"I'm involved in this because I'm a parent. I don't want to make criminals out of kids. I'd like them to have a better sense of right and wrong."

So says senator Norm Coleman, referring to the RIAA nail 'em all campaign which, he says, is heavy-handed and could ensnare "the little guy."

At the end of the month the Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of which Coleman is the chair, will start hearings on the RIAA's subpoena war against file sharers.

Coleman was being quoted in USA TODAY here when he stressed that his concerns about the RIAA's campaign include:

• That innocent people who are sued will be cowed into settling with the RIAA, fearing they don't have the power to fight.
• That the RIAA's solution — "clubbing a few people over the head," in Coleman's words — won't work.
• That the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act gives the RIAA too broad a power to obtain subpoenas to track and sue people who download songs (no judge's signature is required for this subpoena).
• That the legal penalties — $750 to $150,000 for each song pirated — are excessive.

Coleman,
AMEN!

forty nine more to go

BOYCOTT. EDUCATE. REGISTER. VOTE.
ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

Go Coleman Go!

Normally politicians get up in arms whenever children are being abused; isn't it curious how SILENT our congressional representatives have been on this issue? Even Senator Norm Coleman seems rather subdued on this issue, although he at least is making an effort to address this problem.

Where are the after hours speeches on the House floor? Where are the fiery statements to the media condemning this persecution of children? It is scary to watch the RIAA steamroll over 12 year olds and brazenly say IN PUBLIC that they don't mind suing these kids at all, and also to see almost nobody in our government do anything about it. Truly amazing and frightening, and further proof of the power of the dollar over the power of the people.

I don't see how this is abusing children. Is it wrong for a store to nab a kid stealing cd's? Is it wrong for the police to punish vandals who destroy property? While you may not agree with my analogies, the principle remains the same: Break the law - get punished. That is why you don't see after hours speeches on the House floor. Because copyright infringement is still illegal.

Don't buy RIAA products. And don't infringe on their copyrights either. Someday you might own a copyright. I hope people respect it like they should.

"I've had more comments on the street on this issue than I've had on the war in Iraq in the last week," Senator Coleman said...
Power To The People!!!!!!!!!
GO

Coleman rocks! I will use the money I saved boycotting the RIAA to buy him a fruit basket.

1 down, 49 to go...

The RIAA will soon learn the meaning of "The customer is ALWAYS right."

Fantastic!
That's pretty much all I have to say. At last, honesty, accountability, responsibility, someone standing up for consumers- coming from a politician.

It's up to us to remind our lawmakers that the RIAA is out of control and must be stopped.

DOWN with the RIAA!

:-:~ PhantomGhost ~:-:

mroop- just because something is TECHNICALLY illegal doesn't make it wrong. It's ok to copy Tv show's and movies onto a VCR. Copy magizene articles on copy machines at the library (even in schools), and tape songs off the radio. The industry is telling our kids it's ok to copy copywrighted material unless it seems to cut into the bottom line. then they twist arms and give money to get laws passed that make it technically illegal.and scream about thievery and injustice. Hopeing that a law bidding society will go their way. Not this time. Remember it used to be Illegal for African Americans to eat in a whites only diner but thanks to a group of activists who just didn't tote the Technically legal line of the law dominated by special intrests (in this case white males) those laws were changed.

Hopefully Coleman actually does something about the situation instead of just talking about it like Senators usually do.

For anyone who didn't read the article, I quote:

Coleman said he will also look at file-sharing services like Kazaa, a company that he said is "predicated on illegal trading."

I hope Coleman nails the RIAA and the scumbags at Kazaa.

Coleman is only peeping up so he can get OUR vote...

He really is just a politician after all...

yes, we may need to reward him (unless the competiton for his seat does an even better job of reflecting the people's wishes.)

Coleman has my endorsement (for the moment... but I don't trust him yet! Let's see what else happens.)

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy

Don't put your faith in anyone else other than yourself.

YOU have to win this fight...

NOT Norm Coleman,
NOT CodeWarrior,
NOT Jesus Christ himself!

This is YOUR fight

(and mine!)

...We, The People! (remember?)

NO HEROS, NO SUPERMEN!

...who then?

WE!

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

It might be a dirty job, but...

Stealing a cd in the store isnt the same as copying a a file. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS MROOP???

If I could take this new "copying machine", walk into a record store, and magicly make a physical copy of the item, walk out, then they arent missing a product are they??

What if I could use this magical machine, walk into a car dealer lot, copy a brand new car, and drive away, is this classed as stealing? OMG...

With this machine i can copy anything, I can copy a few hundred dollar bills and go buy anything I want, wheeeeeeeeeeeee life isnt that easy to make such inventions unfortunatly... :/

BUT... This does apply in the digital world. Files can be converted to any type of format you wish, compressed or not, whoever ripped it off the original CD still has their cd unfortunatly, it didnt dissipear from them. They still posses it. Oh my, isnt that amazing???

Spikester:

Maybe you didn't read the rest of my post where I said:

"While you may not agree with my analogies, the principle remains the same: Break the law - get punished."

I am quite poor myself, very low income, but I want to ask one question for MROOP here....

If I had no intentions on buying a $30 dollar piece of plastic in the first place when I can barely afford to get my next meal, is it actually going to cost the record company any money if I download their songs??? HELL NO!!!!!

I never said that every download equals a lost sale. In fact, I disagree with this argument, I think it is BS.

