×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Hands out more Lawsuits

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the everyone-sue dept.

The Courts 689

Syrae writes "The RIAA has unleashed yet another round of copyright infringement lawsuits against 754 people. Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of. I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

689 comments

PENIS NIGGER FUCK CUNT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450695)

lol

Why? (0, Flamebait)

FireFlie (850716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450699)

I understand where this is news for nerds, but come on, tell me that the last sentence in this submission isn't just a little loaded. They buy more music. Good. That gives them the right to steal whatever they want then, right? Yes, I know that this is slashdot and I am going to get hammered on this one, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you cant do whatever the hell you want. I like gin. I don't like paying for gin. When I go out to get gin, I don't steal it, despite my desire to have both my cash and my gin.

There are a wealth of music programs out there (which these people are apparently using). Most of the pay for networks give you the ability to preview music right? Sure it's often a small clip of it (itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable), but that is one of the biggest defense of sharers: that they somehow need to preview before they buy. Well they can, and people are still trading music illegally. Ghasp!

You hate the system, fine. I'm not exactly fond of the way things like this are going right now either. If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars.

Now, as usual, let the "fuck the **aa posts commence."

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450736)

IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.

How many fuckin' times do we have to tell you?

STOP CALLING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT THEFT!

Re:Why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450739)

When I go out to get gin, I don't steal it, despite my desire to have both my cash and my gin.

Stop bitching. Stealing and copyright infringement have nothing to do with each other. The first part of your post made a good point, because the submitters last sentence is indeed loaded.
 
Ranting and karma-whoring won't get you anywhere.

Karmic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450807)

I'll horde all the karma I want, all the karma in the world, and then with all that karma, I'll go get medieval on the RIAA/MPAA's ass.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Propagandhi (570791) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450744)

Submitter's point was that the sharing of music leads to more sales and thus more money for the RIAA. No, his statement is by no means truth of this assertion, but this is what he was try to suggest...

itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable

30 seconds of previewage isn't at all adequate for prog or trance, but.. whatever... just had to mention that.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

HexRei (515117) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450939)

or psy, or drumnbass, or jungle, or speed garage, or breaks, or hardcore, or any other electronic genre which includes loooooong intros and loooong outros and 32 beats to a breakdown.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450750)

Yes, I know that this is slashdot and I am going to get hammered on this one...

Since the mods aren't descriptive enough, I'll explain that the reason you're about the be modded overrated is not that you've expressed an unpopular opinion, it's just that there's no "giant logic flaw" mod.

A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong. There are good reasons that it's not good to download the stuff, but comparing it to swiping materials is just going to make you look dumb to the majority of Slashdot.

Most of the pay for networks give you the ability to preview music right? Sure it's often a small clip of it (itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable)

That must be some awfully repetitive music you listen to if 30 seconds is enough.

That's not the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450751)

The point is that people can fileshare so they will, it's human nature. And unless they create some very scary laws it won't stop. So support the system all you want, but it's inherently flawed if it tries to go upstream of the torrent that is human nature, it will fail. IMHO all laws should be designed to work with our humanity, not against it.

Re:That's not the point. (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450773)

Killing the guy who takes your mate is human nature too. What a stupid argument. It's not "human nature" that laws should be aligned with, it's the "will of the people" and on the matter of file sharing the people have spoken: we want to share.

Re:That's not the point. (1)

rramdin (857005) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450811)

Have you ever heard of temporary insanity? People have successfully gotten off murder charges with a plea of temporary insanity for killing the person with whom their spouse was cheating.

Re:That's not the point. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450841)

You shouldn't believe everything you see on television.

Re:That's not the point. (2, Informative)

rramdin (857005) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450885)

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] : "In 1859, Congressman Daniel Sickles shot and killed Phillip Barton Key, for having conducted an affair with his wife Teresa. The murder took place on Lafayette Square, just north of the White House. Sickles was acquitted, on the basis of temporay insanity, in one of the most controversial trials of the 19th century." Also, try reading about temporary insanity [wikipedia.org] . I'm sure you'll find it informative. Just because it's on TV doesn't mean you shouldn't believe it.

Re:That's not the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450929)

do you have thoughts that don't rest on the word "we", little thug?

Re:That's not the point. (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450958)

So, the "will of the people" is to rip-off someone else? And, just who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Night Goat (18437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450760)

That is a very good point. Another thing I noticed after reading the summary of the study that was linked to in the post was that it was misleading, or at the very least, incomplete. The study said "that those who regularly download or share unlicensed music also spend an average of £5.52 a month on legal downloads through sites such as Apple's iTunes Music Store or Napster. Those who were not illegally filesharing spent just £1.27 a month on digital tracks." I don't think they consider CDs to be digital tracks here.

They don't seem to have included CDs at all in their study! How do we know that those who weren't illegally filesharing weren't spending £8 per month on CDs? Maybe these folks were in fact LARGER consumers than the file sharers.

And consider the guy that's behind a modem. He's not really able to do much downloading of mp3s as it is, so that cuts down on both his filesharing and his legal purchases. I just don't think that this survey is particularly useful. Its method is flawed.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450771)

Start voting with your dollars
Pray tell me how we're supposed to do that when the very first people who get their grubby paws on our dollars, via taxes, are the people who are writing blatantly plutocratic laws. If we were ruled by dictators who held mock elections every four years, how would you recommend fighting them? By participating in the polls? By voting with our dollars?

Will you please think about the reality of the situation for once? Spare me the holier-than-thou "it's the law" junk. The reality is this: if the media companies were so darn concerned with their intellectual property then they should control the distribution on the front end by whatever means they feel they can implement profitably. This business about suing customers after the point of sale is ridiculous.

