View Full Version : Supreme Court OKs music-downloading lawsuits against software firms
DLR'sCock
06-28-2005, 12:00 AM
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050627/ART10/50627012
Article published Monday, June 27, 2005
* New * Supreme Court OKs music-downloading lawsuits against software firms
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Hollywood and the music industry can file piracy lawsuits against technology companies that are caught encouraging customers to steal music and movies over the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled today.
The justices, aiming to curtail what they called a “staggering” volume of piracy online, largely set aside concerns that new lawsuits would inhibit technology companies from developing the next iPod or other high-tech gadgets or services.
The unanimous ruling is expected to have little immediate impact on consumers, though critics said it could lead companies to include digital locks to discourage illegal behavior.
The justices left in place legal protections for companies that merely learn customers might be using products for illegal purposes.
The justices said copying digital files such as movies, music or software programs “threatens copyright holders as never before” because it’s so easy and popular, especially among young people.
Entertainment companies maintain that online thieves trade 2.6 billion songs, movies and other digital files each month.
“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has considered this important case and determined that those who intentionally induce or encourage the theft of copyrighted music, movies, software or other protected works may be held liable for their actions,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.
The ruling represents a significant victory for Hollywood and record labels, which have resorted to suing individually the thousands of computer users caught sharing music and movies online.
“We will no longer have to compete with thieves in the night whose businesses are built on larceny,” said Andrew Lack, chief executive for Sony BMG Music Entertainment.
The court said Grokster Ltd. and Streamcast Networks Inc., developers of leading Internet file-sharing software, can be sued because they deliberately encouraged customers to download copyrighted files illegally so they could build a larger audience and sell more advertising.
Writing for the court, Justice David H. Souter said the companies’ “unlawful objective is unmistakable.”
The court noted as evidence of bad conduct that Grokster and Streamcast made no effort to block illegal downloads, which the companies maintained wasn’t possible.
But the court also said a technology company couldn’t be sued if it merely learns its customers are using its products for illegal purposes. That balancing test, the court said, is necessary so that it “does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise.”
The court said it wanted to protect an inventor who must predict how consumers months or years in the future might use new technology.
“The price of a wrong guess ... could be large,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote.
The lawyer for the software companies, Richard Taranto, said he will argue in a new trial that they did not encourage computer users to download music and movies illegally. He complained the Supreme Court’s ruling was so vague it was impossible to know which companies might be sued.
Taranto’s partner in the case, Fred von Lohmann of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, predicted the decision will “unleash a new era of legal uncertainty on America’s innovators” and that unresolved questions “will probably tie up courts for a long time.”
Today's decision did not affect the illegality of computer users downloading copyrighted materials over the Internet without permission.
The ruling also was not expected to affect the thousands of copyright lawsuits filed already against computer users by the trade groups for Hollywood studios and the largest labels.
Read more in later editions of The Blade and toledoblade.com.
DLR'sCock
06-28-2005, 12:03 AM
Grokster Decision Worries Tech Industry
By MATTHEW FORDAHL
The Associated Press
Monday, June 27, 2005; 8:13 PM
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The technology world _ from multibillion-dollar computer companies to garage tinkerers _ faces new and potentially costly uncertainties with the Supreme Court's ruling that inventors can be held liable if third parties use their products to infringe on copyrights.
Though Monday's ruling specifically addressed the activities of file-sharing companies Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., it could invite lawsuits against others whose products or services are deemed as encouraging infringement.
In this March 29, 2005 file photo, Rick Carnes, President of the Songwriters Guild of America, demonstrates outside the Supreme Court while arguments were being heard in the MGM vs. Grokster case. (AP Photo Gerald Herbert) (Gerald Herbert - AP)
Free E-mail Newsletters
TechNews Daily Report
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Personal Finance
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Personal Tech
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
That leaves a broad gray area yet to be defined, critics said.
"It's fair to say that with the decision the legal clarity has decreased and the risk of litigation has increased," said Michael Petricone, technology policy vice president at the Consumer Electronics Association trade group. "From a competitive standpoint, that is just not a good thing."
