akaM2 October 9, 2007 Share akaM2 Member October 9, 2007 bittorrent with DHL Disabled, Upload at 1kb, and private trackers with encrypted data FTW Right now the only things not being monitored heavily are newsgroups. Yes bit torrent is harder but its not off the map like it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly October 9, 2007 Share dragonfly Member October 9, 2007 It's true that the monetary damages are waay excessive in this case, but it still doesn't change the fact that what she did was illegal and she should have to pay for it. I'm not saying the RIAA is always right and isn't a corrupt greedy group, but as far as the law is concerned, they were within their legal rights to go after people that illegally share music. My thoughts about the legality of music sharing aside (I don't want to fan the flames of those who disagree with me on this topic - I know there are many), this woman needs to own up to her problem and stop whining and asking for other people's charity. Until laws get changed, she deserves some kind of punishment by law. $220,000 worth of punishment? No. But definitely something, and more than what was offered as a settlement fee. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stutters October 9, 2007 Share stutters GC Alumni October 9, 2007 first, i can't say how painfully ironic it is that a dj (anonymo), who remixes copyright material (nice myspace page), is arguing on behalf of the recording industry. do you capitalize on others works, and are you paying royalties? i guess your response could trump the argument following, but why not go on anyways? "Without the RIAA many small/independent artists would never see a profit on all the hard work they put into their music" awesome. 15%. i guess thats bigger than the 9m/400m ratio provided earlier. not that it matters to you, but 1) 2005 was before TPB was a household name, 2) 9M was based off "Do you know what the going rate for completely open rights to a piece of music is these days? (basically the right to do everything but sell it directly or as a compilation) It's about $15/track." to finish your convenient argument, the full rights context you're using is for commercialization of the copyrighted material. i'm talking about consumer use, which is what i think this entire argument revolves around (jammie wasn't selling music). also, your acronym carrying crusaders -- i know you don't follow things that contradict your position, but itunes was forced by the riaa to charge an additional fee for ringtones; apple originally wanted them to be included (read: value add) in the original purchase price. it is, afterall, the exact same song - only a fraction of it. not in the eyes of the RIAA. oh, and those royalties? none distributed to the artist. awesome. makes good sense to me, the mindless small time artist trying to be "protected" by the recording industry. "As I read the comments here, most of you seem to believe she is a criminal and she is breaking the law.. Apparently the RIAA and the MPAA have done a great job of brainwashing everyone." she broke the law dude, no matter how you paint it. according to dmca + current copyright law, she illegally reproduced copyright material. do not pass go, do not collect $200. "Copyright law prohibits a large corporation from making a billions of dollars from selling the music we made." uhm, replace "large corporation" with "any business" and "making a billions of dollars" with "any money at all" and i'm good. "bittorrent with DHL Disabled" DHL is a logistics company. you're thinking of DHT. you're also thinking decent torrent clients don't have a built in upload:download. your 1k upload caps you at a 6k download. go get em, tiger! "$220,000 is $9,166.67 a track...there is NO WAY that is reasonable...." two words - legal. fees. chick should have settled. it's called judo strategy - don't go after the giant, they'll always win. if 3m had stayed true to their original business model, they'd gone out of business 80 some years ago. the adapted to the market, changed their strategy, and have been largely successful for over 100 years. why won't the riaa or mpaa try to do the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[LaW]Maverick October 9, 2007 Share [LaW]Maverick Member October 9, 2007 For once... I agree with SJ! :-) Good points all But I'm curious SJ, is it still $.99 a track no matter what for burning rights through iTunes? If it's not that's sweet! (not trying to argue, just curious) Yes, Jamie broke the law, but I believe she should try to fight it like she is, because cases like this going to the supreme court are how laws are changed/abolished/bent/whatever you want to call it. No, I'm not giving her money because she has the gumption to win the war. I haven't bought a CD in years because of the ridiculous prices (with the exception of Weird Al...) and I don't plan to buy any more. I am LEGALLY downloading music through Zune, but I'm not overly happy 'bout that either. Mainly 'cause I'd have to pay extra to have burning rights. However, Zune just launched 1 million songs in .mp3 format that are completely devoid of DRM that you can purchase. I don't know how much they cost, but I'm assuming it's still the 79 MS points (which is 'bout the same as $.99) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa October 9, 2007 Share Playaa Member October 9, 2007 http://www.comfortstand.com/ 99.99999999% of music that is covered by the DMCA is crap. there is endless amounts of good music out in the world that is free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog October 9, 2007 Share ShadowDog Member October 9, 2007 i don't download any music that has anything to do with the RIAA anyways... all crappy music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX October 9, 2007 Author Share NOFX Member October 9, 2007 I doubt this women even knew she was sharing songs... probably thinks upload and download are the same thing.. Her punishment should be this... Since they can obtain records of what user was logged into kazaa and sending songs.. They could easily find out how many times a foreign ip address accessed her machine to get the songs. She should be considered a distribution such as apple and have to pay the RIAA the same way apple does. Her punishment for doing it illegal. I think double the cost. $1.99 would be fair. She uploads 100 songs. She owes 200 dollars, plus legal fees. One would think that distributing meth in a school zone would be more damaging to society and business than distributing songs on the internet. The law is flawed and the RIAA is trying to manipulate it more. What she did was illegal, but it was a frivolous lawsuit. When are we going to stand up and not take it anymore? Do we all just give in and pay them a few grand? This girl is the first one to take them to court and so what if she lost? If we don't start fighting back then the laws will never be changed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa October 9, 2007 Share Playaa Member October 9, 2007 I don't think anyone here is defending the RIAA (and if they are they might want to go into hiding), however: What she did was illegal, but it was a frivolous lawsuit. When are we going to stand up and not take it anymore? Do we all just give in and pay them a few grand? how about we don't illegally download music? then we don't have to worry about them going after us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boiler October 9, 2007 Share boiler Member October 9, 2007 how about we don't illegally download music? then we don't have to worry about them going after us. +1000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saris October 9, 2007 Share Saris Member October 9, 2007 I'm glad I'm not American and don't listen to American music. Oh, and any REAL artist would say that he's happy his message is reaching a larger audience - its not about the money and those that think it is, are sellouts/posers. This formula actually holds true to more than just music, as well. Just about every kind of art form has people groping at your profits, without really doing anything. If you think the music industry is bad, you should check out trying to publish a novel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[LaW]Maverick October 9, 2007 Share [LaW]Maverick Member October 9, 2007 how about we don't illegally download music? then we don't have to worry about them going after us. +1000 There's only one problem with that, and I'm not sure how to fix it. If we keep paying outrageous prices and buying things so full of DRM a piece of our soul dies every time we use them--then nothing will ever change. I mean, we could just stop listening to music...but that's not cool at all. Fact is, if everyone that downloads music illegally now stopped and decided to download it all legally, there would never be any incentive for the villainous schmucks making all the cash to change a thing. In fact, they'd be able to charge more if no one wanted to investigate alternatives. It's like saying "DOWN WITH WAL*MART!!!" then buying all your groceries there. (By the way, I don't shop at Wal*Mart at all) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox October 9, 2007 Share appalachian_fox Member October 9, 2007 how about we don't illegally download music? then we don't have to worry about them going after us. +1000 There's only one problem with that, and I'm not sure how to fix it. If we keep paying outrageous prices... *ding ding ding* Pricing that way is similar to cable -- People grumble about it left and right, use it to justify all sorts of things, but at the end of the day enough people still pay the bill that the companies can justify it. Maybe the prices aren't outrageous to a large enough group that those of us who think they are get left out of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stutters October 9, 2007 Share stutters GC Alumni October 9, 2007 *shrug* i haven't bought a major label cd in at least 9 years. i have, however, bought 3 (exactly) independent, small time artists. i asked them if they minded me posting it to trackers, and exactly 100% of them were behind it, they just didn't know anything about it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX October 10, 2007 Author Share NOFX Member October 10, 2007 I haven't bought a CD from a store in over nine years either. I have however bought CD's at concerts. On some occasion since I don't have to pay $20 a CD in the store, Im happy to give the band 30 bucks for a 5 dollar hoodie with their name on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stutters October 10, 2007 Share stutters GC Alumni October 10, 2007 same. i'll see a live show whenever i can. i'm usually uninhibited by the time i make it to the merch table and try to just schmooze a hoodie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack October 10, 2007 Share bushwack Member October 10, 2007 I haven't downloaded any music in years. Last few CDs I bought were used off of Ebay, should I be worried because the record labels "potentally" lost money in the transactions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmerisme October 10, 2007 Share farmerisme Member October 10, 2007 Ok, we seem to be arguing about whether dl'ing songs without paying for them SHOULD be a crime. Good arguments exist on both sides. But... dl'ing songs without paying for them IS a crime. I knew it when I was doing it and everyone out there doing it knows it. She broke the law, got caught, lied about it, refused to settle, and now she is hurting. NO