Btw, the average cd costs about around 13 dollars unless you are buying it in a mall or some ripoff place like that, not 30 dollars. Even the mall charges 18-19, not 30.

Don't forget - there are a lot of us file sharers out there!! Keep spreading the word - Keep the boycott going - seeif you can get some of those stoned college kids to do something more then sit on this board and rant and rave about f - this and f-that. Those kids - kids in general are the big spenders and supporters of the RIAA crap - TEACH THEM BETTER - MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND - that it is worth not getting that CD or two to help bring down the "Rights" stealing conglomerates who are screwing a whole nation for the pusuite of the almight buck!! TEACH THEM - MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND - that if they don't stop being pasive - latter they will have squat!! And then be indignent that us "old" people let it happen. Down with the RIAA and vote out every incumbant you can seeing as they do not want to represent us as we wish to be represented. KEEP UP THE LETTERS - to newspapers, mags, TV producers, Congressmen - WHOEVER!!! LET THEM HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THESE INJUSTICES PLAGUING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!! VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!

mroop calm on down - you guys are talking symantics - yes on one plane file sharing is stealing and you can get busted - but yet again it is one of those victimless crimes that just judging by the sure numbers of people doing it must bring to mind its usefulness and meaning. Easy boys were all on the same team.

MROOP just because something is a law does not make it wrong! its time to change the laws, 60 million americans can NOT be wrong!

To Mr. Coleman:

Thank you sir, for recognizing our issues with the Recording Industry. Even if you do not agree with all of our opinions, I do appreciate that you are interested in our struggle and consider that some of what the RIAA is doing in its current campaign might be wrong.

We appreciate you looking into the RIAA's tactics in this latest campaign and hope that you will encourage others to begin asking questions as well.

Thank you for startng hearings on the recent lawsuits, we are grateful for your help.

- Jolly Roger (Assumed screen name only)

mroop said:
_________________________________________
I don't see how this is abusing children. Is it wrong for a store to nab a kid stealing cd's?
_________________________________________

I have issue with is the law itself, which was bought for and paid for by the RIAA. Since when do people hear of children who are accused of stealing having to pay $750 to $150,000 fine, per song? Usually the punishment fits the crime of the individual. Most children who are caught shoplifting are either made to pay restitution to the facility which they've stolen from, or do community service.
This has happened in my community, anyway, where I've had to work with those who've been sentenced to serve community service at a former job I held as a librarian.
How is bankrupting individuals going to regain the RIAA what they lost?

And as for "Break the law - get punished" that's so not true. There are many people in the United States legal system who are innocent of crimes that get punished. Yet, there are rich executives at ENRON who've committed crimes much more horrendous than these so-called copyright infringers. They've stolen people's money, they've bankrupted the 401K accounts of their employees, and devalued the stocks of their investors, but not one of them is paying fines or sitting in jail cells. Why? Because they've paid senators and representatives in congress to protect them. The RIAA has done the same.

I'm highly cynical of the way that the American government and legal system is progressing. No longer is it about representation for the masses. I guess, maybe, it has never been about that. America's becoming a pure aristocracy.

It's not about good or bad, it's about what social or economic bracket you belong to. It's not about right or wrong, it's about how much money you have. The little guy gets punished because he just doesn't have the money to get out of the "crimes" that the rich do.

Um...and forgot to say. Go Coleman!

I really hate to re-post from another thread, but...

The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling's conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."

"The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone."

Exactly. Thank you for backing me up.

"Yet, there are rich executives at ENRON who've committed crimes much more horrendous than these so-called copyright infringers."

Good point. Enron scumbags first. Get to copyright infringers later.

In response to MrOop and Spikester:

MrOop is correct when he states that the Senate, House of Representatives, and probably the Judicial Branch as well, are not looking too closely at this issue yet.

They have no reason to, because first of all, no case has made it to court yet and if it does, they would have to see how some of that plays out in court. They are not going to enter into it if they think that the person being accused is possibly guilty of a crime.

MrOop sometimes comes off a little "cold" in his response...but as i have recently been "educated", he usually has a point and is reasonably well spoken when he makes it. If you are guilty of copyright infringment, then you should not look for support from the government in protection of your "right to commit a crime". - You really dont have one.

As for the comments that Spikester made, I can relate to your struggle and plight Spikester, I am sorry that times are tough for you, for all of us.

However, I dont know that you can justify making a copy of something as not being theft. Many of the people involved in making a CD have no real "physical" product to show for it when the CD is completed. - The artists being one of them. Your arguement is based on the physical medium which the songs are contained on. That medium costs approximately $0.38 to create. (Plastic materials, CD Press, CD Case, Cover Art insert)

What you are not taking into account are the cost of renting a studio to make the songs in, the countless hours the artists have spent on practicing, writing, perfecting the songs, the costs of promotion, hiring of lawyers to obtain copyrights for the songs, the RIAA's contract obligations and the obligations of the artists to them. (the part we really dont like)

There are probably more expenses, but I just dont know them. Either way, we as a collective culture have been avoiding a small but important issue here for a long time. While we may not agree with the RIAA and the fact that it is ripping off the artists, we also are not paying (in some instances) for the music we are obtaining. That hurts the artists and many others which are not even involved with the RIAA.

