In an article from KOMO Tv news site, we read :
"Local Teen Singing The Blues After Being Sued For Downloading Music

November 17, 2003

By Joe Furia


Tools
Email This Story
Printer-friendly Version




SEATTLE - A crackdown by the music industry has one local family singing the blues. They're being sued because their 15-year-old daughter is accused of illegally downloading and sharing music over the Internet.

Megan Dickenson is in the middle of a controversy she doesn't understand. She's been downloading songs on the Internet -- a lot of songs. About 1,100 at her last count.

And the music industry's not happy. The Recording Industry Association of America is suing Megan and her parents because of all those songs.

When asked if she had any idea there was something wrong with what she was doing, Megan said, "No, not at all."

Megan's mother Becca doesn't know what to do.

"It's unfathomable, I can't believe this is happening to us."

The lawsuit is demanding the family either pay a $3,500 settlement, or fight the suit and go to court. If they lose, they could have to pay $750 per song.

Remember, Megan had 1,100 songs. That's $825,000.

"It's put us in a terrible spot," Becca Dickenson said. "There's enough to worry about with your day-to-day without having something like this happen and it really is just bigger than life."

The family's troubles started at a Web site called Kazaa. Megan downloaded Kazaa software and began downloading songs.

She's says there's nothing on the site or the software warning users they could be doing something illegal.

She also claims she didn't know the software allowed others to tap into her computer to get those songs. It's known as 'file sharing'.

In essence, Megan distributed music illegally -- a violation of federal law.

"It's not like they warned you or anything that it wasn't legal," she said.

Another person we met -- we'll call him John -- has been violating federal law too. He just hasn't been caught.

"I feel like kind of a sucker to pay money for something that I can get for free," he said.

John's music collection dwarfs Megan's: 5,297 songs. At $750 per song, he could face $3.5 million in penalties if he's caught.

He knows about Megan's troubles, but he's not worried.

"The odds are so slim that I would be caught that it seems kind of silly to actually worry about it that much," he said.

The RIAA has reportedly filed more than 260 lawsuits against music lovers who, they say, have been illegally sharing files across the country.

"When your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take action," said Association President Cary Sherman. "We cannot allow online piracy to continue destroying the livelihoods of artists, musicians, songwriters... everyone in the music industry."

However, some local bands say they didn't ask for and don't want protection from fans downloading their music.

"I'm all for file sharing," said Mark Arm, the lead singer for Mudhoney. "I think it's ridiculous that they're going after 80-year-old women and 15-year-old kids, no matter how many items they've downloaded."

The biggest artists may have the most to lose. File sharing takes money out of their pockets, because fans download the music rather than buy it.

Non-mainstream, more independent artists take a different view. File sharing gives them exposure they may not otherwise get.

Megan, meanwhile, doesn't understand all the legal issues or what's at stake. She's 15 -- all she knows is she downloaded some music, and never had any idea it could cause so much trouble.

"Yeah, it seems ridiculous," she said.

More than 50 of the 260 people originally sued by the RIAA have already settled. The Dickinsons' still haven't decided what they're going to do."

And, the RIAA is moving on to inflicting financial problems on more victims...maybe more young girls.

FULL STORY FOUND AT:
http://www.komotv.com/komo4kids/familynewsstory.asp?id=28363

~Code

Heres another song and dance from the RIAA's propaganda machine to instill fear where ever they are, sick monsters aren't they but I say if they want to kill off their lifeline to the very people that keep them in business so be it die like the dinosuars did.
I hope some good lawyer picks up the tab for them and takes it to court and ends up in history wishful thinking no?
BTW whats up with the site it's been acting up lately Hmmmmmm but it's fine now.

"When your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take action," said Association President Cary Sherman. "We cannot allow online piracy to continue destroying the livelihoods of artists, musicians, songwriters... everyone in the music industry."

This statement is so stupid Cary! The economy, the advent of the internet as a business model, your lack of responsivness to file sharing back in 2000, and the quality of your music all contribute to your downfall. The music industry will never recover, no with a distribution tool like the internet, the competition now is also your downfall.
Here's to a better future without the RIAA!

Sorry, but I don't believe a 15 year old can not realize that downloading copyrighted music is illegal without asking permission of the copyright holder. You have to buy it in the store but you can get it for free on the internet? Megan is afraid that her mom will kick her ass so she claims ignorance.

This is just sick. How can anybody who tries to justify this sort of.......extortion, look in the mirror in the morning and see a human being?

Mr. Sherman, you have shown no pity or mercy for people who have only done wrong in the eyes of liars. Look to a day when your lies and evil are seen for what they are, and expect no mercy from those you persecuted. You say it won't happen? What? You can't stop it happening.

It is inevitable.
(sorry 'bout the insanity, just getting pissed over here, not enough for the ultimatum, but still...)

"Megan is afraid that her mom will kick her ass so she claims ignorance."

Maybe she's just a 15-year-old who doesn't watch the news. Ignoring the RIAA shouldn't be a crime. Who elected them to be the Gods of Music in the first damn place? Much less the Music Police.

I don't think you would have to watch the news, or have any friends who know the deal with downloading. Maybe she just stumbled upon Kazaa by accident. I think it is just common sense to realize that if it costs money to buy music then it is not free on the internet. 15 year olds are not clueless. She had 1,100 songs - she was into it.

"Sorry, but I don't believe a 15 year old can not realize that downloading copyrighted music is illegal without asking permission of the copyright holder. You have to buy it in the store but you can get it for free on the internet?"
The internet is FULL of freeware and things that don't cost money. And, while we are at it, how is she to know everything...where's the good old innocent til proven guilty ethos?

The internet is FULL of freeware, and things that can be downloaded and accessed free. And, by the way, when you see songs on Kazaa, you rarely ever see a copyight notice, nor something saying..."It's illegal to download this song"....

I think you're being far too uncharitable to a 15 year old girl. Everyone isn't as brilliant as you are mroop.

Speculation about what another person knew or didn't know can be fraught with error, in "my humble opinion".

"where's the good old innocent til proven guilty ethos?"

She is innocent until proven guilty. I am just stating my opinion, my right as an American. I worked for a while in the Public Defender's office - the defendants are always innocent - that's what they tell you. : )

She knew what she was doing, and she got caught. Every person downloading music since 2001 knows coming out of the gate that there could be serious consequences. Supposed ignorance doesn't play here at all. I could have more charity if it was a grade schooler and/or nursery rhymes.

Bottom line is Mom & Dad aren't watching baby Dick & Jane's computer and behavior as closely as they should be.

Besides, the method that seems to be used to bust these folks is that they are supplying music by letting people have access to their libraries, not downloading it.

