RIAA lawsuits question

[Craig Mitchell]

Is it possible for songwirters/publishers to sue the same
people the RIAA is suing for copyright infringment as well for
specific works they own?

This may turn out to be a huge soure of income for bands that have
been dropped by labels but still have enough money to hire the
investigators and do the lawsuits for them or they could split the
rewards 50/50 and still come out way ahead on just 1000 infringement
suits. (especially if people roll over and settle for $5000 rather
than face $175,000 a song verdict) Probably more money than if one had
made a hit record.

Think about it, if you were in a band that got dropped off a label a
few years ago, still have songs floating around on P2P networks, you
never made much money but you own stil own the copyright, you're
working as a house painter, no fanbase to worry about, what is there
to lose? Could this happen?

With all the uproar and rehtoric in defense of P2P networks. (and by
the P2P networks themselves) I still don't see any of them lining up
to sign bands and create content, tour support, pay for videos, artist
development. etc

The bottom line is all the business models P2P networks are suggesting
rely on someone else footing the bill and then they step in and take
the rewards. It's insane!

The great thing about the internet is the easy distribution, the bad
thing about the internet is how easy it is for _everyone_ to set up
thier own distribution. However, writing a timeless hit song remains
very, very difficult. Its all about the content, and he who owns the
content makes the money.

just stuff to think about

Craig

[Craig Mitchell]

"Remixer" > wrote in message >...
> > very, very difficult. Its all about the content, and he who owns the
> > content makes the money.
>
> Unfortunately, it's who owns the means of distribution that makes the money.
> That's why the computer industry and the record industry are in a celebrity
> death match.
>
> AS

I am going to disagree with this after giving it some thought. Just
for the sake of debate.

In previous distribution models, radio, records, tv, it was true. As
to own a radio station or TV station one had to have lots of money and
more importantly.... a FCC license. and to cut distribution deals cost
lots of money. Distribution was one of the gates of power. Much like
cable TV, there is only one wire coming into the house and someone
owns it.

With internet distribution, just about anyone can set up a server w/
credit card processing and be up and running .To compete with other
labels you will still need advertising and promotion, that has not
changed a bit.....but a big piece of the puzzle has been solved with
internet distribution. (as opposed to getting physical merch to stores
or mail order)

I think in less than 5 years the majority of the music buying public
will want to buy music as an audio file. Hopefully something more
robust than an MP3 file. Who knows, this could be the selling point to
high rez audio as up until now everything has to be downsampled to 16
bit anyway.

But back to the original arguement.... that he who owns the content
makes
the money.

Look how _fast_ Kaza came on the scene and signed up millions of users
after Napster closed. Was it simply because Kaza had a better system?
I think the large amount of people who use Kaza could not explain the
difference between Kaza and Napster if they tried. They just know they
can get the stuff they want for free. Its hard to compete with free.

Kaza grew so fast because it had the content people wanted (it was all
illegal) but they had it.

What if you took all the copyrighted files off of Kaza? It would look
very different and they would not have nearly the traffic they have
now. Thus, he who owns the content makes the money. Unless someone
takes the content and gives it away for free to everyone else........
that makes things difficult on people who are trying to sell said
content legally.

Craig

[nicholas yu]

(Craig Mitchell) wrote in message >...
> The bottom line is all the business models P2P networks are suggesting
> rely on someone else footing the bill and then they step in and take
> the rewards. It's insane!

hello. i think the people who run kazaa are complete *******s.
really, just go look at their website. www.kazaa.com. any joe schmoo
could just stumble upon this website, and not even know that getting
music this way is illegal. kazaa just sits back, laughing while the
bucks roll in, and while their users systematically get manhandled.
you would think that on their "privacy" page, they would at least make
it an important point that one shouldn't, under penalty of law,
download copyrighted material.

that being said, i think it is unfair to lump all P2P groups together.
for example, one of the bigger P2P networks, soulseek, has in fact
started started a label - soulseek records. these guys are actually
working hard to try to come up with ways to conveniently distribute
music online in a manner which is equitable to the artist as well.

http://www.soulseekrecords.com/

they've just started out, only 3 releases. but hey, they're trying
SOMETHING productive.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Do you think I could get the RIAA to sue me for the many terabytes of
audio files I've passed out over the internet, and somehow wait til we
got to court before I mention that I was the sole copyright holder? Or
would I have to find somebody to actually download my songs first?

ulysses

[Artie Turner]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
> Do you think I could get the RIAA to sue me for the many terabytes of
> audio files I've passed out over the internet, and somehow wait til we
> got to court before I mention that I was the sole copyright holder? Or
> would I have to find somebody to actually download my songs first?

I thought the RIAA was only suing on behalf of those who actually belong
to the RIAA. Are you a member?

AT
>
> ulysses

[Roger W. Norman]

You must have some brains to operate this equipment. In other words, think
about it. RIAA isn't going after people with backing and money. They are
going after children or parents of children who download music and obviously
don't have the wherewithal to fight a major company or their association's
law suit. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

In other words, this is not a huge source of income for anybody but the
lawyers and it ties our court systems up and changes their being into
collection agencies of RIAA. Do you want to be on that side of the fence?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Craig Mitchell" > wrote in message
om...
> Is it possible for songwirters/publishers to sue the same
> people the RIAA is suing for copyright infringment as well for
> specific works they own?
>
> This may turn out to be a huge soure of income for bands that have
> been dropped by labels but still have enough money to hire the
> investigators and do the lawsuits for them or they could split the
> rewards 50/50 and still come out way ahead on just 1000 infringement
> suits. (especially if people roll over and settle for $5000 rather
> than face $175,000 a song verdict) Probably more money than if one had
> made a hit record.
>
> Think about it, if you were in a band that got dropped off a label a
> few years ago, still have songs floating around on P2P networks, you
> never made much money but you own stil own the copyright, you're
> working as a house painter, no fanbase to worry about, what is there
> to lose? Could this happen?
>
> With all the uproar and rehtoric in defense of P2P networks. (and by
> the P2P networks themselves) I still don't see any of them lining up
> to sign bands and create content, tour support, pay for videos, artist
> development. etc
>
> The bottom line is all the business models P2P networks are suggesting
> rely on someone else footing the bill and then they step in and take
> the rewards. It's insane!
>
> The great thing about the internet is the easy distribution, the bad
> thing about the internet is how easy it is for _everyone_ to set up
> thier own distribution. However, writing a timeless hit song remains
> very, very difficult. Its all about the content, and he who owns the
> content makes the money.
>
> just stuff to think about
>
> Craig

[deharmonic]

quote:

and not even know that getting
> music this way is illegal.

getting music over kazaa is not illegal unless the music is
copyrighted and then only if the copyright holder does not extend the
right to others.

(nicholas yu) wrote in message >...
> (Craig Mitchell) wrote in message >...
> > The bottom line is all the business models P2P networks are suggesting
> > rely on someone else footing the bill and then they step in and take
> > the rewards. It's insane!
>
> hello. i think the people who run kazaa are complete *******s.
> really, just go look at their website. www.kazaa.com. any joe schmoo
> could just stumble upon this website, and not even know that getting
> music this way is illegal. kazaa just sits back, laughing while the
> bucks roll in, and while their users systematically get manhandled.
> you would think that on their "privacy" page, they would at least make
> it an important point that one shouldn't, under penalty of law,
> download copyrighted material.
>
> that being said, i think it is unfair to lump all P2P groups together.
> for example, one of the bigger P2P networks, soulseek, has in fact
> started started a label - soulseek records. these guys are actually
> working hard to try to come up with ways to conveniently distribute
> music online in a manner which is equitable to the artist as well.
>
> http://www.soulseekrecords.com/
>
> they've just started out, only 3 releases. but hey, they're trying
> SOMETHING productive.

[NW]

And Kazaa does not have any servers to maintain the content in the first place.
If you didn't know Kazaa and the like are *peer to peer* file sharing networks.


> quote:
> > Kaza grew so fast because it had the content people wanted (it was all
> > illegal) but they had it.

>
> deharmonic wrote:
> all content on kazaa is not illegal

--
Cheers,
Nate West
"Assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit."

[Scott Dorsey]

Justin Ulysses Morse > wrote:
>Do you think I could get the RIAA to sue me for the many terabytes of
>audio files I've passed out over the internet, and somehow wait til we
>got to court before I mention that I was the sole copyright holder? Or
>would I have to find somebody to actually download my songs first?

If you have that many audio files, you're probably eligible to join the
RIAA...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Craig Mitchell]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message >...
> You must have some brains to operate this equipment. In other words, think
> In other words, this is not a huge source of income for anybody but the
> lawyers and it ties our court systems up and changes their being into
> collection agencies of RIAA. Do you want to be on that side of the fence?

Roger,

4 million people are logged onto Kaza alone, not including the other
P2P networks..... do you _really_ think this does not affect sales?
These are normal people doing this, it is breaking the law. They just
don't think they'll get caught since no one else has yet.

And no, it will not tie up the court system because none of these case
will go to court. Everyone will settle out of court. It would be
suicide to go to trial on something like this if you can settle for a
few thousand dollars.

That money adds up fast when you sue 2000 people at a time. Tracking
IP addresses is not hard. Really, the RIAA could sue a million people
and maybe .05 percent of those cases would go to court. The media will
not cover every case, by next month getting sued by the RIAA will not
even make a ripple in the news.

and guess what, the people getting sued now are sitting ducks for the
individual copyright holders that can probably sue them as well as all
the footwork has already been done.

I'm not happy it has come to this, but this is what it has come to.

The internet is the next great distribution model for music. I don't
want records, I don't want tape, I don't want CDs, I just want the
audio file (24 bit please) from there I'll put it on the format of my
choice.

As a person who plans to at some point sell my music online, what is
happening now with the lawsuits has to happen to make it reasonably
safe for me to attempt to sell music via the internet without worrying
that I'll sell one copy and everyone else will download it for free
from Kaza if they want it.

and why not have artists sue people for themselves? Do you think the
guys from say 'Right Said Fred" could care less if they alientate a
non existent fanbase by suing 1000 people who decided to download
their one hit "I'm to Sexy" from 8 years ago... and I'm pretty sure
there are way more than a 1000 downloads of any hit song out there in
the past ten years.

That could add up to 5 million dolllars for those guys, sure the
lawyers may see alot of it, but they could still walk away with 2
million. What is there to lose? That's what the copyright law is for
right? Thats a crazy example from a one hit wonder band but I'm sure
there is endless stream of artists who would feel totally justified in
doing it.

so yeah, to answer your question, since I want to even up the playing
field before I start selling my music online, I'm on that side of the
fence.

When online distribution becomes the primary means of delivery to the
consumer, which will happen soon, the major labels will have lost
control of one of thier fundamental gates of power that have kept
artist beholden to them.

Then, I think we will find that people with your mindset are the ones
on the wrong side of the fence.

Craig

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Abyssmal > wrote:

> Why is analog ok, but not digital,
> when neither as of yet provides a true cd quality copy of the
> original?

You ever compared the time it takes to dub an analog recording compared
to the time it takes to dupe a digital one?

--
ha

[Critical Thinker]

Abyssmal > wrote in message >...

>And how many of them are downloading uncompressed ,original copies of
>music cd's?They made a big stink when vcr's started being sold,
>claiming that people would pirate movies. They even claimed that
>people who taped a tv show to watch later were infringing on their
>copyrights, even though the show was aired for free in the first
>place.

Good MP3s are so close in quality to CDs (for typical listeners) that
your argument is very weak. Pirates are stealing "potential" CDs from
store shelves if they never end up buying those same tracks on CD. I
don't accept the claim that many downloads are just done as
"previews." That's why CD sales have dropped so substantially.

>This is akin to radio, where these same artists/companies play their
>material to an audience for free, and anyone can make legal analog
>copies of the material being broadcast.

FM radio vs. MP3 is a poor analogy and here's why:

FM radio is dynamically compressed and limited to 30-15khz. MP3s with
a good encoder cover 20-20khz without adding meaningful noise.

You can rarely know when a particular FM song will come on, so you'll
probably have to tape all day long and spend hours going back over it.
And even if they happen to play your song, you'll likely make a weaker
2nd generation copy to segregate it from the master tape or MiniDisc.
I suppose if you use DAT you could have a pristine 2nd copy, but that
seems a waste to use for degraded FM.

Even if they played the song you hoped they might, DJs often talk over
or cut off the start & finish. Many are faded out long before the end
and the only time you can get pristine length is when they announce
that they'll be playing a full album. But still, the sound quality
doesn't touch a good MP3.

The variety of songs played on radio doesn't come close to what's out
there on pirates' hard drives. And you can't do a text search for
tracks on the radio! With DSL, T1 or cable you can search for and
download a specific song in literally seconds, whereas it could take
days of frustrating dubs to get it from FM radio.

That's why there is almost no valid comparison between the two in
terms of a piracy/income threat to musicians.

>All of a sudden when people start downloading copies of music in
>compressed, inferior format to cd and possibly recording them
>digitally, it becomes a problem.Why is analog ok, but not digital,
>when neither as of yet provides a true cd quality copy of the
>original?

MP3s, especially over 192kbps, come much closer to CD quality than
radio ever will. The term "compression" is misleading also.
"Perceptual coding" is what's really happening with MP3s. Masked
sounds the ear can't hear (or can barely hear) are either removed or
allocated fewer bits. See this article:

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mp3/chapter/ch02.html

FM radio IS compressed (dynamics are squashed) and it often contains
hum and hiss artifacts. If you think you can get anything near the
quality of a good MP3 by dubbing from the radio, you know little about
technology.

>They do not care about analog radio recording, because they make
money
>already through that avenue.They are not suing for lost revenue, but
>for future control of high bandwidth digital content, that could
>eventually be used to post uncompressed digital copies of music.They
>want to eventually have the level of control on the internet that
they
>have in the real world.

No, they are worried about digital because it sounds close enough to
the original CD that most downloaders will never bother to pay for the
same tracks they've downloaded. The downloads are their permanent
copies and musicians invariably lose potential income.

>Why dont the RIAA and artists sue China, who regularly infringe by
>manufacturing and selling all forms of content without any revenue
>going to the creators? Instead they pick on some grandmom that has
>inferior sounding, compressed copies of music on her computer that
>unbeknowest to her, her grandchildren downloaded.

As I've pointed out, it's NOT that inferior-sounding by any means. If
that's your main defense for piracy you'd better find a more
technically astute one.

>When it comes to that, protection will be needed.I doubt as of now
>that many people are posting 24 bit, uncompressed perfect copies of
>cds anywhere.Those that want control over internet distribution want
>it to protect against this in the future.If they were only concerned
>with lost revenue from people making copies, they would ban analog
>recording of radio broadcasts also.It is comparable in quality to the
>mp3's of today.

Nonsense! Noisy analog FM radio at 30-15khz vs. clean digital MP3s at
20-20khz are different animals. And read my earlier comments about how
difficult it is to target specific, uninterrupted, high quality songs
when you're recording from FM.

The RIAA rightfully fears MP3 because CD sales HAVE dropped
substantially and MP3s DO sound pretty good for most popular music.


Critical Thinker

[Andrea]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message >...
> You must have some brains to operate this equipment. In other words, think
> about it. RIAA isn't going after people with backing and money. They are
> going after children or parents of children who download music and obviously
> don't have the wherewithal to fight a major company or their association's
> law suit. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
>
> In other words, this is not a huge source of income for anybody but the
> lawyers and it ties our court systems up and changes their being into
> collection agencies of RIAA. Do you want to be on that side of the fence?

What about COPPA, specifically section 1303 of The Child Online
Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which is available at this official
website,
http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm

If the RIAA or a third party hired by the RIAA collects any
information about a child under 13(Isn't that girl Brianna only 12?),
could they be sued for civil and criminal penalties. Parents can turn
around and use the threat of a COPPA lawsuit as a countermeasure or
remedy to being sued by the RIAA espcially if they have young
children.
Andrea

[Artie Turner]

Critical Thinker wrote:
> Nonsense! Noisy analog FM radio at 30-15khz vs. clean digital MP3s at
> 20-20khz are different animals. And read my earlier comments about how
> difficult it is to target specific, uninterrupted, high quality songs
> when you're recording from FM.

Gee, where were you when we flogged this horse to death last year? Have
you ever actually used a P2P network to see what its about? Among the
decent, high bit rate MP3s there are thousands of absolutely horrible
sounding 64k MP3s distributed by and for dial-up users.

But the FM vs MP3 quality is not the real issue - even if there are lots
of good free samples on FM/satellite/MTV/cable radio if you want to go
to the trouble to capture them.

The real issue is that intellectual property in digital form is
incredibly easy to steal. Does that make it moral to steal it? I don't
think so. The Big Media producers have chosen to market a product that
anyone with a cheap PC can "rip, copy and burn" and place on a P2P network.

The irony of the situation is that so much of the stolen "intellectual
property" is the musical equivalent of junk food or soft-core porn and
it's being marketed to adolescents. And the RIAA expects law suits to
awaken a sense of morality in someone who lives for gangsta rap or
Britney Spears.

But, the RIAA is right about one thing: the only real solution to IP
theft is scaring the public into IP "morality" with lawsuits and
browbeating. That, and implementing costly, theft-proof DRM systems.

Welcome to the future.
>
> The RIAA rightfully fears MP3 because CD sales HAVE dropped
> substantially and MP3s DO sound pretty good for most popular music.
>
>
> Critical Thinker

[Rob Adelman]

Andrea wrote:


> If the RIAA or a third party hired by the RIAA collects any
> information about a child under 13(Isn't that girl Brianna only 12?),
> could they be sued for civil and criminal penalties. Parents can turn

They sue the owner of the account in question. I doubt if the 13 year
old owns the account.

[Mike Rivers]

Abyssmal > wrote in message >...

> This is akin to radio, where these same artists/companies play their
> material to an audience for free, and anyone can make legal analog
> copies of the material being broadcast.
> All of a sudden when people start downloading copies of music in
> compressed, inferior format to cd and possibly recording them
> digitally, it becomes a problem.Why is analog ok, but not digital,
> when neither as of yet provides a true cd quality copy of the
> original?

The problem is with the number of "free" copies floating around. Not
everyone had a cassette recorder, and not everyone who had a cassette
recorder had it connected to the radio. So for most, the radio was a
controlled listening environment. Every play is counted, licensed, and
paid for. If you missed taping the song the first time around, you had
to wait until it was played again. (Admittedly with the state of top
40 radio this might be less than an hour.) If someone happened to
catch a song on tape and play it at home, or in their car, or give a
copy to a friend, it's just a drop in the bucket.

The occasional "lost sale" due to someone recording a broadcast was
considered (just like radio play) to be advertising, and free
advertising at that. I would tend to believe that a certain number of
cassette-traders actually bought the record, which of course the all
argue is a benefit to the record companies.

However, when someone makes a song available on a P2P server, it's
available all the time to anyone with the proper connections. There
are far more unpaid copies in circulation, and there's no incentive to
make a purchase because there will always be more where that one came
from. Kind of like radio that plays what you (the collective you - all
millions of of P2Pers) want when you want it, and only pays for one of
those plays. This constitutes real loss.

Frankly I think there should be a better law than copyright to
describe this theft (how about larceny?) but the RIAA is using
copyright because that's the law they know.

> Why dont the RIAA and artists sue China, who regularly infringe by
> manufacturing and selling all forms of content without any revenue
> going to the creators?

There are no international laws in place that allow it. If that was
the case (and as someone in this thread mentioned "it's easy to track
IP addresses", why aren't they suing all the spammers that send mail
through web sites in China? They would if they could.

> Instead they pick on some grandmom that has
> inferior sounding, compressed copies of music on her computer that
> unbeknowest to her, her grandchildren downloaded.

They're trying to make a point that this is something that the common
people shouldn't do, and what better example is there than a kid who
doesn't know or care about the law? There are already programs in
place to deal with the large bootleg operations that sell physical
product - the CDs that you see in Rubbermaid tubs on the tailgate of a
pickup truck at a flea market for example, many of which are of pop
music from other countries than the US.

The Internet is clearly a reasonable alternative distribution channel
for music, but just like you can't walk into Sam Goody and walk out
with a CD in your pocket without paying for it, similar anti-theft
measures must be put into effect. Right now it's too difficult or too
expensive, so the best they can do is discourage participation, and
this round of lawsuits, the equivalent of booting a car with a lot of
unpaid parking tickets, might work, at least until something better
comes along.

Technology moves faster than corporate processes.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Abyssmal wrote:

> If you have the radio on, and a tape in, it takes about 1 second to
> hit record, and 1 second to stop it.Of course you have to wait for the
> song to be aired and listen to it in real time.