I would be in support (as i have said before) of a billing method which places the bill, for a music downloading service, on the monthly bill from your ISP. It should be reasonable, maybe a "flat-rate" fee. As much as you care to download for maybe $40.00 a month or something like that. If you sign up for such a service, you may use any method for downloading and download any type of song you wish, you would have immunity from any lawsuits PERIOD. The majority of the monies from this service would go to ARTISTS, with only a minor portion going to the RIAA.

This would be a reasonable choice and solution to this whole issue. If only the music industry would consider it.

- Jolly Roger.

"Since when do people hear of children who are accused of stealing having to pay $750 to $150,000 fine, per song?"

Agreed 150K is crazy. 750 sounds fair to me. The object of the law is not just to compensate the victim, but to deter future violations, so the fine must be high enough to deter future violators.

Meryl -- There is no way that Brianna could have been given the $150,000 fine per song. She was a 12-year-old, unaware that she was doing anything wrong.

It was not willful infringement.

Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 (H.R. 3456). The law increased the minimum statutory damages for infringements from $500 to $750 and increased the maximum from $20,000 to $30,000. The maximum for willful infringement increased from $100,000 to $150,000.

True MrOop, the fines seem a little exhorbriant, I would be more in support of a lower fine and possibly some community service, or maybe even a mild probation period, or how about some education for those that are found guilty?...how about educating them on copyright law and how the law protects original works and artists?...perhaps they could do some of that during thier community service?

- Jolly Roger.

Well, probation and community service are typically applied for criminal violations and this is civil law so it's not really applicable. Education is always good.

Would anyone here be able to find information on copyright law, and the other laws which we are talking about all the time?....

DMCA
copyright law
patent law (if applicable)
privacy law
bill of rights
Constitution of USA

perhaps the owners of the site could put these up in a special area so that those that are not "up on law" could go read up about it?

as they say, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

they also say that the more you know, the better you can defend yourself.

but i personally would just like to see those laws offered because it could eliminate some of the long discussions - "educations"

- Jolly Roger.

- Knowledge is Power!

This appears to be the DMCA:

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html

This is the copyright law. Keep in mind that this law has been interpreted by many court decisions. So you can't just read it and assume it means what you think it means. Statutory law is fleshed out and interpreted by court decisions. But anyway:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

This board added a "" to the DMCA link, so you have to remove that to get the link to work.

Mroop - you're talking legality. we're talking right and wrong.

I think we've already established the copyright law needs to be rewritten. Go back into the archives and read some of the older topics, mroop.

You're right gd. It wasn't willful infringment on Brianna's part. I'm just curious why the RIAA forced Brianna to pay anything at all. And I wonder how they decided upon the settlement. $2,000 is no small amount, especially for a single mother on government assitance.

I realize that the RIAA made announcements in the media about copyright infringment, however, not everyone keeps up with current events. And considering that Brianna's family paid Kazaa's service, they probably believed they were paying for the music they were downloading.

In Brianna's case, the RIAA could have given this 12-year-old a slap on the wrist by having her delete the RIAA-owned songs on her computer.

As to the fines themselves, like Senator Brownback said, I just feel they're too excessive. I know that Conyers wants to raise the fines to $250,000 per song. These fines are not about just enriching the RIAA. I read some place that the U.S. government stands to benefit from these fines. Some of proceeds from the fines are supposed to go to the Department of Justice, supposedly.

"Mroop - you're talking legality. we're talking right and wrong."

No, I am talking right and wrong. I believe that if I create a work of intellectual property then I have the right to do with it as I choose. You don't have the right to give it out to whoever you want on a p2p because you think you are doing me a favor. If you want to share my work with others, then I think you should ask me first. If you give it away without my permission then I think that is wrong. I created it and it is my decision what to do with it, not your decision. That is my opinion. The law backs me up on this opinion.

Then place a guard at every library that has copy machines and homes with VCR's. you've just labled virually every american as a criminal

Thank you MrOop for the useful links...i will read up on some of this stuff.

To those that are giving MrOop a hard time over the links...Please give him a break. I requested the information and am glad he took the time to get it for me.

To MerylStryfe, i believe the RIAA had a logical plan when they sued her. I think they figured that since she was a minor, it would send a message to the world that they would pursue anyone at any age for copyright infringment, this is evident even more because she is a child from a low-income family. I believe they came to a settlement of $2000.00 because she had over 1000 songs on her hard drive being offered, they calculate the cost of an average CD which is just over a buck per song, then add damages and other fees and you get roughly $2.00 per song, or $2000.00 for her 1000 songs.

Either way, I am sure we havent seen the end of the settlements or the amounts that they charge for them. that is something that will probably be negotiated over in each individual case. It really isnt relevant in most cases. The important thing is that we have Mr. Coleman opening hearings on the damage awards in general. Perhaps he will find something that can reduce the costs.

As for paying for Kazaa's service, you really arent paying Kazaa any money for thier "service" or "the right" to download music. You are paying Kazaa for the software they made. They promote it as freeware, but ask that you support them in the perfection of that "freeware" by purchasing a copy of it. - No service is implied.

- Jolly Roger.

"Then place a guard at every library that has copy machines and homes with VCR's. you've just labled virually every american as a criminal"

As I have said before, for me it is a matter of degree. Make a copy for your friend, OK. Go on a p2p and give copies to 100,000 of your "friends", that is over the line. In my humble opinion.

Compmore:

Hey man, lighten up just a bit, we are all friends here arent we? we are just having a little open debate on an interesting topic. no need to be defensive.

