Riaa Attacks!
<div class="IPBDescription">OMG</div> So what does everyone think about the RIAA being able to sue people who download copyrighted music? Maybe I got it wrong, but isn't it true how they can sue you from home computers? I will post what I think when others post their opinion....
Comments
RIAA is taking drastic action, but as far as I'm aware there won't be drastic consequences in the big picture.
*As much as it can be protected.
sif they can seek compensation if your breaking a law.
damn them
You might want to "invest" [download] in something called "Peerguardian" or "Peer Guardian". It actively blocks certain ips, scans, or whatever. Essentially, it means if RIAA tries to scan you, it blocks it, so the RIAA can't get any information.
When I run it, it takes up a lot of CPU, however. Although, my computer is almost illegal... 600 mhz, 256 mb ram <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Peerguardian should already block RIAA and others.
a multi million dollar organisation will have a team of people just sitting there researching the new ways people use to infringe copyright.
To say the RIAA wont know about it is stupid.
How about use a p2p program that the RIAA doesnt consider a big enough threat to pursue legally?
They are investing time, money, and possibly illegal techniques [to hunt people down] to essentially bully relatively innocent people into submission, or even fines or imprisonment, for a very small "crime" that is inconsequential in any shape or form to the music industry. If I didn't download music, I certainly wouldn't buy it. It has already been discussed before [cost of music, poor overall quality of cds, poor content, not knowing what you're getting, etc], so I'll suffice with a simple "The current situation of buying music is very very poor."
They are offloading very serious punishments onto innocent, inconsequential users. The law itself is lame, and instead of being productive and leading the way to a better future for the music industry, people like the RIAA decide to simply leave things as they are, but hope to change the overall situation not by providing us with a better alternative [buying immensely cheaper individual songs online. *] but by <i>persecuting</i> randomly selected individuals who cannot protect themselves, especially against such a well-equipped opponent. Their strategy will not work.
I forgot what I was going to say, but no doubt I'll think of it later.
* I know this is already being developed, but without large backing by people such as the RIAA, then it will go nowhere.
In conclusion, people download music because the current situation is too unsatisfactory to warrant the alternative.
RIAA is also taking a slimey tactic - instead of tackling larger, more affecting file sharing networks [which they can't get to], they are going after the end-users, who cannot protect themselves.
Analogy: Overthrowing a king by slaughtering all of his peasants.
RIAA is also taking a slimey tactic - instead of tackling larger, more affecting file sharing networks [which they can't get to], they are going after the end-users, who cannot protect themselves.
Analogy: Overthrowing a king by slaughtering all of his peasants. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
arg! must...not let them slaughter pesants....must.....call to arms......must get....militia.....
RIAA is also taking a slimey tactic - instead of tackling larger, more affecting file sharing networks [which they can't get to], they are going after the end-users, who cannot protect themselves.
Analogy: Overthrowing a king by slaughtering all of his peasants. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
arg! must...not let them slaughter pesants....must.....call to arms......must get....militia..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
please.
Ok since people actually started to reply to this I will post it here in full. I would still love it if you want to visit our site, but thats up to you. Sorry if i have been alittle bitter in this thread. I have waited like a month for monse to reopen the discussion thread so i could post this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What happened to pure moral dilemmas? When litigation meant something. In 1973 the US. Supreme Court gave its ruling on Roe v Wade. The crux of the abortion debate, we saw pro-right, pro-life arguments, people would take to the streets, to protest and to destroy. There were issues that had a knee-jerk moral reaction and motivated people to take action. These days lawsuits are a dime a dozen and nobody sues without checking with marketing and the public relation department. The SCO Group has made litigation their most profitable commodity. The commercialisation of litigation and an increasingly apathetic public slows the progress of society. So what does make headlines today? What’s the prevailing societal issue that gets the most emotive reaction? The War in Iraq? Guns in Schools? No of course not, this is generation "give me more for less". The most emotive debate is over p2p file sharing. People want free music, corporations want to sell it. This time nobody is taking to the streets, the are flaming on message boards, filing lawsuits, spending millions on advertising campaigns to reach a detached public. So without further ado I give you this weeks "Spacemonkey's Rant".
