|
Music sharers to face lawsuits - We just got screwed!!! (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Durafei |
| quote: | | The part of your posted I highlighted - about copying a lab, yes you're right, I would feel ripped. But you know what? There's nothing I can do about it. What he did was not illegal, I can't sue him for it - my answers were my thoughts, they were in the public domain. Was I ripped? Yes. Did he commit a criminal act? No! Plagiarism is against school policies, but it is not the equivalent of "stealing". |
As far as plagiarism is not stealing. Did you know that Armin won a lawsuit again Mauro Picotto, because of a sample Mauro used in one of his tracks. That's just one example.
BTW, in scientific world that kind of stuff is going on all the time. People steal ideas, thoughts etc. And believe me - people get sued. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | | Originally posted by DigiNut They go on P2P to get music, that has nothing to do with their own backups. |
Which is my problem.
Backing up for personal use does not extend to P2P sharing because you don't need to use P2P to backup. Backing up for PERSONAL use is exactly that, and not for the use of others. Therein lies the entire issue.
Your point about DJ mixed CDs is interesting. I shall consider that when you ask me for a copy of my next mix. :D
Edit: I'll be completely honest here. A lot of my beef is with people who download music because it's free, and they just can't be bothered to pay for it. A lot of people worked hard to get that music out on to the market. I really just don't like cheapskates.
Edit #2: Aaron, re. my mixed CDs - it's the format and the ability to re-use the material in the same fashion that makes them different. You download and burn a CD, you can use it in the same manner as you would have if you had bought it. With a mixed CD, you can't even burn those tracks to a CD and use CD-Js to play them as I do with the vinyl. What I give you is entirely different than if you had gone out and bought the records yourself. |
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: | | There simply isn't any correlation between file sharing and CD sales. |
Hm.. and how do you know that? There are many factors attributing to low CD sales, but saying that file sharing has nothing to do with it is absolute nonsense.
I'll personally tell you that I've downloaded at least 10 albums that I didn't pay for, which I might have otherwise bought. SO - there you go - there is a correlation between file sharing and CD sales.
| quote: |
Don't want to pay for something we should be paying for? Who says I should be paying for music? I do actually pay for it, once I find a great album to buy, but to waste my money on all the music that comes out in the store and then return it 2 days later complaining it was garbage? Pffft, waste of my time, when I could simply download that album/song on the net, listen to it at home and if I don't like it, guess what, conveniently DELETE it - no money or time wasted.
|
Well, obviously you haven't wasted neither time nor money. But an artist does waste his time and money when people just come and download their music for free. RIAA is looking out for the interest of the Artist, you are looking out for your own interests. Just look at file sharing from artist's perspective. |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
So how are MP3s EXACT "cloned" copies of CDs?
Do I have a cd I can now play, with it's nice pretty graphic label? Do I have a case for my mp3 with album art, and these days a dvd that cam with the cd, or any of the enhanced features most cds come with?
No. Downloaded DIGITAL media are not the same product that the record company is trying to get you to buy, so what exactly am i stealing? The songs exist in the public for free, as promo cds, radio, etc, and digital versions of the songs are the same. People are sharing these DIGITAl versions that someone OTHER than the record company created, so it's not stealing anything from the company.
This issue is about copyright infringement, not theft. The record label are claiming that the intellectual property is being stolen by us, when credit is still being given to the artists. They didn't create the mp3s, so the have no ownership over them. It's just about them maintaining their stranglehold on us all, plain and simple.
How you guys can defend the bastards that live off ramming like American/Canadian Idol, and whater top 40 schlock down our throats amazes me. Even the smaller labels are loving what the net is doing for them right now, because the more the larger companies fail, the smaller labels we all love are flourishing and being able to break the monopoly of DISTRIBUTION of their work into stores. Ever wonder why most EDM is over $20 or $30 bucks a CD in HMV?? Because of the Major labels! |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
I think RIAA is doing the right thing.
Artists and people in recording industry spend lots of time WORKING. Working implies that they should get paid for it. They probably DO get paid for it, but it's still unfair to those artists when some people just download their work without paying for it. Of course some people download music first, and then buy it. But what about all those who don't buy music after downloading it?