You are right Compmore in the fact that most people make copies of things. this is granted under the current "fair use law". However, that is in regards to something that a user has Permission to do.

You have permission automatically granted under the fair use law to make a copy of the work for backup, use on another machine or other location as long as it is not being used in the original location at the same time...etc.

Libraries have agreements and have paid fees for use of books and other media from the artists and publishers of that media. Those fees are paid for out of our tax dollars.

This does not however, justify someone buying a CD, converting the tracks on the CD into another format and then offering free copies of those tracks to others on the internet.

This is the main issue that i think we are all dancing around here. There should be compensation for the artists. The issue i think we are all so mad at is that the RIAA has been ripping those artists off, trying to rip us off on the prices for the CDs and in general, trying to stifle online music in any way they can.

Most people would be willing to pay for the music they are downloading, if the fees are reasonable and the billing structure easy to understand.

Most people would like to see the artists compensated, with more of the profit reaching thier hands than the RIAA.

We arent talking about a lot of money here...but artists deserve to be compensated for thier works.

- Jolly Roger.

Who's defensive. I'm just making a point. If it's wong one way then it's wrong in every way. the only reason the DCMA passed is because of big money which I think has already been established.

Be honest, would most of you go to work at your jobs every day if you were not going to get paid for it?

Would you report to do your job if you were told that instead of getting the amount of money you agreed to be paid for doing it, you were suddenly going to get only a 3rd of that?

How can you expect an artist then to not be paid for his work? How can you expect him to keep working doing this job if he cant recieve any payment for it?

come on people, be reasonable. We are not going to win this fight simply on the grounds that you think you are entitled to free music. If the RIAA is going to be beaten at this, you can expect the government to adopt some sort of legislation governing the use of P2P...that will probably mean some sort of fee.

We should all be prepared for that, we should expect it, and really, shouldnt we be approving of that? The only question I have is, can we help to shape how that new system will work?

I would like to see some discussion on that topic. "Shapeing how P2P and Online Music will be paid for".

- Jolly Roger

mroop - you are making a lot of noise here, but you are nowhere in the comments for the news item posted right before this one, so maybe you missed it:
Upstart Labels See File Sharing as Ally, Not Foe / link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/business/media/22INDY.html?ex=1064808000&en=204e91359639a63b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
[posted as a news item here: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/8107 ]

quote:

"Even as the major labels of the music industry pursue file traders for copyright infringement through lawsuits and the court of public opinion, Vagrant and many other independent label owners cheer them on," says Nelson. "File sharing, these owners say, helps their small companies compete against conglomerates with deeper pockets for advertising and greater access to radio programmers."

How can that be?

"Our music, by and large, when kids listen to it, they share it with their friends," he quotes Egan as saying. "Then they go buy the record; they take ownership of it."

endquote

Since the voices of the indies are now getting heard (including, for example Janis Ian...) in support of file sharing, perhaps compmore's segregation analogy is more apt that mroop's shoplifting analogy?

Where does it fit in your worldview (mroop) if somebody downloads a song, likes it & goes and buys the CD? Or if somebody downloads a song, hates it, and deletes it?

Compmore:

You are right, the DMCA was a bad law. It took away a lot of our legal rights to shield us from privacy incursions. If you think that law is bad though, you should take a look at the Patriot Act. (but that is something for another discussion group)

Either way, I understand what you are saying, but the law is not so cut-n-dried. there are areas that can be inerpreted and it is malliable to a degree. It is good that it is that way though...or a lot of people in the world would have a much harder time.

I would submit that we need to look at the "fair use" laws and get more familiar with them.

- Jolly Roger.

Rexholmes: If Rich Egan wants to allow his music on file sharing services then god bless him. That is his right.

In response to your question, I will ask you a question: Where does it fit in your worldview if somebody downloads an entire album, likes it and decides not to buy it because he already has a 320K copy and that is good enough for him, so he spends his money on beer instead?

Jolly, yeah you're right about the RIAA using Brianna as an example.

I'm all for paying the artists. I'd be happy to pay for every song I get. put the RIAA doesn't pay the artists. they rip them off, not us

Mroop - Sorry to keep the rag going - Your argument that copyrights and creative protections need to be respected logically requires a set of assumptions that some people actively refute.

For example, that a scarcity model is acceptable when one of abundance is technically feasable (indeed, trivial). If you reject this, enforcing a scarcity model is criminal, even if it is your work.

For example, that creative works are not fully dependent upon a person's ability to learn from and benefit from past works. I majored in art - in one class we focused on the historical creation of the myth that artists are unique and their work is really all their own. If you get this, you're likely to do better work and understand that preventing others the possibility is a form of theft.

I tend to agree that from a practical standpoint, it's better to stay legal, but in the long term some of us want a world in which everyone is equally free to learn and create, and build on other ideas.

mroop - re: Rich Egan etc - the point is some find P2P increasing sales, which you don't appear to be addressing in your hang em all posts.

And:

I'd rather you answered my question with an answer.

I don't have any friends that do that. I'd have to hazard a guess that I don't find much wrong with that in the grander scheme: if he's sharing, then it'll help others get to hear it; if it is something he likes & is playing for his friends, maybe they'll buy it. The end result seems a good trade-off (for $10-19 for a CD) to me.

