RIAA offers file traders amnesty

[ibe98765]

"hmmm...I know I can buy these songs on a CD for about $20, but I can download them for free with KaZaA...I wonder if this is OK?"  Duh...

wrong. to dispell your misinformation that all people who download know their are CRIMINALS and should be sued til they're blue in the face, please read the following REAL LIFE examples. we live in a complex world, not a RIGHT & WRONG world you seem to portray."its ok to record songs off the radio to a tape, so its ok to download mp3s and record it to a CD"or, "i already own the CD, so i'll just get this and this mp3 for my mp3 player in my car and my mp3 walkman player",or, "i bought this tape or CD 10 years ago. i want to listen to it again, haven't heard guns'n'roses lately on my radio, so i'll burn it to a CD"etc.

All those excuses you posted Prelude are just meaningless rationalizations. None of them will hold up in court if you are sued by the RIAA.If you want more excuses for your collection, you can find some in an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle here:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...10/BU281743.DTLHere's a good one from the story:"I've considered not downloading anymore, but it's not really an option," said [Egan] Brown, who studies at Morehouse College in Atlanta. "I'm kind of bored, money is tight and file sharing gives me access to all the media I want." And here's a quote from a 14 year old legal expert (roflol)Miriam Rosenau, 14, from Berkeley, who has around 100 downloaded songs in her files, said she doesn't think online file swapping should be illegal. In any case, she said, the computer program she uses to download has been broken for a couple months and therefore hasn't had access to any new files. "I don't feel that it's that wrong," Rosenau said. "It seems like they can't really stop it." Then there's this one:Bonnie Hale, a graduate student from Mountain View, said she has only 150 files. Furthermore, she placed all the songs behind a firewall on her computer hard drive. Hale has declined to open her collection to online sharing. The music industry has a much easier time tracking down people who share files. "I'm one of those selfish but safe people," Hale said. Hmmm, all of these people gave their real names and home city. Not to smart if you are a thief, I submit. What if, the RIAA decided that they want anyone they can find who has downloaded music, not just people sharing 1000's of songs. Wouldn't be too hard to find these people and get a supoena to grab their systems for investigation. After all, they publicly admitted committing a crime

[ibe98765]

Thanks Prelude!New development ...CNet Article - P2P group: We'll pay girl's RIAA paymentExcerpts below, full text at site:

P2P group: We'll pay girl's RIAA payment A peer-to-peer group says it will cover costs for a 12-year-old New York girl who agreed to pay record labels $2,000 to settle a file-swapping lawsuit. P2P United, a peer-to-peer industry trade group that includes Grokster, StreamCast Networks, Limewire and other file-trading software companies, said Wednesday it had offered to reimburse Brianna Lahara and her mother's payment to the Recording Industry Association of America. Lahara's mother agreed Tuesday to settle copyright infringement charges on behalf of her daughter. "We do not condone copyright infringement, but someone has to draw the line to call attention to a system that permits multinational corporations with phenomenal financial and political resources to strong-arm 12-year-olds and their families in public housing the way this sorry episode dramatizes," Adam Eisgrau, the executive director of P2P United, said. ---Eisgrau said P2P United had no plans to pay other file-swappers' legal fees. The recently founded group plans to lobby in Washington, D.C., for policies such as compulsory music licensing on peer-to-peer networks, which would force the music companies to allow songs to be traded on file-trading networks in return for some payment to copyright holders.

Great publicity move! Bet they are looking for contributions now. Will you ante up?

[Guest LilBambi]

ibe98765,I think you are missing my point. I do not file share, nor do I condone it. I have even gotten my clients to stop file sharing.I just see a real injustice here and it needs to be remedied legally.Each person is welcome to their opinion as always

[ibe98765]

ibe98765,I think you are missing my point. I do not file share, nor do I condone it. I have even gotten my clients to stop file sharing.I just see a real injustice here and it needs to be remedied legally.Each person is welcome to their opinion as always

I don't think I missed your point.

I just see a real injustice here and it needs to be remedied legally.

