Joe Shmoe is driving down the road at a merry pace, going to work as he's done thousands of times in the past. In his typical, safe driver fashion he checks the rear view mirror to keep tabs on the cars around him. Much to his surprise, red and blue lights are flashing gleefully in his mirror. The car behind him seems quite focused on him. So Joe pulls over just like he's supposed to.

The police officer gets out of his car and instructs Joe to pop the hood. Joe is a tad confused, but he obliges. The officer goes to the front of the car, opens the hood, reaches in, and rips out the computer in Joe's car. Without a word he takes it back to his car to read the data inside.

Some minutes later, the cop comes back to Joe shaking his head sadly. "Tsk tsk, it seems to me that you've been a very bad driver. According to these logs, you've broken the speed limit 1294 times in the past three years. As you well know, the fine is $100 per offense. You'll owe the courts $129,400 for your crimes. Here is where you'll have to deliver the payment. You have 30 days to pay or contest this fee..."

--

Trading music online has become a "crime" as ubiquitous as speeding and other traffic violations; something so common that it's merely a one-time fine, and only when you're caught. Yet these violators are still being treated like crime lords and are faced with multimillion dollar lawsuits. If every speeder was caught, they'd be $100 poorer. If every file trader was caught, the RIAA would have enough money to buy several small countries but the nation would be broke. Only little old ladies who don't know what a computer is will still be able to afford bread, but the people who make the bread will starve because they can't afford the very bread they're making.

The penalties for file trading are ridiculous and are tracked cumulatively (also unlike traffic violations). Worse yet is that speeding has the potential to kill people, while file trading is just a matter of "potential profit".

The real criminals are the people who set up on street corners selling CDs for $5. These are the people actually making money in place of the artists. The people that come to them are people willing to spend real cash to get bootleg music. The people that download online do so because there is no cash involved. They can download 10,000 songs and not pay a penny. If they had to pay $1 per, they might only download 20 instead, and even then they might only listen to 5 or less on a regular basis. Go after the criminals actually selling these CDs for cash, not the average user who downloads because he can.

The majors are intent on destroying p2p. Finally they have something to point at, unlike earlier generations where it was not possible or feasible to hunt down every friend and neighbor in the country. Had it been possible and had they been able to alter the laws it would have been heard far earlier than it is now.

The DRM scheme will not work unless all unprotected music access can be removed. Plain and simple that is the ultimate goal and nothing short of that will be satisfactory. That is the reason that each and every p2p will have a death ear when they ask for a license. It isn't that they couldn't make money but rather that they see this DRM as their only hope of reinstituting the repeat purchase over and over. Before they could do that as formats were changing ever few years. Something that has dramatically changed lately and no where near as many new formats are coming down the pipes as often. Because of DRM, you get a hard drive failure, you get a virus, your OS needs reloading, or anything else that causes you to lose the data and license will have you rebuying those same songs again.

This is the ultimate purpose of DRM and its protection, is the repeat buy. To sell the customer once is a sale, to get the repeat buy over and over is a following. To get folks attention they have used the maximum penality of the law (entirely out of focus for the crime ) to try and affect not only the victim but those in the close circle of the victim.

Because they were successful in altering the permissions and allowances of the digital format unlike the analogue ones legally, the customer has no leg to stand on for the lack of money transference. Isn't that it is any worse than it was before, it is they have been successful in changing the law and now are trying to change the music culture of the consumers to match what they desire. It is now expressed as "lost income" no matter if money passed hands or not. This is a bogus veiwpoint. Many studies have not only pointed to the fact that p2p exposes the listener to far more music genres and artists than would be possible for the likes of Clearchannel (being paid to give air time for this or that song so many times a day). It has also shown that those that hear these tunes are very likely to go purchase what they hear.

It still remains that they can not make DRM float unless there is no other choice to the purchaser. Going in that direction you can expect not only computers not to work as expected unless laced with DRM supported and licensed equipment but that no product will be sold unless wrapped in the DRM.

I still can not get out of my head the article of the individual that purchased a movie and then had to obtain a key every week he wants to watch it. This is most dangerous as it sets precedence for you buying a movie and then having to pay again for a rental to gain the key once more. This I will not do.

