The RIAA has recently announced they're going after individual file sharers.

Rather than address the problems that created the whole mess to begin with, they've decided to sue individuals.

This can be extremely costly in legal fees alone to the person being sued and I'd like to suggest each and every one of you read the advice on the EFF website on how not to get sued.

My advice to you is: Read it carefully and heed what the EFF is saying because the fact of the matter is:

I don't want to see your lives destroyed or living in poverty for the next 20 years if they come after you.

Currently under the law, the RIAA has the law on their side. The fact that it is an unjust law, that was pretty much brought about by intense lobbying, slight of hand, outrageous donations, and through deceitful testimony is irrelevant. They will try their damnedest to make a very public example of you.

If you're silenced through criminal prosecution or financial ruin, you will most likely disappear from the scene altogether. We need you to be active, if we are going to win this fight. We will win.

We have them on the run.

* The RIAA is under attack from many different directions.
* Verizon is appealing the decision in their case, and that won't be heard until September.
* The Webcasters Alliance is going after them on the webcasting royalty issues.
* Major label artists are leaving.
* Artists are winning major concessions from the majors.
* Grokster and Morpheus won their case

Becoming a casualty in the copyright wars of 2003 is not the way for us to win. The companies that make filesharing programs are in the process of forming a lobby to counter the cow excretment put forth by the RIAA, Soundexchange and the AARC. They should be active in September.

Street teams from around the country are forming to inform the public of the issues that are relevant here.

Join a street team in your area. If there isn't one yet, start one. Contact us to let us know about it.

If you share RIAA member music, you've become a target.

The link to the article on how not to get sued is broken.

What does EFF stand for?

The link is fixed. EFF stands for Electonic Frontier Foundation.

It was my understanding on reading the original RIAA announcement that they would *download* songs in order to prove that they were being shared. I don't see how they could sue someone just for having a list of shared files with the same names as copywrited songs. Until they download them, they don't really know what those files are. After all, the RIAA itself has posted "fake" songs -- who are they to say that ours aren't fake as well? My point is, why must we turn off filesharing completely? As long as RIAA agents aren't downloading copywrited songs, we're safe, right?

They could sue you without reason. Whether they would *win* the case is irrelevant, but even if there is a case with no merit, it would be expensive to fight.

-- Funksaw

Funksaw: A baseless lawsuit that gets thrown out by the first judge who looks at it wouldn't do the RIAA any good. Instead of intimidating file sharers, it would actually embolden them. That's why the first cases they file will be ones that are based on strong evidence. Of course, they may harass or intimidate people without hard evidence -- but I doubt they would actually go to the trouble and expense of filing a lawsuit unless they had downloaded a copywrited file or had some other "smoking gun".

**Currently under the law, the RIAA has the law on their side. The fact that it is an unjust law, that was pretty much brought about by intense lobbying, slight of hand, outrageous donations, and through deceitful testimony is irrelevant.**

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

That is the ENTIRETY of the relevance, right there.

Sorry, but this sounds all too much like "bend over and take it like a man" instead of standing up for something.

Well, surprise-surprise, standing up for something important HAS RISKS, duh.
I'm sure the folks on boston commons weren't intending to be shot at, but without a doubt the possibility occured to them - didn't stop em from standing there, did it?

If the LAW is a malicious tool of oppression, and your opponent controls that law (and I speak from experience, having 'gone the rounds' with a corrupt smalltown indiana court system at one time) then your only choice is to defy the law.

Or just roll over like a good B****.

So, what you're saying is (or what I am hearing is)
"Well folks, since they have control of the folks who write the law, we just gotta suck it up and take it, so lets direct our efforts in directions that make us feel better, but accomplish little or nothing."

Face the facts, your congressman has long since been bought and paid for by The Combine, and you can wail all you want, if you can't match the RIAA penny-for-penny, your letter is just goin in the shredder, and YOU KNOW THIS - why lie to yourself ?
And don't insult me with the "vote em out" bit, when we all know voting a cemetary is a cheap, and time-honored tradition of politics... it's all about the money, dudes.

Handing out pamphlets makes you look like some nutball cultist, and no one is gonna take you seriously, not to mention possible legal hassle for soliciting.

I agree that you shouldn't make yourself an EASY target, but this statement sounds a lot like fear talkin, and THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT - if you are afraid of them, THEY ARE WINNING, duh!

If yer gonna stand up to these scumbags, you have to hurt them worse than making them laugh themselves to death at you - you need to hit them in the wallet, dammit!
Boycott ALL RIAA material, any artist supporting them, ANY company in ANY way associated with them, and make no bones about why, but if you don't cut off the MONEY, they will continue to 'purchase' your political representatives and lawmakers, and you will continue to lose.

Find the focal point of your enemies strength and throw all of your resources against it, as ole Sun Tzu more or less said - and that's the MONEY pipeline.

PR stunts and semi-laughable attempts to "raise awareness" take little effort, no risk, and accomplish little... which is fine, if that's all you wish to do, is feel like you're accomplishing something, but me, at the end of the day, I wanna know they FELT the pain.

I know I sound like a total jerk with this, but I think it's a reality-check that needs to be heard, and pondered, and to some degree, acted on - I agree with what y'all are trying to do, but I'd be a worse jerk if I sat back and didn't point out the glaring flaws in the plan... at the very least pointing them out allows them to be worked on, maybe fixed.

I want the RIAA to crumble in MY lifetime, not 50-60 years down the road, and I wanna hear them scream, so an incremental campaign just doesn't do it for me, sorry.

-user

You do have a good point, we should boycott absolutely everything associated with the RIAA, I believe most of the people here at boycott-riaa.com already do that, at least I hope. We need to do even more to speed up their destruction. I'm sure the RIAA has saved up billions of dollars, and even if absolutely no one bought their albums, they would still survive for quite some time. Therefore, boycotting them is simply not enough. If we want to win this war, we have to fight them on every front, politically, technologically, financially, legally. File sharing lobbyists are on their way to the capital, webcasters are suing them in court, we are boycotting them, and anonymous p2p sharing is being developed. We will win this war, but it's a matter of when and with how many casualties.

How Not To Get Sued By The RIAA For File-Sharing
(And Other Ideas to Avoid Being Treated Like a Criminal)
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced on June 25, 2003, that it will begin suing users of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems within the next few weeks. According to the announcement, the RIAA will be targeting users who upload/share "substantial" amounts of copyrighted music. The RIAA has stated that it will choose who to sue by using software that scans users' publicly available P2P directories and then identifies the ISP of each user. Then, using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the RIAA will subpoena the ISP for each user's name, address, and other personal information in order to sue that user.

While there is no way to know exactly what the RIAA is going to do, who it is going to sue, or even how much music qualifies as a "substantial" amount, users of P2P networks can take the following steps to reduce their chances of being sued:

Either:
Make sure there are no potentially infringing files in your shared folder. This would ordinarily mean that your shared folder contains only files 1) that are in the public domain, 2) for which you have permission to share, or 3) that are made available under pro-sharing licenses, such as the Creative Commons license or other open media licenses, and
Remove all potentially misleading file names that might be confused with the name of an RIAA artist or song (e.g., "Usher" or "Madonna") from your shared folder.