I agree with you on this statement and that is exactly what is happening. The injustice is that too many people are becoming very nonchalant about stealing anything that isn't nailed down. And they are being prosecuted legally. SO why is there any problem?OTOH, if you are thinking that Congress needs to change the laws so that stealing is now legal, well, that's a different question.btw: for religious people, isn't there something in the 10 commandments saying "Thou shall not steal"?

[Guest LilBambi]

Then you are missing my point, it did not have to be considered stealing!Radio is not considered stealing! It could have been the same thing. Advertising.

[ibe98765]

Then you are missing my point, it did not have to be considered stealing!Radio is not considered stealing! It could have been the same thing. Advertising.

Well, regardless of what any of us THINK the law should be, the reality is that it is what it is. You can choose to ignore it, but then there are penalities for doing so. I shed no tears for anyone (including myself) who chooses to violate a law and gets caught (shrug). As I've said previously, if more people would take responsibility fo their actions, the world would be a better place to live in.If you disagree with any law, then you should be contacting your elected officials and making your views heard. They are the only ones who can effect a change. This will require a lot of people making contact because big business owns most of the politicians in the U.S.

[nlinecomputers]

Lilbambi,I see your point but I can't see how or why the music industry would agree to that. I can see file sharing all but eliminating CDs in the next five years. Especially if new formats improve the sound quality of files. Get an easy to download file that is CD quality and you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone buy a CD legal or not. How is the music industry supposed to make money if NO ONE buys their product. Some claim that oversees piracy has hurt CD sales. In the US I can't see that as a problem. I've never seen a counterfeit CD. Sales are down in the US directly because of KaZaa and other music sharing nets.

[Guest LilBambi]

I do not ignore it. I don't take part in file sharing.But I do feel for those who are coming up against this.I have already contacted my representatives in congress and the senate about this.

[nlinecomputers]

Ibe,There is value in breaking a law because it is unjust. Honestly I've yet to meet a file sharer that was sharing music as some grand protest. They do it because it's free and they don't see the value of what is being stolen.

[ibe98765]

Ibe,There is value in breaking a law because it is unjust.  Honestly I've yet to meet a file sharer that was sharing music as some grand protest.  They do it because it's free and they don't see the value of what is being stolen.

I agree about unjust laws. For instance, most people ignored the 55mph maximum speed limit that we had in the past. However, we still got tickets when caught, we had to pay the price of the conviction and our insurance costs went up. There were a number of organizations and lawyers that fought against this limit and it took a good number of years to eliminate it. Then there was that tax the English king passed on tea back in England in the 1770's... But music downloading is another story. I don't see any unjustness here. If you don't like what the music companies are offering or don't like the pricing they set, then don't buy the product. They'll get the message eventually. But taking what you want because you don't like their business model is no different than going into the drug store and taking what you want because you don't agree with the prices being charged.No matter how many people kick and scream about this subject, Congress is simply not going to legalize outright stealing by consumers. Only big companies get legalized stealing via loopholes in the U.S. tax code And in this case, the RIAA is not just going after consumers. I understand that many companies and universities have been contacted by them and also threatened with legal actions if they don't clean up their own acts.

[Stryder]

Ibe,There is value in breaking a law because it is unjust.  Honestly I've yet to meet a file sharer that was sharing music as some grand protest.  They do it because it's free and they don't see the value of what is being stolen.

And if you did meet one who IS sharing as some great protest, would you even believe them??? Or should they chain themselves to a recording artist instead???Don't take this post in a serious manner because it sure was not meant to be taken in one.

[Guest LilBambi]