And now that I think about it, for all of these news stories I've read, I haven't seen one person getting sued say, "I knew what I was doing was against the law and I got caught." How strange. : )

Most people are not aware of the RIAA and the lawsuits they are inflicting upon the unsuspecting. The only reason I even know about it is because of this website and techtv. I have not once seen a news story on my local television station nor is it in our local papers. My friends are all adults and they are not even aware of what is going on. Megan is just another pawn in the RIAA's sick little extortion game. Talk about child molesters!

I am becoming so angry and disgusted I can hardly contain it...and not just with the RIAA...with every freakin' corporate entity that greedily does everything it can, right or wrong, to squeeze as much money as possible from every last consumer. How can the people running these huge corporations possible look at what they are doing and honestly say to themselves, "This is right. This is the right thing to do. This is the moral choice. I can live with it, I can live with myself and I can sleep at night."

What kind of inhuman monsters are these people?!?

(Gee, can you tell I'm po'd?)

mroop-you ever raise a teenager? Their cluelessness as to what is going on in the news can be astounding.

How is she innocent until proven guilty? First of all, she didn't get to prove anything about whether the songs she shared or downloaded were hers at all. How do I know? Because the RIAA used the DMCA to supeona her, that's how. They didn't even have to get a Judge to sign the order. Guilty without proof.

Secondly, the economics involved CLEARLY are in the RIAA's favor. It IS the same as extorting money. Pay us, the RIAA, $3,500 or you will LOSE in court and have to pay almost $1miilion. Again, Guilty without proof.

Additionally, touching again on the economics, she didn't STEAL the actual original music data. She merely copied an MP3 file that has 1/10th the information of the actual CD. The true value of what she downloaded was probably around $220.00 (estimate a CD at $20 with 10 tracks at 1/10th x 1100 tracks). Yet, she could be sued for $825,000. And she didn't even try to sell the MP3s to someone else for a profit!!! She was using them personally, on her parents PC.

Our fair use laws are completely ignored, as is the Home Audio Act of 1992. Yet, parents of 15 year old girls that DON'T know better are being extorted out of thousands of dollars. Who is the real criminal here?

Mroop32 is a moron, and should keep his trap shut.

mroop that has to be the most judgemental, uncaring, insensitive statement I've ever heard you make. and you've made a few

DAYUM, folks here sure are quick to judge. Personal attacks should not be allowed on this forum. there have been plenty comments made here that can taken as stupid, ignorant, etc.

Follks have the right to an opinion, but to make that into a personal attack on another person posting is plain WRONG! Geez, grow up folks, and stay focused on wht this site is "supposedly" about.

"mroop-you ever raise a teenager? Their cluelessness as to what is going on in the news can be astounding."

No I haven't and I agree with you about being clueless about the news. What I am talking about is info from her peer group. Someone told her about Kazaa, she had a ton of songs. If you know any high school teachers then ask them about what 15 year old kids with computers know about file sharing.

INeedALover - You're a funny guy. : ) You're bluster is only exceeded by your vast ignorance. You really need to increase your knowledge of the law because you sound like a total idiot. Instead of blathering on like a fool, spend some time and learn something. Know your enemy. : )

also for those of you who says that she knew what she was doing and it was illegal. many things in our past has been illegal but not imoral. I think we need to make a distinct difference here. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it JUST BECAUSE IT'S TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL DOSEN'T MAKE IT WRONG!!!!!

If everyone was a mindless zombie who totes the line cause some greedy corporations misuse the political and legislative process to support their own selfish needs then the Jim crow laws never would've been repealed, Proabition would still be on the books, the law that Mitch Glazier snuck through congress without their approval would still be on the books, and (GASP DARE I SAY IT) slavery would still be legal. Think with your hearts and common sense, not just from a rule book

few inabitions. you should look at the post on your side of the aruguments too before you go throwing stones

"mroop that has to be the most judgemental, uncaring, insensitive statement I've ever heard you make. and you've made a few"

I feel bad for the girl. I was a derelict youth and got caught stealing albums from Korvette's. So she'll have to work a summer job and pay off the debt. She'll survive.

the point is, she didn't steal

Doesent Kazaa automatically set itself up to share? Also anyone who has had a teen knows they like music and are not very aware of what else is going on. I feel that this is not the last teen or pre teen girl to get sued.

Thats ok boys what goes around. Next year a number of the riaa court cases finally come to trial.

Why is this site acting strange? Before I logged in the cursor and the register were alternately blinking.

Comp, I haven't taken to personal attacks or name calling - only in defesne of someone who has taken a specific swipe at myself.

As a parent of teenagers I find it inconcievable that we're told on one hand to monitor and check out everything they do, and on the other we're supposed to respect their privacy. Did you know that my 15 year old daughter could go down to the local health depatment if she wanted to and get a perscription for birth contol pills and the law says I don't have to be notified? It's the law. yet I have to stand over her shoulder and watch everything she does on a computer?

Now just my cursor is blinking alternately with the arrow and the hourglass.

I was talking about those who agree with you

but I have complete trust in my daughter. I don't have to watch over her shoulder

Trust, but verify!

Sorry to get off topic..but question for mroop...is mroop32 the same person as moop, and all the other similarly sounding names with different numbers?

Second question, if so..why so many different names?

"Trust, but verify!"

Good one. I see you are a student of the Cold War. : )

Code - because I can't log in to boycott-riaa for some reason. I have to register again every time I log out!

I don't want to stick up for the RIAA, but Kazaa does have disclaimers when you set it up that it does not support the copying of copyrighted works, but how many 15 year olds read a disclaimer, or anybody else for that matter, it's obvious she just kept pounding the "next" button when she set the software up and was oblivious to the screen that ststed "ALL FILES DOWNLOADED INTO THIS FOLDER WILL BE SHARED". My point, don't let her go to a judge and humiliate herself, settle. I hate to say it but if she talked to an attorny with that attitude they would chew the poor girl to pieces.

mroop alot of even adults don't know how to use a computer fully.. They buy it so their kids can do school work etc.. since not many now use a typewriter as some of us older folks had and used the library! They don't know how to set up their computers so that their stuff on it can't be shared! Not everyone knows everything about computers.. they learn with time! It's sad to see that because of it alot of children learn at great expense because some stupid Big Butted company chooses to go after kids!

I have a had a few problems logging in here in last few weeks as well.

"It's sad to see that because of it alot of children learn at great expense"

It is too bad. Unfortunately, the P2P's are not really interested in educating their users because that will negatively affect their numbers. And yes, I know it is not the job of the P2P's to educate their users, but it would be the responsible thing to do because it would go a long way to stopping the ignorance. Personally, I think that for the most part teenagers may not realize they are sharing, but they do know that they are downloading in violation of the law.

I guess you're just one of those people who totes the law reguardless how unjust and wrong it is. thank God there are others who are willing to stand up for what's right instead of meekly obeying. besides there's still a lot of gray area of the DMCA that hasn't been challenged yet (but will) in court so the only reason it's "legal" is because of that and because they've paid off politicians.