Or:

Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application that allow other users on the network to get copies of files from your computer or scan any of your music directories. We hate this option, but it does appear that it will reduce your chances of becoming an RIAA target right now. For instructions on how to do this for particular applications, EFF suggests (but cannot guarantee) the following links:
Grokster
http://www.grokster.com/helpfaq.html#Stop%20Sharing%20files
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/grokster.html
Morpheus
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/morpheus.html
http://penguin.cc.edu/peer/peer2peer.html#morpheus
KaZaA
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/kazaa.html
http://penguin.cc.edu/peer/peer2peer.html#kazaa
Aimster/Madster
Windows
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/aimster.html
Mac OS
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/aimster_mac.html
Gnutella
Mactella
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/mactella.html
Gnucleus
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/gnucleus.html
Gnotella
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/gnotella.html
LimeWire
MacOS
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/limewiremac.html
Windows
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/limewirewin.html
http://penguin.cc.edu/peer/peer2peer.html#limewire
BearShare
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/bearshare.html
http://penguin.cc.edu/peer/peer2peer.html#bearshare
iMesh
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/imesh.html
WinMX
http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/winmx.html
http://penguin.cc.edu/peer/peer2peer.html#winmx


If you receive notice that your ISP has been subpoenaed for your name and address, consider contacting www.subpoenadefense.org, where you can find information about how to defend your privacy and a list of attorneys willing to help. Contact your ISP and ask the people there to notify you immediately if they receive a subpoena seeking your identity.

If you receive a cease and desist letter from the RIAA, consider contacting Chilling Effects, where EFF and several law school clinics are creating a gallery of cease and desist letters along with basic information about the claims being made and your rights online.

Don’t like the idea of turning off file-sharing or changing your file names to prevent stupid robots or RIAA employees from mistaking your files for infringements?

Neither do we!

Join EFF's campaign to make file-sharing legal while getting artists paid:

Contact your Congressional Representative and demand that Congress hold immediate hearings on ways to save P2P technology and file-sharing while ensuring that artists get paid.
Learn more about alternatives. EFF's peer-to-peer web pages gather together some of the best ideas and describe how similar sorts of technology changes have been handled in the past.
Tell a friend, family member, colleague or even stranger on the street about the damage that the RIAA is doing to the Internet, innovation, and consumer choice. There are over 57 million Americans who use P2P file-sharing -- more than voted for President Bush -- and millions more worldwide -- so chances are good that the person sitting next to you on the bus, walking beside you on the sidewalk or driving in the car in front of you is using file-sharing, too. Start the conversation.
Join EFF and support our efforts to protect file-sharing.

The RIAA-run propaganda-filled MUSIC website also has similar instructions for disableing shareing, as well as some strange reasons to do so (includeing "file shareing programs steal your computer", as well as the obvious "we are coming to get you"). Take a look if you want, its at musicunited.org, just remember not to believe a word of it. The point is the whole ojective of this campaign against us is to scare people into leeching. Not shareing just means they win. If people are scared they should stop shareing music and just share something safer, like software, books or movies. Noone has ever gotten anything worse than a C&D from a bot for shareing those, and no anti-piracy group except the RIAA has plans to sue users. Or share open source software, thats perfectly safe.

user65535:

How do I find out which artist's are supporting the RIAA and which one's aren't?

From musicunited.org:

It’s illegal!
The unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music is JUST AS ILLEGAL AS SHOPLIFTING A CD. Burning CD’s from peer-to-peer networks like KaZaA, Morpheus or Gnutella is against the law. The rules are very simple. Unless you own the copyright, it’s not yours to distribute.

Notice this line:

Burning CD’s from peer-to-peer networks like KaZaA, Morpheus or Gnutella is against the law

It doesn't say in that paragraph that sharing is illegal, it says burning CDs is illegal.

Its obvious the RIAA are running scared here boys and girls. Turning off sharing is all very well, but wait hold on a second, would that make the file SHARING network obsolete? It would just be a network then.

We need to think of clever ways to get around this, anyone who has heard of Freenet in China will know there are ways around the this shaky law. If we continue to share as normal yes we will probably destroy the livelihood of some people, but it will be a means to an end.

Music as a PRODUCT must die. Long live music as an ART!

The whole purpose of this is to point out the risks involved. That is it. We don't have the funds to help defend you, or to pay settlements. If you get caught and they come after you the legal bills alone can bankrupt you.

it seems very strange to me that if this was so "illegal", that these file sharing websites would be allowed to continue.....

odd, very odd....


Diana

Boycotting the RIAA will hurt them: plain and simple they lose money from your sales. But by sharing copyrighted music you are only hurting yourselves. The RIAA has already proven through lawsuits that it now has the ability to go after individuals. If you want to paint a target onto your computer by sharing or pirating then that is your decision. But do not think the RIAA will stop simply because an overwhelming amount of users continue to share files. On the contrary, they will intensify their efforts and increase the task force until people get the picture. Get it now?

Yes, pirates are being scared into submission. That is how you catch criminals. And if you do not think you are a criminal or you do not care what you are then you will be a perfect example for the RIAA.

I'm sick of seeing the "If you download unauthorized music, you're stealing the music" bullshit. You can not steal intellectual property. Someone get these ass clowns a clue.

Here's one for you......


The Grateful Dead, a band known for its free-spirited songs and followers, embraces the future of digital recording. (Morry Gash/AP Photo)
Digital Dead
Grateful Dead Begins Burning, Selling Own Concert CDs

By Bill Redeker
ABCNEWS.com

M O R R I S O N, Colo., July 11 — For the past week, the spectacular natural amphitheater Red Rocks, carved out of the Rocky Mountains' front range near Denver, has played host to 10,000 people a night, attracted by the legendary Grateful Dead.

Actually, make that "The Dead." Since leader Jerry Garcia died in 1995, the band has renamed itself a couple of times. The group's fans are extremely loyal. "Deadheads" are known to follow the band across the country during its annual summer tour.

This year, they've added an attraction for the faithful. Lead singer and guitarist Bob Weir calls it an "experiment." Every concert is recorded and digitally transferred to compact discs that can be ordered at the concert venue and shipped within a week and a half.

It's like going to the same concert over and over again. And it could well be the future of album sales for "performance" bands like The Dead, for many reasons:

Cost: A three-CD set of a typical performance costs $22. Compare that to the usual $17 or $18 charged by music stores for a single disc.

Incentive for the performers: Most bands like The Dead receive less than $1 for each album sold. By controlling the recording and marketing of their work, they now earn up to $8 or $10 an album.

This means a band does not have to sell a million records to make a decent profit. It can sell far fewer. It also means that less "commercial" songs get recorded. Finally, it should encourage start-up bands that can't afford to record with a major label.

Back of the Bus CD Burning

A simple laptop computer with not-so-simple software is the key. Dennis Leonard, The Dead's audio mixer, who is nicknamed "Wizard," sits in a tiny room or even in the back of the band's bus, mastering the recorded tracks and storing them in digital files. He can "burn" a CD from his computer or collect the digitalized tracks and send them off to Chicago for duplication. It's that easy.

"They're much better than the free downloads from the Internet," said Leonard. "Online MP3 files are compressed and don't provide nearly the range as a CD."

Someday, he believes the recordings will be digitally downloaded from a machine at the concert site only moments after the last song has been played. Fans will actually be able to listen to the concert they just attended on their car audio system, driving home.

The faithful seem to like the idea. So far, about 25,000 CDs have been sold. That's about 2,000 for each performance during The Dead's summer tour. Do the arithmetic, and the band pockets a quarter-million dollars. Call it "supplemental income," as they have already earned most of their money from concert ticket sales. Tickets go for $52.50 a head — or Deadhead, that is.

The egalitarian breakthrough is not, however for every musical group. Some bands cannot survive outside a studio because members need audio sweetening, dubbed-over voice tracks and other tricks to sound presentable. But the technology is perfect for bands that thrive on interaction with their audiences. Jam bands such as Phish, the Allman Brothers Band and String Cheese Incident have all embraced the "road recordings."

‘Room for Both’

This does not mean that The Dead will prohibit private recordings of their concerts. For years, individuals have been allowed to set up their own microphones and tape recorders at Dead concerts and make personal recordings. In fact, the Grateful Dead actually encouraged the practice and reserved a special area for the recorders.

But the road-show CDs will easily compete with the homemade recordings because they are professionally recorded and mastered.