[Full disclosure: I don't use P2P anymore since AG got castrated, but I fall in close to those quoted in the above referenced article as a former prime mover at an indie label who saw sales rising due to file-sharing.]

Mroop, Jolly, et al.
You're right that distributing copies of someone's copyrighted music is a violation of the copyright law, as well as theoretically discouraging artists from creating new works (I don't buy this - but this is one of the primary reasons for the law historically).
The real question is the validity of those rights in the first place. The purpose of the copyright is to protect the artist. The problem comes in when the copyright law is used to control distribution and access. That is a specific violation of the law and potentially invalidates the copyright. At least one judge identified that issue last year during a previous court attack on file sharing. Interestingly enough, the judge threatened to persue that, but never did.
Notice, the RIAA is doing the suing, not the artists. The RIAA members are primarily record companies who produce and distribute the recordings. In the process, the artist essentially has to give up his rights to get his art (music) distributed. These companies then control who gets access to the artist's music through that distribution. Notice, that many of the large communication companies are associated with this group. Radio play equals distribution, and RIAA members (representing the artists who have had to turn over their rights) control what gets played.
The point is, the industry has violated the very essence and spirit of the copyright laws. They have subourned the courts (as well as legislative bodies) by misleading the public as to what the issues really are. They back it up by creating in essence a huge monopololistic organization that can not be fought.
Yes stealing is wrong. The question is, is it wrong to steal from a thief?
Folks, there is much more at stake here than downloading some tunes.

This whole discussion is a perfect example why the Copywright laws need to be revamped. I'm more interested in right and wrong then in technicalities.

It looks like almost everything that the users have said on this site about the campaign is coming true.

1)The RIAA supoenas drew fire and a wide spread backlash from consumers, universities and ISP's

2) The RIAA recieved even more negative plublicity by forcing a 12-year-old girl and her family, that live in public housing, to pay a debt of $2000.

3) The traffic from p2p is moving from larger sites, like Kazaa, to smaller ones.

4) Record sales are still dropping

5) Congress is starting to take a better look at the abuses of the DMCA.

Hmm...

Looks like this campaign was better for us than them.

Hail Mp3!!!

The main question I have (may be off topic but someone may know) is if this Brianna girls mother was living off of our tax dollars, why did this girl have a 30 dollar a month d/l service and probably (due to the amount of songs on her harddrive) a broadband or higher connection at 30-50 dollars a month. Something sounds kinda fishy and its been bugging me for awhile.

cadbo: You are so right when you say " Folks, there is much more at stake here than downloading some tunes."

Mroop and those here who have been co-opted by him (or are apologists for him) are missing the big picture, and that is: Who should have control over the distribution of artists' music? The artist, or large corporations? The Internet, the great equalizer of our time, can free the artist from the iron grip of the record companies that no longer serve any purpose.

This is what the fight is about: Will the artist be allowed to distribute to the masses, or will they remain under the control of faceless corporations?

There is also the MAJOR issue of the common person being able to communicate via software in private to another person without Big Brother or Big Corporation prying into that communication. There are those who would have you believe that we are not entitled to such privacy--I disagree, and the fight should continue on that front as well.

"I'm highly cynical of the way that the American government and legal system is progressing. No longer is it about representation for the masses. I guess, maybe, it has never been about that. America's becoming a pure aristocracy."


Well said.



"Then place a guard at every library that has copy machines and homes with VCR's. you've just "labled virually every american as a criminal"."


Unfortunatly the Patriot Act lables every American as not only a criminal, but a terrorist as well!

i agree with mroop but make the penalty fit the crime

like 10 dollars per song
if you have 1000 songs then you pay 10,000 dollars. and lower cd prices atleast 10 dollars a cd then i would buy it(not now because we are boycottin)

and that the artist get the money i spend on the cd

I doubt they'd ask for only 10 bucks a song... the RIAA, if they really want to bankrupt file sharers, should force them to pay retail price for CDs from all the songs they downloaded. Assume 1,000 songs on average shared, times 15 bucks per CD... 15,000 bucks vs only 2-3K to settle out of court...
Wouldn't that punishment fit the crime? To force the sharer to purchase the CDs? With all honesty, out of court settlements for the amount of only a couple bucks per song seems like a bargain.
Then again, two wrongs don't make a right. The boycott rolls on...

What you guys are missing is the 261 were hand picked, graded on their ability to fight they came out low.

I believe this is a ploy by the RIAa to push ACCOPS into our laps. They can then say "we sued, we won, still not having an impact". They can then push bundles of soft money to get congress to approve ACCOPS. Then this P2P thing becomes the domain of the FBI. 3 strikes and its a felony, and the RIAa doesent even have to spend a penny. It will be your tax dollars at work putting you in the pokey. Meantime Cary-sue can give himself a raise, heck maybe you would see him on MTV Cribs.

Mroop don't you have an RIAA ass to shine and kiss somewhere?

I guess MROOP or other such trolls have never copied a TV program on video? Yeah, right.

"cost of renting a studio to make the songs in"

Dictated by the label, paid for by the artist.

"the countless hours the artists have spent on practicing, writing, perfecting the songs"

Spent by the artists, not the labels.

"the costs of promotion"

Paid by the artists.

"hiring of lawyers to obtain copyrights for the songs"

You do not need a lawyer to register a copyright. If you know how to spell your own name, it takes five minutes.

"the RIAA's contract obligations"

The RIAA's only obligations are to the record labels, not the artists.

