RIAA Gives Family 60 Days To Grieve Before Continuing Case Against Dead Man
from the how-sweet-of-them dept
The RIAA really knows how to handle its file sharing lawsuits in ways that make themselves look incredibly heartless. It seemed like maybe they’d scraped bottom when they suggested a student should drop out of MIT to pay a few thousand dollars for file sharing, but they’ve now topped that one. When one of the people they were suing (who appeared to be fighting the charges) happened to die earlier this summer, the RIAA kindly requested that the case be pushed back 60 days for the family to grieve, before the RIAA started deposing the dead man’s children. This for a few thousand dollars? It’s been quite clear for some time that no one at the RIAA ever bothers to think about the PR impact of their moves, but isn’t there someone there who thought that perhaps this was a case that they could let go of?
Comments on “RIAA Gives Family 60 Days To Grieve Before Continuing Case Against Dead Man”
Unless
How many hacktivists harrass RIAA employees and threaten their family funerals? Can we say for sure that the hacktivist crowd is not in cahoots with virus writers to impose their crypto-anarchic “vision” of the world?
Re: Unless
1. none.
2. yes.
3. ship some of that stuff my way.
😉
Re: Unless
“How many hacktivists harrass RIAA employees and threaten their family funerals?” How may do you know of? I the defendent is dead what is the point of going ahead with the trial?
Re: Re: Unless
Because it sends a message.. “we’re so powerful, not even death can let you escape!”
Re: Unless
heh… maybe that should be ‘Drokus’
dude, since when retaliation and revenge the equal of justice? two wrongs, two different prosecutions (or whatever). one does not equate to the other, dickhead. that is the same idiotic logic that keeps wars going.
Re: Unless
It has been a maxime in law for quite some time when the defendent dies the suit is terminated and charges are dropped.
Given the amount of money the RIAA has spent bringing these lawsuits to court it would seem to me their lawyers would have advised against this suit in this case.
The lawyers get paid no matter how idiotic the suit. Where is the vitrolic diatribe against this frivolous suit?
Re: Re: Unless
This maxim doesn’t exist whatsoever. If you are trying to recover damages, ones death doesn’t stop you from recovering it from his estate. Should the people damaged by Enron not attempt to recover something from Ken Lay’s estate if he is found either negligent or at fault by the courts?
Whether or not the RIAA should or should not act in the manner it is in regards to PR…but the argument about whether or not it is right or within the bounds of the law is not a point of contention.
Maybe it is my “cold heart”, but I just have very little sympathy for individuals that knowingly and blatantly break the law and then cry foul when they are feeling the repercussions of it.
Next thing you know they’d start suing people who downloaded things by accident who then deleted it right away and didnt even touch it.
Unless
Next you’ll want to beg for clemency for Castro, or say Sitting Bull was okay to do what he did at the Bighorn, or Hitler was right to build Auschwitz!! These perps stole man!!! Those rock artists work hard man. It’s not just drugs and stupid giirls they’re into. They have a legitimate right to protect the products of the artistic sensibilities just like any other victim.
Re: Unless
Did they really “steal”? What about all the hard work of promoting the artist and setting up concerts, which rock musicians are too lazy to do? Would any of the “legends” have become legends without the army of marketing professionals working for them? Despite all the anti-RIAA whining on here, there remains a natural division of labor between performance professionals and marketing professionals. There is an essentially infinite supply of “talented” musician wannabes, so the natural laws of economics firmly favor the RIAA side.
Re: Re: Unless
What about all the hard work of promoting the artist and setting up concerts, which rock musicians are too lazy to do?
So one moment they’re victims, and now they’re lazy?
There is an essentially infinite supply of “talented” musician wannabes, so the natural laws of economics firmly favor the RIAA side.
There is no such pool of talented wannabes. They’re hacks or playing the same thing to pre-recorded music if not the lyrics themselves. The fact that they have to super-saturate your head with marketing to make a buck is testament to the crap they’re trying to make us buy. THUS we must download ahead of time to see if an album is worth one interesting track.
They are sort of starting to get this with online purchases, but a very large part of the music industry is full of schills trying to grab your buck before you realize what happened.
Re: Unless
Are you serious? You really think the RIAA is doing this to help protect the interests of the artists? Artists make money of of venues, not CD sales. The RIAA is doing this as a last ditch effort to save themselves before more artisits realize that “recording” is not the way to make money in this biz. It’s not that I’m endorsing stealing, but what I am saying is that it is a wasted effort on the part of the RIAA. It’s analogous to trying to kill every butterfly in the U.S. using 100 people, each one aimed with a flyswatter.
Re: Re: Unless
Are you serious? You really think the RIAA is doing this to help protect the interests of the artists?
Non sequitir, I never said RIAA cares about artists.
Artists make money of of venues, not CD sales. The RIAA is doing this as a last ditch effort to save themselves before more artisits realize that “recording” is not the way to make money in this biz….
Sure, artists can try to do everything on their own — producing ads, reserving concert space, procuring costumes, trying to spread fame on their own. The artist may discover that such activities take up all their time, and leaves them no time to practice their performing skills. As I said before, there is an infinite supply of other talented artists, so there will always be someone better than them.
In a modern society, it makes sense to outsource such activities to people other than the performer, and that’s where the music industry comes in.
Re: Re: Re: Unless
“Sure, artists can try to do everything on their own — producing ads, reserving concert space, procuring costumes, trying to spread fame on their own. The artist may discover that such activities take up all their time, and leaves them no time to practice their performing skills. As I said before, there is an infinite supply of other talented artists, so there will always be someone better than them.
In a modern society, it makes sense to outsource such activities to people other than the performer, and that’s where the music industry comes in.”
All you’ve made a case for is that an artist or group might need a manager to take care of such things, not that the manager(s) have the right to be heartless blood-sucking leaches.
Re: Re: Re:2 Unless
All you’ve made a case for is that an artist or group might need a manager to take care of such things, not that the manager(s) have the right to be heartless blood-sucking leaches.
The laws of free markets favor that behavior. There is an infinite supply of musicians, but a finite demand for music. Music is mostly listened to by young people, who focus on a few favorite tunes. If Techdirt is as pro-free-market as it claims to be, then it should applaud the heartless, blood-sucking behavior of managers.
Re: Re: Re:3 Unless
Its not the managers thats the problem its the mob lawyers that make up the IRAA thats the problem. These lawyers are really just giveing a bad name to musicians by useing the legal system to extort money from people and useing haphazared “evidence” to do it. Yes artists have the right to protect there work and I have no problems with that. They are just going about it wrong. If you want to stop pirating you don’t go after the Users you go after the source the P2P networks.
Re: Re: Re:3 Unless
Okay, enough! We know that you work for the RIAA, so just give it up. Return your attentions to something worthwhile, something like suing hapless, working class people who can’t afford to pay twenty dollars for a CD.
Re: Re: Re:4 Unless
You pay $20 for a CD? Again, you obviously are not of sound mind…so steal away, you are well outside the accessibility of the RIAA.
That is amazing that because I am not a stalwart for rationalizing stealing, I must work for the RIAA. That makes a terrible load of sense. I was wondering when someone would come on and accuse me of that. That is the typical armchair-lawyer/blogger approach…I must work for the RIAA…along those same lines…you must work for one of the state sponsored highway cleanup events for retards.
Re: Re: Re: Outsourcing? Hardly.
If bands really “outsourced” their marketing/production/organization then there would not be seven-year “lockdown” contracts, and the Record companies would not be fighting so hard to “own” (steal?) the artists’ music.
A major part of the problem here is that the Record companies actually believe that _they_ are the music business and the musicians are their suppliers, rather than the other way round.
The world has changed – thanks in part to the digital technology that they have themselves birthed – but they have not. Now they are in “hold-back-the-tide” mode, fighhting against downsizing, trying to charge more and deliver less… while the rest of the world simply walks away.
Re: Re: Re: Unless
“In a modern society, it makes sense to outsource such activities to people other than the performer, and that’s where the music industry comes in.”
Exactly. And just as artists have the Music execs and RIAA to promote their work so they don’t have to, so does General Motors have ad agencies to promote their work.
General Motors is too musy making cars to need to have to deal with knowing how to make commercials to promote them, so they hire an ad agency.
And just as with musicians and the RIAA, General Motors lets its ad agency take 99% of the profits from sales of cars, plus the ad agency gets to own the patents.
And if General Motors decides it doesn’t like the ad agency anymore, the agency gets to keep the rights to GM cars it has promoted… and just as recording artists do, sometimes automakers have to go into lengthy protracted and expensive lawsuits to get back the rights to their cars after having left an ad agency.
Also, just as with the RIAA, all cars are more expensive even when cheaper to make, because the car makers’ ad agencies have banded together to price fix.
And of course, when the new technology of freeways came out, the ad agencies for the car makers got a law passed that prohibited you from breaking their DRM (driving rights management) so that you would have to buy one of their “freeway cars” so you wouldn’t unfairly use your “surface street car” on the freeways, thus stealing transportation from them.
Re: Unless
Place gun in mouth. Pull trigger.
Re: Unless
The Little BigHorn? Seriously? That just goes to show tsk….they deserved everything they got comin’ to ’em at Little BigHorn. For obvious reasons at that.
Re: Unless
LOL!!! You had me on your side till you threw in Sitting Bull. You do know what the whites did to his people right? The raping and slaughter women and children? Wiping out whole villages? He was more than justified in what he did. You need to do some learning before you make comments like that.
Re: Unless
He is dead. End of story and case. At this point what the RIAA is over kill.
Re: Re: Unless
They are going after his estate for damages…common practice…why is it overkill? Anybody who has a claim against someone can and will go after their estate. If the RIAA sees it as recovering damages, they by all means have the right to pursue it, and will be well within the bounds of the law.
Re: Unless
You’re a completel idiot. You compare Hitler and Castro to someone who “stole” a song?
Wow … I guess you have a legitimate right to be a ginormous butt muncher though so ……
Re: Unless
That’s an awefully ignorant comment. WTFU, sit down and shut up.
Re: Unless
Next you’ll want to beg for clemency for Castro, or say Sitting Bull was okay to do what he did at the Bighorn, or Hitler was right to build Auschwitz!!
Okay, I know that this entire article and discussion is nothing about debating on such strongly argued cases, but the fact that you are willing to even place Sitting Bull in the same sentence of a comparison with the likes of Hitler makes me sick. I pondered, ‘I’ll just let it pass’, read on a bit, but the thought is just building inside of me. I really hope that you aren’t telling me that you would even compare the two!!! Come now, even our national goverment acknowledges that “all of the participants saw themselves as perhaps patriots-fighting for their country, land, or way of life.” (http://www.nps.gov/libi/). If you’ve ever done a little research, you’ll realize that Custer did have an order to find where the “rebellious, dangerous” group of Native Americans that refused to abandon there land and way of life and be confined to a camp, with military enforcement at the time, to what the government had named Indian Reservations.
I mean, come on now, this is a group of people that has lost most of their land, and the government is stepping in to say that your way of life, your beliefs, your people is below ours, and for that reason we are going to place you in camps where we can control you. That seems like a similar tactic to dissuade the people like the Hitler did. Again, the fact that I would even find this posted on techdirt sickens me, and I despise the lack of educational good and historical accuracy. Come on now, it doesn’t matter what the Native Americans did, if they were aggressive and attacking, or if they were peaceful and just wanted to be left alone. We were still invading their lands. If Canada just decided to settle colonies in NY, how would the US react (other than at first laughing hysterically and then going ahead with making Canada the 51st state…).
Custer was a pompous bastard that had an order of finding the location of the group of tribes that had decided to continue their nomadic way of life and wandered from the goverment’s control. Look it up in your history books , even they will tell you that at that point, he was not ordered to attack, but to wait for forces to join him. He decided he and his group of ~700 soldiers could take on the group of ~7000 people on their own, and died attempting to do so. He died attempting to make a name for himself by assaulting a people. These weren’t 7000 soldiers, these were families, children, mothers, daughters and sons.