"There's room for both," said Cameron Sears, the CEO of The Dead. "We're not going to prevent people from doing that. We hope they appreciate the fact we're doing it and by supporting this avenue we're opening up other doors for things that could potentially unfold."

In the meantime, the band continues its summer tour while picking up pocket change. "We're turning some handsome coin here," said Weir.

"It's good for music, it's bad for a small corner of the whole music world — that being people who make money selling records — and I'm sorry for them," he said with a wink.

What a long, strange trip it's been … and continues to be for the iconic road band.

Great stuff pepe51200. These dead "dinosaurs" sound like they have got a clue... and that they have had a clue for a long time! Sorta ironic.

Now, why can't the rest of the famous/infamous musicians adapt accordingly?

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy

Support Local and Independent Music!

Kneo24, don't be so naive. Have you noticed the number of lawsuits won by the RIAA recently? It is because of people distributing copyrighted music. And it is not because they are burning CDs, it is because they are transferring copyrighted files (or Intellectual Property) to others. Check out the DMCA's clauses on Intellectual Property rights if you are confused.

I'm sorry that this has to be pounded into your heads but it is obvious that you have stolen for so long without having to face the consequences that you think it is legitimate. You are stealing if you download copyrighted music that you do not already own. PERIOD.

SadieT,
It is stealing, but the comment about the DMCA needs to be followed with information on how damaging the DMCA is to privacy. Its not about hiding, its about protecting our privacy, and congress and the RIAA have walked over us too much. People are fighting back and fighting by stricking back because they were hit first. That is the way they justify it.

Sadie, let us remind you that the RIAA, the day *BEFORE* they sued Napster, was smacked with a punitive judgement against them to the tune of 480 Million dollars.

Less than 24 hours later they sued Napster, and sorry, I do not believe in that degree of coincidence.

The judgement was for 20 and more years of conspiracy, price-fixing, anti-trust violations and all manner of chicanery which boiled down to outright theft from the customer.

So do NOT presume any moral high ground calling anyone stealing from a criminal organization, which classifies (legally, it does) as a "Continuing Criminal Enterprise" under the RICO Acts.

If I mug a dope dealer and steal his cocaine supply, sure, imma thief, but does that make HIM a decent human being ?

No.

And as for music being a "product" of physical reality and thus theft...
If someone managed to bribe and extort enough support for them to copyright the oxygen molecule, would you stop breathing ?

A SOUND is not a physical object, nor is an IDEA, and therefore, while I respect that the producers of these things deserve a little credit for their work, AND the money, I want them to GET THAT MONEY, allright ? and that just don't happen with the RIAA around.

Also, much of the "copyrighted material" songs you are whining about, are unavailable ANYWHERE, for ANY PRICE - many P2P users are looking for material they'd gladly purchase, if ANYONE would sell it to them... so, ummm, exactly HOW is it costing the bastards money when they will not sell you the item in question ?
Answer me that, if you will.

And to answer wegikrmw4aeuf
**How do I find out which artist's are supporting the RIAA and which one's aren't?**

I believe the guy running this site has, or is at least workin on, a list.. I know there's a couple out there they could point you to.
I haven't bought any music from anybody, nor downloaded any (stick THAT up your skirt, Sadie) cause frankly, I think 99.995% of it completely sucks, and wouldn't want it if you gave it to me... for my part I am hoping independant production might bright back some real MUSIC, instead of trendo-trash I would pay to not be subjected to.

And in closing to you, Sadie, are you an RIAA shill, or just that flamin stupid ? - your arguments are based on fiction, fear, and FUD, rather than real world viability, and indicate a painfully-flawed business model locked in a downward spiral.
Go ahead and cite the law at us, but not all laws are viable and just, even here... nor rational, since it's still technically illegal in some states to park your car without hitching it to a solid post.

Come back with a realistic argument if/when you actually have one.

-user

This whole lawsuit business is ridiculas, the RIAA should just take it as a lost. They put way too much blame on file sharing for there lack of sales. The software industry looses much more the they do. Look at microsoft. There priacy rate is huge, and they have found some ways to reduce it, like xp's 3 installations in 6 months process. Which did slow it down for a while. Pirating though, gives the software manufactures a valid reason to be charging more. Which is why cheats are made because they charge to much. Both sides have there quiltfree reasons. Music is the same way. Apple's pay-per-download site seems to be working, but artists need to also allow singles to be downloaded and not only there whole cd.

Never give up, never surrender! Don't settle with the RIAA, make them press their case. They want to launch thousands of outragous law suits against their customers? Then they should be prepared to fight ever single one of them in court. And i challenge the RIAA to find ONE jury that dose not have people that share files on the net, or rember the importantce of free access to music and information! The judges might be corupt, but civil cases are tried by juries, human beings, who can dismiss the law as they see fit!

The RIAA sues a college student for having 1000 files up for sharing on his computer. Thats about a billion doller law suit. NO JURY IN THE WORLD is going to award that much! The RIAA will just screw themselves over.

Well if you really want to know, user, I don't like the RIAA. They are now attacking their consumers and misinterpreting facts to bolster their arguments, and I don't agree with any of those tactics.

I don't know how you got the idea that I do like them. I never said that stealing from them makes them good (referring to your drug dealer analogy). All I said was that downloading music that you do not own is stealing. And it is punishable.

Copyright the Oxygen? Clearly you have no idea of the investment that goes into music production. Studio time and advertisement are some of the expense that provokes most artists to sign with a big label rather than invest in it themselves. Hard to believe, I know, but a lot more work goes into those songs than the 30 seconds it takes you to download them. And that is what you are paying for, or stealing as the case may be.

As for you wanting something that is not available, well that is no reason to go and steal it. That's just life. If you don't believe it, talk to somebody who was just sued by the RIAA. They will bring you up to date with how the real world operates.

Boycott the RIAA because of their lack of morals. That does not mean you should abandon yours and break the law. As you said, user, the RIAA got slapped for their behavior, and so will you.

Sadie, you can't steal IP. I don't care what any law (remember, laws aren't always right or in our best interest) says, it makes no sense. The only thing you can steal is the potential money that can be made from the IP.

Go here: http://www.snakebyte.biz/kneo24/stuff.html#noiptheft to read my reasons why you can't steal IP.

That's it... keep fussin and cussin each other! Just keep it on topic or at least close to being on topic/related! Trolls are welcome so long as you keep it intelligent and about the issue being discussed. Those who are educated on these issues and who know what they are taliking about will influence the discourse about these issues. It does not matter if you are pro or anti! Just be civil, smart, and THINK about what you are saying! (In MY opinion, the TRUE and CORRECT arguement/side will prevail... it does not matter that my OPINION is already decided!)

But maybe my opinion could be changed?

--Naw, I doubt it, but I welcome the attempt!

The United States of America IS freedom of opinion!

Go for it!

The only censorship should be by the one who has the opinion!

Kneo24, is that what you are going to tell the thousands in the music industry who have lost their jobs because of slumping CD sales? CD stores are closing in record numbers all over the country and especially near universities where bandwidth is high and free for students.

I'm pretty sure that you are claiming that if you do not intend to buy a CD, then you should be allowed to download the music for free because that does not account for any lost sales to the industry.

Here is the bottom line. It cost a lot of money to make. It is for sale. You got it for free, so you stole it. A lot of WORK went into creating the music. Just because there aren't any raw goods when you transfer digital music to your computer doesn't mean it cannot be owned. Take a piece of furniture for example. Why does it cost more than the wood that was used to make it? Because labor went into it. In the same way you cannot say that the labor that goes into making music is of 0 value.

This is the reason why unsold tickets to a movie are not given out for free. This is why trains, buses, and planes can sometimes run nearly empty. If those seats were filled it would be at no extra cost to the respective industry, but then there is no incentive for people to buy tickets for anything is there? Think about it HARD.

