General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2174929

    Why the war on file sharing is far from over

    Locked

    by maryweilage ·

    How do you feel about holding ISPs and companies responsible for their users’ file-sharing activities? Does your organization have a policy that addresses file sharing? Are you familiar with BitTorrent? Share your comments about the war on file sharing, as discussed in the Feb. 14 Internet Security Focus newsletter.

    If you haven’t subscribed to our free Internet Security Focus newsletter, sign up today! Click this link to subscribe automatically:
    http://nl.com.com/MiniFormHandler?brand=techrepublic&list_id=e044

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3336520

      RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

      by mrafrohead ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      Holding the ISP’s and companies responsible is like suing Remington for me shooting your brother. Remington didn’t make me do it, so why would they be responsible???

      A lot of filesharing that is done isn’t even over files that the MPAA and RIAA have any right to talk about. They are open source files. Or they are files that have been LEGALLY downloaded!!! Or files that have no copyright.

      These buttmonkeys think that just because there is an MP3 extension or AVI extension that they are being ripped off…

      They are grossly wrong.

      I can tell you this in regards to the RIAA. They dug their own hole.

      They will allow crap to be sold at an horrendus price and expect us just to pay for it. I call BS. They think that if they put one or two good songs on a CD that they can fill up the rest of the space with filler and then charge 18-22 bucks for it. I don’t know how they sleep at night.

      The worse part is that the true artists don’t even see most of that money.

      Even worse than that is now they are finally starting to do legal download services and are raping their customers even harder and more often.

      Now it costs them nothing in packaging and materials and they have the gall to sell the songs at a buck a piece. It is cheaper for them to offer downloads, yet they still charge the same price. They just don’t get it.

      I can tell you this much. I don’t buy CD’s anymore. Haven’t bought them for year. Now I just listen to the radio. I’ve just been sitting by patiently waiting for the RIAA to get pissed about me listening to the airwaves that are flowing through my house and try to bill me for that too… I won’t support companies the put out crap. I work too hard for my money to do that. And I sure as hell won’t support a company that SUES IT’S OWN CUSTOMERS!!!!!!!! Not to mention little girls and dead people.

      The MPAA isn’t as bad, but they’re trying to get there.

      But the RIAA is like Satan resurrected.

      P2P and BitTorrent are ingenious programs that are designed to move data. Next thing you know the RIAA will be going after the authors of the FTP protocol. And your grandma because the oatmeal raisin cookies that she made, she made while humming a song that they “own” and she didn’t pay royalties for it…

      • #3337982

        odd…no copyright???

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

        there are no files with no copyright.
        as soon as a file is created it has a copyright.
        even if it isn’t registered.

        http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/copyright.html

        • #3337975

          Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to odd…no copyright???

          I’m not going to waste my time on that… Don’t be difficult, you know exactly where I”m going with what I said.

          If I make a song and release it to the world, I have the choice of adding rights to who can do what with it, if I don’t then it’s there for all…

        • #3337953

          true..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          but you still have copyright, just by writing it.

          making it’s usage public domain / open / free is different

        • #3335176

          Not So

          by waynee ·

          In reply to true..

          Sorry but recording a song to tape does not automaticaly copyright it.

        • #3335175

          really

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Not So

          Educate us on what does cause a work to be copyrighted. I’m curious about whether you’re talking about a technicality or just misinformed.

        • #3334018

          A copyright exists ONLY IF …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to really

          the author CLAIMS such.

          While the claim need not be filed & registered, it must still be claimed.

          If a work, eligible for copyright protection, is publicly released without notice of the authors claim, it has no such protection.

        • #3334006

          not so

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to really

          An author’s work is assumed to be under copyright, in common practice, unless circumstances or statements contradict that. A statement of copyright serves to affirm that, lending greater defensibility of copyright in a court of law.

        • #3333955

          Not according to …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to really

          the “Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law for Engineers” grad level course that I took.

        • #3333935

          You’re right

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to really

          I have worked in the music industry for years. I have fought and won copyright suits, I have helped artists protect their work.

          With music, you can copyright your material IF it is the only such material in a given area.

          If I have a band in Vancouver that DOESN’T apply and pAY for copyright protection WORLDWIDE and another band in Germany releases the exact same work, there is no copright infringement. It’s not quite as cut and dry and ‘automatic’ as suggested here. This also goes for band/company names, album and song titles.

          You are only covered by copyright where you have market penetration. For this reason, most artists ‘apply’ for global distribution and copyright protection BEFORE releasing any work. Once the distribution channels are in place, you ship your work out and it is now protected in those markets.

          BUT, IF you have recorded under a label that already has copyright protection of IT’s own work, your music is protected automatically. THIS is why artists need representation and professional recording services befor ereleasing music.

          I have seen a start-up/garage band bring out a home made CD, flaunt it around town and be horrified to find another band actually release a disk with an identical yet professionally recorded version of their music on it.

          They quickly scream copyright infringent because they have a recording of it, BUT unless that is protected by a time and date stamp on the original DAT recording, which comes automatically with licensed studios, they have no leg to stand on.

          It’s a mad mad mad mad industry with too many loopholes, thus you need representation.

          Most labels that receive demos from bands can’t listen to them anyway if they are sent unsolicited, so all these people who keep working hard and firing off demos are completely wasting their time.

          Stick to IT, it’s FAR easier!

        • #3333907

          clarification

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to really

          I was speaking of domestic US copyright practice as recognized by and applicable under precedent of case law. International “intellectual property” legal matters are a mess of mutually exclusive treaty arrangements and other disasters.

        • #3333885

          CLarification

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to really

          I was referring to copyright in music. As this discussion aws targeted at P2P sharing, music/mp3 sharing being the most agreesively targeted issue of P2P file sharing, I thought that was what you were referring to.

          IN the US, as well as the rest of the world.

          Copyrights change based on industry more than location, epsecially with a global business such as music distribution.

        • #3333868

          legalities by scale, not location

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to really

          The laws within the US are different from the legal considerations for international copyright. There’s a system of precedence, for example, that allows one to “grandfather” in copyright in other countries that require registration of copyright if one already has copyright protection in a nation that doesn’t, but which has the right treaties with the other nation, if the right paperwork is done.

        • #3333845

          Alright

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to really

          I’ll have to go over/ammend all my US distribution contracts and get the US law straight I suppose then, damn and I thought I was doing it right all this time.

          You mean to say all those thousands spent on distribution copyrights and studio time stamps were irrelevant? Sh*t and the artists pay for this too! Now I’ve gone and done it. The US laws are unlike any other in the world! HEEEELP!

          Oh by the way, this has nothing to do with US vs international laws, this isn’t another one of THOSE discussions. This is regarding copyright on music sold around the world and how it is effected by P2P file sharing.

          Have you ever noticed how all of the CD’s are subject to copyright by all APPLICABLE laws? Which would mean those that are inside your country and also those in OTHER places it is sold. Copyright in the US for music does not apply outside of your isolated spot on the map. That’s why I expressed that it is up to international laws as applied WHERE MUSIC IS BEING DISTRIBUTED. Do you really think an American band that writes and releases music in America holds a copyright on their name or music in Taiwan unless a proven time stamp or distribution is available? Even then their NAME isn’t pretected elsewhere. Like I said, many wierd loopholes in the incustry.

          But whatever you say apotheon, I’m not going to even bother starting down that endless road with you again.

        • #3335073

          tempest in a teapot

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to really

          You’re just looking for reasons to disagree with me, Oz. I haven’t said any of the things you seem to think I have, and I’m not even disagreeing with what you’ve said how copyright works in general in the music business. I’m trying to put my previous statements in some kind of perspective. If you really, really want to have some major disagreement with me, though, I guess you will find a way.

        • #3335033

          That’s right

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to really

          You got it.

        • #3329476

          Yes, initial recording of a song creates copyright

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to Not So

          Of course, it depends on what you mean. A single sentence does not illuminate what you mean by “recording a song.” Copyright exists automatically any time a work of art (a phrase that is extremely subject to abuse) is “fixed” on any media (a phrase also subject to abuse).

          If by recording a song you mean COPYING a song from one media to tape, then the original copyright is still there. A few exceptions exist; when home video recorders came on the market, a big lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court about people making copies of over-the-air broadcast for later viewing. The Supreme Court upheld your rights to do that and broadcasters expect it, it is part of the deal. I suppose you can tape FM radio broadcasts for later listening, too. The expectation is there. But copying a CD for your friends is not part of the expectation. Never mind that you like only 2 songs on a CD; that’s more than I usually get. There hasn’t been good Rock ‘n Roll or whatver it was since Crosby Stills Nash and Young; in those days you usually liked nearly every song on a CD. Of course, they weren’t CD’s but EVERYONE taped their LP’s to make the records last longer.

          If the SONG that the singer is singing is copyrighted (and in many or most cases it will be) then what you have is a derivative work that contains copyrighted elements of the songwriter, as well as the “performance art” of the singer. Amazingly, the songwriter does not automatically get rights to her performance, nor does she automatically have rights to his song. You, the recorder of it, might have some rights as to the particular media.

          Keep in mind we’re talking “songs” and quite a lot of the crap recorded to media doesn’t come close to being a “song” or a work of “art” so I don’t care much what y’all do with it.

        • #3337844

          Hmmm, First time ever

          by awfernald ·

          In reply to odd…no copyright???

          that I saw the .INT domain. What does it represent? Where can I get my own?

        • #3336116

          Basically, you can’t.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Hmmm, First time ever

          It’s free, but is only issued to organizations that deal with international treaties.

          More Information:
          http://www.iana.org/int-dom/int.htm

        • #3335374

          .INT

          by simonjauncey ·

          In reply to Hmmm, First time ever

          with the .int domain you have to be an international organization such as interpol or the UN. These domains are off the market to people like you and me!!

        • #3335329

          Well then….

          by erich1010 ·

          In reply to .INT

          I guess I’ll just have to start my own country!

        • #3335298

          So, if you get an e-mail from @int..

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to .INT

          or surf to website on the .int domain, do you have to worry about Big Brother watching you?

        • #3335281

          Not exactly true

          by david.macauley.ctr ·

          In reply to odd…no copyright???

          First off, coryright can be waived (by choice or by agreement) so an item is not always under copyright when created. Secondly, a copyright must be associated with something tangable. Even propriatary code must be in print form to earn a copyright.

        • #3335173

          or . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Not exactly true

          . . . in digital form. Copyright applies to persistent records, basically.