Do a little research and put a litle thought into your words before you speak out too much next time.
Point in practice, I avoided Castro all together because all I know about Castro and Cuba is that it’s communist, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that Castro is supposively really sick right now. I can not accurately portray Castro as good or bad (though for the most part I don’t approve of a long term political leadership).
Well, I’m still boiling and I just hope that at least one person reads this and realizes perhaps their assumptions were wrong.
Re: Unless
“Those rock artists work hard man.” Probably not as hard as the RIAA suits work to find new ways to scoop up the golden crumbs.
Re: Re: Unless
Deep…
Re: Unless
“Those rock artists work hard man.” Probably not as hard as the RIAA suits work to find new ways to scoop up the golden crumbs.
Re: Unless
since when do we pursue the dead mans family? they had nothing to do with it! maybe the riaa should pursue you>? after all you do use a pc!
Re: Re: Unless
For probably the 100th time, the idea that they are pursuing the family is pure spin, they are pursuing the estate, not the other family members themselves.
Re: Re: Re: Unless
I am sure the family is having a hard time appreciating that distinction. This is a moral issue, not a legal one.
Re: Re: Re:2 Unless
The morality can be applied mutually. If you owe someone something, and you die, should that responsibility end with your mortal tenure, or should your responsibilities be fulfilled before your estate is distributed. I don’t understand how recovering assets from an estate is in any way “immoral”. Again, maybe that is just cold cold me talking.
Re: Re: Re:3 Unless
Agreed, there is no “moral lawbook” that we can consult to find an answer. RIAA and their lawyers are engaged in a propaganda war where one of the intended results is to make the public believe that copyright infringement is as serious a criminal act as they can make us believe. That is why they insist on calling it “stealing” when in fact it is not (according to the US supreme court, I noticed your response on this and even though there is some room for doubt it is still very clear that the Supreme Court did not at the time equte it with stealing).
As I do not share RIAA’s view on the seriousness of copyright infringement (although illegal), my moral compass finds it repulsive that the RIAA would not discontinue the suit under these circumstances out of respect for the family. You may come to a different conclusion based on your own compass.
Re: Re: Re:4 Unless
Although I could possibly agree or disagree with your view of the “greviousness” of his offense, if it is deemed that he owes the money, it shouldn’t be considered different than any other debt. Would you be making the same assertion if it was credit card debt? The credit card companies will make a claim against the estate just as quickly and voraciously as the RIAA is.
Re: Re: Re:5 Unless
No, I would not, unless the existance of that debt is actually in dispute, which isn’t very likely, and then it would depend on the circumstances. I guess in most cases lawyers get frustrated with the complications raised by applying some concept of morality and just find it easier to proceed with the law book as their only guidance…
On a slightly different topic, how exactly is a court going to be able to assess the appropriate compensation to the RIAA once someone is found to have infringed in this manner? Let’s say I have shared 100 songs on Kazaa and I am found to be liable, what exactly is my liability? 100,000 people could have downloaded those 100 songs, or nobody. No way of knowing, and if nobody did, have I actually infringed (assuming that I actually own licensed copies of the works)? Does anybody know how this works, or do we need to wait until someone is found liable in the courts?
Re: Re: Re:6 Unless
That is the very thing most lawyers tell me about their career, is that it forces them to be cold towards moral standards, and apply objective standards to everything. Justice is never 100% fair and equal, and certainly tort law is not either. There has to be some objectivity to the practice of law, or we would be going in circles. Sometimes the law comes down on good people, and sometimes bad people get free, that is just the way it is. I just personally don’t see issue in going after an estate for debts that you believe are owed.
As far as your other question, I am curious on this subject too. I recall reading somewhere that they only try to justify and quantify the sharing that they can prove. How this is done, or by what standard this is done is beyond my scope of knowledge.
Re: Re: Re:7 Unless
I would love to see one of these cases go to court. Through the documents I have read, RIAA’s methods of investigation seem almost naive in their simplicity. They seem to rely on using e.g. Kazaa to obtain an IP address, and copy screen dumps of the file names offered by a user, but they do not collect evidence that the file names actually represent real recordings, nor can they establish who the actual user is, only the IP address.
In short, they can not produce clear undisputable evidence of what was infringed, nor who was doing the infringing. I know that the burden of proof is significantly lower in civil cases, but I would hope they need to have at least some proof.
Please see this link for some examples:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/12/nelsons-sue-riaa-attorneys-in-michigan.html
Re: Unless
In what way was Sitting Bull wrong? Clemency for Castro? Is he on trial? What the hell are you talking about? You sound like a fifteen year old kid.
Re: Unless
That’s the most asinine, ignorant, and stupid comparison I have ever heard. You’ve just made babies stealing candy morally equivalent with genocide.
Re: Unless
Uh… yea… downloading music is just like Auschwitz. I’m not even going to start on that one… that’s just ridiculous to compare “stealing” (I’ll use your words) music to the annihilation of an entire race (genocide, if you will). Based on your logic, we should probably be sentencing petty thieves to death for war crimes.
Clemency for Castro? What did Castro ever do? Castro never committed any mass murders, the only thing he did was kick all the American out of Cuba and pissed off the grand old USA. Despite being heavily sanctioned by the US, Cuba still has one of the best primary education systems in the world and universal health care. So what should we grant him clemency for? Because the USA has attempted to destroy its economy and invade (Bay of Pigs anyone?), Castro is suddenly the evil one?
And your completely right about Big Horn. I mean, how dare a native tribe which had inhabited that area for thousands of years and had even been granted the Black Hills area in a treaty made in 1851 attempt to defend their own sacred land against the American Government which just sought to take over the land for the gold. I mean, fighting? In a time of war?
If anything, you just proved you know absolutely nothing about history. You seem to employ a ridiculous amounts of logical fallacies in your argument besides the ones above.
And do you seriously think artists signed to big labels like Sony/BMG, Warner, Universal or EMI actually get money off their albums? Eirc Nicoli, CEO of EMI, gets about 3 million US dollars a year in pay. Surely if there’s that many starving artist, he could help them out? Every single artist out there knows that touring and signing promotions make them money… releasing records is just a to get their name out there.
Perhaps what you don’t realize is that the RIAA is not protecting artists, but record labels. They also make ridiculous claims and many fallacies such as the assumption that every single downloaded song would have been bought legally under normal circumstances… So therefore, even if you download a song just listen to it and then buy the album later, to the RIAA, you’re no different. Not to mention they have a flawed methodology for actually suing people. They base their law suits purely on who an IP address is registered too which so far has led to them suing a dead grandmother, a person with multiple sclerosis (since I’m going to assume you’re too dense to know what that is, it’s a degenerative neurological disease that pretty much rendered her unable to operate anything, much less a computer) as well as people who don’t even own a computer (but the previous owner of the house had). If this doesn’t prove, beyond a doubt, that the RIAA is nothing but a ridiculous witch-hunting organization that does absolutely no good, I suggest you come up with a counter argument that doesn’t compare music downloaders to Nazis.
(sorry about the long post but ignoramuses like “playgued” piss me off)
Is there intellegent life on this planet
My question to you all of you is what part of the space time continum do the RIAA and the justice system that supports this kind of nonsense come from. Given that the mulit-millionare artist have a right to protect thier work. What gives them the right to force the children of the defendant to pay for his actions. Whats next we start imprisoning children of people in prison that die before serving thier sentence. What happened to the intellegence and logic in our justice system instead of trying to discourage the RIAA we should be talking to the judges that allow this kind of thing to happen. Lawyers or not it is my understanding that the judge still has the final say in all matters that pass through any form of court. Perhaps I am wrong and the corporate world control the injustice system?
Re: the role of the judge
Judges have to follow the law, and are not free to follow their individual emotional preferences. If this upsets you, stop complaining about lawyers and judges and start putting pressure on politicians to change the laws.
It’s not judges who make the law. It the people you vote for. If you think the copyright laws are unfair or should allow limited copies for noncomercial use, write them. If you think ISP customers need more laws protecting them, write your representatives and tell them. If you think current laws are not being farily applied, kick up a fuss and tell as many people as you can. But don’t think judges have ultimate power. They don’t. We do.
???
doesn’t the lawsuit become invalid if the person you’re trying to sue dies?
if you follow RIAA’s case, let’s say a murderer dies while he is in jail awaiting for the trial….so do you go after the children for the crime that his/her parent did?
maybe the lawsuit is different if there’s a property is involved but how do you go after the children if the children have no knowledge of what the parent did?
any lawyer around here who knows anything about this?
Re: death and estates
The children are not being sued. The estate is being sued. RIAA wuold depose the children as witnesses to make their case. It will be hard for the estate to defend since the dead can not testify. Any judgement awarded would come out of the estate.
Re: RIAA continues lawsuit
Now that the alledged criminal is dead, have they not lost the right to face their accuser? RIAA just wants a cut of the estate if there is any.
my guess
my guess is that the RIAA itself has no idea what the particulars of any given case is and it lawyers are in auto pilot. Tort law would allow them to sue the estate of the defendant and that is why it is rolling forward. Everyone is right that in a criminal proceeding the case would end at the defendants death, but the cases the RIAA is working at civil not criminal.
ARGH!!!
I wish a Supreme court Judge would step-in and rule all RIAA lawsuits invalid or set some kind of guidelines. The RIAA is becoming very wreckless with their abuse of the court system.
I hate this debate
Every time this comes up it ends up in a big debate…
People who know what is right dont do it cause they want gfree stuff…. the people who own the rights enforce it in stupid ways…
The bottom line is, copy protection on music will never work… especially when devices keep getting made that support things like MP3 file formats for your car sterio… any raw audio output can be sampled and compiled…
I think I’m with the view that the industry needs to change its habbits… sueing billions of people is not the answer… and I’m sure its not making them any friends or any money…
BS
@ Dorpus
You make way too many assumptions. There isn’t an infinite supply of musicians. Even if there is ..ther arent an infinite musicians of caliber. Besides, why is there only a finite demand for music? What is the logic behind that statement? I would like to make a statement along the same lines you did, that there is a an infinite demand for music. Beliting out psuedo meaningful jargon doesnt make your case sir. Besides, If I may be so bold..you come across as someone completely ignorant of “the laws of free markets”. All this is moot, as what matters is that the RIAA step beyond basic decency standards to make a point/example or to make a few bucks.
I say users take the battle back to the RIAA. A list should be compiled of the pricks involved with the RIAA, and a further list of their family members. When someone dies, trample their funeral and raid the little gathering they have after the burial….eat all the food, and leave while placing harrassing banners in their front yards. If they can harrass users without any grounds for regulation, why cant the users make their lives a living hell?
The sarcasim on this thread has gone waaaaay to deep for me!
Nope, no one should ever harass family members at a funeral.
The RIAA is continuing it’s fine tradition of pissing everyone off, and we’ve seen how well that works.
Not that I would ever suggest any kind of shenanigans, but if the RIAA is pursuing a claim against a now dead individual, don’t they still have to prove that he did in fact do something? Any couldn’t the family “discover” an open acess point with a booster antenna in the dead man’s closet, thus proving that it could’ve been anyone in the neighborhood; and couldn’t the family “remember” that Dad listened to nothing but “Flock of Seagulls” and didn’t care for anything that was allegedly downloaded? Failing that, couldn’t the family “produce” documentation to prove that Dad had no real assets beyond a ’72 Dodge Dart, and therefore the RIAA can have the deceased’s entire estate and then go the fuck away since they have no other individual claim?
Stop it already
Would everyone be kind enough to stop giving the artists credit for their work? ITS NOT THEIRS. The “works” produced by the artists that are under a contract with a label are not theirs. They don’t get the rights. They forfeited those rights to their label.
