how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2007-02-15 11:41:58: The EFF chimes in on the leaked RIAA letter that earlier this week exposed the industry's new effort to avoid the legal process in their campaign against p2p file traders. ..
| |
 
Trinijoy
Premium
join:2005-09-12
Brick, NJ | "We want money" "We want money" | |
| | | apollo80
join:2002-01-31
Richmond, VA
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by TKJunkMail  :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. No. It's a matter of bowing down to an organization to disclose, on a whim, private information.
If Verizon just gives out information without a proper COURT ORDER (giving the XXaa information on a whim), I will drop them. There is a matter of consumer privacy they need to uphold.
Court order, fine. No court order. PROBLEM.
BTW, I do not, nor do I support, illegal downloading of anything. | |
| | | 
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit |  Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing
said by apollo80 :If Verizon just gives out information without a proper COURT ORDER (giving the XXaa information on a whim), I will drop them. There is a matter of consumer privacy they need to uphold. Court order, fine. No court order, PROBLEM. I agree. If my ISP give up my data without a court order, subpoena or my prior written permission, not only will I drop them, I will also sue the living cr*p out of them. Any business who doesn't respect my privacy does not deserve my money.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill...
| |
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
1 edit | A court order wouldn't be applicable unless the information in question is requested by the government. Businesses routinely buy and sell private information.
If the RIAA offered enough money for the information I'm sure Verizon would jump on it. | |
| | | | 
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by lesopp :A court order wouldn't be applicable unless the information in question is requested by the government. Businesses routinely buy and sell private information. If the RIAA offered enough money for the information I'm sure Verizon would jump on it. Verizon can sell your name etc but it can't sell specific records such as what you download etc, that's private information that you never provided them with and never gave them permission to collect/release. It's like them monitoring your emails and then selling them to 3rd party | |
| | | | | | | | |
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by ctceo :The government can request information without a warrant, and they can do so under anonymity by issuing a gag order to the person(s) they did. If they want the info they will simply tap your ISP gather the info, and be on their way, Nobody would even know. Without a warrant? I guess the 4th amendment been repealed. Government always needs a warrant except in case of national security and even then they got 72 hours to go back and get one. So no government will need a warrant. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing Copyright infringement is not a federal crime. | |
| | | | | | |
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| Copyright as SRFireside pointed out is not federal crime plus it has to be for reason of national security and not just any federal crime | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA | Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing  lmao fbi warning | |
| | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Read copyright law. It's a civil offense. The NET act is what you're talking about and if you read the charges the big clincher was this was a conspiracy to distributing a work that was being prepared for commercial distribution. That's a LONG way off from file traders. Why do you think the RIAA is suing people? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing Just because it's a Federal law doesn't mean it's a criminal offense. There are civil laws in the Federal books too. Copyright law is federal law, however it deals with compensation of royalties and licenses. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing Show me where in copyright law it says copyright infringement is a criminal offense and what kind of prison time is applicable. It's in there to be sure, but not for EVERY infringement violation. The sort of offenses you are pertaining to only apply to certain limited circumstances. The uploader next door will not ever do jail time. Neither will Jay Z for remaking Tiny Bubbles without permission. You have a van full of copied CD's you are selling without paying royalties? That's one instance where you might do the time. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing Lets try this again. Read the remedies in copyright law. The ONLY time copyright infringement is a criminal offense is if the total retail value of the infringed work exceeds $1000 over a six months period or if fraudulent copyright claims are made. All other remedies amount to things like cease and desist orders, injunctions, royalty repayment and statutory damages. You know... civil remedies. It's all there on the link you provided.
You don't hear much about file traders doing jail time because it hasn't happened. Don't you think the RIAA would love to show a criminal conviction for uploading music? That would be their golden goose in their war. The gag order more likely come from settlements and cases where the RIAA had to drop the case.
So I say again. Copyright infringement in of itself is not a criminal offense. It is primarily a civil offense, even if it is a federal law. Infringement that proves significant monetary damages can be criminally charged if it meets the required guidelines, but the exception doesn't make the rule. You haven't disproven my point. Just further solidified it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by SRFireside :Don't you think the RIAA would love to show a criminal conviction for uploading music? Where would the money be, however? The **AAs have no intention to actually punish anyone with these methods. They're just hoping that people will be intimidated, and cough up the $1k (or about) settlement money to save their ass from a court date. | |
| | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by tcp1 :said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. Maybe you should actually read the article before spewing self-righteous tripe. You must be new... Do you think that will ever happen with DSLR's favorite corporate shill?
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | | 
techjoe
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Schererville, IN
1 edit | I had an itch to reply, but thankfully you scratched it for me.
Or so I thought..... 
Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Breaking the law to catch law breakers is WRONG, especially by an organization that has targeted the wrong people quite a few times. Now, if they had a 100% success rate on ID'ing the right person EVERY SINGLE TIME I would feel better about them getting handed private information. But there should be some major oversight on this, and major penalties levied (read: worse than what the 'file sharers' are hit with) if and when the organization puts somebody undeserving on that chopping block.