I will emphasize again, for the millionth time: Face reality. Once the media company sells something to me then it is mine and I will do with it whatever I darn well please. If they don't like it they're free to not sell it to me in the first place. Once they've sold this music to the masses, however, I no longer feel any pity for them. No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day.

Whatever you darn well please? (2, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450949)

If we were ruled by dictators who held mock elections every four years, how would you recommend fighting them? By participating in the polls? By voting with our dollars?

I'm not sure how this analogy applies to the RIAA and MPAA. They are not all-powerful, even among huge corporate interests, and certainly not in our government. Just because things are going their way right now doesn't mean that the slow mechanisms of representative government won't eventually force them to acquiesce.

Once the media company sells something to me then it is mine and I will do with it whatever I darn well please.

I doubt that even the most staunch advocate of fair use rights would say that the intent of copyright is to allow you to do whatever you please with copyrighted material.

I can't make photocopies of books then sell those photocopies, for example.

Based on the Grokster decision, when file sharing services are making money off of other people's copyrighted materials, and are obviously inducing people to use their service expressly to make money off of copyrighted materials, you're on the wrong side of the law.

Situations that fall short of obvious copyright violation and inducement to violate copyright are still open to legal interpretation. Right now the RIAA is suing the crap out of people not because they feel they can win the cases, but because they are trying to frighten people into submission.

The Congress has thus far been acting at the behest of the entertainment industry, but the courts aren't beholden to the legislature or the entertainment industry. They make their decisions in a rather different fashion. As Lessig wrote in his post-mortem [legalaffairs.org] of the Eldred case,

Kennedy in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his question. Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the logical point. I had shown them how they could strike down this law of Congress if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis on which a court should decide the issue.

The entertainment industry is obviously run by people who are trying to hold on to an outmoded business model, as you pointed out. But I'd argue that having or not having pity for them isn't really the point. The point is that taking music isn't necessarily the most effective way to fight the entertainment industry. Impatience with the slowness of the legislative and judicial systems is a tenuous argument for breaking the law, particularly when we're not exactly talking about stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family.

fuck the **aa posts would be stupid (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450794)

fuck you fireflie

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450799)

one of the biggest defense of sharers: that they somehow need to preview before they buy.

My biggest reason for sharing is that it is sharing. It is not stealing. It is not taking something that will deprive another person of ownership. When I share a CD with a friend, you are not loosing anything. The artists are not loosing anything. The only one with a paranoia of loosing money is the Corporate executives. And the only thing the suits are loosing is sleep, hair, and customers who they disfranchise.

In the USA we have the right of free speech. Often, some of the most insightful ideas come from music. What was the history of the 1960's? What happened. What was the mood of the people. You can find out in the music. Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival told you more about the Vietnam war than Nixon did in any speech.

This is the USA, not China. What will the USA do? Tax ideas? If you want to share this piece of music then you must pay $15 for the CD or $30 a month to download something you won't own, a file that will play today but not tomorrow?

If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars.

No matter what grass roots campaign you start, or how good of a candidate you find, we the people can NEVER win. The establishment uses money to buy votes. Why does a Senate seat cost 5+ million dollars?? How can Joe Sixpack, everyman, ever get elected to high office? Instead you get Senators that have debts to pay to those who contributed money. And guess where the money comes from? Corporations. So when the head of the RIAA or Sony calls Senator Hatch, guess what Senator Hatch does? He listens and votes. Guess what happens when Joe Sixpack calls Senator Hatch. Not a damn thing.

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

Horny Smurf (590916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450828)

My biggest reason for sharing is that it is sharing.

Good for you. Do you share your mom's pussy with anybody who's got a hard on? Do you drop trou in the middle of the street, bend over, and announce that your ass is open for sharing?

Or maybe you only like to share other people's stuff?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Dlugar (124619) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450801)

Very good point, but just FYI, you'll be a lot more credible if you simply point out that "trading music illegally" is, in fact, illegal in the United States. But just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's anything like stealing gin. It's definitely not considered theft under US law. In fact, it's considered a civil (rather than criminal) offense for sufficiently small quantities (whereas if you pilfer even a single bottle of gin, it's likely a criminal offense in whatever country you may hail from).

Just a friendly note to help your real point be heard (namely, that "trading music illegally" is still illegal even if it actually makes the RIAA money). Such a point is a lot harder for the Slashbots to shout down.

Dlugar

This is insightful? Sadly, it's not. (0, Redundant)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450813)

You started out good...but then you had to screw it up by calling it "stealing".

As others have pointed out, it's not theft, it's INFRINGEMENT which is actually defined as a different crime on the books because IT IS ONE.

Here, let me illustrate for you...

If, for example, I were to take your computer away from you, you'd be deprived of the use of the same. This is STEALING .

If, for example, I were to make a copy of your magnum opus novel (if you were to write one...) without your permission and make a couple more copies to hand out to my friends, you're not deprived of the work or the use thereof. You might have been deprived of the financial rewards caused by the artificial scarcity of the same brought about by the Copyright you have on the work- but you can always get more people to sign off on your copies. In this instance, I've not stolen from you. I have INFRINGED upon your rights to control the production and distribution of your given work of art- which are artificial rights established for the People on behalf of the Government to further the arts.

The moment you got that wrong, any and all valid points you might have had went clean out the window- as you obviously don't have a clue about what IS and ISN'T the law in the first place. Is it Morally wrong? You damn betcha. Is it stealing? Not even close.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450815)

As for that last sentence, I would agree that stealing music is wrong. Nevertheless, I think a lot of this boils down to something Steve Jobs was preaching when the ITMS store launched.

Essentially, Steve has been arguing that downloaders are usually not people who steal for the stake of stealing, they steal because they're music junkies who REALLY like the convenience of downloading music.

This means that if you cater to these people, and you give them convenient / reasonable ways to buy music legally, many of them will gladly do it.