        • #3334007

          Not quite correct.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not exactly true

          1) A copyright must be CLAIMED; see

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=4&threadID=168244&messageID=1725411.

          2) The subject matter need NOT be “printed.”

          For example, an audio recording need not be transcribed, a work of visual art cannot be transcribed, etc..

          A computer program or file need only reside on a permanent tangible medium.

        • #3329484

          Pardon your error…

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to odd…no copyright???

          Incorrect. Many files have no copyright and cannot be copyrighted. Actually, I suspect that no file can be copyrighted; what gets copyright protection is the “work” that may be *contained* in a file, but not all works can be copyrighted, nor are all files “works.”

          Let us examine the text of what you pointed a URL:
          Keep in mind of course that the WIPO is a “self-serving” website and slants things in favor of, you guessed it, intellectual property which some decades ago didn’t even exist. there was no “intellectual” property — you had to be able to touch it, sing it, perform it, DO something with it in order for it to be property at all.

          “What is covered by copyright?

          The kinds of works covered by copyright include: literary works such as novels, poems, plays, reference works, newspapers and computer programs; databases; films, musical compositions, and choreography; artistic works such as paintings, drawings, photographs and sculpture; architecture; and advertisements, maps and technical drawings.”

          Therefore, any file that contains material that is ALREADY in the public domain, is itself not copyrightable. Some debate is happening with regard to collections of public domain material (lists of telephone numbers), as if upon reaching a certain threshhold, public information suddenly becomes private.

          Any file declared by its owner to be in the public domain, is thereby in the public domain and is not copyrightable by the owner or anyone else.

          Any file that does not meet the above definition of creative work, is not copyrightable. If you have a file containing the temperature recordings from the top of Mount Logan made by the NOAA, it is not a “work of art” and not copyrightable. Thermometers do not have the right to their own copyrights.

          The file itself is not copyrightable; what is copyrightable in any instance is the “work” — the file is just a “fixation” of it, and until a work is fixed, it cannot be copyrighted. A changing file might not be copyrightable although I am somewhat aware of an idea regarding protection of a work while it is being developed.

      • #3336070

        RIAA

        by jcrobso ·

        In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

        Let us remember that the RIAA has been found gulity of price fixing 2 times buy the FTC. And The prices
        of a CD is still $15~18. Yet you can by a hit movie
        that cost $50 million to make for about the same amount. John

        • #3336021

          Donnie Darko

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to RIAA

          I went a while ago, and bought the Donnie Darko movie from a very well known (usually expensive) movie/music chain.

          The movie was 15 bucks.

          The soundtrack was 21. And the soundtrack was basically old releases from the 80’s with maybe one or two new songs.

          Sickening.

          Needless to say, I sure didn’t buy the soundtrack…

      • #3335364

        Part of the reason why Authors Beware!!

        by too old for it ·

        In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

        Just one more forward to my book agent on why he can negotiate print rights, but no electronic rights for my work. I give the same advice to other authors: As soon as it appears in electronic format, all the file sharers and open sourcers seem to feel that I have worked for them for free.

        I’m not sure how artists of any stripe are supposed to get paid in this “all content is freely shared” universe. Perhaps when someone figures that out electronic rights for written works will start to be fairly negotiated for.

        • #3334016

          Hang on a second.

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to Part of the reason why Authors Beware!!

          Paying the person who did the work is one thing.

          Paying a corporation that is suing their customers and gouging their clients, is another.

        • #3334000

          Hmmm

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Part of the reason why Authors Beware!!

          It’s quite true if you release a good book electronically it will get pirated, but if it’s good your real customers will go out and buy it, preferably in hardback. However if you’re expecting me to shell out ?17 because somebody has deemed you publishable, well kiss reward for your endeavors goodbye. I’ll wait for the paperback to become available on the second hand market and make my own decision as to how readable you are.
          So personally if you’ve a few titles out and you want to reach a wider audience, release one electronically, it’s the best piece of advertising an author can have.
          If you are very successful people will just scan your stuff in anyway, you won’t see a cent of that either.
          Not saying that’s right by the way, but attempting to stop it is futile, so you might as well benefit from it.

        • #3333953

          The Devil’s in the details.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Part of the reason why Authors Beware!!

          ALL rights are negotiable.

          The key to successfully defending your rights is to always enter only into an AFFIRMATIVE contract of ENUMERATION. I.e., the contract affirms those rights which are assigned; those not so enumerated are retained by the author.

        • #3333774

          Publishing rights

          by salamander ·

          In reply to Part of the reason why Authors Beware!!

          My understanding is that an author may publish an excerpt of his/her work on the web and still retain full legal rights over the entire body of the work. When you publish something entirely to the web, all bets are off… The work is not generally considered publishable by any major magazine or publishing house in the U.S. once you’ve published it to the web, as you’ve given up “first rights.” If you decide to publish something in its entirety on the web, you should consider it a “gift.”

        • #3335063

          true

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Publishing rights

          Technically, there’s a very firm distinction between publishing to the web and giving up copyright protections, but in practice it’s usually a good idea to assume rough equivalency. It’s just not possible, in any practical sense, to enforce copyright with web-published materials.

        • #3334865

          Risk

          by salamander ·

          In reply to true

          Given that enforcement is problematic, I’d say that web publishing constitutes an unacceptable risk to a work for which one would seek compensation later on down the road…unless you happen to be Tommy Lee or Pam Anderson. If I remember right, they got compensated through the courts for their little foray into supposedly-involuntary web publishing.

        • #3334849

          You might be surprised.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Risk

          There are actually a number of people who have published books both online and in print, and make money at it. The full text of [u]The Art of Unix Programming[/u], by Eric S. Raymond (open source luminary of some repute), is available both at Barnes & Noble in hardcopy form and at this URL:
          http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/

          I recommend it, by the way, for people working with computers professionally. There’s a lot of good, thought-provoking material in there. No, it won’t teach you to program; that’s not what it’s about, despite the use of the word “programming” in the title. It will, however, teach you a lot about the hows and whys of the way unices work, if you let it (and it’ll do so in plain english).

          The real problem with making money at it after you’ve posted a book to the web is, as you’ve indicated, “first publishing rights”. Publishers like to be the first to have the right to publish something. If something is already on the Internet in its entirety, a publishing house is likely to consider it to already be published, and might turn your submitted work down entirely. At that point, your only recourse might be vanity publishing.

          Still, y’know, a wildly successful web-published book might be great advertising and reputation-building for your next book.

          I might buy a copy of it for my shelf at some point, too.

        • #3330281

          Publishing

          by salamander ·

          In reply to You might be surprised.

          Hm. I’ll keep that in mind. If I ever manage to crank out a final draft of a book that is sufficiently pleasing to myself and to others, I think that I’d exhaust all conventional print avenues before considering web-based alternatives. You’d certainly be welcome to a copy, if it ever assumes an acceptable-enough final version that receives the blessings of the publishing gods.

          Don’t know how “wildly successful” is defined on the web, though. Methinks that while it works for more technically-oriented nonfiction material, that it may not work so well for my narrowly-construed genre.

        • #3330231

          right

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to You might be surprised.

          Generally, if you want to break into fiction writing as a means of making money, you need to get published in a traditional manner before you can start getting away with Internet “publishing”. It’s generally to the advantage of an author to try that avenue first, and only release something into the wild as a means of building reputation after exhausting all traditional options for possible publication. You can get reputation at least as easily with a hardcopy published work as you can by means of the Internet, and it’s more profitable.

          I have read about a couple of guys who went though all the major publishing houses and quite a few not-major publishing houses as well, then finally electronically “published” their first novels (in at least one case getting some nominal fee for each download), and later parlayed that into a deal with a publisher. I don’t have any such references at hand, at the moment, but there’s proof out there that it can be done even for fiction. As I said (and as you suggested as well), though, the chances of that working are probably much slimmer than the reverse approach.

          I’m probably just being redundant at this point.

        • #3334886

          Rights, Enforcement & Economic Value – 3 different issues

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Publishing rights

          The mere act of publishing, regardless of mediuem, it not a barrier to the retention of any rights; the mere inclusion of a notice of copyright will suffice to preserve ALL rights.

          Confining the scope, for ease of illustration, to U.S. law, & assuming that one has asserted one’s copyright claim as part of the publication of the work, enforcement of such rights is straightforward.

          The preservation of economic value is dependent upon whether the work in question is amenable to being produced as a performance; if so, its value as a stage, screen, or recording production is not diminished by its having been published.

          However, if the work can only derive ecomonic value from its being published, then the viability of such will be market driven. For example, a work that is best targeted for publication as a children’s book, along with illustrations directed toward the child, remains worthy of a publisher’s consideration, as few parents will choose to merely read words from a computer screen to their child. Absent a substantial niche market, the economic value of the print rights to a previously published work are vanishingly small.

        • #3334868

          Law versus industry practice

          by salamander ·

          In reply to Rights, Enforcement & Economic Value – 3 different issues

          There may be a difference between law and industry recommendation/practice. I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. However, what I’ve distilled above was the advice given freely by an industry attorney at a seminar I attended recently…an opinion that was unanimous across a panel of acquisitions editors. I believe that the rationale is this…If a work has been published in its entirety on the web, that constitutes first printing rights, of a sort. If you then attempt to sell the work to a publishing house, you no longer have the first rights to sell. As competitive as that industry is, I am doubtful that reprints are a hot commodity…that speaks to your third point.

          Consider other media, even for something as short as a print magazine article. Articles are rarely sold to more than one magazine as reprints. You may retain some rights over ownership of the material, depending on the specifics of your agreement, but if you publish your article in Better Homes and Skyscrapers magazine, it would be exceedingly rare for you to be able to turn around and sell it immediately to Architectural Gingerbread magazine…you’d be trying to sell reprint rights to Architectural Gingerbread. Whether it belongs to you by now or to Better Homes and Skyscrapers is really immaterial, from a practical standpoint. Your article is no longer in the virginal state of having first rights to offer. Which…why would Architectural Gingerbread want something that’s already been seen and done? The point is that publishing your article to a website is essentially the same as selling your article to Better Homes and Skyscrapers, having given up first print rights. If you try to sell it to Architectural Gingerbread after the fact, you don’t have first print rights to sell. And, honestly…publishers have many offerings to pick from that haven’t been around the block.

          For a work that I’d intend on seriously selling, I’d personally play it safe and never publish it in its entirety on the web, as I view it as an unacceptable risk.