Do I pirate music and software? YES! Do I do such actions for ANY sort of personal gain, other than 'try before you buy'? NO! For music, many bands I had never heard of and probably wouldn't listen to are now on my playlist. If I see them playing locally I consider attending, whereas previously I wouldn't, not knowing who or what they are. Other people hear chatter about them, or hear their music from my devices, and also take interest. I don't buy many CDs, but 99% of the time I actually do I buy one that I had liked based on whatever way I came across their music. Most of my music use is via Sirius anyway these days, but I still grab a CD every few weeks just to give a group some deserved support.
On software, most times when my corporate hat is on I can get a full featured demo of what we're interested in. Personally, places never want to open up full featured software for me to give an honest 'test drive'. Sometimes my 'test drive' may be four, five, six months, however if it remains useful and practical in that time period I'm sold.
My point in that is, what have they lost because of this? People with shitty music, or companies with shitty code, have lost a VICTIM, however those that were up to snuff GAINED a customer!!
Now, I know not everyone may be as "ethical" on these issues, but the fact remains that this is nothing new at all and will always continue. If every single song sold online, disc purchased at the store, etc were encrypted and totally UNBREAKABLE, one can always resort to the ways of ~10 years ago -- If it can be heard or seen, it can and WILL be recorded. It's just like dubbing mix tapes back then, or recording every Simpsons episode on VHS to kick back with friends and laugh with. The only thing changing here is that the RIAA/MPAA/whatever are all money hungry, driven by companies and artists that would actually be doing better if they put real quality control steps in ensuring their final, SOLD product is completely up to their customers' standards.
PC games are a perfect example. Up until about a year ago I was a very avid gamer, buying the latest and greatest and playing "beta tester" to these companies whom took my money for an unfinished product. I would have pirated them too in fact, if I didn't care about online play quality, and many (most) would have been deleted within days. Most games and software in general requires so much post-RTM patching just to function properly, excluding new feature additions, that it just sickens me to buy anything somewhat recent at all.
These same pirates don't go steal a car because theirs crapped out, do they? Do you think these people steal food from bystanders' plates when they get hungry? NO. Sure, both are easy to steal, however the quality of it still is better when you buy it yourself. Pirating software/music is not STEALING, it is a direct result of the product itself's quality as seen by the consumers.
Until the industry can step up and provide quality content that people actually want to pay for, this will continue at such a large scale.
Thanks anyway tcp1........
edit: small clarifications
--
www.clanc.cc | |
| | 
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. Maybe TCH needs a new name - The Corporations Hyperbole. So intoxicated with the gospel spewed by corporations that it makes him type blanket statements with extravagant rhetorical exaggerations and not an iota of logic in them.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * IT Technician * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * My website: Zerochill | |
| | |
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs: | Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing He voted. LoL TCH, at least you do have a sense of humor. | |
| | | 
lkviewguy
join:2004-02-13
Chicago, IL | thank you for saying it before I did. | |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. by "illegal share", I assume you mean copyright infringement? In some cases it can actually be legal to share (a little something called "fair use").
in any event, if the RIAA and member companies would get their heads out of their @sses and offer non-DRMed music, there would be much less reason to "illegally" download or "make available".
the actions of the RIAA are about as futile as bottled water companies complaining to the municipal water commission that "people are getting water out of their taps for free!" Although they would never do that because they have actually figured out how to compete with free. | |
| | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by nasadude :by "illegal share", I assume you mean copyright infringement? In some cases it can actually be legal to share (a little something called "fair use"). YES
said by nasadude :in any event, if the RIAA and member companies would get their heads out of their @sses and offer non-DRMed music, there would be much less reason to "illegally" download or "make available". I disagree. It just would make it easier to infringe on copyrighted material.
said by nasadude :the actions of the RIAA are about as futile as bottled water companies complaining to the municipal water commission that "people are getting water out of their taps for free!" You are probably right. But I don't think giving up the fight is the right thing to do, even if the fight is not completely winnable.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing Excellent post TCH. Let me expand a little up on this...
I am a published writer and photographer. In my short freelance career, I have personally caught a few websites and publications using my work as their own. A few sites were non profit, but still, the point is that my work is just that. Mine to own. If I sell that work, then it is no longer mine.
I know software makers who make shareware who find their full version products downloaded thousands of times on P2P networks. Then you have the small regional bands who will share a couple songs of their work, but find their full albums out on P2P networks. The community expects us to believe that these people aren't seeing a cut in their profits from lost sales? Please. I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does.
There has to be some protection of intellectual property rights out there. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying P2P should be outlawed, but there has to be a punishment for illegal file sharing. In my mind, there should be a totally independent law enforcement group going after people who are sharing digital music and movies online.
There is no such thing as anonymous file sharing, which is why it should be very easy to find those that infringe and be able to prove it. Gee, its as simple as getting a list of everyone sharing, their IP address, ISP hands over their information based on the IP, and there you have it.