*disclaimer: this has a USA bent to it. ARIA and Australian law are same-same, but different.*
Peer-to-Peer (p2p) is the technology that tries to look at the internet a different way. It important to remember that the internet has been evolving. When the internet was invented nobody had Internet Explorer installed waiting to play flash games and check their hotmail account. In the beginning the internet was a text based medium. If any of you have mucked around with MUD's (multi-user-dungeons) you are familiar with telnet. Telnet was an early, text only technology to view the internet. As technology raced forward, network connections got faster, computers had more memory, faster processors and sound. The internet evolved into a visual medium. We point and click, reading to occasional word in-between the pictures. But once again hardware has outstripped the majority of the internets functions. So technology has attempted to create something to make use of 80gigabyte hard drives and broadband connections. Which brings us neatly back to p2p, simultaneously a sidewards and a forward step for the internet. P2P is a browser less environments where ones computer is simultaneously the client and the server. What is shared is no longer text and pictures but more bulky media; sound, video and software. As a technology p2p isn’t inherently evil, it was conceived to make the most of the modern internet. So why the controversy?
The issue is sharing of copyright material. Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. It’s a long and complicated part of law which I won’t repeat here. However a couple of main points need consideration. The 1976 Copyright Act gives the owner of a Copyright exclusive rights to distribution. This means that whenever you share a copyright file over a p2p network you are breaking the law. Those with a vested interest in the copyrighted material call it stealing. As a matter of fact, it isn’t stealing it is breaching copyright (doesn’t sound quite so impressive eh?). Another oft overlooked fact is if you are downloading copyrighted files you have not breached the Copyright Act, as you are receiving not distributing.
Now the abstract legal and technological concepts are out of the way, lets get down to the "real" issue. Hands up who has mp3's on their computer? Ok keep you hand up if you have a legitimately payed for hard copy for each digital mp3. If I had a dollar for each hand still in the air, I would be a very poor man. When it comes down to it, everyone likes music, everyone likes it to be free and everyone likes it in a versatile medium. P2P file sharing caters for all of these wishes. It has a more extensive range than you local music store, you can’t argue with the price and mp3s are digital and infinitely malleable. You can burn mp3s onto a CD you want to listen to. However the fact remains every time an mp3 is shared the law is being broken. The fact that music is available for free surely ruffles the feathers of those for which music means money. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States. For the RIAA this is a multi-billion dollar fight that they must win to survive.
The RIAA has a very tight leash on the music industry. It seeps into every facet of music and excerpts subtle control in a wide variety of ways. Every CD-burner sold in the USA has a tax imposed on it that goes directly to the RIAA. The RIAA deals directly with Radio stations and sells exclusives to its top artists only if the radio station will play tracks from lesser known upcoming artists. It’s a publicity machine, churning out product endorsement, advertising, concerts, but not music. The RIAA doesn’t create music it moulds how and what is sold, and decides what music is to be profitable. It is the RIAA that is responsible for the lack of innovation in music today, and for the glamorisation of pop music which is more about the stars, the image and the hype than musical credibility. The RIAA marginalises inventive artists that aren’t profitable. The RIAA, like most corporations are focussed on making money. To them p2p is a direct threat on their business and should be squashed, stopped and generally got rid of. P2P means a lack of control, and the sole existence of the RIAA is based on control. The RIAA have been fighting p2p since it emerged. The RIAA shut down napster for trading music files. They have invaded universities across the world with "Cease and Desist" letters, shutting down intranets. More recently they have started collecting information so they can pur"sue" individuals trading music. The RIAA has a point, this is their business and they are fighting an illegal activity, but why has these actions alienated so many people? What are the perspectives of the geek, the music lover, the artist, and John "mp3" Citizen?