"the obligations of the artists to them."

The artists do not work for the RIAA, they work for the labels. They have no obligation to the RIAA.

Any damages won through litigation are NOT returned to the artists, as the artists do not control their work; the damages are kept by the cartel.

The lawsuits do nothing to remedy the lack of payment from the labels to the artists, they do nothing to promote creativity, they do not promote the useful arts and sciences.

Copyright laws were instituted to protect authors from the monopolistic power of the publishers -- See Statute of Ann, 1710.

Antitrust laws were created to protect the public from monopolies.

The DMCA serves neither the authors nor the public and only improves the status of the monopoly, that being the RIAA, the members of which, by its own admission, control 90% of the market for recorded music while representing a distinct minority of authors.

Date: September 22, 2003 @ 2:42 PM
"Since when do people hear of children who are accused of stealing having to pay $750 to $150,000 fine, per song?"

Agreed 150K is crazy. 750 sounds fair to me. The object of the law is not just to compensate the victim, but to deter future violations, so the fine must be high enough to deter future violators.

Mroop, You SIR on on some SERIOUS DRUGS!! Since when is $750 resonable?? That has to be one of the most assinine comments made. Heck why not go all the way to "DETER" as you say and do like Say the saudis do and cut off the offending limb. Come on now you can't say that drastic now can you have to make the fine HIGH ENOUGH to deter further trangresions right?

As has been stated the PHYSICAL propety isn't gone as in Store theft. while yes stealing in steraling uyou can't equate the two as the same the Store in having the CD taken is out the product and thus CANNOT seel said item. Yet while copying a song file may make this partuicual person not buy a CD (which is still in debate) they (the RIAA) STILL ahcve EVER SINGLE CD they ahd before the file was downloaded and can still sell them to other buyers. so its not the same NOT EVEN CLOSE NO DEBATE END OF SENTENCE PERIOD DON'T WANNA HEAR IT!! theres no argument there so save your breath.

Secondly as was said if your caught stealing (unless your a repete offender) you usually get off with a small fine or even in alot of cases just a warning. Yet first offense for the RIAA (WITHOUT A JUDGE OR JURY) results in 750 to 150,000 dolla r fine AND so far EVERY case I've heard the RIAA has asked for the MAXIMUM sentence to be impossed therby making it more so that the users settle for a few thousand dollars on items perobaly not worth a few hundred dollars.

I myself (in my stupid youth) snuck into a show and was caught. The officers were really nice took to the the office and we looked up the fine wich at the time was called "theft of services" $250 fine and six months in jail. Know what the4 judge gave me???? FIVE DOLLAR FINE!! or five days in jail I took the cash fine LOL.

But of corase had I ended up back before him I'm sure the niceness would have been nowhere to be seen and you'd have seen me in about six months. Point is first time offenders of (to me anyway) more serious crimes can get a better deal than what the RIAA is trying to do.

Another point to how this is making people stupid. My football team doesn't play on TV every weekend (just like most) so on a message board people ask for other to mail them VCR tapes of the games. Everyone has no problem with that, I then asked if maybe someone could simple convert it to AVI form as we could more esily tranfer the game with the hastle of mail cost and tiem etc. OH MY G*D you'd think I casked for peopl to commit murder or something. What seemd like no biggy to tape a game and mail it became a THEFT and reboradcast simply becaus eot was now in AVI format.

So how'd the SAME thing go from being ok in one format to illegal in another format?

ONE other point also is the LAW state such fines for those CONVICTED of copyright infringement.

NOT ONE of these case is a CRIMINAL CASE these are civil cases brought on by the RIAA not the police of other law enforcement agencies.

MROOP Please go here www.riaa.com I think they're calling you. The RIAA doesn't need any more help but I'm sure they'd just love you plase thke your hollier than thou attidtue where they will love you.

YOU SIR (and I use the term loosly) are no friend here. You just like to argue opposite sides, if I said it was day time you'd say it was night and have some fancy little document to tell me just why you are right and I am wrong. save it for someone who cares.

Date: September 22, 2003 @ 3:31 PM
"Then place a guard at every library that has copy machines and homes with VCR's. you've just labled virually every american as a criminal"

As I have said before, for me it is a matter of degree. Make a copy for your friend, OK. Go on a p2p and give copies to 100,000 of your "friends", that is over the line. In my humble opinion.

WHOS LINE??? YOUR??????? And who defines the line? And while we're at it WHERE in the copyright laws is the LINE defined and to how many people you can give this too?

In response to your question, I will ask you a question: Where does it fit in your worldview if somebody downloads an entire album, likes it and decides not to buy it because he already has a 320K copy and that is good enough for him, so he spends his money on beer instead?

So mister expert how many FULL CD files have you seen. When I was first told of Kazaa I went to look for songs of musicians OF WHICH I OWNED!! the LP (ya I'm that old) and rather than try and hook up to my computer and record scrathy records was told this would be easy I found NOT ONE ENTIRE ALBUM available to downlaod mainly the top fourty hit dsongs from these albums. while Im sure there are complete albums available NOT ALL ARE!! PERSIOD!!!

Now if I could learn to type and hit the proper keys I might sound just a tiny bit smarter (NOT alot but maybe a little) LOL...

I've noticed several people are saying "Make the punishment fit the crime."