There just needs to be a separate entity doing all this work and not the RIAA.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing It is nice to hear from an artist on this who depends on copyright to make a living. There are always posts here at BBR that claim that no harm is ever done by stealing copyrighted works. Of course, they are only cheap people who feel that it is their god given right to take something without paying for it.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | | |
See 40 replies to this post | |
| | | | 
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by Nightfall :Excellent post TCH. Let me expand a little up on this... I am a published writer and photographer. In my short freelance career, I have personally caught a few websites and publications using my work as their own. A few sites were non profit, but still, the point is that my work is just that. Mine to own. If I sell that work, then it is no longer mine. I know software makers who make shareware who find their full version products downloaded thousands of times on P2P networks. Then you have the small regional bands who will share a couple songs of their work, but find their full albums out on P2P networks. The community expects us to believe that these people aren't seeing a cut in their profits from lost sales? Please. I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does. There has to be some protection of intellectual property rights out there. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying P2P should be outlawed, but there has to be a punishment for illegal file sharing. In my mind, there should be a totally independent law enforcement group going after people who are sharing digital music and movies online. There is no such thing as anonymous file sharing, which is why it should be very easy to find those that infringe and be able to prove it. Gee, its as simple as getting a list of everyone sharing, their IP address, ISP hands over their information based on the IP, and there you have it. There just needs to be a separate entity doing all this work and not the RIAA. Yes, for a small publisher like yourself, you does hurt you, but the artists are paid regardless of piracy. The artists sign a contract and it's done. It's not like they are paid a weekly check where the $ amount is based on how many times their album was downloaded.
So yes, I agree with the small man trying to make a living wage, but with $$ artists that flaunt a obscene lifestyle, they are still getting paid regardless.
--
Fossils, Not Gospels. | |
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing Just out of curiosity.... How do you think they got from the small time to the big time?
So are we now going to determine whether or not a theft or infringement upon someone's rights is based on how big or how successful the offending party is? | |
| | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| said by hopeflicker :said by Nightfall :Excellent post TCH. Let me expand a little up on this... I am a published writer and photographer. In my short freelance career, I have personally caught a few websites and publications using my work as their own. A few sites were non profit, but still, the point is that my work is just that. Mine to own. If I sell that work, then it is no longer mine. I know software makers who make shareware who find their full version products downloaded thousands of times on P2P networks. Then you have the small regional bands who will share a couple songs of their work, but find their full albums out on P2P networks. The community expects us to believe that these people aren't seeing a cut in their profits from lost sales? Please. I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does. There has to be some protection of intellectual property rights out there. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying P2P should be outlawed, but there has to be a punishment for illegal file sharing. In my mind, there should be a totally independent law enforcement group going after people who are sharing digital music and movies online. There is no such thing as anonymous file sharing, which is why it should be very easy to find those that infringe and be able to prove it. Gee, its as simple as getting a list of everyone sharing, their IP address, ISP hands over their information based on the IP, and there you have it. There just needs to be a separate entity doing all this work and not the RIAA. Yes, for a small publisher like yourself, you does hurt you, but the artists are paid regardless of piracy. The artists sign a contract and it's done. It's not like they are paid a weekly check where the $ amount is based on how many times their album was downloaded. So yes, I agree with the small man trying to make a living wage, but with $$ artists that flaunt a obscene lifestyle, they are still getting paid regardless. So that makes copyright infringement right?
What about the software makers who make a living off sales of shareware and get ripped off? I know no one cares about the profits of microsoft, but what about the small software companies?
It doesn't matter how much that person or company makes. Copyright infringement should be punished the same across the board. Doesn't matter if it is a small time person just trying to make ends meet or a large corporation making billions in sales.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by Nightfall :What about the software makers who make a living off sales of shareware and get ripped off? I know no one cares about the profits of microsoft, but what about the small software companies? The small software makers who do not have the marketing capital to get their wares to the public normally benefit more from this model. In regards to shareware most of that software is easy to find without the use of P2P because the developers let most legit download sites post for them. Since shareware is mostly about donations or purchasing the full version P2P doesn't seem to affect them.
I did do a bit of software digging on P2P out of curiosity, and what I found is that most shareware offered is the free version. Not the full version. Granted there are hundreds of programs out there and I can no way check all of them, but at the same time some of the programs I decided to download. Sure enough that download had all the instructions and data available telling me where to donate or buy the upgrade. Either the file sharers took the shareware version or maybe some developers are seeding the P2P landscape themselves.
Another thing to note regarding the fear of software being traded. It's essentially just that. One shining example is a game that came out not too long ago called Galactic Civilizations II. The game was completely DRM free and could be completely loaded onto your computer without needing the CD to run the game. The developers specifically said they will not restrict their game and were very open in their supporting web site. It was the top selling software title it's first week out in many stores (not game title, software overall) and additional orders from stores like Best Buy, EB Games and Gamestop far exceeded expectations.
This is a small company (Stardock Systems) and they made these sales by word of mouth (and glowing reviews). In spite of the fact this game had to have been a treasure trove for freeloaders to just download since there was no DRM the game still became a major hit.
In this crazy "download for free" world there are still plenty of people who will spend money on a good product. File sharing is not the problem. As you know my stance on the try before you buy model for P2P makes it extremely useful to both consumers and artists. The mentality of not buying anything is the problem, and that has to be dealt with on each individual basis. | |
| | | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing quote:
The small software makers who do not have the marketing capital to get their wares to the public normally benefit more from this model.
Proof?
If it works or not, the issue here is choice. Sure, some software makers don't mind this delivery method. What about the ones that don't want it. They should have the choice not to participate. However, right now they have no choice.
quote:
I did do a bit of software digging on P2P out of curiosity, and what I found is that most shareware offered is the free version. Not the full version. Granted there are hundreds of programs out there and I can no way check all of them, but at the same time some of the programs I decided to download. Sure enough that download had all the instructions and data available telling me where to donate or buy the upgrade. Either the file sharers took the shareware version or maybe some developers are seeding the P2P landscape themselves.