And don't think for a second that RIAA is interested in educating either. they're interested in $$$$$$$

don't feed the trolls. every one just needs to ignore mroop and he'll go away. all he wants is attention and he gets alot of it from being such a giant idiot. (i dont care how much legal knowledge you have either, there is a difference between right and legal, your stance that what is legal is right and what is illegal is wrong is the rationale of a 3 yearold that is worried about getting to sent to his room for not listening to mommy, grow up)

"I guess you're just one of those people who totes the law reguardless how unjust and wrong it is."

You guessed wrong. I have stated numerous times that I believe the DMCA subpoena provision is wrong. However, I also believe that copyright holders have the right, legally and morally, to enforce their copyrights. If you steal the cable TV and you get sued then too bad. If you download songs in violation of Title 17 and you get sued then too bad. Don't take what doesn't belong to you - simple as that.

"The World's Not Fair!" Nope, it isn't, never has been, never will be.

"I didn't know." "No one told me." Blah blah blah..."

Ignorance is and always will be an excuse. It is lame at best. If you can't take the time to read information put in front of your face, no matter how boring or unimportant it may seem, then don't cry foul later when you get pinched for being unaware. Would you give a kid a gun and not show them how to use it and of its ramifications? A car?

Why should a computer be considered any different when it is more than obvious in this day and age that they can become a very dangerous weapon. A weapon that isn't always controlled by who owns it or is in the drivers seat!

then my point is made. thank you for verifying that.

Darkened you are 100% right. most of the time I do ignore his babbling but once in a while he says something so idiotic I have to respond. I'll hold myself now and not say another word. thanks

"there is a difference between right and legal"

No duh, buddy. Maybe you are one of those people who think people don't have the right to protect their their copyrights. I am not one of those people. I think copyright holders have the right to choose what is done with their work.

I'm glad to see that FewInhibitions is making some sense. There are many posters here who are so consumed with their hatred of the RIAA that they can't see the forest for the trees and start babbling about slavery - it is really funny!

"your stance that what is legal is right and what is illegal is wrong"

Hey toad - that is not my stance. I see that either your comprehension skills are very low or you have chosen to willfully mischaracterize my views in a lame attempt to discredit me. Nice try, but you lose. : )

fewinhibitions I've been reading this site for awhile and I have to say something here. I'm not for violating peoples copyrights. they have a right to protect them but I notice you were quick to jump on those who disagree with mroop as name calling but have totally ignored his his degrading talk

mroop. you are an idiot, not because of your position, it is a valid one. You are intentionally (and you can deny it but your words speak for itself) posting inflamitory language just to rile some of the people here up. Your purpose seems to be to insult and degrade anyone you don't agree with. weather that little girl knew or didn't know is not important. The supreme court made it clear it is not stealing. she took nothing. she copied. and darkened03 is correct. that is your stance because that is what you're saying. it's illegal so she gets what is coming to her.

" I think copyright holders have the right to choose what is done with their work. "

that is a valid argument. but dont sit there and say people are mischaracterizing your words when you just said they had a right to sue her. You are saying that it is right because of the law and your belief in upholding copyrights.

I will now go to a website where people are a little bit more intellegent

I was quick to jump on ANYONE who'd rather throw personal insults than participate in good/bad debate. Whether they have the same or differing viewpoint as mine is irrevelant. And it just happened to be on this particular article because that is where it was becoming the most apparent today. But it is in posts all over the site. I have rarely taken a side of a poster over another, and when I do, I try make certain to say so and explain why.

well why aren't you jumping on mroop?

My post just disappeared. Jimmie - did you fail to notice that INeedALover called me a moron before I responded in kind? Did you fail to notice Darkened call me a troll before I responded in kind? Why are you criticizing me but ignoring those who attacked me personally first? Do tell.

yes I did. and fewinhibitions said what he said for them. you are different. at least fewinhibitions was civil about it and pointed out their flaws. he didn't degrade to your level.

My mother had a saying.... If Billy Jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge?
Many of these posters are teens who are more passionate and that sometimes clouds their reason and civility. you're not, so I don't know what your excuse is however your debating style is very inflamitory and ment to provoke those types of responses so you'd have a reason to respond in kind then take the high road.

that's a lawyers trick

What does that mean? Read the posts - I only use insulting words when someone starts in with me first.

You chose to ignore the people who attacked me. You singled me out when I was acting in response to my attacks. That tells me that you aren't really upset at my inflammatory language, you just use that as an excuse to attack me. Please tell INeedALover and Darkened that they are idiots. You didn't call them out because you agree with their opinions. Or maybe you have selective amnesia and you forget about them attacking me first.

"My mother had a saying.... If Billy Jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge?"

Well I guess you should have heeded your mother's advice before you called me an idiot. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

You know mroop...copyright holders have a right to protect their work..I agree. I am a creative dude..I make music and create graphic designs. I am glad that there is something in place that protects my works from being ripped off. But the only thing copyright law should protect me from is someone taking my work and sticking their name on it and getting the money and credit for it. That's what I would consider ripping my work off. I don't see someone passing my work around to be apppreciated as a copyright infringement.

How is it copyright infringement? What because some asshole senators got together one day and said it was? You know what the sad part is? Thats exactly what happened.

People like your self go right along with it too. Never stand up with common sense on these issues...if they pass a law no matter if it makes no sense at all..then it must be the way it is. And therein lies the problem mroop. The public is letting them get away with it.

So are you gonna be one of those people who agree that if I fastforward thru a commercial on a dvd movie that i'm a thief? Thats what they would like to see the law be. I'm sick of their ads and commercials and spam to be honest...yet they feel free to spew it at me and flood my property and computer with it to the point where my computer would become usuable if I didn't stop it from happening.

I don't give a rats ass what the law calls copyright infringement. They've stretched it to mean alot of rediculous things to support their corporate buddies so that they will continue with their big financial contributions.
On another note... I do have a problem with black market CD sales..certainly do. If they need to go after those guys..fine..I support that, but geezuz man.. they are going after little teeny bops (who are their thier biggest fans) for wanting to listen to some music. You support that kind of crap? If you argue with me on that..then I will take that as a "yes" and have to say, "Shame on you..you should be embarrassed".

They cry about their sales being down. Their sales aren't down because of the music downloads (it actually went up when Napster was around) its because they put shit music out. They are greedy pricks. They are doing all of what they are doing so that they can maintain control of what you and I consume so that we will continue to be their cash cows. Its about money in one sense..but more about the control.

This idea that we are sooo wrong for downloading some near quality tunes is pathetic. Compared to the tactics they have used in the past to sell us shit, the price fixing they are guilty of, suing little girls, ripping artists off, selling cd's for enormous amounts of money, outright extortion now a days. They are guilty of more damn crimes than I will ever be of because of donwloading some tunes. As far as I see it..their sins out weigh ours. Why aren't the law makers getting after them about it?