To the geek, the RIAA is an offensive luddite who must be stopped before they destroy technological advancement while they lumber around protecting their precious "art". P2P is another step in the evolution of the internet, it allows even greater interconnectivity. It’s a legitimate technology with a broad variety of uses. The ability to share information is a universal right and p2p has a huge potential to share everything from public speeches, to family photos, to bootlegged music and open source software. To the geek, shutting down napster and suing the developers of p2p programs is outrageous. It’s like suing the gun manufacturer every time someone gets shot with a pistol. The RIAA's pursuit of ISP's is slowing the uptake of broadband internet. Quite simply to the geek, the RIAA is squashing technological creativity and trying to limit the potential of the internet. The solution in the mind of the geek is for the RIAA to embrace the technology and make music available online. Apple has recently launched itunes and has great success selling individual songs for 99cents. The geek wants his music in digital form, his computer his the entertainment centre of the household. If he needs music on the go he has his mp3 player which can hold hundreds of songs. Technology isn’t the devil and the baby should be thrown out with the bath-water. The geek is mistrusting and alienated.
To the music lover the RIAA is inherently evil. They are drug dealers peddling crack. They sell crap music; make people pay extra-ordinary prices, whilst short changing the artist. Boy-Bands, good producers and a million dollar marketing budget does not create good music. They music lover is forced into the indie scene were often extremely innovative music is being created, but isn’t being given the public attention it deserves. They recall when music was not about money, music was about music. Often the only way they can find this music is to download is from other enthusiasts. If P2P kills the RIAA all the better. The RIAA has an outdated business model. If the RIAA becomes less profitable maybe they will be forced to sell talent rather than "shrink-wrapped pop". Once talent becomes the defining factor in sales, power will be given back to the artist. Then the artist well is able to get what they disserve for their services. The music lover sees P2P as a way to empower the artists, to revolt against the current business system and to make innovative music mainstream.
The artist doesn’t know what to think. The artists there for the fame, for the money for the spectacle sign immediately with the RIAA and follow the dogma of the corporation. P2P is bad because every downloaded song is one lost sale. In matter of fact downloads have limited effects on sales. In 1999 sales rose 10% in 2000 sales rose 11%. The artist will only know what the label/company/corporation tells them. So if they are losing sales to P2P then P2P must be stopped. Artists aren't stupid they know when they are around for the money, when they are around for the fame. What they don’t know is when they signed their contract and got their $250,000 advance that they would have to pay that off at 1.20 an album sold. Upcoming bands have to sell literally millions of albums just to pay back their record company. If they are outrageously successful they can afford to negotiate for the next album deal. If they only sell a modest amount of album, i.e. go gold not platnium then the record company tells they have to spend more money on the next album to get it to work and a vicious cycle continues. Artists in for the fame and the money are wondering why they aren’t getting rich. Other artists, the ones there for the music aren't so concerned with money and want music heard by as many people as it can be. Unfortunately these people are in the minority.
That leaves John "mp3" Citizen. That’s you. It’s what you think. Some people think they whole system is evil, that capitalism is bad and that people should be able to get music for free. They don’t see free music and record sales as mutually exclusive goals. They wonder whether record companies have ever heard of bottled water. Most people download music simply because it is easier. They would be quite happy if music was available online. Apple had 900,000 songs downloaded in the first week of its new itunes online music shop. The RIAA is resisting this move as it cuts out the middle man, and it affects music sales. Why buy an album with 3 decent songs and 14 filler tracks when you can just buy the three songs? This reason if often used by the artist to resist the move to the digital online medium. Some artists believe that an album is a distinct artist entity and should only be appreciated as a whole. People seem to forget that in the early music days, all that existed were singles. That singles were the exclusive format. With the advancement of vinyl record capacity and the tape medium, albums started to be sold. I have a Bob Dylan album on vinyl; it goes across 4 discs and has a similar amount of tracks to contemporary cd's. John "mp3" Citizen just wants his music in a cheap and easy format.