The point is that once you have it in either form, how long does it take
to dupe it for a "friend", or 4 million friends?

P2P and it's a few seconds for digiral; analog is 4 mil. x 3 minutes =
12 million minutes = 200 thousand hours...

See any difference in the concept yet? Remove P2P and who will bitch
about taking a song off the air digitally? And when was the last time an
analog copy was an exact dupe of the original material?

--
ha

[Artie Turner]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> Abyssmal wrote:
>
>
>>If you have the radio on, and a tape in, it takes about 1 second to
>>hit record, and 1 second to stop it.Of course you have to wait for the
>>song to be aired and listen to it in real time.
>
>
> The point is that once you have it in either form, how long does it take
> to dupe it for a "friend", or 4 million friends?
>
> P2P and it's a few seconds for digiral; analog is 4 mil. x 3 minutes =
> 12 million minutes = 200 thousand hours...

Hank, please. Not exactly apples to apples - once it's digitized,
regardless of the "source" - it moves the same speed in a P2P network.
And even with a blazing fast T1 or cable modem, P2P networks don't
always deliver MP3s in a "few seconds."

I wish just one RAP regular had accepted my offer last year to exchange
a few non-copyrighted, personal MP3s via WinMX just to see how P2P
really works. It's pretty obvious none of the regulars around here has
used P2P. No one will admit it, that's for sure! ;^)

P2P can be used for totally innocuous, legal purposes as well as
stealing copyrighted material.

AT
>
> See any difference in the concept yet? Remove P2P and who will bitch
> about taking a song off the air digitally? And when was the last time an
> analog copy was an exact dupe of the original material?
>
> --
> ha

[Abyssmal]

>However, when someone makes a song available on a P2P server, it's
>available all the time to anyone with the proper connections. There
>are far more unpaid copies in circulation, and there's no incentive to
>make a purchase because there will always be more where that one came
>from. Kind of like radio that plays what you (the collective you - all
>millions of of P2Pers) want when you want it, and only pays for one of
>those plays. This constitutes real loss.

The music industry did not provide a viable alternative for legitimate
users to embrace and use online.Now that global record sales slump 5%
in a recessive economy, they attack consumers for using a system they
offered no alternative to.So basically, they offer no way to deliver
legitimate online music, illegal music propogates, they call consumers
thieves, they try to enact laws to restrict technology,
all so they can sell that technology back to the consumers .If they
did this in the first place, they could have avoided alienating
millions of consumers who do buy their product and who may download
songs.Even a CEO for thr RIAA stated that the record labels are
killing their own opportunity online, by not putting enough backing
into their own subscription based online music services.
Everybody heard of Napster, but how many people even know the
record labels offer Musicnet and Pressplay as an alternative?
Instead of pushing theses services, they decide to wait until things
spiral out of control, and sue grandma instead.Brilliant.


>They're trying to make a point that this is something that the common
>people shouldn't do, and what better example is there than a kid who
>doesn't know or care about the law? There are already programs in
>place to deal with the large bootleg operations that sell physical
>product - the CDs that you see in Rubbermaid tubs on the tailgate of a
>pickup truck at a flea market for example, many of which are of pop
>music from other countries than the US.


They are trying to make a point by attacking consumers and calling
them thieves instead of developing alternatives.

In a society where drive-thrus and ATM's permeate every corner, it is
obvious people like convenient, quick service.
Anybody, including record company executives, could see the
possibility the internet provided for fast, convenient downloads of
music.Instead of developing a plan for using it, they ignored it.
When there is a market for something, someone will provide a way.
The judge presiding over the Napster case accused the record labels of
witholding licensing from digital music companies while developing
Musicnet and Pressplay, basically undermining their own companies
by misuse of copyrights.This proves to me they do not want to develop
a solution online, they want to control the technology and sell it
back to us.

>
>The Internet is clearly a reasonable alternative distribution channel
>for music, but just like you can't walk into Sam Goody and walk out
>with a CD in your pocket without paying for it, similar anti-theft
>measures must be put into effect. Right now it's too difficult or too
>expensive, so the best they can do is discourage participation, and
>this round of lawsuits, the equivalent of booting a car with a lot of
>unpaid parking tickets, might work, at least until something better
>comes along.

I do not agree with downloads when they are against the copyright
holders wishes.It basically is theft. When the record labels do not
provide an alternative, and try to sabotage their own alternatives
through misuse of copyrights, somebody was bound to provide a way to
do it.The mess continues to unfold. I blame both the consumer and the
record companies for this mess. The consumer may pay in the short run,
but the record companies will suffer in the long run for alienating
millions of potential users they failed to provide a service for.

Randall

[Abyssmal]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:44:02 GMT, (LeBaron &
Alrich) wrote:

>Abyssmal wrote:
>
>> If you have the radio on, and a tape in, it takes about 1 second to
>> hit record, and 1 second to stop it.Of course you have to wait for the
>> song to be aired and listen to it in real time.
>
>The point is that once you have it in either form, how long does it take
>to dupe it for a "friend", or 4 million friends?
>
>P2P and it's a few seconds for digiral; analog is 4 mil. x 3 minutes =
>12 million minutes = 200 thousand hours...
>
>See any difference in the concept yet? Remove P2P and who will bitch
>about taking a song off the air digitally? And when was the last time an
>analog copy was an exact dupe of the original material?


Peer to peer flourished because the record companies did not provide a
viable alternative to a public who clearly demanded it.

Instead of trying to control or bury internet potential, they should
have embraced and developed it.

Randall

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Artie Turner wrote:

> Hank, please. Not exactly apples to apples - once it's digitized,
> regardless of the "source" - it moves the same speed in a P2P network.
> And even with a blazing fast T1 or cable modem, P2P networks don't
> always deliver MP3s in a "few seconds."

The point here is to get people to stop invoking the old "analog from
the radio" arguement when it comes to digital storage and P2P exchange.
It's really that simple. I am not the one who cannot distinguish between
an apple and an orange, but some are a little slow to get with the
contemporary reality of why P2P for digital is not closely akin to the
former reality.

> I wish just one RAP regular had accepted my offer last year to exchange
> a few non-copyrighted, personal MP3s via WinMX just to see how P2P
> really works. It's pretty obvious none of the regulars around here has
> used P2P. No one will admit it, that's for sure! ;^)

Haven't done it and given the speed of our ISP connection ain't going
to. And mind you, I don't do anything Windows; first thing happens when
I get a Mac is everything Micro$loth gets tossed. I operate an M$-free
zone here. I also rarely bother with MP3's. It don't ineterst me.

> P2P can be used for totally innocuous, legal purposes as well as
> stealing copyrighted material.

Agreed.

--
ha

[Abyssmal]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:14:25 -0500, Rob Adelman
> wrote:

>
>
>Abyssmal wrote:
>
>> Peer to peer flourished because the record companies did not provide a
>> viable alternative to a public who clearly demanded it.
>
>The altenative would have involved a fee and *some* would have continued
>on the free route anyway. The only way to stop that is to have a risk of
>getting caught and paying some type of penalty. That's human nature.

A lot of people download software because it is cheaper than ordering
it from the company.Any alternative would have been better than
nothing, which is what the industry has done.Paying 50 cents a song to
download would have been reasonable, considering you need to buy and
burn your own cd, and maybe have to print a downloadable insert.

The record companies still do not provide a viable alternative for
online music.They undermine thier own feeble attempts.The customer is
always right is a slogan the recording industry has forgotten.

Randall

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Abyssmal wrote:

> Peer to peer flourished because the record companies did not provide a
> viable alternative to a public who clearly demanded it.

Gee, it has nothing to do with lack of respect for intellectual property
and a major failure to understand theft. It has nothing with people
wanting stuff they aren't willing to pay for, but are willing to steal.

If we don't call a spade a spade then we'll always enjoy the taste of
mud after licking a shovel we'd called a lollipop.

--
ha

[Andrea]

Rob Adelman > wrote in message >...
> Andrea wrote:
>
>
> > If the RIAA or a third party hired by the RIAA collects any
> > information about a child under 13(Isn't that girl Brianna only 12?),
> > could they be sued for civil and criminal penalties. Parents can turn
>
> They sue the owner of the account in question. I doubt if the 13 year
> old owns the account.

It doesn't matter who owns the computer or the account, COPPA
compliance rules listed here, state that anyone collecting information
or the internet traffic of, or spying on minors under the age of 13,
need to have parental consent first.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/coppa.htm

InMyOpinion, Brianna was exploited for financial gain(2,000$) and
exploitation after it was discovered that she had a folder of music on
a private computer, after they knew she was 12 years old and covered
by COPPA.

They took a settlment and are in the process of getting cash
settlements with threats against minors they have been informed of,
that are under the age of 13, this is financial gain and the
exploitation of a minor, and is against the law, and any information
they use to strongarm settlements with parents is child exploitation
and invasion of privacy, blatent and obvious violations of
COPPA(The Child Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998).

There are civil penalties and fines for violations of the COPPA act,
and the parents can sue for this violation of privacy, and the States
Attorney General of the State of New York and every state in the
nation, is by law responsible for protecting the child as plantiffs
for the state and prosecuting COPPA violations, occuring in thier
jurisdictions.

I guess someone at the recording industry forgot to read the COPPA
rules and compliances before they took and made offers of settlements
to the parents of minors age 13 and under...and now not only can those
parents sue,(especially if they have been given offers of settlement
or have actually paid settlements) but the state can go after those
who intercepted the traffic and privacy of minors, and those who
exploited them for financial gain.

In order for anyone to lawfully spy on children's internet downloads
and thier computers, they need to first get the parents verifiable
permission, to do this without a parents consent is against the law.
Andrea

[Abyssmal]

>
>Gee, it has nothing to do with lack of respect for intellectual property
>and a major failure to understand theft. It has nothing with people
>wanting stuff they aren't willing to pay for, but are willing to steal.

Sure it is theft.The fact that millions of people are using p2p at any
given moment is proof that it is a technology people want to use, and
it cannot be restricted because some people abuse it.

p2p is not the problem, it can be used legitimately.I have used it to
get songs i write to and from my vocalist, who lives 1500 miles away
from me.

Blaming the tools for lack of morality never works. If that was the
case, screwdrivers would be illegal, since thieves use them to pry
open windows.

The same arguments that came with vhs and cassette are being
brought up again. Oh woe is us, the motion picture industry and music
industry cannot survive vhs and cassette.Now it is the same tired old
argument for cd. At least until they get concessions from
manufacturers and consumers and gaining another avenue for profit.

A 5% reduction in music sales when comparing 2001-2002 must surely be
from mp3 downloads.It cannot be that 9-11 sparked a worldwide
recession and music may not have been on peoples minds for a while.

I do not agree with downloading copyrighted material, but some of
their arguments do not hold water.People I know that have downloaded
mp3's usually have bad to horrible quality songs.
A person with dial up downloading 70 megs to fill up a normal cd will
take about 6 minutes a meg to get, or 420 minutes to fill a cd.
The mp3's will be of varying quality, encoded differently at different
levels, and would take some work to be presented as a quality cd.
Most people I know would not spend 9 hours downloading,adjusting
levels, and burning a cd. Actually, most of the people I know outside
of music would not know the difference between 64 and 128 kbs.


I would like to see proof that people are not going to the store
anymore, and have a wall full of downloaded cd's.
Because I personally have never seen a single person do so.

Randall

[deharmonic]

when was the last time an mp3 was an exact copy of the orignal
material?

I wonder:
if it is illegal to distribute copyrighted material without the
copyright
holder's consent, why does the RIAA sue instead of seeking criminal
charges?

if the RIAA is sueing people up to $150000 per song, does that mean I
can sue someone who copies my CD to give to their friends for up to
$150000 per song?



(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote in message >...
> Abyssmal wrote:
>
> > If you have the radio on, and a tape in, it takes about 1 second to
> > hit record, and 1 second to stop it.Of course you have to wait for the
> > song to be aired and listen to it in real time.
>
> The point is that once you have it in either form, how long does it take
> to dupe it for a "friend", or 4 million friends?
>
> P2P and it's a few seconds for digiral; analog is 4 mil. x 3 minutes =
> 12 million minutes = 200 thousand hours...
>
> See any difference in the concept yet? Remove P2P and who will bitch
> about taking a song off the air digitally? And when was the last time an
> analog copy was an exact dupe of the original material?

[Artie Turner]

deharmonic wrote:

>
> if the RIAA is sueing people up to $150000 per song, does that mean I
> can sue someone who copies my CD to give to their friends for up to
> $150000 per song?

You can sue anybody you want, but you pay for your own lawyers. The RIAA
knows there's strength in numbers.

AT

[Bob Cain]

Abyssmal wrote:
>
> Blaming the tools for lack of morality never works. If that was the
> case, screwdrivers would be illegal, since thieves use them to pry
> open windows.

I don't see people blaming the tools for the lack of
morality. All the tools did was expose the ethical weakness
that exists when they are convenient and can be used with
impunity. The RIAA action does no more than challenge the
impunity.

I remember when I was at IBM in the '70s and intellectual
property we were developing began coming under increased
attack using the technology itself. We were instructed on
actions to take that obviouisly had little or no effect on
the real espionage problem but were necessasary for us to
establish the value that we attached to the property by
taking action to protect it. If the RIAA, or some agent
representing the interests that risk the captial and take
the profits, doesn't sue or prosecute theft at least
nominally then they could well fail some future court test
as to the value that should be associated with the
property. They have to do what they are doing whether or
not there is any real belief that it will affect the theft
problem and they can't discriminate whether the perpitrator
is an individual that will draw sympathy or contempt.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Critical Thinker]

Artie Turner > wrote in message >...

> Critical Thinker wrote:
> > Nonsense! Noisy analog FM radio at 30-15khz vs. clean digital MP3s at
> > 20-20khz are different animals. And read my earlier comments about how
> > difficult it is to target specific, uninterrupted, high quality songs
> > when you're recording from FM.
>
> Gee, where were you when we flogged this horse to death last year? Have
> you ever actually used a P2P network to see what its about? Among the
> decent, high bit rate MP3s there are thousands of absolutely horrible
> sounding 64k MP3s distributed by and for dial-up users.

My experiences were mainly with the "casual" IRC networks. Even with a
dialup account I had no problem finding decent copies at a chosen
bitrate because you could play them back as they downloaded or do
rough calculations on filesize vs. (known) song length to avoid
partials. It was just a matter of patience and who could complain
about the price?

I also tried Napster and found it simple to get what I wanted. You
were shown the bitrate in a list of similar tracks and you could look
for a common filesize to avoid partials. Common sense and a good ear
was/is all that's needed to get a decent MP3.

>But the FM vs MP3 quality is not the real issue - even if there are
lots
>of good free samples on FM/satellite/MTV/cable radio if you want to
go
>to the trouble to capture them.

The other poster claimed FM was comparable to MP3 grabbing and that
was my main reason for replying. It's not even close.

>The real issue is that intellectual property in digital form is
>incredibly easy to steal. Does that make it moral to steal it? I
don't
>think so. The Big Media producers have chosen to market a product
that
>anyone with a cheap PC can "rip, copy and burn" and place on a P2P
network.

I'm in no disagreement with you here.

>The irony of the situation is that so much of the stolen
"intellectual
>property" is the musical equivalent of junk food or soft-core porn
and
>it's being marketed to adolescents. And the RIAA expects law suits to
>awaken a sense of morality in someone who lives for gangsta rap or
>Britney Spears.
>
>But, the RIAA is right about one thing: the only real solution to IP
>theft is scaring the public into IP "morality" with lawsuits and
>browbeating. That, and implementing costly, theft-proof DRM systems.

Agreed again. I've already tried buymusic.com with DRM, and after
working out a few encryption bugs I'm happy with it. Their WMA files
at 128kbps sound pretty clean for most music. Too bad their selection
is limited thus far. I feel better about paying for downloads these
days, but to be honest, I got most of the singles I wanted with the
free method earlier!

I've so far bought maybe 5 CDs containing any of the singles I grabbed
- usually for the superior sound quality - but many people don't even
know what to listen for. I think if more people were trained to listen
for absolute quality they would respect CDs more and piracy would
drop. Fat chance of that happening, I know.

Critical Thinker

[Critical Thinker]

Abyssmal > wrote in message >...

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 03:25:50 GMT, (LeBaron &
> Alrich) wrote:
>
> >Abyssmal > wrote:
> >
> >> Why is analog ok, but not digital,
> >> when neither as of yet provides a true cd quality copy of the
> >> original?
> >
> >You ever compared the time it takes to dub an analog recording compared
> >to the time it takes to dupe a digital one?
>
> If you have the radio on, and a tape in, it takes about 1 second to
> hit record, and 1 second to stop it.Of course you have to wait for the
> song to be aired and listen to it in real time.

That's a major "of course," though. You make it sound trivial!

> I think the RIAA and artists should be more concerned with coming up
> with a system of copyright protection that satisfies all parties, than
> with charging someone whose grandchildren downloaded songs of
> comparable quality as those that air on the radio for free.

The quality is NOT comparable unless your ears are shot or you only
listen on cheap speakers.

FM radio is full of noise, has a limited frequency range of 30-15khz
and has a characteristic "fat" sound because the loudest and softest
portions are dynamically compressed (for ease of transmission, or some
archaic standard). Some people actually like FM for that reason, but
it's not sonically pure. It may be time to upgrade your gear if you
really hear no difference between CDs (which many MP3s closely rival)
and FM.

Critical Thinker

[Critical Thinker]

Abyssmal > wrote in message >...

> Peer to peer flourished because the record companies did not provide a
> viable alternative to a public who clearly demanded it.
>
> Instead of trying to control or bury internet potential, they should
> have embraced and developed it.

Just because we have the technology doesn't mean it's ethical to use
it. You're confusing greed with "need." Nobody set out to make music
easy to trade freely. It just happened, and now there are legal and
moral problems with it. If you don't understand that I frankly have to
question your morals.

I think the RIAA is justified using scare tactics because human nature
tends toward dishonesty when something can be gotten away with. Look
at all the reckless speeders and drunks on our roads, for example. You
have to make people fear getting caught somehow. You can't stop all of
them but you can minimize the damage.

Critical Thinker

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> The "music doesn't have to cost anything" cat is out of the bag now
> and establishing an official means of distribution on line won't solve
> that problem

I disagree. Everybody I know who downloads music agrees that it's a
lousy system. You're not guaranteed to find what you're looking for,
it takes time to look for it, and when you do you're lucky if it's
really what you were looking for and of listenable quality. You could
be looking for a Bruce Springsteen song and what you get is a Rick
Springfield song or worse. You often get halfway through a download
when the source decides to disconnect their computer. Even the
download junkies who supposedly don't care about audio quality still
notice and appreciate the difference between a 64k bitrate and 192k.
"Officially sanctioned" downloads have a lot of potential added value,
including being easier to find (just go to brucespringsteen.com rather
than troll through thousands of peer networks), higher quality, better
organized, and include biographical information, accurate title and
credits, photos and artwork, etc. I suppose what they're doing now is
establishing the "no lawsuits" value addition to their officially
sanctioned product. All this, with or without the lawsuits, can and
will easily manage to coax a nominal fee out of the downloaders'
wallets (or their parents' wallets). Assuming an album is
substantially cheaper to download than to buy on CD, it'll be perceived
as a great value and will all but eliminate P2P sharing.

Mark my words.


ulysses

[Rob Adelman]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

> I disagree. Everybody I know who downloads music agrees that it's a
> lousy system. You're not guaranteed to find what you're looking for,
> it takes time to look for it, and when you do you're lucky if it's
> really what you were looking for and of listenable quality. You could
> be looking for a Bruce Springsteen song and what you get is a Rick
> Springfield song or worse. You often get halfway through a download

Whatever. I guess the people downloading millions of files every day
must see it differently.

[ryanm]

"Craig Mitchell" > wrote in message
om...
>
> 4) The file, unlike radio, is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
> to anyone in the civilized world
>
> 5) Taping off radio gives you a selection of about 10 songs a day on
> power rotation, Kaza gives you millions of choices.
>
Did you even read what you just wrote? So, your complaint is that P2P
*is* what radio *is supposed to be*?