Crime? So when did copying a song become a crime? It is only a violation of civil law, and only then when it is DISTRIBUTED by someone other than the authorized distributor of the copyrighted material. Let us not paint broad brush strokes here...the difference is not insignificant. The Kazaa user offering a file to share is at worst a civil offender, not criminal. The Kazaa user downloading this file is neither.

Some have brought up libraries, and this is a good point. How can libraries continue to exist with attitudes like this? A library near me used to loan out records (and probably still does, except in CD format these days). Is this not distributing music? And before you say, "Yes, but the person it is loaned to doesn't keep it" I want you to consider how this is any different from a downloader on Kazaa who listens to the music and then deletes it from his/her hard drive. Yes, the downloader could keep it on the hard drive, but the person getting the record or CD from the local library could take it home and copy it to another format, too.

Twelve-year old Suzie using Kazaa is not a criminal; neither should she be sued, in my opinion. We must reexamine copyright law and make it more fair and balanced, instead of allowing it to become a burden on society and a corporate tool of oppression.

If the truth was only considered untill you start hitting bitstreams above 128k the qality isn't as good as the original, close, but not quite.

There are always bad versions out there on the p2p networks. Clicks, beeps. It's really not as good as the original.

Erm

Slydder, you're not looking in the right places because at any given time there are thousands of full albums on almost any P2P.

If Senator Coleman gets the DMCA drastically revised and procts P2P users from the RIAA's wrath, then I will name my first born Norm. Even if it's a girl.

Shoot.. just call me Harriet Tubman, y'all. Only somebody with MONEY says that somebody else WITHOUT MONEY "stole" something!! What about all the stuff we "stole" from Africa? What about the labor of poor women that is "stolen" everyday to support our wal-mart buying habits. Don't dare preach to me that the legal definition of right or wrong is enough to jusify this garbage. Remember, folks, that Hitler was, in the beginning, "legal."

..and as it has been said.. if it is a crime, why aren't cops issuing search warrants? Arrests made? Grand juries? Prosecuting attorneys? Jury of one's peers. Judge? WHERE ARE THEY??

Mroop thinks $750 is fair for downloading one song.. Way to excessive.. will downloading one song hurt anybody? not at all... The Laws penalties are exactly like drug laws... If you're caught with a sizable amount of marijuana with intent to sell you go to prison for about 5 to 10 years..although i don't agree with marijuana, give me a break, the gov't is only pissed cause they can't tax it!! just like the RIAA is pissed because they can't collect everytime you listen to a damn song on your own computer!! so let's threaten them with a billion dollar lawsuit for downloading songs.. OOOH, i'm such a bad boy for downloading, society should lock my ass up.. i may be a threat to society!! I'm a hardened criminal in the downloading scene i guess...

Tds67: First of all, I take offense to your statement that I have been somehow Co-Opted by MrOop, or am an appologist for him simply because i agreed with something that he said.

I WILL NOT BE CO-OPTED BY ANYONE EVER!

that being said, I agree with your issue about privacy and the fact that this whole mess we are battling does have issues greater than music swapping online. Privacy is a great big one, perhaps the biggest one. The DMCA is a bad law that took away some of those rights to privacy, making it easier for someone to get a subpoena for your identity. - That needs to be fixed.

The Patriot Act goes even further in erroding away our rights and protections.

However, I dissagree with your other arguement in the fact that you make statements that would have us believe that the artists are somehow helpless in this whole thing. As if we have to "save them" from the RIAA. They have more money, even if the RIAA did screw them, and THEY DID!, than all of us would ever hope to have.

They could make a choice for themselves, it is not our place to try to "free" them somehow, they should have the courage to do it themselves.

Someone on a different post mentioned the other day that HANSON went independent just recently. I think that is great, but they did that themselves.

It comes down to this... If the artists choose to become independent, then that is thier choice. It cannot be force upon them and it is not fair to expect millions of people risk financial ruin trying to free them, even if it WERE possible to force them.

The internet WILL be the great equalizer, but the artists must choose to embrace it, we cannot force them to use this medium.

You can encourage someone to use the internet as a medium, by "voting with your pocket-book". If you purchase music from only independent artists that distribute over the internet and others follow your example, then you can influence "enslaved" musicians into possibly using it too.

- Jolly Roger

i whas going to post some thing about these to jokers Jolly-Roger mroop but i see the rest of you have made my points for me to them so on to norm cheers but i still don't trust him he has not yet let the public talk face to face and ask him the tuff ? till that day i will stay warrie

gdZiemann:

If you are going to quote me, please dont take it out of context.

I was trying to explain some of the "possible" costs involved in making music that are not always visible when you simply look at the end product. An earlier post mentioned that the costs were low because they were only looking at the physical medium...the CD and its packaging. I was trying to point out that there are other costs involved in making music.

I dont agree with the RIAA's bullying tactics towards us or musicians. I feel they are rapeing the public and the musicians!

Musicians get so very little of the monies collected by the music industry for the sales of music...i want to see more of the money going into the artists' hands.

i was primarily making a statement to another post-er that there is more involved in the costs of music than simply the artist and the RIAA and if i got some of this stuff wrong, well im not an expert, never claimed to be, please give me a break, at least i was trying to explain it to some that were further off-base than me!

- Jolly Roger.

koemoejoe and the others that complain and insult - "i whas going to post some thing about these to jokers Jolly-Roger mroop but i see the rest of you have made my points for me."