Examples of technology that can be used to swap songs and movies are everywhere, though it's not clear how many of those companies can be said to have "induced" piracy to the extent of Grokster and StreamCast.
Apple Computer Inc. once advertised the joys of ripping, burning and mixing CDs on a Macintosh computer. In the PC world, Intel Corp. microprocessors, Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system and countless other inventions _ such as the DVD burner _ all make copyright infringement easy.
Might a broadband provider's claim of "faster downloads" be perceived as an inducement to steal copyrighted material? Will innovative startups have to hire legal teams to review every aspect of a business before it even incorporates?
Still, the decision could have been far worse from the innovator's perspective.
The court did not alter its landmark 1984 ruling that protected Sony Corp. from liability even though some of its VCRs were used to infringe on copyrights. That "safe harbor" continues to protect innovators whose products have non-infringing purposes, though Monday's decision added a new test: the developer's intent.
The Supreme Court's written opinion went to lengths to outline actions Grokster and StreamCast took to build their businesses by offering copyright materials rather than public domain materials. Both gave away their software in an effort to boost advertising revenues.
"Users seeking Top 40 songs ... are certain to be far more numerous than those seeking a free Decameron, and Grokster and StreamCast translated that demand into dollars," the court's opinion reads.
The decision seems to maintain the balance between innovation and copyright protection, said Pamela Samuelson, a law professor at the University of California. "By preserving a safe harbor for technologies with substantial lawful uses, it adopted a far more moderate rule than (copyright holders) had recommended," she said. "An order for further proceedings on theory that Grokster actively induced copyright infringement did not come as a big surprise."
In fact, most major technology companies declined comment, either saying they were studying the decision or did not see how it applied to their businesses.
Jennifer Greeson, an Intel spokeswoman, said the world's largest chip maker was pleased that the court did not alter the Sony ruling. She declined to discuss the case further as the company was still reviewing the decision.
Among tech companies that welcomed the ruling were those that rely on the so-called peer-to-peer (P2P) networking technology that underlies StreamCast and Grokster's products but have sought to work with the recording industry.
"It's a fantastic boost for us," said Wayne Rosso, chief executive for the Virginia Beach, Va.-based Mashboxx, which is among a new crop of P2P-based services slated to launch this year to offer music download sales and, in some cases, swapping of tracks that are not under copyright restrictions.
"I think you'll see the investment community suddenly rush in to support the licensed P2P model," suggested Rosso, who once headed the company behind the Grokster file-swapping software.
Gregory Kerber, chairman and chief executive of Saratoga Springs, N.Y.-based Wurld Media, was also optimistic about the impact the file-sharing decision will have for its P2P-based music service, Peer Impact.
"The ruling removes a roadblock that has hampered the widespread development of legitimate online music models," said Kerber.
Apple and RealNetworks Inc., which operate industry-sanctioned online music stores, also praised the ruling while touting their respective services. "Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed an important basic principle: thou shalt not steal," RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser said.
But Cindy Cohn, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented StreamCast, said the ruling will do more to hamper innovation given the uncertainty it has created.
"We went to the Supreme Court hoping to get a clarity about a bright line rule that innovators can live with and copyright infringers could live with," she said. "And instead we got sent back a murky, multifactored test that's going to result in more litigation for years to come."
___
AP Business Writer Alex Veiga contributed to this report from Los Angeles.
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:06 AM
Does this mean that bootleg sharing sites are gonna' go out of existence?:confused:
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Does this mean that bootleg sharing sites are gonna' go out of existence?:confused:
That's the ultimate goal. The corporate pigs want to force you to buy that SHIT they call music, even when the alternative isn't costing them a damn dime.
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Does this mean that bootleg sharing sites are gonna' go out of existence?:confused:
I have to admit that the bootleg sharing sites are the only ones I feel have any claim. Those downloading Pink Floyd audience boots, etc., are the same sort that would buy every single legitimate release that hits the market. There is no dent in the industry from said sites. But sites or products encouraging the distribution of copyrighted material have no leg to stand on. It is not the responsibility of the musician to be glad that his hard work is being distributed for free when he wants to get paid as anyone else would.
