What actions to you believe the RIAA will take next?
How much time do you think you have before your number might be up in this game?
My dad is a lawyer, and basically has become worried due to the recent events .
I'd like to views you people might have on this, if you all wouldn't mind. [ 09-08-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMunch ]
quote:
FrostyMunch had this to say about Duck Tales:
I'd like to views you people might have on this, if you all wouldn't mind.
Well, look at it this way: The RIAA will singlehandedly negate Bushes war, and restoration of Iraq, fucking up our economy 
[ 09-08-2003: Message edited by: Talonus ]
What the RIAA is doing isn't popular, but it's definitely understandable. I think there will always be music and movies offered for free or reduced price on the internet, but the record and movie companies will close that gap as long as they continue making strides in online music distribution.
The days of the high priced CD with 2-3 good songs and the rest being filler are numbered. Universal has already decided to slash prices on CD's by 33%.
I suppose this is the internet's version of a "free market" economy 
.
quote:
Tatsukaze was listening to Cher while typing:
Does anyone else find it highly ironic that the RIAA is suing people for listening and getting other people to listen to their music?
Not when the listening is what they are selling.
It'd be like getting free lap dances. It's not too profitable.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Tatsukaze said:
Does anyone else find it highly ironic that the RIAA is suing people for listening and getting other people to listen to their music?
I find it ironic that the RIAA is suing people instead of the individual record labels.
rice ration.[ 09-08-2003: Message edited by: Alaan ]
A lot of file-sharers are 18- and have no access to a credit card, the music industry would have to find a way to distribute to them without the need for bank credit. Store-bought prepaid cards for example would make a good basic method to buy music online, you go to a store / bank, get yourself 20$ worth of '.NET credit' and go buy yourself a few songs. As an incentive to buy CDs they could include additional credit with bought CDs, so instead of getting a disk worth of music for 13$ you'd get a disk + 5$ of download credit to check out some other music you might like, hell just print it on there 'if you enjoyed this album you might want to try X, Y and Z, with the enclosed credit you can get some of their songs to listen to off our website'.
Another possiblitiy for credit distribution, at least in Europe where every 12 year old has a cell phone would be to integrate that directly into a cell, you call a number, validate the payment via a pin code and have the money go into your credit fund. If they could set up such a system and maybe get into cooperation with PayPal it would open a far greater part of the 14-18 buyer segment to internet trade, the fact that this particular market segment is very willing to buy in this way is proven by the great success of cellphone ringtone / logo services.
As for the technical part I'd do partly a classic download server as a root and a bit-torrent style tracker for new 'hit' songs, cutting down on bandwidth needed to sustain the service by proritizing other peers as download sources and only filling from the root server when either a part is missing or download speed for a client drops below a certain treshhold. Offer people the opporunity to 'earn' credit by seeding legal files on your network, thus buying back cheap bandwidth and at the same time getting a positive marketing edge by marketing it in a 'don't be a leech-earn money' sort of way.
Guaranteed speed and reliability are important factors when it comes to driving the users off free file sharing services. If you can offer 80kb / s for any song at any time for a low price people will get annoyed with traditional software that suffers from issues we're all aware of.
Another important part is to stop all the copy protection DRM whatever bullshit that is going on. Encourage peopele to make their own compilations, remixes etc from the songs they download. Market the fact that they can just make themselves a few copies for their car, their grandmother's house, hell even their friends. Buying music from you should be the most comfortable solution for obtaining it, and since you're selling relatively cheap goods you don't need that much of an edge to make buying worthwhile.
People will always share their music / VCRs etc with their close social cirles, the industry hasn't been able to stop that since the age of casette decks so they shouldn't keep trying to fight it now. Give yourself a positive image by endorsing say....one copy for out of house use, if people stop seeing the industry in a negative light and see them offering reasonable down-to-reality conditions they might start feeling bad about fucking it over and pay 3$ instead of running over to a friend's house a burning the song.