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Critical Thinker" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "previews." That's why CD sales have dropped so substantially.
>
Given that your basic premise is known to be false, the rest is a waste
of time.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Andrea" > wrote in message
om...
>
> It doesn't matter who owns the computer or the account, COPPA
> compliance rules listed here, state that anyone collecting information
> or the internet traffic of, or spying on minors under the age of 13,
> need to have parental consent first.
>
You misread it. You can't release information in the internet about
people under 13 without parental consent. Any activity performed by proxy
(the computer), regardless of the person in control of the proxy, may be
assumed to have been performed by the a) owner of the computer or b) the
owner of any accounts used to reach a remote destination for purposes of
litigation. The RIAA is working within the law to do this, for sure. They're
just slimy assholes for doing it this way, but we already knew that, right?

ryanm

[Rob Adelman]

ryanm wrote:

> Now that the wave is petering out, the
> RIAA just wants someone to blame.

Right. Wonder whow the Eagles keep managing to pack stadiums across the
country at 300 dollars a ticket? Must be the horrible economy.

[Artie Turner]

Rob Adelman wrote:
>
>
> ryanm wrote:
>
>> Now that the wave is petering out, the
>> RIAA just wants someone to blame.
>
>
> Right. Wonder whow the Eagles keep managing to pack stadiums across the
> country at 300 dollars a ticket? Must be the horrible economy.
>

Boomer nostalgia is a powerful drug - and the cheap seats are only $75.

AT

[Rob Adelman]

ryanm wrote:


> Overfed, middle-aged, ex-hippies who sold rock-n-roll for soybean
> futures do not comprise the majority of the cd buying market. These are not
> the same people who the RIAA are suing, and they are not the same people who
> buy (or don't buy, recently) Brittany and Mariah.

Well the cost of a CD in real dollars is less than albums actually cost
since, what, the 60's? Pretty easy to look at a graph and see if there
is an unusual decline in sales over the last few years as the RIAA
claims. I believe them. If you don't, why don't you do a little research
and prove them wrong? There have been plenty of ups and downs in the
overall economy over the last 40 years. Let us know what you find.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

ryanm > wrote:

> No, the real point here is that no one has been able to show an actual
> loss of sales due to downloading. The *only* affect that has been
> demonstrated through P2P downloading is an *increase* in sales for smaller
> niche bands. There is absolutely no way that a small decline in sales during
> a huge economic decline after an extraordinarily long run of increasing
> sales could be attributed to a technology that existed throughout the entire
> process. Everyone (who bothered to think about it) knew that cd sales would
> decline, and it was predicted as early as the early 90's, but through the
> benefits of a soaring economy and the extra billions provided by the
> internet boom, people managed to have enough disposable income to continue
> buying cds despite the predictions. Now that the wave is petering out, the
> RIAA just wants someone to blame.


Well stated. The other mitigating factor to explain the RIAA members'
less-than-ideal sales growth is the explosion over the last 10 years of
independent labels whose sales figures are not tracked by the RIAA.
Ever since Smells Like Teen Spirit broke and the majors started signing
lucrative distribution deals to former indie labels like Sub-Pop and
Matador, lots of people got into the indie-stry. The bottom fell out
of that, but not before internet and internet-supported CD distribution
methods came along to level the playing field. Now that direct
distribution of content is here, this trend will only continue.
There's no evidence the actual pie is any smaller, only that the Big
Four are perhaps getting a smaller share of it. That's how capitalism
is supposed to work: Innovation creates new opportunities that eclipse
the old ones.

ulysses

[ryanm]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The point here is to get people to stop invoking the old "analog from
> the radio" arguement when it comes to digital storage and P2P exchange.
> It's really that simple.
>
No, the real point here is that no one has been able to show an actual
loss of sales due to downloading. The *only* affect that has been
demonstrated through P2P downloading is an *increase* in sales for smaller
niche bands. There is absolutely no way that a small decline in sales during
a huge economic decline after an extraordinarily long run of increasing
sales could be attributed to a technology that existed throughout the entire
process. Everyone (who bothered to think about it) knew that cd sales would
decline, and it was predicted as early as the early 90's, but through the
benefits of a soaring economy and the extra billions provided by the
internet boom, people managed to have enough disposable income to continue
buying cds despite the predictions. Now that the wave is petering out, the
RIAA just wants someone to blame.

ryanm

[Abyssmal]

On 15 Sep 2003 15:52:46 -0700, (Critical Thinker)
wrote:

>Abyssmal > wrote in message >...
>
>> Peer to peer flourished because the record companies did not provide a
>> viable alternative to a public who clearly demanded it.
>>
>> Instead of trying to control or bury internet potential, they should
>> have embraced and developed it.
>
>Just because we have the technology doesn't mean it's ethical to use
>it. You're confusing greed with "need." Nobody set out to make music
>easy to trade freely. It just happened, and now there are legal and
>moral problems with it. If you don't understand that I frankly have to
>question your morals.

If you do not think the technology is ethical, then do not use it, No
more emails, web surfing, or audio editing on the evil computer.

The technology was introduced for legitimate purposes. Anyone in the
music industry with a brain should realize right away the potential
these tools could mean to the average consumer.They should have tried
to develop an internet distribution system /copy protection scheme
before high bandwidth and peer to peer became the norm.These companies
have long term planners that are suppossed to guide the company into
the future.

Some people say nobody would pay for downloads anyways, but I
disagree.I believe nobody will pay a subscription service for music.

If they are offered a cd minus distribution and retailer costs cutting
the price to about 6 dollars, I believe a lot of people would download
and burn their own legitimate uncompressed copy.For 3 more dollars,
they mail you an insert for the cd.

But that would lose the normal 4-5 dollar price hike these companies
get that do their own distribution.And would also **** off retailers
that sell the same product by losing them the usual 4-5 dollars they
make off a sale.

Randall

[Abyssmal]

>
>> I think the RIAA and artists should be more concerned with coming up
>> with a system of copyright protection that satisfies all parties, than
>> with charging someone whose grandchildren downloaded songs of
>> comparable quality as those that air on the radio for free.
>
>The quality is NOT comparable unless your ears are shot or you only
>listen on cheap speakers.

What do most computers come with?The kids who download most of this
music listen with cheap speakers, they are not audio engineers.
The few kids I see on occasion that download music do not know the
first thing about audio production. All they know is if they like a
song or not.The songs I hear are at best equivalent to radio,some much
worse.Mp3 if encoded at the best quality approaches cd quality. But
most of the mp3's i have heard are 128 or less.
>
>FM radio is full of noise, has a limited frequency range of 30-15khz
>and has a characteristic "fat" sound because the loudest and softest
>portions are dynamically compressed (for ease of transmission, or some
>archaic standard). Some people actually like FM for that reason, but
>it's not sonically pure. It may be time to upgrade your gear if you
>really hear no difference between CDs (which many MP3s closely rival)
>and FM.

I never said I do not hear a difference between FM and cd.

I stated FM is not comparable in quality to a cd, and neither is the
majority of mp3's online.You cite mp3 at its best quality as the norm,
when lower encoded harsh sounding crap is the norm from my experience.

Randall

[ryanm]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whatever. I guess the people downloading millions of files every day
> must see it differently.
>
The question you're not asking is would those same people have gone out
and bought hundreds of thousands of cds if the songs weren't available for
download, or would they have just watched some TV instead? If they weren't
going to buy the cds anyway, then where is the loss? Without a quantifiable
loss all that's left is free exposure for the artists, resulting in eventual
cd and ticket sales that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

ryanm

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Abyssmal wrote:

> If you do not think the technology is ethical, then do not use it, No
> more emails, web surfing, or audio editing on the evil computer.

So now you're back to the screwdriver analogy, eh? What _is_ it with the
circular "reasoning"?

--
ha

[Craig Mitchell]

> It doesn't matter who owns the computer or the account, COPPA
> compliance rules listed here, state that anyone collecting information
> or the internet traffic of, or spying on minors under the age of 13,
> need to have parental consent first.

This is very interesting. In this particular case, I think they might
be thankful
for the $2000 settlement as opposed to the $170,000 per song penalty
multiplied by the 2000 songs they claim she had on her computer.

Yes, the family have settled with the RIAA. They have not settled with
all the individual copyright owners who can also still sue her. I
think it best the family lets it go.... but you never know.

There is alot of media spin on this one folks. They are suing lots of
non-newsworthy people too, don't let them play your heartstrings too
much. Everytime the subject comes up someone mentions this kid and the
grandmom... like that should be some sort of exemption.

Craig

[Mike Rivers]

Justin Ulysses Morse > wrote in message >...

> I disagree. Everybody I know who downloads music agrees that it's a
> lousy system. You're not guaranteed to find what you're looking for,
> it takes time to look for it, and when you do you're lucky if it's
> really what you were looking for and of listenable quality.

Yes, but you're an adult and probably most of the people you talk to
are adults. I never even experimented with it. Well, I did once - I
was looking for a song from Asleep At The Wheel and asked a couple of
teenage friends who are heavy downloaders to find it for me. They
couldn't. That' was the end of my on-line music experience.

However, those kids had gigabytes of music and it plays in the house
20 hours a day. They have superthumper speakers on their computers
(one has a water cooling tower for his CPU outside his window) and
this is what they do. Their stepfather father runs a recording studio.
Their mother is a musician and a music teacher. But there's no hope
for the kids. I just hope they're anonymous enough not to get hit in
the latest round of RIAA suits.

> "Officially sanctioned" downloads have a lot of potential added value,
> including being easier to find (just go to brucespringsteen.com rather
> than troll through thousands of peer networks), higher quality, better
> organized, and include biographical information, accurate title and
> credits, photos and artwork, etc.

Agreed. Almost like going to a record store only it take less time out
of the house and more time at the computer. When I get fully wired
(which will require a substantial drop in the cost of high speed
Internet service, something I'm not seeing happen too soon) I could
see having a "music station" in the house where I can listen to
streaming radio or download music that I want to keep. But it will
take up more space than a radio (or maybe not by the time sufficiently
high speed Internet access costs less than $10/month).

> Assuming an album is
> substantially cheaper to download than to buy on CD, it'll be perceived
> as a great value and will all but eliminate P2P sharing.

I'm not sure that it actually will. Maybe a couple of bucks because
they save the printing and packaging costs, but the cost of
maintaining a high capacity web site isn't going to be significantly
cheaper than shipping a truckload of CDs across the country. And
they'll still have advertising costs, and bands will still have to
recover touring costs. So I don't see any substantial cost saving.

[Andrea]

"ryanm" > wrote in message >...
> "Andrea" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > It doesn't matter who owns the computer or the account, COPPA
> > compliance rules listed here, state that anyone collecting information
> > or the internet traffic of, or spying on minors under the age of 13,
> > need to have parental consent first.
> >
> You misread it. You can't release information in the internet about
> people under 13 without parental consent.

It's not just about releasing information, it is about garnering and
monitoring information and using it without the parents permission.

They did not in advance go and get the proper permission from the
parents in the first place to collect and use the information to
commit civil barratry based on what the child had on the computer, and
the childs internet activity.

Without parental consent, and after knowing(they are lawyers, how
could they not know?) that a 12 year old child is protected by COPPA,
they still used the information they collected improperly, and in
violation of COPPA to extort thousands of dollars from the child's
family.

>Any activity performed by proxy
> (the computer), regardless of the person in control of the proxy, may be
> assumed to have been performed by the a) owner of the computer or b) the
> owner of any accounts used to reach a remote destination for purposes of
> litigation. The RIAA is working within the law to do this, for sure.

Which means that an improper search of a minor covered by COPPA was
conducted, using available tools and software, and the parties
involved in the search and collection of information are in violation
of COPPA,because once the information was collected, and put together
and used, and after knowing the age of the child, they still sought to
use the information for financial compensation and gain in violation
of COPPA.


>They're
> just slimy assholes for doing it this way, but we already knew that, right?
>
> ryanm

Everyone has thier own opinion, what do you think a jury will do if
Brianna's case became either or both a civil or State prosecution
under COPPA?

How many families have settlement offer documents, payments,
acknowledgement or other damaging proof that thier child was violated
by the industry under the terms of the COPPA act?
Andrea

[Andrea]

(Craig Mitchell) wrote in message >...
> > It doesn't matter who owns the computer or the account, COPPA
> > compliance rules listed here, state that anyone collecting information
> > or the internet traffic of, or spying on minors under the age of 13,
> > need to have parental consent first.
>
> This is very interesting. In this particular case, I think they might
> be thankful
> for the $2000 settlement as opposed to the $170,000 per song penalty
> multiplied by the 2000 songs they claim she had on her computer.

But couldn't that 2000$ settlement be used as a basis for a
multi-million dollar COPPA lawsuit on behalf of the child.

> Yes, the family have settled with the RIAA. They have not settled with
> all the individual copyright owners who can also still sue her. I
> think it best the family lets it go.... but you never know.

I'm not so sure that people are going to line themselves up, and
become open for
COPPA based lawsuits,(because of the age of the child, all information
falls under COPPA)that could be more damaging than any settlements
they could potentially extort from the childs family.

It might be a good defense for families to go ahead and sue under
COPPA, this would illiminate other copycat settlement extortionists.
If they went to thier states attourney generals office with a
reasonable COPPA complaint, then the state would litigate and
prosecute the violations on the child's behalf, at no cost to the
parents.

All the so called offer of "Amnesty", hopefully they haven't harvested
the confessions and addresses of children under the age of 13.

>
> There is alot of media spin on this one folks. They are suing lots of
> non-newsworthy people too, don't let them play your heartstrings too
> much. Everytime the subject comes up someone mentions this kid and the
> grandmom... like that should be some sort of exemption.
>
> Craig

Any reasonable person would understand that COPPA exists to protect
the privacy of children online,and that although anyone can sue anyone
else at any time for any reason at all, going after the children meant
for a very good reason to be protected by COPPA, is wrong in so many
ways, and more wrong than anything that child could do.
Andrea

[Rick Knepper]

"Artie Turner" > wrote in message
. ..

> P2P can be used for totally innocuous, legal purposes as well as
> stealing copyrighted material.

Well...it is the second part to which the lawsuit & this thread are
concerned. Keep up Artie.


--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com

[LeBaron & Alrich]

> Everyone has thier own opinion, what do you think a jury will do if
> Brianna's case became either or both a civil or State prosecution
> under COPPA?

You would rather the RIAA had gotten law enforcement to get a warrant
and then bust her for felony theft or some such transgression?

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

> Any reasonable person would understand that COPPA exists to protect
> the privacy of children online

Except, perhaps, when that child is engaged in a criminal act.

--
ha

[Artie Turner]

Rick Knepper wrote:
> "Artie Turner" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>
>>P2P can be used for totally innocuous, legal purposes as well as
>>stealing copyrighted material.
>
>
> Well...it is the second part to which the lawsuit & this thread are
> concerned. Keep up Artie.

Thanks for your genuine concern, Rick.

The point I was trying to make is that P2P technology is getting a bad
reputation from one aspect of its use, sort of like guns for sport or
murder.

With individuals like you making unsubstantiated blanket accusations,
some people might think that P2P itself is inherently evil, and we
wouldn't want that to happen, would we?

AT
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Ah, but the death penalty doesn't seem to provide a very good dissuasion to
killing people, now does it. I doubt seriously if the death penalty was
taken off the books murders would increase because of whim killings.

So I doubt that people would/are seriously deterred from stealing music
through some threat of possible civil actions, although the results of the
civil actions could potentially mean the loss of income for parents, perhaps
even homes, etc., depending on just how hard the RIAA is going to try to
come down on some of these people.

The one thing these civil actions by the RIAA might do is put parents on
alert that they are responsible for what their kids do with their computers,
and what comes into the house is potentially harmful to the family. Too
many parents believe it is ok for kids to trade music, as evidenced by Good
Morning America's legal eagle doing a report and then stating out in the
open that he didn't think there was anything wrong with it. What he should
have been doing is informing the parents watching that trading music is
stealing and parents should be aware and try to teach their children that
theft is wrong, even in the digital world.

Still, on the overall, I think that Congress giving RIAA the legal right to
abuse a privilege between a service provider and their client is only the
first step into allowing corporations to further imping themselves on the
public, particularly when we have so much information tracking and such
going on now. The right to privacy is a tough thing to get back, just like
losing control over the distribution of an album once it's out on the net.

So while you guys are debating about the "act" of music trading and such,
the real point is being missed, and that is Congress has to be made aware
that no corporate entity should have "legal" powers to force another company
to dispense personal information.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Abyssmal wrote:
>
> > Peer to peer flourished because the record companies did not provide a
> > viable alternative to a public who clearly demanded it.
>
> The altenative would have involved a fee and *some* would have continued
> on the free route anyway. The only way to stop that is to have a risk of
> getting caught and paying some type of penalty. That's human nature.
>

[Artie Turner]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> I've used ICQ in P2P mode to forward and receive stuff from Glenn Meadows
> and to move mixes to clients in less time that it takes to drive the 50
> miles to get there.
>
> There's nothing wrong with P2P as it's just a basic networking protocol.
> It's what people do with it.

Exactly. It's pretty obvious, isn't it? P2P is just a tool, and any tool
can be used for any purpose, good, bad or otherwise.

The problem is that this tool, P2P (and by extension, the whole of the
internet), is garnering a reputation like that of guns, that is, it can
be used for both fun/sport and criminal activity, and now everyone has
an opinion on how this tool should be regulated.

> Obviously I don't hold with music trading as I believe it is theft.

I agree. This is the reason I see a need for some form of compulsory
internet licensing of music. If file sharing of copyrighted music is
theft, then the entity being stolen should have a monetary value to use
both as a standard means of compensating the copyright owner AND
uniformly prosecuting those who steal the copyrighted material.

AT

But the
> ability of RIAA to force one's ISP to divulge information about their
> client's is criminal, and Congress needs to repeal any language that allows
> RIAA to indulge in these actions. So I'm hoping that someone will go to
> court rather than settle, and maybe have Johnny Cockran or Roy Black to go
> in and kick the judge's ass to get a ruling against the actions of the RIAA.
>
>
>

[Rob Adelman]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> Ah, but the death penalty doesn't seem to provide a very good dissuasion to
> killing people, now does it. I doubt seriously if the death penalty was
> taken off the books murders would increase because of whim killings.

Roger? You ar equating illegal downloaders to murderers? Don't think I
would go quite that far..

[Roger W. Norman]

Abyssmal said:
"The only way to stop that is to have a risk of
getting caught and paying some type of penalty. That's human nature."


So no, I'm saying that if someone wants to steal music badly enough, then
penalties won't be a deterent. THAT's human nature.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > Ah, but the death penalty doesn't seem to provide a very good dissuasion
to
> > killing people, now does it. I doubt seriously if the death penalty was
> > taken off the books murders would increase because of whim killings.
>
> Roger? You ar equating illegal downloaders to murderers? Don't think I
> would go quite that far..
>

[Rob Adelman]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> Abyssmal said:
> "The only way to stop that is to have a risk of
> getting caught and paying some type of penalty. That's human nature."

Actually I was the one who said that.


> So no, I'm saying that if someone wants to steal music badly enough, then
> penalties won't be a deterent. THAT's human nature.

Those people would be in the minority. The majority could be deterred.
Still, you cannot realistically use any sort of comparison with murderers.

[Roger W. Norman]

The simplist method to accomodate royalty payments is the same thing that
Congress came up with for it once before, which is to place a royalty tax on
the media, such as they did with tape. Every tape sold, X amount goes to
royalties. Why not a royalty surcharge for the millions of computer users
who use the net. I don't mind a dollar or two or even five or ten more a
month on my bill simply to stave off the incroachment of big business into
such arenas as I previously mentioned. But it appears to me that no
corporation or association should have the available methods that RIAA uses.

The other avenue is to declare music trading as theft, and theft is a
CRIMINAL offense, investigatable and punishable by the appropriate
authorities utilizing the means of search warrants and such, which means
that some judge has an oversight position on the functions of the police and
the prosecutors.

Right now it appears that the RIAA has some of these powers themselves,
specifically if they can force another company who provides a service to a
client to cough up use records, which is an abuse of a certain level of
privilege between the service provider and their client. This is simply a
corporate police force with apparent legal means to investigate without a
means for anyone outside of the association to have legal oversight. It's a
very dangerous game that's being played here.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Artie Turner" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > I've used ICQ in P2P mode to forward and receive stuff from Glenn
Meadows
> > and to move mixes to clients in less time that it takes to drive the 50
> > miles to get there.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with P2P as it's just a basic networking protocol.
> > It's what people do with it.
>
> Exactly. It's pretty obvious, isn't it? P2P is just a tool, and any tool
> can be used for any purpose, good, bad or otherwise.
>
> The problem is that this tool, P2P (and by extension, the whole of the
> internet), is garnering a reputation like that of guns, that is, it can
> be used for both fun/sport and criminal activity, and now everyone has
> an opinion on how this tool should be regulated.
>
> > Obviously I don't hold with music trading as I believe it is theft.
>
> I agree. This is the reason I see a need for some form of compulsory
> internet licensing of music. If file sharing of copyrighted music is
> theft, then the entity being stolen should have a monetary value to use
> both as a standard means of compensating the copyright owner AND
> uniformly prosecuting those who steal the copyrighted material.
>
> AT
>
> But the
> > ability of RIAA to force one's ISP to divulge information about their
> > client's is criminal, and Congress needs to repeal any language that
allows
> > RIAA to indulge in these actions. So I'm hoping that someone will go to
> > court rather than settle, and maybe have Johnny Cockran or Roy Black to
go
> > in and kick the judge's ass to get a ruling against the actions of the
RIAA.
> >
> >
> >
>

[Roger W. Norman]

And you'd have to license portable drills, as one can use them to drill out
a deadbolt lock. Or any number of other tools that could easily be labeled
as "tools of the trade" for criminals.