Do you hear yourselves? Honestly. Yeah I'm a thief. Yeah I'm burning property. So what. If and when the industry would made things a little more affordable then these type of things wouldn't happen. Now for the rights. You have no rights as a person. Cash dictates everything in America. Always remember its not about truth, justice, or the American way. RIAA is an entity solely for the purpose of money. Dollars and sense. Thats what makes the world go round. Verizon's unwillingness to cooperate IMO stems from the RIAA's illegal bait and switch tactics. Now if theres cash involved you bet your sweet butt cheeks Verizon will help nix the P2P problem. As far as the consumer goes for privacy uh last time I checked the net isn't private. Hackers can find anyone. Same with spyware. So in essence your arguments are good and thought out but lets take into consideration the whole picture before we all get our panties in a bunch. I've read many postings here and I find everyone just chill out and really find the best way to attack the RIAA. Money. Period. You want to bring down a whole system in a matter of minutes or days this is the way to go. Politicans need money, RIAA needs money, Verizon needs money, some of your free P2P need money. Its a vicious circle.

Thanks for reading.
Crzy.
7/14/03

I love "the dead", god bless them and all of there endeavors!!!

I have 400 legit cd's, and about 7G of mp3 data on my hard drive, (75% of that number is totally legit). About 100 cd's in my collection were purchased in the last 5 years.

I have vowed not to support the RIAA with one cent, including the taxes paid on blank media, (including a harddrive upgrade which I desperately need).

I feel positive hope that the RIAA will feel the effect of my actions because I see my decisions being mirrored by others.

Only by standing united and supporting each other, until the laws to protect privacy and consumer rights are changed, will we be rewarded.

To all the trolls of the RIAA in this forum directly, "I'm a customer, aren't you supposed to kiss my ass?"

"Kneo24, is that what you are going to tell the thousands in the music industry who have lost their jobs because of slumping CD sales? CD stores are closing in record numbers all over the country and especially near universities where bandwidth is high and free for students."

Yup. I haven't seen anyone else say how my take on IP is wrong. Your analogy by the way was stupid. IP is IP. I don't care what form it is in. I never said you couldn't profit from it.

"I'm pretty sure that you are claiming that if you do not intend to buy a CD, then you should be allowed to download the music for free because that does not account for any lost sales to the industry."

Never said that. Once again, I said that the only thing you can steal from IP the potential to earn money from it.

To Sadie T.

It is only stealing if you are making a profit off the file yourself. The Home Audio Recording Act of 1992 provides a special exemption for home use recording, that a tax has been collected on for years. And the kicker is that you don't even have to already own the media in another form to be exempt.

Napster tried to use this defense, but the act applies to individuals only, not corporations. Any individuals out there downloading that only use the downloads for personal use and have a good lawyer on their side should be able to SUE THE RIAA for violating our rights to record for personal use.

INeedAlover and Kneo24,

You are both well within the reaches of justifiable law to be prosecuted by the RIAA. Copies are allowed to be made for personal use if you already own the copyrighted material. But all laws aside, your morals should at least stop you from stealing. You may be angry at the RIAA, but why take it out on the artists and people who are going to lose their jobs because of all this? Two wrongs do not make a right.

The RIAA isn't going to get hurt by music pirates in the long run. In fact, you are actually HELPING THE RIAA pursue more individuals by continuing to share copyrighted material. You see, the more people who share, the more targets they have to sue. And they have publicly stated that all money they win from these lawsuits will be reinvested in more lawsuits against individuals.

INeedAlover,

To further respond to your comment that it is only stealing if you make a profit. Well that is just not true. The reason you think it is true is probably because the RIAA used to only go after the people making several copies of music and reselling it because they were the biggest problem. You think it is true because they had never bothered to go after individuals who [alone] do not pose much of a problem. But there are millions of these individuals put together now, and the RIAA has made it clear they will take them down one by one if necessary.

If they start doing this then all hell will really break loose. I'm waiting for them to go after someone who will fight back and give them a run for their money. But they'll only pick on kids cause they know that they don't have the money it would take to fight them in court. too bad everyone doesn't boycott. A nationwide boycott for one whole year will put a damper in their collective pockets but we know the teenyboppers hate to give up their Britney and Enem CD's.

SadieT: do you download off the net? Do you download porn or images that don't belong to you? That too is stealing so please get off your soapbox and go preach somewhere else. If you can safely say that you don't download then you are a liar. Stealing images and copyrighted material like words is also the same. so please shut up.

Everyone goes around saying that "two wrongs don't make a right", yet everyday we see that it does. Some of our laws are wrong, and they're used to 'curb' other 'wrong' stuff. Some of these are enacted before anything 'wrong' is done.

Or how about you religious folk that believe in "God". Doesn't your bible say something about retribution?

Or how about the mathematics side of things where if you divide or multiply to negatives (negative can be viewed as wrong), you get a positive.

Two wrongs can make a right. It just depends on what you feel is moral or immoral.

SinisterX, you brought up a good point. Your computer caches things from the net, which can be viewed as an illegal act.

This could have been a thread about assessing the risk of being sued, what to do to avoid being sued, and analyzing how the RIAA legal teams will operate. That would have been useful. Instead, it's yet another series of rants about the evil of the RIAA and whether file-sharing is stealing. It's obvious that no one has anything new to say on these topics. Here are some practical questions that no one is talking about: How many people have been notified that their ISP has been subpoenaed? How can we identify RIAA spies? What are some promising legal defenses?

Oh, and user65535: how does it help the cause to attack the boycott-riaa website for suggesting that getting sued isn't a good thing?

SadieT seems to be equating "illegal" with "morally wrong". While it may be illegal to download music files, many people do not believe it is morally wrong given the circumstances (CDs cost too much, they wouldn't have purchased it anyway, intellectual property should be free, etc.). Even on legal grounds, there seems to be a conflict with the Home Audio Recording Act which allows individuals to make copies of media for personal use. There is no question that many individuals will suffer before this is settled (including the layed-off music industry workers, file-sharers being sued, etc.) but this battle will continue until either legal or technical measures create a clear winner. For example, what if anonymous file-sharing advances and becomes widely adopted? How will the RIAA find the file-sharers then? How will the Verizon suit be settled? Noone knows how this will all play out. However, just implying that anyone who breaks a law is morally bankrupt is not correct. What about all the people who drank alcohol during prohibition? Clearly, there are laws which may seem reasonable but are unnacceptable to the general population. The number of people who download music is huge and many more of them reach voting age each month.

To quote SadieT, "Copies are allowed to be made for personal use if you already own the copyrighted material." I believe that's wrong. The Home Audio Recording Act was to allow people to videotape television shows for later viewing. (I'll bet even SadieT has done that!) You don't have to "own" the TV show or movie you're taping.

IFeelFree AKA INeedAlover,

The Home Audio Recording act says you are allowed to make copies of videotapes or cassettes for private use or fair use. It does not say you can massively distribute them. A simple google search will tell you this. If you do not like the DMCA, which is the law for mp3's etc., take it up with the supreme court.

And I am not equating the law with what is morally correct. I am saying that it is moral to pay for music and it is ridiculous to argue that you should be allowed to have it for free.

You do agree that downloading pirated software is stealing, don't you? Open-source is great, but hey, people have to make a living.

I no longer download nor share copyrighted music because I do not want to get sued, I know that it is morally wrong, and it also happens to be against the law.

I hear a lot of war cries from teenagers and young people to fight them in the courts and to never give up. Hah! If the day comes and it is YOU in court who faces over $100,000 in fines plus lawyer's fees or a settlement of $20,000, what do you think your parents will decide? Either way, you can wave bye-bye to your college money.

Sharing RIAA owned music IS against the law, arguing that is a waste of time. No matter how much you try and rationalize it, it's illegal.

