Here we go - Big settlement against sharing music on internet

[deadrats]

Your arguments assume way too much.
-When you allow your friend to listen to/watch your disc at your home, that is personal use. You are also essentially acting as advertising for that product. When you lend the media to your friend, or worse, burn them a copy, you take away the incentive for your friend to purchase.

and you're assuming that my friend ever had any intention of buying a copy, you have no such evidence to support such a conclusion.

- The bars were wrong. They were profiting off of a service that was meant for a small audience viewing. Granted, they weren't directly since they didn't collect fees specifically for the event, but they got more customers into their bar due to playing a pay-per-view for free.

preposterous!!! first of all how do you define "a small audience". second of all, the cable companies never said that only x amount of people can watch during a single purchased showing at a time. and third, it cost the cable companies no additional expense by multiple people viewing the fights in a public venue.

Equating all of this to suffrage and slavery is completely insane, not to mention bullshit. Those were intrinsic human rights. No one has any "right" to something created by another private party. Even if I consider my cooking as "art (I do ), That does not mean that I cannot eat my lunch in a public park without fear of "the people" feeling that they own it.

the denial of suffrage and mandatory slavery were the law. the argument put forth by copyright proponents is that the law is the law and we must obey it, regardless of whether we like it or not. using that argument we can justify any form of civil rights denial so long as it is codified in law. once we open our eyes and realize that there are times that regardless of whether or not something is codified in our annals of law that it is ridiculous for us to obey then we can move onto the next step in formulating laws that benefit the greatest number of people, not just the special interests.

[deadrats]

I just do not get all of these copyright issues that people have. It's clearly black and white.

nothing is ever black and white, that's why there why color spectrum is for all practical purposes infinite.

Do you own it? --> No --> Did you share/pirate/download/upload/what ever? --> Yes --> You broke the law.

actually if you read through eula's and copyright law you never actually own anything, you are granted a limited license to use the copyrighted material. the problem arises in that the riaa/mpaa/bsa wish to impose restrictions on the licenses granted to you.

It has no bearing if you agree or disagree with a law. You can debate it, and come up with bullshit excuses and non connecting innuendos all you want. Law is the law.

thet would have loved you in nazi germany. do you feel the same way about the 2 u.s. reporters recently captured and tried in north korea and sentenced to 6 years in a labor camp?

how about a little closer to home:

http://www.sodomylaws.org/

quote: "Statute: 18.2-361, Crimes Against Nature. Unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas. Virginia continues to arrest and prosecute under this law."

quote: "or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B."

since you feel that "Law is the law" and that "It has no bearing if you agree or disagree with a law" i hope that one day you are caught getting a blow job in virginia (and for added irony by a girl named virginia, who happens to be a virgin) and get sentenced to 5 years in the slammer, getting slammed by a guy named virgil, which ironically enough would constitute another felony and entitle you to another 5 year sentence.

how wonderful would that be?

If I was doing 90 MPH in a 55 MPH speed limit zone because <$INSERT LAME EXCUSE HERE>, doesn't matter, I broke the law. And yes it is the same. The law of the speed limit is clearly posted and known, copyright law is clearly posted and also known. Worse of all, it doesn't take much common sense to figure this out. Then again, there is nothing so uncommon as common sense. Especially here in the US, where most people believe they are owed something, want everything for free or next to nothing, yet refuse to do anything to help anyone but themselves out

it does matter, you're just hell bent on being self righteous. i myself have broken the speed limit by a significant amount on 2 extreme occasions: once i thought i had been poisoned by rat poison and rushed myself to the hospital, because in the case of rat poisoning time is of the essence and due to my proximity to the hospital it was way faster to jump in my truck and drive myself to the emergency room that call for an ambulance and wait until they arrived and took me to the emergency room and on another occasion i received a call that it was believed my brother was having a heart attack and he was being rushed to the hospital, i violated every motor vehicle law in the state of nj to be by his side and you know what, i would do the exact same thing every time whether you or anyone else like it or not.

the bars would order the fight for the $50 or so bucks, some bars would charge admission at the door, some where content with just the revenue from the booze and food they were going to sell that night.

numerous appeals and eventually the cable companies prevailed when the state supreme court sided with them.

DUH

Is it really that hard to see how they broke the law?

actually it is hard to see particularly because they were prosecuted under a rather interesting interpretation of cable theft laws, there was never anything in any terms of service agreement or codified in the criminal code that specifically disallowed said behavior.

[deadrats]

why should china, or any other country, care about copyrights registered in another country?

Because they agreed to when they signed the Berne Convention?

really, all 1.1 billion chinese residents currently living agreed to be bound by an agreement first accepted in 1886?

furthermore if you read up on the agreement you site you will note that not all countries have accepted all the rules of the convention if they didn't like what it has to say, i suggest you read up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

furthermore, unlike in the u.s. where some might make the ridiculous argument that our duly elected officials speak for us and that somehow we are obligated to adhere to agreements made by them on our behalf regardless of whether we agree with the terms or not, the chinese have no such representation, their government doesn't speak for them, it oppresses them and violently silences dissidents, opposition and protesters.

it's idiotic to expect a chinese citizen to be bound by our copyright laws, under a treaty formulated before they were born and before the current communist regime took power, and ratified by a governing body that has shown it could care less about it's citizens.