Downloan indeed.

I will NEVER "downloan"

I think it is VERY unfortunate that we now have a "name" for the evil that occurs in our life that we now have to get used to dealing with.

(I think it was YOU wet1 who brought the bad news!!!)

In the old days, they would KILL the harbinger of such defiled words...

lol, but do NOT worry, we are NOT gonna shoot the messenger of this new word in our lexicon.

...actually, if we try, we can make the word "downloan" a reminder of why the bad is evil and the good is underground/indie!

We WILL win!

(we just gotta new word to deal with and define!)

"words" have more power than you think!

(why do you think Code and GZ and many of the rest of us get so fucking pissed over the missuse of words like "illegal" and "pirate" and "illegitimate"

...ooh, that last one burns me so bad I wanna FIGHT!

Adelphia is rolling out it's own music service, available to it's customers only.

The pitch...

1 million songs in current catalog
Unlimited streaming or downloan
$7.95 a month
128 kbt/s WMA only
3 computer license's only
Absolutely no portability, no burning
Monthly license renewal required
Drop the service, music unplayable

Where do i sign?

Ah bugger, it didn't attribute me as the author. Maybe I should have put that into the article text manually. Well, color me a newbie.

As for pirates... arr matey. Shiver me timbers. Beyonce albums ahoy! Full sails, we're taking 'er in, dead or live! A gold dubloon to the first to get his hands on it.

"The real criminals are the people who set up on street corners selling CDs for $5"

The main goal of the RIAA is protect the record company's control over
the mass distribution of music. The guy on the corner does not really threaten
the music Industry's current business model but P2P does. Compensation for
artists is last on the list of priorities for the RIAA. Greed is first.

File trading? There's a new one.

Comparing file sharing to speeding is ludicrous. There are laws against speeding. There are signs along the road to remind you of what the limit is.

There is no law that says I cannot give you a copy of a song, especially if it's mine or Schmoo's.

There are no signs on the Internet that say "slow down" or even one that would guide you to the millions of legal songs on the net.

There are no "penalties for file trading". In fact, there has yet to be a law enacted which even recognizes the existence of peer-to-peer, which is the underlying premise of the entire Internet.

Furthermore, the RIAA cannot "wait for you to come past" and arrest you. The Internet is not linear.

The only way the RIAA can even add you to the long and growing list of people that they are afraid to take to court is if you select to become one of their monkeys and offer their music.

The file-sharers' logic never ceases to amaze me. You give the RIAA the same free distribution and publicity that they pay Clear Channel for, all the while proclaiming that you are fighting the RIAA.

So does this mean that if the indie musicians go to the Dark Side and start threatening p2p with lawsuits, you'll finally start listening to us?

Can you hate a few of us into the Top 100?

a non-political article? screw this. the tsunami was bush's fault.

LOL, Sherminator, dude thats classic.

My take on this is simple. I dont believe "file sharing" has ever caused a decline in music sales. I think it may have helped sales actually, its a lot of free publicity for the RIAA, theres no doubt. Look, everyone had a fit about VCR's because they thought piracy would run rampant and no one would buy a movie anymore. WRONG. After VCR's became popular, selling movies in VHS format became an enormous money maker for the film business. They also freaked out about cassette tapes for the same reason, but that didnt slow down sales either. The problem is that the RIAA isnt learning from history. They should condone free music downloads, theres tons of ways for them to make money without having to sell CDs. I cant believe they havent figured this out. They either change how they do business or they will go out of business sooner or later. Thats how I see it at least.

By the way, there are some interesting points in comparing speeding and downloading. But to me the bottom line is that speeding is illegal, and lets face it, its illegal for good reasons (most people cant drive worth a damn at half the speed limit). Downloading is different. See I dont like the comparison because it assumes that downloading is in fact illegal. I dont think that has been established yet. We're led to believe that it is, but has it ever truly been decided in court? I dont think it has. Maybe I'm wrong though.

"The real criminals are the people who set up on street corners selling CDs for $5. These are the people actually making money in place of the artists."