What does the future hold? Some things are glaringly obvious. The RIAA has a business model that is fast becomingly obsolete. That P2P programs are here to stay to fill their many legitimate functions and as an example of technological innovation. The average person craves music in an easy, flexible and cheap medium. Online distribution provides that medium. People are tired of music without innovation. They are back lashing against pre packaged popular music. Artists just want a fair go, they want to opportunity to innovate without languishing in Label Company debt. How will this technology and the current societal physce affect the music industry? Personally I hope this signals the end of pre packaged music and sees the artist put back into the economical and creative forefront of the industry. I want an industry where innovation and creditable music is rewarded. I want my music online.
Cheers,
Spacemonkey. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The actual lawsuits will be interesting, as the burden of proof rests quite heavily on RIAA's shoulders. They will have to prove that
a) The infringing IP they gathered was actually you, and not a family member behind the same NAT router, or another person using your computer.
b) The infringing file they detected was real and not fake.
I believe b) will be the bigger hurdle for an industry that actively engages in flooding p2p nets with fake files itself.
But even if they succeed, it's of course ridiculous that a company takes legal action against its own customers. How they plan to stay in business when everyone hates them is beyond my comprehension.
woah........
I was going to post two slight criticisms, but decided against it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Still reading.
Edit: Nope, actually.
"<i>The artist doesn?t know what to think. The artists there for the fame, for the money for the spectacle sign immediately with the RIAA and follow the dogma of the corporation. P2P is bad because <b>every downloaded song is one lost sale.</b></i>"
I feel you do not stress the incorrectness of this enough [at all?]; As I said before, I would not buy every song I downloaded if i did not download it. A lot of it is crap, and too expensive. RIAA is losing approximately $0 off me. The internet is making everything.
sif they can seek compensation if your breaking a law.
damn them <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did you say this when you wrote a rant like that?
It seems intelligence isn't constant. [All offence intended]
It's possible to agree with the law but propose a different, more effective business model.
It's also possible to disagree with a law and pursue its change, but nonetheless obey it and expect obedience from others while the law still exists. Anything else would be anarchy.
Reading his rant, i thought he understood what was happening.
It's possible to agree with the law but propose a different, more effective business model.
It's also possible to disagree with a law and pursue its change, but nonetheless obey it and expect obedience from others while the law still exists. Anything else would be anarchy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactally what i was going to say.
Point very well made.
One of the things that still gets me is that, supposedly this country (argument enclosed to the United States, as no doubt that's where the legal arena is) is a country by the people... The people obviously want the trading of files online to be free. Sad that the corporations whom donate campaign contrabutions have more of a say than the will of living, breathing voters, but I that's another topic altogether...
The RIAA sound a bit like Trogdor.
ARROWED!
<a href='http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/' target='_blank'>Clicky!</a> BTW: If you dont know how to see what your IP is, <a href='http://www.whatismyip.com/' target='_blank'>Click Here</a>
ALSO, I urge everyone to join the <a href='http://www.boycott-riaa.com/' target='_blank'>Cause!!</a> BOYCOTT RIAA!!! (not that this will help <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Yes, i believe that people should be punished for illegal acts, but downloading a single song is a bit of a grey area. It's like stealing candy from a corner shop, you apologise to the owner and all's well. The <b>real</b> enemy of the RIAA is the big file trading networks which as has already been stated are virtually untouchable, as soon as one goes down, another three pop up, and, again as already stated, since the RIAA can't touch them, they aim at your average file trader.
So are you saying you've NEVER downloaded a song from a P2p sharing client or any other music swapping program?
That's not at all what I'm saying. What I did or didn't do bears no relevance to the issue we are discussing.
You don't have to tell me if you download music or not, but please dont preach me by saying it's like stealing because I know what it is and what it isn't.
BTW, I couldnt find this, but is it only illegal in the U.S.<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->