I can't believe this cr*p!!!

[stopthegop]

Kids of 5 and 6 know not to steal else they will get in to trouble, you cant say they dont know right from wrong.

They know not to steal: this is true.  But what they might not know is what actions constitute stealing.  For example, kids are encouraged from a very young age to "use" or to cite the writings of other authors to strengthen their own argument, but with one catch:  they must credit the original author; failure to do so constitutes plaigerism or "stealing".   Kids aren't taught that also have to pay royalties to the original author's media rep and litigation team.  I see very little difference in a teenager's (properly credited) "use" of copyrighted print material such as books or magazine articles, and the personal "use" of ubiquitous music files.   The mere idea that ASCAP et al can regulate and control every single digital copy of any particular file is absurd beyond belief.  Add to that the fact that they can selectively punish people for merely opening a copy of such a file?  How is posessing a sound file any different than posessing a copy of some pdf file that happens to be copyrighted.  They're both 1s and 0s, thats it.   I see no problem with someone listening to "Voodoo Child", as long as they don't claim to have written it themselves.        

[Delta]

The whole pirate hunting that those RIAA or MPAA inquisitor is a lot of bull***t.   There is very few real pirates that re-sell the medias they download or copy.  The average citizens of so-called developped countries (like me or most of you) already pay for internet service, telephone line, Cable TV and many other means of communication.  When I buy a CD or a DVD I already pay for those who will copy it, it is included in the price!  

We are being sucked out of our money constantly and to add to this they want to make us feel guilty of downloading a few songs and movies???  No way!

People would never buy 90% of the stuff they get from the net anyways.  They would not make anymore money with us even if the net was piracy-proof.  Seems they don't get it tho.

What's wrong with the law in the USA? Looks like nobody can make a move without being sued by the first {bleep} that shows up there?  The "Land of the free" needs a reviewal of policies.  

My 2 cents...

[pixie]

But lets face it theft is theft no matter how you look at it.

Theft in which way? They way prices are practiced?

[KThunder]

its easy to say they are "targetting" students but most of the college students that i know, and i know many, out download anyone else i know by a factor of 3 or more. except my older brother who has thousands of songs.

if i download one song my ip will be there once, if i download hundreds... you get the point. if her fine was 3000 and she was being forced to pay 7.60 i think for each that comes out to 400 songs or so?

people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.

[KThunder]

pixie wrote:

Theft in which way? They way prices are practiced?

most record companies make pennies per cd the only reason they have large of money is because they sell millions of cds. if you have millions of people downloading music they lose the millions of pennies.

it is the same as commercial software they are trying to make money and it really shouldnt be wrong to protect themselves.

[Tomas]

most record companies make pennies per cd the only reason they have large of money is because they sell millions of cds. if you have millions of people downloading music they lose the millions of pennies.

You got it completely wrong! It is the artists that make pennies per cd while the record company take most of the share.

[stopthegop]

people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.

No they don't.  If they want "full control" then they ought not release such work into the public domain.  There is a such thing in law called "Fair Use".  Its what allows me to read (ie "use") a copyrighted newspaper article and when I'm finished, hand it to my wife to read.  Even though we only paid once, both of us are legally allowed to read it, right?

If an artist want absolute "individual" rights to his work, then he needs to keep it to himself.  Once he releases it into the public domain, especially for commercial purposes, then he (rightly and naturally, imho) loses some of that absolute control.  Copyright is designed to allow the artist to retain some control, but not all.  That would be like itemizing my tax check, telling the Federal Gov't precisely what I wanted my personal tax dollars spent on.  

[KThunder]

tomas wrote:
You got it completely wrong! It is the artists that make pennies per cd while the record company take most of the share.  
 



marketing, production, and distrabution cost nothing then? not the mention trying to protect your product from people who think its ok to cut them out of any profits

[KThunder]

stopthegop wrote:

people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.

No they don't.  If they want "full control" then they ought not release such work into the public domain.  There is a such thing in law called "Fair Use".  Its what allows me to read (ie "use") a copyrighted newspaper article and when I'm finished, hand it to my wife to read.  Even though we only paid once, both of us are legally allowed to read it, right?