But when SHARING THE GROOVE went down, I was furious.
Though I don't see any connection with technological products and sites such as EzyTorrent.
Originally posted by FORD
That's the ultimate goal. The corporate pigs want to force you to buy that SHIT they call music, even when the alternative isn't costing them a damn dime.
True. It's also the idea of value-for-money. I have to commend some of the record companies for including some real value in the products they release. I happily purchased the new JUDAS PRIEST album for just over $10 Canadian and it included a half hour DVD with concert, interview and documentary footage.
Also, once the distributing technology exists, the legal fight is just delay of the fact that they have to come up with new ways of allegedly maximizing their revenue. What they don't admit is that anything will be purchased in a capitalist society with very strong marketing.
Originally posted by Rikk
But when SHARING THE GROOVE went down, I was furious.
I'm STILL furious about that one. Even though STG was more or less reconstituted under another name (as was EasyTree) many of the contributors lost track, which means the enormous pool of music that was trading on that site has yet to be duplicated. EasyTree's "new" incarnation is just about back to the level it was at before it went under, so that's where I've spent a lot of time lately.
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Rikk
I have to admit that the bootleg sharing sites are the only ones I feel have any claim. Those downloading Pink Floyd audience boots, etc., are the same sort that would buy every single legitimate release that hits the market. There is no dent in the industry from said sites. But sites or products encouraging the distribution of copyrighted material have no leg to stand on. It is not the responsibility of the musician to be glad that his hard work is being distributed for free when he wants to get paid as anyone else would.
But when SHARING THE GROOVE went down, I was furious.
Though I don't see any connection with technological products and sites such as EzyTorrent.
Not only that, but I suspect that live music sharing sites may spark fan interest and hence increase sales!. In fact I was online looking for commercially released live FLOYD last night as a direct result of listening to their older material.
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by FORD
I'm STILL furious about that one. Even though STG was more or less reconstituted under another name (as was EasyTree) many of the contributors lost track, which means the enormous pool of music that was trading on that site has yet to be duplicated. EasyTree's "new" incarnation is just about back to the level it was at before it went under, so that's where I've spent a lot of time lately.
Did you see my banned torrent?:D Man, they're really taking this shit seriously! That is erroring on the side of caution to the point of absurdity.
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Did you see my banned torrent?:D Man, they're really taking this shit seriously!
No, what was it?
I could name you twenty artists I've bought almost entire catalogues of thanks to downloading or boot searching...
JOEL PLASKETT, THE DEAD BOYS, NEW YORK DOLLS, and on and on and on.
And remember the old days of taping albums off of the radio? Or singles? Hell, as an eight-year-old, I taped JUMP and then PANAMA off the radio and then bought the cassette when I had enough allowance money two weeks later.
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by FORD
No, what was it?
I ripped the audio form the three live videos from the 1981 OAKLAND show to FLAC. It lasted about half-an-hour.
http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-...3533#comm523533
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I ripped the audio form the three live videos from the 1981 OAKLAND show to FLAC. It lasted about half-an-hour.
http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-...3533#comm523533
At least it proves that they're on the ball against copies of commercially-released product being distributed. But even then, where in any store can someone purchase the audio OR video of those performances? When's the last time those were aired anywhere except for the occasional run on VH-1?
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:32 AM
I haven't seen 'em on VH-1 for years! I'll see if BRETT will let me put them on his site.
Originally posted by Rikk
I could name you twenty artists I've bought almost entire catalogues of thanks to downloading or boot searching...
JOEL PLASKETT, THE DEAD BOYS, NEW YORK DOLLS, and on and on and on.
And remember the old days of taping albums off of the radio? Or singles? Hell, as an eight-year-old, I taped JUMP and then PANAMA off the radio and then bought the cassette when I had enough allowance money two weeks later.
That's exactly my argument about online file sharing. Since FM radio has become so corporatized and won't play anything outside of the corporate cookie cutter crap of the moment, the online files serve the purpose that FM used to.
