Isn't The RIAA Just As Guilty...

[jonas more]

For the RIAA to sue someone for sharing music online, it seems they would have to PROVE the files on the users computer actually contain music and aren't just bogus files.

Just because a file named "Matchbox 20 - Push" is being shared it doesn't mean the file actally CONTAINS that song or for that matter any music at all!

To PROVE that the file has a copyright and is being shared illegally wouldn't they have to download the file and listen to it...

If so, how can they get by with that... isn't that against the law... isn't that EXACTLY what they are suing the users for?

[housepig]

except that they are acting as agents for clients they represent, so they can claim a legitimate interest in and right to the material.

if you were sharing a ton of indie-band stuff, you'd probably be bypassed, because the labels are not affilliated with the RIAA - they are going to be searching for stuff from Warners, Sony, BMG, etc.

[Solarjetman]

Housepig is right I think. If a band (in this case MActchbox 20) wanted the RIAA to enforce these laws, A lawyer could make an easy case that they can legally obtain the music because Matchbox 20 gave them the rights to obtain it that way.

Also, isn't that exactly how drug busts occur? The officer buys the drugs, but they are fighting the sale and purchase of drugs.

[tgpo]

Also, isn't that exactly how drug busts occur? The officer buys the drugs, but they are fighting the sale and purchase of drugs.

But the officer doesn't snort it to make sure it's the real stuff.

[themichael]

Solarjetman wrote:
Also, isn't that exactly how drug busts occur? The officer buys the drugs, but they are fighting the sale and purchase of drugs.


But the officer doesn't snort it to make sure it's the real stuff.

In the case of the RIAA, it not illegal for them to download the music beacause they own the copyright.

The cop is "field testing".

[Solarjetman]

But the officer doesn't snort it to make sure it's the real stuff.

True, but they do test it (as the RIA would test by listening to the file). And its just as illegal to buy them as use them.

[vitualis]

You are missing the point. The RIAA is acting on the behalf of the copyright owners. Even if they don't have the specific license agreement written on paper, it would be trivial for them to attain one retrospectively.

Regards.

[thayne]

Also, isn't that exactly how drug busts occur? The officer buys the drugs, but they are fighting the sale and purchase of drugs.

But the officer doesn't snort it to make sure it's the real stuff.

No, but they carry test kits to varify that it is in fact illegal substance

[EddyH]

funnily enough, what story did msn show to me when messenger logged in?

authorities now have a new weapon in the fight against illegal downloads in the form of a program that can automatically recognise the contents of a file (eg avi, mp3) against a library of 3+ million titles, to verify what and who is being ripped off.

whoa.

[tenders]

riaa/mpaa=guilty. you know i think its kinda strange that they seem to be able to do whatever they want(as far as the law goes),with very little opposition from the govt.


i do know of one senator asking for info,but that it

[MOVIEGEEK]

riaa/mpaa=guilty. you know i think its kinda strange that they seem to be able to do whatever they want(as far as the law goes),with very little opposition from the govt.


i do know of one senator asking for info,but that it

I think the tide is turning towards the little guy,recent court orders and opposition from some US Congressmen to protect the offenders from prosecution might make the RIAA backdown.Most politicians listen to the polls and if enough of their constituents complain about invasion of privacy they will act or they will be out of a job.

[tenders]

riaa/mpaa=guilty. you know i think its kinda strange that they seem to be able to do whatever they want(as far as the law goes),with very little opposition from the govt.


i do know of one senator asking for info,but that it

I think the tide is turning towards the little guy,recent court orders and opposition from some US Congressmen to protect the offenders from prosecution might make the RIAA backdown.Most politicians listen to the polls and if enough of their constituents complain about invasion of privacy they will act or they will be out of a job.

sounds good,but kind of iffy.

[indolikaa]

I agree. Whether you believe they are acting sincerely or just concerned about their re-election chances, politicians will generally not ignore something as vocal as what we are hearing on this issue.

[housepig]

I'd say this... don't pin too much hope on Senator Coleman, he's a slimeball and not much of an enemy of big business.

...although I bet his speeches sounded quite stirring in their original German....

[indolikaa]

...although I bet his speeches sounded quite stirring in their original German....

[zzyzzx]

[mysticgohan17]

By their standards, humming is copyright infringement.

[zzyzzx]

What I'd like to ask is, "In what school do they teach that suing your customers results in a profitable business model?"

In the candy store definition, there is one store at which to buy candy. They've been selling it there for years. The price has always been high, but there wasn't any place else to buy candy. The people who actually made the candy took it in the shorts from the candy store, because there were no other stores that sold candy, and trying to sell door to door was nearly impossible.

Somewhere along the line, some of the kids found that after years of complaining of extremely high prices in the candy store (and they know that the candy store is ripping off the makers too), they can steal much of the candy they want. The really premium candy, with the fancy wrappers and cool extra toys they can't steal, or at least not easily, but they can steal a lot of the candy that they don't much care to buy at the inflated prices. Granted, some of this candy they would have purchased had they not been able to steal it. Then again, some of them are still buying candy they've already stolen, for various reasons. Some are trying some candy they were afraid to buy, then coming back and purchasing it over and over again.

Now, many of these shoplifters are the store's best customers. They are stealing a lot from the candy store, but they are also the kids purchasing the most from the store as well. There are a few freeloaders, but there are so many people in the store, it's hard to tell which few are the pure freeloaders and which are great customers. Now, you're giving away an amount equal to 100% of what you sell, but your sales are 100% higher than when kids weren't stealing as much. Even the stuff the kids are stealing isn't costing you much, because you didn't pay for the ingredients (only the recipe) and you aren't having to pay royalties to the makers either.

Now, it would be your right to sue all the kiddies that you catch in the store stealing candy. I wouldn't argue with you on that. However, I would argue that it's a sound business model. It may stop the kids from stealing, but if you throw a bunch of their friends in jail or take away all their stuff in fines, they're going to hate you and stop buying your stuff. Sure, they quit stealing, but they also quit buying as well. They'll go buy soda or comics or something else besides putting more money in your pocket so you can go sue more of their friends.

It's a lot like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Is it so hard to compete with free? Evian certainly does it. If I was the financial advisor to this proverbial store owner, I'd tell him that maybe he should lower his prices so the kids can afford to buy more, which means they'll steal less, or maybe he could make the premium candy more appealing, or maybe he could explain how the purchased candy is somehow better than the stuff they are stealing out on the floor (ie, things aren't mislabled, no kid with SARS has been digging in this candy bowl, these candies up here are better quality, etc).

But what do I know? I just happen to have been one of the RIAA's biggest customers who no longer purchases anything -- and not because I can get it for free on Kazaa. It's not worth the money they charge, and I don't like putting money in their pockets so they go sue kids who couldn't afford to buy the music anyway.