But one has to go back even further in time because there has been a
somewhat consistent drop in sales of CDs for the last 5 years or more.
Depends on how one wishes to view it. CD sales can be either dollars
generated or number of units sold, so one has to really look at how it is
reported. Certainly the RIAA reported to Congress a significant drop in
sales (by whichever method) to get them to ok said practices RIAA is using
to garner information on "potential" theft.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Abyssmal" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >Gee, it has nothing to do with lack of respect for intellectual property
> >and a major failure to understand theft. It has nothing with people
> >wanting stuff they aren't willing to pay for, but are willing to steal.
>
> Sure it is theft.The fact that millions of people are using p2p at any
> given moment is proof that it is a technology people want to use, and
> it cannot be restricted because some people abuse it.
>
> p2p is not the problem, it can be used legitimately.I have used it to
> get songs i write to and from my vocalist, who lives 1500 miles away
> from me.
>
> Blaming the tools for lack of morality never works. If that was the
> case, screwdrivers would be illegal, since thieves use them to pry
> open windows.
>
> The same arguments that came with vhs and cassette are being
> brought up again. Oh woe is us, the motion picture industry and music
> industry cannot survive vhs and cassette.Now it is the same tired old
> argument for cd. At least until they get concessions from
> manufacturers and consumers and gaining another avenue for profit.
>
> A 5% reduction in music sales when comparing 2001-2002 must surely be
> from mp3 downloads.It cannot be that 9-11 sparked a worldwide
> recession and music may not have been on peoples minds for a while.
>
> I do not agree with downloading copyrighted material, but some of
> their arguments do not hold water.People I know that have downloaded
> mp3's usually have bad to horrible quality songs.
> A person with dial up downloading 70 megs to fill up a normal cd will
> take about 6 minutes a meg to get, or 420 minutes to fill a cd.
> The mp3's will be of varying quality, encoded differently at different
> levels, and would take some work to be presented as a quality cd.
> Most people I know would not spend 9 hours downloading,adjusting
> levels, and burning a cd. Actually, most of the people I know outside
> of music would not know the difference between 64 and 128 kbs.
>
>
> I would like to see proof that people are not going to the store
> anymore, and have a wall full of downloaded cd's.
> Because I personally have never seen a single person do so.
>
> Randall
>
>
>
>
>

[Abyssmal]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:45:22 -0400, "Roger W. Norman"
> wrote:

>Abyssmal said:
>"The only way to stop that is to have a risk of
>getting caught and paying some type of penalty. That's human nature."

Actually, I think Mike Rivers said the above statement, not I.
>
>
>So no, I'm saying that if someone wants to steal music badly enough, then
>penalties won't be a deterent. THAT's human nature.

Everybody agrees downading is theft.
The question is what to do about it, and is it really doing harm or
giving artists free ad time.

I think the music industry blew their chance to gain a foothold on
internet distribution by failing to provide an alternative when people
clearly wanted to use this means of distribution.

A lot of people who download also buy cd's, they are music fans.
I am sure some of the people they are suing are their customers, and
have a rack of legit cds in their living room.

Randall

[knud]

>Why is analog ok, but not digital,
>when neither as of yet provides a true cd quality copy of the
>original?

The inferior quality of mp3 doesn't bother the people downloading. It's
meaningless to the end user, which is hard for audio geeks to accept. I know
plenty of people who actually rip all of there CD's to mp3 and never use the CD
again. They don't care about quality differences that they can't hear.




blahblah

[knud]

>The point is that once you have it in either form, how long does it take
>to dupe it for a "friend", or 4 million friends?
>
>P2P and it's a few seconds for digiral; analog is 4 mil. x 3 minutes =
>12 million minutes = 200 thousand hours...
>
>See any difference in the concept yet? Remove P2P and who will bitch
>about taking a song off the air digitally? And when was the last time an
>analog copy was an exact dupe of the original material?

What happens when transfer speeds are huge across the board and people can
handle uncompressed versions with no problems.
blahblah

[Artie Turner]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> The simplist method to accomodate royalty payments is the same thing that
> Congress came up with for it once before, which is to place a royalty tax on
> the media, such as they did with tape. Every tape sold, X amount goes to
> royalties. Why not a royalty surcharge for the millions of computer users
> who use the net.

That's "taxation without representation" for those who never share or
download files. It could happen, but I would expect a lot of backlash.

> The other avenue is to declare music trading as theft, and theft is a
> CRIMINAL offense, investigatable and punishable by the appropriate
> authorities utilizing the means of search warrants and such, which means
> that some judge has an oversight position on the functions of the police and
> the prosecutors.

Once again, you'd have to establish the worth of the stolen material to
determine if it was a felony or a simple misdemeanor offense, unless you
make no distinction between stealing one MP3 and 500 SACDs.
>
> Right now it appears that the RIAA has some of these powers themselves,
> specifically if they can force another company who provides a service to a
> client to cough up use records, which is an abuse of a certain level of
> privilege between the service provider and their client. This is simply a
> corporate police force with apparent legal means to investigate without a
> means for anyone outside of the association to have legal oversight. It's a
> very dangerous game that's being played here.
>
I agree, and it has ramifications for all forms of intellectual
property. It looks to me like we'll all eventually be forced to use
personal encryption for every internet exchange regardless of the content.

Be careful for what you wish for!

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Artie Turner" > wrote in message
. ..
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > The simplist method to accomodate royalty payments is the same thing
that
> > Congress came up with for it once before, which is to place a royalty
tax on
> > the media, such as they did with tape. Every tape sold, X amount goes
to
> > royalties. Why not a royalty surcharge for the millions of computer
users
> > who use the net.
>
> That's "taxation without representation" for those who never share or
> download files. It could happen, but I would expect a lot of backlash.

How about two levels of internet provision: those who wish to download sign
up for the more expensive service and their info goes into a database that's
searchable by the labels. Since they can already determine who is
downloading, if you show up as both a downloader and a royalty payer, you're
okay.

Glenn D.

[Les Cargill]

knud wrote:
>
> >The point is that once you have it in either form, how long does it take
> >to dupe it for a "friend", or 4 million friends?
> >
> >P2P and it's a few seconds for digiral; analog is 4 mil. x 3 minutes =
> >12 million minutes = 200 thousand hours...
> >
> >See any difference in the concept yet? Remove P2P and who will bitch
> >about taking a song off the air digitally? And when was the last time an
> >analog copy was an exact dupe of the original material?
>
> What happens when transfer speeds are huge across the board and people can
> handle uncompressed versions with no problems.
> blahblah

Don't hold your breath.

--
Les Cargill

[Artie Turner]

Glenn Dowdy wrote:
> "Artie Turner" > wrote in message

>>That's "taxation without representation" for those who never share or
>>download files. It could happen, but I would expect a lot of backlash.
>
>
> How about two levels of internet provision: those who wish to download sign
> up for the more expensive service and their info goes into a database that's
> searchable by the labels. Since they can already determine who is
> downloading, if you show up as both a downloader and a royalty payer, you're
> okay.

As Roger has mentioned, that effectively makes the ISPs the unpaid
accountants/lackeys of the content providers. That's not to say it
couldn't happen, it just doesn't sound feasible to me.
>
AT
> Glenn D.
>
>
>

[knud]

Some of the people on this thread are talking without seeing what's up on
the streets. My personal experience:

1. People I know (including good friends) who listen to MP3 exclusively usually
have their soundcard hooked up to their stereo system.

2. About half of them keep everything at least 256k

3. Enterprising computer geeks are putting systems into their cars. I mean the
whole computer!

4. I have gotten a lot of free CD's when someone gives it to me since they have
a copy in their MP3 library. Many have an entire hard disc dedicated to their
library.

5. The really hardcore music-fans actually encode most of it themselves from CD
to ensure good quality. In this case you might say MP3 is merely a tool except
in most of the cases they borrow a CD, encode it then give it back to whoever
bought it.

6. Many people are internet geeks. They spend a ton of time on it, and do most
of their listening while sending instant messages. Gamers don't leave their
computers so consequently if they are listening to music it's in front of the
computer.

7. As much as I detest the ambiance created by computers, others don't agree.
They have embraced having a hard drive filled up with MP3's accesible by the
friendly antiseptic glow of their monitors. CD's, covers, liner notes all that
crap are just a nuisance to them.


blahblah

[Roger W. Norman]

Stop it, Rob. You get lost in the word murderer, rather than the concept
that deterrents don't work. Laws have historically never been a deterrent.
It's been a corrective posture, to provide penalties for actions that go
against the betterment of society. The Ten Commandments are deterrents in
that they specify how one should live. Laws made by man are for punishment
alone. 5,000 years ago one could have their hand cut off for stealing
bread. Now somehow somebody must have been having a lot of bread stolen to
have made the law, but hungry people were still stealing bread regardless of
the possibility of losing a hand.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > Abyssmal said:
> > "The only way to stop that is to have a risk of
> > getting caught and paying some type of penalty. That's human nature."
>
> Actually I was the one who said that.
>
>
> > So no, I'm saying that if someone wants to steal music badly enough,
then
> > penalties won't be a deterent. THAT's human nature.
>
> Those people would be in the minority. The majority could be deterred.
> Still, you cannot realistically use any sort of comparison with murderers.
>
>

[Rick Knepper]

"Artie Turner" > wrote in message
gy.com...

> Exactly. It's pretty obvious, isn't it? P2P is just a tool, and any tool
> can be used for any purpose, good, bad or otherwise.

That's certainly the rationale defenders of KaZa use.

So, instead of going after the network like they did with Napster (most
judges wouldn't know the difference between a domain and doughnut anyway),
the RIAA goes after the actual thieves and they still get railed upon.

Here's a blurb from the KaZA Home Page:

"Wish you had the ability to download any song you want?"

Why not ""Wish you had the ability to download any legally available song
you want?"

We all know that the owners of KaZa are really pimps and/or fences. We just
need the correct, well-crafted legislation to bring these criminals to
justice as well. If these guys are off-shore, then the problem gets a little
dicier, of course.


--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com

[Rob Adelman]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Stop it, Rob. You get lost in the word murderer, rather than the concept

No, this is a major difference. It is not the average person that can
commit a murder. The deterrence factor that laws would have on this type
of individual cannot be logically used in a discussion of illegal
downloaders.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Andrea wrote:

> You are forgetting that these are civil lawsuit threats,not criminal,
> mostly settled for thousands of dollars, without even going to trial.
> Law enforcement have not charged any child in any of these "cases"
> with a criminal offense.

See: Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a law or something like that.
Violation of it is therefore a criminal act, and those vilating it are
criminals, in strictly legal terms.

--
ha

[Rick Knepper]

"Abyssmal" > wrote in message
...

> It will never happen.I use Kazaa to swap our original music files
> with my singer, who lives 1500 miles away at the moment.

You've heard of ftp right?

> I post him a
> mix to download, he records vocal tracks, then drops the wave files
> into his kazaa folder.As long as we stick to proper naming
> conventions, I can find them easily and downlaod them.Software that
> can be used for legit purposes will never be banned, simply because
> some people abuse it.And even if they do attack 1 company and blame
> them for peoples morals, another company will develop a new program to
> take its place.


I didn't say 'banned'. I said well-crafted legislation, written by someone
who has a working knowledge of networks.


--
Thanks,
Rick Knepper, CLU, ChFC
Marketing Group
Harvey D. Yoder
817 731 7373
817 731 8200




--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com

[Roger W. Norman]

But it's the fact that, regardless of the consequences, some might resort to
murder while others resort to digital theft of music. Dammit, Janet, catch
up. The concept isn't the supposed deterrent, it's the fact that human
nature always leans towards the self. Oo, oo, me, me, mine, as the Beatles
put it, which was a ode to selfishness. How not in the minds of those who
haven't been taught better or don't understand the circumstances surrounding
the consequences? Or the implicit method of earning abilities of their
favorite artists? Forget the murderer. Forget the specifics and rather
focus on the fact that laws and consequences have NEVER been a deterrent.
Then we'll be somewhat on the same page.

And no, my friend, I will NOT detract the statement because I didn't equate
murderers to downloaders. I equated one level of consequence with another.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > Stop it, Rob. You get lost in the word murderer, rather than the
concept
>
> No, this is a major difference. It is not the average person that can
> commit a murder. The deterrence factor that laws would have on this type
> of individual cannot be logically used in a discussion of illegal
> downloaders.
>

[Rob Adelman]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> Forget the specifics and rather
> focus on the fact that laws and consequences have NEVER been a deterrent.
> Then we'll be somewhat on the same page.

Ok. But it is not true that this never has been a deterrent. There are
many many crimes that would be far more rampant if not for laws and the
power to enforce them. Even murder, but especially theft.

[Roger W. Norman]

Rick, FTP requires a server. P2P doesn't, but it does require both source
and destination being online at the same time. AOL IM does it, ICQ file
transfer does it. Nothing wrong with it.

Now admittedly, FTP would alleviate a lot of problems for those of us that
wish to transfer mixes, but it doesn't answer the question about RIAA's
right to subpoena records of transactions, regardless of the intent nor the
content transferred. MP3 designations would be subject to scrutiny. Bad
precidence.

However, I agree that far better wording that defines the structures of
networking and the uses thereof could alleviate a lot of the possibilities
of RIAA's actions.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rick Knepper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Abyssmal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It will never happen.I use Kazaa to swap our original music files
> > with my singer, who lives 1500 miles away at the moment.
>
> You've heard of ftp right?
>
> > I post him a
> > mix to download, he records vocal tracks, then drops the wave files
> > into his kazaa folder.As long as we stick to proper naming
> > conventions, I can find them easily and downlaod them.Software that
> > can be used for legit purposes will never be banned, simply because
> > some people abuse it.And even if they do attack 1 company and blame
> > them for peoples morals, another company will develop a new program to
> > take its place.
>
>
> I didn't say 'banned'. I said well-crafted legislation, written by someone
> who has a working knowledge of networks.
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Rick Knepper, CLU, ChFC
> Marketing Group
> Harvey D. Yoder
> 817 731 7373
> 817 731 8200
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Knepper
> MicroComputer Support Services
> Knepper Audio
> Ft. Worth, TX
> 817-239-9632
> 413-215-1267 Fax
> PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
> CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
> Recording
> http://www.rknepper.com
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Now I'll agree with that. Even murder, but not so much because of some lack
of specification that murder is a crime punishable by death. Simply that
the average Joe, even inclined to murder someone in a fit of jealousy or
some other mitigating circumstances, would simply never actually resort to
murder because it's morally wrong. If it's possible to get that through to
people, then it's only a matter of scale to get theft across. Education,
which is what I've been advocating for a couple of years now. Anything else
is something less than reasonable, and we are beginning to see the
unreasonable effects of the problem now.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > Forget the specifics and rather
> > focus on the fact that laws and consequences have NEVER been a
deterrent.
> > Then we'll be somewhat on the same page.
>
> Ok. But it is not true that this never has been a deterrent. There are
> many many crimes that would be far more rampant if not for laws and the
> power to enforce them. Even murder, but especially theft.
>
>

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Rick Knepper > wrote:

> "Abyssmal" > wrote in message

> > Software that can be used for legit purposes will never be banned,
> > simply because some people abuse it.And even if they do attack 1
> > company and blame them for peoples morals, another company will
> > develop a new program to take its place.
>
> I didn't say 'banned'. I said well-crafted legislation, written by someone
> who has a working knowledge of networks.

In either case, I think you both fail to appreciate the ability of
Congress to pass horrible, poorly-written legislation that restricts
legal behavior without having the intended impact on the illegal
behavior they hoped to address. I think it's very possible that we
could see legislation attempting to restrict legal P2P networks and
software, simple because your average congressman doesnt' know what
these words mean. They may be well-intentioned in their effort to
"save" the music industry, and they may not realize there's a side to
the story other than the RIAA and the downloaders. The RIAA certainly
doesn't have any interest in protecting Randall's right to exchange his
own music files with his bandmate. One could speculate that this is
exactly what the industry would like to restrict, but I won't go that
far.

ulysses

[Roger W. Norman]

And obviously I disagree due to the high rate of murder in our society
already. Doesn't seem to me that anything stopped that woman from driving
over her husband 3 times down in Houston last year. Or maybe something did
stop her because she did, after all, only run over him 3 times before she
sat the car right on top of him.

Then again, perhaps if we don't factor in women....?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > Simply that
> > the average Joe, even inclined to murder someone in a fit of jealousy or
> > some other mitigating circumstances, would simply never actually resort
to
> > murder because it's morally wrong.
>
> I thought of this too, but it is funny how human beings always find a
> way to "justify" their actions. I think the murder rate would be much
> higher if there was no law against it. Even though most of us know that
> it is morally wrong.
>

[Andrea]

(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote in message >...
> Andrea wrote:
>
> > You are forgetting that these are civil lawsuit threats,not criminal,
> > mostly settled for thousands of dollars, without even going to trial.
> > Law enforcement have not charged any child in any of these "cases"
> > with a criminal offense.
>
> See: Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a law or something like that.
> Violation of it is therefore a criminal act, and those vilating it are
> criminals, in strictly legal terms.

See: COPPA The Child Online Privacy Protection Act. It's a law too.

No child has been charged with a criminal act. The DMCA doesn't give
corporations the powers of law enforcement, and the COPPA is very
clear that
only real law enforcement, not corporate vigilantes have the right to
a childs online information, it is illegal for anyone other than real
law enforcement to gather and use the information. To gather and use
this information violates COPPA.

The DMCA doesn't legitimize an illegal search of a child's computer or
internet activity covered by COPPA. The DMCA just gives "copyright
holders" the ability to get a subpeona to identify the account holder
of the ip address.

It doesn't matter if they use the DMCA to get the account holders
information to contact them, that is immaterial. Once they find out
from the parent that it is a child under the age of 13, any
information they have about the account activity or specifically the
contents of a folder or file, is comepletely unusable.

They have to drop it immediately because the information was gathered
illegally.

Are there any law experts, to show why the recording industry is in
trouble for
going after 12 year olds?

Andrea

[Rick Knepper]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...

> Rick, FTP requires a server.

I suggested ftp because that's what I do when I want to share a mix. Upload
to my domain (the server), then send a link. I'm not going to be able to
store 100MB there but for a temporary storage on a file by file basis, it
works.

KaZa obviously doesn't require the expense of hosting. What the KaZa
software does do is install a **** load of spyware (in case anybody cares).

> P2P doesn't, but it does require both source
> and destination being online at the same time. AOL IM does it, ICQ file
> transfer does it. Nothing wrong with it.

I was merely responding with a quick, off the top of my head solution to
Abyssmal's fear that legislation might alter his ability to share files.
Trying to be helpful.

I don't think KaZa's ability to operate as a P2P would ever be effected by
any legislation. It's existence might be threatened however, if the 99% of
its "members" who do steal using KaZa quit using it because illegal
downloading is stoppped.

It's like the legitamite users of services like KaZa are willing to look the
other way on the stealing thing as long as their needs are being met. This
doesn't seem very civic minded.

> Now admittedly, FTP would alleviate a lot of problems for those of us that
> wish to transfer mixes, but it doesn't answer the question about RIAA's
> right to subpoena records of transactions, regardless of the intent nor
the
> content transferred.

This issue is not one addressed by my comments nor have I researched the
issue for myself - yet.

> MP3 designations would be subject to scrutiny. Bad precidence.

I disagree. MP3 scrutiny shouldn't affect musicians trading mixes.
Presumably those mix files have extensions proprietary to the program.
Sharing .wav files might be a problem in the future though. We'll have to
watch to see how dedicated the thieves are.

--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com

[Rob Adelman]

Bob Olhsson wrote:

> As it is, those folks are getting off easy with a civil action
> considering that they've committed a federal crime that they could be
> serving jail time for.