I don't know what P2P search engine you are looking at, but I can find a wealth of pirated warez and shareware full version products where I look. It doesn't take me long either. I won't draw any conclusions on this other than maybe I am more connected? Since I don't download this kind of thing, that would be a stretch.
quote:
Another thing to note regarding the fear of software being traded. It's essentially just that. One shining example is a game that came out not too long ago called Galactic Civilizations II. The game was completely DRM free and could be completely loaded onto your computer without needing the CD to run the game. The developers specifically said they will not restrict their game and were very open in their supporting web site. It was the top selling software title it's first week out in many stores (not game title, software overall) and additional orders from stores like Best Buy, EB Games and Gamestop far exceeded expectations.
This is a small company (Stardock Systems) and they made these sales by word of mouth (and glowing reviews). In spite of the fact this game had to have been a treasure trove for freeloaders to just download since there was no DRM the game still became a major hit.
Oblivion was another title. However, there is a clear difference between the fear of software pirating and its existance. It still exists and it is a problem. Just because a couple companies say no to copy protection or any kind of DRM doesn't make it a problem. You are right, a major hit. Could they have made more if not for software pirating? Most definetly. You want to ask them if software pirating is ok? You think they would approve of that? Lets make it simple, if you owned the company and your check rode on the amount of copies sold, would you approve of it? I think not.
quote:
In this crazy "download for free" world there are still plenty of people who will spend money on a good product. File sharing is not the problem. As you know my stance on the try before you buy model for P2P makes it extremely useful to both consumers and artists. The mentality of not buying anything is the problem, and that has to be dealt with on each individual basis.
That is something we can agree upon.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | |
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| said by Nightfall :I am a published writer and photographer. In my short freelance career, I have personally caught a few websites and publications using my work as their own. A few sites were non profit, but still, the point is that my work is just that. Mine to own. If I sell that work, then it is no longer mine. And thus you followed the procedures by copyright law to notify and pursue owners of such websites and publications on that matter? You had your work registered with the Copyright Office? Not sure I follow you here. There are plenty of protections for intellectual works.
said by Nightfall :I know software makers who make shareware who find their full version products downloaded thousands of times on P2P networks. Then you have the small regional bands who will share a couple songs of their work, but find their full albums out on P2P networks. The community expects us to believe that these people aren't seeing a cut in their profits from lost sales? Please. I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does. Before P2P you could tape a song from the radio and listen to it on a daily basis, wasn't that legal and did that spell a lost sale?
said by Nightfall :There has to be some protection of intellectual property rights out there. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying P2P should be outlawed, but there has to be a punishment for illegal file sharing. In my mind, there should be a totally independent law enforcement group going after people who are sharing digital music and movies online. Again, I'm not sure I follow, there are plenty of laws protecting intellectual property rights. P2P != illegal. Sharing digital music and movies != illegal. Law enforcement is not a dept. of the RIAA/MPAA. They can follow due process and existing laws. The problem is they want to legislate their way to profits. Besides, there are far bigger problems that deserve independent resources in the USA than maintaining the RIAA/MPAA outdated business model.
said by Nightfall :There is no such thing as anonymous file sharing, which is why it should be very easy to find those that infringe and be able to prove it. Gee, its as simple as getting a list of everyone sharing, their IP address, ISP hands over their information based on the IP, and there you have it. It is not that simple. It has already been shown in a news item recently that even connecting to say, a torrent tracker that is being watched over by MediaSentry will get your IP flagged as an illegal filetrader, even if you're not uploading/downloading. And lets not forget about the dead filetraders and other bogus lawsuits that the RIAA has filled. Someone takes your car without your knowledge and robs a bank. Would it be fair if you have to pay for that crime? An IP address is not a reliable identifier of an illegal filetrader. And besides, the ISP will hand over the personal info of an illegal filetrader as long as the RIAA follows due process.
said by Nightfall :There just needs to be a separate entity doing all this work and not the RIAA. And there are plenty that will do the work, I just don't see why we as taxpayers or the ISPs have to subsidized the cost of it. Let the RIAA/MPAA pay for it. Going by their inflated figures on loss due to piracy, their ROI will be almost immediate.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * IT Technician * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * My website: Zerochill | |
| | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing quote:
And thus you followed the procedures by copyright law to notify and pursue owners of such websites and publications on that matter? You had your work registered with the Copyright Office? Not sure I follow you here. There are plenty of protections for intellectual works.
I agree. There are procedures to protect your intellectual works, which I have taken advantage of. I have been repayed in the past or my work has been removed from websites at my request. The good thing is that I have never had to get lawyers involved. Course, my work isn't something that gets traded via P2P. 
quote:
Before P2P you could tape a song from the radio and listen to it on a daily basis, wasn't that legal and did that spell a lost sale?
Course not. In my mind though, you are paying for quality of a product when it comes to music. You aren't going to get a great quality if you record off of the radio. Which is the benefit of CDs. I am not going to get into the whole RIAA is crap argument because they do have their heads up their asses when it comes to digital distribution of their product. I will say this though, when it comes to movies, software, and so on, you didn't comment on any of those. What about the small bands who don't want their work on P2P? Who fights for them? What about the small software companies who make a shareware product and then find the full version of their product on P2P for a free download? Do you approve of those things?
quote:
It is not that simple. It has already been shown in a news item recently that even connecting to say, a torrent tracker that is being watched over by MediaSentry will get your IP flagged as an illegal filetrader, even if you're not uploading/downloading. And lets not forget about the dead filetraders and other bogus lawsuits that the RIAA has filled. Someone takes your car without your knowledge and robs a bank. Would it be fair if you have to pay for that crime? An IP address is not a reliable identifier of an illegal filetrader. And besides, the ISP will hand over the personal info of an illegal filetrader as long as the RIAA follows due process.
