grokster and kazaa users read this!

[boss]

i'm a grokster user. i may be threatened with legal action.
read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2987795.stm

have any of you guys recieved "notice"? i've checked my hotmail account and did'nt get a warning. did they use the grokster/kazaa private message service to send the notices instead? i'll have to check my computer when i get home!

[Will Hay]

Having read the article I imagine's it's exactly that, a warning with no possible option on enforcement.
Will

[Hardcoreruss]

It's impossible for them to stop peer to peer. Whatever copy protection they come up with people will crack it. They can't prosecute millions of people.

[BJ_M]

guess no one did read this :

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/04/29/song.swap.reut/index.html

LONDON (Reuters) -- The music industry pledged this week to fight on with its global legal battle to stifle online copyright abuse despite last week's unexpected setback in a U.S. court.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson on Friday dealt a major blow to the major music labels and Hollywood studios in their fight against online piracy, ruling Internet file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus can remain open for business.

Judge Wilson ruled Grokster and Morpheus could not be shut down because they cannot control what is traded over their systems even if the material exchanged is copyright-protected.

In contrast, the original song-trading network Napster was shut down by a U.S. federal court judge two years ago as its older technology hosted a central index of copyrighted files.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), had sought a court injunction to shut down Grokster, Morpheus and a third party, Kazaa, for operating services that allow Internet users to trade all types of copyright-protected materials.

The trade groups represent the film- and music-making divisions of AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corp, to name a few.

The companies accuse file-sharing sites of allowing fans to obtain films, music and video games in an unauthorized manner, an argument that not all courts agree with, and one that Judge Wilson did not find favor with in this instance.

"One thing is clear, it's not over," said Allen Dixon, general counsel at the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), a global trade body that represents 1500 music labels.

Industry won't lie down
IFPI works closely with the RIAA on a variety of technological, educational and legal initiatives to combat digital piracy, a phenomenon it says has contributed greatly to a three-year decline in CD sales.

"The IFPI and its member companies and national groups will continue to actively pursue infringers of all types as we see them... We are not going to take the whole business of mass copying and distribution of music lying down," said Dixon.

In the U.S., the MPAA and RIAA have vowed to appeal. Overseas, the media community is playing down the significance of Friday's decision, saying that local courts ultimately will determine the legality of file-sharing country-by-country.

So far, the music industry has been victorious in shutting down file-sharing networks in Japan and Korea. In addition to the Napster case, U.S. courts have supported industry efforts to go after individual file-traders.

But a Dutch court last year ruled in favor of Kazaa, the underlying technology on which other file-sharing systems are based. Adding Friday's setback to the mix has lengthened the odds the media industry will have tackling the problem in court.

Still, the industry remains optimistic. They point to Apple Computer's launch on Monday of a new subscription download music service and a separate initiative in Europe and Asia to beef up CD copy-protection technology, thus choking off a major source of recorded music winding up online.

On the legal front, Dixon said the MPAA and RIAA case in the U.S. is still alive against Kazaa. A victory against Kazaa could ultimately knock offline the file-sharing services that license its technology.

"The evidence is still being collected against Kazaa, which is the biggest player here," Dixon said. Kazaa officials are due to appear in court today in Los Angeles.

Sharman Networks Limited, the Australian firm that owns Kazaa, said on Friday the company's legal team was evaluating the ruling's significance.

Not surprisingly, it was feeling much better about its chances. "Sharman Networks Limited, owner of Kazaa Media Desktop, applauds Judge Wilson's decision in his ruling that file sharing software is legal," it said in a statement.

[nerdboy69]

Wow. If only they spent as much time, effort and money on devising a more practical modern solution rather than trying to use scare tactics.

I have no sympathy at all for these small minded bureaucratic, monopolistic vampires whose whole means of their enormous incomes is to exploit the talents of the artists.