Our resident RIAA spokesman doesn't agree. I guess he's forgotten that he used to tape those Van Halen & Ac/Dc albums off the air weeks ahead of their release just like the rest of us :D
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by FORD
That's exactly my argument about online file sharing. Since FM radio has become so corporatized and won't play anything outside of the corporate cookie cutter crap of the moment, the online files serve the purpose that FM used to.
Our resident RIAA spokesman doesn't agree. I guess he's forgotten that he used to tape those Van Halen & Ac/Dc albums off the air weeks ahead of their release just like the rest of us :D
He also has entirely discounted the "flawed" HARVARD study on the subject which completely backs up every point you just made.
Originally posted by FORD
That's exactly my argument about online file sharing. Since FM radio has become so corporatized and won't play anything outside of the corporate cookie cutter crap of the moment, the online files serve the purpose that FM used to.
Our resident RIAA spokesman doesn't agree. I guess he's forgotten that he used to tape those Van Halen & Ac/Dc albums off the air weeks ahead of their release just like the rest of us :D
Bingo.
The same kids that here a single and download it and don't pick up the album were 85% probably never going to buy the CD in the first place. But real music fans (such as myself or you) have used the medium as a tool for discovering music or being introduced to other albums. Hell, the only times I download a whole album and keep that as my standard copy are when I know the industry is gearing up for a remaster of that same disc the year following or something like that. I downloaded DEEP PURPLE's BURN and burned it a couple of years ago. And I didn't purchase it until last week because I was waiting for the remaster to see commercial release.
If the industry thinks its recession has anything to do with anything except the fact that they don't promote many artists of lasting power or artistic depth or uniqueness, they're fooling themselves.
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I ripped the audio form the three live videos from the 1981 OAKLAND show to FLAC. It lasted about half-an-hour.
http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-...3533#comm523533
Did they give you a reason for pulling the torrent? Those videos have never been commercially released. Yet they have torrents on there all the time of various TV compilations, like old Stones clips, etc. I downloaded the entire 2005 Grammy Awards from them, although that was before their little "legal misunderstanding".
Maybe someone mistakenly thought those videos were commercial and therefore the audio was "banned"? :confused:
I'm currently downloading a widescreen pro-shot broadcast of Neil Young from Japan. That's just as much a commercial release as the three audio versions of FAIR WARNING videos you posted.
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Did they give you a reason for pulling the torrent? Those videos have never been commercially released. Yet they have torrents on there all the time of various TV compilations, like old Stones clips, etc. I downloaded the entire 2005 Grammy Awards from them, although that was before their little "legal misunderstanding".
Maybe someone mistakenly thought those videos were commercial and therefore the audio was "banned"? :confused:
They just basically said that they did not allow any "video" that had been used for promotions without acknowledging that this was an audio only rip...So I'm thinking today's ruling may have had something to do with it.
I'm getting the VAN HALEN vids while the getting is good.:confused:
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Rikk
I'm currently downloading a widescreen pro-shot broadcast of Neil Young from Japan. That's just as much a commercial release as the three audio versions of FAIR WARNING videos you posted.
Exactly! I'm getting the VH Buenos Aries vid. That was a made for (South American) TV proshot I believe.
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They just basically said that they did not allow any "video" that had been used for promotions without acknowledging that this was an audio only rip...So I'm thinking today's ruling may have had something to do with it.
I'm getting the VAN HALEN vids while the getting is good.:confused:
You'll feel better if the band indeed does put something together from those old film cans and multi-track. There is evidence that they indeed surveyed the negatives to see the cost of a full restoration for DVD. Anybody who claims only those three concerts were filmed is dead wrong. The shows were filmed in their entirety...several clips from those videos are clearly taken from other songs. The multi-tracks are also apparently in Eddie's vault.
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:48 AM
FORD, have you noticed the U2 site is even pricky when it comes to (over-the-air received) FM radio recordings? Or at least that's what they claimed.
Nickdfresh
06-28-2005, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Rikk
You'll feel better if the band indeed does put something together from those old film cans and multi-track. There is evidence that they indeed surveyed the negatives to see the cost of a full restoration for DVD. Anybody who claims only those three concerts were filmed is dead wrong. The shows were filmed in their entirety...several clips from those videos are clearly taken from other songs. The multi-tracks are also apparently in Eddie's vault.