Litigation is not the answer

The music industry would be better off embracing and developing new technology rather than trying to stop people from using it, writes Ian BrownThe RIAA has started by claiming up to $150m (£94m) from each of 261 users. But with an estimated 60 million further targets in the US alone, this could prove to be a highly profitable new business venture for music companies. Teenagers may make up half of that number, but their parents certainly have assets that could be seized.---All of this could have been so different if the music industry had seized the opportunity presented by the internet over the last 10 years. Every user could by now have effortless access to all of the music ever published. Artists could have received royalties from a vastly expanded marketplace. Instead, their employers have expended all of their energy suing their customers and lobbying for increasingly harsh copyright laws.Even now, the RIAA is unsatisfied with its powers to bankrupt file sharers. They have pushed legislation in the US Senate that would force all electronics manufacturers to include copy restriction technology in devices such as CD and DVD players. And Senator Orrin Hatch, songwriter and chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, said entirely seriously in June that after two warnings, file-sharers' computers should be remotely destroyed. This may seem like a disproportionate response to the sharing of the senator's songs (although doubtless Our Gracious Lord, Climb Inside His Loving Arms, and How His Glory Shine are a pleasure to the ears). But the RIAA was clear that "Congress may be forced to consider stronger measures".

[epp_b]

wrong. to dispell your misinformation that all people who download know their are CRIMINALS and should be sued til they're blue in the face, please read the following REAL LIFE examples. we live in a complex world, not a RIGHT & WRONG world you seem to portray.

Prelude, I find it hilariously ironic that you say I'm wrong, and then go on to say that it is "...a complex world, not a RIGHT & WRONG world..."BTW, I don't see how it can't be right and wrong. If there was no such concept, how could we say that murder was wrong???As far as your "examples" go, sorry, most of them are pretty flimsy, and won't fly in court.

"its ok to record songs off the radio to a tape, so its ok to download mp3s and record it to a CD"

A radio just plays the popular songs that everyone will buy anyway. You can usually even get popular songs with a search engine such as AllTheWeb.

or, "i already own the CD, so i'll just get this and this mp3 for my mp3 player in my car and my mp3 walkman player",

I'll buy that. You've already paid for it, so you're just making it more convenient for yourself.

or, "i bought this tape or CD 10 years ago. i want to listen to it again, haven't heard guns'n'roses lately on my radio, so i'll burn it to a CD"

So, if you have the tape or CD, why aren't you listening to that instead?

or, "i remember this group from the vinyl / 8-track days. i used to listen to it all the time. my kid said he could get it for me from the internet, so why not? its not like my car has a vinyl or 8-track player, and i already paid for that music a long time ago"

There are PLENTY of old songs from decades ago that have been put onto CD's. Go and buy it.

or, "i just want that one song by J. Lo, but i dont like her other songs, and she doesnt offer that one single song on a single CD. i'll just download it, and make a compilation cd from my other dance cds."

Well, unless you have specific permission from J. Lo or her copyrighter, that's pretty lame. One song is just as valuable as another, and, if you can't find it on a single CD, find an onilne service that allows you to legitimately download hit singles.

or, "tapes used to cost $10. now, CDs cost $25+, yet CDs are cheaper to make than tapes. and artists still get 10 cents out of every tape/CD purchased, so who does the other 24.90$ go to? screw them, i'm just going to download it"

Copyrighters, Labels, Manufacturers....Again, pretty flimsy. Just because you aren't being told exactly what costs get distributed where, what difference does that make?

or, "there is this great new DJ from Holland. i heard he's good, but i can't find his music anywhere in the local music store. they said i could order it special, takes 4 to 6 weeks and $35, and i dont even know if he's really that good, so i'll just download it and listen to it first"

Well, sorry, that's part of the business.

or, "this local DJ had a live set last summer at this toronto club. my friend said he download the live set, and its great, better than all their CDs i have, so i'm going to download it too since its not even available in stores."

Too bad! If you want concert music, then you have to pay for a concert!

or, "i liked the Canadian Idol performances on TV, and i bought their CD compilation, but it has just 1 song from each contestant. i found my favorite contestant's mp3s that someone recorded from the tv show. now i can hear all 10 of their songs, which are NOT available anywhere else"

OK, but these songs aren't copyrighted by these singers, as far as I know. If you want to download them, I can see this being a valid reason, but it's a little iffy with some people. (Although, I don't know why you'd want to listen to anything from Canadian Idol anyway )

or, "i'm broke, the bill collectors are calling, and i just got laid off. but i've been dying for this new CD from so and so. i'll just download it for now, and once i get a job, i'll buy their CD to support them, if i like the CD"

Basic Necessities of life: Food, Shelter, Clothing....Since when did music become one? You can wait. You're not dying from "muscial starvation"

or, "i was watching MuchMusic on TV, and linkin park was interviewed and they told everyone to go download their songs from kazaa in mp3 format if you want. they gave all their fans permission, coz they love their fans. they rock! i'm downloading their songs now, and i'll probably buy their CD next allowance. (p.s.. - this is TRUE story, i saw the linking park interview where they said that)

Well....it's their songs, and they said it. If you can prove it in court with footage, I don't see why this wouldn't work.