        • #3331683

          Rights NOT lost merely by virtue of publishment

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Law versus industry practice

          As I noted in my prior post, the issue of retention of rights is quite separate & different from the retention of economic value.

          The panel of “acquisitions editors” that you referenced is merely presenting that which is their general business practice, which is a reflection of the aforementioned effects of prior publishment on the economic value of subsequent traditional print, coupled with a desire to avoid having to prove, to their own satisfaction, that any rights that they buy are enforceable.

          The information that I presented is per a grad level course, “Patent, Copyright and Trademark Law for Engineers,” that I took.

        • #3331580

          Clarification

          by salamander ·

          In reply to Rights NOT lost merely by virtue of publishment

          I’ll be more specific. I suspect that perhaps we may be confusing copyright for written materials versus “First North American Serial Rights/FNA Hard Copy Print Publication Rights.”

          I’m quoting from the following…http://www.nwu.org/bite/gloss.htm

          “Copyright: The bundle of rights and privileges guaranteed to the legal author of a work, or holder of the copyright, under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ‘ 101 et seq., which belong to the author or holder unless bargained, sold or given away. A transfer of copyright must be in writing. [See Work for Hire.] The bundle of rights includes the right to reproduce the work, the right to create derivative works such as a film adaptation, the right to distribute copies of the work and the right to perform or display the work publicly.

          First North American Serial Rights/FNA Hard Copy Print Publication Rights: First time print rights.

          Subsidiary Rights: These include rights to reproduce the work after the initial publication, such as second serial rights, syndication rights, electronic rights (e-rights) in digital format such as online, database, CD ROM rights, and translation rights. It’s increasingly common for the e-publication to be the first outlet for a published work.

          Transferring or Assigning Copyright: When an author or other holder of the copyright authorizes another to use a right or rights to a work. For example, a writer may sell the right to publish her article in an electronic outlet such as a website.”

          An author may certainly sell his or her FNA serial rights or his or her subsidiary rights by entering into a contract with a publisher. The acquisition of FNA serial rights is the normal way of doing business in print publishing. Subsidiary rights are often included in such contracts, as well, for larger works (novels). The contracts that I’ve seen include both.

          I think that where much of the confusion lies is with respect to whether or not publishing something on the web counts as an FNA serial right or as a subsidiary right. Regardless of whether we’re discussing FNA serial rights or subsidiary rights, the publication of a work does represent the sale or “giving away” of some of the collection of rights found under the definition of “copyright.”

          I should have been more specific, and regret the confusion with respect to “first publishing rights” versus “FNA serial rights” and “subsidiary rights” in my previous post. However, I will stick to my guns in that publishing a creative written work, in its entirety, does result in some loss of rights.

          We may simply have to agree to disagree.

        • #3330424

          Legal rights vs Contractural rights

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Rights NOT lost merely by virtue of publishment

          The “rights” referenced in “First North American Serial Rights/FNA Hard Copy Print Publication Rights” are contractural ones, which may be assigned only by one who holds the pertinent legal rights conferred by Copyright law.

          I am simply stating that the act of publishing, with the request Copyright notice, constitutes neither a waiver of one’s legal right, nor an assignment of any contractural rights, since no contract is required in order for the author to publish his own work.

        • #3329950

          Legal/Contractual/Economic Issues

          by salamander ·

          In reply to Rights NOT lost merely by virtue of publishment

          1. From the contractual side of the house…

          You’d previously said:

          “The mere act of publishing, regardless of mediuem, it not a barrier to the retention of any rights; the mere inclusion of a notice of copyright will suffice to preserve ALL rights.”

          I’ll still disagree with that, as copyright is divisible, and some contractual rights may be reassigned.

          So, to clarify…are you maintaining that a person who distributes his/her work through a vanity press, e-publisher, or other such method of distribution, retains FNA and/or subsidiary rights that can be sold at a later date? In those cases, I will maintain that certain contractual rights (FNA or subsidy rights) are assigned to others. It seems that those rights would be surrendered, if the work has already been distributed.

          For the much more narrow and specific case of an author publishing his/her own work using his/her own media, it follows that a contract with oneself is not necessary. Still, I don’t see how FNA and/or subsidiary rights can be sold at a later date if the work has already been distributed. FNA rights, in particular, seem to be be something that’s limited to the first distribution of the work…a one-time only right that does not exist in perpetuity. It seems that those rights may be forfeited due to the action of the copyright holder. I will, however, look that up for my own edification. It does really sounds to me a case of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too, but I am now curious…thank you for causing me to research that.

          2. From the practical…I believe you called it the “economic” side of the house…and this is the side that I consider to be most important…

          I believe that we generally concur on the practical fallout of such actions in terms of print publishers generally not going near work that has previously been distributed in any form. There are surely exceptions to the rule, but I believe them to be rare.

          To me, it’s the end result that counts. We can certainly debate the rightness and wrongness of the legal and contractual issues involved, but if publishing a work on the web has the practical result of rendering it unpublishable, then that’s primarily where my interest lies.

          And as for others misappropriating one’s work…doesn’t happen if you keep it close to the vest. I’d rather not have the problem to begin with than have to drag somebody to court to enforce a legally correct point at my own expense, when an ounce of prevention would suffice.

          I suppose that I’m just generally cautious in terms of displaying work in any media that may negatively impact its marketability at a later time. I generally consider a lot of what goes on in the self-publishing domains to be pretty risky, and I always try to encourage people to think things through very carefully, and to protect their work as much as possible. It’s very tempting for people just to put their work out on the web because it’s fast, cheap, and easy without carefully considering the consequences. That’s not to say that I never have done that, and never would do that…most such things qualify as “works for hire” that belong to other employers, over which I have no real control. I don’t mind that for those specific works, as they are public domain. I also don’t mind that method of distribution at all for creative works that I’d give freely, for my own amusement. However, there are certain works that I am more protective of, that I have a substantial investment in, and from which I hope to someday see profit from.

          I think that these questions are important to discuss. There are a lot of grey areas, and people need to think through the ramifications of what they do with their work.

        • #3329710

          To re-state, with regards to SELF-published works, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Rights NOT lost merely by virtue of publishment

          regardless of the medium, assuming that the requisite copyright notice was part of the publication, and, if you either did not enter into a contract with another for the purpose of publishing your work, or entered into a contract which solely one of work-for-hire, then you have NOT ASSIGNED any of your rights.

          Issues of enforceability & economic value are merely derivative.

        • #3331715

          Online books retaining copyrights

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Publishing rights

          the books24x7.com website has thousands of full text with graphics IT books available ‘on the web’ and they have not given up copyright. probably because it is a subscription site.

        • #3330674

          er . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Online books retaining copyrights

          That’s irrelevant to what Salamander said.

        • #3330617

          Not so sure

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to er . . .

          By your logic, if it’s somewhere on the web it’s free for you to steal

        • #3330554

          not even close

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Not so sure

          That’s not even close to what Salamander was saying, and it’s not close to what I’ve been saying in this discussion, too, even though the two are quite different from each other. Somehow, with two targets handy, you’ve hit nothing but air.

        • #3330517

          I’d suggest that the authors have…

          by salamander ·

          In reply to Online books retaining copyrights

          …likely given up *some* of their legal rights by doing so…see my “Clarification” above. By doing so, either the authors’ FNA serial printing rights or subsidiary rights have probably been sold or given away.

        • #3328884

          You’re right, but for the wrong reason.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Online books retaining copyrights

          The fact that it’s a subscription site is irrelevant.

          See my series of posts, befinning at

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=4&threadID=168244&messageID=1726113.

        • #3335030

          Pay for Quality

          by rojackson ·

          In reply to Part of the reason why Authors Beware!!

          I think that it is reasonable to put a PAYPAL or other payment mechanism in you work. You can let someone read a few chapters and leave the rest behind the lock, or you could let the whole thing out and ask people to pay if they liked it.

          It’s a new way of thinking but many open source efforts seem to be making money this way, and by cutting out the middle man and the need for “media” you are saving costs.

          As an author, if you got a dollar for each “ebook” sale you wouldn’t be unhappy even if you sold 50 / 60 thousand / year (chump change but an ok living). The reader is out a buck and you’ve made a buck and it all happened digitally and w/o Publishers, RIAA, MPAA, et. al..

          Same analagoy can be made with music or anything that can be digitized.

          Read Negroponte’s classsic “Being Digital.” He got it years ago!

      • #3335307

        Bad analogy

        by ballistabob ·

        In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

        Your analagy about suing Remington is a poor choice.
        There are several cases where individuals have sued gun manufacturers for that very reason and have won.
        Colt was nearly bankrupted not more then 10 years ago due to this very reason.

        • #3335277

          Um, painfully obvious point?

          by david.macauley.ctr ·

          In reply to Bad analogy

          Just because they won, doesn’t make them right or just.

        • #3335272

          Good Analogy

          by it security guy ·

          In reply to Bad analogy

          Actually, the Remington analogy is good, since there are people who have been sued and they were not the one’s responsible for the file swapping, just as Remington lost a suit. And the NRA I believe has been trying to stop such suits because they use the same argument that the manufacturer doesn’t tell people to kill others. Maybe all those who have been sued should sue the RIAA and MPAA for price fixing or anti competitive marketing so one of the arguments used to sue Microsoft. Both are using their monopolies to maintain a strangle-hold on the indursties. If someone were to produce a report showing the costs to make 1 album and the profit margins for the record industry versus the amount of money that goes to the artist, maybe Congress will enact legislation that will get MPAA and RIAA to back down on suits and reduce their prices. That will get more people to buy.

        • #3334037

          Music and Movies for free

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Good Analogy

          So if the price is high on a luxury good (music or movies) it’s ok to steal it? I’m sure asking govt to fix prices is a great way to go. Just look at countries that fix prices on goods then find the goods are hard to get. Maybe we should just do away with copyright protection. Everyone could get their music & movies for free. Just as long as you’re happy with ‘Oldies’ as no more music or movies would be made if no one paying for them.

          “They must have the latest songs that are HOT!
          they think it’s cool but it’s SNOT!”

        • #3334002

          Depends on how you look at it…

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to Music and Movies for free

          Maybe it’s not so much stealing as it’s just taking back what was already yours.

          Here’s my explanation…

          I buy my CD that I expect to be good. Hrmmm, a soundtrack to a movie for example. Yet, for some reason the songs on the soundtrack are off… Half of the songs on the soundtrack weren’t even on the movie, and the songs that were on the movie aren’t all in the soundtrack. AT least not the good songs. Just the crappy ones that you don’t want to listen to.