So..If you think they are right to be doing what they are doing so that ultimatley they can go back to practicing their sneaky, greedy and consumer rip off type business...all the power to ya man.

They don't want to be ripped off?..Neither do I..but you don;t seem to be too concerned about that eh? They wouldn't have any problem using my personal info to sell to other companies for profit..why the fuck should I care about their property.

Sorry dude..I wanna see and end to it. The way I see it, we are just getting back from them what they haven't given us over the years. So fuck em.

What ever it takes to get rid of them..lets do it.

working in a DA's office has taught you a lot about legal wrangling.

I will be blunt. they are wrong to call you those names. and I don't agree with everything they said. in fact I agree more with your view of copyright.
but you are more wrong. how?

like I said... your comments and posts (I've read them else where as well) insult people by the way you tear apart their ideas. that provokes an emotional response from them, hence the name calling on their part. You, in turn, now feel vindicated (since you didn't throw the first punch) and launch into your own attack even more vicious than theirs. One can only wonder if it's intentional on your part or you're just a jerk by nature. I don't know. but your argument "they called me a name first" is as juvenille as what you claim that teenager girls response of "I didn't know it was wrong."

You remind me of two little kids. one pokes and prods the other silently to aggravate them and when they yell and scream you feign innocence so mommy gets them in trouble

zxilton , tell us how you really feel1 hehehe Seriously, I am in agreement with most of your points - however, folks "passing" my content around to be appreciated doesn't sit well with me at all.

If something has a value to you, and it must of you download or copy it, then the creator should be compensated for their efforts, if something has no value to you, why are you downloading or copying it?

I have donated work (music, art, labor) and given work away to certain groups that I felt were deserving or needed help in promoting their causes or organizations.

Now I ask, if I create a song or painting that makes thousands, or even millions of dollars and give the royalties and copyright to an abused childrens shelter, would you feel it is everyones right to copy those works for their personal enjoyment without having to compensate the shelter for their use?

mroop,

In response to your first post on this article: you may well be right; this 15 year old girl may well have known that what she was doing was copyright infringement.

Still, you might be surprised at how naieve many young file sharers can be.
This past August (after the RIAA supoena campaign was well underway and the lawsuits were about to begin) I talked to a college senior who was sharing over 1,000 songs on Kazaa. She had heard about the supoenas but didn't know what one was. Furthermore, she was under the impression that even if she sued, it would not be a big deal and she would just get a slap on the wrist. And this was a young lady in college.

I suppose one could say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Still, there seems to be a lot of ignorance out there.

Opps. I meant to say "even if she WAS sued" in my previous post.

On the CNN ticker it said that the Neilsons said that the American Music Awards had it's lowest ever audience! I'm on there trying to find it.. YEAH RIAA kill yourself off hehe such a slow death LOL

mroop
I don't think anyone is against copyright I think we are against injustice on how the RIAA deals with things!
herzxilton
you hit it right on the nail!

American Music Awards Score Lowest Ratings Ever
By Guylaine Cadorette, Hollywood.com Staff

HOLLYWOOD, January 15, 2003 -- Not even the Osbournes could save this one.

The 30th annual American Music Awards, which were telecast Monday on ABC, pulled in the lowest-ever ratings for the ceremony, according to Nielsen. The show attracted an overall average audience of 12.9 million--a 19 percent slide from last year's show.
The ceremony was hosted by the popular Osbourne clan, including Jack, Kelly, Sharon and Ozzy. But the fact that some of the AMA's biggest winners, such as Eminem, the Dixie Chicks and Creed, were conspicuously missing from the ceremony may have contributed to the soft ratings.

The show did manage to stir up a bit of controversy though, despite rapper Eminem's absenteeism. Comedian Kathy Griffin griped to AP Radio about American Idol host Ryan Seacrest's decision to expose her black lace bra.

While they were announcing the Fan's Choice Award winner, Griffin pretended to read an e-mail that asked her to flash the audience. Seacrest then reached over and unbuttoned her blouse--a bit that Griffin told reporters backstage wasn't scripted.

"Ryan Seacrest physically assaulted me on stage. Follow me to the precinct, he's going down," she told AP Radio. "Look, maybe I did walk up the freaking stairs like Shania. But Ryan Seacrest took my top off! That would never happen to Shania."

Griffin's lingerie, however, was no match for Fox's limited-run reality series Joe Millionaire, the network's twisted take on the ABC hit The Bachelor. Joe dominated its hour, leading the Monday 9 p.m. slot with 17.53 million viewers. Combined with the scores from Fox's Boston Public, the network won Monday night in most key measures, Variety reports.

I do believe they have upset way to many people LOL that's why the ratings are down ~~~~~~~

I have children that are 9 and 10 years old... they know what's going on, they say they have friends that share on P2P and from what I can gather almost all of my son's 5th grade shares files, verdict...
They all know pretty much what's goung on, but it sure feels good to be able to get away with something they might ought not be doing.

boycotter. you should submit that to the news post

"...I suppose one could say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Still, there seems to be a lot of ignorance out there."

Ignorance does not relieve you of responsibility.
And yes, there is way too much ignorance out there in the world.

"I didn't know she could get pregnant, we only did it once!"

"I didn't know she would get pregnant, we were virgins!"

Compmore I don't know how to do that

I just found that sorry.. I thought only certain people could do that...

BOYCOTTER, at the top of the page it has menus, click on NEWS, then SUBMIT

No worries....enjoy!

I've talked to about 30 people or more, adults and kids, and most of them had no idea you could get sued for dling from kazaa or otherwise.

I sent that article in about a half hour ago I think and it still isn't up..

I have seen it time and time again. No matter how you may feel about the subject matter it is no reason to get personal. Name calling and putting people down does nothing for the “for side” or the “against side”. This is a society that can speak ones mind free without fear of someone calling you a moron or bastard. I may not agree with everything that is said but I also do not call my fellow posters names. I respect their opinions no matter what it is. It sounds like a bunch of kids in a schoolyard. If you want your posts to get attention than present facts and not name calling to get them across. And Mroop I even respect your posts even though, as I read not very many people agree with you. I on the other hand do. She most likely knew what she was doing was wrong but had the mentality that most do. “There are 60 million people doing this they will not catch me.” I think it is wrong the way they are going about it but I am also seeing that they are running out of options that keep their bottom line. Ya they can try making new business models that will sell music by the song. But really how many of you would pay for it. I’ll admit it I would not. If I like an artist I buy the album but than again I buy all techno. Ya most do not agree the way the do their business but if you do not agree do the same business. Open your own label, take a chance. I think most of you would not even try because there is going to be no money in it for you. And is that not the way of business. Remember folks it is a business. This is a business world we live in like it or not.