There's no question! I even think the record companies send lackeys to implant bullshit like that at the LINKS. SAMMY's nephew posts over there (or at least he used too) and he's such a delusional little prick that spouts utter nonsense (he actually said that SAM's WABOs had more drawing power than a potential CVH reunion:p)
But I think BEACH has pointed out that the songs have credits in the unedited version as if UNCHAINED was a show closer as opposed to a separately filmed video. And knowing a little about being a grippe, I can't imagine a production company setting up and shooting only three songs, nor can I imagine that they spliced out these three songs in the early 80's and just let the rest of the footage rot.
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
There's no question! I even think the record companies send lackeys to implant bullshit like that at the LINKS. SAMMY's nephew posts over there (or at least he used too) and he's such a delusional little prick that spouts utter nonsense (he actually said that SAM's WABOs had more drawing power than a potential CVH reunion:p)
But I think BEACH has pointed out that the songs have credits in the unedited version as if UNCHAINED was a show closer as opposed to a separately filmed video. And knowing a little about being a grippe, I can't imagine a production company setting up and shooting only three songs, nor can I imagine that they spliced out these three songs in the early 80's and just let the rest of the footage rot.
Sometimes, film cans are left in funny places. ZEPPELIN had to do a lot of work to find the Royal Albert Hall film cannisters, and even some filmed portions were missing (and a few were degraded...this is why HEARTBREAKER or THANK YOU, for instance, are not seen in the DVD). It's possible that the film cannisters for Oakland are not in great shape. But restoration can do a lot, as the new BORN TOO BOOGIE T. REX DVD proves.
If the idiots didn't want to release the three videos on the official BEST OF DVD, they can't very while whine if people want to trade it on the internet.
Big Train
06-29-2005, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by FORD
That's the ultimate goal. The corporate pigs want to force you to buy that SHIT they call music, even when the alternative isn't costing them a damn dime.
Thank you, resident communist.
As the resident "RIAA Spokesperson", I have waited to post on this thread. Where do I start??
This ruling kicks balls and I could not be happier. It is karmic payback. First off, let's be clear. Nobody has ever said we were against new technology. We are against technology that cuts our throats, just like you would be in your own business? Would you advocate technology in your line of work that eliminated payment for your work? Honestly..
We are all for legit P2P sites and always have been. Those of you who just read the papers have been led to believe that we just wanted to stomp them out, as they would have you believe. In truth, we were being blackmailed. Grokster, Edonkey and the like have been having conversations with us for YEARS. The conversation was always like this "We aren't going to stop what we are doing and we are going continue to fuck you. Your only hope is to cut an incredibly shitty deal with us and that's that". Yesterday, the Supreme Court saw them for what they are: An illegal entity. End of story.
Nick's Harvard study is a complete load of horseshit and he knows it.
For the classic price arguments, there is NO argument anymore. The majority of stuff that you can buy you can now buy ala carte. From MULTIPLE sources. For those who complain about lack of material, we have been addressing and this AGAIN proves the point.
Snocap (www.snocap.com), founded by Shawn Fanning (who you may remember from Napster). This company acts as a digital clearinghouse for P2P companies. P2P companies sign up with Snocap and get access to all the major's catalogs (I believe Warner is the only holdout at this point...contract being negotiated). This service is all digital so they are seeking to put as much material up for sale as possible, ESPECIALLY rare, unreleased and live tracks. The arguments ARE being addressed. Perhaps not fast enough for some, but it IS being addressed.
For Ford's assertion that copyright holders want to be paid for EVERYTHING, Fuck yea we do. If you owned a hardware store, you'd want to be paid for every nail. Being a capitalist society, it's the way it goes..deal with it.
Nickdfresh
06-29-2005, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Big Train
Nick's Harvard study is a complete load of horseshit and he knows it.