This is true. also the distributors who illegally press and distribute these CD's to the street vendors, sorta like drug kingpins who market their wares using street pushers.

Sherm that is rich, I think it was a CIA assination plot against the German Chancelor for oposing the Iraq war. He had to be airlifted out.

Wished I could take credit for coming up with downloan, unforetunately I borrowed it from another poster here; Johncarlton. (hope I got that right John...

The tsunami was intentionally caused by the US Government. The same type of explosives that they used to collapse the world trade center were dropped from an airplane into the ocean. After days of sinking, they finally reached bottom, so the Bush administration could freely and secretly detonate them bringing Iraq-like destruction to all of south asia. Mwahaha. Seriously, that's what happened. I read it on a severely off topic anti-music industry website so I know it must be true.

And those of you bashing the author for his comparison to speeding, this sentence summarizes what he meant:

"Trading music online has become a "crime" as ubiquitous as speeding and other traffic violations..."

And he's right. It is not deviant behavior soley by virtue of the fact that MOST people in this country don't care or even participate themselves.

It's not like speeding. There are laws setting speed limits. There are no file-sharing laws, therefore, it can't be a crime.

It's more like walking too fast on the sidewalk. Perfectly legal but, in most cities, sooner or later a cop will stop you and ask what's going on.

If they filed a lawsuit against all of us the economy would drop back down to hell. Then we would be back in the great depression and they would still be sueing people. It's just a bunch of bull shit. I hate the riaa with a passion and so do all my friends in my chat room on my p2p file sharing downloader. HA! If the riaa is so much against free downloading the why is kazaa lite still on. And why cant you just have the regular versions. I mean the only thing extra about for my p2p is being able to host a chat room. Sooner or later that one cop will find one of us, but when the time comes i will be ready for them. Because i will fight them in court and i will win and the good thing is i will win legaly. Then we will all be free.

Thank you and good night,
Yours truley ZEROKOOL1

Man made (Deliberate Induced) Earthquakes
is a Reality & is Real!

http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Conspiracies/Other/earthquakes_natural_or_manmade.htm

http://www.expressindia.com/quake/messages/75.html

thanks for the props, wet1. If I contribute nothing else worthwhile to this forum, at least I shoehorned in a new word.

Downloan...
Who in their right f'n mind would ever downloan music for $1 a file? (apparantly there are a lot of morons using iTunes, et.al.) [shakes head in disbelief]

see? I told you. Bush did it. Ask fluffy.

I'm not clicking any link that contains the words "meta-religion" and "conspiracy" that is preceded by someone saying "it's real!"

"1 million songs in current catalog
Unlimited streaming or downloan
$7.95 a month
128 kbt/s WMA only
3 computer license's only
Absolutely no portability, no burning
Monthly license renewal required
Drop the service, music unplayable

Where do i sign?"

WHY?? Who would really want to sign up for the CRAP??? First of all, it is DRM infested. Second of all, you can't do anything with the music. And finally, since it would contain mostly RIAA music, why support and give them any more money to illegally sue P2P downloaders?? Yes, I intentionally used the phrase "illegally sue", because is should be illegal to sue someone for breaking a law that doesn't exist.

It would be so nice if the Bush administration felt that the lawsuits by the RIAA/MPAA were "frivolous;" too bad we know they mean lawsuits against the drug companies by those slacker patients....go get 'em, Michael.

Re: "frivolous" lawsuits by the RIAA/MPAA . . .
I wish JUDGES felt that the litigation had no solid ground. Unfortunately, many of those in judicial authority consider those subpoenas as addressing infringement pertinent to DMCA laws.

"Adelphia is rolling out it's own music service, available to it's customers only."

I used to work for Adelphia as a call center rep. My advice is not to give those ers any money at all. I've seen their rates for cable over the entire northeast compared to what I pay for cable here, and I have to wonder who they think they're fooling. Folks in Adelphia areas, you're being ripped off!