The reason you don’t see artists trying to protect their rights is because they don’t have any rights to protect. Its the RIAA that is trying to protect the labels rights. The artists are getting trampled on in all of this, just like the consumers.
Re: Not quite...
The Record company does NOT own the rights to the music. They have a limited monopoly, after which the artist may assert their ownership.
A few years ago the RIAA tried changing a law to give themselves ownership of the music. The musicians went to Washington… and got the change backed out.
Interestingly, the White House Staffer who sneaked this change into the law now works as a Senior Vice President for… the RIAA
Artists ARE trying to protect their rights… but with only a handful of major record labels left, they are lfacing an oligopoly.
stolen comment, but good
this was taken from /. but i think the guy really got the answer “right:”
by XStylus (841577) on Monday August 14, @03:22AM (#15901259)
One must truly understand what the RIAA is trying to do here. Their goal isn’t recoup lost revenues. Their goal is “shock and awe” through scare tactics. Basically, their lawyers are instructed to take no prisoners, go for the jugular, and show no mercy. It’s to send a message meant to scare people into thinking that if you file share, the RIAA mafia will be after you like a rabid bulldog with lockjaw. Any respectful prosecutor would lay off and drop the case out of respect. After all, the accused party is dead, so there’s really no point. But no, the RIAA is going to find some way to press onward and make it the whole family’s problem now, and they know it’ll bring negative publicity. They want it. They want to be feared, and for young little “sharing is caring” tykes to be looking under the bed for the RIAA boogyman at night if they so much as dare think about doing such an evil thing as sharing. This ruthless and heartless behavior is soooooo going to bite the RIAA on the ass someday, hopefully violently.
Here is why
The reason they are now going after the kids, it’t not that they are trying to get the kids in trouble. They are trying to get a portion of the dead man’s estate. Which presumably the kids inherited. Kinda what happens if you owe a loan to a bank and you pass, then the bank gets paid back out of your estate.
Insane
This is absolutely fucking insane! Heartless bastards. Will they ever fucking quit this bullshit? I agree with some of the other comments. It’s time the Supreme Court steps in and says “no more RIAA cases.” It should be a bill that gets passed.
I really hope the courts dismiss this case and tell the RIAA to FUCK OFF for being such heartless, greedy assholes.
FUCK THE RIAA. I no longer listen to any mainstream musicians. Any band that gets signed by big record companies, I no longer support. Indie music rocks. I love the bands that manage themselves (and there are plenty of them. Somehow they “find the time” to do it, so don’t tell me a successful musician NEEDS the RIAA) and only do what they do because they love making music and pleasing their fans.
We need to make a stand. Instead of just bitching about the RIAA here, we all need to make a statement thast shows these bastards how pissed we are. If we all boycotted RIAA/big record company bands…think of the message that would send. Of course, the stupid dumbfucks at the RIAA would again try to blame it on P2P downloading….but…perhaps we should all stop downloading, too! Then they’d have no one to blame but their greedy, heartless, evil sevles for driving all their customers away.
Civil suits
Someone has mentioned the fact that this is a civil case and not criminal is why the RIAA can continue and that sounds right. This is why I’ve never like the civil suits. Kinda like when O.J. was found not guilty and like 2 days later the family of the victim brought a civil suit against him.
This is all a scare tactic. It’s a simple fact that the RIAA are corproate bullies. Reminds me of the fictional law firm Wolfram & Hart from the TV series Angel. I just hope that the family of the deceased can fight back and win the case.
Because if the RIAA wins there’s no stopping them. Garnishing wages? Sure. You were file sharing at work? The RIAA will sue you and your employer. Sharing with your grandmother’s internet service? They’ll take her pension and your college fund. You share a house with four roomates and there’s no way to tell which of you did it? Then they’ll just sue all five of you. Why not just bring a blanket lawsuit on the entire family of the person they are after?
And I’ll bet the artists can’t say a damn thing about all these frivilous lawsuts…unless its positive mind you. The RIAA probably has something to the effect of contractual(I dont’t know if that’s a real word but I’ll use it anyway) gag orders on them.
The Point
The point basically is this. If you have a CD and copy it for personal use, you’re good to go. If you have music from a CD and share it on Kazaa, or someplace like that, it’s illegal. Bottom line. There is no justification for it. The problem is, people don’t like to live where there are rules and they can’t bend or break them. All these rationalizations about managers, what artists should do, what the lawyers are doing is a smoke screen to justify the illegal sharing of files. It doesn’t matter who the music belongs to(artists or record labels), you are not free to come along and give things away that don’t belong to you. You should have learned this lesson when you were a young rug rat.
The Point Counter Point
Bull Shifter
Not many people will disagree with you. Stealing is wrong. Period.
However, going after the family is what’s in question here. The RIAA is trying to make a case that the family of a person that commits a crime should be held accountable for their deeds after they have died. I can’t imagine any court going forward with this case if it even gets that far.
Re: The Point Counter Point
Damian, I’ll agree that the family angle is pretty low. My contention is that we have people posting in here that actually try to justify the illegal theft of music. It seems to be a very emotional debate as evidenced by the fact that the posts are swinging all over the target, with most not even hitting anywhere in the same time zone. I believe and deal with bottom lines. Bottom line here is that if you’re gonna do the crime, you’d better be willing to do the time.
Let me put it more succinctly(is that how you spell it?) and I’ll break it down Barney style for the lowest common denominator-types. Billy has a bag of candy. Billy left his candy on his desk and went to the blackboard to work out a problem for the teacher. Joey, Tommy, and Jane began taking pieces of candy out of the bag and distributing the candy to the rest of the class. Is this stealing, or justifiable candy-sharing? Should the CCSA(Candy Consuming Student Association) go after Joey, Tommy, and Jane for stealing property which isn’t theirs? Well, you get the picture.
Re: Re: The Point Counter Point
I agree with what you’re saying. Those who try to justify illegally downloading songs are really the people the RIAA should have in their sites.
Re: Re: The Point Counter Point
When are RIAA chronies like BullShifter going to stop blasting “File Sharing is theft” Rhetoric. File Sharing is NOT theft! The US Supreme Court even backs this point.
File distribution is wrong, it is against copyright. It is not Theft or Stealing or anything like that. Why, because nothing physical was stolen. A copy was made of an group of sounds that to someone, was pleasing. A COPY was made, NOT STOLEN!
F’ing Moron’s who think that is stealing, should go back to elementary school and learn how to use a dictionary! And all driving priveledges should be taken away from them. I don’t want to be on the same road as those people. They probably think a Yellow light means “Go Real Fast!”
Re: Re: Re: The Point Counter Point
Please provide a reliable link or source that states the US Supreme Court has ruled that downloading music without rights to its ownership is legal. I definitely would like to see that.
It is the notion that when you purchase a CD, you aren’t actually physically purchasing the disc, but rather you are purchasing the right to own and listen to the music in your own collection. The physical aspect of the CD doesn’t matter.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Point Counter Point
Eugene, the Supreme Court did not say it was legal. They ruled that it was not theft, but copyright infringement. There is a difference!
Re: Re: Re:3 The Point Counter Point
Again, I don’t know enough about the semantic nomenclature used to mandate what the Supreme Court has ruled. Which is exactly why I wanted a resource to further educate myself on the matter instead of taking an “Anonymous Coward’s” (no personal offense) word for it.
However, I might respond that isn’t copyright infringement just a form of theft, especially in the non-litigious sense?
Re: Re: The Point Counter Point
Let’s place it a different way, which is a tad bit more apt for this situation. Billy has an infinite supply of candy, but charges $20 for each piece. While Billy goes to solve a problem on the chalkboard, Larry, Moe, and Curly each take a handful of candy. Billy couldn’t notice this (as his supply is infinite), except for the fact that he has paid Jane to put a hidden camera in the ceiling and watch the infinitely large bag. Larry, Moe, and Curly are caught on camera and then beaten up by Jane, who was hired by Billy, for ‘stealing’ the candy. The bottom line is: intellectual ‘property’ does not exist. The free market will only work if there’s a finite supply, and information is infinite. Fuck the RIAA.
I am willing to bet I’ve seen the transfer of music across the internet long before many of you…
If bands have to have army’s of marketers to sell their music. Their music sucks to begin with and your a yuppie for buying it. Stealing is just wrong.. How many of you guys have played in a band? 1, maybe 2? If your bands song was being traded millions of times a day by filesharers, would you be pissed or stoked?? You should be stoked that people listen to your artistic ability. Once you only create music to buy your gold grill, get spinners in your spinners, have that hot tub in your living room. Your no longer an artist. You just bought into the whole lets suck everyone for every penny they have type of greed. Because we all know artist should not and would not be making that much money anyway, if it wasn’t for the guys at the RIAA, who saw dollar signs when they figured out they could steal the artists music and sell it at an extremely inflated price.
I steal....
I steal movies and music FROM the INTERNET.
(waits for the Internet to sue him)
*gives the finger to the RIAA/MPAA*
The hurt in my head knows no bounds
I by no means am a proponent of the RIAA, but the armchair lawyering that is going on by every imbecile that reads blogs is hurting my head so bad, I am about to be a stalwart for the RIAA out of spite. I guess working at Subway part time while taking 6 hours at your local community college makes you a licensed attorney.
#1. The individual that compared this to a murder case. Dude, the distinction exists between criminal and civil.
#2. The idea that the RIAA is going after the “children” is spin…pure filthy spin…and you guys eat it up like its candy. They are going after the estate of the dead man, well within the bounds of the law and the logical next step. This isn’t “abuse of the legal system” by any stretch of the imagination.
#3. The people they are going after in the aggregate have been individuals that were BLATANTLY outside the bounds of the law, who know full well that they are performing illegal acts. That ‘poor sap’ at MIT that was suggested to that he should drop out to pay the fine knew full well what he was doing, and the extent to which he was doing it. Would you have the same sympathy for him if he had shoplifted? Because it is electronic, and the stolen goods not tangeable, for some reason he is being mistreated. Nonsense…where do you guys come up with this idiocy? He was smart enough to get into MIT, yet not smart enough to understand the ramifications of his actions…oh let me guess…since it is so ubiquitous we should have a “right” to do it right? Nonsense.
#4. This asinine argument about whether or not there are lots of musicians, or who does what etc…is moot. It doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is, they were breaking the law, and that is that. You can sit here and talk about right and wrong all you want…but there is no abuse…the only abuse is the individual who is abusing the resources at his disposal to perform illegal activities. They broke the law…period.
So please…please…please…the armchair lawyering must stop.
Re: The hurt in my head knows no bounds
To #39…This isn’t about armchair lawyering as it is about being right and wrong.
I’m not sure we care about what the law is because more often than not the law is just too complex. If it’s too complex ordinary citizens cannot understand it. If ordinary citizens cannot understand the law, they need attorneys just so they can follow the law. Attorneys are responsible for the state of legal affairs in our country.
We have attorneys because they twisted and contorted sound logic to such a degree that we no longer understand or even care what the law is because, clearly no-one in their right mind can even understand the shit…without the aid of legal counsel.
Anyway, It is quite clear to me that we as non-lawyers know damn well what we are talking about. Sorry if it’s not dotting the I or crossing the T in the law books but it’s just common horse sense that this whole system is not working, it’s getting worse and you are just adding more wood to an already stoked fire.
Re: Re: The hurt in my head knows no bounds
Lawyers aren’t present to assist and facilitate your understanding of the law, it is to assist you and facilitate your understanding of the courts, and PROCEDURES of the law. If in fact you need a lawyer to help you understand that stealing is illegal, don’t worry about being sued by the RIAA, because you are mentally retarded, and that defense most likely will hold up in court.