No. No it's not horseshit, and you've never addressed, much less actually refuted, one fact presented in that study. The only thing that's funny is you guys actually believing you're going to make one more dime as a result of this. Dude, the people who "steal" music are just going to gleefully burn copies of their CD's and pass them onto their friends, regardless of what bootlegging sites you shut down because they use "bit torrent" technology. The only result is less people will be exposed to different kinds of music and will therefore only purchase the tightly knit genre's of radio demarkations. In fact, I can only see the resentment growing as a result. But hey, good luck. I'm sure your ex-radio A & R friends on the dole will now instantly have a job again because people will now rush out to the malls to by Brittany Spears CD's.
Nickdfresh
06-29-2005, 09:21 AM
RIAA sues the dead
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Published Saturday 5th February 2005 02:30 GMT
Death is no obstacle to feeling the long arm of the Recording Industry Ass. of America.
Lawyers representing several record companies have filed suit against an 83 year-old woman who died in December, claiming that she made more than 700 songs available on the internet.
"I believe that if music companies are going to set examples they need to do it to appropriate people and not dead people," Robin Chianumba told AP. "I am pretty sure she is not going to leave Greenwood Memorial Park to attend the hearing."
Gertrude Walton, who lived in Beckley, West Virginia hated computers, too, her daughter adds. An RIAA spokesperson said that it would try and dismiss the case.
However the RIAA's embarrassment doesn't end there. Chianumba said that she had sent a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company lawyers in response to an initial warning letter, over a week before the suit was filed. In 2003 the RIAA sued a twelve year-old girl for copyright infringement. She'd harbored an MP3 file of her favorite TV show on her hard drive. Her working class parents in a housing project in New York were forced to pay two thousand dollars in a settlement.
You can't be too young to face the consequences of being social, it seems. Only the unborn, it seems, have yet to receive an infringement suit.
But here's another interpretation of this distasteful litigation. Wouldn't the RIAA members be better off if a traditional compensation scheme, such as the one used by radio, was extended to digital music?
Yes, of course they would. And so would we.
Perhaps the cack-handed lawsuits are an indication that even the RIAA doesn't believe it can maintain the charade for much longer.®
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/
The RIAA sees the face of evil, and it's a 12-year-old girl
By Ashlee Vance in Chicago
Published Tuesday 9th September 2003 14:43 GMT
The RIAA has nailed one of the most prolific file-traders in the U.S., filing a lawsuit against 12-year-old Brianna LaHara.
When not at the playground with her friends, "Biggie Brianna" is trading music files from her home in New York. The little girl received one of the 261 lawsuits filed by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) on Monday, according to the New York Post. She may look like a sweet and innocent child, but the RIAA says it's only going after major copyright violators at the moment. So you make the call.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna told the Post. "I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
It turns out that Brianna's mum paid a $29.99 service charge to KaZaA for the company's music service. Brianna, however, thought this meant she could download songs at will. How naive!
When reporters charged into Brianna's home, she was helping her brother with some homework. She is an honors student at St. Gregory the Great school.
Brianna could face charges of up to $150,000 per infringed song, but we have a feeling this might be a tad unrealistic. We suggest the RIAA take all of her toys instead.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," RIAA president Cary Sherman said in a statement. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
Go get her, Cary. ®
Warham
06-29-2005, 09:34 AM
I agree with the ruling.
Big Train
06-29-2005, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No. No it's not horseshit, and you've never addressed, much less actually refuted, one fact presented in that study. The only thing that's funny is you guys actually believing you're going to make one more dime as a result of this. Dude, the people who "steal" music are just going to gleefully burn copies of their CD's and pass them onto their friends, regardless of what bootlegging sites you shut down because they use "bit torrent" technology. The only result is less people will be exposed to different kinds of music and will therefore only purchase the tightly knit genre's of radio demarkations. In fact, I can only see the resentment growing as a result. But hey, good luck. I'm sure your ex-radio A & R friends on the dole will now instantly have a job again because people will now rush out to the malls to by Brittany Spears CD's.
Where do I start (and yes I HAVE refuted it). The basic problem was how they chose to calculate lost sales, based on complete false logic. That is a whole other thread (I think if you look it up, my responses were pretty detailed). It is bullshit, period.
