Fighting the RIAA

Everything played over-the-air has been paid to be played (royalties) by the station. Now, I'm no **AA advocate, and I don't regularly buy CDs (if I can get them off a friend, I will). I hate downloaded music, because it all sounds like crap. Lossy compression sucks, but that's another whole topic altogether.

Oh, and by the way, this is in reply to the whole thread about stealing stuff from the over-the-air broadcasts, not specifically to you.

Meh. It was in response to a terrible statement. I'm sick. I couldn't think of anything better.
Someone stole my car.
There was an earthquake.
A terrible flood.
Locusts.
IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD.

Heh. Do quotes like that count as copyright infringement?
Don't tell anyone.

Ehh...

It's like being at a friend's house and listening to their CDs...

What can't they do to their own copyrights? Presuming the RIAA or a RIAA-licensed entity did the downloading, it's not infringement. Whether it's admissible as evidence of sharing, I don't know. Do you have something to back up your claim? (I'm curious)

You're making her and her kind out to be the Anti-Christ, and no one is going after her in criminal court?
Yet they go after Real Thieves in criminal court for stealing.

Real Thieves = Criminal Court for stealing.
Downloaders = Civil Court.

Downloaders != Criminal Court for stealing.
Downloaders != Real Thieves.
Downloaders don't steal.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Downloading copywritten material of which you did not pay for is illegal. They just aren't going after it, but it indeed the same as uploading.

Hate to break it to people that think this...but your wrong if you think it's fine to download copywritten material via emule/kazaa/limewire/etc. It carries the same penalties, it's just that it's next to impossible to go after downloaders. It's far easier to go after uploaders.

You should rephrase your "it's not illegal" to the real thing which is "at this time they don't go after downloaders"

No, its copyright infringement. It's the same thing as a high school band director copying sheet music so every student has a copy. That is illegal too.

Just because you think it is stealing doesn't mean it is stealing. Just because you think it is immoral doesn't mean it is immoral.

You need the read the whole thing then, taken right from the government website below, doesn't matter if you buy the other media, if the device "can make an audio" cd, you've already paid a royalty on it. It's been like this for a long time, so don't get mad at us

»www.copyright.gov/title1 ··· tml#1001
==========================================================
§ 1004. Royalty payments2

(a) Digital Audio Recording Devices. -

(1) Amount of payment. - The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording device imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 2 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such device shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such device.

(2) Calculation for devices distributed with other devices. - With respect to a digital audio recording device first distributed in combination with one or more devices, either as a physically integrated unit or as separate components, the royalty payment shall be calculated as follows:

(A) If the digital audio recording device and such other devices are part of a physically integrated unit, the royalty payment shall be based on the transfer price of the unit, but shall be reduced by any royalty payment made on any digital audio recording device included within the unit that was not first distributed in combination with the unit.

(B) If the digital audio recording device is not part of a physically integrated unit and substantially similar devices have been distributed separately at any time during the preceding 4 calendar quarters, the royalty payment shall be based on the average transfer price of such devices during those 4 quarters.

(C) If the digital audio recording device is not part of a physically integrated unit and substantially similar devices have not been distributed separately at any time during the preceding 4 calendar quarters, the royalty payment shall be based on a constructed price reflecting the proportional value of such device to the combination as a whole.

(3) Limits on royalties. - Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2), the amount of the royalty payment for each digital audio recording device shall not be less than $1 nor more than the royalty maximum. The royalty maximum shall be $8 per device, except that in the case of a physically integrated unit containing more than 1 digital audio recording device, the royalty maximum for such unit shall be $12. During the 6th year after the effective date of this chapter, and not more than once each year thereafter, any interested copyright party may petition the Librarian of Congress to increase the royalty maximum and, if more than 20 percent of the royalty payments are at the relevant royalty maximum, the Librarian of Congress shall prospectively increase such royalty maximum with the goal of having no more than 10 percent of such payments at the new royalty maximum; however the amount of any such increase as a percentage of the royalty maximum shall in no event exceed the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index during the period under review.

(b) Digital Audio Recording Media. - The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.

if you read my posts, you will see thats what I tried to do. I meant the RIAA goes after uploaders, not downloaders.

So why don't you go out and print a few $100 bills?
The original ones will still be intact..all you did was cloning...

*calls the feds* BACK AWAY FROM THE FRIEND!

Not to be confused with "file sharing" - however if you are fixin' to download, Google has made it extremely easy to locate whatever your heart desires.

Just type the following into Google's basic search box:

?intitle:index.of? mp3 "Artist, Song or Album Name"

For instance...

?intitle:index.of? mp3 "David Cross" Link

...will search out folders named mp3 for files containing David Cross. Within the first few pages of those Google results, there are several entries and links to complete mp3 files of David Cross comedy albums.

Keep in mind that the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) would consider this illegal-filesharing if one was to actually download any of these files. However without a Peer-to-Peer network monitoring traffic and IP addresses, and in-lieu of a record executive hovering over your shoulder as you click "Save to Disk" - I can't imagine how the RIAA would be able to track or monitor these types of downloads in any way.
»53x11.com/?articleno=61& ··· a7e0b654

»www.google.com/search?hl ··· G=Search

Damn straight! They're supposed to be protecting the corporations like all the other good military shills!