Which is why we need a neutral party to look over the findings and evaluate if there is a reason to go after them. I am talking someone separate from the **AA. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I mentioned that more than a few times.
quote:
And there are plenty that will do the work, I just don't see why we as taxpayers or the ISPs have to subsidized the cost of it. Let the RIAA/MPAA pay for it. Going by their inflated figures on loss due to piracy, their ROI will be almost immediate.
With all the people who bitch about the wrongful suits, you would think they would want to see a "internet copyright protection" task force or some kind of check and balance. Oh well, its an idea nonetheless.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | | | | 
bolt
Former Broadband Exile
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Charlestown, IN
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by Nightfall : Course not. In my mind though, you are paying for quality of a product when it comes to music. You aren't going to get a great quality if you record off of the radio.
Funny this should come up. This past October I got a chance to listen to some research that a grad student did. His name is Ross Housewright. His topic was "Copyright Infringement from the Inside: Student Perspectives on Music Piracy." He provided some really interesting insights on the use of P2P by students at his school. In his research he found out that there are some students that view downloading and listening to songs as a modern day equivalent of listening to the radio. There are also an entire group of students who wouldn't pay for music at any price. If his group of students is representative of their population, RIAA is screwed. The students also believed that current "education" efforts by the industry are unconvincing and un-threatening. He also found out that there was a core group of students who were fanatical about heir music and would buy most anything by a certain group. For the most part, the students didn't care one way or the other.
For me personally, I quit buying anything from RIAA members. In the days of Napster, I downloaded many songs. I also went and bought many CD's, as I liked the music I was hearing. I have bought 5 CD's in the past 4 or 5 years and only one of those was from a RIAA member. I have a whole bunch of CD's that I have already bought. RIAA can kiss my shiney metal ass.
--
bolt
____________________________
"And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order—order out of chaos. But we will."— George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2003
_____________________
»www.boltweb.com | |
| | | | |
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| you can get all my information but unless you can prove in court that it was me who was downloading and not someone that was using my "connection" i am not responsible for braking the law. It's same as if you get a speeding ticket, the person that broke the law is responsible and not the register owner. So having information of who "downloaded" is not enough | |
| | | | | |
See 28 replies to this post | |
| | | | 
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| said by Nightfall :I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does. That has nothing to do with sales, so yes, you are wrong. I have over 40GB of music that I share, mostly all downloaded for free. I have no intention of ever buying any of that music. If I was not able to download for free, I still would not pay for it - I would stick to radio. | |
| | | | | |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| | | | 
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
1 edit | said by Nightfall :I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does. The question becomes would they have been listening to that music everyday had it not been free? I know many people who download music and still buy CD's because the whole point of the CD is the nice case, the pretty pictures, lyrics, etc. However they do download alot of music, mainly singles, that they have no intention whatsoever of buying, and would simply never buy, the only reason they have it is because its free.
Now this is a double edged sword as on one hand it might make them more likely to listen to the artists future work and be interested in actually buying a full cd, but on the other side you can argue they are "stealing" the current song and that if they didn't pay they don't deserve to listen to it...even though they could have recorded it off the radio.
Lets look at software for an easy example. I have an "illegal" copy of Adobe Illustrator. I've used it maybe 5 times total. Had I not the ability to download it, I would never have actually gone out and paid $499 for it. Do you want to call that a lost sale? The only reason I downloaded it and used it was to mess around, it will sit on my harddrive taking up space until I do a spring cleaning....so do you want to try and claim that i've cost Adobe $499? How could Adobe have lost money that I had no intention of giving them in the first place?
I also download DVD's. Guess what, DVD's that I actually like I go out and purchase specifically so I can have a nice case, packaging, etc. I'll admit right now a few weeks ago I downloaded The Prestige just because a site I frequent had it available. The movie was amazing and I already have it pre-ordered from amazon. There are MANY other people just like me, had I not downloaded the movie I guarantee you I would have never seen it, nor purchased it.
So guess what, its kind of hard for you to prove that someone has been cost a sale unless you know for a fact that the person would have bought the CD had they not been able to get it for free. I'll feel free to use another example from my "life of piracy", I downloaded an album just the other day from a rapper "young jeezy". Now I don't normally listen to rap, but one of the songs happened to have a good beat from what I remembered hearing it on the radio, so I downloaded the entire cd since it happened to be available on IRC and was much faster then searching limewire, or torrents for the single.
Now do you think for one second that had I not been able to download the song, that I would of actually went out and spent $15-20 for the CD had I not been able to download it? No, not a chance, my life would have moved on and I would of heard it 1000 more times on the radio till I got sick of it just like every other song that radio murders through repitition. So do you want to call that a lost sale? The sale can't be lost if it would have never occurred in the first place.
you will find many people who download music/movies/games still go out and buy those very same things (Especially PC games due to online play and most people don't want to search for "cracked" servers)
There will always be some people who do stop buying as much because of downloading, just like there will always be people shoplifting the CD's, point is the amount the industry is losing to this is nothing, they just need to come up with excuses as to why no one is buying their cookie cutter crap music....yet they continue to pay the artists more and more and pay for music videos that costs more then some movies to make....
