal "Boycott-RIAA.com" painted on your chest. and so on & so forth =)

i honestly dont think they care.. i went to congress.org and paid to have letters put directly in the hands of congressmen by western union.

I asked for a one line response saying they received it. NOTHING.

congressmen are increasingly apathetic to the nation's needs.

mroop I also think that people who think they are entitled to distribute and receive other people's copyrighted material without consent need to get a job and work for free and see how they like it.
Got a job at 15, worked for free for a year. Learned a trade as a butcher and a cook.

"have you ever tried to convince someone that what every media source spews is wrong?

its really hard. look at the war of the worlds airing.. thousands were thrown into panic by reports of 'alien invasion' "

You're right awehr, but copyright doesn't get as much airtime as other topics such as murder or politics. So far, but perhaps this is just me, the people I've talked to with have listened to me. THat is not to say, they agree with me completely or didn't question some of what I said, but I haven't run into anyone completely denying everything I said.

"I suggest we look into affecting just a small part of the riaa, just one of the big 5 and maybe there just a small part of their business."

I agree surfside6, focusing our efforts can increase our influence exponentially, as can focusing our discourses on those we have the most social interaction with. Of course, we won't have one hundred percent efficiency, but there will be some that will take your views into consideration, especially if you make the issue relevant in their life. You may even get people interested in the movement and possibily cause them to discuss it with others. It is a ripple effect and can be very powerful, we just need to harness that power.

hawk7771 allow me to tell you a little story about my folley working to support my music habbits. this was long before the suits even against napster.
I worked in a library for 5.57 an hour. I would spend all my money.. every bit, on dvds and cds.
One day, because of lax security, theives broke into my car and really DID steal my music, as in physically took my cds! the police didnt even bother to investigate it, and i spent 2500 bucks replacing 2/3 of my collection before i got into college. i then replaced the final third off the net. This is 1.66 times the licensing fees i would have paid going to the riaa! over 5 grand!
then i bought the computers and paid tuition.. and it gets more expensive from there. I can no longer afford cds.

you can live in your fantasy about working all you want to. they dont do work, just rake in the money from artists' work and charge the artists for the priveledge.

"need to get a job and work for free and see how they like it. "

How is this even relevant? It doesn't apply to anything.

Please remind me who has been working for free. I'm interested to know.

"This is 1.66 times the licensing fees i would have paid going to the riaa! over 5 grand!"

hmmm.. so as long as you download enough music, when you get sued and have to cough up a few thousand, you've actually gotten a bargain. Sweet!

Hey everybody - the RIAA is offering 60 million Americans a cheap deal.

So, the Recording Inudstry Asswipes of America have decided to sue more people....at least the only thing I DL is clips of the Howard Stern (radio) Show, which is legal, as far as I know.

Anyone know when the EFF will have the IPs of the latest Does to be sued?

compmore.... excellent website at stopriaalawsuits.com it's great to know that there are other people and websites on our beliefs.

You're all right about a neeed to do something; but right now all i see it as just talk and alot of ranting and opinions. We need more than just talk on here; we neeed action and action fast. We need to get the boycott-riaa word out to the general public; we need to inform everyone about the RIAA mission, the fallacies, the disclaimers, and all the issues at hand. We need to promote ourselves, and promote our cause, and promote the general public that there are many other musicians and artists out there besides the 300+ labels of RIAA.... and that there are even musicians and artists (who are with the riaa-labels) that believe the RIAA mission sucks. We need to advertise and promote the boycott-riaa.com everywhere..... in bars, in bathrooms, in college dorms, student unions, newspapers, etc....... the point.... get our opinions broadcasted to a larger crowd. We should even get the independent labels to help our cause (unless their pro-riaa-mission of this unauthorized copyright infringement crap).

So, let's get some action. If you' are legal lawyer here, then step to the plate and lets' start a REAL battle plan to win our rights, to allow the court to decide whether the riaa is lawless, or whether they really do have a legal point.

How much does a prime time commercial cost? And instead of criticizing that idea, just say you'd donate money.

awehr
it should read as this
mroop
" I also think that people who think they are entitled to distribute and receive other people's copyrighted material without consent need to get a job and work for free and see how they like it."

Got a job at 15, worked for free for a year. Learned a trade as a butcher and a cook.
did the same with my music 78's then 33 45 tapes cd's when i started to get paid it was 2.25 an hour or wad 1.75 first then 2.25. but at 16 that was not to bad

I did volunteer work and enjoyed it.

None of this discussion concerns anyone who works for free. I don't understand the point of that statement.

"I think virtually all the experts agree that sharing mp3 music files on P2P without the permission of the copyright owner of that music is copyright infringement."

Not all making of copies without the rights-owner's permission is necessarily infringement. First, there is personal use, which is exempt. If you make a copy of your CD for your own archiving, that is not infringement. It is personal use. Unfortunately, they are trying to introduce technologies which will prevent you from the personal use you ought to be able to make from copyrighted works. Like iTunes and all their dastardly ilk -- DRMing everything out the wazoo, until you can't even use the thing you bought.

I'm not a legal expert, though I did just read a book on the basis and history of copyright -- though I didn't study it and test myself, so I'm not wholly sure about the distinction between personal use and fair use. But fair use is another protected area under which people can make copies.

Fair use is a flexible concept, and it depends on whether you are a record company or a music fan where you draw the line. But the RIAA and media are trying to make people think there is no such thing as fair use under any circumstances.