Re: Re: Re: The hurt in my head knows no bounds
The RIAA are NAZIS. Music is necesary for me to function therefore I should be able to download it for free. If a man steals food to feed his family is he a criminal? I think not. I, and millions like me, need music to sustain our existence.
Re: Re: Re:2 The hurt in my head knows no bound
There are individuals that think they need sex with minors to sustain their existance…should we legalize it on their behalf?
And please don’t tell me that you need Chingo Bling, the Ghetto Vaquero just to go on living.
Re: The hurt in my head knows no bounds
Your comparison to shoplifting is pathetic. If I shoplift – remove a physical item without payment – the item is no longer available for other customers to consider purchasing. When I download the item is still available for download by others. Get it? See how downloading and stealing are not the same thing?
Now for this “breaking the law” bullshit. Fuck the law. The law changes, and often changes because most people will ignore the damned things when they’re stupid. PROHIBITION failed not because they didn’t try to enforce it. It failed because it was a stupid law that the vast majority of people were willing to break.
Re: Re: The hurt in my head knows no bounds
You can’t honestly be seriously this stupid. Are you that stupid, or pretending to be that stupid?
Damages aren’t always quantified just by the opportunity cost or loss of potential revenue by the item, although it can. So according to you, as long as something is still available it isn’t stealing…ummm yeah ok. I don’t even need to provide my own retort, because merely restating what you said effectively manages the same thing.
Hmmm…disagree with the law, so go ahead and break it. Such genius in our midst…
Are you trying to advance or regress the movement that you are a proponent of…because if you are going to present your point of view with such pure inanity…I suggest you let someone else become your spokesperson.
Re: Re: Re: The hurt in my head knows no bounds
George Bush is a Murderer
Re: Re: Re:2 The hurt in my head knows no bound
Of course GW is a murderer. He’s also a treasonous jerk who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes; but does he own stock in a recording company?
Re: Re: Re: The hurt in my head knows no bounds
So according to you, as long as something is still available it isn’t stealing…ummm yeah ok.
No, it’s not just according to him. It’s according to the law and the Supreme Court. It may be illegal, but it’s not stealing:
“(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud… The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.”
So says Justice Harry Blackmun in Dowling v. United States.
So, while you laugh it off, it is a very valid point that “stealing” involves depriving the original owner of the product, and copyright infringement does no such thing. It is still illegal, but the legal issues are quite different, despite your claims of it being exactly the same.
For someone who talks about the importance of the specifics within the law, it’s surprising you don’t recognize this distinction (and, in fact, make fun of it).
Re: Re: Re:2 The hurt in my head knows no bound
This is merely conjecture on my part, but I think the ruling is wholly irrelevant in this day and age, and isn’t applicable. I know that I am not the only one that shares this viewpoint. The recording industry has long since made changes to their legal strategy and base in on rights of usage rather than possession. For me, utilizing something without consent can be deemed as “stealing”, at least in colloquial vernacular.
One thing that I notice is that he isn’t absolutely in his opinion. He states that it does not EASILY eqate to theft, conversion or fraud, he does not state that it doesn’t equate to it. I think taking the absolutist position might be self-serving, and purporting an unintended perception.
I liken this to the case about domains. IIRC, even though there wasn’t a physical nature, that it was in fact a service, that there could still be quantifiable damages applied. If damages can be quantified, and you have no rights to the particular object you “copied”, why isn’t that considered theft? The law says that damages are liquifiable.
Where am I going wrong?
Re: Re: Re:3 The hurt in my head knows no b
Wow, Eugene, this is really impressive. In response to my pointing out that the Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between copyright infringement and stealing, you note:
This is merely conjecture on my part, but I think the ruling is wholly irrelevant in this day and age, and isn’t applicable.
So, when YOU find a legal ruling to no longer be relevant, it’s okay to ignore it.
However, when everyone else in this thread finds a different legal situation to be totally irrelevant in this day and age, you go all lawyer on them about how it’s the law and how dare they suggest otherwise.
Double standard? Nah…
I liken this to the case about domains. IIRC, even though there wasn’t a physical nature, that it was in fact a service, that there could still be quantifiable damages applied.
That’s quite different, because there is real scarcity. Only one person can own a domain at a time.
Anyway, the point of the original post had nothing to do with the legal standing of the case, but the fact that it’s incredibly bad PR, and would have cost the RIAA little to have simply dropped the case. Instead, they continue to look like heartless bastards.
Re: Re: Re:4 The hurt in my head knows
Did I say I ignored it…after reading it, I presented my opinion on the ruling and what I think he meant. Everything, even judicial opinions are open to interpretation.
I think you yourself have either not bothered to read the whole of the comment thread, or misinterpreted my opinion and intention. I by no means defend the RIAA, but I will defend the RIAA’s attempts to use the system to whatever ends they feel justified. For me, maybe its sheer naivity, but I believe that if the RIAA can legitimately present its case given current legal standards, then they should win. As I have stated many a time, whether the RIAA is right or not is not of my concern, in the end, they will or will not get what is coming to them, but I will defend their ability to recoup any debt that they see exists through whatever legal avenues that exist.
In my opinion, the original story was subjected to a terrible amount of spin…but then again, that is what adhoc journalism and blogging sometimes ends up right?
Between your misrepresentation of some “double standard” and your bandwagon “everyone else” argument…I almost find your post humorous.
Sanguine Dream...
Your logic makes me vomit. The difference between the criminal and civil suit in OJ’s case was that there are differences in burdens of proof…the former having a much higher burden of proof. In criminal cases, this is considered “beyond a reasonable doubt”…in civil, it is either “a balance of probabilities” or “clear and convincing evidence”.
The fact that you don’t make this distinction is why there is a fallacy in your line of thinking.
Re: Sanguine Dream...
So even though I did talk about civil vs. criminal suits (which I complained about the civil suit that came shortly after the not guilty verdict) and said that I have a thinig against them it still makes you sick?
Re: Re: Sanguine Dream...
I apologize Sanguine…honestly my disgust isn’t with you necessarily. You articulated a position that is subjective and of your own opinion, and I shouldn’t have attacked you for such. Many apologies. My point was that there is a reason that civil suits exist…they are mutually exclusive of criminal actions. I agree that massive tort reform needs to happen, but that doesn’t invalidate the necessity for civil suits in the first place.
Re: Re: Re: Sanguine Dream...
I agree that massive tort reform needs to happen, but that doesn’t invalidate the necessity for civil suits in the first place.
No problem this is just discussion and you can have your opinion just like I can have mine.
You are right about that civil suits need to exist and that they are long overdue for major reform.
Eye for an Eye
The RIAA and other organizations that are desperate to protect their “materials” have to realize the world has changed and the way they are going about things is not working.
Also, I think the issue is also, not that it is, or is not, stealing – and therefore you deserve your punishment. In this country, at least, the idea has been that the punishment fit the crime. No “cruel and unusual punishment”. That’s what we said we believe. What the the RIAA is trying to do IS cruel and unusual and certainly does not fit the crime. A person who steals SONGS – does not deserve to lose their chance at education, ruin their family and so on.
It’s a SONG. Give me a break. If they must continue with chasing downloaders – then they should be controlled in what they can demand as punishment. If these people ran into BestBuy and filled a shopping cart full of cds and ran off and handed them out, they still would not be liable the way RIAA is making file sharers.
Re: Eye for an Eye
Nope, you are wrong…they would be liable even more so. Give me a civil suit for a few thousand rather than a criminal record any day of the week.
What you also aren’t considering is that the people they were going after are DISTRIBUTING these. So its the same thing as someone making copies of CDs, and giving them away on the street…the source of them most likely illegally procured as well. Your example just doesn’tmake sense be2be.
And yes, the punishment does fit the crime. Not only performing the crime, but FACILITATING others performing the crime no question can be quantified into at least a few thousand dollars of damages by the RIAA.
Re: Re: Eye for an Eye
so according to your logic…a gun salesman FACILITATES murder and should be sued for any gun he sells that was used in a murder.
if you hand someone a CD you legitimatley purchased and they copy it with a PC they bought at Best Buy…do you sue Best Buy for selling the PC? the maker of the PC? maybe the maker of the drive?…or how about that !#$^%!#$ that created the technology behind CD-Rs…man he was an @$$ eh? without the guys that invented the CD-R technology we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Re: Re: Re: Eye for an Eye
RIAA sucks, what are you blathering about. That is an apple to oranges comparison.
#1. In none of the examples you mentioned did those firms perform something illegal.
#2. In none of the examples above did those firms directly facilitate something they KNEW was illegal.
#3. All of the above have usages that aren’t illegal.
Your arguments are asinine and inane…and aren’t applicable.
Re: Eye for an Eye
I agree the crime should fit the punishment. In essence, each song is worth $1.00 at the very most.
So each amount of damage should be equal to the number of unique songs in total dollars. Plus say a $200.00 bone for the attorney.
That’s it.
Re: Re: Eye for an Eye
And how did you come to this conclusion that each song is worth $1.00. Could you please share with us the analysis by which you derived this quantification of damages. I definitely would like to see it.
Also, do you not think there is a difference between just downloading, and then turning around and sharing it. Let’s say that each song is worth $1…as you stated. And that an individual has 5,000 songs…that is $5,000 for his library. Oh wait, there is a twist…he is sharing those songs…should he be held liable for sharing the songs as well…methinks yes, and the law agrees…so how much is his liable for…another $1 as well for each of those…so let’s say he shares each song 10 times…that’s already $50,000….wow…quickly does your quantification supercede what the RIAA asks for in damages.
Re: Re: Re: Eye for an Eye
To #58.
No, if he offers up his library for sharing, the people who partake of his library and burn a copy should pay the price not the ditribution source. The guy at the source already paid his $5,000 and terminated his library.
Again, if someone steals a gun from a store and commits a crime with said gun, the store should not be held responsible for the actions of others.
You would have to somehow prove that the ditribution source cost more money in addition proving that the library owner intentionally and maliciously attempted to undermine the profits of the RIAA.
Re: Re: Re:2 Eye for an Eye
There are no legal usages for his sharing his library, so yes, he should still be liable. There is also very much a difference between distribution and end usage…the same goes in the drug game. Please don’t use the gun example anymore, because it just isn’t applicable.
Intent to undermine the profits of the RIAA is irrelevant…if applicable, they might be able to derive punitive damages as a result, but that intent is not necessary to break the law or quantify damages.
Fact is, he was sharing for three probably reasons…either
#1. he was sharing to facilitate his own downloading, as some sharing networks force him to share to maximize his download capabilities
or
#2. he was sharing for the sole purpose of the redistribution of aforementioned music illegally..
or
#. he didn’t care to turn it off…which negligance holds him just as liable.
Re: Re: Re: Eye for an Eye
What a dickwad. Assuming a dollar a song then 5000 songs is 5000 bucks, but I’m paying about a dime a song. Never mind. Anyone that copies from me owes their own dollar IF the RIAA wants to put the money into collecting that fee.
Me Thinks the law is stupid and people have the right to ignore stupid laws. Ever heard of prohibition? How about doing time for wearing an american flag? Lots of stupid laws get shut down for being stupid. Get over it. Move on. File sharing will always exist and no amount of law (in a reasonably free nation) will stop it from happening.
There is no physical loss. There is no theft. Fuck the law.
Re: Re: Re:2 Eye for an Eye
You should change “Me Thinks” to “Me Obviously Not Thinking”.
I honestly can’t even fathom what in the hell you are trying to say, because you aren’t making any kind of sense whatsoever. How do you have discourse with someone that is illogical to begin with? And it seems that Google’s Ass Clown to English language translator is down, so I can’t really ascertain what it is that you are trying to say anyways.
You keep bringing up prohibition, but how is that relevant…especially considering that there is a very easy quanitification for damages. Again, the idea that since it isn’t tangible that there is no loss is absurd. Is utilizing a stock photo without paying the appropriate royalties or having the rights to not stealing as well? Or, utilizing any service at all without paying for it…that isn’t stealing either?