It's time, in the short term, for people to do what the RIAA wants. STOP sharing the fucking files guys. It really isn't worth going to court (you WILL lose) and being thrown into a multi-thousand dollar debt to the RIAA.

Fight them for legit reasons, it will take time. At this moment in time, the only thing we can do is avoid being sued and being made a public example out of. Your reputation and money isn't worth losing over it.

Sadie, this isn't going anywhere but in circles, endless statement of a point already shot to bits a hundred times over is just annoying.

I've watched the best indepenant band I've ever known fall to the inability to produce their work independantly, due to ridiculously high studio-time charges, and not just a LACK of advertisement, but direct pressure against them, and against supporting them, but other small and supposedly 'indepedant' local bands who were signed with someone..

I know the "cost of production" all too well, sell out or die - well, this site and it's folks are workin on a third choice, and while I might not completely agree with them all the time, I back it all the way.

>>All I said was that downloading music that you do not own is stealing.>As for you wanting something that is not available, well that is no reason to go and steal it. That's just life. If you don't believe it, talk to somebody who was just sued by the RIAA. They will bring you up to date with how the real world operates.

**(Damned HTML flaw)**
===================================
Sadie, this isn't going anywhere but in circles, endless statement of a point already shot to bits a hundred times over is just annoying.

I've watched the best indepenant band I've ever known fall to the inability to produce their work independantly, due to ridiculously high studio-time charges, and not just a LACK of advertisement, but direct pressure against them, and against supporting them, but other small and supposedly 'indepedant' local bands who were signed with someone..

I know the "cost of production" all too well, sell out or die - well, this site and it's folks are workin on a third choice, and while I might not completely agree with them all the time, I back it all the way.

**All I said was that downloading music that you do not own is stealing.**

So, is listening on the telephone to a friend who's voice you don't own 'stealing' too ?
it's the same principle, and just as ludicrous.
Don't ignore that either, answer me HOW, under the DMCA, that it is not, prove that it is not, or your argument becomes invalid on the spot.

**As for you wanting something that is not available, well that is no reason to go and steal it. That's just life. If you don't believe it, talk to somebody who was just sued by the RIAA. They will bring you up to date with how the real world operates.**

Oh don't go there with me... scare tactics don't work on folks with nothing to lose.
Sue me ? out of WHAT, I'd like to know, cause damned if I have any money for em to take.
Throw me in jail, make a martyr ? go ahead, try - folks down at the bottom with nothing to lose are not folks to push in such ways, they just ain't.

Just because something IS, doesn't make that something RIGHT.

Case in point - YOU are felon as well.
As the Bernie S case pointed out, by law a computer qualifies as equipment capable of stealing telephone service, and is therefore criminal to possess, gee, best ditch that PC there Sadie...
Oh yeah, and if you breach 56,000 on a phone line, that's a felony too...
Just about ANYTHING you do with a computer can be construed as a criminal act these days.

Does that make it so ? does that make it RIGHT ?

Currently the artists don't GET the money, that's the ferkin problem, but by antagonising and attempting to intimidate the one force working to change that, you are in my eyes just taking the position that the RIAA has a RIGHT to steal from the artists, and no one else does.... ironic, ain't it ?

And as far as the RIAA "got slapped" ? PUUHHHLEEEESSSSEEE, don't make me puke!

If a bank robber stole $100,000.00 and you fined him $500.00 and set him on his way, what have you done ? you've told him CRIME PAYS, and it does, as long as you are a big, powerful corporation - we've been over that territory in other threads, and the sad fact is that it's become commonplace to fine corporations but a pittance of the PROFIT they made during said criminal activity.

So, while you're sitting here flaming the average everyday folk, mucking up the morale of the only folks who really DO wanna see the artists get their due... the RIAA keeps right on going, screwing us, screwing the artists, and stealing from us all.

It's like yelling at your neighbor for his polluting car, when the chemical plant down the street pollutes more in an hour, than your neighbors car will in it's whole lifetime.

I think you have your verbal guns aimed in the wrong direction, Sadie.

-user

P.S. - Mercury42, I wasn't outright attacking the site as much as pointing out some huge, gaping, dare-i-say-it-GLARING holes in the plan of action, and hoping to provoke a smarter workover of the tactics involved.
We need to really, really hurt them financially, in a big way, before notice will be taken, and doing it slowly over the course of 50-60 years doesn't do it for me, cause I'd like to still be around to appreciate it when they fall.
I stated as much in the original post, btw.

P.P.S - **M1 - "It's time, in the short term, for people to do what the RIAA wants."**
Over my rotting corpse, period.