Yes, and settling for a couple of grand for thousands of illegal songs
is actually getting off pretty easy. The RIAA is actually playing it
pretty smart. The "fines" will go up as pleading ignorance as a defense
becomes more and more laughable.

[Rick Knepper]

"Artie Turner" > wrote in message
. ..

> Ah, Pastor Knepper's back on the soapbox.

Yes, my son.

> Why can't you address some of
> the other points in these posts? Once again, slowly, for Rick: USING a
> P2P service to share or download copyrighted material without
> compensating the copyright owner is a form of theft. I've never said
> otherwise. Stamping your wittle foot and yelling "thief" is not really
> advancing the debate.

And you stubbornly continue to misdirect the debate.

I am dutifully making the distinction between downloaders and thieves by
using the term thief rather than downloader. Wassup?


--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com

[Artie Turner]

Aaron mC wrote:

> If the file had a copyright statement attached then that would be
> different, so if they have the time to trawl through 50 million + MP3s
> on the web and change the ID tags then good luck to them.

I appreciate what you're attempting to say, but you overlook one big
issue: No one who rips CDs to MP3s to share/steal/download on the 'net
is going to read or edit ID tags.


AT

>
>
> If you want to help save the internet then pass this on….
>
> ************************************************** ***************
> ************************************************** ***************

[S O'Neill]

aron mC wrote:
> fair enough......
>
> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
> mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
> profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......

Right. You can't. Robert Crumb's "Keep on Truckin'" Mr. Natural
drawing was stolen by a friend of his - Crumb drew him one and forgot to
affix the (c), and the guy just started selling copies, and won in court.

You may have the key to the perfect defense against the RIAA. There was
no copyright notice. The crime was committed by the person who removed
the copyright notice.

[Richard Kuschel]

>Subject: Re: RIAA lawsuits question
>From: S O'Neill
>Date: 9/19/03 11:05 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>aron mC wrote:
>> fair enough......
>>
>> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
>> mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
>> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
>> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
>> profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
>> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
>
>Right. You can't. Robert Crumb's "Keep on Truckin'" Mr. Natural
>drawing was stolen by a friend of his - Crumb drew him one and forgot to
>affix the (c), and the guy just started selling copies, and won in court.
>
>You may have the key to the perfect defense against the RIAA. There was
>no copyright notice. The crime was committed by the person who removed
>the copyright notice.
>

The law has changed.

Copyright notice or not, the material has a copyright.
If you do not have explicit permission to copy, you may not do so.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[LeBaron & Alrich]

S O'Neill wrote:

> aron mC wrote:
> > fair enough......
> >
> > Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
> > mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
> > Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
> > am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
> > profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
> > copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
>
> Right. You can't. Robert Crumb's "Keep on Truckin'" Mr. Natural
> drawing was stolen by a friend of his - Crumb drew him one and forgot to
> affix the (c), and the guy just started selling copies, and won in court.

That's under old law. Deal now is (and this came about so that the US
and Europe could move close to being on the same page about this)
copyright belongs to the creator at the moment of creation, filings,
notices or not. Obviously, declaration and filing makes easier the job
of defending the right.

> You may have the key to the perfect defense against the RIAA. There was
> no copyright notice. The crime was committed by the person who removed
> the copyright notice.

If the artist whose music was stolen is reasonably well known that might
be an attempt to use the "ignorance" defense. I doubt it'd fly.

--
ha

[ryanm]

"Andrea" > wrote in message
om...
>
> It's not just about releasing information, it is about garnering and
> monitoring information and using it without the parents permission.
>
> They did not in advance go and get the proper permission from the
> parents in the first place to collect and use the information to
> commit civil barratry based on what the child had on the computer, and
> the childs internet activity.
>
> Without parental consent, and after knowing(they are lawyers, how
> could they not know?) that a 12 year old child is protected by COPPA,
> they still used the information they collected improperly, and in
> violation of COPPA to extort thousands of dollars from the child's
> family.
>
You're still mistaken. The child cannot possess an internet account or a
computer at age 13, they are property of the parents (or in one case the
grandparents), and activity performed on those devices/services are
performed, for all intents and purposes, buy the owners of the
devices/services, who are over the age of consent. It doesn't matter, in
this case, that a child under 13 was operating the computer at the time the
files were downloaded, they used logs of the accounts owned by adults to
monitor traffic caused by adults (by proxy: the child) to download the
files. The kid is just media spin, she is not being sued. Her parents or
grandparents or whoever owns the computer/internet account are the ones
being held liable.

> Which means that an improper search of a minor covered by COPPA was
>
No minor was involved, at any time, by legal defenition. That a child
was using the computer is irrelevant in this case. The child was a proxy by
which the *owner of the compuer or internet account* affected the downloads.
To use an anology that doesn't exactly fit, but serves the purpose of
demonstrating the point: if you send your 8 year old child into a liquor
store to rob the place, not only are *you* the one comitting the robbery (by
proxy, since the child is not capable of consenting), you are by default
(because you used the child in the comission of a crime) giving consent to
let the child be searched (since they cannot consent to a search
themselves). Likewise, if your child uses your computer to commit a crime,
not only are *you* comitting the crime, but you are, by default, giving
consent for search of the child, including gathering of information covered
by COPPA. The only possibility for gray area here is that it is a civil
dispute rather than a criminal one. But the records they obtained did not
pertain to the child, they pertained only to the activities performed on the
internet accounts and computers owned by adults.

You can't just read COPPA to see how these things work, you have to read
the other laws that apply as well.

ryanm

[Rob Adelman]

ryanm wrote:


> Theft implies intent, which
> cannot be shown with receiving, since they wouldn't have received the
> property if it had not been offered.

Poor rationale. If you walked into a small store and the clerk was in
the can, you could grab something and be out the door. There were the
goods, right in front of you, and you made a choice and acted. You broke
the law.

Downloading is the same thing. If it can be made clear and accepted that
downloading copywrited material is illegal, and you do it, you broke the
law. Access is not an issue. You know that it is wrong, and illegal.

At one time illegal downloaders could have made a case that they didn't
know it was illegal. Now that it has been publicized and put in the
public record, that argument can no longer hold up.

[ryanm]

"Rick Knepper" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> That's certainly the rationale defenders of KaZa use.
>
First of all, use of those services requires no rationale. They are
simply tools. Second, the services themselves are doing nothing wrong, they
are breaking no laws. Call them pimps if you wish, but it doesn't change the
fact that thay have done nothing wrong. I could call a preacher a pimp
because he marries people, but it doesn't mean he's broken the law, even
though I could argue that he facilitated the trading of sex for money and/or
services. And neither have the downloaders, for that matter. Downloading a
file over the internet is no more illegal than taking a $20 from someone on
the street who is offering it. It is not your responsibility to determine
where they got the money before taking it. The people *uploading* files are
the ones violating someone's copyright, by distributing the music without
permisson. You can argue all you want, but these are facts. Downloading is
not theft. This is why the RIAA is going after the people they are going
after. These people all *uploaded* more than a certain number of files, so
the RIAA can actually make a case that they violated someone's copyright.

> So, instead of going after the network like they did with Napster (most
> judges wouldn't know the difference between a domain and doughnut anyway),
> the RIAA goes after the actual thieves and they still get railed upon.
>
Better, but still not good. Again, the downloaders are not thieves. They
have stolen nothing. They may have received stolen (unlicensed) goods, which
is a misdemeanor if you can prove that they knew they were stolen, but they
did not steal anything. The only reason the Napster case ever saw a day in
court is because the judge didn't understand the technology. The prosecutors
played on the fact that the judge had no clue how any of the technology
worked, so he took the "professional's" word for it.

> We all know that the owners of KaZa are really pimps and/or fences. We
just
> need the correct, well-crafted legislation to bring these criminals to
> justice as well. If these guys are off-shore, then the problem gets a
little
> dicier, of course.
>
What you'll get instead is the Patriot Act, only relating to copyright
law. Wait, we already have that, it's called the DMCA. You really want more
of that trash floating around in our legislature, getting pay raises for
congressmen and restrictions of our personal liberties attached to it? This
whole argument is baseless. No new laws are needed, the existing (pre-DMCA)
law said everything that needed to be said. Do not distribute copyrighted
works without license to do so, or you are in violation of the license
holder's copyright. Nothing new was needed, except for possibly the update
to the definition of a mechanical copy, but that could've been done with an
amendment of the old law, without a whole new tangle of meaningless laws
being added to the books.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Abyssmal" > wrote in message
...
>
> Everybody agrees downading is theft.
>
I don't. Downloading music is receiving unlicensed intellectual
property, which is not even a misdemeanor. A downloader stole nothing.
Stolen property was *offered* to them, and they took it despite knowing that
it may be stolen. It's a whole different animal. Theft implies intent, which
cannot be shown with receiving, since they wouldn't have received the
property if it had not been offered. This may sound like a rationale to
eliminate P2P utilities, but it is not. You can't blame the tool for the
actions of its user. The real offenders here are the *uploaders*, which the
RIAA is blatantly demonstrating for us by only suing those who have
*uploaded* more than 1000 songs. Uploaders are distributing property without
license to do so, which is also not a criminal offense, but *is* a clear
violation of copyright law. For people who upload files, the RIAA has you
dead to rights, you cannot avoid this prosecution if they choose to come
after you, it's yours, deal with it. But they have no legal leg to stand on
when it comes to either the P2P companies or the downloaders. Of course I'm
sure some nice lawyer will write up some useful legislation making it so
that downloaders can be prosecuted even though they've committed no
violations.

To Roger, the RIAA didn't use any kind of power given by the law to get
the records, they used plain old threat of litigation. The ISPs gave the
records up "voluntarily" to avoid suit. ISPs have common carrier status, so
they cannot be held criminally liable for the actions of their users on
their hardware or software, however they can be sued for damages if the RIAA
gets records from other places and manages to show that people are violating
their copyrights, and the ISP is "facilitating" the violations or
"shielding" the violators from prosecution by refusing to turn over the
records. Also, anyone with enough money can make any business's life a
living hell, to the point of forcing them to close down, if they are
motivated to do so. The RIAA has a whole team of lawyers on retainer who
specialize in just that, so you can't really blame the ISPs for not taking a
stand against them to protect their customers. If they take a stand, they'll
be closed in 6 months, if they don't, they may lose a few customers, but
they will still be open for business. Sure, it's coercion, but it's *legal*
coercion. Their easy rationale is "if they're not doing anything wrong, then
they have nothing to worry about." It won't make you feel warm and cozy, but
it's the facts as they stand.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> That's under old law.
>
Thanks to the DMCA. The passing of which was a criminal act, in my
opinion.

ryanm

[John Dough]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:33:35 -0500, Rob Adelman
> wrote:

>
>
>Bob Olhsson wrote:
>
>> As it is, those folks are getting off easy with a civil action
>> considering that they've committed a federal crime that they could be
>> serving jail time for.
>
>
>Yes, and settling for a couple of grand for thousands of illegal songs
>is actually getting off pretty easy. The RIAA is actually playing it
>pretty smart. The "fines" will go up as pleading ignorance as a defense
>becomes more and more laughable.

If the RIAA were playing it smart, they would've concentrated on
developing a new business model instead of bullying, intimidating, and
otherwise alienating the very market their industry depends on to
survive.

How ironic that an organization claiming to represent the interests of
artists is becoming the biggest threat to freedom of speech on the
internet.

Maybe the RIAA should start listening to their PR people instead of
their lawyers.

[Rob Adelman]

John Dough wrote:

> How ironic that an organization claiming to represent the interests of
> artists is becoming the biggest threat to freedom of speech on the
> internet.

Threat to freedom of speech? How so?

[Artie Turner]

ryanm wrote:
> "Rick Knepper" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>That's certainly the rationale defenders of KaZa use.

> permisson. You can argue all you want, but these are facts. Downloading is
> not theft. This is why the RIAA is going after the people they are going
> after. These people all *uploaded* more than a certain number of files, so
> the RIAA can actually make a case that they violated someone's copyright.

Gee, thanks for the permission to argue. Just for the record, there are
no "uploaders" or "downloaders" on a P2P network - there are peers, or
"freeloaders" ...

> They
> have stolen nothing. They may have received stolen (unlicensed) goods, which
> is a misdemeanor if you can prove that they knew they were stolen, but they
> did not steal anything.

Thanks for equivocating.

AT




> holder's copyright. Nothing new was needed, except for possibly the update
> to the definition of a mechanical copy, but that could've been done with an
> amendment of the old law, without a whole new tangle of meaningless laws
> being added to the books.
>
> ryanm
>
>

[LeBaron & Alrich]

John Dough wrote:

> How ironic that an organization claiming to represent the interests of
> artists is becoming the biggest threat to freedom of speech on the
> internet.

Care to expound on the meaning of that statement? Sharing what is not
yours to share is some kind of "speech"?

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

John Dough wrote:

> How ironic that an organization claiming to represent the interests of
> artists is becoming the biggest threat to freedom of speech on the
> internet.

Care to expound on the meaning of that statement? Sharing what is not
yours to share is some kind of "speech"?

--
ha

[Harry]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> John Dough wrote:
>
>> How ironic that an organization claiming to represent the interests
>> of artists is becoming the biggest threat to freedom of speech on
the
>> internet.
>
> Care to expound on the meaning of that statement? Sharing what is
not
> yours to share is some kind of "speech"?

I think he means the freedom of speech in the song texts.

[Harry]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> John Dough wrote:
>
>> How ironic that an organization claiming to represent the interests
>> of artists is becoming the biggest threat to freedom of speech on
the
>> internet.
>
> Care to expound on the meaning of that statement? Sharing what is
not
> yours to share is some kind of "speech"?

I think he means the freedom of speech in the song texts.

[ryanm]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Care to expound on the meaning of that statement? Sharing what is not
> yours to share is some kind of "speech"?
>
He's probably talking about the side effects of some of the recent
legislation they have bought... I mean supported with lobby money.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Care to expound on the meaning of that statement? Sharing what is not
> yours to share is some kind of "speech"?
>
He's probably talking about the side effects of some of the recent
legislation they have bought... I mean supported with lobby money.

ryanm

[LeBaron & Alrich]

ryanm wrote:

> "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote...

> > That's under old law.

> Thanks to the DMCA. The passing of which was a criminal act, in my
> opinion.

No, you are confused about this. The changes in copyright law were
effected prior to the DCMA. Study up!

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

ryanm wrote:

> "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote...

> > That's under old law.

> Thanks to the DMCA. The passing of which was a criminal act, in my
> opinion.

No, you are confused about this. The changes in copyright law were
effected prior to the DCMA. Study up!

--
ha

[Richard Kuschel]

>"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Poor rationale.
>>
> It's not a rationale, it's the law.
>
>> If you walked into a small store and the clerk was in
>> the can, you could grab something and be out the door. There were the
>> goods, right in front of you, and you made a choice and acted. You broke
>> the law.
>>


> Incorrect, that is theft because the thing you took belonged to someone,
>downloading is not

>ryanm

Sorry, downloading may be taking something that belongs to somebody else.

If you don't have copyright, you may not copy.-Plain and simple.

Downloading other people's music and ideas is theft of intellectual property,
and this is how the courts see it and enforce it.


Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[ryanm]

"Richard Kuschel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry, downloading may be taking something that belongs to somebody else.
>
> If you don't have copyright, you may not copy.-Plain and simple.
>
> Downloading other people's music and ideas is theft of intellectual
property,
> and this is how the courts see it and enforce it.
>
Again, totally incorrect. Taking someone's TV is theft. Building an
exact replica of their TV is not. Since they have lost nothing in the second
example, there is no theft, despite any perceived losses by the manufacturer
of the TV.

Downloading a song over the internet with no copyright notice attached
is not illegal. The courts don't see it or enforce it at all because there
are no laws against it. There has never been a case filed or settled out of
court over downloading IP. If you are referring to the current RIAA cases,
those are about *uploading* (distribution), not downloading. You cannot
*steal* intellectual property, all you can do is violate its registered
copyright, which is not a criminal offense. You can, however, *distribute*
IP without a license, and for that you may be sued.

ryanm

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>"Richard Kuschel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Sorry, downloading may be taking something that belongs to somebody else.
>>
>> If you don't have copyright, you may not copy.-Plain and simple.
>>
>> Downloading other people's music and ideas is theft of intellectual
>property,
>> and this is how the courts see it and enforce it.
>>
> Again, totally incorrect. Taking someone's TV is theft. Building an
>exact replica of their TV is not. Since they have lost nothing in the second
>example, there is no theft, despite any perceived losses by the manufacturer
>of the TV.
>
> Downloading a song over the internet with no copyright notice attached
>is not illegal. The courts don't see it or enforce it at all because there
>are no laws against it. There has never been a case filed or settled out of
>court over downloading IP. If you are referring to the current RIAA cases,
>those are about *uploading* (distribution), not downloading. You cannot
>*steal* intellectual property, all you can do is violate its registered
>copyright, which is not a criminal offense. You can, however, *distribute*
>IP without a license, and for that you may be sued.
>
>ryanm
>
>
Ryan read the following:

A copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute,
perform, display, or license his work. See § 106 of the act. The owner also
receives the exclusive right to produce or license derivatives of his or her
work. See § 201(d) of the act. Limited exceptions to this exclusivity exist for
types of "fair use", such as book reviews. See § 107 of the act. To be covered
by copyright a work must be original and in a concrete "medium of expression."
See § 102 of the act. Under current law, works are covered whether or not a
copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered.



Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[ryanm]

"Richard Kuschel" > wrote in message
...
>
> A copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute,
> perform, display, or license his work. See § 106 of the act. The owner
also
> receives the exclusive right to produce or license derivatives of his or
her
> work. See § 201(d) of the act. Limited exceptions to this exclusivity
exist for
> types of "fair use", such as book reviews. See § 107 of the act. To be
covered
> by copyright a work must be original and in a concrete "medium of
expression."
> See § 102 of the act. Under current law, works are covered whether or not
a
> copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered.
>
"To be covered by copyright a work must be original and in a concrete
'medium of expression.'". How does that apply to mp3s? First of all,
downloading a copy is not "reproducing" the work, at least not on the part
of the downloader, because you possess no original to reproduce from.
Second, it is not in a concrete medium, it is in a fluid medium. Ask your
friends at the RIAA, they'll tell you. The reason they're not suing
downloaders is because they can't make a case against them. They *can* make
a case against uploaders, even though it's thin and any good IP lawyer could
get them out of it. Most people can't afford the fees a good IP lawyer
charges. I've read the law, it is not on your side of this debate.

ryanm

[Rob Adelman]

" WASHINGTON - The recording industry on Monday announced settlements
with 52 of the 261 Internet users it sued over allegations they
illegally permitted others to download music from their computers using
popular file-sharing software.

The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), which
plans to file hundreds more lawsuits in October, did not specify how
much it collected. Defense lawyers familiar with some cases said
payments ranged from $2,500 to $7,500 each, with at least one settlement
for as much as $10,000. "

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20030930/ap_en_mu/downloading_music&e=4>

[David Morley]

In article >,
(Richard Kuschel) wrote:

> If you don't have copyright, you may not copy.-Plain and simple.

I think this is wrong
You can copy but not distribute, or play publicly. You can make as many
safety copies for your car, portable etc as you like.

[M.O.]

"ryanm" wrote in message:
> "To be covered by copyright a work must be original and in a concrete
> 'medium of expression.'". How does that apply to mp3s? First of all,
> downloading a copy is not "reproducing" the work, at least not on the part
> of the downloader, because you possess no original to reproduce from.
> Second, it is not in a concrete medium, it is in a fluid medium. Ask your
> friends at the RIAA, they'll tell you.

===================
Here's what they say about downloading on the RIAA website FAQ page
(reference link below):
------
"If I just download sound recordings, is it still a copyright violation?

Yes. It is a violation if you upload or download full-length sound
recordings without permission of the copyright owners. You should assume
other people's works are copyrighted and can't be copied unless you know
otherwise."
------------

Of course the downloader is reproducing the work, contrary to what you say.
He/she is accessing the copyright-protected work through the internet and
making a copy of it onto their hard drive. That certainly fits the
definition of reproduction. It's reproducing a (new) copy.
============

"ryanm" wrote
The reason they're not suing
> downloaders is because they can't make a case against them. They *can*
make
> a case against uploaders, even though it's thin and any good IP lawyer
could
> get them out of it. Most people can't afford the fees a good IP lawyer
> charges. I've read the law, it is not on your side of this debate.

