 
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY
 ·RCN CABLE
| If they use illegal tactics to obtain evidence... Then how credible are their claims. It's like the cops breaking into your house, planting a gun found at a crime scene there, and then accusing you of murder. Don't think that can't happen, juries ain't that smart, nor do they have all the information they need.
Time to use some RICO laws on these guys.
--
I want this for Christmas... UPC 07464651832 | |
|
 | 
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | Re: If they use illegal tactics to obtain evidence... RIAA are the lowest 
The Best Of John Denver Live? | |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Finally, an Attorney General that gets it The simple fact of the matter is that the *AA's are acting like the MAFIAA. They are attempting to EXTORT money from someone without following the law. NO ISP should turn over the information unless they have a WARRANT with evidence. Just looking at an IP address ISN'T enough information to get a warrant. They need to PROVE (by downloading a FULL FILE) from the source before they should be able to get a warrant. That means that if the use a torrent, they damn well better DISABLE every other peer before attempting to download the file. Just because they got PART of a file it doesn't mean the peer had the FULL FILE to serve. Just because they got PART of a file from ANY P2P connection is not proof.
Let the **AA's run their own version of a client, that will attempt to download a COMPLETE file from a client, THEN they will have enough evidence to go before a judge, otherwise they are just using illegal tactics. They only have the POTENTIAL for the file being illegally shared, not the PROOF.
If I'm 'sharing' a file called 'Prince.mp3', what does that mean? Does that mean that the **AA can sue me? Hell no. Unless they get the ENTIRE file from me, and it IS copyrighted, then they don't have a case.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| davidiloveyo
join:2007-12-03
Houston, TX |  Re: Finally, an Attorney General that gets it
| |
|
|
| matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Deep River, CT
| Re: At Last A Public Entity With Backbone quote:
I hope that the judges are equally strong in their determination to provide justice and not just roll over to the corporate pressure mongers.
You're assuming that judges aren't for sale like politicians. Unfortunately, nothing is farther from the truth. | |
|
|
| 
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | Re: What is state's interest in shielding student thieves ? That's crap.He is questioning thier tactics. | |
|
| |
| |
| | |
| | 
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state | Violating copyright is not theft but its still illegal. Read up on US Code Title 17. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: What is state's interest in shielding student thieves ? said by Ignite  :said by dispatcher21 :Violating copyright is not theft but its still illegal. Read up on US Code Title 17. Which has what to do with it not being theft?  Theft is a perfectly adequate generic short form that describes the underlying immorality of copyright infringement.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | 
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| WOW HTC.... you went from a discussion about how the OR AG is calling out the RIAA onto the carpet to answer for their practicies and teh legality of their actions to dowsnloaders and copyright infringment... Answer me this Batman... HOW does hte AG calling out the RIAA have ANYTHING to do with copyright infringement?
...and no, you cannot use the argument of '...well if they weren't pirating then we wouldn't be breaking the law...' cuz ya have to be on the RIGHT side to throw stones... | |
|
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Why do those movie barkers talking about copyright is labeled FBI WARNING...?? Just curious.  | |
|
| | 
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| said by Ignite :You really should consider writing for an extreme right wing / facist tabloid with skills and viewpoints like that The Mein Kampf Daily?
--
Christianity: A cannibalistic blood cult based upon the human blood sacrifice of a virgin male. It teaches you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the virgin to be saved. | |
|
| | | 
Yauch
join:2005-06-24 | Re: What is state's interest in shielding student thieves ? First Godwin I've seen around here in a while. Congratulations. | |
|
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by LiamJunket :... While admitting that the responsible students should be identified, the state is throwing up barriers. ... the state is actually following the law by 1) ensuring the students privacy is protected (there is a FEDERAL law that mandates this) and 2) making sure the RIAA follows the law.
Are you saying the university/state doesn't have the right to insist on proper legal procedures?
Also, if it's within your capability, I would appreciate an explanation or pointer to a relevant law that says the university is required to conduct discovery (on their dime) for the RIAA - that's the real issue here. | |
|
| |
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| Re: What is state's interest in shielding student thieves ? said by nasadude
pointer to a relevant law that says the university is required to conduct discovery (on their dime) for the RIAA - that's the real issue here.