Re:Why? (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450862)

They buy more music. Good. That gives them the right to steal whatever they want then, right?

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. Does it give the right to infringe on copyrights? Not at all. But are the losing money on the the people they are sueing? Not likely.

Think back to the 1980s when VCRs were new. Some pay channels encouraged taping of movies and others took it upon them selfs to dedicate a timeslot for people to set their timmers to record a movie. To the subscriber they got a very cheap means of getting a movie collection. To the provider they got advertising. Cable subscriptions went up, copyright holders made more money, everyone was happy.

look at the Romanian pop song [wikipedia.org] that was lipsynced by some joe in new jersey... spread across the net. This was a form of copyright infringement too. However I doubt that O-zone objected to the free advertising that that resulted.

Think to your self how many times someone gave you a mix tape with clearly printed artists and song titles. How often did one of those result in a sale. This is also a form of copyright infringement. But is it wrong? If the artist wishes this, then it's not, but if they don't then it is. There is no real way to know if it's right or wrong.

But if the RIAA wants to go out of their way to kill an uncontrolled distribution medium... let them. If they don't want free advertising... by all means end it.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450867)

tell me that the last sentence in this submission isn't just a little loaded.

The apparent IQ of Slashdot goes up quite a lot if you simply remove the last sentence from every posting. I'm considering writing a browser filter to automate the process.

That said, your response is loaded too. You refer repeatedly to "stealing". Copyright infringement is not stealing. It lacks the element of depriving the previous holder of the thing in question, which is the very essence of "theft". It's because copyright infringement is not theft, that copyright infringement is prosecuted under totally different laws from the laws that apply to theft, and carries different (in fact, generally much more severe) penalties than the penalties that apply to theft. As a very simple litmus test, remember the "Return your MP3s" joke that made the rounds a while back? If copyright infringement were theft, then returning the "stolen goods" really would make sense and it wouldn't be a joke.

Moral: let one who is without sin cast the first accusation of loaded language.

Re:Why? (1)

Internet_Communist (592634) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450888)

I find that every time there's an article like this on slashdot, there is always a post like this, just along side that "fuck the **aa" post.

I'm going to just throw around a few scenarios which I hope will make you ponder your black and white view of copyright.

1. You like a song but not the record label it's on, as it's an RIAA one.
2. You like a song and it's label but you don't have money
3. You disagree with the copyright system in it's current form and are willing to take your chances.

Now here's a few possible reactions to those:

1. You boycott the label/copyright system by not listening.
2. You go the abstinence route and wait until you have money to buy it despite any disagreements with the system.
3. You download the song and buy it when you have money.
4. You download the song and have no plan to buy it, **AA be damned.

What we're forgetting in all this mess is that this is simple data which can be recorded and distributed with the click of a button. That wasn't the case 20 years ago, but it is now. Now we have to go around with thumbs up our asses debating what is "fair" to charge for a distribution of it, well, a "legal" distribution that is.

This distribution method is failing obviously. iTMS and all that other crap is just heading in the completely wrong direction yet again, by throwing on DRM. I don't care if it can be cracked, I know that these labels are participating in that kind of behavior and refuse to participate in it.

Your comparison to gin is ridiculous. After I listen to an mp3 it doesn't go through my digestive system and turn into piss and liver disease. An mp3 is more like photographing a picture at an art museum. Hrmm, "no photography" signs be damned! I bet that violation costs a whole lot less though.

So what do I do, not listen? Well lucky for me most of the music I listen to isn't on RIAA labels anyway, but there's an occasional thing or two which is, so this does concern me.

I also don't have the money to buy all the music which I have downloaded. That's not to mention some stuff I have is out of print and used copies are sometimes extremely rare. I have a rip of one album which would cost $10,000 or so to buy a legal copy, just because it's so rare. How do you propose I go about that one? I think the RIAA lawsuit costs less than that. I also doubt you'll find those tracks on one of those "legal" music download services. Infact most of the stuff I listen to is probably not on those services.

I do buy stuff when I have the chance, usually vinyls (most of the things I listen to only come out on vinyl anyway.) It's an occasional thing though, I really don't have the time to deal with outdated distribution methods in this day in age, and I am not going to fuss with DRM which I disagree with more than copyright itself.

As for getting sued by the RIAA, they've sued 14,000 out of millions. I can't say statistically it's a high probability, especially since not all of those millions are even sharing **AA material, thus making them not applicable anyway.

How do you propose we vote with our dollars anyway? That means supporting the current system no matter what right now. It's like the U.S. presidential elections...bush or kerry, hey we're screwed either way...why vote? Or why pay, for that matter.

You know you can sit around all day saying "it's wrong plain and simple so cry me a river" but in the end that just means you've lost any drive to try and make a difference. And I refuse to be brought down to that level by anyone.

Easy Solution. (1)

Famatra (669740) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450915)

"That gives them the right to steal whatever they want then, right?"

Let's put the copyright length down to 5 seconds, then no more 'stealing'.

I might compromise and put it to 10 years but not a day more.

Let's Identify Fallacies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450925)

The part about "it is against the law to download music", appeals to the pragmatic side of nerds, and the part saying, "I like gin. I don't like paying for gin. When I go out to get gin, I don't steal it, despite my desire to have both my cash and my gin." appeals to the logical and rational side of nerds.

It is entirely possible to find rational and logical reasons for everything that the RIAA is doing. What is totally absent from the parent post is rationally explaining what the dissenters (the downloaders) are doing in relation to what the RIAA is doing. A person downloading 15 tracks of the latest Britney Spears CD likes Britney Spears obviously, maybe this person doesn't have the money to pay for the CD.