The RIAA has spent FAR more money in "stopping piracy" then it has ever come close to losing "due to piracy"
/rant
--
Forum Posts:7500 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by nixen :said by Nightfall :I know software makers who make shareware who find their full version products downloaded thousands of times on P2P networks. Then you have the small regional bands who will share a couple songs of their work, but find their full albums out on P2P networks. The community expects us to believe that these people aren't seeing a cut in their profits from lost sales? Please. I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does. Your logic is highly flawed. You can't simply assume that because someone uses something illegally that they would buy it if they had no alternative acquisition methods. Most people, if they can't afford to get something legally (or find it's not worth the requested price) and it's too difficult to get through other means, simply don't use it. Is that a lost sale? Have they stolen from you simply by chosing not to consume? -tom As I said before, its highly flawed in both directions. People here love to tout the fact that if they couldn't get it illegally, they wouldn't use it. My arguement is that if they couldn't get it illegally, they would buy a vast majority of those things they have come to use on a regular basis. Its a flawed arguement both ways. I can see your point of view, that people would just not use it. However, no one here can seem to see mine. That is what troubles me.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by Nightfall :Its a flawed arguement both ways. I can see your point of view, that people would just not use it. However, no one here can seem to see mine. That is what troubles me. No, it's less that we can't see your view point, its that your viewpoint seems to espouse a 100% view. Neither view covers 100% of all potential consumers. You just have to find out what middle ground works the best for both the producers and the potential consumers.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by nixen :said by Nightfall :Its a flawed arguement both ways. I can see your point of view, that people would just not use it. However, no one here can seem to see mine. That is what troubles me. No, it's less that we can't see your view point, its that your viewpoint seems to espouse a 100% view. Neither view covers 100% of all potential consumers. You just have to find out what middle ground works the best for both the producers and the potential consumers. -tom I never said everyone would buy every piece of software or music. I said they would buy as much as they could afford. There is a difference. Just as some are saying they wouldn't buy any at all. None, nada, nil. Yet, I don't see people like yourself crying "BS" at them.
Ah well, I guess this thread has went its course. I am done for today. Glad we got to a middle ground on some issues and some good discussion went on here. No one is going to budge on this issue, and I don't expect them to. It was a great conversation and debate on the issue.
Later everyone!
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by TKJunkMail :..... I disagree. It just would make it easier to infringe on copyrighted material. ..... You are probably right. But I don't think giving up the fight is the right thing to do, even if the fight is not completely winnable. how can non-DRMed, legal downloads increase file sharing? CDs don't have DRM, so the music industry sells non-DRMed music all the time. In addition to that, some music is available for file sharing even before the CD is out. Saying they need DRM isn't to stop piracy, it's to perpetuate the music industry business model of central control.
As for giving up the fight, they could get a clue and change their business model - remember the bottled water. | |
| | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by TKJunkMail :said by nasadude :in any event, if the RIAA and member companies would get their heads out of their @sses and offer non-DRMed music, there would be much less reason to "illegally" download or "make available". I disagree. It just would make it easier to infringe on copyrighted material.Actually, chalk me up in nasadude 's category, as I will buy my music/software/etc. retail, find out all the crap that's in it, and hit up warez/P2P sites to find an ungunked version of the software. Nowadays, if there's any kind of consumer "protection" on a product, I won't even touch it. I'll download it first, see if I like it, and then buy the product to make the transaction kosher. That, and if un-DRMing the product is more of a hassle than it's worth, I simply won't buy the product, period.
...and yes, I do understand that's not the business model they play to, but that's how I act. If one still wishes to incur legal pressure on such, then I will gladly defend my practices in court, win or lose. | |
| | | |
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA | right thing to do is irrelevant, only thing relevant is what you can get away with and clearly people can get away with p2p | |
| | | | | 
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by 81399672 :right thing to do is irrelevant, only thing relevant is what you can get away with and clearly people can get away with p2p So when people "get away" with murder, it's irrelevant?
That's nice to know.
The "Right Thing" to do is the ONLY thing to do. What you do when no one is looking determines what kind of person you are.
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! | |
| | | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by manfmmd :So when people "get away" with murder, it's irrelevant? That's nice to know. The "Right Thing" to do is the ONLY thing to do. What you do when no one is looking determines what kind of person you are. so p2p sharing is now the same as murder?
I would equate it more with jaywalking or cursing in public (I think that's illegal in some states? all?). To a large degree, p2p downloading is irrelevant compared to a lot of other things deemed illegal. And a new study was recently released that indicates p2p sharing has no statistical impact to the retail music business (IOW, all those claims of lost revenue are BS).
Actually, I think public cursing is worse than p2p sharing. However, public cursing doesn't have a powerful lobbying organization that is able to pay legislators for heinous legislation that levies obscene fines (WTF! $750 to $150,ooo per copy) and/or prison sentences.
Oh and paying to get copyright extended to the life of the creator + 90 yrs. another WTF! if you ask me. | |
| | | | | | |
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs: | Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing Ok, so murder is overstated....