That is absurdity.
Do the Crime?
Bull Shifter
“Bottom line here is that if you’re gonna do the crime, you’d better be willing to do the time.”
-But now, because the defendant died, those that are being sued didn’t do the crime. In fact I would bet they knew little to nothing of it.
“Should the CCSA(Candy Consuming Student Association) go after Joey, Tommy, and Jane for stealing property which isn’t theirs?”
-yes, they should. Another question is: should they go after the rest of the class for accepting stolen goods? (the RIAA would find away)!
Re: Do the Crime?
“-But now, because the defendant died, those that are being sued didn’t do the crime. In fact I would bet they knew little to nothing of it. ”
Nope, they are going after his estate.
“-yes, they should. Another question is: should they go after the rest of the class for accepting stolen goods? (the RIAA would find away)!”
If they knew full well that it was stolen, and accepted it anyways…they are complacent in the act. Just as guilty, and they would deserve to get sued.
why, when ken lay (enron) died, was his estate exempt from being sued? but here when this guy dies, RIAA is allowed to sue his estate?
Re: Re:
Ummm…it isn’t…
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/no-redemption-now-thoughts-on-death-of.php
As far as I understand, they just can’t pursue the recouping of damages criminally, since he died before he would have a chance to appeal…which in our system prevents any damages from being assessed. I could be wrong, but I believe that this is the case…if someone else more knowlegable than I could affirm or disaffirm this that would be good.
WOW
first of all I cannot believe this case exists…second I cannot believe the lengths some people will go to to try and support the RIAA…I mean really, these guys don’t help the artists. If any thing, suing over file sharing KILLED Metallica, they used to promote copying their albums and distributing them on live stage. Now they are more or less dead and suing lost them more fans and money than anyone ever stole.
Re: WOW
I am not defending the RIAA whatsoever, I am just denouncing the ill-logic that seems to drive some people. All anyone has been doing is rationalizing illegal activities. I don’t personally care whether or not the RIAA helps the artists…I honestly don’t give a damn. Fact is, you performed an illegal act, and facilitated others in performing that act…yet because the “songs” aren’t tangible, you shouldn’t be held accountable. This is exactly what is wrong with society these days…no more accountability.
I just don't get it...
The RIAA listens to their attorneys, their attorneys are behind this whole mess.
How come this was never a problem with cassette tape?
I recall copying all kinds of stuff on tape and I never heard a thing about copyrights and crap.
I truly believe that the RIAA started losing money way back then. In all this time they never even considered a new model? This must be too little, too late for the RIAA.
Remember my post–that in the near future the RIAA is going to come to their senses once they realize their attorneys are the only ones making more money. They will create a new business model that incorporates the web and minimizes retail.
Re: I just don't get it...
The reason it wasn’t seen as such a problem with the cassette tapes was because…
#1. The propensity and prolificness of the illegal distribution was nowhere near the levels that they are nowadays.
#2. The accesibility of aforementioned illegal cassette tapes was certainly lower than illegal songs are now.
#3. It was just as illegal back then as it is now.
Re: Re: I just don't get it...
> Re: I just don’t get it… by Eugene Cook on Aug
> 14th, 2006 @ 7:50am
> #3. It was just as illegal back then as it is now.
Copying to cassette tape is not necessarily illegal provided it falls under “fair use”. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the copying effort is outside of “fair use”.
DRM
The RIAA and MPAA et al are out of control and will do anythng to protect thier interests.
SOON, everything in the video and audio world will have extremetly rigid controls, enacted by our governemnt that will have absolute control over what you can record, playback,, re-record, what order you can play it back etc etc etc.
Think about it, who represntes the consumers in all this? No one there are no consumer PAC groups, we do not have the money to buy our influence.
A Dollar a Song (lay person)
That could still end up being a pretty penny, if they were distributing en masse.
A Dollar a Song (lay person)
That could still end up being a pretty penny, if they were distributing en masse.
A Dollar a Song
iTunes charges a dollar a song.
The U.S. is Doomed
It is truley amazing how many of you are ready at a moments notice, to run your mouth (or keyboard) without level of knowledge, on a subject, that might allow you to make a valid comment or observation. Try doing some research (homework) The Internet is the most fantastic tool for self education, since the book, and the majority of you use it to publish your ingnorance. MORE READING, LESS WRITING. Some of you sound exactly like the ignorant people that our News/entertainment channels interview shortly after a tragedy, “AH yeah sounded like a bomb then I ran and told Martha”
RIAA Stupidity and Your Stupidity
Ok, the RIAA is a heartless bunch of greedy heartless A## H*&@# who probably have satan’s law firm representing them. With that said…
Knowing what these people will do why are people so stupid? You know their going to be looking over your shoulders on the net to find anyone that gets a song without paying for it so why do you do it?
Do you really think you have the right to do it?
Or, to put it another way, let’s say you come up with an invention that makes say internet access instantaneous. And you patent, copyright or whatever your intellectual property. A month later you see a similar product and you know they ripped you off.
What would do? Roll over and play dead? I don’t think so. Most of you would hire satan’s law firm and instruct them to legally destroy them.
So, we have artist (musicians) with intellectual property (songs) that they want to be compensated for their time, effort, soul, and especially having to deal with things like the RIAA when someone gets a copy of their song. It’s called Capitalism. And, if I’m not mistaken we beat the other guys, Communism, so I guess it works.
Quit crying and pay the $1.00 or $2.00 for the song.
Re: RIAA Stupidity and Your Stupidity
Truer words have never been spoken.
I don’t necessarily disagree that the RIAA maybe certainly be one step lower than what is considered “humane”…but then again, most lawyers are…that is what they are paid to do. And they have a place in our society, and their place must be considered sacrisanct.
However, that doesn’t mean that the assertion can be made that you dont’ deserve EVERYTHING coming to you if you break the law. Period.
Re: RIAA Stupidity and Your Stupidity
If I create a new product and start selling it then someone comes along copies the idea and gives it away then I have to admit that I would take legal action.
Maybe the RIAA is afraid people will start faking death to avoid judgements.
Re: Re: RIAA Stupidity and Your Stupidity
Honestly, I think people are giving far more creedance to the fact that he is dead now than should be given. It is very common for lawsuits to be diverted to the estate upon death.
isn’t the real issue here that the music industry have benefited enormously from technology for as long as records have been capable of being made, the technology has moved on, the industry hasn’t. before they used to benefit from being able to sell the same thing several million times over, now they can’t (well they can but the consumer has been empowered by file swapping facilities and cheap readily available copying devices). it seems to me if you are threatening everyone who in some other capacity and at some other point is your customer you are pretty much up there with drowning men and straws. in some respects i think its great, if you are a muscian it shouldn’t be a job it should be a calling, but if it is a job, you are now really going to have to work at it, the one thing you cannot easily replicate is the live concert, get out on tour instead of making one CD and making millions. RIAA and all the other ‘rights holders’ have to get a grip and realise that the times have changed and alter their strategy (or even just accept the fact that there is no longer a place for them and that there current stance will in the long term be as useful as a chocolate fireguard in ‘protecting’ the music industry).sure this case works well in a bogeyman sense but all it does it show is an outdated organisation fighting for its own survival in a world it apparently no longer understands.
Re: Re:
That is a different discussion for a different day. The RIAA could very well be shooting themselves in the foot. However, I am not convinced that just because the RIAA is coming down hard on people for illegal file sharing, that that is going to stop a noticeable amount of people from purchasing music legitimately, especially considering that most people that procure and distribute music illegally to that extent aren’t exactly the ones purchasing the music currently as well, as they consider the illegally procured versions to be sufficient.
But yet, the RIAA overall certainly is making themselves look bad. But certainly not because they are acting illegitimately.
this is the worst they could do. utterly ridiculous. i can’t believe the people there still want to work there.
Private Copying Levy
One reason why the RIAA didn’t step into this arena as heavily with cassettes and videotape is that there is a Private Copying Levy, or tax, on blank cassette and video tape.
In other words, if you buy a blank cassette tape, you’re paying for the right to copy materials that may have copyrights.
That’s also why there are two different types of CD-R’s out there, some of which say “Music” others which say “Data”. The ones that say “Music” include this private copying Levy.
Currently in the US, hard drives and computer CD / DVD burners do not have this Levy attached. Neither do most MP3 Players.
Why don’t we just go ahead and add the Levy to the price of all recordable media and send the RIAA lawyers to the unemployment line?
And, BTW :
Excerpt from the Private Copying Levy article on Wikipedia:
17 USC 1008, from the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, says that non-commercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings is not copyright infringement. Non-commercial includes such things as resale not in the course of business, perhaps of normal use working copies which are no longer wanted. It’s unlikely to include resale of copies in bulk and Napster tried to use the Section 1008 defence but was rejected because it was a business.
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992: “In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use”.
Re: Private Copying Levy
Very interesting concept Medezark, thanks for sharing. That would be terribly interesting to see if something could be passed in that regard. Could we possibly also get that levied on hard drives etc?
Even then though, isn’t one of the distinctions of the PCL that you must own the music in the first place?
Re: Private Copying Levy
if its ok to do it for private non commercial use that seems to imply that DRM could be unlawful and that any EULA stating that the subject matter is protected by it would also be unlawful. i know its one thing saying you can’t be sued and another saying that therefore you have a legal right to do it but doesn’t this in some way infringe our consumer rights then
Re: Private Copying Levy
if its ok to do it for private non commercial use that seems to imply that DRM could be unlawful and that any EULA stating that the subject matter is protected by it would also be unlawful. i know its one thing saying you can’t be sued and another saying that therefore you have a legal right to do it but doesn’t this in some way infringe our consumer rights then
Re: Private Copying Levy
#86:
Wow Medezark I’m pretty impressed by your knowledge. If correct, I commend you for your entries. You just ignored the chains of entires and laid down, WHAM, some good old basic facts…I love it!
This actually makes sense to me now, probably more so than ever.
Medezark, you rock! I’m so tired of non-productive entries and just the chain of bickering…myself included.
Anyway, if it worked in the past why can’t it work now? I believe that the RIAA manipulated the laws to benefit themselves and I believe that our representatives sold the trust with which we empowered them.
Nothing else explains the matter at hand.
Re: Re: Private Copying Levy
I could be completely wrong, but the ironic thing is Lay Person, I think that Medezark is actually on the opposite side that you are on.
If I read Medezark’s comments correctly, his position is that the industry has in fact LOST its ability to effectively protect its intellectual assets, and as a result the laws need to change (I assume in their favor).
How do you derive the idea that the RIAA is “manipulating the laws” in their benefit? By utilizing the legal avenues present for ANY firm and ANY individual, they are “manipulating the law”? This is something I definitely am interested in.
“or say Sitting Bull was okay to do what he did at the Bighorn”
Oh no you didn’t.
DO you fucking know your history?
the problem with the cassette tape
the problem withthe cassette tape is that it was found by a judge to be legal to record anything at home.
it was legal to record stuff off the radio. it was legal to record stuff off of albums, CD’s, and other cassettes. it was also legal to give copies to your friends and family.
this has been hence referred to as the “analog loophole”. do a google search for it.
that is why the DMCA was enacted. that is why the laws were changed. that is why the RIAA and the industry lobbies exist.
Re: the problem with the cassette tape
Thanks for the input.
If you are correct, that means that the lobbyists and the RIAA interferred with the law in order to further their THIRD RIAACH approach to music rights.
Which furthers my argument that the system doesn’t suit the needs of society but rather the lobbyists and the RIAA. I see that we are being manipulated and innocent peole are being subject to their blitzkrieg legal practices. Furthermore we have attorneys such as Eugene Cook trying to slant this ideology under the guise that they know better than us and we should just eat what they give us.