SYMPATHY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa October 10, 2007 Share Playaa Member October 10, 2007 how about we don't illegally download music? then we don't have to worry about them going after us. +1000 There's only one problem with that, and I'm not sure how to fix it. If we keep paying outrageous prices... *ding ding ding* the answer, kiddos, is exactly what sj is pointing at...stop buying cd's of major label artists altogether. there is a nearly unlimited supply of free, legal music in the world. and quite alot of it is incredibly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymo October 10, 2007 Share anonymo Member October 10, 2007 Ok I'm not defending what the RIAA is doing, I'm just trying to shed light on the fact that the RIAA is forced into this position by major record labels in an effort to keep all artists somewhat involved in the industry (as if large labels had their way, you would be listening to utter crap 24/7). I'm all for sharing music, but when you download songs without paying for them you're only hurting the artist who made them and fueling the sales numbers for the majors, its a lose lose situation. And Juan. I am offended! first, i can't say how painfully ironic it is that a dj (anonymo), who remixes copyright material (nice myspace page), is arguing on behalf of the recording industry. do you capitalize on others works, and are you paying royalties? When I used to sell mixtapes I didn't pay royalties but I did have permission from the artists (ok I did pay some royalties, if you call it that). When you buy promo singles you're paying a royalty to the artist for the pressing AND clubs pay ASCAP and SOCAN fees (actually anywhere where music is played publicly an ASCAP or SOCAN fee is payed). And I hope you weren't implying that my myspace page has material that breaches copyrights? I am actually currently arguing with myspace over a track I uploaded that they claim breaches copyrights, which I have to somehow prove it doesn't without actually giving them the rights to the song Anyways, I will always support what the RIAA stands for and its existence, however I think that at this stage the RIAA as an entity is completely maligned by the sway of the major record companies, which is bad for consumers and artists. I also think Jamie should be publicly ridiculed. How many convicted pedophiles do you think would be supported in this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stutters October 10, 2007 Share stutters GC Alumni October 10, 2007 I will always support what the RIAA stands for and its existencei can't make stuff like this up, folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chamberlain October 10, 2007 Share Chamberlain Member October 10, 2007 Poor jamie... Maybe we should send her some hats!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookey October 10, 2007 Share tookey Member October 10, 2007 a) bittorrent private trackers ftw Going to shows and buying merch to support bands, also ftw c) Radiohead releasing their new album for free (or donation) as 160 kbs DRM free mp3 downloads, ftw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly October 10, 2007 Share dragonfly Member October 10, 2007 1 - I like to give money to major labels. Infact, I just donated $500 to one just cause I'm that nice of a guy. 2 - "Utter crap" usually means "stuff I dont like" - I'm not sure why people blame large labels for making music they dont like, they just make music that sells... unless we're talking about music that is not hard at all to make, and takes little skill to play. Then you could just change "utter crap" to country and rap jk 3 - Can't remember what my third point was, but all good sermons need 3 points. And in conclusion, this thread seems to just be repeating itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[LaW]Maverick October 10, 2007 Share [LaW]Maverick Member October 10, 2007 I'm all for sharing music, but when you download songs without paying for them you're only hurting the artist who made them and fueling the sales numbers for the majors, its a lose lose situation. Ok, the last time I did any research into this (and maybe I should do more) the artist makes MOST of their money from doing live shows and selling things like T-Shirts and what not. When a CD in a store is purchased, most of the money goes to the label. Soo....how is that hurting the artist that made them when I download their songs and more people hear them as a result? In addition how the devil does that fuel the sales number for the majors? I haven't bought anything from them. How are they getting sales out of it? That doesn't make a lick of sense... Saris (I think) had the best point of all. As a writer, I'd just be happy if tons of people got to read my book. Sure, I'd love it if I made some money off it, but that's a secondary consideration in my mind. An artist should be concerned with their art. I write because I love to write, and if other people enjoy what I have written--that's an accomplishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly October 10, 2007 Share dragonfly Member October 10, 2007 Saris (I think) had the best point of all. As a writer, I'd just be happy if tons of people got to read my book. Sure, I'd love it if I made some money off it, but that's a secondary consideration in my mind. An artist should be concerned with their art. I write because I love to write, and if other people enjoy what I have written--that's an accomplishment. Assuming every writer (this case, musician) thinks the same as you do. I know I can speak for every single musician in the world who has a label. Of course, when they sign a label, dont they give their rights to the music away to some degree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now