The RIAA Crossroads

No. Now the RIAA is going to be putting the heat on your local congresscritter to pass more laws favorable to it. Just watch....

said by pleekmo:

---

No. Now the RIAA is going to be putting the heat on your local congresscritter to pass more laws favorable to it. Just watch....

---

Well if I find out my local crooks in office vote for and help the RIAA then I will just not vote for them any more.....

Plasticman

There is no end to the RIAA racketeering. Just like the previous poster said, they'll just butter up s'more politicos. Of course if you or I were to do this it would be bribery...when the RIAA does it, it's a campaign contribution.

You know it, and many of them they're passing the buck too already have the RIAAs back which is sad...but of course they won't admit to it. It's such a shame that money has so much power...

Although it is illegal to trade files and there should be a way to prosecute, it should be done legally which is what this is all about. At least now, the RIAA will have to go to a district court and PROVE the user is file trading before issuing a subpoena...which will definitely slow them down, also they have to sue the user for reimbursements on such as thing as it is not much of a felony or anything...just a misdemeanor as far as I know to infringe copyrights

The RIAA is killing the recording industry single handedly.
They've poisoned a large percentage of the public from ever buying again. Public relations are dead for them.
Fools and idiots.

Lol...so true and yet they use that in their defense against pirating...saying that it's the downloaders that are the cuase for that drop in sales and not the RIAA.

said by CCCMTech:

---

At least now, the RIAA will have to go to a district court and PROVE the user is file trading before issuing a subpoena...

---

They don't have to PROVE the user is file sharing, the just have to have a reasonable basis to file a lawsuit and issue an ensuing subpoena.

I must disagree- the simple act of file trading is not in itself illegal, the content being traded is the real issue. The rules on trading / copying music need to be updated as well. (DMCA)

And off topic, maybe its me but it seems a little funny to me that CCCMTech is listing him/her self as a SBC rep, yet has a Adelphia account to access the internet!??

said by joebear29:

---

said by CCCMTech:

---

At least now, the RIAA will have to go to a district court and PROVE the user is file trading before issuing a subpoena...

---

They don't have to PROVE the user is file sharing, the just have to have a reasonable basis to file a lawsuit and issue an ensuing subpoena.

---

Proving is still easy to do. Heck, they can monitor what you do on Kazaa and other file sharing utilities. They can see if you are sharing or not sharing files. They can see what you are sharing. It isn't like people can hide that information.

So, proving this will be easy. The lawsuits are going to be brought against the heavy offenders first. The ones that will be made an example of sharing 10-15 gig of music. A misdemeanor? Probably not for those people going over a certain amount of files. Criminal charges can be brought up for mass copyright infringement. Don't be suprised if you see that.

said by CCCMTech:

---

Although it is illegal to trade files and there should be a way to prosecute, it should be done legally which is what this is all about.
...

---

Please note, it is NOT illegal to "trade files".

said by SND2005:

---

I must disagree- the simple act of file trading is not in itself illegal, the content being traded is the real issue. The rules on trading / copying music need to be updated as well. (DMCA)

---

Copyright infringement is against the law last I checked. The RIAA has a legal right to distribute its product as it sees fit. Any violation of that is against the law. As you said, it is the content being shared that is the issue. I don't think you will see the DMCA being updated to favor file traders. If anything, the DMCA will be changed to help the RIAA.

My read on the ruling by the Court of Appeals was that it was more of a function of the applicability of the DMCA to the type of service provided by Verizon than it was a case of due process. I'm still interest to see what happens with the SBC (Pacific Bell) suit against the RIAA, since due process is more closely aligned with the Pac Bell case.

Copyright infringement is illegal- file trading is not. It is the content of that which is being traded. The DMCA needs to be updated to more clearly define the demands of MPAA and RIAA.

Regardless of the hurdles the judicial system places in front of the RIAA courtesy of misguided emotion by the clueless, the Pirates will be brought to justice one by one. If it takes private funding to help the RIAA prosecute music Pirates, then I'm all for it and I'll gladly help raise the money to put these criminals behind bars just like any other common thief who steals.

This B.S. about I'm not stealing, I'm only infringing on the artists rights is outright ignorance. If you were infringing you might be using lyrics in another song or something. When you illegally download a copyright protected work be it music or software, you're a criminal, plain and simple. You can rationalize theft all you want, that's why we have copyright laws to punish those who can rationalize stealing...

The scumbag Pirates are gonna due the time for doin' the crime, just like any other sleazeball criminal. Time to face reality folks. The day of reckoning is here.

said by SND2005:

---

And off topic, maybe its me but it seems a little funny to me that CCCMTech is listing him/her self as a SBC rep, yet has a Adelphia account to access the internet!??

---

Because I do work for SBC and I do not live in a SBC serviced area or I would go with their DSL. I get about 50 kbps down and 30 kbps up on Adelphias 3000/256 package...

haw do the RIAA` git the evidence for a copyright lawsuit if thy can see your songs , on your drive, ENE one can fake that, thy need hard evidence like my computer wiz all the songs " like Wat computer Wat songs"

-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Warner, 49, of Petaluma, Calif., paid $4,000 to settle a copyright lawsuit in October over allegations his 17-year-old daughter was illegally sharing more than 1,100 songs. He now wishes his Internet provider had fought against turning over his identity.
--------------------------------------------------------

said by amenite:

---

said by CCCMTech:

---

Although it is illegal to trade files and there should be a way to prosecute, it should be done legally which is what this is all about.
...