          So you try to take the CD back to the store you bought it from. They say they can not take it back due to the fact that the CD has been opened. They have a contract with the RIAA that states that they will not allow CD’s that have been opened to be returned.

          Now if I bought a CD and copied it, I wouldn’t attempt to return it. I do have ethics. BUT – if I attempt to return something that was sold to me in what I believe is a dishonest fashion and the stores won’t take it back because of some RIAA BS – then I feel as if I have been stolen from.

          So as far as I am concerned, now the RIAA owes me the 20 bucks in music in the form of “credit”. And to me, downloaded songs are only good for at most 35 cents…

          Get my point?

          And yes, we should just do away with copy protection. Half of the assclowns that are putting out their music today (**cough** **cough** ASHLEE SIMPSON **cough** **cough**) have NO business making music because they sing as well as my cat does when I stick his tail in the vacuum and turn that sucker on.

          It would weed out the people that do it for the love of doing it and the assclowns that just wanna make a buck with one studio enhanced song and the rest of filler, that the RIAA has the gall to charge 20 bucks for.

          I can’t believe that you would even try to say they are WORTH supporting.

          EDIT: And I’m talking about MUSIC NOT MOVIES – just to clear that up…

        • #3333985

          Goes for movies as well

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Depends on how you look at it…

          Some of the utter hyped up drivel that they bring out now is unreal. Watch the trailer and read the review, don’t waste your money on the rest of it.
          Besides 75% of what comes out is a remake anyway, latest one Flight of the Phoenix, seen it about 25 years ago, any poor chumps pay for Assault on Precinct 13 yet ?
          The only reason they don’t get totally pirated is they’re a waste of disk space.

        • #3330242

          No, But…

          by afhavemann9 ·

          In reply to Music and Movies for free

          Look; I?ve listened to a number of MP3 files over time and I have to say that my personal take on this is that the music companies should be glad for the format. The quality of packed files like mp3?s are poor (even at the highest rip rate), but good enough to display the quality of the work. But because of them I?ve purchased several CD?s, sales wouldn?t have happened otherwise. Granted, I?m a bit of a perfectionist where music is concerned, I?ve spent a lot on audio equipment over the years and feeding that high-end gear with mp3?s really displays the poor limitations of the media even at the highest ripe rate.

          Now I have to admit that I?m not a movie person, but I have to wonder exactly how much damage to sales there could be if the quality of the production is brought into the mix for consideration. I don?t watch many movies, in fact the only movie I have watched in it?s entirety for many years is the Lord Of the Rings series and watching it on a 2×2? screen just isn?t going to cut it. To get the full benefit from it, or any movie, full immersion if you will, it takes a big screen and big sound and you?re not going to get that from those little compressed files.

          As others mentioned, most publications are getting very expensive. I don?t purchase DVD?s and purchase CD?s only when there is material I am certain is worth it. It?s been many years since I?ve purchased a CD whimsically and if I can?t listen to it in advance, I?m not going to buy it.

          The same for magazines, I don’t subscribe anymore but I’ll buy an issue if it’s worth it.

          So, maybe the music companies should release songs in the lowest bit rate mp3 version. Good enough to sample but not good enough for get real music pleasure. Sure, there are people who?ll say that it?s good enough for them, but their not going to buy no matter what anyway.

          As for books and other print, just exactly how far will this go before the Supreme Court rules libraries illegal? I can go there, watch DVD?s, read books, and listen to music, all for free, and I do routinely. Am I a thief?, in the eyes of the companies and artists, yes because I haven?t paid for the right to view the material. In the eyes of the law no (not yet at least).

          I know that personally, I used to purchase a considerable amount of recorded material. Typically, I would buy 50-100 records/CD?s a year, that hasn?t happened for a long time; price and content are the major reasons. Now it?s a good year if I buy 5 or 6 and that?s not very often.

          So where does all this end? Believe me, as someone who has worked in a large law firm for many years, we could make a first class case of copyright infringement against all libraries, indemnification and grand fathering not withstanding. We wouldn?t win of course, but based on the prevailing arguments today over copyright infringement and electronic distribution, it would be as powerful as any brought so far, with just as much justification, perhaps more.

          So, despite being around for many more years than I like, I have little sympathy for the movie/music industry. Like all of us, they have to pay the price, adapt and move on. Jobs I held as a youngster no longer exist, automated out of existence or just dissapeared; I?ve learned how to survive and prosper anyway; I?ve adapted.

          In this world, it?s evolve or die; always has been. Holding back the tide only means that when the dam breaks, the flood is much deeper and harder to survive. The entertainment industry has garnered much enmity over this and there will likely be few sympathizers in the end.

          At one time I would have defended them, wished them well, but no longer.

          Al

        • #3330227

          listening and buying

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to No, But…

          There have actually been studies done that show a higher rate of CD purchasing for people who engage in music filesharing. It really is just free advertising for the record industry, but the RIAA has to justify its existence and feeds its own skewed statistics to its member labels to do so. These labels and their parent corporations use the RIAA as their only major source of information on the matter, and as a result, the RIAA keeps getting the go-ahead to act like the music gestapo. Ultimately, the RIAA is just hurting sales.

          On a more personal note, I haven’t bought a CD in more than a year, and the last CD I bought was used. Somewhere along the way, I made a conscious decision to stop buying CDs from labels that are members of the RIAA. Any future CDs I buy will only be from artists who aren’t signed with RIAA labels. I don’t use peer to peer filesharing networks, but I do use websites that exist for the sole purpose of legally distributing free music. If I like what I hear, I’ll consider buying it on CD (I like quality music, as well, to say nothing of value-added packaging).

          If you want free music, I recommend you start with something like this:
          http://www.opsound.org/opsound/pool.html

        • #3330203

          False representation of facts though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to listening and buying

          While I agree with your comments, I see some misleading info in your facts.

          People who download music BUY more music.
          THis is true. But instead of it being seen as a result of them HEARING and liking the music, as in an advertisement (which to many it stil is very effective) the relationship between downloading and buying is not one of advertising at all.

          People who are INTO music will be INTO music,buy, collect, download or whatever because it is a passion. These people buy more CD’s than most people anyway, file sharing or not. THe ralationsip is not a factual or accurate stat.

          Out of the number of people, how many buy MORE CD’s because of P2P sharing? This would be a much lower number. Some people were music buffs LONG before P2P sharing, remember the guy with the 3000 albums stored in the basement all categrorized and in custom racks? THese people also TAPED the most music and shared it with friends, the relationship is actually the other way around.

          People who BUY more CD’s are the people who P2P the most music, that’s where the downloads come from afterall.

          NOw I agree, P2P sharing is a great way to influx a market and MOST bands do leak a song from the studio before a release. Just to gain penetration of the die hard fans who are searching for their back catalogue. The number of dowloads tells them how popular they STILL are or AREN’T and how much marketing they will need, how many initial runs to produce, how many to ship initially etc. That’s also a reason why many new CDs sell out so fast, they are not mass producing first runs because they are unsure of the reception it will receive.

          The issue the RIAA has is not so much with NEW releases as much as it is with selling backcatalogues. They make HUGE margins on the backcatalogue and when people have already bought the 8-track, then the album, tape and now the CD is out, they are more inclined to download it.

          Now if I am downloading music from artists that no longer exist, that money is pooled by the RIAA, and yet to be distributed.

          They collected nearly 2 billion dollars in royalties and surtaxes on CDR’s that are yet to be doled out to the artists as originally granted by court order. They fought to charge a surtax so that artists get paid, but they can’t PAY many of those artists, OUR money sits in limbo.

          NOW they are trying to nail sharing of backcatalogue music because they feel tey are losing revenue, where they make the highest profits from the artists. Remember, most of those artists were bound to contracts where NO royalties were paid and NO backcatalogue is producing a residual for them, It’s all label money, and they want it.

          SO it’s a big money grab, not by artists but as you said, by the RIAA. But the people downloading music being the biggets purchasers of new CD’s is really irrelevant and misleading, these poeple have ALWAYS been the collectors or highest volume purchasers of CD’s, Albums and tapes. They are into music however it comes, they are rarely influenced to BUY music basedon a download. Though most will smaple music before buying it, they will generally buy it anyway.

        • #3330186

          I wish I had those articles handy.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to listening and buying

          I specifically recall an indication in at least one study that people buy more music when they are sharing the most music files online. There was an actual indicator of buying more while sharing more. Even if it’s not directly advertising as an inducement to purchase more, it is a causative agent in that something about the activities of buying and filesharing music promote each other.

          Unlike the guy with the vinyl in his basement creating tapes for his buddies, the people who fileshare are both the providers and the receivers of the copied music. While there are certainly some freeloaders, they are clearly outnumbered by those who contribute to the pool, else an aggregate greater music-purchasing tendency wouldn’t show up in these studies (that, or the providers are induced somehow to buy in such extreme quantities that they carry the statistics all by themselves and, really, if they more than make up the difference the end result for those making a profit is the same).

          For a while, I actually bought more CDs when people I knew would provide me an opportunity to listen to the music they had. I don’t think I’m alone in that tendency, either. The more music I hear, the more I tend to buy. I’ve made a conscious decision to avoid buying CDs lately, and that’s the only reason I haven’t been buying a lot of them as I hear music I like. While it may take fifteen times each listening to fifty songs from thirty artists for each CD a person purchases, letting that person hear more music certainly won’t decrease his tendency to buy CDs based on that relationship between hearing and buying music. As long as CDs are offered as a greater value than lossy compression formats without physical packaging, like MP3s, they’ll continue to be bought, and they’ll continue to be bought more often by those who listen to a lot of music. That’s my take on it, anyway, and I think it explains the study results handily. We’ve gotten into the realm of analysis of the statistics, though, and I’m sure there’s a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh possible interpretation as well. Based on my own proclivities and trends I’ve noted in others, however, my interpretation makes a lot of sense to me. Based on my understanding of human nature, mine strikes me as the most likely correct.

          As for backcatalogs: The RIAA isn’t so much worried about that as they are about “losing customers”, I think. The truth of the matter is that MP3s on file-sharing networks are a gain for CD purchases, but a loss for RIAA labels in terms of market share. Even the RIAA has seen banner years lately (with the exception of short CD runs that artificially depress sales figures), but they’ve lost market share to smaller, non-affiliated labels and independent artists because the RIAA has almost zero control over saturation of the medium, while it has almost complete control over saturation of radio and television broadcast media.