Thanks for reading sorry about the grammar and spelling but hey not all of us are perfect. But I have heard Code and leflaw are pretty close.

I tell you if it wasn't for my husband who is computer savvy and had computer science. I would have had no idea about alot of things. When I started online I was using a BBS. I didn't even have a browser, no windows and I used DOS with a 5 inch floppy! The normal things are easy with Windows.. it's when you get into the settings that people don't know about.. that's why I believe not everyone knows alot of us was in that spot before too! In normal school classes I don't believe they tell you how to actually set up programs etc.. This is why I have the opinion I do about not everyone knowing not even at 15!

LXI if it wouldn't have been for P2P's alot of people would not know about Techno.. I had no idea it existed till I started talking to people overseas! Another thing is they didn't release it here in the U.S. I don't know if they even really do now!.. There is all kinds of music that the music industry denies us of having.. and that's what they do deny us because they only release things either there or here.. and there is alot of music people overseas hasn't heard that was released here.. they don't give either side of the oceans a chance.. and alot of times they don't release here unless it does super well over there.. So in that sense P2P's have offered alot of people more diversity in music along with independent artists.. but the RIAA would love to stop it all and still deny people what's out there!

May i notice that they are only suing low-income large-song downloaders to make the possible song fees if they were to try to fight this impossible to pay off?

Therefore, their DMCA is protected. That's why they dont target de minimus users.
That's why they only target poor people.

iH8RIAA yep noticed that too. I still feel that with time they will get theirs.. they may not even face it in their lifecycle.. but they'll get it!

boycotter I agree with you 100% but the fact of the matter is it is thier right to do so. granded they do not own the music but the labels do and they are tring to make the most money at it. Don't get me wrong things need to change. I am not for the riaa. In fact I love p2p apps. but it is business and it is thier's.

Yes I think we as a whole can change it. I alos think we will. And yes they have something coming to them. It will be in thier lifetime.

since when did the riaa say they "support" the artists?!?! WHEN!? in real life, a big artist just goes there to get known to the world, they dont hardly make anything off albums anyways, and when the artists contract is over, what do they say? wait, all of them say the same thing, "i will never do that again", which is why i come to the conclusion, I HATE THE RIAA, I WISH THEY WOULD BURN IN HADES!!

Will this keep me from sharing: no

The RIAA is fuled by Greed, and the want of more POWER, and MONEY, the three consist of the three evils in the world.

They won't target Bill Gates's son, why? because (other than the fact that he can pay for anything hed want) his father has enought money to fight the RIAA if his son got sued by them. and that's basically what iH8RIAA was gettign to.

This post would have been longer If the site hadn't gotten screwed up and one of my previous versions of this was posted.

Fight to the bitter end, for in the end we will be victorious, and Failure is not an option!

"since when did the riaa say they "support" the artists?!?!"

They've been saying it for years. It's total crap, but they say it anyway.

mroop -- "I think copyright holders have the right to choose what is done with their work."

I think the right should go to the creator of the work, not the damn monopolistic pigopoly that wrests it from them contracturally.

"I think the right should go to the creator of the work, not the damn monopolistic pigopoly that wrests it from them contracturally."

Good point. Should there be a law that says an artist can't sell their copyrights? I don't know about that either. On the one hand it could be viewed as way to protect the artist, on the other hand it is a paternalistic way of looking at things - like the artist is not capable of making decisions for himself so now the government is going to tell him what he can do with his creation to "protect" him. A tough question.

I am also skeptical of the idea of forbidding artists from selling their copyrights.

Yes, there may be many artists who get the short end of the stick when they sell.
But that is true in just about any type of economic transaction. Some people get screwed when they buy a used car from a private party, but that doesn't mean we should prevent car owners from selling to someone other than a licensed dealership

Contract of adhesion: A contract drafted by one party and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis or with little opportunity for the offeree to bargain or alter the provisions. Contracts of adhesion typically contain long boilerplate provisions in small type, written in language difficult for ordinary consumers to understand.

Sounds like the kind of contracts record companies offer new artists.

It's really difficult to divest yourself of a songwriting copyright, which someone suggested had something to do with Sly Stone. But a Sound Recording copyright can evidently be bought and sold readily.

I'm worried that people will start sueing P2P networks to save their own asses because they could claim that the software should've stated that they were doing something illegal...

"...written in language difficult for ordinary consumers to understand."

...much less us lowly musicians.

My opinions on copyright reform have already been posted previously. I feel that they present a common sense approach to the issue.
Having said that...
Hey, hold the phone...
As a Republican (actually a Libertarian), I have to STRONGLY object to the logic that setting up laws to protect an artist from disreputable practices is "paternal".
This is the same type of flawed "argument" that is used to strip workers of the ability to demand a livable wage, safe working conditions, etc., etc.
I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh, even though I agree with a lot of the conservative ideas that he espouses, because he just doesn't get what it is like to not make it in today's India-like economy. Ditto for his overall view of the environment.
I am far from a "bleeding heart" Liberal, but some laws are needed to prevent us from returning to the age of the robber barons, child sweat shops, right to work (for less) laws, etc.
Okay, enough ranting for now.

The Kid

"Some people rob you with a knife, and some with a fountain pen".
I think Samuel Clemens said that.

The Kid

Record contracts are contracts of adhesion, but contracts of adhesion are not illegal. Pretty much any contract you sign is one - your insurance policies, car lease, things like that.

"I'm worried that people will start sueing P2P networks to save their own asses because they could claim that the software should've stated that they were doing something illegal"

I have no doubt that attorney's are already considering some type of failure to warn claims against P2P's, another sign of the decline of personal responsibility - not to sound like a hard ass conservative or anything, but these failure to warn suits have gone out of control.

I've seen "innocent until proven guilty" fly out the fucking window, first hand. It's whoever has the deepest pockets that wins.

THAT IS A FACT.

mroop33 -that cleared up all the permutations of the name. I apologize for any problems you have had with the log in. I know we have had some problems with login lately, and are working to fix them as they arise.

Thanks for letting me know.
Best wishes,
~Code

To mroop (and all your clones): before, I had a hard time understanding your positions. But now, it all becomes clear. You got busted as a kid for stealing music, and it galls you to see so many people getting it for free. So whenever somebody gets busted by the RIAA, you feel better.

I'm in a middle ground. I think there are two kinds of downloading. Two motives. One, people download to preview something before buying (or not buying, if it turns out to be crap). The second, people who just want it for free and never intend to purchase if they like it.

Ethically, there should be some kind of compensation for the second type, but from my perspective the MP3 file is such a low-value, low-sonic quality commodity that I would never pay much for one, certainly not 99 cents, maybe not even 25 cents.

But what about sampling? There should be something on the internet that is equivalent to a large record store, where you can ask the proprietor to spin the disc before you buy. That doesn't cost anything, shouldn't cost anything.