[/BQUOTE :Unfortunately nasadude, htere is a bill being presented for higher schooling to police the student body AND the RIAA presented a tool that the schools could use... of course, the tool reports all sorts of invasive info directly to RIAA if I recall correctly. I REALLY hope that this is killed in comittee | |
|
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | You'd place the interest of some two bit evil corporation over the interests of your child? | |
|
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: What is state's interest in shielding student thieves ? said by grandpinaple :... some two bit evil corporation ... I take exception to that!
they're not two-bit corporations, they're MEGACORPS. | |
|
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | For someone who holds the law in high esteem, you seem to be willing to disregard it when it serves your purpose.
You're a little dark today kettle. | |
|
| |
Jerkface
join:2005-06-05
Washington, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds I have to agree with the above post in regards to everything about the RIAA. They are just a bunch of corrupt people using greed and the law to try and make people pay for music or other media that should be given out for free or for a very low monthly price. I think that if i was given a pass for $20-30 a month to download anything i wanted, DRM free of course, i think that i would most definitely jump on the bandwagon and i think everyone would come with me.
Yes i understand the studio costs, production costs, blah blah blah. If you like the band, go see them in concert. Buy a tshirt from the merch guy, get a button to give to your girlfriend. SOMETHING. The artists get more money from this than anything else.
It appears that even the record labels are seeing the error of their ways and are considering cutting funding to the RIAA. Looks like no new car for those execs this xmas :P
»www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/11/29···hip-fees
Also, if you have ever heard of OINK.cd, you probably have read this blog about the RIAA. It is very long, but it is worth the read.
»www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/w···-of.html
cheers | |
|
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Re: Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds Just because you think something should be a certain price or have a certain price structure and because its not, it justifies breaking the law? Welcome to a free market system. When the majority of people think the price is wrong and start to spend differently, then the price or sturcture will change. Now I dont agree with the tactics the RIAA uses but you cant break the law and then point your finger and say "he made me do it cause...." | |
|
| | Jerkface
join:2005-06-05
Washington, NJ
1 edit | Re: Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds Ok picture this. Your a near crumbling company because the distribution method for your product is not working as efficiently.
Answer? Reform or Die. | |
|
| | |
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Re: Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds Again, welcome to the free market system. They will either reform or die, there is no doubt that those are the only two options. Consumers will be the ones who force the companies to choose. Yet, just because the distribution system is antiquitated(spelling?) or because they employ mean people to try to enforce their copyright does not justify the breaking of law. I guess thats the point I am trying to make. No matter what the trade group does or say or how the companies behave, its still illegal to break copyright laws. Now, these companies and trade groups should be held up to the law as anyone else is and if they are doing anything illegal they should be punished. | |
|
| | | |
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| Re: Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds HERE HERE!!! correct on both accounts. And unfortunately espionage and theft is a part of operation costs, unless you want to spend more money on controls. Of Course, as M$ has shown, even that may not be enough. XP was cracked in a matter of days and Vista was cracked in minutes of release. | |
|
| |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| But we ARE in the free market system. Look at the rise of P2P. The MARKET has determined that music should be free. That's why P2P exists. The majority of people DON'T buy CD's anymore, that's an antiquidated model. The MAJORITY of people who CAN get music for free, do so. The RIAA made me do it because they wouldn't sell me what I wanted (i.e. a DRM free version of the music at a reasonable price). This is just the market adjusting to the new reality.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds P2P being illegal is an artificially enforced standard. It's arguable that in a free market copyright should not exist or be much more limited than it is now. P2P is a natural last resort for consumers to rebel and reclaim their power. | |
|
| | |
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
1 edit | The market has not determined that music should be free...freeloaders who dont want to pay for anything have determined that music should be free. A lot of people shoplift, does that mean the market has decided that products should be free? No! The majority of people may indeed download their music(I havent seen any stats on this) but the majority do not do it illegally, they use itunes or napster or some other legal means to do it. The percentage that do it illegally to get it for free, do so under the delusion that since they can do it, why not. | |
|
| | | | 
wise guy
 from:
bear73
| get it right In terms of supply and demand, what has happened is that the marketing engine has been disrupted.
The "cat is out of the bag", so to speak. And there also may have been an unfortunate coincidence (bad timing) of there being a kind of slow period in terms of innovation in the music field.
In any case, when I seriously look at the situation with an open mind it seems to me that the commercial music that was being put out at the time (circa 1999,etc, not back catalogs) decreased in quality, while simultaneously you had this brand new phenomenon of p2p (the old Napster, for instance) which allowed folks to download the stuff they wanted for free.