FUCK THAT!! and…
FUCK ANYONE THAT SUPPORTS THEM!!
Power to the People!
Re: Re: the problem with the cassette tape
You are getting as extreme and name calling as you denounced me for doing.
Making references to the third reich? Why not make references to the SS and Liebensrealm [sic]?
Blitzkrieg legal practices? Are you delirious? Going after an estate is common legal practice. They aren’t seizing your assets and freezing your bank account.
Again, I don’t support the RIAA in its endeavors, but I do support its right to perform whatever actions it finds necessary within the bounds of current law. You don’t like it, you are right, power to the people, change it. But until then, if you don’t want to be prosecuted or sued, don’t do anything that you know could lead to it. It is that simple.
Sighhhhh... Eugene, Eugene, Eugene...
You see, as this blog progresses you are collecting more and more resistance. Your frustration is clear and it is affecting your argument. I took you seriously before you started making personal attacks and lowered yourself to adolescence.
You presume that we are all criminals if we download music. I am very aware what is right, wrong, and what things are worth. I like music, I support artists that I feel are worth supporting. Others, I may only like one or two songs. I would never buy a CD with one or two songs; the computer enables me to selectively choose which songs I want in a playlist. I’m no longer subject to CDs or tapes for my musical pleasure, I have a new tool, my computer. It’s far more practical and useful than CDs or tapes.
Having said that, I now, for the first time am able to create my own playlists without having to actually put it on some sort of durable medium. In fact I can copy any song a currently hear through my computer and in a high resolution digital format. Is that stealing? That means I’ve been stealing music for thirty+ years! BULLSHIT! YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT I RECEIVED THIS MUSIC ILLEGALLY! I challenge you and any other attorney to counter that. Then you will see a real fight!
Unless the RIAA and all their attorneys can lock down music from the source to my ears, I will continue to do what is reasonably practical. The fact that I posssess music doesn’t make me a criminal and this is what all of this is about. The RIAA is still getting paid for their CDs just not for their songs. If they offer individual songs for sale, I’d buy them but they don’t offer all of their songs for sale so here we are fighting about it.
We the people, will not change and we never will. We are still comprised of Mother Teresas and Adolph Hitlers. The RIAA and all the attorneys in the world will not change that. You have a lot of nerve to suggest that a pedofile is within his rights as a person and then to compare us with pedofiles? What sort of reasoning is that? Why not just blame us for Auschwitz while you’re at it.
We have a clear need for entertainment. Not just any entertainment thrown to us but rather a selective custom tailored entertainment that as yet hasn’t been delivered. So we’re in the middle of a storm of change. Why get so personal? We are as human as you, you are no better than us. You cannot hide behind the law because the law is written for us. We decide the law and not the other way around.
Re: Sighhhhh... Eugene, Eugene, Eugene...
I wholly expected to encounter the resistance I did. Mostly because of the very well documented and certainly ubiquitous notion of the type of people that typically comment in blogs etc. A blog comment section is well known to be a bitch fest for people who know far less than what they portray. The humorous thing is, the “resistance” as it goes on is more and more asinine. However, you aren’t giving creedance to the people posting that I happen to AGREE with.
I for one concede that I shouldn’t bring myself down to “name calling” but honestly, I play at the level that is presented to me. If a person is saying “fuck the law, we should have the right to ignore stupid laws”…there is absolutely no arguing with that type of prepubescent illogic…so you might as well react jestfully and have some fun with it. When I directed it towards you, it was not reasonable, and I apologized.
Onto the meat though.
You say that all people who download music aren’t criminals. Sure…the people who pay for the downloads, are in fact not criminals. The people who DON’T pay for the right to download the music are in fact criminals. There are no ifs ands and buts about it. You broke the law, you performed a criminal act, hence you are a criminal, and have the potential of being punished as such.
As long as you can produce the sources by which you copied your songs, and you legitimately own the rights…then by all means, there is not a lawyer in the country that will touch you, not because you outsmarted them, but because you did nothing wrong.
Regardless of where the RIAA is making their money, or whether or not they are losing money is moot…they have every right to attempt to recoup any losses that they see fit. That is the society we live in. I am neither biased towards or against them…but I am biased towards the freedoms that our society and court system provides, and in the same breath acknowledge the shortcomings that sometimes arise. I by no means stated that what the RIAA was doing would be something I necessarily would do, but the assertion that the RIAA is wantonly abusing the law is absurd.
If you get the law changed, and you still act within the bounds of the new law. Then good for you. Fact of the matter is, the individual that this story is about was breaking the law that is CURRENTLY in place. I don’t compare music downloaders to pedofiles, I was merely stating that the idea that if someone conceives they need something, that that is a ratoinalization for its action is ridiculous.
I don’t hide behind the law, or try to subvert it. I recognize its impact and work around it where necessary.
“It’s been quite clear for some time that no one at the RIAA ever bothers to think about the PR impact of their moves…”
Sadly, there really isn’t any negative PR. Sure, practically everyone that visits techdirt, digg, or slashdot hates the RIAA, but the average person has never heard of the RIAA and will go out and buy the latest Christina Aguilera album regardless of how many innocent dead people, single mothers and elderly people they sue.
i hate the riaa
Agreed...
Yeah, that’s really what gets me.
You are right, in your last three sentences:
-We need to change it.
-Until then we are at the mercy of the current powers.
-As long as it remains this way, better not do anything to allow them to get to ya.
Knowing the problem is the way it is and not really knowing how to change it other than become an attorney get into politics and cause change.
In reality though it’s not as simple as notifying representatives. That may have worked 100 years ago but today it’s like notifying wolves that some sheep are missing.
Re: Agreed...
The idea of individual efficacy has changed quite a bit over the years. I don’t buy however that an individual is completely powerless. I would argue that an individual in a grass roots campaign is far more powerful than any single attorney utilizing the court systems.
I have to inquire though, what about the laws do we need to change? I see no wrong in considering downloading mp3s without paying for them an illegal act…so where does the law go wrong?
Re: Agreed...
What exactly needs to be changed about the current methods of protecting property rights? The idea that because music is intangeble and easily accessable that it should be free to the masses is obsurd. The concept of property rights is THE foundation of our democracy. The capability of peope to own something wholly and without fear that it may be taken with impunity is the basis for both free society and capitalism. Those who argue different lack the ability to see past their own selfish desires and are either prepubescent or, in the immortal words of Eugene, retarded.
Re: Re: Agreed...
Actually, the means and methods by which copyright are protected do need to be addressed.
The NATURE of WHAT A COPYRIGHT IS AND MEANS does not need to be addressed.
Technological advances make current methods of protecting copyright more and more ineffective, and from what I’ve seen currently proposed methods of Digital Rights management are also lacking.
Re: Re: Re: Agreed...
So where do we disagree?? The post that I responded to was about changing the laws that allow the RIAA to crack down on people who infringe upon copyright laws. The effectiveness of the parties involved to effect proper DRM or protect copyrights is moot. What is in question is whether or not the laws in effect should be removed so as to allow people to download freely what does not belong to them.
Artists need to be paid for their work. PERIOD. Persons that assist an artist in marketing and distributing their work need to be recompensed for their expenses and paid for THEIR work. Period. It doesn’t matter whether EVERYONE has access to EVERY SINGLE SONG IN THE WORLD as long as the right people are compensated for their hard work and talent and other people do not claim their work as their own. That’s the spirit of the copyright law, protect the artists right to their works, their right to profit from their work, and protect their ability to identify their works as their own.
However, the current recording industry is being faced with the fact that the services that they provide are quickly becoming non-essential.
What does the recording industry provide for Artists:
1. Marketting
2. Production
3. Distribution
4. Collection of Royalties
5. Protection of Artists Copyright
1. The internet and related media are rapidly becoming even MORE important to the individual artist than the traditional marketting methods of the record industry.
2. I don’t know about 2, but I bet somebody out there does.
3. The distribution technologies today are FAR more efficient than the recording industries.
4. THIS is one sticking point. This is the point we must address in order to get the music and video industries out of the technological dark ages. Maybe DRM is the way, maybe private copying levies, i don’t know. Maybe artists should be content with live performance fees rather than royalties on recordings.
5. This is another sticking point. How do we assure artists that someone wont claim their music? How do we prevent someone doing to an artists work what Madonna did to American Pie?
As technology advances, some businesses and practices which were profitable become non-profitable and eventually extinct.
The record industry is in the middile of this process at the moment because it is quicklly becoming a non-viable industry. It can not provide the services to the artists nor product to the customers as efficiently as demanded by either. They have always been a symbiotic entity standing between the artis and the audience, but are quickly becoming more and more parasitic.
In the very near future artists will no longer have to rely on record the record industry in any substantive way, not for promotion, not for distribution, and not even for the collection and distribution of Royalties (for which they still deduct an unreasonable amount for damage / lost sales / etc). Hopefully we will come up with a way to protect the identification of their work with them.
In the meantime, the traditional distribution channels are in their death throes. Big Beasts tend to take a long time to die, and thrash around alot.
Re: Re:
Hear hear,
When the existance of the RIAA is no longer necessary, they will die, along with their lawsuits.
But I promise you, commenters will still find something to vilify…why, because people LOVE to bitch.
RIAA's Misguided Souls
One thing that has bugged me since the 90’s Napster Wars is the RIAA’s pathetic excuse for all of this legal actions. They claim to “Protect the Artist”.
Since the artist really only receives a tiny percentage of rolyalties it’s painfully obvious that the RIAA is protecting it’s huge profits, not the artist!
Thankfully, artists are starting to realize that all record labels really offer these days, due to that pesky Internet thingy, is marketing.
And God forbid that musicians actually create music for art instead of money!
I realize few will probably read this post, as far down as it is, but I simply have no control over myself when I see an RIAA defender.
Legal Points - Tilting at windmills
However much you want emotion to drive the debate about big bad RIAA and the little guy is no different than justifying taking a box of Kellogs Corn Flakes from Shop Rite, not because of principle, but because you are hungry and the cheap “no-name” brand doesn’t taste as good.
Just because one party in a civil suit dies, the case does not “disappear”. Imagine that your mother is party to a lawsuit where a famous, rich drunk dirver strikes and kills your sister, and paralyzes your mother. Now assume the other driver dies of his injuries. Assume he has notoriously been an out of control A**hole. Should you not sue the estate for civil damages beyond the criminal, or drop it since he is dead?
Remember that there are not two sides to every story, there are objective facts, opinions and interpretations.
Knowing which side of the argument you are on is one thing. Knowing how to dismantle the enemy using the system is another.
Don’t think you can hide behind the “They’re evil” argument. The law does not pass moral judgement.
You have to argue and support the side of the cause you are on, AND respect the law. If you steal prior to making the theft legal, you are a criminal, a bandit, a scofflaw. There may be no impact to you personnally, but get off your high horse about “respect” and not being evil. If it weren’t a good deal to sell an alblum for $14 bucks, the company wouldn’t buy the rights to alblums, the artists wouldn’t sell, and you wouldn’t steal it, or buy it. There is a value. If you wan’t to be a hippie, be a hippie. Don’t cry that you don’t get a Mercedes Benz if you choose to rail against the car industry.
Remember that you have to avoid the previous, legacy work, and create a new model, then suffer while the talent level equalizes to your market pressure.
If band A is with Label X and then Band B, which is marginally less talented than Brand A, but is “in control” of it’s own music and promotes the free distribution, shouldn’t you take the lesser quality and “boycott” Band A. Metallica won’t care.
If you spent as much negative energy on hounding the Band A’s in the Brand X castles on finding and promoting new music, you would have more music than you know what to do with, and a fan base that truly supports the artist.
The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling’s conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: “(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud… The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.”
Good for the RIAA
Since when is stealing stuff OK?