In the end, what right is right, what's wrong is wrong. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by TKJunkMail :said by nasadude :in any event, if the RIAA and member companies would get their heads out of their @sses and offer non-DRMed music, there would be much less reason to "illegally" download or "make available". I disagree. It just would make it easier to infringe on copyrighted material. Oddly enough, the very music execs you defend are beginning to see the light:
»news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6362069.stm
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| What the EFF is doing is making sure people like the RIAA do not invade privacy through their Gestapo tactics. I don't share nor download copyrighted media, but that doesn't mean I can't be drawn into the fray through misguided or incorrect research.
My DSL gets its IP through DHCP, and if I happen to land on one that was previously used by someone hanging out on Bittorrent 24 hours per day, I'm suspected. The EFF is making sure that proper legal routes are followed as opposed to those jackasses at the RIAA calling me up or sending me a letter demanding payment. Either way, I lose because if I refuse, it goes to court and I have to pay to defend myself.
The EFF doesn't want to promote piracy, but it does want to make sure that getting online is a protected form of speech and isn't going to subject you to tyranny from some business organization. | |
| | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. The EFF is right here, we have a process where RIAA can get users' identities through a court order. Would you support your local library, video store, and book store all giving anyone your purchasing info just because they believe you might be infringing a copyright? | |
| | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by vpoko :said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. The EFF is right here, we have a process where RIAA can get users' identities through a court order. Would you support your local library, video store, and book store all giving anyone your purchasing info just because they believe you might be infringing a copyright? Why not: they're only following the lead of "legitimate" law enforcement. "Legitimate" law enforcement regularly tries to get new laws implemented that makes their jobs easier, even though they already have the capability of accomplishing their jobs through existing means ...means that don't require laying every citizen's or businesses private information bare.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | 
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. Have you ever even read through their site before?
Someone should stand up for fair use, and against racketeering hidden behind the curtain of civil lawsuits. They deal with many issues besides this one. It's time someplace with money said something - god knows there have been enough campaign contributions from the other side.
Putting that aside, the EFF has very little influence on such matters. You don't see any legislation moving in the opposite direction, or even stopping. Public awareness on the matter is relatively low outside of what they see on a news commercial. The EFF is small beans.
Every post you make on the matter seems to be from a viewpoint of an obsolete business model. If the RIAA and MPAA aren't begging people to share music and movies, I revoke my posting rights here. I don't usually believe that doing wrong to correct wrong is proper, but once things pass a certain point, you're stuck in a corner. If this is the only way to wake them up, by all means, I'll take it.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
| | 
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL | Welcome to Trollsville, your tour guide today will be TCH... | |
| | | | | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
3 edits | said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. The Electronic Frontier Foundation fights on the behalf of consumers for a great many things, digial privacy, to name but one. But dittoheads like yourself would never let anything inconvenient such as facts deter you from spouting off about that which have no clue.
--
The Toll
| |
| | 
GilbertMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Gilbert, AZ
·Cox HSI
| said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. You seriously need to wake up before you post. You sound like a lawyer for the corporate machine. Do you like having any personal rights? Well honest people do. This is the new era of McCarthyism here. Are you an illegal file trader or not?
--
Got a V3 or a V3i or an L7? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com and »hacktheL7.com
| |
| | 
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL
| If Cox HSI gave over my info without telling me, I'd sue them and the idiot employee that did it for Invasion of Privacy. I'd also sue Cox for breach of contract. I'd sue the RIAA for for Invasion of Privacy since they had to invade to find my IP address.
I checked with my attorney and he said all that could be done. | |
| | |
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing said by kyramilan :If Cox HSI gave over my info without telling me, I'd sue them and the idiot employee that did it for Invasion of Privacy. I'd also sue Cox for breach of contract. I'd sue the RIAA for for Invasion of Privacy since they had to invade to find my IP address. I checked with my attorney and he said all that could be done. Unless of course there was a legal subpoena for your information.
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! | |
| | 
Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA
| said by TKJunkMail :The EFF needs a new name - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing. They seem intent on making sure that people can illegally share music and movies without paying for them. said like a true comcast "user" | |
| 
Cheddarhead
Ain't Nuthin But A Thang
join:2002-02-19
Hudson, WI | RIAA is crap RIAA... Recording Idiots And Assholes | |
| 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | why give out information if u don't have to protecting your rights to privacy is a good goal because once you loose that right whether or not you do illegals or not they have essentially stripped away your right. It is a lot easier to loose your rights then to maintain them. | |
| 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Don't hate Don't hate the players, hate the game!
If xxAAs weren't so anal about what/where/when/how much, legal media downloads would skyrocket.
Same price or more, for a download that is restricted/DRMed to death vs a physical copy from BestBuy that will play anywhere at any time.
Yeah, that makes sense, huh? 
Whewn I can download a media file that is comparable to the physical CD/DVD in terma of usability... for less cost, I'll do it!
Seeing as that may never happen, TPB is bookmarked.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Ex - Tore - Shun I'll say it again; Extortion.