There are a handful of stereotypical downloader types. I won't go into them all here, but equating downloading music from the internet to going into the store and intentially stealing a physical object is an inherently flawed [datanation.com] notion.

Re:Why? (1)

HexRei (515117) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450927)

tell me using the word "steal" when what you really mean is "infringe copyright" isn't a little loaded. Seriously, they're breaking the same law that you would be if you copied a few chapters out of your favorite book.
Your bias just swings the other way.

ATTENTION RIAA, IMPORTANT POST - MUST READ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450700)



lick my fucking anus RIAA!! AND EVRYONE ELSES!! [hai2u.com]
Allowed HTML


   


    • URLs http://example.com/ [example.com] will auto-link a URL
      Important Stuff

      # Please try to keep posts on topic.
      # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
      # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
      # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
      # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
      # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

      Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
      Allowed HTML


         


      URLs http://example.com/ [example.com] will auto-link a URL
      Important Stuff

      # Please try to keep posts on topic.
      # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
      # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
      # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
      # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
      # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

      Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Stop right there. (4, Insightful)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450707)

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.

Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal. Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights, and anyone would have to be blind not to understand why they feel this is in their best interest.

As the submitter conceded, they're making an example.

Re:Stop right there. (3, Insightful)

Propagandhi (570791) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450767)

They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal.

The RIAA doesn't care about the legality of file sharing, they care about making money. If file sharing actually made them money (as submitter is trying to suggest) then it would be a poor business practice to attempt to stop it.

Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights [...]

Only because Congress gave them that right, which is a little assinine to me. Why should some outmoded businesss model be kept alive via legislation? Bah humbug...

Re:Stop right there. (2, Insightful)

tibike77 (611880) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450859)

How many people fileshare (DC, BT, eDonkey, etc) ?
Lots. Hundreds of millions, maybe.

How many of those fileshare (some) illegal "stuff" ?
Most of them, for sure. Even if it's only ONE music file that doesn't belong there, that's still illegal. Not necessarily imoral, but illegal.

Now, on to the "making some money" part...
IF (by some cosmic accident) it suddendly becomes LEGAL to share with the world everything you ever bought (or worse, everything you ever downloaded)... imagine how the number of sales would plummet. And I'm not talking "music", I'm talking about everything that's storable on digital media.

So it makes PERFECT bussiness sense to keep people SCARED of filesharing, and what better way to do that is than find some scapegoats ? The more "innocent" they look, the bigger the "scare factor".

So there you have it, a perfectly logical explanation. And the reason RIAA and their kind will never give up on this "witch-hunt".

Re:Stop right there. (1)

Propagandhi (570791) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450934)

Absolutely, I agree. I just wanted to point out what the submitter was trying to illustrate. I have no doubt that the study submitter sited was biased toward whoever funded it (as most 'studies' seem to be).

At any rate, there are exceptions to your post. I for instance, have absolutely no fear of ever being punished for my file sharing, yet media (music and videogames, I don't watch movies) is pretty much my only entertainment expense. I still buy music, not because I fear the consequences of coming into it illegally, but because I respect and want to support the artists or developers who created said media.

Obviously, this will never work in a culture with such a hardon for so-called pure capitalism (although if taken literally that phrase could not be farther from the truth), but I thought I'd present my idealistic alternative...

Bottom line, if the music industry still produced art those who actually enjoyed said art would still pay for it. It's a business though, and most of what they produce is utter shit. I guess this is their only recourse if they want people to continue buying their shit. Nevermind the fact that such business through legislation goes against our capitalist ideals.

Re:Stop right there. (0)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450904)

Same reason drugs are illegal. The state no longer represents the will of the people.

I have never bought a CD in my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450709)

"customers"? Shouldn't it read potential customers?

LOL (5, Interesting)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450710)

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all

Not any more, not after the ridiculous penalties.

BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450749)

Ofcourse they lose money due to music sharers AKA piraters. It results in more people going to download a song for free rather than going to the local music store to purchase the CD.

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450780)

Did you read the study? Or are you trolling?

Well, this particular one deserves an answer regardless, so here it is.

It doesn't necessarily lead to that. It may lead to a prospective customer discovering an unknown band (whose CD they never would've bought or even considered without being able to download risk-free samples), falling in love, buying that band's CD's, T-shirts, and attending their concerts. A nice windfall for the band, AND for the consumer-neither would've known the other existed but for filesharing.

Of course any system will have freeloaders, that want to get out of paying for anything, ever. These are the same people that were borrowing or copying tapes from their friends nonstop. That's been happening for decades, and the sky hasn't fallen yet.

Re:LOL (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450886)

But the problem is, the study doesn't take CD's into consideration. Only illegal sharing and legal downloading.

I'm not saying your logic is incorrect (or correct) but reading the "study" shows that it's not quite as general as the submitter believes.

Re:LOL (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450936)

Your point is valid. However, CD's are the "old" medium, just as cassette tapes and records were decades ago, and will be naturally phased out in favor of the new-digital distribution. That will happen over a period of years, after all, people still own vinyl records! But very few seek to buy them anymore, and they are certainly not the source of anyone's profits. Cassette tapes still can be purchased, but again, are not the source of profits.

In the meantime, sure, CD's might remain a profit source, but ultimately a dwindling one. It's certainly not unnatural to see people not want to pay $15-$20 for a CD when they can burn their own (minus the songs they dislike, with whatever tracks they choose) for 15 cents or so. The only choice the "content providers" have now is clear-embrace digital distribution, the way the consumers want it, or go under. Every business has to serve the wants and desires of their consumers, those who have tried to have those desires legislated away are inevitably a footnote.

Re:LOL (1, Insightful)

FireFlie (850716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450757)

How much is exactly one song worth when shared?"