Re: Good for the RIAA
Since Bush Stole the Whitehouse Bitches
Re: Good for the RIAA
Alvester, I hope you’re not speaking of copyright infringement as stealing. Because, if you are, please go to your local DMV and have them revoke your driver’s license for being too stupid to operate a motor vehicle.
To Eugene
While I agree with 99% of what you’re saying you seem to use points that aren’t wholly true or call someone an idiot for giving an estimation that you at a later time indirectly agree with.
The RIAA does sue people for merely downloading music.
An estimation of 1$ a song is valid considering $.99 iTunes downloads and the amount of songs per purchased CD versus the cost.
I’m sure I could nitpick through all your posts and find more examples of your inaccuracy, and I won’t resort to calling you an ignorant hot-headed irrational jackass or anything of the sort. I just want to let you know it’s not worthwhile to argue with invalid points as it degrades your credibility, whatever credibility there may be in such a forum.
Re: To Eugene
Wow, a personal post directed towards me…I will consider the attention flattering.
However, I disagree with your assessment.
I can’t fathom that I agreed with anything that I originally deemed “idiotic”, and would love an example, as I am certainly not averse to admitting when I am wrong, as passionate and opinionated as I may be. Intellectual discourse is quite entertaining, and stimulating.
I never purported that the RIAA doesn’t sue people for “merely downloading music”…which I assume you meant as a reflection that I was referencing that most of the people that the RIAA sues were redistributing the music, which I still stand by. However, I want to reiterate the fact that they do sue people not for just merely downloading music, but downloading music ILLEGALLY. That is the key. I want to make that distinction clear, as it seems that some people might assume that you meant the sheer act of downloading music period, rather than sourcing by illegitimate means.
I never disagreed with the $1 per song, I merely inquired as to the rationale behind it. Utilizing that as a base, I went on to provide an example of the quantification of damages utilizing this number. One could argue that certain songs on a cd are worth more than others etc, but that isn’t the debate.
If you would like to nitpick through my posts, and call me out, but all means. I certainly don’t find myself hesitant to do it in others, and would expect the same. You can also call me whatever it is that you would like, it is in fact the internet, certainly not the platform for the most serious and worthwhile of debates…considering most of the participants.
If I am wrong, I will admit it, or rationalize my thought processes behind it. Isn’t that the point of constructive discourse…not everyone arguing an be right 100% of the time.
And if you agree with 99% of what I said…I will take that. That is pretty damn good. Let me also point out that I am willing to stand behind my posts with my name, and don’t hide behind some facade.
War
Before reading this please note that I have great respect for the artists who bring help bring beauty into our lifes. So please excuse the following metaphor as you may find it offensive. I say this on behalf of all perpetrators of foolishness. Any time you think in terms of only two extremes, right and wrong. You do not have a proper picture of the world… There are degrees of right and wrong. For example: Killing someone is much worse than not wearing your seat belt. Do to my personal feelings about the RIAA upon reading this article. I now see the RIAA’s greed and state the following metaphor for your reading enjoyment. The RIAA are greedy pimps. I feel musicians should free themselves from record labels. They cash in on their artists the same way a pimp cashes in on a whore. I hope you enjoyed that. Anyways… The law would allow RIAA to sue the estate of the defendant. However, this is the exact level of despicable you could expect from a greedy pimp. The RIAA’s goal in this case is intimidation. They know this will bring negative publicity and they want that. They are trying to demonstrate dominion. Also, it is apparent that their lawyers are unmerciful enough and/or cowardly enough not to quit this case. I am glad for people who speak out against cruelty. So now, I address my distaste for the lawyers in this case. I will offer the following story. In the beginning there was an angel named Lucifer that was appointed by a god as sort of a prosecuting attorney of man. His job was to argue in front of this god as to why some of his children were not fit for his home. All this eventually allowed Lucifer to become vain from revealing the flaws in the god’s greatest creation. Well that angel finally stepped over his bounds and was cast into a place called hell for all eternity. May all lawyers that show no mercy suffer the same fate as Lucifer in my previous story. RIAA cares about money not artists or people. In today’s society, there are hundreds of resources in the music industry that do not require the artists to sale their soul to a record label. Record companies run the music industry like corporate pimps and they make the musicians their whores. In fact, every lawsuit by RIAA only exposes their greed and evil and drives people away from them. Copy protection on music will never work, period, end of story… If it can be heard it can be copied. I have never been much of a filesharing person myself. But the RIAA has revealed itself as a bully. I stand up to bullies. So, that said. I will see to it that people have the choice between right and wrong. Much as the god in my story might have wanted it. Look for increasingly clever ways to avoid their detection…!!! I doubt they will keep up… Thanks for reading… Bye
War
Sorry, added to words ‘bring help bring’:
Before reading this please note that I have great respect for the artists who help bring beauty into our lifes. So please excuse the following metaphor as you may find it offensive. I say this on behalf of all perpetrators of foolishness. Any time you think in terms of only two extremes, right and wrong. You do not have a proper picture of the world… There are degrees of right and wrong. For example: Killing someone is much worse than not wearing your seat belt. Do to my personal feelings about the RIAA upon reading this article. I now see the RIAA’s greed and state the following metaphor for your reading enjoyment. The RIAA are greedy pimps. I feel musicians should free themselves from record labels. They cash in on their artists the same way a pimp cashes in on a whore. I hope you enjoyed that. Anyways… The law would allow RIAA to sue the estate of the defendant. However, this is the exact level of despicable you could expect from a greedy pimp. The RIAA’s goal in this case is intimidation. They know this will bring negative publicity and they want that. They are trying to demonstrate dominion. Also, it is apparent that their lawyers are unmerciful enough and/or cowardly enough not to quit this case. I am glad for people who speak out against cruelty. So now, I address my distaste for the lawyers in this case. I will offer the following story. In the beginning there was an angel named Lucifer that was appointed by a god as sort of a prosecuting attorney of man. His job was to argue in front of this god as to why some of his children were not fit for his home. All this eventually allowed Lucifer to become vain from revealing the flaws in the god’s greatest creation. Well that angel finally stepped over his bounds and was cast into a place called hell for all eternity. May all lawyers that show no mercy suffer the same fate as Lucifer in my previous story. RIAA cares about money not artists or people. In today’s society, there are hundreds of resources in the music industry that do not require the artists to sale their soul to a record label. Record companies run the music industry like corporate pimps and they make the musicians their whores. In fact, every lawsuit by RIAA only exposes their greed and evil and drives people away from them. Copy protection on music will never work, period, end of story… If it can be heard it can be copied. I have never been much of a filesharing person myself. But the RIAA has revealed itself as a bully. I stand up to bullies. So, that said. I will see to it that people have the choice between right and wrong. Much as the god in my story might have wanted it. Look for increasingly clever ways to avoid their detection…!!! I doubt they will keep up… Thanks for reading… Bye
Sharing
If I have a sandwich and share half of it with my friend, I will only have half a sandwich for myself. If I sell half the sandwich I will still only have half a sandwich. When someone finds a sandwich they can keep taking pieces from and it never runs out, they will defend it at all cost. What did you learn in school today…
Re: Sharing
I learned that the injustices of slavery have placed the black man at a social disadvantage and, therefore, they should receive free sandwiches!
Re: Re: Sharing
right on brother!
To #136:
Eugene:
Quite honestly, I never had any substantial proof of the RIAA’s manipulation of the legal system. Sure I may have read articles in the past that support my bias but asking me to produce for you some real bone to pick is difficult at this moment. I can however reference Chris’s reference:
#90 wrote:
“this has been hence referred to as the “analog loophole”. do a google search for it. that is why the DMCA was enacted. that is why the laws were changed. that is why the RIAA and the industry lobbies exist.”
Intuitively, I always felt that I have been recording select music on cassettes since I was knee high. Now with the advent of computers, how is it that all that much is different? Something had to change somewhere; there had to either be a major industry-wide paradigm-shift or laws were changed creating a whole new game.
Unfortunately, the latter was the case. What did they do? They muddied up the distinction between what I’ve been doing in the past with what, I consider, I am still doing–recording music. Saying that one is analog and this one digital means nothing,,,music is music, content is content. I record music for entertaining myself and friends.
To address another matter: Medezark and I are in agreement. The RIAA is stagnant, nothing they do works, everything they do makes matters worse. I am not nor ever was of the position that artists not be compensated. After all is said and done, this is what we are really arguing about. The creator get paid for his creation.
Value is a whole other matter entirely. Would I pay millions for an authentic Van Gogh or a copy. For me, a copy would do just as well. Is the original worth millions…maybe but not for me. I’d pay $10.00 for a copy. Is this wrong, am I ripping Van Gogh off (if he were alive). I think not, especially if there was a valid method of getting Van Gogh a percentage of that $10.00..it’s only fair (and right). But, for the RIAA to step in, collect $9.00 maybe pay the artist $1.00 and say that we exist but for the artists is wrong.
I hope this makes sense, I’m working and trying to engage as best I can.
Re: To #136:
IIRC, your recording of music on cassettes when you were “knee high” is just as illegitimate as it is now. Nothing has changed. Again, that is what I understand, but I could be wrong.
Maybe you have been misrepresenting your position if you and Medezark are in agreement, as I don’t think he necessarily perceives the RIAA as being defunct or in the wrong, nor counter-productive, but rather that they don’t have the tools necessary to achieve what they are trying to achieve. If that is the case, it would be quite contradictory to your stance. I don’t necessarily think the RIAA is necessarily wrong in its intent, as conceivably wrong their means might be. Certainly my reading of his opinions is subjective, but that is my take.
I understand your opinion about the Van Gogh, but honestly, I think there is one thing that you are missing. The fact that as long as they are officially licensed, that the estate of Van Gogh (or whoever owns the rights) has AGREED that they would be sufficiently satisfied with a certain amount of compensation. Whether or not you think this is fair or not is not you to decide. It doesn’t matter if they are charging $100,000 for a copy, and only giving the estate $1 if that is what they agreed to. Whether you think it is “morally reprehensible” is neither relevant nor applicable, and just comes across as self-riteous.
People should not pay a for something they had no participation. As far as the RIAA knows no one else in the man’s family had anything to do with his file sharing so they should leave his estate alone.
Re: Re:
It has nothing to do with whether or not they knew of it or participated. The fact is, if it is found he owes it, then before the estate is distributed, obligations must be fulfilled. What if the rest of the family had nothing to do with his credit card debt, does that mean the credit card debt should just be left unfulfilled?
To Eugene
Sorry, I jumped to incorrect conclusions on you calling the person an idiot for the $1 a song estimation; so much name calling from your side. However, you were quick to imply that the $1 estimate had no legitimate grounds by questioning the reasoning behind it. Please don’t try to rationalize this by implying or otherwise stating that it is a method of debate, as there is no methodical consistency in your retorts.
As far as concerning your implication that the RIAA is only going after people sharing music, well it goes as follows:
“What you also aren’t considering is that the people they were going after are DISTRIBUTING these”
“Fact is, you performed an illegal act, and facilitated others in performing that act…”
“Also, do you not think there is a difference between just downloading, and then turning around and sharing it.”
While you make it very clear what your opinion on illegal downloading is, nowhere is there any mention or hint of the RIAA suing people for it, in fact you seem to imply the opposite. Also, where does it state that this person, was indeed, sharing his music? I would take your comments hinting at this on the grounds of you being familiar with this case, but were this true you would also know that if the RIAA fails to reach a settlement with Scantlebury’s estate or other family members involved, it plans to reword the lawsuit to name the other family members.
“4. In the event the parties do not reach a resolution with Mr. Scantlebury’s estate or the other family members involved, Plaintiffs anticipate amending the complaint following depositions of members of Mr. Scantlebury’s family.” – part of the motion to stay the case and extend deadlines.
I know going after the estate is common practice, but his estate is a seperate entity from his family until it is distributed amongst them through legal, time consuming, means. How common is it that when a settlement involving the estate fails that the plaintiff then continues to sue the family?