[Gregg]

I don't know how the music industry calculates it's "losses" but I hope it's not on the fundamentally wrong assumption that everything that is shared otherwise would have been bought or paid for. Personally I wouldn't buy even 5% of that.

[Dv8ted2]

Can we keep the thread on topic? This has nothing to do with cars or driving or traffic laws. This is pertaining to copyright and technology and nothing else.

[MOVIEGEEK]

deadrats,
I'm only going to respond to one of your points because the rest is a diatribe.
Re:Viewing PPV in a Public Place
All cable/satelitte companies have had a policy where you have to get a commercial viewing license in order to show a presentation outside of a home, the fee is based on occupancy.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/ufc-pay-per-view-7133.html

[deadrats]

deadrats,
I'm only going to respond to one of your points because the rest is a diatribe.
Re:Viewing PPV in a Public Place
All cable/satelitte companies have had a policy where you have to get a commercial viewing license in order to show a presentation outside of a home, the fee is based on occupancy.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/ufc-pay-per-view-7133.html

this was not always the case, the nj cases i was referring to were back in the early days of pay-per-view, it was these cases and similar around the country that set the precedent for current case law.

[classfour]

My issue with the recording industry: Originally, I purchased albums; then some 8-Track tapes; then cassette tapes - and finally CDs. Many are duplicates of music in updated format. If they're so gung-ho about going after someone over mp3 downloads, why couldn't they have provided me with an updated format (in exchange for the outgoing one) of the music that I had already purchased? In retrospect: I have four versions of several different albums - spending who knows what to maintain my standard of listening.

These guys may be hurting themselves: I have, on occasion, downloaded an mp3 for the purpose of listening to it. If I like the song (and I have), I have purchased the CD. Would that constitute piracy? Yes, at the first moment the mp3 was downloaded - but, after I purchased the CD I would have the right to own a digital copy. BUT: Would I have the right to possess the original digital copy that I did not rip and encode?

I'm in the camp with Janis Ian on this one: Look to the artist who wrote and recorded the music. If the artist wishes to release their music freely, so all can hear - No copyright laws are broken.

I think the recording industry is going a bit long on the thing: 99 years (after the song was recorded) on pursuing a copyright infringement. If they are no longer paying the original artist royalties, they should back off. If the original artist isn't getting the majority of the "settlements" (I bet the attorneys are getting the Lion's share) paid - back off.

$2 Million for 24 songs. Never forget Kazaa is a peer-to-peer network. It uploads (unless you know how to stop it) whatever is on your machine, in your music (or video, or photo) folders. This woman COULD HAVE had legally (likely not) ripped music on her hard drive, and kazaa would still distribute it - likely without her knowing.

If your machine is connected to the internet, Limewire (or kazaa or bearshare, etc.) is sharing the contents of your hard disc - to include your copies of music CDs that you ripped for your portable device WHILE YOU ARE NOT HOME, SAY, AT WORK: Have you purposely broken the copyright laws, or are you merely stupid for not shutting the program (and the machine) down?

There are tons of scenarios for this crap. Automatically assuming someone is attempting to perform an illegal act may not be the correct path.

Yep, I wish Adam were here: He'd put a nice spin on it for everyone!

[deadrats]

some more copyright gone insane examples:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/ascap-wants-be-paid-

quote: "ASCAP (the same folks who went after Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire) appears to believe that every time your musical ringtone rings in public, you're violating copyright law by "publicly performing" it without a license. At least that's the import of a brief [2.5mb PDF] it filed in ASCAP's court battle with mobile phone giant AT&T."

http://www.brandnamebullies.com/excerpts.html

quote: "ASCAP Stops the Girl Scouts from Singing around the Campfire
You may think that it's O.K. for little campers to sing "Happy Birthday" and "Row, Row, Row" around the campfire for free, without asking for permission. But in fact, you may have to pay a license to a licensing society known as ASCAP. ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, is a performance rights body that licenses copyrighted works for non-dramatic public performances. It then distributes royalties collected from those performances and channels them to the appropriate composers, authors and publishers. The system is intended as a way to assure that creators receive monies for the public performances of their works.....even some campfire songs.

In 1996, ASCAP decided that that since hotels, restaurants, funeral homes and resorts pay for the right to "perform" recorded music, and since many summer camps resemble resorts, why shouldn't they pay too? Under copyright law, a public performance occurs "where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." Like a summer camp.

After reportedly opening its negotiations with the American Camping Association with an offer of $1,200 per season per camp, ASCAP eventually settled on an average annual fee of $257. But once ASCAP's plan went public, and people learned that the Girl Scouts were among the 288 camps being dunned, the group beat a hasty and embarrassed retreat."

oh well, i guess the "law is the law" and we must obey whether we like it or not,

[tmw]

The moral of the story should be to make sure you invest in a good lawyer to avoid being on the wrong side of a judgement. No matter how right one might be, it can be construed as being wrong just as people argue with deadrats illustrations.