Ok, now I'm going to go hide because I probably broke the non-disclosure agreement thingy even though I don't work for them anymore.

godless-heathen join the club. I built a website about MSN and how it really works as I worked at their call center. it was going for over two years then MSN had Yahoo take it down. there's a reason for the non disclosure clause, they don't want the truth as to what they're doing, known.

" I'm not clicking any link that contains the words "meta-religion" and "conspiracy" that is preceded by someone saying "it's real!""

Sherm, you left out "Secret Societies." Like the Opus Dei, which has a note on the front page of their web site (an odd thing for a secret society in and of itself) reminding stupid Americans that, in addition to "The DaVinci Code," they might be interested in some of the historical works in the NON-FICTION area of their local library or bookstore.

Oh, downloaders are unreal criminals. I get it now. You can't get past the point that when you take someone elses property without their permission you are doing the wrong thing.

"You can't get past the point that when you take someone else's property without their permission you are doing the wrong thing."

Filesharing is a digitized sampling of non-tangible property. Has the owner suffered demonstrable loss?

Downloaners are "unreal criminals"?
Actually, that has an interesting ring to it.

But how can downloaners be criminals unless a crime can be proven to have been committed?
Swinging a subpoena club to coerce a settlement isn't prima-facie evidence that a crime was committed, nicht wahr?

"If it was taking someone's property, then they wouldn't have it anymore (hence, "taking"). P2P just results in EVEN MORE of their property existing." -- The Sherminator

Also, it exposes the artist's material to more people than otherwise would get a chance to sample it. Often, those who downloan also end up making a purchase of the artist's song(s) that they wouldn't otherwise have done because of previous lack of direct experience with the music.

"You can't get past the point that when you take someone elses property without their permission you are doing the wrong thing."

It seems to be you that cannot get past the point of the almighty dollar.

Is it theft to take a picture of the Mona Lisa? If so, why does the original still hang in the Louvre? They let people take pictures of it every day.

Is it theft if 300,000 acts are offering their music online and you download it, as per their wishes? Is it theft to download the same songs that the labels are paying to put on the radio? Doesn't that make it an ad? If it's advertising, the bands should be paying the downloaders, or at least those who are going to the trouble to host our music for us without those annoying commercial interruptions?

Is it theft if I see your car and instead of stealing it, build one just like it?

But frankly, Scarlett, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The Supreme Court has ruled that copyright infringement is NOT theft and the Ninth District Court recently reminded the RIAA that it is not in their best interests to try to deflect an argument of the facts by shouting pirate and thief every other word.

The issue that judge presented to the RIAA was to explain what's different than BetaMax. They didn't do it.

When the Supreme Court hears the Grokster case, there is still that one unanswered question.

The overwhelming evidence says that there are more of us giving away music than there are greedy assholes crying about it.

Plenty of non-infringing uses.

So do you have a point, or just come here to be a troll?

I'd say the latter. He seems to be hung up on the lies of the RIAA, and disregards the truth.

Not to mention, he is extremely aggravating.

"File trading is about as common as speeding."

Except no one is ever injured or killed as a result of file sharing!

"Is it theft if I see your car and instead of stealing it, build one just like it?"

My thoughts exactly! No physical product is taken with files sharing, and in fact the only thing that happens is a few 1s and 0s on your own hard drive are rearranged. They are telling you how you can and can't use the 1s and 0s on your own computer, which you own

A Troll, Most definitely

codeworrior, you're too much of a dense fuck to realize that that making a copy of something isn't "taking" it. that's the beauty of the "copy."

I hate you and everyone like you. How about a vacation to sri lanka - my treat. I'll buy you a surfboard.

Gee, Sherm, that's more like you...good! And Happy New Year.

George... all very good points, my friend!

These websites are great sources of information and support.

You guys all kick ass!

Excellent Pointers George!

Remember the good ole 80's, when Folks Dubbed from Record to Tape, CD to Tape, or Video to Tape, either at Home, at Friends Places?

Not much Differences at all to Downloading/ Sampling Compressed Tunes.

One good Thing about MP3 is Minimum Wow & Flutter & Very Good Tracking, compared to Analoge Audio Tapes

Happy New Year to all the Boycott RIAA Staff & all the Supporters here!