=========
I think the reason they're suing only the uploaders is mainly because it's
far easier to. The uploader's "shared (music) files" are readily accessible
on the peer-to-peer network, so the RIAA can easily search the network and
see how many songs, and the titles of the songs, that individual uploaders
are making available directly from their hard drives. And it's a direct
copyright violation to be uploading those files without permission.

On the other hand, those who are only downloading don't have the "share
files" function on their peer-to-peer software activated, so the RIAA of
course can't readily access their hard drives through the network. In
addition, any MP3 music files on the downloader's hard drive may or may not
be in violation-maybe the person purchased the MP3's from a legal internet
service, which is of course OK. But if the MP3's on the downloader's
computer were copied (off the internet, say, without permission), then that
person is in violation, just as the "uploader" is. It's just much easier to
prove in the case of the uploaders, because as soon as they "share" the
files on the network (without permission), they are in violation.

Reference:
http://www.riaa.com/issues/music/downup_faq.asp#sound
(see question: "If I just download sound recordings, is it still a copyright
violation?)

-M.O.

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>In article >,
> (Richard Kuschel) wrote:
>
>> If you don't have copyright, you may not copy.-Plain and simple.
>
>I think this is wrong
>You can copy but not distribute, or play publicly. You can make as many
>safety copies for your car, portable etc as you like.
>
>
>

The home recording act allows for one copy, not as many as you would like.(USA)

What the laws are in Germany--I don't know.

Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[[email protected]]

"ryanm" > wrote in message >...

> "To be covered by copyright a work must be original and in a concrete
> 'medium of expression.'". How does that apply to mp3s? First of all,
> downloading a copy is not "reproducing" the work, at least not on the part
> of the downloader, because you possess no original to reproduce from.
> Second, it is not in a concrete medium, it is in a fluid medium. Ask your
> friends at the RIAA, they'll tell you. The reason they're not suing
> downloaders is because they can't make a case against them. They *can* make
> a case against uploaders, even though it's thin and any good IP lawyer could
> get them out of it. Most people can't afford the fees a good IP lawyer
> charges. I've read the law, it is not on your side of this debate.
>
> ryanm

This is what people fail to realize: The word "reproduce" as written
and understood in current copywright law means that you can't copy
someone else's intellectual property, repackage it, and sell it as
your own for profit.

ryanm is correct - it's only the people stocking the virtual shelves
of these download libraries that are guilty of anything and the riaa
will go broke throwing money it, not because it's wrong, but because
they and only they want to be in charge of the library. If they'd just
****ing admit it instead of all this guilt trip moralizing, it
wouldn't be so laughable. But instead, it's "stories" about people
named Durwood, and a 14 year old hottie, and the big boogy man coming
to get you. Must be the same marketing firm as "just say no"..

[M.O.]

> wrote in message >
> This is what people fail to realize: The word "reproduce" as written
> and understood in current copywright law means that you can't copy
> someone else's intellectual property, repackage it, and sell it as
> your own for profit.

================
That was changed, at least as far as the Internet goes, in 1997 with the
signing into law of the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act.
From the RIAA website:
--------
"No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) sets forth that sound recording
infringements (including by digital means) can be criminally prosecuted even
where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from the infringing
activity. Punishment in such instances includes up to 3 years in prison
and/or $250,000 fines. The NET Act also extends the criminal statute of
limitations for copyright infringement from 3 to 5 years.

Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage or
private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of receipt)
of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted works (as in
MP3 trading). Punishment in such instances includes up to 5 years in prison
and/or $250,000 fines. Individuals may also be civilly liable, regardless of
whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or
for statutory damages up to $150,000 per work infringed."

reference:
http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp
(at bottom of page)
There's lots of information available online about the NET Act , just use a
search engine...

-M.O.

===================


> ryanm is correct - it's only the people stocking the virtual shelves
> of these download libraries that are guilty of anything and the riaa
> will go broke throwing money it, not because it's wrong, but because
> they and only they want to be in charge of the library. If they'd just
> ****ing admit it instead of all this guilt trip moralizing, it
> wouldn't be so laughable. But instead, it's "stories" about people
> named Durwood, and a 14 year old hottie, and the big boogy man coming
> to get you. Must be the same marketing firm as "just say no"..

[ryanm]

"M.O." > wrote in message
.. .
>
> That was changed, at least as far as the Internet goes, in 1997 with the
> signing into law of the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act.
>
Stop getting your facts from the RIAA, they're pretty much full of ****,
as I think I may have mentioned. You should look more carefully at the laws
you refer to:

SEC. 2. (B)(a)(2) "by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or
phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a retail value of
more than $1,000"

That's, what, more than 60 cds at $15 each? So, downloading 55 cds isn't
illegal, but 66 is, I'll concede that one. Not to mention:

SEC.2. "...evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work,
by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."

It's not a crime at all unless it's willful infringement. The fines and
sentences are all wrong in your quote. It's a year max for less than $1000
of IP, and 3 years max for $2500 or more.

All the NET Act did was insert ", including by electronic means," a
dozen times in the original law, and then allowing what's called a "victim
impact statement" from anyone who thinks they've been infringed upon.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"M.O." > wrote in message
.. .
>
> That was changed, at least as far as the Internet goes, in 1997 with the
> signing into law of the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act.
>
Stop getting your facts from the RIAA, they're pretty much full of ****,
as I think I may have mentioned. You should look more carefully at the laws
you refer to:

SEC. 2. (B)(a)(2) "by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or
phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a retail value of
more than $1,000"

That's, what, more than 60 cds at $15 each? So, downloading 55 cds isn't
illegal, but 66 is, I'll concede that one. Not to mention:

SEC.2. "...evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work,
by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."

It's not a crime at all unless it's willful infringement. The fines and
sentences are all wrong in your quote. It's a year max for less than $1000
of IP, and 3 years max for $2500 or more.

All the NET Act did was insert ", including by electronic means," a
dozen times in the original law, and then allowing what's called a "victim
impact statement" from anyone who thinks they've been infringed upon.

ryanm

[M.O.]

"ryanm" wrote in message;
> Stop getting your facts from the RIAA, they're pretty much full of
>****, as I think I may have mentioned.
---------------
Really? I checked the facts and figures I quoted from the RIAA website with
the US Dept. of Justice website. They looked quite accurate to me...

==========
>You should look more carefully at the laws
> you refer to:
---------------
What makes you think I haven't? In fact I read the law fairly carefully long
ago.

==========
> SEC. 2. (B)(a)(2) "by the reproduction or distribution, including by
> electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or
> phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a retail value of
> more than $1,000"
>
> That's, what, more than 60 cds at $15 each? So, downloading 55 cds
isn't
> illegal, but 66 is, I'll concede that one.
-------------------
Exactly. Except I don't think it's accurate to say that downloading 55 CDs
worth of songs "isn't illegal". It's still a copyright violation, but the
$1000 worth within 180 day threshold must be passed before it can possibly
be considered a felony offense. And I believe that's why, as I've been
reading in a number of news articles, the RIAA is going after peer-to-peer
"uploaders" who have around 1000 songs (or more) on their hard drives - in
order to meet the criteria set forth in the Net Act, so they may possibly be
prosecuted as felony offenses.

=========
> Not to mention:
>
> SEC.2. "...evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work,
> by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
>
> It's not a crime at all unless it's willful infringement.
-----------------------
That's right , and that will be decided in court, if any of these RIAA cases
get that far. Here's what Rep. Howard Coble, a co-sponsor of the Net Act
legislation, has to say about the willful infringement part:

According to Representative Coble, "The willfulness standard should be
satisfied if there is adequate proof that the defendant acted with reckless
disregard of the rights of the copyright holder. In such circumstances, a
proclaimed ignorance of the law should not allow the infringer to escape
conviction."

Ref. (at bottom of page):
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0DPC/n2_v6/20334100/p1/article.jhtml?term=
copyright+law+and+regulations

===========
>The fines and
> sentences are all wrong in your quote. It's a year max for less than $1000
> of IP, and 3 years max for $2500 or more.
----------------
The first paragraph I quoted from the RIAA site states:

"Punishment in such instances includes up to 3 years in prison and/or
$250,000 fines." (in cases where no monetary profit or commercial gain is
derived from the infringing activity).

The US Dept. of Justice website states the following, also in connection
with cases where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from the
infringing activity:

"The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more
copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more
constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment
and a fine of $250,000."

Ref. (at bottom of page):
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.htm

So, the maximum $250,000 fine figure on the RIAA website is correct after
all, isn't it? And the RIAA website does state that the max. sentence in
cases without profit or commercial gain is 3 years, as the US Dept. of
Justice website also says.
---------
The second paragraph I quoted from the RIAA website states:

"Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted works
(as in MP3 trading). Punishment in such instances includes up to 5 years in
prison and/or $250,000 fines."

The US Dept. of Justice website states the following:

"§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright

(b) Any person who commits an offense under (Striked> subsection (a) of this
section <Striked) section 506(a)(1) of title 17--

shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth
in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or
distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at
least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a
which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; "
-------
Notice how the max. sentence in this section is 5 years. This is for cases
that are "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".
As well, the legislation also states "The term "financial gain" includes
receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the
receipt of other copyrighted works." (Sections § 101 and § 506.)

So, as it turns out, the fines and sentences stated on the RIAA website were
indeed accurate, but you nevertheless stated - "Stop getting your facts from
the RIAA, they're pretty much full of ****, as I think I may have mentioned"
and "The fines and sentences are all wrong in your quote". Maybe, it seems,
I'm not the one who needs to "look more carefully at the laws you refer to"
(as you also stated above).

===========
>All the NET Act did was insert ", including by electronic means," a
> dozen times in the original law, and then allowing what's called a "victim
> impact statement" from anyone who thinks they've been infringed upon.

> ryanm
=========
It did a lot more than that, which was the original point of my response to
the other person. The person I was responding to stated:

"This is what people fail to realize: The word "reproduce" as written
and understood in current copywright law means that you can't copy
someone else's intellectual property, repackage it, and sell it as
your own for profit."

I replied that the NET Act changed that, at least as far as the internet
goes, when it was signed into law in 1997. The pertinent parts of what I
quoted from the RIAA site were these:

"No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) sets forth that sound recording
infringements (including by digital means) can be criminally prosecuted even
where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from the infringing
activity."

and-

"Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted works"

The US Dept. of Justice website states the following:

"The criminal copyright and trademark provisions in titles 17 and 18 of the
U.S. Code are amended to:

Permit the Department to prosecute individuals under misdemeanor or felony
provisions(1) in cases involving large-scale illegal reproduction or
distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers act willfully but
without a discernible profit motive"......

Ref:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.htm
---------
So, once again the facts I quoted from the RIAA website were accurate,
despite what you said earlier. And this "no profit" provision, which you
don't seem to realize is there, is actually fundamental to the NET Act, and
the lawsuits launched by the RIAA.

-M.O.

[M.O.]

"ryanm" wrote in message;
> Stop getting your facts from the RIAA, they're pretty much full of
>****, as I think I may have mentioned.
---------------
Really? I checked the facts and figures I quoted from the RIAA website with
the US Dept. of Justice website. They looked quite accurate to me...

==========
>You should look more carefully at the laws
> you refer to:
---------------
What makes you think I haven't? In fact I read the law fairly carefully long
ago.

==========
> SEC. 2. (B)(a)(2) "by the reproduction or distribution, including by
> electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or
> phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a retail value of
> more than $1,000"
>
> That's, what, more than 60 cds at $15 each? So, downloading 55 cds
isn't
> illegal, but 66 is, I'll concede that one.
-------------------
Exactly. Except I don't think it's accurate to say that downloading 55 CDs
worth of songs "isn't illegal". It's still a copyright violation, but the
$1000 worth within 180 day threshold must be passed before it can possibly
be considered a felony offense. And I believe that's why, as I've been
reading in a number of news articles, the RIAA is going after peer-to-peer
"uploaders" who have around 1000 songs (or more) on their hard drives - in
order to meet the criteria set forth in the Net Act, so they may possibly be
prosecuted as felony offenses.

=========
> Not to mention:
>
> SEC.2. "...evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work,
> by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
>
> It's not a crime at all unless it's willful infringement.
-----------------------
That's right , and that will be decided in court, if any of these RIAA cases
get that far. Here's what Rep. Howard Coble, a co-sponsor of the Net Act
legislation, has to say about the willful infringement part:

According to Representative Coble, "The willfulness standard should be
satisfied if there is adequate proof that the defendant acted with reckless
disregard of the rights of the copyright holder. In such circumstances, a
proclaimed ignorance of the law should not allow the infringer to escape
conviction."

Ref. (at bottom of page):
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0DPC/n2_v6/20334100/p1/article.jhtml?term=
copyright+law+and+regulations

===========
>The fines and
> sentences are all wrong in your quote. It's a year max for less than $1000
> of IP, and 3 years max for $2500 or more.
----------------
The first paragraph I quoted from the RIAA site states:

"Punishment in such instances includes up to 3 years in prison and/or
$250,000 fines." (in cases where no monetary profit or commercial gain is
derived from the infringing activity).

The US Dept. of Justice website states the following, also in connection
with cases where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from the
infringing activity:

"The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more
copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more
constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment
and a fine of $250,000."

Ref. (at bottom of page):
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.htm

So, the maximum $250,000 fine figure on the RIAA website is correct after
all, isn't it? And the RIAA website does state that the max. sentence in
cases without profit or commercial gain is 3 years, as the US Dept. of
Justice website also says.
---------
The second paragraph I quoted from the RIAA website states:

"Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted works
(as in MP3 trading). Punishment in such instances includes up to 5 years in
prison and/or $250,000 fines."

The US Dept. of Justice website states the following:

"§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright

(b) Any person who commits an offense under (Striked> subsection (a) of this
section <Striked) section 506(a)(1) of title 17--

shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth
in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or
distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at
least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a
which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; "
-------
Notice how the max. sentence in this section is 5 years. This is for cases
that are "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".
As well, the legislation also states "The term "financial gain" includes
receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the
receipt of other copyrighted works." (Sections § 101 and § 506.)

So, as it turns out, the fines and sentences stated on the RIAA website were
indeed accurate, but you nevertheless stated - "Stop getting your facts from
the RIAA, they're pretty much full of ****, as I think I may have mentioned"
and "The fines and sentences are all wrong in your quote". Maybe, it seems,
I'm not the one who needs to "look more carefully at the laws you refer to"
(as you also stated above).

===========
>All the NET Act did was insert ", including by electronic means," a
> dozen times in the original law, and then allowing what's called a "victim
> impact statement" from anyone who thinks they've been infringed upon.

> ryanm
=========
It did a lot more than that, which was the original point of my response to
the other person. The person I was responding to stated:

"This is what people fail to realize: The word "reproduce" as written
and understood in current copywright law means that you can't copy
someone else's intellectual property, repackage it, and sell it as
your own for profit."

I replied that the NET Act changed that, at least as far as the internet
goes, when it was signed into law in 1997. The pertinent parts of what I
quoted from the RIAA site were these:

"No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) sets forth that sound recording
infringements (including by digital means) can be criminally prosecuted even
where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from the infringing
activity."

and-

"Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted works"

The US Dept. of Justice website states the following:

"The criminal copyright and trademark provisions in titles 17 and 18 of the
U.S. Code are amended to:

Permit the Department to prosecute individuals under misdemeanor or felony
provisions(1) in cases involving large-scale illegal reproduction or
distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers act willfully but
without a discernible profit motive"......

Ref:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.htm
---------
So, once again the facts I quoted from the RIAA website were accurate,
despite what you said earlier. And this "no profit" provision, which you
don't seem to realize is there, is actually fundamental to the NET Act, and
the lawsuits launched by the RIAA.

-M.O.

[M.O.]

Here's the link to the NET Act legislation I was referencing/quoting from
the US Dept. of Justice website:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm


=====================================
"M.O." > wrote in message
.. .
> "ryanm" wrote in message;
> > Stop getting your facts from the RIAA, they're pretty much full of
> >****, as I think I may have mentioned.
> ---------------
> Really? I checked the facts and figures I quoted from the RIAA website
with
> the US Dept. of Justice website. They looked quite accurate to me...
>
> ==========
> >You should look more carefully at the laws
> > you refer to:
> ---------------
> What makes you think I haven't? In fact I read the law fairly carefully
long
> ago.
>
> ==========
> > SEC. 2. (B)(a)(2) "by the reproduction or distribution, including by
> > electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or
> > phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a retail value
of
> > more than $1,000"
> >
> > That's, what, more than 60 cds at $15 each? So, downloading 55 cds
> isn't
> > illegal, but 66 is, I'll concede that one.
> -------------------
> Exactly. Except I don't think it's accurate to say that downloading 55 CDs
> worth of songs "isn't illegal". It's still a copyright violation, but the
> $1000 worth within 180 day threshold must be passed before it can possibly
> be considered a felony offense. And I believe that's why, as I've been
> reading in a number of news articles, the RIAA is going after peer-to-peer
> "uploaders" who have around 1000 songs (or more) on their hard drives - in
> order to meet the criteria set forth in the Net Act, so they may possibly
be
> prosecuted as felony offenses.
>
> =========
> > Not to mention:
> >
> > SEC.2. "...evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted
work,
> > by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
> >
> > It's not a crime at all unless it's willful infringement.
> -----------------------
> That's right , and that will be decided in court, if any of these RIAA
cases
> get that far. Here's what Rep. Howard Coble, a co-sponsor of the Net Act
> legislation, has to say about the willful infringement part:
>
> According to Representative Coble, "The willfulness standard should be
> satisfied if there is adequate proof that the defendant acted with
reckless
> disregard of the rights of the copyright holder. In such circumstances, a
> proclaimed ignorance of the law should not allow the infringer to escape
> conviction."
>
> Ref. (at bottom of page):
>
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0DPC/n2_v6/20334100/p1/article.jhtml?term=
> copyright+law+and+regulations
>
> ===========
> >The fines and
> > sentences are all wrong in your quote. It's a year max for less than
$1000
> > of IP, and 3 years max for $2500 or more.
> ----------------
> The first paragraph I quoted from the RIAA site states:
>
> "Punishment in such instances includes up to 3 years in prison and/or
> $250,000 fines." (in cases where no monetary profit or commercial gain is
> derived from the infringing activity).
>
> The US Dept. of Justice website states the following, also in connection
> with cases where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from
the
> infringing activity:
>
> "The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more
> copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more
> constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment
> and a fine of $250,000."
>
> Ref. (at bottom of page):
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.htm
>
> So, the maximum $250,000 fine figure on the RIAA website is correct after
> all, isn't it? And the RIAA website does state that the max. sentence in
> cases without profit or commercial gain is 3 years, as the US Dept. of
> Justice website also says.
> ---------
> The second paragraph I quoted from the RIAA website states:
>
> "Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
> or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
> receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted
works
> (as in MP3 trading). Punishment in such instances includes up to 5 years
in
> prison and/or $250,000 fines."
>
> The US Dept. of Justice website states the following:
>
> "§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
>
> (b) Any person who commits an offense under (Striked> subsection (a) of
this
> section <Striked) section 506(a)(1) of title 17--
>
> shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set
forth
> in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or
> distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of
at
> least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a
> which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; "
> -------
> Notice how the max. sentence in this section is 5 years. This is for cases
> that are "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".
> As well, the legislation also states "The term "financial gain" includes
> receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the
> receipt of other copyrighted works." (Sections § 101 and § 506.)
>
> So, as it turns out, the fines and sentences stated on the RIAA website
were
> indeed accurate, but you nevertheless stated - "Stop getting your facts
from
> the RIAA, they're pretty much full of ****, as I think I may have
mentioned"
> and "The fines and sentences are all wrong in your quote". Maybe, it
seems,
> I'm not the one who needs to "look more carefully at the laws you refer
to"
> (as you also stated above).
>
> ===========
> >All the NET Act did was insert ", including by electronic means," a
> > dozen times in the original law, and then allowing what's called a
"victim
> > impact statement" from anyone who thinks they've been infringed upon.
>
> > ryanm
> =========
> It did a lot more than that, which was the original point of my response
to
> the other person. The person I was responding to stated:
>
> "This is what people fail to realize: The word "reproduce" as written
> and understood in current copywright law means that you can't copy
> someone else's intellectual property, repackage it, and sell it as
> your own for profit."
>
> I replied that the NET Act changed that, at least as far as the internet
> goes, when it was signed into law in 1997. The pertinent parts of what I
> quoted from the RIAA site were these:
>
> "No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) sets forth that sound recording
> infringements (including by digital means) can be criminally prosecuted
even
> where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from the infringing
> activity."
>
> and-
>
> "Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
> or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
> receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted
works"
>
> The US Dept. of Justice website states the following:
>
> "The criminal copyright and trademark provisions in titles 17 and 18 of
the
> U.S. Code are amended to:
>
> Permit the Department to prosecute individuals under misdemeanor or felony
> provisions(1) in cases involving large-scale illegal reproduction or
> distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers act willfully but
> without a discernible profit motive"......
>
> Ref:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.htm
> ---------
> So, once again the facts I quoted from the RIAA website were accurate,
> despite what you said earlier. And this "no profit" provision, which you
> don't seem to realize is there, is actually fundamental to the NET Act,
and
> the lawsuits launched by the RIAA.
>
> -M.O.
>
>
>
>
>

[M.O.]