I now agree with 83% of your replies.
Re: To Eugene
Your assertions of implications are conjecture at best, and inaccurate. Which is exactly what you are accusing me of…utilizing inaccurate assumptions to progress my point of view. Don’t you sense a bit of hypocrisy in this.
I never implied that there were no grounds to the $1…this is by all means your own perception…and an ill-conceived one at that.
You seem to call me out on nothing but your perceptions of my “implications”. Which I ultimately find pretty humorous given the sole purpose of your presence was to assert that I was guilty of exactly what you yourself are endeavoring.
As far as I understand it, a vast majority of the RIAA lawsuits are for those individuals that redistribute the media. If this is not the case, than yes, I was incorrect in my assumption. But yet you don’t provide any hard evidence refuting that in the aggregate, the RIAA concentrates its forces primarily on those individuals that redistribute the music. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means share it.
Again, more conjecture on your part in your final point. In its current state, the motion is against the estate. If indeed the complaint is unsuccesful, than by all means the RIAA has every right to reword it, and claim the family was knowledgeable and complacent in the original defendants misdeeds. However, that to me would seem illogical and certainly not worthwhile, as if they couldn’t win a case against the estate itself, for some reason they might be more succesful against parties exterior to it? To me, that seems more like legal strategy (scare tactics) rather than any kind of actual litigious procedure. In regards to the propensity that firms choose to go after the subjects of the family if the claims against the estate fails, unfortunately I cannot answer that, as I am pretty sure you can’t either….which brings me to the very first point…you are guilty of the very things you rebuke me for…which I find wholly ironic.
#150
I would love to debate this further and, if so, I appologize for not presenting my arguments 100%.
Alas, BTW. It’s been fun and maybe we can do this again.
To Eugene
[sigh] For someone who, seemingly, enjoys pointing out people logical fallacies, you fail to follow any kind of rational logic yourself. And, since it’s no use arguing with people who constantly turn their words around to mask their implications, whether they’re intentionally implied or not, I’ll take this time to give some quotes that are completely irrelevant to the subject. I hope you infer my intentions correctly. 🙂
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
“The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.”
“The devil has put a penalty on all things we enjoy in life. Either we suffer in health or we suffer in soul or we get fat.”
“I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.”
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”
“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
“The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. The trite subjects of human efforts, possessions, outward success, luxury have always seemed to me contemptible.”
and one for techdirt:
“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.”
all quotes contributed to Albert Einstein.
Re: To Eugene
What is more ironic? That we are both accusing each other of exactly the same thing? Or the fact that you attacked my words on a factual basis, and then use your perception as a rationalization as to why you can’t substantiate that position? I can very well reciprocate with that “high road” mentality…
I don’t want to carry on debating with you as having discourse with individuals that constantly turn their words around to mask the fact that they don’t have a point.
Oh, but I do have to commend you, there is a certain nostalgic value to bowing out of an argument with random “witty quotes”…very reminiscent of the debates that used to occur on IRC…can’t necessarily commend you on creativity however.
What's the difference
What’s the difference that we can record any tv show or movie( which I assume is copyrighted by the station or producer) on a VCR or TIVO and watch it later than to record a song (copyrighted) and listen it to later ?
Re: What's the difference
in the uk this is known as time shifting and is specifically allowed under the copyright legislation – not sure it’ll help you in the US but its section 70 of the copyright designs and patents act – the point is that the copy has to be ‘solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time’ – this would cover tivo or vcrs or hard disc/dvd recorders whether pc or tv based, the medium is unimportant, the objective/purpose is. in theory if you watched it more than once you’d be infringing copyright, which i would guess means most of the UK will be regularly infringing someones copyright.
Alot of Re:'s
Funny, I always remember IRC debates ending with DoS attacks… I’ll mark that down as frequenting different channels. And that’s not at all my intentions for using the quotes, but I’ll let it slide. 😉
Oh, and if your words had no factual basis then I apologize. The substantiation of my poisition lies in your incongruence of counter points in comparison with your original statements. 😛
Re: Alot of Re:'s
True enough, I know I had a few seeds that were taken down because of DoS attacks.
Aforementioned incongruence is, by your own admission your perception of assumed and ultimately non-existant implications. Given that you certainly could not be an authority on my intents or my thinking, I am surprised that you would present yourself as such!
However…I am tired of e-thugging this debate forward! I respect your opinion…and hell…if I am wrong I am wrong…so be it…the world certainly doesn’t end here. Unless of course ritual hari kari is next.
RIAA is obsolete
I wonder how many people Prince has had to sue since he started NPG (http://www.npgmusicclub.com/) back in the late 90’s. With the Internet and Cakewalk and Garage Band why do we need record companies? As McCulhan said, “The medium is the message.” The artists don’t retain the Intellectual Property they create because they work for the corporate world. The corporations do and do so eternally. Copyrights used to expire and songs would go back into the Public domain after 50 years. Now with corporate lawyers in the picture, the copyright has become a commodity.
The Artists is not seeing a penny of the recovered
Please tell me how much money has been sent to the artists that has been recovered from the Gestapo, oooops, I meant the RIAA?? The artists are still getting it delivered to them in more ways than Jenna Jamison ever imagined and yet, they are still following this madness of protocol.
Where is Harriet Tubman when you need her the most?!
So does this mean now that I can share movies from one tivo to another I should be charged with file sharing and all my assests be given to the MPAA? I mean I admit that I shared all those movies to all those tivo’s and all. Oh wait thats right I have a media key on my tivo that assoicates to me so thats what makes it ok to do. I purchased the right to copy when I bought the device right? I mean it was a function of the device and the reason I bought it wasnt it? Same with dvd-burners and media. Didnt I buy a right to copy whatever I wanted when I bought the media? Oh wait that again would be too smart for the RIAA/MPAA, charge more MONEY FOR THE BLANK MEDIA!
Talk about a hot button issue
This topic has blown the hell up!
RIAA is a terrorist organization
It seeks to achieve its goals by terrorizing people into submission, hence it’s a terrorist organization.
As all other terrorist organizations, all its assets should be frozen and their representatives arrested before they go to hide in caves in Afghanistan.
cheap bastards
Wow, so you actually read down this far. It means one of two things. Either you really like reading forums or you are passionate about this subject.
Lets pretend it is the latter.
Don’t be fooled…
On one side there is the “consumer”. Lets face it. You are not a consumer. You are getting music for free. You are a leech, a parasite. File sharing is just a way that makes being a leech easier. Face it, if you are not giving back to people that produce the music, then they can’t produce any more music.
Then there is the “talent”. They make the music and give it away on the promise that they can make money. Some do, some don’t.
Then there are the “middle men”. They buy the talent and in turn use it to maximize profits. Of course this is capitalism and they will maximize their own profit, not any for the talent.
So why is the public so surprised that they show their greed? Is the public not also greedy? They seem to want entertainment for free. Music is not a necessity to live. The only things one needs to live is food, shelter, and clothing.
This brings me to my point. If you don’t like the laws about how you receive your entertainment, change them. If you don’t like the current distribution system, stop buying music.
Contrary to popular belief, you don’t need music to function. That is just a romanticized myth the musicians tell you to strengthen your addiction to their media. If you believe you are paying too much for music, then STOP BUYING IT. The only way to hurt the RIAA and the music industry is to remove its monetary support. Why do you think there is so much spam in your email box? Why do you think there is so much junk mail? Why do you think there are so many cockroaches? It is because somehow they are earning money and living off your crumbs!!!! Stop feeding them, and they will go away. Instead of buying a CD, register a complaint with the shop and tell the retailer that it costs too much. Tell someone that they are LOSING your patronage. The entire industry is based on making a buck. When someone realizes that they can actually make more in a new way, they will abandon the old way.
Secondly: if you don’t like the law, then CHANGE THE LAW. Laws are not written in stone. Hundreds of laws are changed every year. Some for the better, some for worse. Yes, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative democracy. It does little to air your individual opinion on some forum. Does much more to write a letter and demand the law be changed. Takes about the same amount of time to do that too.
Write to a senator, congressman, a newspaper, or anyone else that is actually involved in copyright and law making entity. Its simple, tell your ELECTED official that you want the law changed. Tell him/her that is why you elected him/her. Tell them that you are boycotting the music industry. Even better, tell them that you will be boycotting them in the next election. You, as a voter have to demand that your leaders listen to you. The government is a public service. By its definition both corporations and consumers are the public. Corporations are fully using the government to their advantage, why aren’t you?
Re: cheap bastards
Dude, please don’t cause me to puke all over your blog.
Hu, Hu, Huahhhhhhhhhh…..sorry…
Gee, let’s have a bakery sale so we can make changes in the law!
What vacuum do you live in?
So much whining
This is so sad.
Laugh at running your own government. I know its not perfect, but if you don’t make even the smallest effort to keep your freedoms, how do you expect to actually have any?
What prison do you live in?
lol, lazy bum.
This is NOT my government!
This not the government I nor my forefathers envisioned.
This is nothing more than organized mob guised as a legitimate government.
Once upon a time there was a civilisation ruled by law and honour. The law worked because its institutions were authorative, and through general concensus they were recognised as such. They were honoured. Then one day the rulers of this great civilisation, so sure of their power, respect and the absolute faith the people had in their institutions laid back on their laurels and decided that for a little temporary wealth they could auction off that trust.
Fuck this government and fuck you for supporting them!
Re: This is NOT my government!
Where did I say I am supporting this government? In my humble opinion, I don’t like the policies it sets forth. I am telling you to change the government.
Don’t like the prick in office, then vote for a better person. Don’t like that guy? Run for office yourself. If enough people lead, the leaders will follow.
You are forced to pay taxes… Just make sure they use the money and time to your advantage.
Or you can sit there and let the government take advantage of you.
It’s all up to you.
this is BS!!!
The RIAA does not give a damn about the CONSUMERS OR THE ARTISTS!!!! This is absolutely SICK!! suing a dead guy.. I hope we the people eventually set the RIAA straight.. Another proof that BIG BUSINESS runs this country..
Nothing new...
The true culprit is the dawn of digital music on the personal computer. It’s easy. It’s fast. It sounds great. It doesn’t degrade much. It can be shared easily. The RIAA totally sucks for pursuing such a lawsuit. They we’re smart enough to jump on the digital band wagon early and use the power of the Internet to their advantage. Now, they view everyone as a criminal who has evolved normally with the popularity of the Internet, even if they chose not to. Think to yourself, did you ever read an article or hear on the news a story of the RIAA going after someone who illegally burned a copy of a CD? This technology came WAY before .mp3 file sharing. Many, many, many people have done this, probably still doing it to this day. The copied CD is just as good as the original, even better than an .mp3 file. Why isn’t the RIAA ruthlessly going after this type of stealing and copyright infringement? Who are they kidding by going after people who share .mp3’s? Bootleg CD’s/DVD’s can easily be found at any flea market. I suppose the RIAA has agents in disguise waiting to catch the next dead guy!
basics aside..
not even going into the whole “is file sharing stealing from artists or not”..thats freakin cruel….i mean, wow….I’m surprised the RIAA hasn’t begged more Nazi comparisons at the rate their going. Their so worried about their money now, they’re gonna be gone within a year due to bad PR.
Copyright greed
In order to make things fair for all involved, copyrights should be like patents: Expire in fourteen years, no renewals.
Just as it does with inventors and inventions, it will provide these companies and performers plenty of time to profit from their creations, help keep prices to reasonable levels and then allow the public to enjoy true fair use of it.
Until the gratuitous greed stops I will continue to mostly boycott copyrighted works and enjoy good public domain content as well as create my own.
antidisestablishmentarianism
i would like to buy the world a coke and live in perfect harmony
then tell the world to have a coke and a smile and …. Shut the fuck up!!!!