Example: Steely Dan offered a stream on the Reprise label website of their new album that came out last spring. But the quality of the stream was so poor, it was difficult for me to evaluate the music. I downloaded a higher quality copy and concluded it was three good songs plus filler. Maybe not filler, but whatever it was, I didn't care for it. I never listen to the MP3s any more. Am I a thief? There should probably be a mechanism for me to compensate Walt and Don for the three songs I liked. But presently there is no such mechanism.

However, when I think about the penalties, I cannot dismiss the way that my friends and I used to make tapes of one another's albums and even sampled music by taping it from the library's record and tape collection. Conceptually, I see no difference between that and the MP3 phenomenon today, except that the internet has expanded my list of friends to share with. In no way do I see a $3500 settlement as being a punishment that fits the crime, if it could even be considered crime. I thought what I was doing as a kid was legal taping, and I still do. Defining downloading as illegal doesn't make it conceptually any different than taping a friend's album. One is defined as legal, the other not. The problem is not so much with the activity, but the law. And perception.

A postscript to my previous post:

I bought Steely Dan's previous CD (the Grammy-award winning one) and was happy to do so. Someone allowed me to copy the CD for me to evaluate it, and I concluded it was most worthy. So I bought the retail CD, even though I already had a full quality CD copy. I think we need to act ethically, but when it comes to enforcement, I see the RIAA lawsuits as using a sledgehammer to swat a gnat.

FewInhibitions - "Now I ask, if I create a song or painting that makes thousands, or even millions of dollars and give the royalties and copyright to an abused childrens shelter, would you feel it is everyones right to copy those works for their personal enjoyment without having to compensate the shelter for their use?"

Now I ask. If you have made that kind of money off a work of art regardless of the passing around I speak of....how much more money will you require?

I see what you are saying...but there is another thing to consider. The statistical fact of the matter is...passing around the art to be appreciated actually causes more sales.

The way it is now..they have discovered that law makers can be bought...and the media companies can now purchase laws..taking yours and my freedoms away.

Thats greed pure and simple. Greed breeds alot of other things...which is what the RIAA has become.

And besides...which artist is getting compensated for their recorded works? Don't forget..its hardly the music artist. Its the professional rip off artists known as the Big 5.

zxilton
I agree strongly that people hearing songs from bands they may have missed before as a result of downloading, is a promotional use, and even though the RIAA denies it, it potentially has more promotional value due to the sheer numbers of college aged and younger people, who are exposed, and probably go on to purchase the whole CD based on one or two good songs.

"You got busted as a kid for stealing music, and it galls you to see so many people getting it for free. So whenever somebody gets busted by the RIAA, you feel better."

Now that's funny. I have friends who download music instead of buying it. If that's what they want to do then that is their choice, just don't cry when you get caught - that is all I'm saying.

I also listened to the Steely Dan stream and decided the album stunk.

"Conceptually, I see no difference between that and the MP3 phenomenon today, except that the internet has expanded my list of friends to share with."

The difference is that the people on the internet are not your friends. You don't even know who they are. The difference is not perception, it is sheer volume.

"Defining downloading as illegal doesn't make it conceptually any different than taping a friend's album. One is defined as legal, the other not."

No, they are both illegal.

"Now I ask. If you have made that kind of money off a work of art regardless of the passing around I speak of....how much more money will you require?"

This sounds like communism. He is allowed to make as much money as he wants, what he "requires" is irrelevant.

Code - thanks for fixing the log in.

"In no way do I see a $3500 settlement as being a punishment that fits the crime, if it could even be considered crime."

I think 3K is about fair. The idea is not just to punish the user and compensate the owner, but also to deter others from doing the same thing. Coincidentally (or maybe not) this is the same number that Cablevision wants in settlement when they catch you stealing cable. I see these two as similar actions - illegal cable hookup and downloading someone's else music without permission - you are availing yourself of someone else's property without permission, if you get caught prepare to fork over some dough.

I feel that I should be able to make as much money/barter as I can possibly can. The amount of legal tender I need/want to keep myself and my family living comfortably is one thing. I have a certain threshold that when exceeded, the remaining amount is passed on to the charities I feel are deserving.

But make no mistake, anyone is, and should be, entitled to make as much money as possible - legally.

You can't legislate morals, ethics or religion, so don't go there.

The riaA is an evil organization and needs to be undone, no doubt, but don't go about destroying them at the expense of artists rights. You will ignite a firestorm beyond your dreams and you will lose!

I wroteefining downloading as illegal doesn't make it conceptually any different than taping a friend's album. One is defined as legal, the other not.

mroop wrote: No, they are both illegal.

Mroop, what law states that I cannot tape a friend's album? This is ridiculous. There was and, as far as I know, still is a tax on magnetic recording tape to accomodate home taping. The money supposedly goes into a fund that compensates artists. (I'm sure they actually got the money, nudge, nudge, wink, wink!) In other words, there is a specific provision legally to do it, and a (hidden) tax to provide for it. So I think you are just factually incorrect about home taping.

What about copying a CD for a friend? I'm sure you would say this is illegal. I think you are incorrect about that. I listened to a radio show (I believe it was Science Friday on NPR dated May 18, 2001 -- subject: Digital Copyright), and it was proposed by one of the participants that copying a CD for a friend was perfectly OK as fair use. But, he said, what if I copied it for everyone in the building? That would be copyright violation. Somewhere in between these two is a grey area. This is the concept that was proposed, and none of the record industry hacks who participated in the show contradicted this.

I do not set myself up as a legal expert in this field. All I know is that if copying a CD for a friend was "illegal" then I am sure that someone on the show would have made that point very strongly. Listen for yourself, if you don't believe me, over at www.npr.org.

Now, downloading. As I said, this is conceptually no different from home taping, because you're making a low quality copy of the original, just like a cassette tape. The practical difference is one of scale. I agree that it is a problem, perhaps slightly more of a problem than home taping, since there is no hidden tax on KaZaa comparable to the hidden tax on recording tape. Why can't such a thing be worked out? I think that would be acceptable to the majority, if the compensation rate was approximately equivalent to the tax people paid on blank tapes.

Now, if I am wrong about copying the CD, then please cite the law that would back up your claim.

I think the whole point is that it is illegal now. I agree the sound quality lacks sometimes but not most of the time. It might not be in the future but it is now. Like I said before it is a business. And yes this Business is powered by greed but.... aren’t most powered by the same greed. I would have to say yes.

Do you know each and every person that you download from? I think not. Most people don't. I agree with the sampling of music but most do not. Most have the mentality of why pay when it is free. I myself like having the whole package. (Meaning CD and info sheet)

Yes most of us dislike the way the Labels (RIAA) do their Business but it is their business to run. Let them run it into the ground. The true artists will step away from the Labels. On the other hand it is our choice to break the current law that prohibits us from downloading copyrighted works. (The law the Labels (RIAA) feel they can enforce). Yes copying CD’s from a friend is one side of things. (Which is against the law as well) But now open your eyes and see the other side. Copying a CD from a global standpoint.