RIAA can't possibly know who buys music after downloading and who doesn't. So they want to stop sharing completely. Makes sense! RIAA could probably come up with another solution. But they didn't - and you have to live with it. |
Again, nobody seems to be listening to this, but this entire argument relies on the fact that file sharing is actually hurting the artists and their CD sales. This has not been proven!!!
Besides which, even if it were to be proven, it is not logical to say that their argument is correct simply because the consequences of their argument would be positive. It's still a fundamentally flawed argument, regardless of what happens if they get their way.
| quote: | | And when you download Armin's CD - you are stealing. Just imagine that you had a CLONE machine. CLONE machine would take a product, and make a clone of that product. Now you come to your friend's home and see a TV set that cost millions of dollars(well, the TV itself is cheap, but to build that model, to research it, to test it cost millions) and you just CLONE that TV. Didn't you just steal it? |
No, because you'd be "cloning" the actual product. It's the same for CDs - if you actually copy those CDs and distribute them as originals, it's definitely illegal. But digital ripping and transmission in the form of MP3 is only copying the content, not the actual good. If you tore open the TV, ripped out all the pieces, and cloned those, you wouldn't be stealing the TV.
| quote: | As far as plagiarism is not stealing. Did you know that Armin won a lawsuit again Mauro Picotto, because of a sample Mauro used in one of his tracks. That's just one example.
BTW, in scientific world that kind of stuff is going on all the time. People steal ideas, thoughts etc. And believe me - people get sued. |
Again, you're misunderstanding the concept of copyright law. Copyright infringement isn't theft. Aside from which, the example you cited involved someone taking credit for work which was not his - this is quite different from MP3s, which give full credit to their authors.
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Backing up for personal use does not extend to P2P sharing because you don't need to use P2P to backup. Backing up for PERSONAL use is exactly that, and not for the use of others. Therein lies the entire issue. |
I don't get your logic, it doesn't make any sense. You're trying to link the backing-up to the P2P sharing. There is no such link. The act of ripping those MP3s for backup and the act of sharing them via P2P are two completely different isolated acts.
They didn't "back those files up" specifically to share them. They decided later on to share them. They made the backups as backups, and what they do with those backups after the fact is their own business.
| quote: | | Your point about DJ mixed CDs is interesting. I shall consider that when you ask me for a copy of my next mix. :D |
:p :p :p
| quote: | | Edit: I'll be completely honest here. A lot of my beef is with people who download music because it's free, and they just can't be bothered to pay for it. A lot of people worked hard to get that music out on to the market. I really just don't like cheapskates. |
This is true, but, as the point has been made before, the RIAA cannot (and really, has not even made an attempt) to differentiate between those people and the people who do it to "preview" their music, for example.
And even if they're cheapskates and doing something that's morally wrong, does not mean that they've committed a crime.
| quote: | | Edit #2: Aaron, re. my mixed CDs - it's the format and the ability to re-use the material in the same fashion that makes them different. You download and burn a CD, you can use it in the same manner as you would have if you had bought it. With a mixed CD, you can't even burn those tracks to a CD and use CD-Js to play them as I do with the vinyl. What I give you is entirely different than if you had gone out and bought the records yourself. |
Okay, so what if we were talking about someone else, whose mixing was ty and they just used a crossfader, let's say it's easy to isolate individual tracks by maybe cutting just a couple of seconds off the beginning and end - is it illegal then?
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Hm.. and how do you know that? There are many factors attributing to low CD sales, but saying that file sharing has nothing to do with it is absolute nonsense.
I'll personally tell you that I've downloaded at least 10 albums that I didn't pay for, which I might have otherwise bought. SO - there you go - there is a correlation between file sharing and CD sales. |
I wonder though - would you really have bought those CDs if you didn't download them? Or would you just have lived without 'em?
