Well if you haven't heard the RIAA (recording industry association of America) is gathering evidence against people who use peer 2 peer applications, and will be filing 150 thousand dollar lawsuits agianst them.  They claim that peer 2 peer programs have damaged their indusrty and are demanding compensation.  Personally I think filing 150 thousand dollar lawsuits against their consumers is going to damage them a lost more than peer 2 peer programs.  But anyway I'm pretty sure all of us have used Limewire before, should we be scared of landing one of these lawsuits?

I wouldn't use the mainstream networks they are targeting, and not allow yourself to upload anything. They seem to be targeting the uploaders since they can't take down the networks because of a recent court decision.  I think its bullshit that they are suing people for this, since they've never been able to prove that any money from their successful lawsuits went to the artists they support...  No one has seemed to realize that the downturn in the economy and the downturn in cd sales are pretty closely related when you look at the two on a graph.  I dislike the RIAA so much that i stoped buying cds, if i want something i download it and listen to it on my ipod, the only cds i listen to are the ones i burn for my car.

On the lighter side of the p2p world, senator Orwin Hatch, who says that copyright-holders should be able to hack into and destroy people's computers who illegally have their material... was found to be using pirated code on his website.

ahh. I'm glad I listen to music the RIAA has probably never even heard before. =D Just don't go downloading any Metallica or Britney Spears anytime soon, and you'll be fine. hah.

Just because the RIAA is a money grubbing institution doesn't make it right to steal music.

Just because the economy is down doesn't mean make it right to steal music.

Artists may not make what they are due because of the business behind the music, but it's still taking money out of the artists pockets.  If you want "free" music, listen to the radio.  Using excuses like you don't have money, or the artists are already rich is just bullshit.  It's like saying it's ok for a homeless guy to rob a bank.  

Tasty, are you saying that musicians and artists shouldn't be paid for their creativity?  Without intellectual property rights, how does one get paid for their work?

I love what iTunes has done, it fits in with my own feelings about samples.  I don't have a problem downloading a song or game, trying it out to see if I like it, and then PAYING FOR IT if I like it.  With iTunes, you can sample any song or CD, see if you like it, then actually PAY for it.  Otherwise it's really no different from walking into the music store and shoplifting a few CD's.

A last note, to answer the first question here.  Ask the student from Michigan Tech that they busted a couple months ago (April) if you have anything to worry about.  They are going after him for $97.8 BILLION.  It's $150k per song, not total.  You can read about it in the Detroit Free Press (www.freep.com)

All throughout history, artists were paid for their performances, composers paid for their operas and symphonies.  Music has long been a business.  People have made their living through their musical talent and creativity for most of known history.


Actually, I can remember quite a few busts on bootleg operations from when I was a kid.  I remember the industry trying to fight it when the first dual cassette decks came out.  I remember the industry fighting DEC's.  I remember the industry fighting recordable CD's.  

Bootlegging wasn't the problem in the 60's and 70's that file-sharing is today either.  It wasn't easy to find the bootlegs, and the quality sucked, so they didn't really pose as much of a threat.  If all the file-sharing that went on today was at, say, 16k or 32k and not the 160 / 192 sample rates, I doubt they'd have as much issue too.  Since people would then still go out to buy the high quality stuff.


Again, shitty quality, so they still want to go buy the album (I know, I used to be one of those kids).  On top of that, the music industry makes money every-time the radio plays the song.  So listening to the radio was contributing to the overall revenue stream (higher ratings, more playing, more stations, more sponsor money, etc).  


It's always been about money to the industry.  That's why it's an industry.  It's nothing new.

But you have hit the nail on the head with PROLIFIC.  The stealing of music is everywhere on the net today.  And don't kid yourself by softening it with words like sharing.  It's not sharing, it's stealing.  

Since Bucc gave the "Just cuz the RIAA is evil doesn't make stealing right" rant already, I guess that leaves tasty's commie theories on IP to me. Tasty, do you realize how fucked a bunch of industries would get if you took away IP rights. It goes far beyond just music. Movies, books, software, etc. If you take away the right to IP, you take away the biggest motivator for innovation: greed.

Take a look at the software industry. You have proprietary developers where IP is not shared, and then you have open source development where IP is shared pretty freely. (The GPL makes things kinda fucked, but that's a story for another day.) Sure, there is some good software coming from the open source community. This is the kinda stuff we could expect in a world without IP rights as this work is already done by people who do it for generosity, curiosity, or whatnot. However, despite some areas where open source has really worked (BSDs and Apache namely), there are many areas where it is lightyears behind. For big databases, proprietary setups from Oracle and the like are the standard, not MySQL or PostgreSQL. There hasn't been an open source game worth noting. And nobody has come even close to designing an OS usable for those who aren't computer geeks. The fact is that without IP rights, you take a lot of the motivation for innovation and it has a noticeable impact.

If you don't like IP, don't give money to the people who are selling theirs. However, don't argue that other people shouldn't have a right to make a living just because you think that everything should be shared freely.

I agree with you that $97.8 billion is ridiculous, but that still doesn't make you right for stealing music. And yes, YOU STEAL MUSIC. It doesn't matter if you download and delete, you are still breaking the law. If you are going to steal it, at least admit it. Trying to make excuses only makes you look worse.

So what exactly is the RIAA? It's a bunch of major record labels that sue kids? If so, is there a list of all the labels that are with the RIAA?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that you can download intellectual property of any kind provided you delete it within 24 hours.  Maybe that's a state statutory thing, but I remember hearing something of the like.