Here's the link to the NET Act legislation I was referencing/quoting from
the US Dept. of Justice website:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm


=====================================
"M.O." > wrote in message
.. .
> "ryanm" wrote in message;
> > Stop getting your facts from the RIAA, they're pretty much full of
> >****, as I think I may have mentioned.
> ---------------
> Really? I checked the facts and figures I quoted from the RIAA website
with
> the US Dept. of Justice website. They looked quite accurate to me...
>
> ==========
> >You should look more carefully at the laws
> > you refer to:
> ---------------
> What makes you think I haven't? In fact I read the law fairly carefully
long
> ago.
>
> ==========
> > SEC. 2. (B)(a)(2) "by the reproduction or distribution, including by
> > electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or
> > phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a retail value
of
> > more than $1,000"
> >
> > That's, what, more than 60 cds at $15 each? So, downloading 55 cds
> isn't
> > illegal, but 66 is, I'll concede that one.
> -------------------
> Exactly. Except I don't think it's accurate to say that downloading 55 CDs
> worth of songs "isn't illegal". It's still a copyright violation, but the
> $1000 worth within 180 day threshold must be passed before it can possibly
> be considered a felony offense. And I believe that's why, as I've been
> reading in a number of news articles, the RIAA is going after peer-to-peer
> "uploaders" who have around 1000 songs (or more) on their hard drives - in
> order to meet the criteria set forth in the Net Act, so they may possibly
be
> prosecuted as felony offenses.
>
> =========
> > Not to mention:
> >
> > SEC.2. "...evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted
work,
> > by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
> >
> > It's not a crime at all unless it's willful infringement.
> -----------------------
> That's right , and that will be decided in court, if any of these RIAA
cases
> get that far. Here's what Rep. Howard Coble, a co-sponsor of the Net Act
> legislation, has to say about the willful infringement part:
>
> According to Representative Coble, "The willfulness standard should be
> satisfied if there is adequate proof that the defendant acted with
reckless
> disregard of the rights of the copyright holder. In such circumstances, a
> proclaimed ignorance of the law should not allow the infringer to escape
> conviction."
>
> Ref. (at bottom of page):
>
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0DPC/n2_v6/20334100/p1/article.jhtml?term=
> copyright+law+and+regulations
>
> ===========
> >The fines and
> > sentences are all wrong in your quote. It's a year max for less than
$1000
> > of IP, and 3 years max for $2500 or more.
> ----------------
> The first paragraph I quoted from the RIAA site states:
>
> "Punishment in such instances includes up to 3 years in prison and/or
> $250,000 fines." (in cases where no monetary profit or commercial gain is
> derived from the infringing activity).
>
> The US Dept. of Justice website states the following, also in connection
> with cases where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from
the
> infringing activity:
>
> "The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more
> copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more
> constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment
> and a fine of $250,000."
>
> Ref. (at bottom of page):
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.htm
>
> So, the maximum $250,000 fine figure on the RIAA website is correct after
> all, isn't it? And the RIAA website does state that the max. sentence in
> cases without profit or commercial gain is 3 years, as the US Dept. of
> Justice website also says.
> ---------
> The second paragraph I quoted from the RIAA website states:
>
> "Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
> or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
> receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted
works
> (as in MP3 trading). Punishment in such instances includes up to 5 years
in
> prison and/or $250,000 fines."
>
> The US Dept. of Justice website states the following:
>
> "§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
>
> (b) Any person who commits an offense under (Striked> subsection (a) of
this
> section <Striked) section 506(a)(1) of title 17--
>
> shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set
forth
> in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or
> distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of
at
> least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a
> which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; "
> -------
> Notice how the max. sentence in this section is 5 years. This is for cases
> that are "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".
> As well, the legislation also states "The term "financial gain" includes
> receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the
> receipt of other copyrighted works." (Sections § 101 and § 506.)
>
> So, as it turns out, the fines and sentences stated on the RIAA website
were
> indeed accurate, but you nevertheless stated - "Stop getting your facts
from
> the RIAA, they're pretty much full of ****, as I think I may have
mentioned"
> and "The fines and sentences are all wrong in your quote". Maybe, it
seems,
> I'm not the one who needs to "look more carefully at the laws you refer
to"
> (as you also stated above).
>
> ===========
> >All the NET Act did was insert ", including by electronic means," a
> > dozen times in the original law, and then allowing what's called a
"victim
> > impact statement" from anyone who thinks they've been infringed upon.
>
> > ryanm
> =========
> It did a lot more than that, which was the original point of my response
to
> the other person. The person I was responding to stated:
>
> "This is what people fail to realize: The word "reproduce" as written
> and understood in current copywright law means that you can't copy
> someone else's intellectual property, repackage it, and sell it as
> your own for profit."
>
> I replied that the NET Act changed that, at least as far as the internet
> goes, when it was signed into law in 1997. The pertinent parts of what I
> quoted from the RIAA site were these:
>
> "No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) sets forth that sound recording
> infringements (including by digital means) can be criminally prosecuted
even
> where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from the infringing
> activity."
>
> and-
>
> "Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
> or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
> receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted
works"
>
> The US Dept. of Justice website states the following:
>
> "The criminal copyright and trademark provisions in titles 17 and 18 of
the
> U.S. Code are amended to:
>
> Permit the Department to prosecute individuals under misdemeanor or felony
> provisions(1) in cases involving large-scale illegal reproduction or
> distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers act willfully but
> without a discernible profit motive"......
>
> Ref:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.htm
> ---------
> So, once again the facts I quoted from the RIAA website were accurate,
> despite what you said earlier. And this "no profit" provision, which you
> don't seem to realize is there, is actually fundamental to the NET Act,
and
> the lawsuits launched by the RIAA.
>
> -M.O.
>
>
>
>
>

[Rob Adelman]

"Net Song-Swappers Get RIAA Letter Before Lawsuit"
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/media_riaa_dc>

"The RIAA said from now on it would send out warning letters first,
allowing suspects to negotiate a settlement before being served with a
lawsuit. Those who do not respond within 10 days will be sued."


And:

"The trade group has reached settlements with 64 song-swappers so far.
Copyright law provides damages of up to $150,000 per song, but most
settlements have been for less than $5,000."

Pretty fair, really.

[Rob Adelman]

"Net Song-Swappers Get RIAA Letter Before Lawsuit"
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/media_riaa_dc>

"The RIAA said from now on it would send out warning letters first,
allowing suspects to negotiate a settlement before being served with a
lawsuit. Those who do not respond within 10 days will be sued."


And:

"The trade group has reached settlements with 64 song-swappers so far.
Copyright law provides damages of up to $150,000 per song, but most
settlements have been for less than $5,000."

Pretty fair, really.

[TarBabyTunes]

<< "Net Song-Swappers Get RIAA Letter Before Lawsuit"
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031017/mu
sic_nm/media_riaa_dc>

"The RIAA said from now on it would send out warning letters first,
allowing suspects to negotiate a settlement before being served with a
lawsuit. Those who do not respond within 10 days will be sued."


And:

"The trade group has reached settlements with 64 song-swappers so far.
Copyright law provides damages of up to $150,000 per song, but most
settlements have been for less than $5,000."

Pretty fair, really. >>


And how much of this goes to the copyright holders whose stuff was downloaded?

Just curious...

steveV

[TarBabyTunes]

<< "Net Song-Swappers Get RIAA Letter Before Lawsuit"
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031017/mu
sic_nm/media_riaa_dc>

"The RIAA said from now on it would send out warning letters first,
allowing suspects to negotiate a settlement before being served with a
lawsuit. Those who do not respond within 10 days will be sued."


And:

"The trade group has reached settlements with 64 song-swappers so far.
Copyright law provides damages of up to $150,000 per song, but most
settlements have been for less than $5,000."

Pretty fair, really. >>


And how much of this goes to the copyright holders whose stuff was downloaded?

Just curious...

steveV

[Raymond]

>The trade group has reached settlements with 64 song-swappers so far.
>Copyright law provides damages of up to $150,000 per song, but most
>settlements have been for less than $5,000."

So just how many songs did these swappers get? If they are all MP3s will it
lickly be more than $5,000 worth of goods?

[Abyssmal]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 15:18:55 -0500, Rob Adelman
> wrote:

>
>
>TarBabyTunes wrote:
>
>
>>
>> And how much of this goes to the copyright holders whose stuff was downloaded?
>>
>> Just curious...
>
>
>The amount of the settlements are really a drop in the bucket, so I
>don't think that is really the point. The question is whether these
>actions will deter future music theft. That part remains to be seen.
>

Thats the problem with the music industry.Whether the copyright holder
or artist gets their share has never been the point for many of these
companies.It is only that they get their share first.

Randall

[EggHd]

<< So just how many songs did these swappers get? If they are all MP3s will it
lickly be more than $5,000 worth of goods? >>

I read that they are going after people with over 1000 copywritten songs on
their hard drive.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Thomas Bishop]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
> I read that they are going after people with over 1000 copywritten songs
on
> their hard drive.

That's what I have heard. Is that 1000 files in the shared folder location?
I can see how that information would be easily available to them, but not if
the songs are in a different folder.

[EggHd]

<< Thats the problem with the music industry.Whether the copyright holder
or artist gets their share has never been the point for many of these
companies.It is only that they get their share first. >>

Hang on a minute. If your an act getting 2.50 a record (more if you are the
songwriter) the loss of sales is huge. If the labels settle for $5K a person
for 1K songs with all the costs involved, nobody is making money.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Abyssmal]

On 19 Oct 2003 00:30:13 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< Thats the problem with the music industry.Whether the copyright holder
>or artist gets their share has never been the point for many of these
>companies.It is only that they get their share first. >>
>
>Hang on a minute. If your an act getting 2.50 a record (more if you are the
>songwriter) the loss of sales is huge. If the labels settle for $5K a person
>for 1K songs with all the costs involved, nobody is making money.
>
>
Who gets $2.50 a record? Last I heard most records are sold to a
distributor for around $6, and even if the band is lucky enough to
have a contract for 20%, they only get $1.20 of that. Minus expenses
they usually get even less than that.

Most artists would gladly sell their songs for 50 cent a download,
which would give them more than a record company would ever give them.
That is really the reason for these lawsuits, to close that avenue
from artists, so those in control can keep it that way.

Randall

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Abyssmal wrote:

> Thats the problem with the music industry.Whether the copyright holder
> or artist gets their share has never been the point for many of these
> companies.It is only that they get their share first.

That is a very general and broadly cast statement. Do you get your
paycheck and then look around to see you needs it more than you need it,
and then hand it over to them? Or do you deposit it in your bank account
and take care of your own needs first?

Each company is a specific entity, run by a collection of individual
humans who confer upon the enterprise their own sense of business.
Sometimes that's a good screwing for an artist who got into an
unfortunate contract, and sometimes it's a worthy partnership for both
parties.

--
ha

[Nathan West]

Abyssmal wrote:

> Who gets $2.50 a record? Last I heard most records are sold to a
> distributor for around $6, and even if the band is lucky enough to
> have a contract for 20%, they only get $1.20 of that. Minus expenses
> they usually get even less than that.

You've heard wrong.

> Most artists would gladly sell their songs for 50 cent a download,

And most *artist* sign crappy deals and give it away...so what? We didn't. A whole
lot of people I know didn't either.

> which would give them more than a record company would ever give them.
> That is really the reason for these lawsuits, to close that avenue
> from artists, so those in control can keep it that way.

The *real* reason for the lawsuits is absolute desperation at losing market share
in a modern economy that is bored with the current distribution methods, and
reacted accordingly. In old guys parlance...they haven't or perhaps have refused
to wake the **** up and smell the coffee.

Has it not seemed strange to them that a *computer* company has successfully come
to market with what people want while record stores like The Wherehouse, Tower and
the like are practically going/have gone belly up? How is it that a Warner
Bros...or the like didn't do I-Tunes first? Becuase they had their pants down
and couldn't walk to an idea.

Nate

[TarBabyTunes]

Great discussion.

The RIAA is a "trade industry association" representing the record labels. For
the RIAA to be bringing the suits is pretty interesting to me anyway.
Artists sign contracts with record labels in a mixture of both common and
adversarial interests, so it seems clear to me that the RIAA is not
representing artists' interest even in token.

But it's not a simple matter in any way.

Thanks for the great posts!

stv

[EggHd]

<< For the RIAA to be bringing the suits is pretty interesting to me anyway.
Artists sign contracts with record labels in a mixture of both common and
adversarial interests, so it seems clear to me that the RIAA is not
representing artists' interest even in token. >>

But in some cases the end result may be the same.

I'm sure you are aware that some of the "heritage" acts out there from The
Styx' to the Yes' to the Frampton's to the Police's to the Boston's to the
Nirvana's and on and on count on continued royalties and mechanicles for part
of their income.

So when it's said that the RIAA doesn't help out the artists, that's not
exactly true.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Who gets $2.50 a record? Last I heard most records are sold to a
distributor for around $6, and even if the band is lucky enough to
have a contract for 20%, they only get $1.20 of that >>

Full price records wholesale for 11 bucks. The artist roylaty is based on MSRP
not wholesale.

The artist is getting 20% (if that's their deal) of 18.98 in some cases.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Chris Johnson]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << Who gets $2.50 a record? Last I heard most records are sold to a
> distributor for around $6, and even if the band is lucky enough to
> have a contract for 20%, they only get $1.20 of that >>
>
> Full price records wholesale for 11 bucks. The artist roylaty is based on
> MSRP
> not wholesale.
>
> The artist is getting 20% (if that's their deal) of 18.98 in some cases.

Cross-collateralized? Pre or post breakage and free goods? Music club
editions?

I think you've been listening to artists who have been sold a bill of
goods. Have you gone over their accounts?

Sorry- I always hate seeing people talk foolishness like that. Name
one major label act EVER in the history of music that got 20% of RETAIL.



Chris Johnson

[EggHd]

<< Cross-collateralized? Pre or post breakage and free goods? Music club
editions? >>

And?

<< I think you've been listening to artists who have been sold a bill of
goods. Have you gone over their accounts? >>

Very many of them. 2 different artists selling 15 million units worldwide.
very familair with those staements along with everything below,

<< Sorry- I always hate seeing people talk foolishness like that. Name
one major label act EVER in the history of music that got 20% of RETAIL. >>

I'm going to name names. i work with an act right now that gets $3.25 per unit
on their royalty statement.

I was invloved in a renegotiantion recently where the bands's back catalog is
now 22 points. And yes these ar retail.

Please explain where you know this is incorrect




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I'm going to name names. >>

Should read Im not going to name names. It would be wrong to put other
people's business in this forum.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Romeo Rondeau]

Gee, are they gonna sue me for downloading Steeler's Wheel "Stuck in the
middle with you" and Cheryl Crow's "All I wanna do is have some fun" to
illustrate to someone how she ripped them off? :-)


"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << Thats the problem with the music industry.Whether the copyright holder
> or artist gets their share has never been the point for many of these
> companies.It is only that they get their share first. >>
>
> Hang on a minute. If your an act getting 2.50 a record (more if you are
the
> songwriter) the loss of sales is huge. If the labels settle for $5K a
person
> for 1K songs with all the costs involved, nobody is making money.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, EggHd
> wrote:

>I read that they are going after people with over 1000 copywritten songs on
>their hard drive.

To be clear, they are going after people who are MAKING AVAILABLE 1000
or more copywritten songs for others to download from them.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, TarBabyTunes
> wrote:

>the RIAA is not
>representing artists' interest even in token.

In fact, it IS the copyright owners who are suing using the RIAA's
lawyers just as it's the Silicone Valley-backed Electronic Frontier
Foundation's lawyers who have been defending the "poor innocent"
software developers and their users.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, Nathan West >
wrote:

> How is it that a Warner
>Bros...or the like didn't do I-Tunes first?

Labels didn't have the legal right to do it any earlier, a little fact
that the Silicone Valley spin doctors have steadfastly avoided
mentioning in their tirades against our industry. Amazing how these
folks can beat up on labels for not ripping off the artists while at
the same time painting a few of the very worst abuses of artists as
being the norm. You'd think they might just have some agenda besides
protecting the innocent music fan...

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[EggHd]

<< Gee, are they gonna sue me for downloading Steeler's Wheel "Stuck in the
middle with you" and Cheryl Crow's "All I wanna do is have some fun" to
illustrate to someone how she ripped them off? :-) >>

That's for the writer of Stuck in the Middle to decide.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[LeBaron & Alrich]

EggHd wrote:

> << I'm going to name names. >>

> Should read Im not going to name names. It would be wrong to put other
> people's business in this forum.

Rightly honorable of you, sir; from the way you talk I'd almost think
you do this musical business stuff for a living.

--
ha

[Abyssmal]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 00:43:33 GMT, (LeBaron &
Alrich) wrote:

>Abyssmal wrote:
>
>> Thats the problem with the music industry.Whether the copyright holder
>> or artist gets their share has never been the point for many of these
>> companies.It is only that they get their share first.
>
>That is a very general and broadly cast statement. Do you get your
>paycheck and then look around to see you needs it more than you need it,
>and then hand it over to them? Or do you deposit it in your bank account
>and take care of your own needs first?
>
>Each company is a specific entity, run by a collection of individual
>humans who confer upon the enterprise their own sense of business.
>Sometimes that's a good screwing for an artist who got into an
>unfortunate contract, and sometimes it's a worthy partnership for both
>parties.

What is funny is that out of the 158 million dollars the labels got
from the mp3.com settlement, not one cent went to the artists.

But I wil give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe 158 million
dollars was not enough to meet the labels needs.

Randall

[Abyssmal]

How is it that a Warner
>Bros...or the like didn't do I-Tunes first? Becuase they had their pants down
>and couldn't walk to an idea.
>
>Nate
>
>

They just didnt have their pants down.They knowingly rip off the
public, just as they rip most artists off, and then start throwing
lawsuits when average citizens suppossedly bend the laws.

Maybe they should practice what they preach.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/05/cdstatement.htm


Randall

[Nathan West]

Bob Olhsson wrote:

> Labels didn't have the legal right to do it any earlier, a little fact
> that the Silicone Valley spin doctors have steadfastly avoided
> mentioning in their tirades against our industry.

That is a good point that I neglected to say.

Nate

[Nathan West]

Abyssmal wrote:

> They just didnt have their pants down.They knowingly rip off the
> public, just as they rip most artists off, and then start throwing
> lawsuits when average citizens suppossedly bend the laws.

I believe that bad deals that rip off an artist are signed by the artist
themselves. To blame a business that employs lawyers and accountants to protect
their interest, while spending 10 seconds without real lawyers or accountants on the
contract is the sole fault of the signatory. And signing the contract despite the
advice of said lawyers and accountants is what happens all the time.

Most Musicians ( *Artist*...whatever) who sign lopsided contracts, turn around and
sue the crap out of the Record company when the tide turns and they are famous and
selling. The Dixie Chicks come to mind in that regard. Sometimes I think that is
just the way musician's business models operates.

--
Regards and all dat,

Nate
"My, My My, You know what it's like when you're high"
"Everything's funny, but you don't know why"
The Troggs

[EggHd]

<< What is funny is that out of the 158 million dollars the labels got
from the mp3.com settlement, not one cent went to the artists. >>

Are you sure about that?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Abyssmal]

On 20 Oct 2003 15:50:33 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< What is funny is that out of the 158 million dollars the labels got
>from the mp3.com settlement, not one cent went to the artists. >>
>
>Are you sure about that?
>
>

I have seen it reported in multiple publications.
I also know a few artists who recieve itemized royalty statements, and
they never saw a cent of it.

The RIAA are only about control.They are trying to stifle webcasting
of audio with requirements that are absurd.

All ASCAP and BMI need for proof of a song being broadcast is song
title, album title, and artist.