I am all for a change, do not get me wrong. What people fail to realize in this whole thing is that our choices affect everything. You might or might not get caught doing something. One thing I did notice from an earlier post is I am sure you will see lawsuits against the makers of the p2p apps for not warning the (novice public) about copyright laws.


U.S. Copyright Law {Title 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2319} Federal law protects copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, performance, display or distribution of copyright protected works.

Penalties for copyright infringement differ in civil and criminal cases. Civil remedies are generally available for any act of infringement without regard to the intention or knowledge of the defendant, or harm to the copyright owner. Criminal penalties are available for intentional acts undertaken for purposes of "commercial advantage" or "private financial gain." "Private financial gain" includes the possibility of financial loss to the copyright holder as well as traditional "gain" by the defendant.
Where the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain, sound recording infringements can be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Violators can also be held civilly liable for actual damages, lost profits, or statutory damages up to $150,000 per work.

I think that is the law you wanted autodidact.


Saved ya the trouble Mroop

Section 106 of Title 17:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html

the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

As you can see by the above, the owner has the exclusive right to distribute copies.

The tax on tape does not legalize home taping. It is meant to compensate the copyright holder with the understanding that illegal home taping is occuring. But again, it does not legalize the home taping, it just recognizes that there is home taping going on in violation of the law.

Regarding cd copying, the same law above applies. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute copies. There is no caselaw directly on point because a record company has never been crazy enough to sue someone for making a copy for their friend. I would guess that the reason no one on the show stood up to say you can't make copies for a friend is because he realized that he would sound like a total jerk.

"Why can't such a thing be worked out? I think that would be acceptable to the majority, if the compensation rate was approximately equivalent to the tax people paid on blank tapes."

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, a tax on Kazaa paid by Kazaa? Either way, like I said the tax for tapes does not legalize giving copies to friends. Also note, there is already tax on music cdr's (not data cdr's)to compensate for assumed lost revenue, but that doesn't make distributing illegal copies legal.

"Saved ya the trouble Mroop"

Ha! I haven't read your post yet, but it looks like you cover the same ground.

Man you could get lost in the amount of laws that cover copyrights.

ya just saw your last post as my screen refreshed

The RIAA should see how fat my wallet has become since I no longer buy their CDs. Thanks RIAA! I'll never give you my business again!

it's amazing how this has turned into an RIAA love fest. so many claim to hate how the industry does things but supports them. the industry doesn't give a damn how we feel about them as long as we let them do what they want. and NO they do not have the right to misabuse our legal system, legislative system to make as much money as they want just because its legal.

Teddy Rosevelt saw this when he got legislation past to break up the trusts that were putting america in a stranglehold. some argued that they had the right to make as much money as possible but the government countered "not at the expense of public welfare. we seem to have lost that lesson.

if legality is all you guys care about then lets start supporting prosicutting spitting on the sidewalk (illegal in some areas) and other stupid laws. God save us from lawyers who can't see past the rule book

to all you lawyers out there. you are the main reason we've got so many problems with legal issues in this country.

you guys were probably out there debating for hours what the definition of "IS" is after Clinton brought it up

Don't tar all lawyers with the same brush (yes, I'm one too, but I don't practice much).

moopie cited one section of the law and is correct. However, there are fair use exceptions to the copyright holder's exclusive right to distribution, which in my mind have not been sufficiently clarified by the courts.

And just what is distribution -- if I whistle someone else's tune? And it could be argued that, digital audio transmission notwithstanding, an mp3 version of a copyrighted work is not the same as the original work (how about a midi version?).

And just think of how many things are laws that are inane and violate contemporary mores (e.g., having consensual homosexual sexual intercourse in Georgia (?) up until recently).

So, the law evolves and hardly anything is hardly ever really settled....we just have to keep struggling towards justice.

And practice civil disobedience.

carla I totally agree.

the lawyers I'm refering to are the ones who tote the position that if it's the law, tough and can't seem to think beyond that. there seems to be a good many of them here. unfortunatly I've never had a positive experience with lawyers. I'm sure there are some really good ones out there. Leflaw has the attitude that if it's wrong lets change it. the others have the attitute if it's wrong then tough you get what you deserve. these type would never consider civil disobedience.

that's why I respect leflaw. he seems to see past the law and fight for what he thinks is right

Compmore do not get me wrong I do not and never will love the RIAA. But the matter at hand until the laws change it is still wrong to upload and download. (under current law) I think there needs to be a change in the current law to reflect the way the public feels. I also think that they will get thiers in the end. hopefully in my lifetime.

LXI - I agree with you and don't take you wrong at all. I just get frustrated when I see the kind of things I've been seeing.

I do disagree on one point. if it's against the law it's illegal, not wrong. there's a big difference.

I'm not advocating breaking the law. We all know it's illegal or we wouldn't be fighting it. So I get anoyed seeing post after post of laws showing why the RIAA is right in what it's doing then saying they disagree with them. it's one way or the other. we all understand why the industry is procecuting (by the way I'm not sure many industries get the legal right to play police officers like the entertainment industry does) kids. the question is, is it right or wrong. if it's right, say so just like mroop did. he thinks it's right. I can respect that. I can't respect someone sitting on the fence and trying to have it both ways. if it's wrong then lets fight it and change the law. not just sit and quote from legal textbooks.

I do agree with you guys more than you think. I'm from the old school where a handshake is worth more but I know that's not the world we live in. I have no paitence or tollorance for riding the fence or arrogance even if I agree with someone 100%.

Just to clarify my position: I disagree with many provisions of the DMCA, including the subpoena provision. I also think copyright holders have the right to protect their copyrights. Robert Fripp and I agree that:

"When music files are exchanged "freely" there is a currency of exchange which is not acknowledged.
This currency of exchange is the work of artists.

The good news: Napster demonstrates the importance which people attach to having music in their lives.
This is legitimate: music is a need in our lives.

The bad news: the public at large is prepared to act illegitimately to serve this legitimate impulse."

point taken. Illegitimately implys wrong. it's still not necessarily wrong. it's illegal.

Civil disobedioence by the masses have in many cases proven legitimate even though the disobedioence was technically "illegal"

FewInhibitions - "I feel that I should be able to make as much money/barter as I can possibly can. The amount of legal tender I need/want to keep myself and my family living comfortably is one thing. I have a certain threshold that when exceeded, the remaining amount is passed on to the charities I feel are deserving."

