RIAA Backs Off Dead Man's Family > i wait

i wait

Dude, they can check your assets before they sue...

So short of having a trunk full of cash buried in the back yard this will continue to be the big bully beating up on kids

reply to hayabusa3303
If people quit buying music, then the RIAA will just claim that the losses are due to massive piracy and will lobby for laws requiring all Americans to purchase at least one CD a month. (Ok, that last part is a stretch, but they do want to mandate a tax on CD-R's, CD-RW drives, and hard drives. At least with the "everyone must buy one CD a month" idea people actually get something in return. )

reply to hayabusa3303
Close enough...
»wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/st···tml?pg=3

reply to backness
Anyone can check anyone's assets online.

Point is they(RI**) are so stupid in the lawsuits that they WILL slip up and thats what im waiting on. They have did so may slip ups in the past i cant count them so its coming.

reply to hayabusa3303
Well, the MPAA has already done it. It was posted on here a few weeks ago how the owner of a software company was targeted, and he vowed to fight no matter what the cost.

reply to hayabusa3303
well they would have to sopena to know all of your assets. and if your that loaded its good to assume you have offshores accounts(which are of course numbered so they cant be directly linked to you).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

reply to nightshade74
I was just thinking of Hogan also, but couldn't remember his name. Unfortunately, he's the rare exception. Most people sued by the RIAA get notified that they are being sued for millions of dollars in potential damages. The RIAA then tells them that they have two options 1) spend a lot of time and money fighting a lengthy court case that they could lose and wind up bankrupt for years to come 2) sign this easy little piece of paper to make it all go away for the low, low price of only $2,000-$3,000. They are highly pressured to just settle on the spot (lest the price go up should they tarry). For most people, the prospect of fighting a long, drawn out court battle is too much regardless of their guilt or innocence.

I've said it multiple times. If I was sued, I might wind up settling even if I was innocent (which I would be). Ideally, I would want to fight to clear my good name, but in the end I have too much in my life that I could lose in a long, drawn out court battle. So I would most likely settle, but would feel awful while doing so. (Of course, there's the chance that the RIAA would just drop the case if I pursued it, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to spend the time and money to take that chance.)

reply to Jason Levine
Want? From my understanding they already get a small "set-aside" from all blanks and recorders....it's only like a few pennies per disc, but that adds up quick....

They only get their "piracy tax" from the so-called "Music CD-Rs". If you buy a plain old box of non-music CD-R discs, the RIAA doesn't get anything. I also don't think that they get anything from CD Rewritable sales. Of course, this only applies to the US. I'm not sure about other countries.

I do remember at one point the RIAA pointing to a statistic about the number of blank CD discs manufactured. They then subtracted the amount they used. Their final total was trumpeted around as the amount of CD discs used for piracy. They didn't seem to think that a CD-R could be used for anything except storage of pirated music. (So I guess I really didn't use those 2 CDs to burn some photos of my brother-in-law's wedding like I thought I did. )

And of course the they don't factor in the blank CD's bought to make legitimate copies of the CD's they own for backup copies they listen to while keeping the original tucked away safe. Then there are those who still like to create their own mix CDs from the music they own.

But what is fair use anyway?

reply to AmnChode
close. The "music CDR" disks have a small royalty built into the price. If you have a stand-alone recorder that hooks into your stereo music system, it has music industry-mandated hardware controls that require you to use one of the above specially encoded music CDR blanks; a standard data CDR/RW disk won't record. Thus, the music industry continues to get royalties when you rip your own using a music recorder. That's also why a cakebox of "music" disks costs more than a box of generic (or even name-brand) data disks.

However, standard data disks don't have the royalty and computer-based recorders are not locked to royalty-encumbered media. Thus, people who use computers rather than the living room stereo to manage their music collections are not supporting the **AAs. Hence the need to "get all those pirating bastards" with their computers.

dw

reply to SRFireside

My opinion is sharing, whether it be lending a CD to a friend or peer to peer trading, legally doesn't fall under copyright infringement. My personal views are along the same lines. Music is art. Art is meant to be shared. Copyright was created only to help compensate artists for a period of time for sales of a work, not create a commodity. Yadda yadda... you've heard it all from me before.

I sorta see where you are going with this. OK Music is Art and Art is supposed to be shared. I can't take the rembrant painting down get a nice scan of the orginal ? and plus music is shared. They allow you to stream music as long as you follow some rules. Aol music allows you to listen (normally without the AOL slogan in the background).

I haven't seen a lawsuit (correct me if I'm wrong) for a person ripping an MP3 to put on their portable MP3 player. They are attacking illegal file sharing (but they seem to attack the file sharing program more and more) which most of us agree that sharing on P2P isn't right. We agree on terms when we purchase the CD and I feel they should be printed OUTSIDE of the package or allow us to return the for a refund if we don't agree. If you don't like the terms don't buy it. Then over time they will have to come up with a solution to correct the problem. Once an artist makes song it isn't a legal right for you to have it.

Don't get me wrong I see both sides and it isn't an easy fix. My wife is a photographer and we have copyright on our images and we get upset if someones makes a photocopy of the images we provide to a client. If a customer make one or two not the end of the world and will not likley take it to court. But, you make alot of copies there can be a problem. This is stated in the contract and they agree to it BEFORE they sign it and pay us.

Sorry I get on a rant once in a while.

reply to Kearnstd

reply to Jason Levine
I agree that these threats with court action amount to nothing more than a war of attrition.

IMO, if {insert multimillion entity here} wants to sue someone on a civil matter they should only be able to spend up to 10% of the defendant's net income on legal counsel (this is probably the maximum an average working person can spare). E.G. the single soccer mom who takes home $30,000 a year - sorry RIAA, you can only spend up to $3000 on legal counsel. Better take it up in small claims!
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt

That might be a good idea. My idea would amount to creating two classes of copyright infringement. Let's call these "casual" and "professional." The Professional infringer would be someone who was infringing on copyrights for profit. An example would be those folks who burn copies of CDs and DVDs and sell them on the street corners. These folks would face the full fines currently available ($750 - $150,000 per infringing incident).

The second class would be the casual infringer. This would be the person who infringed copyright but had no profit motive. An example would be someone uploading a song to a P2P network without getting the copyright holder's permission. This offense would carry a much reduced fine from the "professional" level. Let's say about $0.75 - $150 per infringing incident, but with a cap of $10,000. This would make truly innocent much more likely to fight when presented with the RIAA's "take the $3,000 settlement or else" threat.

reply to Driscollw
Call me naive, but didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this back in the '70's??? Movie studios went nuts over VCR's and the Supreme Court ruled that a person could make as many copies as they wanted, but couldn't sell or publicly display the content. I see filesharing as public display. I agree with the 30 year old Supreme Court ruling: Once I own a "CD", I can do whatever I want with it as long as I don't sell the copy or gift it to someone else. RIAA needs to be stopped, for as I see it, they are violating the Supreme Court ruling in certain cases. As for the other cases, I can't conceive that it can be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" that an IP address can link to an actual person.

Here's a question in theoretics... if I download a song from an "evil" P2P location and already own the CD, is it a crime? If my CD is scratched, do I no longer own that song?

reply to Jason Levine
I know this is a little off topic but...

actually read the fbi warning before a movie some time, for non profit use you face up tp 5 years in jail and a 250,000 fine!