Are you saying that it is alright to pirate music then? Is it also ok to steal cable television? What have they lost? Potential revenue. Yes, I know this is not exact, but I think that it is a start. There does exist a person who asks "Why would I buy a cd that I just downloaded?". I have encountered many who feel that way personally.

Oh yea, if you were actually looking for an answer to your origional question, itunes charges .99, I think that may be a start.

Re:LOL (4, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450825)

Are you saying that it is alright to pirate music then?

Wow, do you think you can ask a more loaded question? Can I ask you one then? Are you saying that it is alright to enact laws that the majority of people don't want? Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government.

Re:LOL (1)

FireFlie (850716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450870)

Great logic. And without laws to protect the work that people do, we would not have any media to copyright, nor would we have new drugs because no one would be able to make money off them.

"Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government."

Either you lack any ambition to do anything worth stealing, or you are so full of your utopian society that you cannot fathom reality. Either way you lose.

Re:LOL (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450954)

Way to dodge the issue. If you don't believe that laws should represent the will of the people then you should leave your democratic country right now and go find a nice dictator to live under.

Re:LOL (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450842)

alright to pirate music then
It's hardly pirating music when the media company freely sold the media to the consumer.
Is it also ok to steal cable television?
I feel no pity for media companies anymore. If they're worried about people stealing cable television, how about deactivating the wires carrying the signal? If they can't secure their product on the front end that is THEIR problem, not mine. Would you feel sorry for a car dealership which left the keys in the door locks of all its cars, overnight, every night, for a year?

Re:LOL (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450943)

Are you saying that it is alright to pirate music then? Is it also ok to steal cable television?

Copyright, and for that matter intellectual property law in all its forms are obsolete. They cause harm to society. Therefore, it goes beyond "alright". You have a moral obligation to pirate music and steal cable rather than paying for it, because if you do pay for it, you're a contributing factor in the harm that it does.

How does it cause harm? Well, it goes like this:

As time goes on, the number of people in the world increases. Due to societal advancements, their education levels also increase. And they have more free time than before, or they should. And they have wider access to the creative tools that used to only be available for professionals.

So the number of creators in the world increases, and the number of creative works in existance dramatically and continually increases. And the cost of distribution of those works shrinks ever closer to zero.

But here's the kicker: the price of creative works keeps up with inflation. People now cannot legally afford to own much more than they could in the early 80s. Books and CDs are not much different in price than books and tapes were back then, once you take inflation into account.

So the wealth of knowledge and art grows and grows and grows, but the size of the chunk of it that you get to expose yourself to does not. From a relative standpoint, it shrinks as time goes on.

Intellectual property laws and copyright laws make us less knowledgable, cultured and informed by their existance. They do not enrich our society, they impoverish it.

We are very near the point, from a technological standpoint, where it would be cheaper to deliver a copy of every intellectual work, every song, every movie, every book, all of it, to every single man woman and child on the face of the earth than it would be to deliver each of them a slice of bread.

Think about that... the library of alexandria in the hands of everyone on earth, using the 3D holographic storage that IBM is developing, or something of that ilk and a cheap reader device. This is no longer some hippie pipe dream, this is something we can practically achieve.

Can you really argue in defense of a system that would prevent such a thing from happening?

ITS HANZOSAN!! MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450795)

Hey hanzo, we know its you.. why do you keep posting and suckering the moderators to mod you up?

Mods, but this faggot ass down. Look at his posting history, it's nothing but lame, banal postings. He used be known as HanzoSan, until we exposed his trites uninsightful posts, but now he's back.

Mod him down to oblivion.

Re:LOL (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450810)

"BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm."

An interesting question, but not relevant here. The RIAA tends to target the "whales" of file sharing who have thousands of songs in their share directories. They do so for exactly the reason you allude to: it's much easier to show potential damage than, say, suing the fellow who's shared just one song.

Actual vs. Statutory Damages (2, Informative)

Landaras (159892) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450905)

IANAL. Yet. This is not legal advice.

You are right in that actual damages have not been shown, and that there is a good probability that these actual damages don't even exist in many of these cases.

However, copyright law is special in that the copyright holder has the option of pursuing statutory damages. As the name implies, these are damages assigned by statute (statute = law created by legislature). The relevant section of the law is pasted below, but these numbers are significant and are per work infringed.

Statutory damages are often elected because you don't have to go through the hassle of proving them; they are assumed for you by law.

- Neil Wehneman

*******
From Section 504 of http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [copyright.gov]

(c) Statutory Damages. -

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

obligatory boondock saints... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450713)

They can suck my pathetic little cock!

case details? (5, Interesting)

GenKreton (884088) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450714)

Is there some place where people get a list of who is being named in these suits? I assume it is public information since it's our public court system.

Just curious

I would complain about my tax money going to pay for these cases in court but you only ever hear of debt collection agencies calling those in the suits now...

Re:case details? (4, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450930)

The EFF [eff.org] used to have a searchable subpoena database [eff.org] but have shut that down now because the new suits are filed against anonymous persons, who are only revealed (if I understand it correctly, IANAL) after the courts have determined that the copyright infringement did in fact take place.

Re:case details? (2, Informative)

Copperhead (187748) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450946)

Probably not immediately, since the lawsuits are more often than not "John Doe at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx IP" lawsuits.

Witch hunt (4, Insightful)

Nuclear Elephant (700938) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450715)

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.

Since when did the RIAA care about the facts? They're not a morality organization, their only purpose is to generate revenue. Just like the SPA, MPAA, etc., these things start up as corporations run by high-powered attorneys. It's a great way to justify the existence of such an organization to the labels. As most people are already aware, the music industry wouldn't be what it is today without online file sharers who spend wads of cash buying legal music they ended up liking. Not trying to flame in the least bit - but why is everyone so surprised that an organization like this is defying all reason to pursue a bottom line?

never ending downward spiral (2, Interesting)

RobertKozak (613503) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450723)

So, they sue people that spend more money on music than the average.