Honestly. Use any avatar you want, nobody is thinking it represents anything on the 'net. I could 'don an LAPD badge as my avatar, yet it wouldn't allow me to make bust, sting, etc. He also might very well be on the USAF, thus the glory that is the anonymous 'net.

Did you even read the legal brief of her attorney? In a nutshell it says that the RIAA has not met the requirements of the Federal Courts to bring such a lawsuit -- namely, specificity as to the infringement actions. It is an ironclad argument. Case will be dismissed (I said it before, I'll say it again -- people are scared too easy by lawsuits):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., a
Delaware corporation; VIRGIN RECORDS
AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; UMG
RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
BMG MUSIC, a New York general partnership;
and SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, a
Delaware general partnership,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
PATRICIA SANTANGELO,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------x
No. 05 CV 2414 (CM)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF
DEFENDANT PATRICIA SANTANGELO
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Preliminary Statement
Patricia Santangelo, by her attorneys Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, respectfully
submits this memorandum of law in support of her motion for an Order, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6)
and 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing the Complaint herein on the grounds
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and does not satisfy the pleading
requirements applicable to copyright infringement claims.
-2-
ARGUMENT
THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT SET FORTH THE SPECIFIC ACTS, AND THE DATES
AND TIMES, OF THE ALLEGED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint give “fair
notice of the claim asserted [to allow the defendant] to answer and prepare for trial.” Simmons v.
Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995). In copyright infringement cases, Rule 8(a)(2) “require[s]
a plaintiff to plead with specificity the acts by which a defendant has committed copyright
infringement.... [The complaint] must set out the ‘particular infringing acts ... with some specificity.
Broad, sweeping allegations of infringement do not comply with Rule 8.” Marvullo v. Gruner &
Jahr, 105 F.Supp.2d 225, 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (italics added). To withstand a motion to dismiss,
a copyright infringement claim must allege, inter alia, “by what acts during what time the defendant
infringed the copyright.” Marvullo, supra, 105 F.Supp.2d at 230 (italics added); Brought to Life
Music, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 2003 WL 296561 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2003) (granting Rule
12(b)(6) motion where “[p]laintiff ha[d] not attempted to describe ‘by what acts and during what
time’ [the defendant] infringed the copyright”). See also Plunket v. Doyle, 2001 WL 175252 at *4-6
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001) (dismissing copyright infringement claim under Rule 8 because it “fails
to describe the time period during which infringing acts occurred).
Here, the Complaint makes no attempt to describe the specific acts, or the dates and
times, of the alleged copyright infringement. Nor do the exhibits annexed to the Complaint set forth
any of this information. The Complaint must therefore be dismissed. Marvullo, supra, 105
F.Supp.2d at 230; Brought to Life Music, Inc., supra, 2003 WL 296561 at *1; Plunket v. Doyle,
2001 WL 175252 at *4-6.
-3-
CONCLUSION
The Court should grant the within motion in all respects.
Respectfully submitted,
BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
Attorneys for defendant Patricia Santangelo
By: s/Morlan Ty Rogers
Morlan Ty Rogers (MR 3818)
99 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 490-0400
Of Counsel:
Ray Beckerman
Morlan Ty Rogers
Daniel A. Singer

Nice try. THe courts require more than those facts.

She will win. The case won't even get to trial, unless the RIAA amends its complaint to include specific dates, times, files, etc.

No it is NOT a violation ...

Copyright infringement requires copy AND distribution, not or.

I did read, but no offense your post realllly isn't coming off that way.

Your posts just come off as "downloading is not illegal"

If thats what you meant then yes your correct, but your posts just aren't reflecting that very well.

ok, I fixed it, happy now?

i could imagine explaining that to a potential employer one day. riaa charged me with downloading music and i fought them.

Employer: finally someone with balls you are hired.

Only if you neglect to mention that The Blues Brothers: 25th Anniversary Edition is available at your local retail outlet!!! Buy your copy today!!! :D:D

Making counterfeit money is not stealing...its COUNTERFEITTING.:) Also money is legal tender, and MP3s are not. Notice how the RIAA has to file suit while when cloning dollar bills, the secret service shows up at your house.:p

my sig sez it all.

EDIT:Thanks to the astute observation of koolman2, my sig was unwittingly clipped off, which ironically, was the whole point of my brief post.

You're going to have to leave a longer post than that!

US radio is so crappy anymore there is nothing to listen to. It is very intertaining to listen to radio stations for else where in the world. »www.radiolocator.com

If you were getting stuff that is encoded at 192kbps instead of the usual 128, then it would be a lot better.

I download nothing but 256+kbps, and it still sounds like shit. It would sound a lot better if people actually knew how to encode music.

well i guess the average guy doesnt have a clue about VBR and stuff like that and doesnt even know what OGG is.

instead of random places like edonkey, Bittorrent sites are usually very carefully in checking out their uploaders, so, unless you have $10,000 speakers and youthful ears, you won't be able to hear the difference as long as you get it from a site that does NOT allow public uploading.

I'd rather just go buy the CD and have a hard-copy for myself. By the way, I do, in fact, have youthful ears. I'm 18, and was tested a year ago to be able to hear up to the 19kHz range.

I hope you are not listening to the music at volumes that most young people do. Or you won't be hearing anything in the 19khz range for long.