They are scared. And they should be terrified, because it is becoming quite obvious that they are actually not required. When a more entrepreneurial organisation with a bit of financial backing and foresignt devises a more affordable pay-for-play distribution method which is fair to the artists, the days of this lumbering dinosaur will be numbered (as soon as the aritist start to wriggle their way out of their soul-selling contracts they are bullied to sign due to few other viable options presently available).

[BJ_M]

[quote="nerdboy69"]................... When a more entrepreneurial organisation with a bit of financial backing devises a more affordable pay-for-play distribution method which is fair to the artists,...................quote]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/industry/04/29/music.apple.reut/index.html



but rairly does this money end up in any artists pockets, or very little of it ..

[WeedVender]

www.boycott-riaa.com

Join the force...

[disturbed1]

[quote="BJ_M
but rairly does this money end up in any artists pockets, or very little of it ..[/quote]

A musician friend of mine said it works like this (in most cases)

Band recieves lump some up front from record company to produce a recording.

Bonus are given for certain amounts of sells, and radio air play. The bonus given to band are only pennies on the dollar.

In his band, the equipnment was promoted to them by the companies, they paid 25% of the retail cost on average, $6,000 Tama/sybian drum kit was had for $1500. Clothes, sneakers can also be given to the band to advertise.

They then had to hire a manager to "promote" the band, handling bookings etc. Out of a $30 concert ticket the band as a whole makes ~$1. 5000 fans = $5000, minus tour bus fees, hotel fees, eats, drinks etc.... which comes out of the bands buck a ticket. Roadies, lights, other set up fees paid out of managers take. That's if they headline, opening acts, and multi billed concerts make less money, or charge more for the tickets.


Signings at record shops get the band a commission on certain sells.

[az1284xx]

X2 Will Save Movie Industry Slump

Gee, at least the Movie moguls are realistic about why their industry is slumping, "probably the mediocre quality of movies." I was waiting for them to blame Kazaa for allowing us to download DVD's of Madonna's Swept Away, or Brittney Spears Crossroads.

“We’ve been in a slump for the first part of the year, and we’re really looking for ‘X2’ to bring us out of that slump,” said Paul Dergarabedian who track movie receipts at Exhibitor Relations.

“We’re down about 6 percent on revenue about 9 percent on attendance. So there’s a lot of pressure on this film to turn things around Some blame the war in Iraq. Others say it’s the weak economy. But it’s more likely the mediocre quality of movies themselves kept moviegoers out of theatres for most of this year.

Go here FYI
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

[freak_in_cage_10k]

So, can they actually monitor what files you are sharing? Surley if there is no mainframe PC with all the files stored on it they can only see what you have on your pc by accessing your hard drive and surley this is illegal? also, wouldn;t a firewall stop anyone viewing the contents of your HD?

Personally i think i speak for the majority of ppl when i say this:

There will always be ways of getting somthing for nothing, regardless of how many laws there are etc

HOWEVER, i think the majority of users (including myself) would be FAR happier actually PAYING for the musc/software etc if the prices were less insane! Here in the UK a typical Music album is £15.99,and a new DVD is about £20. I would buy all albums myself if they were priced at a more reasonable £5, as i would feel that i was encouraging the singers to perform etc (as they are providing me with a service-ENTERTAINMENT), owning the correct CD case etc (with all the lyrics etc) and also just knowing i was obeying the law. However, as i student i dont have the money for £16 albums etc!

So, in short, the companies should knock down their prices (at the expense of THIER profit,NOT the artists!) but sell significantly more albums due to lower prices!

[txpharoah]

There will always be ways of getting somthing for nothing, regardless of how many laws there are etc

Agreed. This is a constant in life. It always has been, and always will be.

[Greg12]

It's sad. If you use a firewall, it's a little bit harder. Also don't regester w/ your real e-mail address.

Finally, if they sue everyone, they won't have any customers left.

[Greg12]

I hear that apple system is good.