So these people stop spending in order to cover court costs, fees, pissed off, etc.

RIAA notices that less people are spending money on music (it must be the filesharers) so they sue more people.

Yet Again... (0, Redundant)

CalcMan (179244) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450724)

...they decide to try to destroy the system with more lawsuits rather then finding a better way to use the system to their benefit.

Rationalizing Theft? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450726)

Below are the superficial facts.
I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

Below is a translation of the above superficial facts.

I support the idea of doing non-criminal activities as a way to avoid punishment for criminal activities. For example, if I steal a car and, later, donate the car to charity, then the authorities should ignore my original theft. I am Buddha. Therefore, I make the rules.

Re:Rationalizing Theft? (1)

kgruscho (801766) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450758)

That is a very generous translation.

I would have translated it like this:
I paid for some of my music, so it's okay if I stole the rest of it.

Re:Rationalizing Theft? (4, Interesting)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450826)

so it's okay if I stole the rest of it
Let's consider this critically for a moment. Theft is taking someone else's property without their consent.

At some point, the media producer sold the media to a distributor. Legally. That distributor then sold the media to the retail outlet. Legally. That retail outlet then sold the media to a customer. Legally. That customer then shared the media with you. Sharing is not theft.

All arguments based on the artificial concept of a license agreement aside... Just what part of this process was stealing?

What is a license agreement? There are two types of transactions: one in which ownership is transferred (sale), and one in which ownership is not transferred (rental). This business about a license agreement is a subversive technique attempting to obfuscate a rental as a sale in order to charge sale prices. 90% of the population would never exchange money for a CD if they knew it were an elaborate rental scam.

The only really fair lawsuit is one of false advertising against the media companies. They advertise sales but they really offer rentals. The fact that the rentals don't have a return date or late fees is irrelevant--Blockbuster does it.

Re:Rationalizing Theft? (1)

lump (670971) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450866)

By the way, copyright violation is not theft. Theft is where you take something away from someone. And if filesharing has created sales, its a bit hard to say that it has deprived the record industry of anything, isn't it?

I would liken it to radio - I've always been able to hear music for free on the radio, and I can even tape it if I want. But, if I particularly like something, I'm always going to prefer to own the CD.

Saying that every song downloaded is a lost sale is obviously false, because anything I download, but don't subsequently purchase, I most likely wouldn't have bought anyway. But at least I now am able to confidently spend money on things I do like.

Re:Rationalizing Theft? (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450950)

I support the idea of doing non-criminal activities as a way to avoid punishment for criminal activities. For example, if I steal a car and, later, donate the car to charity, then the authorities should ignore my original theft. I am Buddha. Therefore, I make the rules.

This analogy is flawd. There is NO theft.

A better analogy would be... let's say for example you rented a room to exhibit media that you didn't own the rights too... esp something you taped off the air. This would be wrong. But... let's say for example that you accepted donations for charity. Chances are... and this has been proven by others in the past... permission is always given. This is a great loophole for people who want to run marathons... entire seasons of programing in a rented hall legaly, moraly, and ethicaly correct.

Now... talk to an artist... give him a choice whether they would prefer low piracy and low profit, or high piracy and high profit. Which do you think they would choose? If you are doing something they wish you to do... there is no violation, and no copyright infringement... or "NO THEFT" to the boneheads who still feel this is a form of theft.

I've heard this all before.... (0, Troll)

Rahga (13479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450735)

In fact, I've been hearing it a lot today...

"Nobody's going to stop me from taking it."

"I can certainly understand it them stealing all of that. It's hard for people to understand unless they've actually lived and been through a situation like that."

"Salvaging no stuff? No, it's not my store, it's everybody's store."

Oh, wait... my bad, those weren't mp3 pirates. Rather, it's those pathetic looters that decided to stay in a town that lies below sea level when a massive hurricane came through.

Re:I've heard this all before.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450898)

You forgot one more whiney point:

"Well if I don't loot it, somebody else will."

P.S.

Don't forget your cheese either.

Futility? (4, Interesting)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450737)

At first glance, this would seem futile.

From TFA:

The world's major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed more than 14,000 such lawsuits since September 2003.

This is an infinitesimal percent of filesharers, estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions. For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now.

Really, though, I don't think it is. I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots. They have gotten away with massively unethical practices for a very long time, and idiots don't do that.

This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal. They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports. This is true despite the fact that they are consistently releasing garbage. But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach.

Re:Futility? (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450940)

"For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now."

You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?

"I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots."

Apple just sold its 50 millionth track online. The online music business is growing logarithmically. If you have evidence that their strategy isn't working, then great -- post it. Simple bromides like "the record industry doesn't get it" or "consumers don't want DRM" is great for self-congratulatory karma-whoring, but it looks like the record industry is finally taking hold of the online market.

"This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal."

You're 100% correct: the music industry is in the business of distributing music. I would have thought that obvious, but there may be some people reading this who weren't aware of it.

"They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports."

Very broad statement. Some record companies are doing okay (particularly the conglomerates like Time Warner that have their fingers in a lot of pies and just happen to have a record label arm); some are scrimping by with 5% net margin over the year, and yeah, some of the publicly traded companies are losing money. But the vast majority of record labels -- the indies; the ones with twelve employees -- are not publicly traded.

"But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach."

Correct again. If a company stops making money, it goes out of business. This is one of those universal things that isn't unique to the record industry.

Open WAP (3, Interesting)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450748)

Just a silly question:

What's to stop the defendant from claiming that they didn't download the files? If you run a WAP, there is virtually no way (short of them seizing your PC) for them to prove that you actually downloaded the files.