Yep agreed..to some extent. You walk a fine line of greed there my friend. The mind gets thinking..."I got this much money...now I need more." More money in your pockets gives that feeling of power...power in turn breeds corruption. To the point that in fact that past morales become just that. You are human you are not above the temptation. The RIAA is a great example of this and is why they need to be stopped. And quite honestly, if you need or want more money...as the statistics show, even as trading abounds, it actually helps you make more money! So what yur problem?


"But make no mistake, anyone is, and should be, entitled to make as much money as possible - legally."

Hey no problem, however they practice an awful lot of unlawful ways of doing it as well. But because they can buy law makers and high priced lawyers they can get away with it.

"You can't legislate morals, ethics or religion, so don't go there."

The only thing I have to say is this....They seem to think they can. Haven't they convinced lawmakers that the laws they want in effect are indeed moral and ethical? When they accomplish convincing leaders of these are we not subject to what they have invented as moral and ethical? So whats you aurgument there?

"The riaA is an evil organization and needs to be undone, no doubt, but don't go about destroying them at the expense of artists rights. You will ignite a firestorm beyond your dreams and you will lose!"

What are you talking about? The RIAA exists at the expense of the artist. Destroying them will be a benefit to the artist...there's more artists out there than what is on their rosters. Those artists are suffering because of what the RIAA is doing. Even their own signed artist suffer. Why are you missing the point that the RIAA is the one who is ripping artists off more than we?

Oh yeah..ignite a firestorm beyond my wildest dreams? Lets come back down to earth here..lets be a little less theatrical. I'm all for the artist rights..where have you seen I am not for this? What I am not for is the amount of coverage that exist in the copyright law as it stands and what they want to add to it. What they want to add to it isn't about the artist anyways. So again ..what are going on about?

You wanna talk astronomical firestorms...watch what happens when these corporations start trying to buy law and legislation to cater to them but infringe on the publics rights. The little firestorm you speak of will be but a spark in the wind when the public has finally had enough and opens up a giant firey can of whoops ass of their own.

In the end...we will win this and their will enough wealth and art for everyone to enjoy.

Nice post Compmore Much respect for it. I agree with the fighting part. The one thing I am seeing is that a boycott is a good thing but if people would do it correctly than things would move much faster. Just not buying the CDs is not good enough. I think people should stop Downloading and Uploading them as well. That might send a stronger message to the Labels(RIAA). As they see it now they can do what ever they want to a point. They have enough power (for the momment in DC) so who cares what a few people think. But if those same people saw a drop off in CD sales and A drop off of thier Music on P2P apps than they might have to take a closer look at why thier cd sales are down. I also think that most artists get screwed by Labels(RIAA). They might not have know it was going to happen when they signed but I think they are finally seeing the light now.

Like I said before nice post Compmore

very well put about the downloading. that just gives the industry fuel for it's attacks. thanks.

zxilton, a few responses...

"..You walk a fine line of greed there my friend. The mind gets thinking..."I got this much money...now I need more." More money in your pockets gives that feeling of power...power.."

You may think so, and that is your opinion, however, for the record, my wife and I donated more money and work to charities than we kept last year. We were fortunate to be able to do so. this was the first time in my life I could afford to do so. AND, we didn't take the tax write-offs either.

"...Why are you missing the point that the RIAA is the one who is ripping artists off more than we?..."

By your own admission you are ripping artists off! Why would you want to rip off an artist in the first place? Just because someone else is doing it on a larger doesn't make it OK for you to do on a smaller one. Where is your head at?

To quote Robert Fripp - "When music files are exchanged "freely" there is a currency of exchange which is not acknowledged.
This currency of exchange is the work of artists."



My comments on destrying the riaA at the expense of artists rights was pointed at the person who said something along the lines of the riaA should be down away with no matter the cost. I take that to mean that that person considers my rights and copyrights as being of no value as long as the riaA is gone. Sorry, that won't do.

Example, I enjoy my right to have a firearm, I absolutely detest the NRA, however, they are the ONLY advocates for allowing people to have guns. I don't have any other choice for an advocate for my firearm rights. If there was one I would jump on board. But I digress.

Some folks on here seem to think I - and any other copyright holders, should only be able to exercise our copyrights for a limited time, and I vehemetly disagree.

If this were to happen, what person would create anything knowing it will be taken away from them?

As for the firestorm, it isn't theatrics, it's the truth. It isn't all big corporations that have the copyrights here, every single piece of art work created, from pre-schoolers on up are copyrighted work. And the number of artists that want to retain those copyrights far outnumber the folks who want to take them away.

Again, I hate the riaA and everything it stands for, but I won't support any mob that wants to destroy them at the expense of destroying my rights as an artist. The issues at hand go far beyond music and the riaA.

"But make no mistake, anyone is, and should be, entitled to make as much money as possible - legally."

..."Hey no problem, however they practice an awful lot of unlawful ways of doing it as well. But because they can buy law makers and high priced lawyers they can get away with it..."

If there is no problem, why the rebuttal? I am somewhat aware of what they are about.

My statements are based on 30+ years as a graphic designer and musician, and from many years in abject poverty as a young kid. They are meant for the population in whole and not just specific corporations or individuals or just about music.

There has to be a balance made, where that balance is I don't know, and as yet, no one else seems to either or we wouldn't be posting here.

all i have to say is........ words can not discribe that post

Mroop, after a bit of searching, I will concede the point that home taping is not expressly said to be "fair use" or even legal, but as long as the taping is for personal non-commercial use, there is immunity from prosecution under AHRA. One could be forgiven for thinking that they de facto made it legal by such a statement. Is a "crime" for which the government expressly says you may not be prosecuted really a crime?! What a tangled web we weave.

There are probably still places where it is against the law to sell a loaf of bread on "the Lord's Day." All I'm saying is that there are laws, and then there are laws. Fair use is a recognized concept, even if it is a fuzzy concept.

There are a number of instances in which I would not have known of or bought an artist's product, except for "illegal" copies of that product. The artist would have been deprived of a sale if someone had not broken the law to provide me with a copy. Thank you, outlaws. You are helping artists, even if some are not quite smart enough to have figured that out. (*cough*Metallica*cough*)

I think this benefit to artists is a law: the law of unintended consequences.

First let me say that I am not saying the law is right or wrong, just clarifying the current state of the law. AHRA does allow you to make copies on specified digital devices. However, it does not allow you to distribute those copies to other people. People have misconstrued AHRA and believe it permits distribution of copies, but it doesn't - it allows copying for personal use only. If you want to give a copy to your buddy I won't tell.

And yet, mroop, referencing that digital copyright discussion on Science Friday again, it would seem that there is a common perception -- even among some music industry representatives, that you CAN copy a CD for a pal or two, i.e. limited distribution. Granted, Hilary Rosen would not even admit in Congressional testimony that you could make a copy for YOURSELF to play in your car or something. I think she hurt her own cause there, cause she made her side look outrageously petty.

http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm
for anyone wanting to look at AHRA