Of course none of this will stop illegal downloading, no matter how successful such a scheme would be, people would still download off IRCs, P2P nets etc, but at that point the industry wouldn't have to worry about it, with all the perks to buying from them they could be sure that the only people downloading are those who for some reason or another wouldn't have bought it under any circumstance (mostly the utterly broke and a bunch of kids enjoying the 'thrill' of the evil side of the internet), while some music would still be listened to illegaly chasing those people down would not be worth the trouble and especially the loss of image since they would have already tapped all customer potential, making the actual loss of revenue from the few songs those people would have bought very miniscule.
....my take on the whole thing. But I guess suing the crap out of your customer base works as well, who am I to tell them what to do.
quote:
Ace in the Spade said this about your mom:
Heres my question? Has there actually been any law that saws file sharing is illegal? And not hinted at, is there an actual law I can find one the net or in a law book that specifies this. Because if not, then I don't see how they can charge someone with a crime when its not even considered illegal. Also what is the whole deal on people that have downloaded yet did not share files? Is that illegal? From what I've seen, is that the RIAA is trying to steamroll its way through to sueing thousands of people and scaring them into settlements before their are actual hearings and laws being put in place. So fuck the RIAA and their scare tactics is what I say. Ooh Tactics. I need to get that game...
Look up the DMCA. If you touch a mp3 they own they can bascially fuck with your life as much as they please.
[ 09-08-2003: Message edited by: Falaanla Marr ]
quote:
Ace in the Spade screamed this from the crapper:
Heres my question? Has there actually been any law that saws file sharing is illegal? And not hinted at, is there an actual law I can find one the net or in a law book that specifies this. Because if not, then I don't see how they can charge someone with a crime when its not even considered illegal. Also what is the whole deal on people that have downloaded yet did not share files? Is that illegal? From what I've seen, is that the RIAA is trying to steamroll its way through to sueing thousands of people and scaring them into settlements before their are actual hearings and laws being put in place. So fuck the RIAA and their scare tactics is what I say. Ooh Tactics. I need to get that game...
Actually, the RIAA may not even have a leg to stand on.
quote:
From a different board, the poster of which probably got it from someplace else:Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01/0018.html
From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:
"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html
Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.
So it would seem that filesharing, as long as it's for noncommercial use, may be perfectly legal.
It should also be noted that U.S. "fair use" legislation limits copyrights, and nullifies any anti-copyright provisions in EULAs for the simple reason that any part of the contract which violates the law is unenforceable.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Shazorx / Modrakien painfully thought these words up:
Look up the DMCA. If you touch a mp3 they own they can bascially fuck with your life as much as they please.
You're being a bit broad there, don't need to scare the kid too much.
Filesharing, including the filesharing of MP3s, in and of itself is not illegal. Its the trading of copyrighted material that's illegal. There's plenty of MP3s made and released by artists over filesharing services.
Of course, when it comes to copyrighted materials they can fuck with your life as they please. The DMCA needs a lot of work, but its kind of doubtful it'll get any soon. And hey, the RIAA can buy laws, as they've done in the past, to cover any free reign they lose if the DMCA is redone.
I quote the 4th Amendment:
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
quote:
Tatsukaze had this to say about Duck Tales:
Can't the record industry going in and downloading mp3's on your computer be considered illegal search and seizure and therefore unconstitutional (because there's no warrant)?I quote the 4th Amendment:
If they have reasonable reasonable proof that a crime has been committed, they can search without a warrant, at least thats how I understand it. I could be wrong.
(NOTE HOW I AM NOT GOING INTO MY OPINIONS ON MP3S!)
quote:
Falaanla Marr wrote this stupid crap:
If they have reasonable reasonable proof that a crime has been committed, they can search without a warrant, at least thats how I understand it. I could be wrong.(NOTE HOW I AM NOT GOING INTO MY OPINIONS ON MP3S!)
Nah, they can just use the search function of Kazaa etc to show the publically available files you share, but they can't hack into your computer to check if you're sharing files via a security hole etc.
quote:
Shazorx / Modrakien had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Nah, they can just use the search function of Kazaa etc to show the publically available files you share, but they can't hack into your computer to check if you're sharing files via a security hole etc.