While I think the music industry position is ridiculous, I would recommend anyone targetted by RIAA to attempt to settle. Their lawyers have too many resources and are looking too much to make a statement, and the law is on their side....

[videobread]

i'm so sorry that any music fan anywhere is ever made to feel bad for making the effort to listen to music.

the riaa needs to be disbanded.

moby

http://www.moby.com/journal/2009-06-20/riaa-have-sued-jammie-thomas-rasset-minn.html

[Supreme2k]

Your arguments assume way too much.
-When you allow your friend to listen to/watch your disc at your home, that is personal use. You are also essentially acting as advertising for that product. When you lend the media to your friend, or worse, burn them a copy, you take away the incentive for your friend to purchase.

and you're assuming that my friend ever had any intention of buying a copy, you have no such evidence to support such a conclusion.

That is false logic that all the leechers use. You are taking the very incentive away from your friend by giving them a copy. I do know that you and your friend at least wanted the song enough to where you both should have bought it. If not, there would be no need to burn him a copy. If I say that I am not hungry, then proceed to a buffet, I'm lying.

The Constitution guarantees basic human rights, not mp3 downloads. that's why suffrage and slavery were reprehensible and copyright laws are just a minor inconvenience (for some).


You will NEVER get every citizen to sign agreements of that magnitude. That is why most countries have elected officials or representatives to carry out their best interests. But of course, that's WAY off topic and political to boot.

My issue with the recording industry: Originally, I purchased albums; then some 8-Track tapes; then cassette tapes - and finally CDs. Many are duplicates of music in updated format. If they're so gung-ho about going after someone over mp3 downloads, why couldn't they have provided me with an updated format (in exchange for the outgoing one) of the music that I had already purchased? In retrospect: I have four versions of several different albums - spending who knows what to maintain my standard of listening.

On the other hand, they shouldn't have to supply you with a lifelong "technology guarantee". If I bought a black and white television back in the 50's, no one should owe me a hi-def plasma screen.

These guys may be hurting themselves: I have, on occasion, downloaded an mp3 for the purpose of listening to it. If I like the song (and I have), I have purchased the CD. Would that constitute piracy? Yes, at the first moment the mp3 was downloaded - but, after I purchased the CD I would have the right to own a digital copy. BUT: Would I have the right to possess the original digital copy that I did not rip and encode?

Pretty much. No one is going to kick down your door to make sure that the mp3 that you have was expressly encoded by you. That's simply paranoid.

I'm in the camp with Janis Ian on this one: Look to the artist who wrote and recorded the music. If the artist wishes to release their music freely, so all can hear - No copyright laws are broken.

That's their choice, unless they signed an agreement with a label. Then it's the label's choice.

I think the recording industry is going a bit long on the thing: 99 years (after the song was recorded) on pursuing a copyright infringement. If they are no longer paying the original artist royalties, they should back off. If the original artist isn't getting the majority of the "settlements" (I bet the attorneys are getting the Lion's share) paid - back off.

Agreed

$2 Million for 24 songs. Never forget Kazaa is a peer-to-peer network. It uploads (unless you know how to stop it) whatever is on your machine, in your music (or video, or photo) folders. This woman COULD HAVE had legally (likely not) ripped music on her hard drive, and kazaa would still distribute it - likely without her knowing.

One acronym for her: RTFM

If your machine is connected to the internet, Limewire (or kazaa or bearshare, etc.) is sharing the contents of your hard disc - to include your copies of music CDs that you ripped for your portable device WHILE YOU ARE NOT HOME, SAY, AT WORK: Have you purposely broken the copyright laws, or are you merely stupid for not shutting the program (and the machine) down?

Either or both. You are a dumbass regardless, just for using any of those programs.
This is my perfect Limewire example:
You pick up a skeezy, female drifter and take her home so that she will do things for/to you. You leave her there while you go to work and tell her "Whatever you want to do while I'm gone, do it. I won't be here to stop you." She starts a brothel at your house while you are gone. You are still (at least partially) responsible and at fault.

Yep, I wish Adam were here: He'd put a nice spin on it for everyone!

Careful for what you wish. I'm more than positive that adam would be opposed to both yours and deadrats line of reasoning.

[jagabo]

I don't know how the music industry calculates it's "losses" but I hope it's not on the fundamentally wrong assumption that everything that is shared otherwise would have been bought or paid for. Personally I wouldn't buy even 5% of that.

The Jammie Thomas case had nothing to do with the RIAA's calculation of losses. Penalties are statutory, ranging from $750 to $30,000 for non-willful infringement, up to $150,000 for willful infringement. The amount has no relationship to any actual losses to the plaintiff. The jury gets to pull numbers out of their asses. Hopefully one of these cases will make it as far as the Supreme Court and the damages will be found unconstitutional.

The good news is Jammie Thomas may never have to pay anything:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10269251-93.html?

a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco could enable her to walk away from the debt, several legal experts said