The RIAA expect webcasters to provide around 17-18 pieces of
information for each song broadcast, including

A) The name of the service
B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station ID)
C) The type of program (archived/looped/live)
D) Date of transmission
E) Time of transmission
F) Time zone of origination of transmission
G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the
program
H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)
I) Sound-recording title
J) The ISRC code of the recording
K) The release year of the album per copyright notice, and in the case
of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright
date of the track
L) Featured recording artist
M) Retail album title
N) The recording label
O) The UPC code of the retail album
P) The catalog number
Q) The copyright owner information
R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format

They also propose that all webcaster reports would need to be signed
for accuracy, under penalty of perjury.

I bet they would go out of business if congress demanded the labels
had to sign their artists royalty statements for accuracy, under
penalty of perjury.

If the labels truly want whats right for their artists, then they
should hold themselves up to the standards they are trying to force on
webcasters.As it is now, only the bigger acts can afford an audit that
may cost $ 50,000,and when they are found to be in error, they usually
bargain the amount down.Make sure audit results are made public, and
not confidential, so other artists on that label know they are dealing
with less than honest people.If they are not trying to hide anything,
make royalty statements be signed for accuracy, under penalty of
perjury.This is what they are trying to impose on webcasters.
I believe royalty information is far more important than webcaster
lists, and the labels should meet those higher standards.

But by contract, the labels prohibit any third party from seeing
royalty statements.Don Henley showed up at the Joint Hearing of the
Senate Committee and Senate Select Committee on the Entertainment
Industry in LA with his royalty statements. He was threatened with
lawsuits by the RIAA if he shared information with the committee. What
are they scared of?

Henley had proof they deducted $87,000 for free goods to Europe, even
though his contract did not stipulate this allowance.
They also held back more than the 10% reserve alloted in his contract
for records shipped, and did it for 11 pay periods.
Good thing he can afford to be there with an attorney.

Randall

[EggHd]

<< I have seen it reported in multiple publications.
I also know a few artists who recieve itemized royalty statements, and
they never saw a cent of it. >>

I don't know if they have or haven't and who gets credit for what songs.
That's why I asked.

<< The RIAA are only about control.They are trying to stifle webcasting
of audio with requirements that are absurd. >>

I haven't followed this.

<< The RIAA expect webcasters to provide around 17-18 pieces of
information for each song broadcast, including >>

Sucks.

<< As it is now, only the bigger acts can afford an audit that
may cost $ 50,000,and when they are found to be in error, they usually
bargain the amount down. >>

I audited a major for some producer royalties. It cost me around 600 bucks and
I got 54K from the audit. I'm not sure where you get the 50K number.

<< But by contract, the labels prohibit any third party from seeing
royalty statements. >>

I was not aware of that and will look through some contracts. It seems I would
have seen that before.

<< He was threatened with
lawsuits by the RIAA if he shared information with the committee. What
are they scared of? >>

Or did he not want everyone to see a 3 million dollar statement when he was
griping. Royalty statements are seen by lawyers, managers, accountants
families whatever. I have never been asked not to share the information other
than the artist's privacy.

<< Henley had proof they deducted $87,000 for free goods to Europe, even
though his contract did not stipulate this allowance. >>

The he could get it back if he has proof. It doesn't seem as it was hidden.

<< hey also held back more than the 10% reserve alloted in his contract
for records shipped, and did it for 11 pay periods.
Good thing he can afford to be there with an attorney. >>

All he would need is a good accountant.

In the early '90's we represented an artist that we found a few million that
was being held back in an audit. It wasn't all that hard to find as the books
are open to auditors. We went to press with it as well and the CEO got fired.
We were never told we could show the statement to anyone.

I agree with you on a lot but there are many myths out there that aren't true.

YMMV




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Abyssmal]

><< I have seen it reported in multiple publications.
>I also know a few artists who recieve itemized royalty statements, and
>they never saw a cent of it. >>
>
>I don't know if they have or haven't and who gets credit for what songs.
>That's why I asked.

The RIAA mentions that as part of their soundexchange program artists
will recieve half the money collected by the labels for digital audio
services, such as webcasters.Given their usual accounting history
i would be surprised if a penny ever reaches the artists.I have
emailed the RIAA, asking for proof any money they recieved from these
lawsuits have been distributed to the artists they attest to
represent.Never got a reply. or have seen documentation to show the
labels distributed a penny.


><< As it is now, only the bigger acts can afford an audit that
>may cost $ 50,000,and when they are found to be in error, they usually
>bargain the amount down. >>
>
>I audited a major for some producer royalties. It cost me around 600 bucks and
>I got 54K from the audit. I'm not sure where you get the 50K number.

I can see if you have a local office for your record label, and all
the international books are in that location.
But what if your record company is based in Germany, with offices in
Los Angeles, New York , and Hong Kong?
And the books are spread out at all locations.Hiring accountants to go
there, and uncover any improprieties would be expensive.

><< He was threatened with
>lawsuits by the RIAA if he shared information with the committee. What
>are they scared of? >>
>
>Or did he not want everyone to see a 3 million dollar statement when he was
>griping. Royalty statements are seen by lawyers, managers, accountants
>families whatever. I have never been asked not to share the information other
>than the artist's privacy.

Why should an artist, or a consumer for that matter, adhere to the
labels wishes and honor contracts, and copyright laws, when the labels
themselves do not act in an honorable fashion.
You think an $87,000 shortfall in accounting is a gripe?
Maybe you have been in the business too long, because that sounds like
fraud to me.

><< Henley had proof they deducted $87,000 for free goods to Europe, even
>though his contract did not stipulate this allowance. >>
>
>The he could get it back if he has proof. It doesn't seem as it was hidden.

Why should he have to prove anything?> Dont the labels hire competent
accountants?They want artists and consumers to behave and follow
protocols, yet their own actions define that they do exactly the
opposite.We are suppossed to be moral, while they steal our wallets.
They need to be held accountable for their business practices.
I am glad the internet is inducing so much turmoil in the industry.It
may help iron out the many problems conventional contracts and the
distribution system in place currently produce.

Randall

[EggHd]

<< I have
emailed the RIAA, asking for proof any money they recieved from these
lawsuits have been distributed to the artists they attest to
represent.Never got a reply. >>

You find this unusual?

<< I can see if you have a local office for your record label, and all
the international books are in that location. >>

I live in LA, the label was in NY.

<< But what if your record company is based in Germany, with offices in
Los Angeles, New York , and Hong Kong?
And the books are spread out at all locations. >>

There would be a master artist account at the home label location. I would
hire a german accounting frim to audit in the case you mentioned.

<< Why should an artist, or a consumer for that matter, adhere to the
labels wishes and honor contracts, and copyright laws, when the labels
themselves do not act in an honorable fashion. >>

You thin it's different in the Stock trade or grocery business? So I can go
rob merill lynnch?

<< You think an $87,000 shortfall in accounting is a gripe? >>

The Eagles label grossed between 70 and 100 million on Hell Frezzes over and
over 200 million on the greatest hits. 87K in those numbers is pretty small,
but abviously findable.

<< Maybe you have been in the business too long, because that sounds like
fraud to me. >>

I told you before we got a CEO fired for this kind of thing. If you want to
take shots at me, whaever. Kinda ****ed up to do so in my opinion however. I
won't return the insult.

<< Why should he have to prove anything?> Dont the labels hire competent
accountants? >>

I don't know. Do you think this is an episode of the Waltons? It's HUGE
business.

<< We are suppossed to be moral, while they steal our wallets. >>

What did they steal from you? They misrepresent 87K to don Henly who made
about 20 million in a few years and you should be able to steal Bob Dyaln's
songs and records?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Abyssmal]

On 20 Oct 2003 22:02:17 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< I have
>emailed the RIAA, asking for proof any money they recieved from these
>lawsuits have been distributed to the artists they attest to
>represent.Never got a reply. >>
>
>You find this unusual?

No, but not being able to find 1 document that shows they paid out
lawsuit money is surely questionable.


><< Why should an artist, or a consumer for that matter, adhere to the
>labels wishes and honor contracts, and copyright laws, when the labels
>themselves do not act in an honorable fashion. >>
>
>You thin it's different in the Stock trade or grocery business? So I can go
>rob merill lynnch?

I never said that. Theft is theft. It doesnt matter if you rob merril
lynch, if people download illegal music, or if a record company
rips off an artist, it is all theft.If you think the labels all wear
halos, then lobby congress for accountability laws to ensure these
mistakes are caught and corrected before their CEO's take 100 million
home.If they are the honest-upstanding businessmen you attest, they
should have nothing to fear.If they truly believe they represent the
artists, then accountability would be in the best interests of
everyone involved.

><< You think an $87,000 shortfall in accounting is a gripe? >>
>
>The Eagles label grossed between 70 and 100 million on Hell Frezzes over and
>over 200 million on the greatest hits. 87K in those numbers is pretty small,
>but abviously findable.

It may be small if it was one mistake. But with hundreds of bands on a
label, I think I see where the ceo's get their million dollar bonuses.

>
><< Maybe you have been in the business too long, because that sounds like
>fraud to me. >>
>
>I told you before we got a CEO fired for this kind of thing. If you want to
>take shots at me, whaever. Kinda ****ed up to do so in my opinion however. I
>won't return the insult.

I didnt mean that to you personally.I meant the labels.They all have
been guilty of bigger crimes than any music downloader ever has.They
just have the money and power to prosecute the average joe, and have
the money to lobby senators into passing legislation that only
benefits their bankrolls.

><< Why should he have to prove anything?> Dont the labels hire competent
>accountants? >>
>
>I don't know. Do you think this is an episode of the Waltons? It's HUGE
>business.

If the labels pull this on a Don Henley, how many millions do they
skim off of lesser known artists?

Microsoft is a huge company also. But I doubt they shortchange their
part suppliers 87,000 on every deal. If they did, they wouldnt have a
business.Record labels get away with shady dealings because they
usually deal with naive young artists, and have friends in high places
that turn their head to what in any other profession would be a crime.

They have laws in the stock market and grocery business that regulate
the way people do business.If any stockbroker tried to give a record
label type lopsided contract to an individual, he would probably be
arrested.

Randall

[EggHd]

<< No, but not being able to find 1 document that shows they paid out
lawsuit money is surely questionable. >>

It may be. I wouldn't judge that by sending an email to the RIAA. Why not ask
Universal or Time Warner? They would receive the money and then either keep it
or pay out. RIAA wouldn't.

<< or if a record company
rips off an artist, it is all theft. >>

But the artist has a contract with the label and the artist can audit. Can
they go out and audit Kaza or limewires or each downloader? I am not defending
the labels. I am defending the artists. If they, as you say get ripped off by
the labels, let's not also have them being ripped by the fans because you don't
like the labels.

<< If you think the labels all wear
halos, then lobby congress for accountability laws to ensure these
mistakes are caught and corrected before their CEO's take 100 million
home. >>

Where did I EVER claim that labels wore halos? That ain't me. Don't forget
that these are owned by stock holders like every other corp.

<< If they are the honest-upstanding businessmen you attest, they
should have nothing to fear. >>

Please find any quote where I said anything like this.

<< If they truly believe they represent the
artists, then accountability would be in the best interests of
everyone involved. >>

I don't believe they represent the artists. They represent the stock holders.
The managers represent the artists. BUT once signed and if a record is a
success, they are collecting the artists money and should be paying what's
owed. If not there are recourses.

<< It may be small if it was one mistake. But with hundreds of bands on a
label, I think I see where the CEO's get their million dollar bonuses. >>

Could be. But as The Eagles are managed by Azoff, who is one big MoFo manager,
(who used to be the CEO of both MCA and Giant) while managing the Eagles this
is even more weird. Giant was a joint venture with Time Warner who generated
the royalty statement, while their manager was an executive.
How bazaar is that? Guess what? Azoff is still their manager!

<< They all have
been guilty of bigger crimes than any music downloader ever has. >>

I guess. And also helped some artists get very rich and provide their families
with the majority of their income as they still sell catalog. There are 2
sides to everything.

<< Microsoft is a huge company also. But I doubt they shortchange their
part suppliers 87,000 on every deal. >>

I have no idea. Business is business. I have no idea of their practices.
Maybe you do so you could state this.

<< Record labels get away with shady dealings because they
usually deal with naive young artists, and have friends in high places
that turn their head to what in any other profession would be a crime. >>

They are HUGE corporations. I don't see Ken Lay in jail.

What illegal stuff are you talking about? Let's get to the point.

<< If any stockbroker tried to give a record
label type lopsided contract to an individual, he would probably be
arrested. >>

Have you ever seen some of the venture capital deals?





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Abyssmal]

Whatever the opinion is of online music downloading, I think the music
industry is going about fixing the problem in very wrong and dangerous
ways.

http://www.slumdance.com/democratsagainstberman/

Randall








On 21 Oct 2003 01:17:38 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< No, but not being able to find 1 document that shows they paid out
>lawsuit money is surely questionable. >>
>
>It may be. I wouldn't judge that by sending an email to the RIAA. Why not ask
>Universal or Time Warner? They would receive the money and then either keep it
>or pay out. RIAA wouldn't.
>
><< or if a record company
>rips off an artist, it is all theft. >>
>
>But the artist has a contract with the label and the artist can audit. Can
>they go out and audit Kaza or limewires or each downloader? I am not defending
>the labels. I am defending the artists. If they, as you say get ripped off by
>the labels, let's not also have them being ripped by the fans because you don't
>like the labels.
>
><< If you think the labels all wear
>halos, then lobby congress for accountability laws to ensure these
>mistakes are caught and corrected before their CEO's take 100 million
>home. >>
>
>Where did I EVER claim that labels wore halos? That ain't me. Don't forget
>that these are owned by stock holders like every other corp.
>
><< If they are the honest-upstanding businessmen you attest, they
>should have nothing to fear. >>
>
>Please find any quote where I said anything like this.
>
><< If they truly believe they represent the
>artists, then accountability would be in the best interests of
>everyone involved. >>
>
>I don't believe they represent the artists. They represent the stock holders.
>The managers represent the artists. BUT once signed and if a record is a
>success, they are collecting the artists money and should be paying what's
>owed. If not there are recourses.
>
><< It may be small if it was one mistake. But with hundreds of bands on a
>label, I think I see where the CEO's get their million dollar bonuses. >>
>
>Could be. But as The Eagles are managed by Azoff, who is one big MoFo manager,
>(who used to be the CEO of both MCA and Giant) while managing the Eagles this
>is even more weird. Giant was a joint venture with Time Warner who generated
>the royalty statement, while their manager was an executive.
>How bazaar is that? Guess what? Azoff is still their manager!
>
><< They all have
>been guilty of bigger crimes than any music downloader ever has. >>
>
>I guess. And also helped some artists get very rich and provide their families
>with the majority of their income as they still sell catalog. There are 2
>sides to everything.
>
><< Microsoft is a huge company also. But I doubt they shortchange their
>part suppliers 87,000 on every deal. >>
>
>I have no idea. Business is business. I have no idea of their practices.
>Maybe you do so you could state this.
>
><< Record labels get away with shady dealings because they
>usually deal with naive young artists, and have friends in high places
>that turn their head to what in any other profession would be a crime. >>
>
>They are HUGE corporations. I don't see Ken Lay in jail.
>
>What illegal stuff are you talking about? Let's get to the point.
>
><< If any stockbroker tried to give a record
>label type lopsided contract to an individual, he would probably be
>arrested. >>
>
>Have you ever seen some of the venture capital deals?
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------
>"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Whatever the opinion is of online music downloading, I think the music
industry is going about fixing the problem in very wrong and dangerous
ways. >>

Whatever your "opinion" of file sharing is, I can't believe that people just
think they can take files of works that both cost money to produce (content
wise) and to market. If people didn't know the songs existed through the
marketing and promotion, they wouldn't want them anyway.

If file sharing was about taking songs by unknown artists, who would care as
long as the artists agreed to let their music be shared?

But if you take Miles Davis or Santana or Blues Traveler and believe that
leaving your shared folder open to thousands of people is the same as making a
personal cassette from a CD or LP in real time and having to have the equipment
a tape to do so, you're just cutting off your own supply eventually. The
problem is mine will too.

The argument that if records were better or cheaper people wouldn't download is
disingenuous.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> Whatever your "opinion" of file sharing is, I can't believe that people
just
> think they can take files of works that both cost money to produce
(content
> wise) and to market. If people didn't know the songs existed through the
> marketing and promotion, they wouldn't want them anyway.

That's it in a nutshell. The average person has no idea about intellectual
property as a commodity and as a persons livelihood. All they know is
hardgoods. So to them all they see is "I made the CD (copy) myself". Just
like if they could build a great car in their own garage from scratch from a
few cheap parts they have lying around they wouldn't buy a car from GM. They
just see the CD that they made with their own computer on a 10-cent blank
and think "they made it themselves from stuff they owned" so they don't owe
anyone anything. A good marketing campaign is seriously needed. Not just
suing people at random which makes the RIAA look worse than they already do.
The sad thing is for what little advertising that has been done they used
superstars. Even sharing copyrighted material is illegal it's hard to make
people feel sorry for beautiful 21 year old millionares.

> But if you take Miles Davis or Santana or Blues Traveler and believe that
> leaving your shared folder open to thousands of people is the same as
making a
> personal cassette from a CD or LP in real time and having to have the
equipment
> a tape to do so, you're just cutting off your own supply eventually. The
> problem is mine will too.

Yes. There should be an "if you love music you wouldn't copy it" campaign.
Because regardless of what kind of Utopian or punk ideals you have when
people can't make money doing it there will be no more music. Look at the
huge amount of "free" music available by amateurs on the net. It's free but
who wants to listen to it? And anybody who is any good wants to make their
living at it but because of file sharing most will not even be able to do
that.

[One Mann]

You are close to correct, but you are still arguing a straw man --
it's not an ethereal battle between people trying to make a buck by
creating art and people trying to make a buck by developing nifty and
useful technology. On the contrary, both of those groups of people
aren't terribly motivated by money at all. It's actually a battle
between people trying to make a buck by selling entertainment devices
versus people trying to make a buck entertaining. The "entertainers"
and "device creators" are trying to enlist the artists and
technologists to justify their cases and lend gravitas and morality to
their positions. But it's bull**** -- technologists and artists get
along just fine, thank you. In fact, we are watching the
entertainment industry boil down with quite a measure of amusement.

::: Just One Man's Opinion :::

---------- original message ---------

Bob Olhsson > wrote in message >...
> In article >, TarBabyTunes
> > wrote:
>
> >the RIAA is not
> >representing artists' interest even in token.
>
> In fact, it IS the copyright owners who are suing using the RIAA's
> lawyers just as it's the Silicone Valley-backed Electronic Frontier
> Foundation's lawyers who have been defending the "poor innocent"
> software developers and their users.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Abyssmal wrote:

> The RIAA expect webcasters to provide around 17-18 pieces of
> information for each song broadcast, including

All that **** is in the ****ing barcode. You want to go with this
technology or do you not want to go with it?

--
ha

[Abyssmal]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:17:48 GMT, (LeBaron &
Alrich) wrote:

>Abyssmal wrote:
>
>> The RIAA expect webcasters to provide around 17-18 pieces of
>> information for each song broadcast, including
>
>All that **** is in the ****ing barcode. You want to go with this
>technology or do you not want to go with it?

Sure, since a reported 60 million people use the internet in the USA
to listen to and download music, it would be nice to have some ground
rules.To make sure everyone gets their share.

While we are at it, make sure the record labels honor their contracts
with equally strict policies, just to be fair and to show fans they
truly care as much about the artists as they care about their
stockholders.

Randall

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Abyssmal wrote:

> I have
> emailed the RIAA, asking for proof any money they recieved from these
> lawsuits have been distributed to the artists they attest to
> represent.Never got a reply. or have seen documentation to show the
> labels distributed a penny.

RIAA should send you this info why? Are you an RIAA member? They are a
business. Are you one of their customers?

If you'd have gone to Burning Man you could have talked to God from a
phone booth. Maybe she could have helped you. <g>

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Abyssmal wrote:

> (EggHd) wrote:

> ><< I have emailed the RIAA, asking for proof any money they recieved from
> >these lawsuits have been distributed to the artists they attest to
> >represent.Never got a reply. >>

> >You find this unusual?

> No, but not being able to find 1 document that shows they paid out
> lawsuit money is surely questionable.

Hey, here's an idea: they use banks, see? So just phone one of the
_banks_, 'cause that's where the money goes through, and have the _bank_
give you all those numbers! Yeah, that's the ticket!