Wikipedia on Extortion.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
| jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| What it boils down to is.. Innocent until proven guilty. What the RIAA wants to do is use the ISPs dime (IE. Your's mine, etc) to fund their legal work. They want to circumvent the courts and other legal authorities. This way they can set their own fines instead of a judge doing it.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? | |
| | 
thman
@dhs.gov | Re: What it boils down to is.. How much of the money from the RIAA's lawsuits go back to the artist whos files where downloaded? None. Who's the real theif here? | |
| robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | Boycott the RIAA As I said before, and will say again, time to boycott the RIAA. Stop buying cd's and let them go bankrupt.
Rob | |
| | 
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | Re: Boycott the RIAA RIAA doesn't own the music business. If you stop buying cd's the record company's get screwed.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
|
Just Some Guy
@bellsouth.net
| About DRM I know this is about ISPs and the RIAA but i just had to say something about DRM music. First of all, steve job is right, drm is a losing music protection measurement and needs to be done away with. The music that u buy from BOTH microsoft and itunes are sub par to a 192kbps mp3. That is what i use when i encode a cd to my computer. Also if u take that same song u put on ur ipod or mp3 player from either service and put it in ur car u can barely hear the bass and other sounds because it is so stripped down of music that it only good for a little pocket player. The last and most freaked up reason is that microsoft drm has to have licenses that need to be in place so u can play the music. Well i bought about 20 dollars worth of music and my computer got a virus one day. Couldn't get it out and had to reformat it and did not know about the licenses. Got ever thing back and running and i could not play my music i bought b/c i didn't have the licenses for it. Had every song backed up on a disc and could not play a single one. That really sucked and is why i started to download music. I was a good customer to microsoft and itunes but that changed everything. | |
|
FtheEFF
@comcast.net | The EFF don't represent the masses either The EFF is a bunch a scumbags IMNHO. They don't represent the people they represent unscrupulous Biz practices. they have no credibility with anyone. | |
| | 
furlonium
Computer Over? Virus equals Very Yes?
join:2002-05-08
Bethlehem, PA
| Re: The EFF don't represent the masses either said by FtheEFF :
The EFF is a bunch a scumbags IMNHO. They don't represent the people they represent unscrupulous Biz practices. they have no credibility with anyone.
Wow Taylor, you're usually pretty quick to chime in. I almost got worried when I didn't see your bantering rhetoric plastered in here 
--
»www.myspace.com/intranet
I once had a dream that Sean Connery stayed at my apt., and he had his laptop with Win98 on it, and he knew how to connect to my wireless network. I don't do drugs | |
| |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by FtheEFF :
The EFF is a bunch a scumbags IMNHO. They don't represent the people they represent unscrupulous Biz practices. they have no credibility with anyone.
The EFF does or the RIAA does? I think you may have had an aneurysm before hitting the post button.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | 
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by FtheRIAA :
The RIAA is a bunch a scumbags IMNHO. They don't represent the people they represent unscrupulous Biz practices. they have no credibility with anyone.
There - fixed it for you, Taylor.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot) | |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Using the word "scumbags" to insult EFF : +5 points
False statement regarding the EFF representing "Biz practices" (the focus has been individuals and not businesses) : -5 points
Dissing the EFF's credibility : +2 points
Using name to diss EFF : +5 points
Lack of prison reference : -5 points
Lack of sodomy reference : -2 points
Lack of pirate or theft reference : -5 points
Total : -5 points
Dude... I don't even think you are Taylor. | |
| petecellar
join:2002-10-15
Philadelphia, PA
| as a disgruntled artist I've played a lot of original music that people have enjoyed over the years. However, the music business has become so poor over the years that I'm actually thankful I never got signed. Chances are it would be a slavery contract where you're forced to give up publishing and tour for nothing to support their property.
I got a dayjob, and a lot of great mid-success artists I know still need a dayjob to be there for them when they get off tour.
So forgive me if I could give a rat's @ss when it comes to any labels who may lose a few bucks. | |
| |
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | Re: as a disgruntled artist said by petecellar :I've played a lot of original music that people have enjoyed over the years. However, the music business has become so poor over the years that I'm actually thankful I never got signed. Chances are it would be a slavery contract where you're forced to give up publishing and tour for nothing to support their property. For the most part it is a slavery contract (it
may as well be one for the artist's soul, too):
The Problem With Music-
»www.negativland.com/albini.html
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot) | |
| 
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA | The RIAA should just give up Because they are never going to stop the filesharing lol. | |
|
Toaster4
@ameritech.net
|  Greed
Musicians make their money on tour and only see money from their record sales if they are big enough to carry weight in the industry and negotiate their record contract to specify so. Or if they are credited for writing their music they make money from radio airplay, tv performances, and any other place that plays their music in public. (Think about every restaurants you go to with music, they pay for that)
As far as the XXAA and their figures go. They obviously look at each download as a lost sale, which is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. To be considered a lost sale, you have to have money to buy the album in the first place.
There's a reason many artists encourage you to download their music. Because 95% of the cds i have bought have been because of the internet. the last 5 concerts I've gone to have been from hearing an artists songs through P2P. Regardless of peoples abuses, P2P is one more way to exchange knowledge and advertise your band.
Is it perfect? No, obviously not. But you don't see barnes and knobles, borders or your local library being pressured to hand over video surveillance and personal info for people sitting in their stores and reading their books without paying. | |
| |
Musicman2222
@dhs.gov | Re: Greed Good point, no artist bets their career off of record sales. They all get screwed by the RIAA and knows it, it's the tour's that bring in the big money. | |
| | | |
|
EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing
·
·
·