The thing is this -- a lot of folks began realizing that they didn't really want the music that bad. In other words, they realized that the music wasn't really "worth it". This drove down the demand for commercial stuff. The market is supply and demand, not people you like and people you don't. Calling people names doesn't sell products. "Only collosal morons don't like my submarine sandwiches..." Yeah, right - try that one out. "If you don't buy my product you're an idiot". C'mon man, it's supply and demand, not cops and robbers. The market, at least.
Does p2p upset that balance of supply and demand? Does it change the point where the supply and demand curves intersect? Yes, it probably does. The REAL question is why.
It seems to me that the primary reason is because the marketing efforts prior to p2p relied on hits, radio play for those hits, and the shrink-wrap basically was a way to pad those hits with a load of manure. P2P unwrapped the shrink and people realized that they were getting ripped off.
WHY do people not pay for stuff when they download it via unofficial channels? Is it just because they're cheap, or is it because they realize that it's not worth the money? If it's the former, how do you force them to pay? Do they even have the money to pay? Answer: control the distribution channels and sell the image. Play the hits for free, make them buy the crap for lots of money. That's how it worked. Not anymore.
The entire marketing infrastructure of the major labels has been, in large part, based on hits, radio airplay, MTV airplay, leading to album sales. The minute people get to hear the album (try before buy), it's no longer worth the money. Why is this? Could it be because there's lots of good musicians who aren't all that beautiful, and lots of physically attractive young people who aren't that talented musically? Could it be that most commerical "albums" aren't reall worth all that much? Music is not about being rich and famous, music is about much more than that. It's an art - it's a science. Like a Ferrarri - art and science combined. Pure emotion. 12 cylinders of Beethoven. THAT, my friend is worth it. REAL music is not only an art form, it's also a science. It's not enough to be popular, it's not enough to be cool. You need to study it. Being rich in no way gives you the skills to understand music, design a Formula 1 car, or do much else other than consume mass quantities.
The quality is what counts. If the product isn't "worth it", people won't buy it. The biggest damage that p2p does, it seems to me, is that it allows people to actually hear the crap they were about to buy and reconsider whether or not they have better things to do with their allowances.
A good product will always sell.
For instance: a while back, Gillette sent me a sample of their new 5-blade Fusion. Free, in the mail. I tried it, I liked it. I went to their website, watched some Flash videos, immediately (and I do mean right away) hopped in the car, drove to the store, and bought the Fusion Power. I use it to this day, and I really like it, although I do wish that the blades lasted a little longer.
For another instance: Kaspersky decided once to blacklist a few of their most pirated serial numbers so they couldn't get virus database updates anymore. They were mostly connecting from the South Asian area. The next month, their sales rose something like more than 50%. See -- people like their product, and just a little nudge, and sales go through the roof - because people respect the product, and they know it's a good product, and they'd rather just pay for the thing - it's that good.
Commercial music is NOT good. Most artists don't get paid. It's not rocket science, you know... | |
|
| | | | |
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Re: get it right And yet again, none of this justifies breaking the law. Just because pirates think music is crap, doesnt mean it is. Just because some people think that it should be free doesnt mean it is. No matter how you word it or who you want to blame, it still comes down to the fact that there is no justification of breaking copyright laws. I think McDonalds hamburgers are crap and not worth anything. Can I walk into a McDonalds, take a burger, eat it and just walk out without paying because I thinks its not worth anything? No. You cant just take things for free because you think its ok to for whatever reason, especially when there are laws expressly written to protect those items. | |
|
| | | | | | davidiloveyo
join:2007-12-03
Houston, TX |  Re: get it right???
That's why the masses are upset. | |
|
|
wise guy
| In America, the idea is that laws should reflect what people do. 60 million + filesharers can't be wrong.
There is really just one way to solve the problem.
1. A non-commercial, personal use exemption. This reflects the concept of "government for the people, by the people.".
The music doesn't magically get good if you download it. It's still crap. Downloaded or not.
For all intents and purposes, no law is being broken. No currently existing law, no currently existing precedent -- not any reasonable law, nor any law that's going to be enforced, nor any law that is going to get legislators elected or re-elected. Just look out, or you may become a victim of random extortion attempts.
We're in a new era now. Whether or not it's on the books, a non-commercial, personal use exemption (plug your buddy's mp3 player into your USB port and drag and drop) is more or less a de facto exemption. It's prohibitively expense to even contemplate enforcing anything contrary to this. Go ahead and try, but it won't work.