Merely Downloading MP3's for Personal use doesn't justify with stealing at all.
In a very real way it's no different when Taping Songs of the Radio/TV for personal use.
Music as an Art. Those who are Musical Talented & use it to Enlighten others with their Gifts are more likely gone be Creating Real Music for the Soul.
Generally those who are only doing it for merely $$$Profits$$$ and only for themselves, are more likely gona be creating useless Music with no Harmony in it.
One Reason there's lot's of Garbagge out there.
Another good Reason to get rid of the RIAA Tyrants!
Don't be Manipulated Folks by these Big $$$MoneySucking Corporations!

~~~Sheep®2003~~~

RIAA
_
\ \
_ _\ \ _ _
\ \ \ \ \ / \
\ \ \ \ V /
\ /

RIAA
. _
. \ \
. _ _\ \ _ _
.\ \ \ \ \ / \
. \..\..\..\..V.../
. \............./

OK, SadieT let's try this: The cable company broadcasts a movie for anyone who wants to videotape (legally, thanks to the Home Audio Recording Act), yet if someone downloads the same movie over the internet, it's illegal. What's the difference? Same with radio/tape recording of music. That's probably why the RIAA is not going after people who are downloading music, but rather those who are sharing their files. So it's OK to "steal" (download, videotape, audiotape etc.), but not OK to share what you own with others, even if you own it legally (you purchased the content). Does this make sense to anyone? Also, where do we draw the line?: Is it OK to share the music CD I bought with my friend? Can he borrow it? Can he make a copy of it? (He can legally if he tapes if off of the radio. What's the difference?) Can I play the CD at a party? Can I play the song in my band without paying royalties? (Most local bands do it everyday.) Can I digitize the CD to make a backup? How many copies? Can I share them? Where do we draw the line? It's absurd.
I write software for a living for an employer. I'm paid to write the software but then I have no control over it. Do I get royalties when others use it? No, of course not. Why should musicians? They have to make a living. So do I. What's the difference?

Don't Buy cd's FOR A WEEK!!!!!


It would be great to try and get as many people in america as possible involved. They can't sue us because they already have most of our money!

Let me preface with this: I think the RIAA is in league with Satan. I can't think of much in this world more evil than that collective of bloated corporate tyrants. I also confess to having downloaded more than my fair share of files in the past. Hell, downloaded some this week. I feel little, if any, fear of being pursued by the RIAA for doing so, as their main focus now is to go after people SHARING substantial amounts of copyrighted material, not those downloading it. It's the old law enforcement approach to drugs...take the dealer out of the picture & the addict won't have anywhere to get his fix. I'm ashamed to admit I DID cave to the pressure to stop sharing (mostly...I still share a few 'out-of-print' titles, but nothing current...and not NEAR as many titles as I used to).

Having said that, I'm a little disturbed at some of the arguments posted above. While I agree, in general, with filesharing, it IS a fact that it's illegal to violate a copyright. Whether or not our copyright laws are moral or not isn't the point. The fact is we must live within their confines or be prepared let the RIAA treat us to a cavity search and a delousing.

While I agree with the majority of the posters here, some points being made are with, at best, tenuous arguments.
Examples:

Talking to someone on the phone isn't copyright infringement. Their portion of the conversation isn't copyrighted.

While a computer IS capable of being used to steal telephone service, that doesn't make the mere possession of one illegal. What's illegal is USING it for such. Just as it's not illegal to own a car, even though it can be used as a deadly weapon.

There's a misconception about recording off the radio, too. Growing up WELL before the era of file swapping, I spent a great deal of my childhood taping songs from the radio. Technically, that was copyright infringement. The radio station pays royalties to play the songs, so I was "stealing" (under the definition used by the RIAA) by taping songs. However, even though this practice was pretty much rampant throught the 70s & 80s, the RIAA had no incentive to go after anyone for it. Why? One, more often than not the songs you taped had a DJ talking over the intro and/or outro, was edited, and/or wasn't exactly hi-fidelity...any/all of which made the recording undesireable to anyone except the person who made the recording. It was pure personal use, and it only worked for songs that the radio played (the VAST majority of songs never see airplay).

Even portable DJs (the ones who play wedding receptions, class reunions, etc.) are in violation of our current laws if they go BUY a CD, then burn a copy to use for their business because they don't want to lose and/or damage their original copy. Why? It's not personal use. They paid the copyright holder when they bought the CD, but using a COPY for PUBLIC consumption is illegal. Silly? Yes. The way things are? Take it from me.

Sharing your CD with a friend? Perfectly legal. Him burning a copy for himself? Copyright infringement.
You burning a copy to listen to in your car so you can leave your original at home so it won't get damaged or stolen? Perfectly legal. YOU paid the copyright holder, so YOU can make a copy (or two, or four, ad infinitum) for PERSONAL use.

Again, pretty silly, but it's the way things are. Debating whether or not our laws are moral is moot. We're stuck with 'em...at least for now. Arguing whether or not it's possible to steal intellectual property? Moot. Good points were made on both sides of that argument, but the fact remains that the law is pretty clear on what constitutes violation of copyright law for intellectual property.

What needs to happen is a detente between P2P users and the recording industry.

No sharing of songs less than 5 years old? I could live with that. Sharing of only songs that are out-of-print? Reduces the selection quite a bit, but I'd rather have only those titles to choose from than risk being sued. A few cents surcharge per downloaded title that goes DIRECTLY to the entity whose intellectual property it is? Perfectly acceptable to me.

The reason I download (and share some) is that I have no desire to go pay $18 for an artists CD to get two or three songs I like & 10 I care nothing about. I'd much rather pay a few cents per title to get ONLY the songs I want over a P2P network. Take the average cost of a CD, subtract the record company's cut (the majority of the cost), then divide by the average number of cuts per CD & you'd probably pay about $.15 to $.25 per title. Let this money go DIRECTLY to the artist and I'd be more than happy to pay it.

I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion here, I'm just spouting out an alternative in case any trolls take the time to read this.

I don't want to get sued. I'm sure others here don't, either. Whether or not you currently have anything, getting sued by the RIAA may prevent you from having anything in the future, too. Not a prospect I'm fond of.

Let's hope the RIAA comes to its senses soon and decides to engage in a useful dialogue about this. Otherwise, let the boycott begin.

One last thought. Have seen the analogy used above comparing P2P to taping TV shows or movies. There really IS a difference.

It's perfectly legal, under current law, to videotape TV shows or even unedited movies on cable. This is for personal use. However, on network TV, the network has paid for or holds the copyright, and their costs are more-than-covered through advertising. For cable, you're paying copyright fees every month when you pay your cable bill. Again, you can make all the videotapes you like under current law, but only for personal use. If you rent a theatre and invite several hundred of your friends to watch your copy of "Minority Report" that you taped off Cinemax, now you've violated copyright law. You didn't make a profit, but you DID perform the work publicly...that's a violation. Same with P2P...you're not making a profit by sharing your files, but you're cutting into the RIAA's pocketbook by making the work available to the general public, none of whom will feel any obligation to contact the copyright holder to pay for the work.
Same applies when downloading a movie over a P2P. With cable, you've paid the copyright fee (or you've gotten the show/movie from a commercial network)...any tape you make, as long as it's for personal use, is allowable. With P2P, you've paid no licensure for the movie, so the MPAA will likely feel compelled eventually to follow the RIAA's example and try to sue the shoes right off your feet.

I'm in no way endorsing the above, just pointing out the differences.

Are these laws obsolete and antiquated? Absolutely.

first off the riaa puts out crap anyways so i dont really shed any tears. but there is still the need for people to support independent music artists. p2p should be about having more choice in what is available to listen to. being able to be exposed to music you might br unsure to buy . i use p2p to wade through the crap to find good artsits and then support them with my $. often it seems there is the prevelant attitude that was as consumers are entitled to free music in the p2p age. really if you are soley downloading music and have stopped supporting independent artists you are practicing poor ethics and to some extent stealing. when you buy a riaa cd you are not supporting an artist as much as lining a fat cats pockets. but if you are not supporting musicians it's gonna be hard for people to decide to make that a lifestyle.

i am the worst typist

has anyone any idea how the boycott is doing?

From www.musicunited.org:

Britney Spears, Multi-Platinum Award Winning Artist "Ooops! I Did It Again": "Would you go into a CD store and steal a CD? It’s the same thing, people going into the computers and logging on and stealing our music. It’s the exact same thing, so why do it?"

From Brass Eye, a programme aired in the UK:

Dr. Fox, relatively well-known DJ and presenter of the independent Chart Show: "Genetically, a paedophile has more in common with a crab than he does with you or me. There is no evidence for it, but it is scientific fact".

Compare and contrast.

"...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends..it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them and to institute new governments...(Bill of Rights). Illegal,Smelligal! There was a time when it was illegal for me, as a woman, to vote. There was a time...not that long ago..that African-american folk could not sit at "white" restaurants, or go to "white" bathrooms. If not for Rosa Parks or Susan B. Anthony or Harriet Tubman BREAKING THE LAWS!!!!, thing would never change for the better. Get with it folks. MAD? then DO SOMETHING!! Organize, register, vote, break the law...hell, change it. ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

i just found out the other day that pearl jam (my personal fav) dropped their record label. this news almost brought me to tears folks, tears of joy. fuck the riaa