          Like Microsoft, the RIAA isn’t fighting this war for profits. It’s fighting for market dominance. The board of directors of Time Warner is more concerned with whether it has the market penetration necessary to maintain a “safe” investment with reliable growth than with whether profits are high right now. This isn’t a particularly long-term investment scheme, mind you. The investors don’t care if they destroy the industry, as long as the industry holds up long enough for their retirement nest eggs to become exceedingly, obscenely large. That, ultimately, depends on market dominance more than actually maximized profitability in the market at large.

          Granted, the backcatalog profits are a big part of that, but it’s more of a symptom than the real problem. Of course, it’s the symptoms that’ll kill ya: the virus itself is too small to hold its own in a fist fight.

          In any case, I don’t see any particular reason to pay the RIAA for its backcatalog. Let its member companies provide more (hopefully good) music if it wants more profits.

          Finally: Even if it’s true that the big buyers aren’t really induced to buy more music by filesharing, I think it’s equally true that they’re not induced to buy less. Ultimately, the major difference may just be which music they buy, which brings us back to the issue of advertising, and one of the reasons I won’t get into filesharing for free music from the RIAA’s member labels.

        • #3330024

          You’re right

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to listening and buying

          I can see your views on te RIAA, believe me mine aren’t much better. You may have forgotten but I sell music in the US, represent artists in the US and have been to more than my share of court cases in the US over residuals and copyright issues. I know the RIAA oh, too well.

          As for the guy with vynil collections in his basement. YOu missed my point there, I was not referring to him copying music at all. I mean he is the AVID collector that will buy the most music and will also the biggest downloader, collecting music is collecting music after all.

          I have mentioned before, the lack of quality in production and artists since the digital age bastardized audio. People don’t want to buy 30 minutes of garbage when they are used to full length quality.

          Younger people, not used to quality audio, just download it because they have an MP3 player and their money is deemed more important for, clothes, parties, movies etc. Why pay for it with our limited amount of allowance or part time money if you can spend your money on your appearance or social gatherings instead?

          ONCE again, the issue is they don’t DEEM buying the CD as worth it. Better music and more interesting inserts, ‘goodies’ etc. means people will want it and wil buy it, I did it as a kid, my neice does it now.

          An example, Judas Priest=OLD SCHOOL, VERY little airtime.

          They have offered good packaging, FANTASTIC graphics, and full quality audio for years.
          They are JUST releasing a new CD with the original vocalist in teh lineup. So they reease a FULL CD, offer a cool limited edition version that comes with a bonus 30 min. DVD of previous live shows.

          THAT is worth buying, who cares how easy it is to download. It’s cool. Despite the artist or genre of the example, all could provide the same for their audience, or even better still, DIFFERENT ideas. But they don’t. A slap-together disk, the big draw lately being guest vocalists, it has one decent track, the rest are poorly written, not engineered properly and are one-takes. It’s a rip-off.

          I don’t care if you’re Britney Spears or Alice Cooper, put out some quality and interesting packaging and you sell CD’s.

          Remember trading cassette tapes and making those ever popular ‘mixed’ tapes. What a novelty a mixed or CUSTOM recording was, LOL! Thing is though, everyone STILL had a Pink Floyd poster or Lyrics book that went with it, because they bought it to begin with. It seems nowdays it’s, “I only like that one song, I’ll download it.”

          If there was 14 songs, a theme or some quality to all the music, things would change.

          AHHHH! Now that I think of it, it DOES make sense that you’ve seen such an article.

          There were many similar ‘contoversial’ articles when Metallica was going on at Napster. The problem was, they were polls conducted by asking file sharing users if they actually went and bought the music. EVERYONE answers ‘Yes, if I like it I will go and buy it.’

          It was just a way of standing up for file sharing and trying to keep it legal. These guys were just looking for free music, it was new and cool. That is the common response by most people and it’s been said here many times. I in fact WOULD go buy someting after sampling it, especially someone new.

          But it was just a popular thing for most to say, thus the numerous related polls that actually did support file sharing were dead as a viable source many years ago.

        • #3330673

          er . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to listening and buying

          I wasn’t talking about polls, I was talking about studies. As in: there were studies conducted. I guess Spin and Rolling Stone probably conducted polls, too, but that’s beside the point.

          In any case, I agree that the way to get people to buy your CDs is with value-added packaging and the like. Trying to force people to pay for music they don’t care that much about is only going to make them rebellious.

        • #3331726

          That’s Silly, Libraries BUY books

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to No, But…

          Libraries BUY THE BOOKS AND MEDIA, they don’t steal it or copy it. For journals they even pay WAY MORE sometimes because the journals know it could impact sales, and all this is agreed upon. And fair use allows limited copying by readers.

          I’m tired of people double guessing what some companies marketing SHOULD be doing. If you were actually in their marketing and not on the consumer side you’d think differently, so it seems they SHOULDNT or they’d be *#&@#’ing themselves 🙂

          If a product, especially a luxury, is too expensive, don’t consume it. You (those people in other posts who steal all the movies) probably sit around and grow too fat watching all that cr*P. And them complain that you wouldn’t pay for it because it was so much garbage.

          Give up on the shlock consumer society and go and enjoy the outdoors or do something else and ignore them instead of whining.

          Instead of stealing windows, switch to Linux instead of complaining that you won’t because your grandma couldn’t install it. She probably couldn’t install XP either which comes preinstalled from dell/hp/gateway.

          So if you (meaning other people in particular who indicated they would copy media) don’t agree with a companies marketing or think they make too much money it is OK to steal their product? If they charge too much, many can be rented on netflix or blockbuster.

          The gov’t has been printing money like there is no tomorrow, so it is unlikely any company will do much price reduction, the gov’t has been doing that to everyone, by making their money worth less.

          No industry expects ‘sympathy’. Instead, if they have a product at price you’re willing to pay, you buy it, otherwise you don’t. If you don’t then at some point it is possible they might decide worth it to reduce price. Just because blanks can be stamped out for a few cents doesn’t mean that is the cost of producing it.

          I know this sounds obvious but from the amount of dumb posts I’ve seen from people who apparently want everything that can be copied to a CD or DVD for free or next to nothing it seems not too many people understand how the economy works and what the actual costs are to make the product.

        • #3334033

          deleted

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Good Analogy

          deleted

        • #3334031

          deleted

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Good Analogy

          deleted

      • #3335223

        CD’s are perishable media

        by brett ·

        In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

        I detest buying CD’s and DVD’s because the media are so perishable… I have many CD’s that are unplayable, will the RIAA give me free replacements for the media they sell that are designed to fail so easily?

        • #3334086

          I do agree…

          by aapjanaya ·

          In reply to CD’s are perishable media

          I distrust CD media almost as much as diskettes. Usually people use their CD writers to copy music and cheap stuff, so that when you want to backup serious data, the device is dirty or damaged.
          Currently I rely upon my USB flash devices to port valuable data from one place to another, however they are still too expensive to be considered as backup devices.

        • #3334062

          cd…dvd….quality is poor

          by zati16 ·

          In reply to I do agree…

          althogh cds&dvds are cheap (and doesn’t mather who made’s them)..because they all are garbage.. 🙁

        • #3334001

          Of course they will replace them!

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to CD’s are perishable media

          Just put on your knee pads and “ask nicely”… ;p

      • #3335162

        How might file sharers respond?

        by dcperich ·

        In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

        It is like the story of the Dutch boy holding his finger in the leaking dike as water leaks through in other places. What if the response of file sharers is to not have a file available from any one source? What if bits and pieces are scattered all over the place and the P2P software scans them for the next bit to aquire? Would that bring them all up on racketeering charges? …or would it dilute the responsibility to where an accusing finger can’t be pointed?

      • #3334041

        Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

        by richards_unsubcribe ·

        In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

        “Now I just listen to the radio. I’ve just been sitting by patiently waiting for the RIAA to get pissed about me listening to the airwaves that are flowing through my house and try to bill me for that too…”

        Well in Canada that’s happening… the Music Police are now touring doctors and dentists offices telling them to pay $150/year in royalties if thy want to allow their waiting patients to listen to the music on the radio. No kidding…

        • #3335064

          The same for music on hold

          by giani ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          Yeap,
          There is some kind of governamental body (not sure if belongs to Ontario or if it’s federal)that is actually looking for businesses that have music on hold on their phone system.
          And you get a nice letter stating that if you not pay 2 CAD per year per PSTN line they are going to take you to small claim courts.

          Last year they got to me. And of course to all my remote offices.
          Wasn’t nice but I paid them 120 CAD so they left.
          This year I’ve got the same letter ….

        • #3335061

          solve your problems

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to The same for music on hold

          Get your music for the hold lines here:

          http://www.opsound.org/opsound/pool.html

          I’ve got some more good links like that, if you want ’em. Stop paying extortion fees for music.

        • #3334854

          A better solution

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to solve your problems

          FRom many years recording messages for MOH systems, I an only suggest that you DITCH the music all together. Use the time fo rcompany information, advertising and promo introductions.

          A lot of companies here stull have me take care of MOH changes for them, one large company uses it to advertise daily or monthly specials, inform customers of neat tips, etc.

          Why play music when you can pitch your products? The people are calling for YOUR company afterall.

        • #3334847

          good point

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to A better solution

          Yeah, that’s an even better solution to the problem. A lot of companies are going that route these days.

        • #3334961

          Apparently you’ve never heard of ASCAP.

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          ASCAP is the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers.

          It’s an enforcement body for it’s members. Let’s say I have a band and we cut a CD. First we register with ASCAP, and then we get our music distributed through whatever channel we choose (complete with proper copyright).

          I’m at the dentist office one day and hear my own music playing in the waiting room.

          I contact ASCAP and have them verify that the proper royalties were paid and if they weren’t, have them collect the proper fees as well as a hefty fine and court costs.

          Why you ask? Believe it or not this one falls under a US law that governs fair use. The playing of music (and movies, too) in a public performance requires permission from the owner of the work, and the owner has the right to demand a royalty fee for the public performance.

          In the case of ASCAP members, the dentists office must pay ASCAP a royalty fee to play the music. Whether it’s payed through the office, the dentists wallet, or a dentist collective organization doesn’t matter, as long as it’s paid. Often the music that’s piped in to waiting rooms comes from a subscription service, and the subscription price includes the royalties.