[Prelude76]

All those excuses you posted Prelude are just meaningless rationalizations.  None of them will hold up in court if you are sued by the RIAA.If you want more excuses for your collection, you can find some in an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle

ok, since you missed the entire POINT of that message, i'm going to have to spell it out. those weren't MY points. someone implied that everyone who steals KNOWS they're a criminal, and should be treated like a criminal. i gave real world 'possibilities' of how different people view file sharing of mp3s, to show that there's probably many many people sharing that DONT see it as a heinous-douple-plus-evil-crime-of-the-century as some people suggest it is.

[Prelude76]

Then you are missing my point, it did not have to be considered stealing!Radio is not considered stealing! It could have been the same thing. Advertising.

even Linkin Park considers it as a form of FREE advertising, since they were TELLING kids to download their songs from kazaa. i'm sure they're getting reamed for that comment now by their music producers, right? but its their music, and they gave me permission to download it verbally, so again, how is that theft is someone OFFERS it for free?

[Prelude76]

Sales are down in the US directly because of KaZaa and other music sharing nets.

i respectully disagree. that is not a FACT. i read in an article (though i cant find it thru google and didnt bookmark it coz it was a few years back) that the FIRST YEAR the RIAA claimed sales dropped about 6%, that the big music industry actually released about 8% LESS CD releases. whether it was done on purpose, or whether independent releases are growing, or that there simply was a lack of CD releases in 2001/2002 for other reasons, blaming a 6% drop on 8% less CDs shows statistics can be manipulated any way to serve a purpose. i'm sure kazaa nowadays is putting some dent into their sales, but blaming all their troubles on them is a lame business practice. theres many other factors. we're in a semi-major recession, unemployment is at its highest in years, CDs are still too expensive, independent internet-based musicians are selling more, and european independent DJ artists are quite popular as well, all resulting in less money into RIAA's coffers.(p.s. i just use 6% and 8% arbitrally; dont recall the exact figures, although the fact that i recall was there was less albums released than previous years, which naturally mean less potential for CD sales)

[havnblast]

Right - they have proved that CD sales were not down because of the file sharing. Propaganda is all it is.

[Prelude76]

sorry, dont mean to post so many replies, but i missed a lively debate last night, just playing catch up

A radio just plays the popular songs that everyone will buy anyway.

very good point. now, please explain why the same arguement cant be said about mp3 downloading? i think the RIAA missed the gravy boat of free unlimited advertising that p2p sharing could've unleashed, instead, they just want to demonize the practice.

As far as your "examples" go, sorry, most of them are pretty flimsy, and won't fly in court.

i know this. i was giving examples how some people rationalize the so-called THEFT of music. just showing that not everyone thinks of it as a crime.

So, if you have the tape or CD, why aren't you listening to that instead?

because i'm an inorganized person and after 4 moves from my parents house when i last seen my g'n'r CD, i have no clue where it is. all i know is that i saved up $30 to buy the 2-CD g'n'r blue and orange set at some point of my life, so why pay for it again?

find an onilne service that allows you to legitimately download hit singles.

not a good arguement to stop kazaa users. only recently did such services appear, and the songs are severely DRM'ed, some to prevent copying to a CD, and a recent ebay case shows its not really YOUR song and you can't re-sell it, so why pay for something that doesnt BECOME yours? and other services such as buymusic.com dont work in Firebird, and i shouldnt have to change media player and internet browser of MY choice to accomodate this. so until more PRACTICAL web mp3 sales exist, its an invalid reason to tell someone to buy it online.