---

Please note, it is NOT illegal to "trade files".

---

Sorry, as it pertains to the RIAA which is ALL copyrighted, *insert fine print here*

Technically it is legal to download the file if you already own it, correct?

Wouldn't they also need to prove that the person downloading it didn't already own the material?

Sure it's silly for that person to be downloading stuff they already own, but it's theoretically possible. Say they owned an album on cassette and wanted the mp3s for their computer, can't they download it and be free from prosecution?

Wouldn't that also apply to the person sharing it? Wouldn't they have to prove that the person who downloaded from them didn't own an original copy of the material? Or is it the simple act of sharing which violates the law?

said by BIGMIKE:

---

haw do the RIAA` git the evidence for a copyright lawsuit if thy can see your songs , on your drive, ENE one can fake that, thy need hard evidence like my computer wiz all the songs " like Wat computer Wat songs"

-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Warner, 49, of Petaluma, Calif., paid $4,000 to settle a copyright lawsuit in October over allegations his 17-year-old daughter was illegally sharing more than 1,100 songs. He now wishes his Internet provider had fought against turning over his identity.
--------------------------------------------------------

---

Exactly. With due process you have to have reasonable evidence, not just saying "yea, we searched on Kazaa and this user came up, we have reason to believe this user is *insert real name here*. We want legal action.

Now what if someone was spoofing their IP or using a high-anonyminity proxy? They could prove nothing but the fact that that user appeared to be sharing songs. Please it will all have to be done in court not at the will of the DMCA.

Proving is not quite that easy. The RIAA can see the names of the files I'm sharing, but unless they download it, they can't prove what the file actually is. I could walk around the city handing out plastic bags that say Marijuana on the side, but that doesn't mean I'm guilty of distributing a narcotic.

While the file name is currently enough to get a letter from your ISP (compliments of RIAA and MPAA threats), it hasn't been challenged in a court of law.

If we ever see a case go to trial, and the RIAA lawyers admit they didn't download the complete file, we'll see how much evidence is really needed. Until then, it's academic.

In reply of the no registered dude you wacked. or is it that your hiding behide the RIAA@SS.Hmmmmmmm..Just like i said last week i downloaded like 7 cd's in full and burned then for every1 i know see tread here »Does anyone think the RIAA reads this site? ..

i am soo sick of them who hates the RIAA more then AOL? i sure do they are worst evil of the 2

Chill man, before you get deleted..

First off, here's you a possibility to investigate.

(real story here)

I own Metallica's Black album, I let someone borrow it and they put the prettiest crack down the middle of it. Now by copyright law, I'm allowed to have a backup of this CD as long as I own it. So I download all the songs off the Black album and burn it to a CD so I have my legal backup of the now useless real cd. How is that illegal? This is a case not even mentioned by the RIAA or Judicial system that I've seen.

Also did you know you cannot resale a CD? Does that make pawn shops or "used cd" stores illegal? Come on man, fine print and copyright laws have been violated for a long time. The RIAA blames file trading on their loss of profit because they're charging $20 for a single cd that MAY have 5 to 6 good songs on it at best, that's like $4/song for me. I'm not condoning illegal song trading but I can understand it. The smartest thing anyone has done is Wal-Mart's "Pay per Song", where you pay less than a dollar per song....and only get the songs you want. This will increase sales more than anything. That and lowering album sales, $21 for a 15 yrs old Metallica CD is ridiculous, I love them but that's too much money. You will always have some that want everything for free, and agreed they should be prosecuted, but I think many users are doing this as a way to rebel against the standard high prices.

Also, stealing implies you took something worth a certain value, if the RIAA would put a price on an individual song (a decent rate) I would gladly pay it.

Yes, legally you can download anything you own, weather your copies are on 8 track or LP or even oldass 78 records.

said by Spike401:

---

Yes, legally you can download anything you own, weather your copies are on 8 track...

---

Now you tell me. I wonder if my old Chicago, BTO, Aerosmith, and Kiss 8-tracks are still in my parent's basement.

said by CCCMTech:

---

said by amenite:

---

said by CCCMTech:

---

Although it is illegal to trade files and there should be a way to prosecute, it should be done legally which is what this is all about.
...

---

Please note, it is NOT illegal to "trade files".

---

Sorry, as it pertains to the RIAA which is ALL copyrighted, *insert fine print here*

---

There are plenty of legitimate file trading/sharing scenarios. I'm quite sick and tired of the "file sharing is illegal" mentality. I understand that this discussion is taking place in a context, but statements like yours ingrain the mis-conception of the act as wholly illegal, all the time, which it of course is not.

How is my context mistook? I am referring to file trading and the RIAA. The RIAA is only associatable with Music files which are all copyrighted (well all major ones).

You are right though, there are lots of home videos, home made music, shareware and freeware apps, and other stuff you can legally share. I am not implying file trading as a whole is illegal, that would make EVERYthing you download illegal, which isn't the case. Downloading copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission, expressed or implied, is illegal.

At least the courts put a leash on that rabid dog. Their bite will less of a sting, it will feel like it was a nip. Now I can get back to downloading songs that I haven't heard in almost 20 years.

"settle out of Court Old West WAY"