          Sidenote: You have to pay for satellite radio not only so that the company that owns the satellite can make a profit, but because the satellite company pays ASCAP royalties for every song they broadcast, whether anyone listens to it or not.

          Under these laws you can listen to a CD in your home because your purchase of the CD granted you permission to play it in your home. However, if you put up speakers outside and broadcast it *deliberately* so that the neighbors can hear it, now it’s a public performance and the artist (typically through ASCAP) needs to be paid.

          Note that I said “deliberately”. ASCAP can not make you pay a royalty fee just because you played music on your boombox while having a backyard barbeque and your neighbor heard it over the fence, because your neighbor being able to hear the music is an unintentional side effect (well, usually anyway ;P ).

          Here in the US, ASCAP *IS* the Music Police!

        • #3334825

          The only reason you MAY have to pay

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Apparently you’ve never heard of ASCAP.

          In the case of Music On Hold and copyright inrfingement there is one KEY issue that must be met.

          WAS the music used as a catalyst to generate revenue directly?

          In other words,I cannot charge to play your music. I cannot play it on the air unless I have permissions as it is also being directly used to generate income.

          If you play a radio station on your music on hold system, the music being played is not used for direct income based on the material played. It could be ANY artist and the effect is the same.

          This has been fine tuned in most department stores, supermarkets into ‘muzac’ generally performed by no name bands or simply reproduced electronically without the vocals intact.

          The issue in those instances is that it has been psychologically proven that music IS a direct influence on a shoppers purchases, therefore the original cannot be used.

          For a telephone call and a customer who is on hold, the law doesn’t apply in the same way because the effect is not to sell a product but to retain a call from someone already seeking your product.

          In a grocery store, bar or restaurant, people aren’t generally there for a single product ‘in and out visit’, purchases are influenced by time spent in the store/restaurant which is increased by atmosphere.

          ASCAP is not really an enforcer or music police, ASCAP is a non-profit governing body operated by artists musicians and composers that ensures that royalties are paid expediently. It is exactly the same as the BCTC in it’s governance but BCTC doesn’t persue royalties as ASCAP is a global organization, despite the name being “American…, in fact ASCAP is an offshoot of the Performing Right Society of Great Britain as well as a cooperator with similar organizations worldwide.

          They are designed to bring the US industry into line with the World Intellectual Property Organization, not to set precedence themselves.

          More importantly in the US is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act , which includes the following clause;

          [u]Sec. 1204. Criminal offenses and penalties[/u]

          `(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain–

          `(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and

          `(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

          So as you can clearly see, copyright infringement is in place when you actually play or perform the work for the purpose of direct profit derived from the material itself.

          If the music being played is NOT for the direct monetary gain of the performer, as in the doctor’s office or music on hold (unless for a music company), there is no copyright infringement or royalty due.

          I still perform mobile music services once in a while and I have licence to play any music in the catalogue I bring as it is beig played for direct monetary gain. Yet no royalty needs to be paid once licence is granted.

          Too many if, ands or buts in these laws to be summarized so simply. But in conclusion, ASCAP represents the artist for collecting royalties, they do not enforce the law, they are simply artists that represent artists.

        • #3334823

          SOCAN – The Canadian Music Police??

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          While SOCAN is very similar to ASCAP they hardly have a reputation for ‘supporting’artists. They, like ASCAP, simply protect the royalty payments of artists that THEY represent.

          They do not copyright music, they do not enforce copyrights. In order to become COVERED by SOCAN you need to be a Canadian Artist or Landed Immigrant with permanent resident status. US music and music originating elsewhere is not represented by Socan.

          You must be signed AND recorded by a label and hold copyright under their label.

          You must be performing LIVE performances IN Canada and again, withyyour music already protected by copyright.

          Mainly, SOCAN has it’s own studios that record artists and then protect those artists who have paid large copyright fees, they don’t fight for everyone’s royalties nor are they an enforcer of copyrights.

          All a Doctor or dentist has to do is:

          1) Prove that the music played in the waiting room does notinfluence personal revenue

          2) Play music that is not Canadian.

          I have registered several bands with Socan for live performances in Canada. They are pretty much useless and are just another name to slap on a CD insert to scare people.

          They DO collect royalties worldwide (for registered Canadian artists) through alliance with such organizations as ASCAP, PRSGB, and as always the World Intellectual Properties Organization’s global treaties.

          In other words, just another non profit organization seeking a position on the P2P copyright issue.

          I donated my last ASCAP cheque to the Tsunami Relief effort, after the non-profit organization took their ‘non-profit’ funding off the top.

          They collect my US royalties, for me. 🙂 Greedy buggers certainly don’t operate as a non-profit though.

      • #3331181

        RIAA

        by dltbbc ·

        In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STFUASTFD

        when i used to down load songs with napster & kazaa i never bought CD`s,but by the mear fackt of down loading diferent songs, trigerd me to go out and buy the CD`s , i dont no why the RIAA is getting there testies in an uproar , I guese thay are just a greedy bunch of iligitimates.

    • #3337981

      legislation

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      is the wrong way to go.

      it’s just going to be another prohibition era situation.

      reduce the cost of buying the original works, then people don’t have the same incentive to steal it.

      • #3336235

        Simple economics

        by komodo ·

        In reply to legislation

        I agree completely. The same holds true for the software industry. The marginal cost of production is negligible so how can they justify $16-18 for a CD that I can duplicate for less than $1? If the artist was receiving a significant portion of the $16 I could be more sympathetic to their position but the artists receive a tiny piece of that price, if the record companies ever actually pay them.

        If they reduced the cost of the CDs to something that reflects the cost of production and the cost of copying more people will decide to buy because it is not worth the hassle of searching out and downloading the song or software then burning it to a CD.

        The other factor is that these industries need to step back and analyze their value proposition. I suggest that those industries that are seeing large scale copying are not offering a value that is perceived to match the price they are asking in the market.

        Finally, the history of the record companies and their treatment of the artists is such that I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. They have stolen so much from so many artists over the years through grossly unfair contracts that all I can say is that process has come full circle.

        • #3335988

          not just

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Simple economics

          music and movies, but also the software industry.

          windows itself, autocad, 3d studio max are among the most pirated software around.
          yet they are also among the most expensive in the specific area of usage.
          ( autocad and max are around 6,000 USD )

        • #3349368

          Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Simple economics

          Maybe you hit on something there :^)

          Maybe the record industry is jealous because someone else is stealing from “THEIR” victims.

        • #3335288

          That is the case

          by jrsp ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          once upon a time before developed recordings and superstarphoneys there was music in a perhaps not as a real moneysource but it was a living. Just as today with all the muscisans not hooked on a contract for ‘music’ meant for so many ears as possible.Now the fatcats in the 4-5 companies that runs the scam is acting up cause their free 2car garages and lobsterexcesses is not to be anymore.There are no way to stop p2p.
          Ed Felten at Princeton have written a p2p client just 15 rows coda with 80/r and its not so hard for a amateuercodeer to do it,
          ‘freedom-to-tinker.com/tinyp2p.html’ check it out.
          ho ho ho the organisations of la la is going down-im not mourning.

        • #3335168

          awesome

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to That is the case

          Of course, anything that can be written in fifteen lines of Python can probably be written in five or less of Perl. Heh.

        • #3335321

          1$ extra

          by galdense ·

          In reply to Simple economics

          What about chargeing and extra dollar or something like that to recordable media, and use that extra fee to pay the copyrights holders?
          We then may be able to download, copy, use whatever we like without troubble.
          We will all sleep better, new technology must be promoted, that’s the reason we are able to reply to eachother within 1 min from opposite sides of the world.
          Fighting one another just slow things down, and I would like more speed in my downloads, instead of being persecuted by big companies. it was just a thought!

        • #3335279

          Cassettes have it.

          by jg2000 ·

          In reply to 1$ extra

          Some years ago they did exactly that for audio cassettes, a royalty is built in the price of the tape. It seems to me that they did that with the blank Audio CD as well, but with regular CD’s that isn’t done.

        • #3335199

          Fees on CDs and cassettes

          by dnsb ·

          In reply to Cassettes have it.

          In Canada, we’ve had a fee on blank cassettes and recordable CDs and DVDs for several years. It took most of those years and a lawsuit before the recording companies managed to give the musicians a fraction of the moneys collected. Evidently they just weren’t collecting enough millions to justify disbursing any funds. A bit strange in light of their whining about how the musicians and performers were suffering due to illegal copying when asking for that levy.

        • #3335166

          you’re right

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Cassettes have it.

          Such tacked-on fees do exist on “audio CDs”. That in no way makes it legal to copy music on them, however, just as the extra money built into the cost of cassettes doesn’t make it legal either. It’s having your cake and eating it: the RIAA gets to charge everyone that buys one of those CD-Rs for music that [b]might[/b] be copied [b]and[/b] gets to sue people they “catch” copying music, even if they do so on CD-R media that has the extra cost built in.

        • #3334028

          Real Brilliant Idea

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to 1$ extra

          So instead of paying 10 cents for a CD blank to backup my hard drive files I should pay $1.10 just because some A*!%# can’t avoid posting stolen music or video files to the net?

          No thank you!

          And you idiots who complain the CDs cost too much and artists don’t get anything, have you heard of self publishing? You can make your own CDs dirt cheap and sell them on Amazon.

          You can charge a ‘reasonable’ price so fewer scum will steal them. a dollar a copy if you like.

          Woops, I forgot the cost of recording studios, mixers, and money for the artist to live on. (and the mandatory limos and drugs). Wait a minute, they really do cost more than 10 cents to make. I guess that’s too much to grasp for young students who were listening to their iPod instead of thinking in math class, becoming a bit ‘Hard of Thinking’.

    • #3337940

      Should be held accountable

      by dafe2 ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      There’s no room for that in the corporate world.

      We block all traffic including streaming video & audio.

      ISP’s on the other hand provide a service. Far as I’m concerned what you do in your house is your own business.

      • #3337931

        Re: Should be held accountable

        by house ·

        In reply to Should be held accountable

        You threw me off with that title. I was getting ready to scream. 😉

        After reading your comment, of course…. we provide a connection to the internet – what you do with it is your business. In the corporate world, we see two sides to this. I worked in a place where we streamed radio channels, but that functionality was only within the influence of the IT department. Kind of a double standard considering it was blocked for all the other profiles, but oh well. We have our perks.

        Please note that this media streaming was completely legal, and had nothing to do with file sharing appz.