Too bad! If you want concert music, then you have to pay for a concert!

i might be wrong on this and sorry if i am, but i was under impression recordings of live performances was allowed. if its not, then its another example how b**l these copyright laws are, not allowing you to record sounds you hear resonating in the free air we breathe.

Well....it's their songs, and they said it. If you can prove it in court with footage, I don't see why this wouldn't work.

i think i'll record the footage, then share every single linking park song until RIAA pounces on me and see how this one holds up in court.

[Peachy]

Too bad! If you want concert music, then you have to pay for a concert!

i might be wrong on this and sorry if i am, but i was under impression recordings of live performances was allowed. if its not, then its another example how b**l these copyright laws are, not allowing you to record sounds you hear resonating in the free air we breathe.

Actually, Prelude,under current Canadian and American copyright laws you are not allowed to record live performances in any way, shape, or form, mechanical, digital or otherways without express written consent from the holders of said copyrighted material. That's why we have bootleg recordings!

[Prelude76]

Actually, Prelude,under current Canadian and American copyright laws you are not allowed to record live performances in any way, shape, or form, mechanical, digital or otherways without express written consent from the holders of said copyrighted material. That's why we have bootleg recordings! 

dang it. i can almost hear the pitter patter of goose-stepping boots in our FREE society.

[nlinecomputers]

Actually, Prelude,under current Canadian and American copyright laws you are not allowed to record live performances in any way, shape, or form, mechanical, digital or otherways without express written consent from the holders of said copyrighted material. That's why we have bootleg recordings! 

dang it. i can almost hear the pitter patter of goose-stepping boots in our FREE society.

Personally If I was a concert performer I would be upset at bootleggers. They sell concert tapes and albums. Everyone is so against the RIAA if there was no RIAA and a musician got every cent from concerts and tapes and CD would you still be so willing to steal from them. A concert is a performance and they only make money by charging people for the right to see or hear it. Bootlegging a concert is blantant robbery.

[Prelude76]

Personally If I was a concert performer I would be upset at bootleggers.  They sell concert tapes and albums.  Everyone is so against the RIAA if there was no RIAA and a musician got every cent from concerts and tapes and CD would you still be so willing to steal from them.  A concert is a performance and they only make money by charging people for the right to see or hear it.  Bootlegging a concert is blantant robbery.

is it considered 'blatant robbery' if you have attended the concert personally, and want to have memories of how the band sounded that day?call me naive, but i don't see how recording notes that resonate in the air around us is put in same league as 'blatant robbery'.

[Guest LilBambi]

BigChampagne is Watching You

In fact, they're tracking every download and selling the data to the music industry. How one company is turning file-sharing networks into the world's biggest focus group.---Fleischer hangs up, turns to his computer, and clicks through an online database. On his screen, he can see in astonishing detail when, where, and what Internet users are sharing on peer-to-peer file-swapping services like Kazaa, Morpheus, and Grokster. He searches for cities where downloads of the band's single are outpacing its exposure on radio. He likes what he sees. In Atlanta, sharing of the group's new album is up more than 1,200 percent over the previous week; in Houston and New York, 300 percent. So Fleischer checks to see how much airplay the track is getting on alternative rock stations in those markets. Very little, it turns out - less than five spins per week in each city. "Jesus," he whispers. In Houston, "KTBZ only spun it once, and it still got into the top 15 downloads. This is hot."--According to on-the-record statements by many major labels, the scene I witnessed in Fleischer's office couldn't possibly have happened. But Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne, says his firm is working with Maverick, Atlantic, Warner Bros., Interscope, DreamWorks, Elektra, and Disney's Hollywood label. The labels are reticent to admit their relationship with BigChampagne for public relations reasons, but there's a legal rationale, too. The record industry's lawsuits against file-sharing companies hang on their assertion that the programs have no use other than to help infringe copyrights. If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance. "We would definitely consider gleaning marketing wisdom from these networks a non-infringing use," says Fred von Lohmann, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the San Francisco-based cyber liberties group that's helping to defend Morpheus, Grokster, and Kazaa.But even as the industry as a whole litigates, many of the individual labels are quietly reaching out to BigChampagne, turning file-sharing networks into the world's biggest focus group. In the beleaguered music business, this market research strategy that dare not speak its name is fast becoming the Nielsen ratings of the peer-to-peer world.