With most techno-idiot judges, just claim the "hackers" used your wireless access point to download the files.

Re:Open WAP (1)

hotdrop (907046) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450769)

Id like to see a test case for this as well cause technicaly thats a perfectly valid excuse.

Re:Open WAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450775)

*sigh* Once more... They aren't being sued for downloading, they are being sued for distributing.

Re:Open WAP (2, Insightful)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450831)

*sigh* Once more... An IP address is not an identy.

No, an IP address is being sued for uploading. There is no proof that a specific person used an IP address to upload.

Re:Open WAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450833)

then say a hacker was sharing from your WAP

I'm on a 100% music CD boycott (4, Insightful)

linuxhansl (764171) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450764)

Not because I am sharing or downloading music (which I don't) but because of the RIAA's actions.

Anybody who does not agree with the RIAA's current actions, should do the same: Vote with your wallet.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450835)

I love CD's. No DRM and 44100 samples per second and two channels are good enough for me. I want this format to stay around for a long time.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott (1)

linuxhansl (764171) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450856)

I love CD's. No DRM and 44100 samples per second and two channels are good enough for me. I want this format to stay around for a long time.

You have a point. CD's are (still) free of DRM. What else can one do to protest, though?

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott (2, Interesting)

Nivoset (607957) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450956)

i would be happy to buy more cd's again if the price was mroe reasonable. they say its expensive because of the label and the booklet and the such in a cd... but then. a dvd movie is about the same price (20$ for a dvd seems good to me) and they have, bigger capacity disc's, color labels and all. though no booklet. its also almost 2 hours longer and has video in it as well. and more people involved in the making of it. (since in a movie they have to do the audio sweetening too) so i really dont see the point of paying more than 10$ for a cd. or if the price stays the same, online being cheaper. cause of them not making a copy physically at all.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott (1)

paulius_g (808556) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450921)

I bought my last CD in 1998.

I've got this awesome website which fill in all my needs. www.shoutcast.com :-)

Back in the day, sharing was normal (4, Insightful)

JohnnyComeLately (725958) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450776)

I bet you money they (the execs) used to drive old beat up cars in high school, with tape decks. In the tape decks were dubbed tapes with their favortite tunes recorded from FM radio or friends. Although it's nice to associate music with property (and the theft of such), but it's simply something people have been doing for decades.

If you liked it, you went out and bought it. Now before you say, "Yeah, but digital lasts forever". Nope, CDs get scratched, p0rn sites unleash system infecting bots to delete, etc.

Re:Back in the day, sharing was normal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450865)

Sounds like a job for bash:

I said I was back with Cake. I never said there was enough for everyoone IM ETHIOPIAN.. POOR, HUNGRY, NOW GIVE ME CAKE didn't napster teach you anything about sharing? Yes. Don't.

I'm one of the 754. (5, Interesting)

Moken (780202) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450796)

I got hit at the University of Missouri, Rolla and let me tell you, I never saw it coming. I'm pretty computer literate (CS major that codes alot of low-level stuff)... I thought that I was being careful by staying within the school's system (Samba shares) but they still got it. They were watching inside the network. I don't know how on earth they managed to do that, we have a pretty strict network policy. In the meantime, they dragged through it. I got caught May 5th, 2005, didn't find out until July... never got an action date 'til August. It was awful... although I did start getting music via AllofMP3 (still shady?)

Re:I'm one of the 754. (3, Interesting)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450918)

You might have had a rat Miner among you. Or a stooge among the administration. A Missouri Sunshine Act request asking for anything on cooperation agreements with copyright holders, what third parties are allowed access to the network, etc. should be in order. But they'd probably be able to dodge the request under the guise of "network security." Hope this doesn't screw you up -- and if the administration has let you off, you obviously don't want to be the one making any Sunshine Act requests. Good luck, and use USENET :).

Futile discussion (1)

ScaryMonkey (886119) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450818)

This is basically non-news at this point. If anyone was scared away from file sharing by the first lawsuits it's clear that dozens more have replaced them. It's painfully obvious that this tactic will never work.

Every time there's a post like this it's the same old back and forth about: "Those fascist bastards!" "What's wrong? It IS stealing." "It's not really stealing, it's copyright infringement, there's a difference..." We could sit here all day and debate the ethics of filesharing until we're blue in the face, and it will have exactly the same effect as these lawsuits. None. Filesharing has become a massive global phenomenon practiced by millions of people, and it just won't be quashed. By anything. I'm just waiting to see how music and entertainment adapt...

It's stealing and my panties are in a bunch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450819)

Oh BOO fucking HOO!

RIAA is a useless greedy overpowerful entity, so to hell with their lawsuits and keep on sharing those files. This benefits ONLY RIAA, and barely the artists if even at all. So you think because some ink is scratched on some ridiculous piece of paper that makes it right? Some laws are complete shit, see the Patriot Act. Their existence does not mean they are right or deserve to be around. Maybe if the economy was not totally destroyed, see rising poverty levels report, then maybe there would be more comfort with lining the golden pockets of the greedy's already fat bank account.

BOO FUCKING HOO!

Can they be any more stupid (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450829)

I just spent the last month downloading gigs and gigs of porn via LimeWire. No joke, I now have over 35Gb of porn. Yet, these guys are going after the music abusers??? I don't get it...

Oh, and just in case the RIAA or MPAA or some other -AA organization sees this and wants to come after me... well I was never read my rights. Sorry. Fine away.

PDA & Smartphone Optimized Sites [mobileoptimized.com]
Replacing my laptop with a Treo [mobileoptimized.com]

Perhaps the RIAA is simply better at data analysis (4, Interesting)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450853)

"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

The study was no surprise. I've pirated music in the past. Today, I spend about $30 a month on the iTMS. My grandmother has never pirated music. She spends no money online for music. This is because she does not own a PC.