With the P2P ruling, once again, your missing the point. NOBODY is under the impression that it is going to cure the problem. However, we do have two things in our favor now. One, we have a powerful weapon to go after illegal P2P sites. Two, because of the liability now, investment dollars in illegal P2P's will cease, as their model is not sustainable. This is good in the fact that the investment will be channeled into P2P operations that work for all involved in the supply chain. That is a good thing. We are going to make a lot more dimes my friend.
Obviously, you did not read about Snocap, as it is doing more to address your concerns for a wide variety of music (and enough with "commercial crap", so tired an argument). In reality, it is going to give you more choice through more providers than you can imagine. But, I know you don't want to hear that.
Bit torrent is another problem for another day. We will figure that out as well.
The music industry goes too far. They not only want to eliminate downloads of lossy files like Mp3's, but now they have CD's so fucked up with "copy protection" that they don't work half the time.
Well FUCK THAT.
You guys bitch and whine about getting paid for product. Then even when you DO get paid for it, you try to control THAT.
Here's the bottom line....
Once i've paid my $12.99 at Costco for a CD, it is MINE. it does not belong to WarnerSonyBMGVivendiAOLUniversal anymore. They do not own it, I do.
If I want to play it on my computer, it's MY Right.
If I want to play it in my car, it's MY right.
If I want to rip tracks from various CD's which I have paid for and burn my own compilations, that's MY right. I OWN them, you corporate cocksuckers don't.
If you want to start claiming now that I don't OWN the thousands of CD's that I've bought from you bastards, then you better get one hell of a big refund check ready, because I don't "rent" pieces of plastic.
Warham
06-29-2005, 11:05 AM
I think it's more about you taking your CD and making mp3s of the songs and then sharing them on the internet with those who haven't spent the $12.99.
Guitar Shark
06-29-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I think it's more about you taking your CD and making mp3s of the songs and then sharing them on the internet with those who haven't spent the $12.99.
Yup.
What you "own," FORD, is a copy of a copyrighted work. You can use it any way you wish as long as you don't violate the copyright by transmitting it to others.
I agree with this decision.
Originally posted by Warham
I think it's more about you taking your CD and making mp3s of the songs and then sharing them on the internet with those who haven't spent the $12.99.
But I don't do that. (and I know you weren't saying that I personally do)
I don't share, nor do I download commercially available material. I just want the corporations to leave their hands off the non-commercial material, and the commercial material I already own.
Warham
06-29-2005, 12:14 PM
You are right. I didn't say you do that. :D
DLR'sCock
06-29-2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No. No it's not horseshit, and you've never addressed, much less actually refuted, one fact presented in that study. The only thing that's funny is you guys actually believing you're going to make one more dime as a result of this. Dude, the people who "steal" music are just going to gleefully burn copies of their CD's and pass them onto their friends, regardless of what bootlegging sites you shut down because they use "bit torrent" technology. The only result is less people will be exposed to different kinds of music and will therefore only purchase the tightly knit genre's of radio demarkations. In fact, I can only see the resentment growing as a result. But hey, good luck. I'm sure your ex-radio A & R friends on the dole will now instantly have a job again because people will now rush out to the malls to by Brittany Spears CD's.
Yes, this sucks for small artists who get exposure through P@P file sharing....
Big Train
06-30-2005, 03:16 AM
I don't know HOW you figure that. If anything, done legally, P2P can proliferate as much as it wants too. Nobody is stopping these people from giving away their music, or "exposure" if that is what they want to call it, we are only trying to stop sites that profit from works they DON'T have a right to give away. If they removed our stuff (which is 99% of the draw, not this new artist exposure horseshit..my opinion), we would have no problem with it at all.
Again, I urge you to read up on Snocap. Independent bands and labels are also signing up their works through Snocap. Snocap is a rights clearinghouse. The copyright holder has the ability within their software to determine the rules for the use of their copyrights. If they chose, they can give it away or they can choose to sell at a predetermined price. This is NOTHING to do with major labels at all and their music could be (theoretically) exposed to hundreds or thousands of legal p2p sites.
Explain to me where the huge drawback is?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.