If an artist want absolute "individual" rights to his work, then he needs to keep it to himself.  Once he releases it into the public domain, especially for commercial purposes, then he (rightly and naturally, imho) loses some of that absolute control.  Copyright is designed to allow the artist to retain some control, but not all.  That would be like itemizing my tax check, telling the Federal Gov't precisely what I wanted my personal tax dollars spent on.  

noone cares if you make a million copies of a cd for your own personal use that you bought yourself. but thats not what we are talking about here is it. this girl did not own any of the music she downloaded
it is not in the public domain
your logic doesnt follow. what if the record company sold one copy of a cd-one and millions of people downloaded it off the owners site. is that right? yes i can loan my cd to a freind and obviously they can listen to it with me but again that isnt what we are talking about.

[Markus_Bieler]

@ RRunner

So now the music industry is trying to get rid of this tax so that they can prevent music piracy

Same dilemma here in Switzerland. The SUISA (= swiss RIAA) demanded a tax on every recordable media to cover their "damage" by copying music etc. They got the tax but the parliament ruled that "copying amongst friends and neigbours" may not be punished.

It would be even legal to share via E-Mule (P2P) etc. if one could prove "they are all friends. :-D "

Markus

[vic20owner]

If you are going to download music at least do it from a free public wireless network! Duh.

[TheMagicM]

when it comes to piracy i dont really care.  what people do on their own time is their business.  this applies to my stance on Amiga software, PC software, PS2 games etc.

[Vincent]

KThunder wrote:
marketing, production, and distrabution cost nothing then? not the mention trying to protect your product from people who think its ok to cut them out of any profits

Yes they do cost, but the majority of the profits goes directly to the label, the artists are usually lucky if they get half what the label gets.

Unless you're running your own label or you're a big star (like U2, Elton John big, not Spice Girls big) then you're not going to be making too much money.

Artists make more money by touring than releasing albums/singles.

And instead of paying money on this copy protection stuff they should just do an internal investigation and find the people who leak the stuff online.  They've got more chance at being successful that way.

@Roj, you beat me to the Reznor link :-P

from the article:
Barg couldn't imagine anyone expected her to pay $3,000 — $7.87 per song — for some 1980s ballads and Spice Girls tunes she downloaded for laughs in her dorm room.

The thing is, they've to discount this sh*tpop to sell the CDs when they're new yet they still charge the premium for the copyright theft when they're lucky to actually get a legal sale of the song now?

[Tomas]

people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.

That is true for USA, but many European countries have a law called fair usage, which covers backup copies for personal usage and even copies for your close friends and families and all of this is entirely legal even though the music industry want to brainwash your otherwise. It is also legal to circumvent drm to lets say play back your legally bought music on lets say your mp3 player or play back your dvd on for example linux or amiga.
It is by the way NOT legal here to put drm on audio cds without placing a warning on the cover and your entitled full refund if you bought a DRM enabled album without this warning.

[spirantho]

It amazes me that people still have this attitude... they know they're doing something illegal, and rather than not do it, they just wail and moan about how unfair it is when they get caught!

Theft is theft, I don't care whether you're walking into a shop and stealing a CD or downloading it from someone else's hard disk, fact is you're stealing the intellectual property of the person who recorded that. Hence no sympathy from me.

Oh, and as for why they picked Uni people? I would imagine two reasons:
1) IP addresses are all static and easily traceable to email address and real addresses.
2) If you're going to make an example of someone, students are best because there are so many like-minded people around them so word of mouth will travel fast.

I know I'm in the minority but I think people should PAY the people who are trying to make a living from recording music, I don't care at all if the cost of a CD is too expensive for a "poor" person to buy, if you can't afford it you can't have it, just like anything else in life.

And if anyone wants to comment about how the publishers get all the money anyway, ask yourself who'd publish them if they didn't? Without the publishers getting their cash the band would make no money at all, as they'd HAVE no publisher.

Sorry about the rant, I just loathe the hypocrisy that is the theft of music.... usually fine upstanding people somehow think it's ok to steal something just because there's nothing tangible being transferred.

Rant over.

[stopthegop]

So listening to the radio makes one a thief?