Folks who've used file sharing software tend to buy music because they are Internet-savvy and they like music. Copyright infringement is not a prerequisite for buying music online! The important corelations are having a computer, familiarity with the Internet, and an appreciation for getting music via their PC. The music industry can find plenty of people who fall into that category without also falling into the "putting thousands of files into their share directory" category that tends to make people ripe for legal action.

The record industry has acknowledged that they are using a "carrot and stick" approach toward curbing piracy. Apple has just sold their 50 millionth track, and the online music industry is still growing logarithmically. Their approach seems to be working just fine.

I am not a thief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450854)

I take copyrighted music, but I am a thief? I care no more for copyrighted music than non.

I am not a thief.

Am I the only one? No.

Who does take copyrighted music because it's copyrighted? Must be just a very few, far fewer than the amount of RIAA articles I read.

But I'm open to interpret other views on this...

So damages are what, $3 a month? (3, Interesting)

gregor-e (136142) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450876)

With Yahoo Music providing access to over 1 million songs for $5/month I would think the damages that RIAA can claim are limited to whatever share Yahoo would have passed onto them if these file-sharers had gone legit with a subscription. Or am I just being naive?

Geek Science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13450877)

"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.""

Non-scientific poll that justifies my actions:==good.

Non-scientific poll that makes the KDE desktop look good:==good.

Anyone know why we're called geeks, again?

hey, RIAA!! (0, Flamebait)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450878)

SUCCCKKK IT!!!!!! haha.. i'm tired of ranting about how i feel regarding this matter.. just suck it..

no really.. just suck it..

Woohoo! 14,000 so far! (5, Insightful)

FlynnMP3 (33498) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450916)

Yes, I feel sorry for all those who got extorted by the RIAA. They are the few (soon not so few), the proud, the ones who will help change the system! The more lawsuits that come from those baffoons the more people will get pissed off and finally start giving a shit about how they are treated.

Obviously, strong arm business tactics are alive and well. They never really left you know. Every great change in technology brought about decades worth of suffering of the people while the boneheaded ones finally benefitted in the end! Fair? Nope, not in the slightest. Who said life was fair?

Puts a tear in me eye it does. *sniff*

-FlynnMP3

supply and demand factor not accounted (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450923)

One factor of supply and demand that is seemingly overlooked by all on the supply side is the demand for reasonable cost.

We are in the midst of another artificially high "fuel crisis" where any change in the weather, good or bad, somehow means they need to raise the price of fuel. If there was truly a supply problem, the profits of the companies on the supply side wouldn't be earning record high profits. In the US, this is an illegal pricing tactic and somehow it's not being prosecuted... maybe because the US president has strong interests in the oil industry. I recall the fuel crisis of about 20+ years ago and how it ended... and more importantly, WHY it ended. It ended when alternative fuels started to catch on -- specifically "gasahol." It was really soon after gasahol started flowing from the pumps that the fuel crisis came to an inexplicable end, but before that time, it didn't prevent the supply side from doing everything it could to rape its customers.

Back on topic, however, I see a demand for lower cost (read: better value) and the general responses we are seeing. We see what I consider to be "civil disobedience" even if it's technically not the correct expression for this situation. I don't consider it to be criminal as much as I consider it to be an expression that the supply side simply wants too much for something that is considered to have value... just not enough value to the people who would sooner get music this way.

The RIAA's hostile response will be the fuel of change... change they will not like. Just as gasahol started to threaten the fuel industry, independants and online trade will flourish at the RIAA's expense no matter HOW many victims they claim. There will be no "lawsuit into submission."

Prepare to assimilate... (1)

cnerd2025 (903423) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450955)

...resistance is futile. The RIAA, though it may at one time have had good intentions (and a neccesity to exist) is now obsolete. The internet has changed EVERYTHING. Folks who said 10 years ago "I ordered books on Amazon.com" and thought it would be the end-all-be-all, obviously they were wrong. They didn't see it coming. The RIAA "ain't seen nothin' yet." We could even find a lawyer willing to represent us and sue the pants off of the RIAA. Wait, they aren't wearing any; they have been too busy under the covers with the government...

RIAA would do well to listen to history. (5, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450960)

  • "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Abba Eban
  • "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H L Mencken
  • "To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton


Sadly, the RIAA continues to defy reality and believe that suing its customers will bring them back (damn, how many times you gotta BOMB people to make 'em stop HATING you?) when people are faced with an alternative source of music (illegal or not) that is more convenient, better suited to getting them what they want, and cheaper (either free or $1.00 a song).

Unfortunately, I doubt that even the RIAA is so stupid or stupefyingly myopic that they can't see this, so I conclude that it's not about money. They want to be able to control you. They want control what you can listen to. They want to be able to stop anything new they can't pimp to enrich themselves.

They are scared to death of the internet. They hate the idea that I can could pay $12-14 for 12-14 tracks of music that I know I like, as opposed to 2 good songs and 12 pieces of filler because that would force them to put out the effort to create more good music. They hate the idea of something that can be replicated with no physical effort, because those who make money off pressing CDs will be destroyed by it if they don't adapt. They are scared of change, and intent on pulling as many people down as they can.

There's no question that the RIAA will be destroyed by the Internet. The only question is how many people with will take down with them.

More likely to die (1)

The Angry Artist (877090) | more than 8 years ago | (#13450968)

Yes, the RIAA sues more. Nothing's really going to change in terms of how much is being pirated, but when the entertainment industries are doing the talking, facts only get in the way of what they're saying.

This is essentially just the RIAA making an example out of people. You'd be more likely to die from external injuries [slyck.com] * than be sued.

*Yes, the article is 4,000 people old by now, but I doubt the stastics have changed significantly.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...