Can the RIAA.. Honstly..say that there is not one.. Artist.. using P2P for there personal.use..comon now..the people at the RIAA prob uses p2p also.. the RIAA has no concept of what they are doing... there a ways around it all.... hahaha RIAA..

IFeelFree and user,

Some serial killers do not believe what they are doing is wrong, and it is not against any of their morals, despite the law. Does that make it right? No. Laws are made by elected officials who we voted for. Experienced judges define how much of a fine or jail time the RIAA or any other association should get for breaking these laws. If you don't believe in our government, move to Canada or shut the F up !

OOps! ..did I say Bill of Rights on my last post? My Bad! I meant the preamble to the Declaration of Independance! So, Sadie T.,what suburb do you live in?
If you think that all laws "made by elected officials" are the will of the voting public you really are naive. A lot of laws are made by paid lobbyists. Why is our government so corrupted? On that point you are correct...not enough of us vote. C'mon, Sadie..If you don't believe in free expression and first amendment rights, then what makes you any differeny than the RIAA scumballs? Did you read my last post? If right is right, and wrong is wrong, whose Navaho land are you standing on? Or Cherokee, or...etc.

By the way, has anyone seen the documentary movie titled, "Standing in the Shadows of Motown"? It is a great story of a major-label sweatshop situation, imho. All of these studio musicians turned out dozens of number one hits, and ain't none of 'em worth a million dollars.

Come on now, SadieT, we live in a country where we're allowed to express dissenting views, and even break laws on occasion (as long as we're willing to face the consequences). As Jazzmary2U points out, there have been many unjust laws in the past, and they were changed. In general, it's best to follow the law, but when laws excessively restrict personal freedoms (as do the current copyright laws) then it's time to speak up and take action. You bring up the (unfair) comparison with murderers. Suppose someone is attacking my family and I'm forced to kill them to stop them. Is that wrong? Of course not. So, any action must be judged in it's context. Many of us believe we have been exploited by the RIAA and we want to use technology (peer-to-peer file sharing) to be able to hear the music we enjoy without paying excessive prices for CDs. It's time for a paradigm shift in the music business. Music should be free. As a software engineer, I am paid only for the time I spend writing software. After that, it's freely available to anyone within my company who wants to use it and noone receives any royalties. Music should be the same. Pay musicians for performing, period. They don't own their music anymore than I own the software I write. Ultimately, I would like to see the whole concept of copywrite be dismantled.

Sadie.....

I'm really getting tired of the whining about "the people losing their jobs because of slumping CD sales". The reason CD sales are down isn't because file sharing exists, it's because the music being put out there sucks!!! I'm definitely not going to pay over $15 for a crappy CD that I'm stuck with, I'd rather go to a file sharing website, download the songs I want, and be done with it. BTW, this is the way new artists can get increased sales, I bought the Remy Shand CD because I heard him on VH1, went to my fav file sharing site, found his CD there, downloaded a few songs, then decided on getting the WHOLE CD. Pure and simple.... good music attracts CD buyers...

Another thing artists need to do, add extras to their CD's, pictures, video, things that make the CD worth spending our hard earned $$$'s for... I bought Weird Al's "Poodle Hat" CD when I could've easily downloaded it because I knew there were home movies and other goodies on it....

DOWN WITH THE RIAA!!!!!!!!!!

IFeelFree,

Are you kidding? Abolish copyrights? Now I know you really are off the wall. Where is the incentive to be creative? Nobody would bother to develop anything new if they could not reap rewards for their hard work. Good luck installing your socialist regime in our democratic government.

I do not know exactly how your company is structured, but I am guessing you are not writing solely open source software. That said, your company will hold onto the code you write and enforce their copyrights. Without the copyrights, nobody would buy the software (because it's free, right?) and then there would be no money to pay you.

I find it hard to believe you work in a company that specializes in creativity and you still don't understand basic economics.

SadieT, to clarify, the company I work for doesn't sell software, we manufacture a physical product and the software is only used to test it's reliability. Therefore, noone makes any money from the software directly. That's how intellectual property should be treated. It's not a physical commodity like refrigerators or doughnuts. It should be freely available to all, just as most scientific and academic knowledge is available to all without copyright restrictions. (Yes, there are patents on engineering processes and inventions, but noone owns the copyright to quantum mechanics, music theory, or the English language.) I'm not suggesting that we abolish the capitalist system. We can own property, physical possessions, money, but not ideas. We are paid for producing the intellectual property but we do not own it. All software should be public domain or open source. All content should be without copywrite restrictions. Of course, if you want your music packaged in a nice CD, or movie on a DVD disk, or a bound book, you have to pay for that. Musicians, writers, actors, software engineers, scientists, etc. should be supported by those who want the products of their creativity, but not by ownership. Too many people (such as the recording industry) get wealthy from the creative efforts of others. Copyright unduly restricts the flow of information and creativity in society, while mainly benefitting those who exploit the artists and engineers.

"Are you kidding? Abolish copyrights? Now I know you really are off the wall. Where is the incentive to be creative? Nobody would bother to develop anything new if they could not reap rewards for their hard work. Good luck installing your socialist regime in our democratic government."

SadieT stop right there. If you think copyright is what keeps people creating things you have lost grounds for your argument. By "reap rewards for hard work" I assume you mean profit? I'm sorry but if profit is what drives creative people culture would be history. Last time I checked, it was to satisfy the audience that drove many artists and musicians to create more work. Another big drive was culture. And just incase you would turn and say well what if it was your work, I have just the words for you.

I create art and music both. I destory them both aswell. Profit is not my motivation. Copyright law on the otherhand disturbs me. Copyright does nothing to protect me in both music or art. With copyright I can sit back and watch some asshole profit years down the road from this "hard work" that I would "reap rewards" with. And for your information, I reap my rewards when I look on P2P networks and see my files being traded. I reap my rewards when I see a persons face look over a painting with an expression of wonder.

You may know something or the other about these fabricated laws and morals or you may not- regardless, you don't know jack shit about what drives creative people. Your opinion of what governs the creative process is just as flawed as the laws that govern the creative rip off business.

It's goofy how people like you think they can come into a debate and setup a soap-box. Ya then claim no part in either side of the argument while offering no solutions or anything constructive to the argument. Somehow tho, you wind up defending one side of the word war, still claiming no side, and all you can accomplish is getting into fights with people. I'd hate to say right back at ya but you started acting like you knew what drove creative people. Now, i'm no expert but i'd say you were by net chat definition, A TROLL!

Show me these laws and morals so I can spit on them for otherwise they do not exist to me!

Hey FacelessIdiot,

Do me two favors.

1) Use the same name so we know you are the same person. By continuing to register new identities you are not further backing your argument.

2) Stick to the point.

SadieT,

It seems like you're fighting a battle all by yourself here. The goal of Boycott-Riaa.com is to make both parties happy. Consumers and Musicians. The RIAA is simply the middle man, leeching off the creators and the buyers. As consumers, and people who work hard for our money, we've had enough. I'm not going to pay $18 for a CD when the artist only gets a buck. What's the point? I do believe that musicians deserve to be paid. We all need to make a living right? But manufactured music is not the way.

Wouldn't it be better if we could legally get music for free? But then you would argue "Musicians will lose their jobs!" Untrue. The music we hear daily is simply a form of advertising, whether it's on the Radio, TV or your stereo, it's all ads. Why? Because there's a bigger picture in mind. The concerts. It is known that musicians make more money off live concerts than from cd's.

I think we'd all agree that music is art. But when a musician wants to make money off of art, it's business. Any entrepreneur, when first starting a business, works their ass off and invests a lot of time and money to eventually make money. This is the same in the music industry. The artist writes music, records it and then distributes it and in the end attracts many fans (customers) to their concerts. You may not agree with me because the RIAA wants you to think differently. Why? Because the bulk of the money you pay to buy a CD, goes into the pockets of the cash whores at the RIAA.

So complain all you want about people in the music industry losing their jobs. It's all a lie. The loss of revenue in the music industry is due to a slow economy, bad music and people who just don't give a shit about music anymore. Why bother? Buying music just fuels more teeny boppers who lack talent. One Britney Spears is successful, the next year we'll see 10 copies.

People can only afford to consume so much music. With such a large selection of music now, artists will start selling less and less as there are more alternatives to choose from. More music means less sales for an individual.

Downloading music is illegal, we know that. And we're sick of hearing it over and over. Our opinions will never change. The laws will change however. And that's what we are here for, to fight for our rights. If that means stealing some MP3's, then so be it.

It's time for a change. Go download SoulSeek and Kazaa Lite and start stealing!

As I've pointed out before, and have others, you can't own an idea. Once you let an idea out into the public, it's there forever for anyone else to grab onto. Ideas spawn other ideas and so forth. Attempting to set ridiculous limits on ideas only stiffles creativity, not help it.

Current copyright does that. I like the original term. It ensured things would enter public domain quickly, but the creator profitted from it if that was their intent. Everyone fairly made out. Though if I had a choice between no copyright and current copyright, I'd go with no copyright.