        • #3336476

          /me yanks the red phone to the riaa…

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to Re: Should be held accountable

          I would like to report a dead person streaming music over the airwaves.

          yes, I believe it was a music station.

          Yes, the person has been deceased for 12 years.

          **meanwhile back at the RIAA**

          “Call the lawyers”.

          I’ll bet our friend from the inkstore must be employed by the riaa, with as lame and sue happy as he is… ;p

          He fits right in… ;p

        • #3336339

          That’s funny

          by house ·

          In reply to /me yanks the red phone to the riaa…

          ..because we worked for a hospital. Our main home base for the tech support/rollout crew was in the morgue.

          We called it the ‘ghost’ room, as we used Symantec Ghost images to push them over the network. Anyone who walked by would see the morgue sign, and hear a bunch of crazy beats within. If they came in, they would see a couple of ‘Hellraiser’ chains, a few stains, and two slabs…

          …and a warehouse full of IBMs.

        • #3335375

          Blame ISP for all evil :-)

          by xmlmagician ·

          In reply to Re: Should be held accountable

          Using the same logic we can blame ISP’s for hacking and all the bad things can be done with internet.

        • #3335292

          Might as well blame Microsoft

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Blame ISP for all evil :-)

          Just like people blaming Microsoft because some twisted evil people like writing and releasing computer viruses.

        • #3335244

          I love it!!

          by timeros ·

          In reply to Might as well blame Microsoft

          Let’s blame Microsoft for the people pirating their software.

        • #3333954

          (Tom) Didn’t you know…………….

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to Might as well blame Microsoft

          Microsoft was behind the JFK & Lennon plots……they’re still investigating the Dianna thing

        • #3334909

          Also I heard that Bill Gates is responsible for…

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Might as well blame Microsoft

          1. The disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa. He is buried somewhere on the MS campus in Redmond, WA (not the Giants Stadium in Meadowlands, NJ as commonly believed).
          2. Global Warming. All of the heat generated from CPUs running the various Windows operating systems, because of the overhead.
          3. WMD. Saddam Hussein sent all his WMDs to Redmond, WA right before the invasion of Iraq. Bill Gates plans to use them to take out Red Hat and other major Linux vendors.
          (shhh!!! Don’t tell anyone I told you this) 🙂

        • #3334891

          No prob…………………..Mums

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to Also I heard that Bill Gates is responsible for…

          The word……………:-)

          Talk to ya later…………………..someone at my door?????????????????????

    • #3336392

      Here’s a thought

      by patpawlowski2000 ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      Years ago, if an artist wanted to get paid they had to perform. If they wanted to get paid again, they had to perform again. Now, thanks to technology and copyrights, they can perform once and make more money off of that performance than most of us will in a lifetime. How does this use of copyrights benefit society?

      Many, many years ago the paint roller was invented and the painters unions rallied up against it because they said it would put them out of business because then Everyone would be able to paint. Contrary to their they, the professional painters, are doing better than ever partially because they can get so much more done with this new technology. The MPAA had a fit about VCRs and movie rentals because no one would ever go to see movies at the theatre again and now a significant portion of their revenue comes from selling to the rental industry. And you know what? Nothing beats seing U2 perform live or seeing a kick butt movie at a propperly equipped theater. These two industries of ridiculously over paid people need to get out of the courts and do what they do best, record performances. Embrace the technology and us it provide a better experience than can ever be obtained by downloading a file from the internet. That’s what got them where they are.

      • #3336119

        agreed vehemently

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Here’s a thought

        Unfortunately, though I very enthusiastically agree, someone will come along, see your post, and say (or at least think) “But it’s [b]stealing[/b]!” I, for one, disagree: there’s no natural law, no logically supportable ethical requirement, and no social necessity for declaring the free distribution of recordings “theft”. Doing so is defended only by circular arguments.

        These arguments typically take the form of either justification by claiming that intellectual property law “encourages innovation”, or strident pleas to the effect that a creator “has a right” to profit from his work. These arguments, of course, ignore the fact that by reducing the necessary output needed to keep making money, innovation is actually [b]dis[/b]couraged as often as it is [b]en[/b]couraged. They ignore the fact that often “new blood” is more innovative than old hacks, and that new innovators are often prevented from even getting started by the difficulty of building on prior art. They ignore the fact that building on prior art is made the sole domain of people that are encouraged by the state of intellectual property law to rest on their laurels and collect royalties. They ignore the fact that innovators have every opportunity to make money from their efforts, at least through issuing a “first edition” and attempting to continue to make money by producing and releasing reproductions that either undercut the competition’s prices or outdo them in quality (or both) if and when later editions start appearing from numerous sources. The list of reasons those arguments fail is nearly endless.

        The current state of intellectual property law doesn’t favor the creator, anyway. It favors the industry giants. Innovators have to “sell” the “rights” to their creations to Microsoft, Sony Records, 20th Century Fox, Random House Publishing, and so on. These are the “entities” that make money from these creations and, when possible, they extract the “rights” to works from their creators at no greater price than a salary or wage, for which they tend to get more than simply innovation.

        The whole “intellectual property” racket is just that: a racket. It’s a scam. It purports to protect the interests of those it most egregiously punishes for their efforts, it endeavors to control the disposition of the contents of customers’ brains, and it effectively discourages the very activities it was supposedly created to encourage. It is really only a tool of monopoly.

        . . . but I’ll be given the label “extremist” for pointing out the obvious.

        • #3335875

          Thanks for the reply

          by patpawlowski2000 ·

          In reply to agreed vehemently

          And the additional ammo. It’s nice to know that I’m not the only one on the planet who questions the fundamental ideas behind some of the issues. It seems that we(society) spend a lot of effort splitting hairs but never touch the fundamental concepts that they are based on. I’ll stop there because if I go any farther, I will venture down the rough and bumpy road of politics and that is not the purpose of this board.

        • #3348724

          instead of a political tangent . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Thanks for the reply

          Maybe I should just direct you to a licensing effort on which I’ve embarked. In the interests of effectively defusing copyright entirely, at least within a limited range, I put together a distribution license that is almost identical to the rights afforded by the public domain. The only real differences are that it is “viral” (it spreads by legal requirements to associated materials), it includes strong support for giving source attribution, and it resists later imposition of more common copyright restriction.

          It’s intended to be applicable to all forms of copyrighted materials. If it wasn’t for the BSD license’s limitation to software (and the fact that its simple phrasing doesn’t account for a lot of non-software related matters), I probably never would have felt a need to write up a license of my own. This is what I use for distributing my own original material.

          I need to write up a plain-English summary of it, and edit the license itself, soon. There are some minor tweaks I should apply, including reference to associated patents. It’s called (long form) the Credit as Credit’s Due CopyWrite, or CCD CopyWrite (CopyWrite being an acceptable further abbreviation).

          http://ccd.apotheon.org

          If you get the urge, have a look through it, and please pass along any thoughts you have on the matter.

          . . . or not.

        • #3334046

          Lets get Political!!

          by chris ·

          In reply to Thanks for the reply

          I agree withthe above posts wholeheartedly, but these sentiments are easily spread to the any large corporations and especially the media. They are so busy occupying you with the small obvious stuff, you dont realise they are have already snuk behind you and giving you a good shafting.

          They have the population thinking the way they want them too. Why worry about politics and the state of the world when there is so much sex and violence thrown at us from all angles. Not that I want to stop peoples ability to watch what they like.

          Scare us enough about terrorism and we wont realise that the corporations have figured out the best way to more profits is to open up more markets. e.g. the middle east and asia (they already have south America).

          One of the first laws brought in after the fall of Iraq was…

          Strict Copyright Law

          Just my 2 pennies

      • #3334378

        Reading

        by jerrythompson ·

        In reply to Here’s a thought

        I read some, A book comes to mind, to go along with this post, the name of the book is “Who Moved My cheese” !!! The real questing is what to do about it!! The RIAA needs to go look for some new cheese, because someone one (me and alot of others) moved it and we are not going to give it back! Have fun, life is to short not too!!

    • #3336220

      Might as well try to unlight a match

      by zaferus ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      Legislation takes years to get lobbied, formulated and come into effect, and the time it will take for a counter reaction will be weeks or maybe only days.

      Before Napster there was IRC, before IRC there was FTP sites and bulletin boards. It’s been there since the ‘net, it’s just now a case of being user friendly and faster.

      These recording companies should redivert this money they are clearly wasting and THINK about how to make a product worth buying by adding tangible items like posters, buttons, autographs, coupons, T-shirts – anything they can to make it WORTH buying for products that come with the cd’s. Bundle them with a movie choice, have draws with legal purchases for backstage passes at each of their concert stops all inclusive. Redesign the cases, put them out with the music videos on a cd/dvd dual pack for $10. It took me two minutes to think of this; has the greed and anger over file sharing blinded them to what seems obvious (at least to me)?

      These guys are trying to unlight a match, there’s no going back and people are just making p2p apps more sophisticated. If they have too I’m sure we’ll see random ports and encryption to make them untracable. Then it will just become harder for LAN admins like us to block these app inside our networks.

      These recording companies spend so much money on this futile effort that they can’t seem understand what only makes sense; to lower prices and add tangible content. By not being creative they are only showing the stripes of a bloated and obsolete organization.

      Anyways, that’s my $0.02
      -Zaf

      • #3335266

        I agree

        by jg2000 ·

        In reply to Might as well try to unlight a match

        I agree wholeheartedly! It is a new paradigm, and the record companies need to react to it and work within it, rather than try to fight it.

        I have always thought that the way to do it is to add value to the packaged product and make it desirable for purchase. If done right, I think it will be very profitable for all involved.

        • #3335165

          agreed

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I agree

          You can’t really enforce “ownership” of ideas, so you might as well make money selling tangible property.

    • #3335979

      Apply this logic to the gun industry

      by lsimpson ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      If this logic holds, it might be worth it if we could apply it to the handgun industry.

      • #3335954

        Suing the gun shop and mfg?

        by zaferus ·

        In reply to Apply this logic to the gun industry

        I like the parallel. It’s like suing the gun mfg or gun shop if someone gets shot by a gun they make or sell. What about the companies that make the bullets?

        What if a car made my Ford was used in a drive by shooting or armed robbery? Could Ford be sued? What about the company that was subcontracted to pave the roads? They made them, they should be watching the traffic going through them?

        The ridiculousness of it all seems endless.

      • #3348719

        We call that willful ignorance.