You know, maybe you should take a closer look at the real situation here. Im not saying anything that is unreasonable, you just dont want to hear it. I have always tried to help this post out, I believe in the cause. I dont like the RIAA AT ALL!!

I dont feel i should have to defend myself just because you dont like talking about the reality of our laws. I take very seriously the threat that these laws and organizations pose to us all!

Maybe you could pull back for just a minute and stop insulting me long enough to see that there are more things at stake here than simply getting music for free, or saving an artist from joining the RIAA, or the RIAA being defeated.

Perhaps if you looked at the laws, (which is what i was trying to encourage all of you to do), you could make an informed arguement. While you are at it, maybe some of you could look at a grammar book and then i could actually read your posts!

I have an even better idea! Instead of insulting me and whining about music not being free anymore, why dont write a bill for a new law concerning privacy or online rights? CodeWarrior did it, maybe you could too? Do you think you could write your congressman? Maybe you could organize a demonstration somewhere in your home town?

Everyone here talks and talks and says the same things, "oh, I hate the RIAA, oh, I wish music was free, Oh, why should we pay the recording industry, we should pay the artists, OH! WHO TOOK MY CHEESE!!!"

Why dont you get off your rear-end, stop whining about things you will not change, and get busy making some new laws?!

make some new software! -DO SOMETHING!

Dont sit here complaining because i hand you an answer that doesnt fit in with your "get my music for nothing" strategy.

If you dont like what is going on out there...then get up off your rear and do something to make a difference! Whining on this forum wont make any changes happen!

- Jolly Roger.

- Words without action are like a gun without bullets!

Again, I live in Minnesota (Coleman's state) so if anyone can help me find out when and where this hearing will take place that would be great.

Bladestorm:

Here is some info on what Coleman is doing, where and when. I hope this helps. Sorry for all of the "drama" earlier.

"Coleman said he planned to examine some of these issues in the hearings of the Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which he chairs." - USA Today

The Senate Subcommittee on Investigations is online at govt-aff.senate.gov/psi.htm.

Perhaps you could keep us all updated on what happens in those meetings if you find them.

- Jolly Roger.

jolly roger: coming to this site and learning from this site is a start. that is how you grow. the more you learn about thr riaa and their tactics, the more prepared you are. we are all learning from each other, so let's not disrepect each others opinions and stay focused that the riaa and boycotting them is the goal,every little step you take to that goal is progress. rome wasn't built in a day, neither is bringing down the riaa. changing the law the better suit the consumer, will be a start because their tactics that they are doing to us is totally unjust.

In 1982 I taped a copy of a friend's LP, what's the penalty for that? $150,000?!? I still have the tape, it still plays fine, TDK btw. My habit back then was to buy a new album then imedately copy it to tape to perserve the original. Once familar with the newly purchased LPs, mix tapes for my car stereo were made. How many mix tapes did I give away to hotties who liked 'em? I dunno, whats the penality for sharing those? $150,000 each hottie?!?
Im in this for my children also, my almost 5yr old daughter can hold chords on their small guitar and my almost 3yr old son can play drums as well as Lars. I dont want them to sign any contracts untill the average contract is fair and allows them to own the copyright to their work.
The trucking industry about killed the great Train industry, the movie industry really changed theatre, since buying a digital cam I havent touched film, the RIAA needs to evole in a manner that consumers can accept or die like a greedy dinosaur caught in its own ..."mess"
We need laws that make sence and it appears as if Sen. Coleman is trying for just that.
Im registed, I vote, I own a guitar and Im pissed

I was in complete shock that the RIAA is more or less suing children. We, the fans are the ones that got these artists where they are today. They did not get there by themselves. We pay their bills, buy their million dollar homes, several vehicles, and help plaster their names everywhere because we enjoy their music. I have personally bought well over 200 cds in the past 2 years alone & this is the thanks that I gets for helping them achieve their status in the music world. The RIAA is completely out of line. The artists who feel that they are being "ripped off", are probably being "ripped off" by innocent children. Besides that you have to screen every word on a cd before they listen to it. There is too much violence & sex in music anyway. I am trying to spare my children of horrific language & pornography on cds. I read the comments made by Sheryl Crow, 50 cent & others in PEOPLE magazine having a fit. Note that my family will NOT be purchasing anymore cds until these people can deflate their heads. So, is anyone up for a cd burning? They should be glad that anyone would even be willing buy their music after all of this.

We are just discussing legal semantics here..
I would follow mroops advice and cease and desist immediately downloading, purchasing any more Riaa "musical crack." It is simple, folks.. BOYCOTT. Then all this legal stuff becomes moot, does it not? Then register, get street teams, spread the issues, find the candidates, and VOTE! That addresses the future of this garbage legislation, does it not?

BOYCOTT. EDUCATE. REGISTER. VOTE.
ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

the minors have more rights and more money left if they killed someone.... the system as it stands sucks

how about creating a different forum, or putting the question of morality v. right or wrong in Dmusic?? just my OT post here.
As for Sen. Coleman.. I hope he's not just blowing smoke. He's not changed his tune since first asking the RIAA for definitions of who they are going to be going after, and how they are picking the "most egregious" offenders. I have to say that tho I'll be watching very closely, I see this as only a good thing, no matter which way it goes. He can only hurt the RIAA with the info he finds, and he can only HELP our cause if he uses it to defend the RIAA.
ttmmm