SadieT: Were your last comments directed at me? If so,

1) I have only ever logged on here as IFeelFree. Apparently there are others at this site who are stating positions in agreement with mine. (Surely you don't think I'm the only one here who opposes the current copyright laws?)

2) I believe I am on topic. I've simply generalized the argument to include all content which can be copyrighted. Prosecuting music file-sharers is wrong and, in general, the copyright laws are draconian.

IFeelFree,

It is difficult to read what you say because you do not have concise points. Please make them more clear. If you want to refute something I say I do not have a problem with that, but have a clear point and back it up with evidence.

musicfreedom,

You're right, artists make most of their money from concerts. Various artists have publicly said (usually against their labels' wishes) that they like the MP3 download craze. This is because the loss of CD sales does not hurt them much; in fact, a lot of the time it means more people will come to their shows. They get only pennies per CD sold (not a dollar!), and these sales act more as a pension plan for them since CD sales would continue after they decide to stop touring. Musicians will not lose their jobs over this.

The people who do lose money are those who discovered, raised, and supported these artists. Without substantial financial backing it is very difficult to get off the ground in the music business on your own.

Why have artists in the past been cornered into signing unfavorable contracts? Artists sign these unfair contracts that give the rights to all their songs to one of the big labels because the artists cannot afford studio time and expensive equipment, and they need the label to make their album available. So of course investors (the labels) are going to expect a return, some of which is CD sales, on their investment.

Using the internet, artists are able to make their music more widely available for free; thus, some musicians can now afford to make it alone.

Since the independent artists have made it on their own, they deserve all the money that comes from CD sales and merchandise. But artists who have contracts with major record labels must 'give back' some of their earnings because other people invested in them. The investors have the right to a return on their investment.

If we have not yet dug deep enough, refute that.

SadieT, as you say, "Using the internet, artists are able to make their music more widely available for free; thus, some musicians can now afford to make it alone." There is a shift going on in the music business. In the past, large corporations "discovered, raised, ...supported" and exploited artists, mainly to the benefit of the recording industry. Now, some artists are becoming known via the internet and word of mouth, or they're signing with small independent labels instead of the major ones. Recording your own CD isn't extraordinarily expensive (I have friends who've done it) but promotion is where the big labels have had an edge. However, with the internet it is now possible for an artist to reach a wide audience and develop a large following without the promotional machinery of the music industry. Certainly, the artists who have signed contracts are legally obligated to abide by them. They're stuck in the old system along with it's benefits and drawbacks. But the writing is on the wall: the music industry, as we know it, is dying. Peer-to-peer file-sharing is one of the things making that happen.

Isn't that what I said in the last two paragraphs of my last post? Oh well, at least we agree on something.

But it is still an obvious point. I only referenced the changes in the industry to point out where profits are due. Independent artists do not put all of their songs for free on the web, though (duh). And if you download the songs that are not provided freely by an independent artist, then you are stealing (unless you already own the CD, again duh) from him or her. With respect to artists signed by big labels it's the same, except you're stealing more from the label than you are from the artist.

I am not trying to say that these labels are not greedy SOB's, or that the RIAA's style of stopping music pirates is commendable (although it will probably be pretty effective if they get these lawsuits rolling), I'm just saying that stealing is stealing and it does not matter who you are stealing from.

If you still do not think it is stealing and you are going to try to refute that, reread the second paragraph of this post until it makes sense. We can all agree to hate the big 5 and the RIAA, no worries =)

Oh, also- I am not telling you all not to steal. I only began posting in here because of the news item and its implications. If you want to steal because of a moral stanse you hold against the RIAA and/or the labels then more power to you! Just be aware that it is against the law.

I found an article that breaks down where the money goes from CDs sold, thought you all might like a read if you haven't seen this analyzed before: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/60991p-57008c.html

"For what their buddies in Congress want to do, like say, this senator from Utah wants to develop this software to destroy a persons computer. Which that alone is a felony."

Yeah it may be illegal, but the US Government bends laws for those who give them lots of money. So now media companies can legally hack users of Kazaa? Well most Kazza users are not American, so if these companies decide to hack over borders, they can be charged with those felonies.

They will not pass legislation to allow the government to damage a pirates computer. Everyone knows that guy is an idiot for having said that.

Msoper,

I do not know why you are telling me you can't find a bunch of albums. Go and download them, I don't care. It's against the law and if you want to risk getting sued I won't stop ya. By the way, at 31 you would think you'd learn to spell ridiculous. Ah well, you're probably 13 and it was just a typo right? You sound a lot like the other rants in here directed at me, but I won't make any more accusations about your lack of credibility

(Snicker)

“Use the same name so we know you are the same person. By continuing to register new identities you are not further backing your argument.”

(Guffaw, snicker, snort)

(Woo haaaa-haaaa: “Use the same name so we know you are the same person. By continuing to register new identities you are not further backing your argument.”)

Sad: The ****Talking Points**** have been revised.

****DON’T MENTION****
The way hundreds of poor innocents will be put out of work by the loss of jobs due to “Pirating” (keep using “Pirating” – we almost have people believing it.)

BUT, the “loss of jobs” it seems some pirate figured out that if you subtract the 80 – 90% we skim as profits ****ahem, expenses**** it would reduce the selling price of a CD to between $1.49 and $2.99 (with all the additional sales and jobs that would produce) if only we didn’t have such high ****cough, expenses, ahem**** %@^##*!! Pirates!

So, cross any reference to lost jobs off your talking point list.

And keep up the good work (“Use the same name so we know you are the same person. By continuing to register new identities you are not further backing your argument.” – LUV IT.)

Sincerely: Scumbucket McGreedy.

justed,

Don't know what you try say there. Hard read broken sentences.

MSoper you can email me at Urgullible@apple.com

Wait;

so you're advising us to not share?

I'll block the right IPs, but killing my shared folder, not gonna happen.

You know I have no problem paying for music and supporting the arists, I usually just download remixes, bootlegs, one-hit-wonders shit like that. Stuff I like I buy because I want it to go on. But your average CD is $17-20, forget about a two disc set, I recently bought Pink Floyd - The Wall for $29.99, and that was at Best Buy, they're cheaper than most. Take your average DVD, it's $10-15, don't care if its new, old, one disc, two disc. My thing is, instead of spending all this money lobbying, sueing, all this BS, why not just lower the price of CD's? I'd buy tons if they were cheaper, like $5-7, since we all know it only costs 50 cents to buy a blank CD and copy it. I mean DVD prices aren't jacked way up there, why are CD's, I'm sure it costs just as much if not more to produce movies, so whats up with the jacked up prices and the suein shit?? An origanization that has hundreds of millions of dollars to sue company and individaul for sharing music was never hurtin too bad in the first place. If they think they're hurtin they need to do my job for $30,000 a year and then tell me they ain't making enough $$. I myself am a collector I want the original copy of music, and movies, just dont want to pay out the ass for it.


Holla if ya hear me

Oh yeah, but until this BS is over I ain't buyin another CD, and if I read in the papers about peoples lives being fucked up and innocent working class people being sued you can best bet I'll never buy another CD again. Hope someone from the RIAA is reading.

JON AND THE REST, PLEASE READ!

All P2Ps should have a pop-up which advises that RIAA,MPAA, and list all the bot companies, are specifically banned and not authorized to access the network, or the computers of any users of the network, due to their history of intimidation and harassment of other users, which is a violation of terms of service in most online services.
Specifically, if the RIAA or the bots enter after seeing this, they are in violation of federal criminal law, specifically:
USC TITLE 18,Part 1, Chapter 121, Sec. 2701, to wit :
"Section 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications

(a) Offense. - Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
section whoever -
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility
through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that
facility;
and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a
wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage
in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of
this section.
(b) Punishment. - The punishment for an offense under subsection
(a) of this section is -
(1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial
advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial
gain -
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
one year, or both, in the case of a first offense under this
subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
two years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this
subparagraph; and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
six months, or both, in any other case.
(c) Exceptions. - Subsection (a) of this section does not apply
with respect to conduct authorized -
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic
communications service;
(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication
of or intended for that user; or
(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title."

If they violate this, they lose their presumption of "clean hands unde the law" which affects their standing in any court case!
BOYCOTT THE BASTARDS! BAN THE BASTARDs!