Prove it.
| quote: | | Well, obviously you haven't wasted neither time nor money. But an artist does waste his time and money when people just come and download their music for free. RIAA is looking out for the interest of the Artist, you are looking out for your own interests. Just look at file sharing from artist's perspective. |
No, the RIAA is not looking out for the interest of the artist - if they were, they wouldn't be raping the artist up the ass so badly. They're looking out for their own interests as well - the RIAA is looking out for their interests, I'm looking out for mine. File sharing from an artist's perspective is another story - many, many artists support it. Many artists use MP3 as a means of distribution!
Besides which, musicians used to make money by doing live concerts. If I'm not mistaken, they still do. The average DJ makes all or most of their money from live shows, not recorded media, so I don't have much sympathy for the ones that don't make enough from the media and don't make enough from live shows either because they're too stuck-up/lazy/untalented.
|
|
|
| Skipper |
Aaron, we agree that backing up and P2P sharing are different. However, people are sharing their backups on P2P networks. Therefore, their intent when ripping them is not just for backing up purposes.
-sigh-
I'm really tired of this argument...Aaron, you make a lot of intelligent points as always, and I'm not sure I know how to respond to them. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I don't believe that any of us know the law well enough to be able to say what is a crime and what is not. I believe that some artists are losing out as a result.
File sharing has its time and place, but I think too many people abuse it without consideration of the consequences, for the artists, the industry and now, themselves. |
|
|
| bass drive |
reasons why I don't buy cds;
1- I am not stupid :D
2- my cd player is not that good
3- music sounds better with the pc subwoofer
4- I get bored quickly (can't listen to whole cd)
5- I like listening to diverse stuff in one listening session
6- most cds have only 2 or 3 good songs
7- I don't enjoy just listening to music, I must be doing somethig else (mostly listen to music while on pc)
8- mostly listen to online radios ^
I am not saying I am a heavy downloader, I have few mp3s (~300 and alot are not English), but if downloading mp3s is to be made ilegal, I'd rather not listen to alot of music than buy cds.
buying cds is for 16 yr olds :D |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Aaron, we agree that backing up and P2P sharing are different. However, people are sharing their backups on P2P networks. Therefore, their intent when ripping them is not just for backing up purposes. |
True, but backup purposes is sort of a loose term for the written law - people are allowed to make copies as long as it's for personal use (i.e. not for profit). Personal use doesn't specifically mean backup purposes only, and although I'm sure many people (the CRIA in particular) would like to argue that personal use does not extend to file sharing, that point is highly debatable since the music is no longer in its original form.
| quote: | -sigh-
I'm really tired of this argument...Aaron, you make a lot of intelligent points as always, and I'm not sure I know how to respond to them. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I don't believe that any of us know the law well enough to be able to say what is a crime and what is not. I believe that some artists are losing out as a result.
File sharing has its time and place, but I think too many people abuse it without consideration of the consequences, for the artists, the industry and now, themselves. |
Of course, and no hard feelings, a debate's a debate. :p I'm not an intellectual property lawyer (although a few years down the road I just might be but that's another story :p), but it's plain to see that these lawsuits have worked their way into the lives of many people who are not abusers (little kids who didn't even know what they were doing, old men who didn't even have computers, etc.).
I think it's important to understand that the recording association is not doing this to help the artists but to help themselves. I think people need to realize that the reason they're filing lawsuits is:
1) As a cash grab - their targets do not have the money to defend themselves legally, so they always settle out of court.
2) Out of spite - since they refused to embrace MP3 when it was an emerging technology, they paid a high price for that, and now they want to try and kill the technology to save their asses.
3) To hide the real issue - that their skyrocketing prices, unfair contracts, and overabundance of terrible music is the real reason why starving artists are still starving.
Has the RIAA made any public statements as to how much of this lawsuit money will trickle down to their artists? I didn't think so...
Whether or not you think that downloading/sharing is wrong, let's face the fact that what the recording association is doing is 10 times more wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. I'm in full agreement that many people abuse file sharing, but whether or not that has seriously hurt the industry is dubious, and the possibility that they deserve to spend the rest of their lives trying to pay off a $400-per-song debt is not even something I'd consider. The courts are punishing dogs that pee on the carpets by kicking them, starving them, and making them spend 8 weeks in a cage. |
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: |
Again, nobody seems to be listening to this, but this entire argument relies on the fact that file sharing is actually hurting the artists and their CD sales. This has not been proven!!!
|
Well, it has never been proven that there were WPD in Iraq, yet the war still went on. Tell me - were you a supporter of that war?