Bucc, it's not that straitforward.  If you go to a CD store, make a copy of a CD, leaving the original intact, and then leave, what did you steal?  To steal something, you have to take it - but in this instance nothing has been taken.  And even better - what if after copying the CD, you decide you wouldn't ever have bought it.  You toss your copy.  Isn't this the equivalent of a buy and return?  Tasty's point was that much of the downloading community works that way.  It's a try before you buy system.  But ultimately, the real problem is that to shut down file transfers because they CAN be abused deprives them of their legal uses, as described above.  That would be akin to banning the sale of glue, because someone out there might sniff it and get high.  Or banning alcohol because people get drunk.  It's not unheard of. . .

Furthermore, IP rules typically involve some kind of harm.  It's a pretty big stretch to get those 97.8 billion in damages, even the way you so nicely did the math for us.  For one, there's no way to prove that the file transfer caused the loss of CD sales.  There's evidence it might have increased them.  And frankly, where there's no harm, there's no foul.  Copyrights on books, for example, do not allow you to pass off work as your own, but there's nothing stopping you from making another copy to use.  And have you ever been to a library?  Sharing intellectual property isn't illegal either.

Ethically, tasty makes good points, whether they hold up legally or not.  But from a moral and legal standpoint, there's no grounds on which to prosecute someone for sharing music.  Arguably, it's illegal to do the extreme and download thousands of songs, keep them, and never pay a dime.  But I can't think of a way within the ethical and privacy bounds of the law to prove that.  Prosecuting music sharers strikes me as as offensive as arresting people who break state sodomy laws.  Some things you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that includes what you do on your own computer.  All this smacks of Big Brother - especially as long as these are victimless crimes, the government has no business monitoring private citizens in their own homes.

And yes, tasty has already presented why these are victimless crimes.  Show me a print shop worker screwed over by file sharing, Bucc.  Prove it.  And then, I'll show you an independent artist launched to fame by file sharing.

I've never heard about a 24 hour rule, and I haven't seen it in the US code.  It's not covered by the Fair Use act, if that's what you are thinking.

The CONTENT.  You took the content.  You took what was of value in the item without paying for it.  Just like taking a book over to a xerox machine.  The people that created that content, that published it, and are selling it, expect to get paid for their services.  You are taking their service without paying them, same is if you walked out with it.  


No, it's not.  It is SOMETIMES used that way.  But, look at Jeb's post.  Look at the numbers provided by actual polls of the old Napster.  The majority isn't doing the try it before you buy it.  Show me where you get that idea from.  You think that student up at MTU shelled out half a million dollars to cover the CD's worth of material he had?


What in the hell are you talking about?  Nobody is shutting down the internet.  The reason they are going after the people uploading and downloading is because they can't hold the file sharing itself responsible (that was all over the news).  They aren't banning FILE SHARING.  They are punishing the illegal reproduction of copyrighted material.  This is nothing new.  The RIAA wanted to shut down the sites and servers, but that was kabashed.  So, they are going after the people actually breaking the existing laws.


Nope.  Not in the US Code.  Want me to copy and paste it?  There are sections specific to recorded media.


Um, that's not what the law says.  And I don't agree that there is no harm.  There is also no evidence that it increased sales, that's just conjecture.  Some artists have released tracks to advertise and drive up sales, but these do not evidence make.  No study has really been done, just numbers thrown around.  

And they don't have to prove loss of CD sales.  Please read the laws.


Go take a copyrighted book to a Kinko's and give it to the guy behind the counter.  If he copies it, he's breaking the law.  Most Kinko's wont do it (they will let you do it yourself on the self service machines, but they wont take part in it.)  Go into your corporate copy center, I wanted a chapter copied, they made me get the letter and keep in on file.  I am not making this up.  It is illegal to make those copies.  There are exceptions (fair use act) and they are:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair     use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in     copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that     section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,     teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),     scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Now, you can talk about back-up copies of material you already own, but that is another issue altogether.

Oh, and Libraries have their own issues / conditions.  


I don't think his ethical points are that good.  Robin Hood is not a defense.  And there are both moral and legal grounds to prosecute someone for stealing music.  


Nothing arguable about it.  I just is illegal.  Saying it your way is like saying it's arguable if taking a car for a joy ride is grand theft auto.  You can argue it, but it's still GTA.


Way off base.  If you are talking about two consenting adults having sex in their own homes and comparing it to file sharing / stealing, you are so off.  They didn't have to peak into the windows for the people that have been busted.  These people were doing it in public.  So, just like you can see and arrest two men having anal on the street corner, you can see and arrest someone that is opening up their files to the public.  If the crack dealer is on the corner, giving away product in plain sight, the cops can nab him, and everyone that got it from him.  Doing things on public servers does not include an expectation of privacy.  

The cops are not breaking into your private computer.  In the case of the MTU guy, he was using MTU networks to do it, and they have the right to turn him in.


It doesn't take monitoring, and I haven't heard a whiff that they are.  So no big brother.  If the cops didn't have to break in, it's "plain sight".  

And I do not agree that this is a victimless crime.  There are plenty of victims.


Presented, not proved.  There is a difference.  I don't agree with it.  Have anything to add of value?


Show me the immigrants that are left to starve that Tasty talked about before?  I can't point to a person, but that doesn't mean they don't exist either.  But just look at the numbers.  

I'm looking at your post Loudnotes, and it sure looks to me like you are posting without actually being up on the subject.  Some of your points are way out in left field and not relevant.  Some of your law is just off.