Fair use takes into consideration several things -- a news article is more subject to fair use copying (i.e. going to a library and making a copy of an article in The New Yorker for your files) than a book of cartoons, because of its value in informing the public. Also taken into account is whether there are copies available in the marketplace at a reasonable price. (i.e. an out of print book which is hard to find and sells at an outrageously high price might be considered fair game for Xerox copying, because to some extent it is judged that if the copyright owner does not keep it in circulation at a just price, he doesn't really deserve any special protection) Then there is an exemption for educational uses. What is an educational use? Well, to my way of thinking, if I copy Ella Fitzgerald's songbook of George Gershwin songs, that is educational, because I'm not really an Ella Fitzgerald fan, but I do have an intellectual interest in how she recorded it, the arrangements, and so forth. I don't really listen to that for pleasure, but I may want to have a copy for later reference. Is that a fair use under the "educational exemption?" Now Dave Brubeck might be a different story, because I actually listen to that for entertainment.

Oddly, there is even a specific exemption for librarians who make copies of items for patrons for their personal use. This is in the 1976 Copyright Act, I believe, section 108 and I forget the clause or subsection. I'd like to see someone knowledgeable about this subject discuss this on the site, because it seems to me that if the librarian can make copies of library materials on behalf of patrons, then that presumes a right of patrons to copy library materials. You think?

Big corporations are always busy exploring legal loopholes. Maybe we ought to get busy looking into the law's nooks and crannies ourselves, eh?

But the bottom line is that merely making a copy of something without the author's permission or the rights holder's permission is not automatically infringement. There are many, many exceptions, and some of those exceptions are not wholly clear to me, but I think we need to explore this area of thought a bit.

...on the same note... if i borrow the library's CD's, can i copy it for my personal use?

...and can i copy a friend's CD of MS OFFICE?

ilikethissite thanks for the plug but no I'm no lawyer. the stopriaalawsuits.com is a site the administrators of this and a few other sites got together on. sorry to say I didn't have a hand in it. The owner of this site is Leflaw and he is a lawyer who is active in the cause. I, and others here, are trying on our own or with some support to do things to promot this but without the acknowledgement of the major news outlets it's hard to get the word out. hope you keep at it

I'm glad to be back. Good to see so many new posters here.

" I also think that people who think they are entitled to distribute and receive other people's copyrighted material without consent need to get a job and work for free and see how they like it."

This has got to be the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on these boards. Anybody with any kind of community conscience has worked for free. It's called volunteerism. It is something that I have held precious since my days in Boy Scouts (sidenote: why can't the Boy Scouts of America sue the Business Software Alliance for using the same initials like the World Wildlife Fund did the World Wrestling Federation). I am a very anti-social person and I STILL do volunteer work in my community.

It disturbs me that there are actually people that think like this. Mroop, isn't it entitlement thinking to think that you should be paid for every little thing you do. If I help an elderly lady with her groceries I don't expect to get paid. And if in the political arena I throw an issue out on the table I don't scream "you owe me" when an opponent picks it up.

Maybe that is why I'm not "successful". I don't have what it takes to be a greedy puppet for a soulless corporation.

Just because I hate society doesn't mean I can't take pity on it.

"Mroop, isn't it entitlement thinking to think that you should be paid for every little thing you do."

Which is what the RIAA does. Making this comment irrelevant to anything.


Compmore - thank you for that link. I lost all my bookmarks and forgot about that site. I printed out 60 fliers.

"...on the same note... if i borrow the library's CD's, can i copy it for my personal use?"

Well, one would wonder. I suppose an expert (I'm no expert) would probably say it depends on what you are copying and the purpose for it. The RIAA would say "never," of course.

Have their ever been any legal challenges regarding this provision? Any publisher or record company ever sued a library for making copies for patrons?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Compmore stated that:

"I, and others here, are trying on our own or with some support to do things to promot this but without the acknowledgement of the major news outlets it's hard to get the word out."

Thesherminator asks:

"How much does a prime time commercial cost?"

Compmore, I think Thesherminator has a very valid question here which is related to your statement. If the major news outlets will not carry alternate views on copyright law or RIAA practices, what do you think it would take in terms of money to use paid advertisments to 'get the word out' so to speak?

Someone help......

My brother took his computer to good ole BEST BUY in the beginning of December 2003 for some repairs to hardware... 2 weeks went by and he contacted them for the diagnosis and was told that the computer was still not repaired. About another week went by, and m brother was contaced by the local police dept. in regards to some music downloads on his computer!! It turns out that BEST BUY came across the download files during the repairs and reported the computer to the police!!! What is this world coming to???

The computer has been seized by the police (turned over by BEST BUY without permission) and is now undergoing a search!!!

Could someone please tell me what kind of privacy rights are we entitled to?? This whole thing is over a few hundred copied songs, most of which were copied during the napster hayday!!

Looks like BEST BUY is having field days with customers computer files! They did not have permission to snoop through files while trying to fix a hardware problem!! Where to go from here???

JUST BEWARE OF BEST BUY!!!!

WhatTheF...

I don't know what legal recourse your brother has, but this is scary. If computer repair companies have the right to go through all your files, then millions of folks could be liable. Also, is Best Buy also looking at people's personal financial files (i.e. tax records, payments, etc) and turning these over to tax authorities?

WhattheF... if this is really true, you should submit a feature article on this website so that several people will see it.
I doubt that too many folks will see this since this new thread has already gone below the horizon, so to speak.

I find this hard to believe, and I hate to say but it has all the marking of an urban legend. If you could please provide the city, location of the store in question, I would like to check this out.

The police would NOT care about downloaded songs. Child porn maybe, but not music.