Non-commercial, personal use is never going to be successfully prosecuted in any way shape or form.
And again, I'll reiterate -- the file sharing "problem" is that "try before you buy" destroys the ability of crappy products to rip people off. If there wasn't p2p, reviews would accomplish the same thing. Until music labels crank out good music, sales will suffer. Good musicians will always earn the respect of their fans. Corporate "products" need to rely on other "methods" to accomplish adequate renumeration.
The problem is that the music is very poor quality. P2P only serves as an information channel to convey that fact.
It's not all black and white. It's not whether or not a law is being broken -- it's about why that law exists, why it should exist, why it should remain on the books, get changed in some way, or be removed from the books. The fact that a law is a law is NOT ENOUGH. And in this case, RIAA is trying to reinterpret the law, not enforce existing precedent. There is no existing precedent in the first place!
The fact that the RIAA thinks something should be law is NOT ENOUGH. You need more than that. Why would this law be good? How can a law that criminalizes the routine activities of 60 million or more Americans be good? Why should we use our tax-dollar supported legal system to try to establish precedent in a law that is impossible to enforce? | |
|
| davidiloveyo
join:2007-12-03
Houston, TX
| My friend they are trying to restrict our freedom
You have to fight to gain your freedom...
Nothing in life is easy...
Keep the good fight and make sure not work to work on sunday for you will be punished if you do | |
|
| | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds said by davidiloveyo :Keep the good fight and make sure not work to work on sunday for you will be punished if you do Who will get punished for working on a Sunday?
Saturday, the 7th day is the Sabbath, not Sunday, the 1st day of the week.
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
--
Some say "it is a waste of time to polish brass on a sinking ship", but I don't know what day or hour Jesus Christ our Saviour is returning. It could be tonight, tomorrow, a year or two or 50 years from now. | |
|
SKYWARP
join:2005-02-02
Portland, OR | Nice Proud to be an Oregonian right now. | |
|
| 
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR | Re: Nice Same here. Go get them Hardy Meyers!
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO... Send the racketeering whores at the RIAA to a Federal pound me in the ass prison. | |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| RIAA will never learn It all started with Napster. If the RIAA had bought Napster and turned it into a pay service for file sharing. (Pay a low monthly fee to share high quality DRM-free music)They wouldn't be where they are today.What did they do instead? They went and turned on their customer base and made them into criminals. This was purely greed on the industries side. Are the musicians getting more pay? No. What do they tell the musicians and the general public why that is. Piracy. That's why a lot more artists are leaving the big name members and starting their own companies. They get more money without all of the RIAA BS.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? | |
|
| PHOENIXZERO
join:2006-07-11
Beaverton, MI | Re: RIAA will never learn Actually it all started with the cassette recorder and used record/8-Track sales before that. | |
|
| |
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| Re: RIAA will never learn said by PHOENIXZERO :Actually it all started with the cassette recorder and used record/8-Track sales before that. YUP!!! It all started with the Cassette tape and VHS recorder. When they were first debued (sp?) the movie and music industries fought against the technologies. Cried how they would loose SOO much money. The courts shot them down. Technology was allowed to prosper.
It fhappened again with the CD. When burners appeared on the horizion they cried again that they would lose money. They never did in either of those 2 cases. The resale market continued as it had always been since the 50s and hte sneaker net continued as it had since the advent of hte cassette recorder. The entertainment industry had their warning 20 years ago but chose to ignore it. Hell, they didn't start challenging hte CD burner till it dropped to $500. when burners first debeued the recording industry just chuckled. a few years later and they saw their mistakes. Same thing happened in the recent past with dual layer burners. but the precedence was already there, against hte record industry.
They had their chance, they STILL fail to stay with the times... | |
|
Sharingislegal
@rogers.com | What I say to RIAA In the immortal words of Nelson Muntz from "The Simpsons" "Ha Ha!" | |
|
GilbertMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Gilbert, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Hey Has anyone though of a countersuit here? How about a nice big fat class action against these scum? Put them out of business. Maybe we should dangle out a $5,000,000 dollar settlements to them left and right and see if they just pay up.
--
»hacktheiPhone.com | |
|
|
|
|
How Oregon is Fighting RIAA
·
What is state's interest in shielding student thieves ?
·