The point it, just because something hasn't been proven, doesn't mean it's invalid. RIAA has a reason to believe that file sharing does hurt music industry. Obviuosly they can't prove it, but the grounds for that belief are very strong.
| quote: | | I think it's important to understand that the recording association is not doing this to help the artists but to help themselves. |
And you know this how exactly ??? Can you prove it ?
| quote: | | Whether or not you think that downloading/sharing is wrong, let's face the fact that what the recording association is doing is 10 times more wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. I'm in full agreement that many people abuse file sharing, but whether or not that has seriously hurt the industry is dubious, and the possibility that they deserve to spend the rest of their lives trying to pay off a $400-per-song debt is not even something I'd consider. The courts are punishing dogs that pee on the carpets by kicking them, starving them, and making them spend 8 weeks in a cage. |
Damn... don't you understand ??? The reason why the want to file lawsuits is just to scare away people from downloading. They are not
idiots to sue every 10 year old downloader. They'll sue a few just to
put fear into people's eyes. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Well, it has never been proven that there were WPD in Iraq, yet the war still went on. Tell me - were you a supporter of that war? |
Completely irrelevant, aside from which, I don't see how bringing up another highly-controversial political opinion would help your argument even if it were relevant.
| quote: | | The point it, just because something hasn't been proven, doesn't mean it's invalid. RIAA has a reason to believe that file sharing does hurt music industry. Obviuosly they can't prove it, but the grounds for that belief are very strong. |
What you say may be right to some extent, but there has been a great deal of evidence presented that contradicts their claim (read the links I posted earlier, and believe me, there's plenty more where that came from), and very little that confirms it. As I said, they have not even found evidence that shows correlation, let alone cause - if they can't even find correlation, how can they claim cause? The grounds for their belief are not very strong.
| quote: | | And you know this how exactly ??? Can you prove it ? |
I think the fact that the labels are still giving artists mere pennies for each CD speaks for itself. If they really wanted to help these starving artists, they'd have thrown a few more pennies their way. They are not giving their lawsuit money to artists, and they know that these lawsuits hurt their public image and in turn their sales, but they do it anyway, which leads us to...
| quote: | Damn... don't you understand ??? The reason why the want to file lawsuits is just to scare away people from downloading. They are not
idiots to sue every 10 year old downloader. They'll sue a few just to
put fear into people's eyes. |
See, this is what they want people to think, but if they were really just trying to scare people away, it would imply that they genuinely believe that these scare tactics would help them. The fact is, they know they're in trouble, they know they're a dying industry, and they're just trying to maximize their profits before Doomsday hits RIAA-town. |
|
|
| alec |
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
reasons why I don't buy cds;
1- I am not stupid :D
2- my cd player is not that good
3- music sounds better with the pc subwoofer
4- I get bored quickly (can't listen to whole cd)
5- I like listening to diverse stuff in one listening session
6- most cds have only 2 or 3 good songs
7- I don't enjoy just listening to music, I must be doing somethig else (mostly listen to music while on pc)
8- mostly listen to online radios ^
I am not saying I am a heavy downloader, I have few mp3s (~300 and alot are not English), but if downloading mp3s is to be made ilegal, I'd rather not listen to alot of music than buy cds.
buying cds is for 16 yr olds :D |
most of those can also be accomplished by sticking a cd in your cdrom and listening while doing stuff on your computers.
Also Mp3's are allowed to be shared, provided they stay on your system for only 24 hours! |
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: | | See, this is what they want people to think, but if they were really just trying to scare people away, it would imply that they genuinely believe that these scare tactics would help them. The fact is, they know they're in trouble, they know they're a dying industry, and they're just trying to maximize their profits before Doomsday hits RIAA-town. |
LOL, do you really believe that they are going to sue each and everyone of us ?? Don't be so paranoid man. They won't. I can GUARANTEE THAT ! |
|
|
|
|