[drewson99]

I have a parent in the recording industry who has a good, albeit unpopular idea for his counterparts.

he proposes that the labels save money by selling off thier expensive pressing equipment, warehouses, delivery trucks, all that cal.. yes, a lot of laid off workers, but the way things are going, they all lose thier jobs sooner or later when the company goes bankrupt.

then, with very little overhead, they sell their artists' products online, via their website, or even a proprietary Napster type of program which users could use to login, authenticate, and d/l anything they wanted from that label. single songs, whole cd's any bitrate they want etc. they can also d/l the disc and jacket art.

for this the user pays a monthly fee or maybe gets a deal on a whole year, and this fee would be determined by people with more info than myself. my dad, off the top of his head, proposed $5-10 a month. in my case, the labels would make more from a customer like me, who only buys one or two CDs a year. but i would gladly do it to have the convenience, and would surely own more music as a result.

by embracing the new geography of the internet, they cut their losses and keep their profits. it would also cover the huge expense of unsuccessful shipping of new artists, which labels take a bath on all the time. if they don't get d/l'd, so what, they didn't have to press and ship millions of CDs.

another idea would be similar to Netflix. they could make 1% the amount of discs and simply rent them out for a monthly fee for the sole purpose of duplication.

course they won't do it until they realize the game is over, and then it may be too late for many of them. i recommend they get organized now.

A

[BJ_M]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html?ex=1052625600&en=dadf74c45d5ecb...partner=GOOGLE

[txpharoah]

This is so flawed, I don't even believe it's real.

he proposes that the labels save money by selling off thier expensive pressing equipment, warehouses, delivery trucks, all that cal.. yes, a lot of laid off workers, but the way things are going, they all lose thier jobs sooner or later when the company goes bankrupt.

They don't own any of that stuff. They use vendor services. We will not see them go bankrupt in our lifetime, or even in my kids' lifetime. People want to own stuff, and way too many anti-computer people. Plus only a small portion of the world owns computers, much less is online. You must remember, some people are just now getting tv and radio. The media formats of the world cannot outpace the accepted technology too fast, else then they WILL go bankrupt from making such a stupid business decision.

then, with very little overhead, they sell their artists' products online, via their website, or even a proprietary Napster type of program which users could use to login, authenticate, and d/l anything they wanted from that label. single songs, whole cd's any bitrate they want etc. they can also d/l the disc and jacket art.

Little overhead? I don't think so. Maybe cheaper, but not by too much. CD pressing and shipping are not that expensive. Ever heard of bandwidth charges? This online trading was an old idea, that has flaws, and has not been adopted yet, but may be an ADDITIONAL service we should see within 5-10 years.

for this the user pays a monthly fee or maybe gets a deal on a whole year, and this fee would be determined by people with more info than myself. my dad, off the top of his head, proposed $5-10 a month. in my case, the labels would make more from a customer like me, who only buys one or two CDs a year. but i would gladly do it to have the convenience, and would surely own more music as a result.

Old idea.

by embracing the new geography of the internet, they cut their losses and keep their profits. it would also cover the huge expense of unsuccessful shipping of new artists, which labels take a bath on all the time. if they don't get d/l'd, so what, they didn't have to press and ship millions of CDs.

Somewhat true but flawed. Out of sight, out of mind. I don't want to explain marketing concepts here, but no way is this going to fly in the business world. And I mean because of shopper habits, not because of money-grubbing companies. And making things is the cost of doing business. These companies turn over millions if not billions in profits each year. So they lose a few hundred thousand on unsold discs. Boo-hoo. They sell eventually, even if it is in the dollar store. Also, know that the STORES buy the discs and are stuck with them. The CD companies and artists already got paid (although this can differ due to licenses).

another idea would be similar to Netflix. they could make 1% the amount of discs and simply rent them out for a monthly fee for the sole purpose of duplication.

Interesting (the rental-only-to-copy ideology). Hmm... I like it, never really heard this one, though I can see flaws already (mass production of rented discs for pirating to friends or again, the MP3 issue).

course they won't do it until they realize the game is over, and then it may be too late for many of them. i recommend they get organized now.

Too late? Not for decades. You'll be an old gray man.

No offense, but are you sure your dad actually has a position that requires input on situations like this? Sure doesn't sound that way to me.