[Prelude76]

great article, lil bambi. goes good with the arguement that p2p should perhaps be viewed as unlimited free advertising, not as the great evil file sharing network.

[Jeber]

Knowing that your file-sharing habits may make you a target for even more spam (sorry..."targeted advertising" ) could do more to kill interest in P2P networks than any threat of legal action.

[Guest LilBambi]

Jeber,You are absolutely right. It is another reason I don't do filesharing. But it is an apparently VERY profitable business for BigChampagne and one that makes P2P filesharing a desireable thing to many record labels.

[Guest LilBambi]

Music industry moguls have only selves to blame for sagging sales - by Dave Allen

Here's why the industry is in its precarious position: 1. It's the Internet, stupid! Music industry executives saw the deluge arriving in 1997 but did nothing to stem the tide. Instead of proactively embracing the Internet as a golden marketing opportunity, they did nothing. When they finally realized that millions of shiny discs full of ones and zeros were sitting around in homes just waiting to be copied, they decided that litigation was the best means of defense. 2. Music catalog licensing. When approached by EMusic.com, Listen.com and other legal music downloading companies that wanted to negotiate licenses for the rights to their music catalogs, the music industry executives stonewalled and in some instances refused to take meetings with them. These legitimate companies found themselves in the ridiculous position of winning licensing contracts with, say, Sony or EMI Records but being unable to win agreements with the other three major labels. As general manager of EMusic.com in 1999, I found this activity by the labels to be the single most frustrating part of my job. Even when I joined Intel in late 2000, the landscape had not changed; it was still extremely difficult to talk to the labels about licensing their catalogs. 3. The customer is always right. How many companies in the world today find it prudent to sue their own customers? Music lovers have spoken and they clearly desire the ability to be able to buy and download music. And they want access to all of the music -- not just the 250,000 songs that are available now. They want a simple-to-use, cross-platform downloading service that allows them to purchase all songs by every single artist.---And as a professional musician with a deep catalog of music still in the hands of the major labels, I feel that I can say with confidence that it is the music industry itself, especially here in North America, that is destroying the music industry. Dave Allen is president of Overland Entertainment, a division of Overland Agency Inc. in Portland.

OEbase.com - Dave Allen's Overland Entertainment site

[ibe98765]

All those excuses you posted Prelude are just meaningless rationalizations.  None of them will hold up in court if you are sued by the RIAA.If you want more excuses for your collection, you can find some in an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle

ok, since you missed the entire POINT of that message, i'm going to have to spell it out. those weren't MY points. someone implied that everyone who steals KNOWS they're a criminal, and should be treated like a criminal. i gave real world 'possibilities' of how different people view file sharing of mp3s, to show that there's probably many many people sharing that DONT see it as a heinous-douple-plus-evil-crime-of-the-century as some people suggest it is.

AGAIN, they are merely EXCUSES. If you are arrested or sued for violating some law, in court, it doesn't generally matter what YOU (generic you) think should be the law. It doesn't matter that you are ignorant of the law. It doesn't matter that you personally believe that all content should be free. Nothing matters except the basic question - did you violate the law or not? Of course, the judge generally has the ability to choose a punishment, based on your personal circumstances, that will fit the extent of the crime and hopefully act as deterrent in the future. As a citizen, it is YOUR responsibility to understand the laws related to anything you do. That's why you generally have to study a book and take a test before you can get a drivers license - to make sure you understand the laws and rules of the road. Perhaps we need a test before people can get a license to download making sure they understand the basic laws related to copyright?

[ibe98765]

A somewhat rambling but interesting column on this subject from the San Francisco columnist Jon Carroll:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../11/DD46077.DTL

[Guest LilBambi]

A somewhat rambling but interesting column on this subject from the San Francisco columnist Jon Carroll:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../11/DD46077.DTL

Excellent article. He sure can write an article. And that was a short one compared with some articles I've read on the different aspects of this mess.