Either way, they can find out you are sharing files illegaly
quote:
Falaanla Marr wrote this stupid crap:
Either way, they can find out you are sharing files illegaly
True, but there's a difference between them having the right to hack your computer and them having the right to file charges based off what you offer for the internet at large to see.
quote:
Shazorx / Modrakien's fortune cookie read:
True, but there's a difference between them having the right to hack your computer and them having the right to file charges based off what you offer for the internet at large to see.
yeah.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
So quoth Karnaj:
But as both the current "fair use" legislation and the AHRA are older than the DMCA, don't they both trump them? Or am I just going to go unrefuted here?
I don't see why AHRA doesn't apply. It's specifically geared for that sort of thing. Unless, of course, that the later laws were written to amend or supersede the older laws. If they do supersede the laws, then it's largely a case of the industry successfully lobbying to get their own way, and bureaucracy rolls on.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Shazorx / Modrakien:
Nah, they can just use the search function of Kazaa etc to show the publically available files you share, but they can't hack into your computer to check if you're sharing files via a security hole etc.
Eh, its only a matter of time before they can do that probably. They were trying to get a law passed that would allow them to DOS attack known sharer's computers or networks, potentially causing as much damage as they pleased. I haven't heard about this in awhile though, so maybe it got defeated.
Concerning the DMCA and AHRA, I believe there's a good deal of arguements over whether or not you're covered. You're allowed to make as many analog copies, aka casettes, as you want and you're totally protected. For digital copies though there's certain restrictions that determine if you're protected or not though. Furthermore, there's certain levels of ambiguity in it for whatever reasons. I believe "multi-purpose" devices, like a computer or CDR, aren't covered by the AHRA. Hell, I believe the RIAA won a suit that made it so portable MP3 players wouldn't be covered either. In other words, the RIAA will find some loophole in the AHRA to prosecute you concerning MP3s and you're screwed. If I'm wrong though anyone here feel free to correct me.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Guys I hate to tell you this. But having copies of songs that you didn't purchase the right to is illegal. You are in possesion of copyrighted material that you did not purchase the right to own.
Except the discussion isn't really about that. We're dicussing whether or not the filesharing as a whole is legal or illegal, whether or not the RIAA's actions will have any effect on filesharing as a whole, and whether or not the RIAA's actions are legal or illegal. Oh yeah, and subtle expressions of hate for the RIAA. Can't forget that.
Of course, I hate to tell you this, but to be technical your post isn't even correct either. See my post concerning the AHRA. Having a casette tape that someone gave you of copyrighted material is fine and legal, really it is. The whole problem revolves around the electronic medium. Totally different situation.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Duck Tales:
Guys I hate to tell you this. But having copies of songs that you didn't purchase the right to is illegal. You are in possesion of copyrighted material that you did not purchase the right to own.
Fair use overriding copyrights to some extent is not unheard of. Copying music or programs for your 'close friends' was perfectly legal untill recently in Austria for example. [ 09-09-2003: Message edited by: Shazorx / Modrakien ]
So Talonus, you are telling me that I can make copies of CDs and just pass them out to people free and clear. I am breaking no laws and causing no problems.
I am afriad I have to call bullshit on that...
File trading software is not illegal. However most of the uses for it are.
I can go buy a lockpick. However if I use it to break into your house and kill you then I have broken the law.
Except for Karnaj, because he's smarter than all of you. [ 09-09-2003: Message edited by: Snoota ]
quote:
How.... Azizza.... uughhhhhh:
Fair use means you can make copies for yourself, etc. Not making copies and giving them out.So Talonus, you are telling me that I can make copies of CDs and just pass them out to people free and clear. I am breaking no laws and causing no problems.
I am afriad I have to call bullshit on that...
I call bullshit too. Read what I said again. You can make ANALOG copies. That means casette tapes, NOT CDs. Once it hits anything concerning a CD, its illegal.