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Apply this logic to the gun industry

        Somewhere along the way, you lost the plot, pal. How can you connect the two in your brain and not realize how absurd that is? What kind of lies must you tell yourself to maintain that self-contradictory position without being reduced to a drooling imbecile by the cognitive dissonance? How can someone with the basic competence needed to operate a web browser fail to understand that tools and their makers aren’t to blame for people who misuse those tools, regardless of what the tool is?

        A tool is a tool. In the case of a gun, it’s just an inanimate hunk of metal. You want to sue a manufacturer because it created a tool that works as advertised? You must need brain surgery to remove that anus from your frontal lobe.

        Would your attitude change any if you were told about Kennesaw, Georgia? The town passed an ordinance in 1981 that requires (except in certain exceptional circumstances) that every household keep and maintain a firearm. Would you like to take a guess at how many murders have been committed between ’82 and ’98? I’ll give you a hint: there have been two murders committed in that time (ONLY TWO), and there have been two murders committed with knives. If you guessed that means none were committed with guns, your guess was absolutely correct.

        Do you have any supportable reason at all for thinking gun manufacturers should be sued when a gun is misused? I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say “No.”

        Get your head out of the arses of politicians sowing FUD for their election campaigns, and start thinking for yourself.

        You can’t apply this logic (used to sue ISPs) to the gun industry, because that assumes there’s any logic in it at all.

        • #3349192

          Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          by warlqck ·

          In reply to We call that willful ignorance.

          I would say the post you are replying to so harshly, was sarcastically saying the same thing you are. I agree with the point that you and the others that to sue the Gun manufacturer or dealer of a gun that was used to kill someone is ridicules.

          -BUT-

          In 1999, the city of Atlanta, Georgia attempted to sue gun makers, seeking compensation for costs incurred from gun violence..
          During WWII Winston Churchill said, “You can always count on the American’s to do the right thing – but only after they exhaust all other options.”

          I think that about sums up alot of things that Americans do before they get it right…

        • #3335194

          LOVE the “QUOTE”

          by mikercol ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          The sad part is that it probably WAS true. It just dosen’t seem to me that we are making it to the “right thing” very often these days.

        • #3329472

          Logic? We don’t need no steenkin logic!

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

          In case no one has noticed; logic is not relevant to this or a great many other arguments. Sooner or later, a case goes to trial and faces a jury. We can plainly see from the person’s post to which I am replying that he sees no culpability by criminals; they would not kill if only they didn’t have a gun. Others observe that Philadelphia is the baseball bat murder capital and suppose that it is the person that chooses to kill and chooses a suitable weapon, or no weapon at all.

          So you see, if you have twelve persons of Warlock’s kind on a jury, ANYONE can be culpable for ANYTHING at all and yes, there is no end to the absurdity.

          What we’be been talking about is called “Strict Liability” and isn’t very often used. Small airplane manufacturers got stuck with this 20 or 30 years ago and pretty much wiped out the industry. What it means is, aircraft manufacturers get sued any time a mishap happens, never mind that the pilot deliberately flew into a building — the aircraft is not supposed to let bad things happen. Since the aircraft let something bad happen, the manufacturer is to blame and must pay. Millions, in the case of aircraft mishaps.

          But Strict Liability assumes that the thing was not operated correctly in order to cause the mishap. In order to hold Ruger or Remington or any other gun manufacturer liable, you have to show that the gun FAILED to operate! Duh!

          In other words, you could conceivably sue Ruger if your self-defense pistol misfired and as a result, you were robbed, maimed or killed. Obviously in the latter case someone would be doing it on your behalf.

          But if you shoot someone and he dies, the question becomes, “did the gun work like it was supposed to?” and if the answer is “yes”, then there is no cause of action against the manufacturer.

          Nor any cause against screwdriver makers, scissors makers, baseball bat makers… anyone here want to make a list of all possible murder weapons?

          yes, it is absurd, but as we see, plenty of people think “absurd” and “logic” are synonyms.

        • #3333913

          An overlooked detail

          by turbogeek ·

          In reply to We call that willful ignorance.

          (Unless used as a blunt instrument) Guns don’t kill, maim, and injure people. It’s the ammunition that does.

        • #3333905

          Guns don’t kill people . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to An overlooked detail

          I do.

          Bullets do.

          Great big gaping exit wounds do.

          Systemic function failure due to pervasive hydrostatic shock as a result of energy transfer from a high-velocity projectile impacting in soft tissue does.

      • #3335273

        Don’t own gun but don’t want “Nerf” society

        by dcperich ·

        In reply to Apply this logic to the gun industry

        Am I ok writing “Nerf” without the little registered trademark symbol??

        I’m 54 and can remember when most households owned hunting weapons. Now and then, there would be a tragic accident of the type we read about now, but they were few and far between, but no one blamed the guns. I grew up in a culture of shared values where parents kept a close watch on each other’s kids and shared information about them. It was a great incubator for transmitting values to children. The current Multicultural Diversity B.S. that is the predominant standard says those values were presumptive and patronizing and demands a rubber room to let people be safely “free” in.

        Regardless of laws existing or to be passed, the free flow of information will eventually re-define what we concieve to be intelectual property. We can continue to have freedom or we can choose to live in a legal rubber room.

    • #3349373

      Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      Since file sharing has a legitimate use (however small a percentage it is used legitimately), you would have to come up with some way for the ISP to tell good bits from bad bits.

      • #3348851

        so, basically . . .

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

        We’re talking about suing the manufacturers of “evil bits”. When your computer sends out data, each bit should be analyzed by your NIC to determine whether it is evil, and if it is it should immediately inform the RIAA. That way, people that create and transmit evil bits can be brought to justice.

        • #3334913

          1 or 0?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to so, basically . . .

          Which bits are the evil ones, the 1 or 0 bits? Or is it determined by the position of the bit in the byte? Do bit shifts change a bit from good to evil or vice versa?

        • #3334846

          no no no . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to 1 or 0?

          It’s not anything directly observable about a bit that makes it evil. It’s a quality of its soul. You can determine the good or evil of a bit by observing its behavior, though. For instance, homosexual bits, non-Judeo-Christian bits, and bits that wear white shoes before Labor Day are all evil.

        • #3330033

          You forgot

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to no no no . . .

          The guy that wears black Wingtips with white sport socks and a gold pinky ring……

          or maybe that was the George Micheal homosexual bit?

        • #3330672

          but

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to You forgot

          It was Michael Jackson that really pioneered white socks with black shoes and black pants. Don’t steal his intellectual property: that’s his patentable idea.

        • #3330594

          Did you not mean

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to but

          Certifiable? The guys a froot loop (or was it fruit loop?)

          I did have something clever…………but I just read about (your) nible & can’t stop laughing. Take a byte out of crime……

        • #3330552

          Ah aimz ta pleeze.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to but

          I’m glad you’re amused. Heh.

        • #3331452

          What about the Naughty Bits?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to no no no . . .

          They are not necessarily evil. 🙂

        • #3330671

          right

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What about the Naughty Bits?

          This is true, but byte-thumpers might disagree.

          What do you get if you put a few naughty bits together? You get a nibble.

        • #3328885

          Do you mean …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to What about the Naughty Bits?

          those composed of Strange quarks or Charmed ones?

      • #3334956

        I usually …

        by kaceyr ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

        … look for the bits wearing the leather jacket and sporting a cigarette. Next thing you know, they’re trying to rebuild a Harley in the garage!

    • #3349248

      Dont think ISPs are responcible

      by srikrishna ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      Atleast i dont see why should ISPs block file sharing programs…Can anyone requires a T1 or broadband connections at staggering speeds just for email checking or some chatting…Broadband evolution is for large data transfers..The best scenario will be video chat, or legally downloading the content..but we are not in a ideal world..Ofcourse that doesnt mean that i do support piracy..not at all…piracy should be stopped but dont make isps responcible…
      If a isp sees huge data transfer its good for it as its revenue generating…how can it say to users not to download pirated data..okie..stopping the file sharing programs over the internet may be a likelyhood scenaraio as we had already exp with napster(ofcourse now available but how many guys are using by payin i am not sure;:)…

      • #3349058

        Just a thought.

        by sitizn wille ·

        In reply to Dont think ISPs are responcible

        I don’t see no matter what they do they will ever stop seeing prirated software/Movies whatever… The fact is that no matter what they do, or even if they would lower the price (which will not happen) there will be someone there to hack it. That is what some ppl do, it is like a challenge to them, don’t matter if it is 10.00 or 10,000.00 programs they will do it anyways.
        It is just the way things work, it is to late to do anything now. Even if they block file trading at the ISP Level, they would encrypt it or change ports, they is a way around everything it seems like. Agreed they should be something to slow it down, but is it to late????

        Subject Change… Kinda

        That is why open source is a huge deal right now. PPL are fed up with pay the high price for software and still getting viruses and spyware and crap. Not that Open source is imune to that, but you are sure alot less prone to getting something.

        Just a thought……
        Cheers
        SW

    • #3348850

      “file sharing”

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      If you cut off all file sharing, you kill the Internet. Every single TCP packet is a file. Every webpage is a file (or several). Every HTTP request is a file. Every time you view an image, download a piece of software, send or receive an IM or email, or let your computer retrieve an IP address from a DHCP server, you’re engaging in file sharing.

      Sure, you can run around screaming and waving your arms trying to block specific types of filesharing as you become aware of them, but without preventing any and all Internet activity, you can’t stop filesharing from happening. Someone, somewhere, is going to find a way to exploit whatever forms of network file sharing you haven’t yet prevented for the purposes of sending and receiving files you don’t want them to share.

      Too bad. The RIAA cannot win this battle. It’s like erecting a dam across a river without affecting the flow of water: it just ain’t gonna happen.

      • #3331597

        Responsibility is…

        by robynsveil ·

        In reply to “file sharing”

        …in the hands and minds of the individual. That is the foundation of our freedoms, the right to be responsible for them. When we let large corporations or governing bodies legislate away our freedom, we lose the “ability to respond”: responsibility. We content ourselves to be dictated to, to be forbidden to do, to have *someone* wiser to think for us, tell us what is right and wrong, good and evil.

        Is responsibility taught as a concept in school? At home? Do folks realize that on that concept alone hinges so much? Our freedoms?

        I’ve been out of the States since 2000, and have observed from the other side of the world (Oz) how individual freedoms are taken away (to protect… us, artists, *somebody*). Yeah, right.

        George Orwell foresaw this, and we all said–in school, when we read ‘Animal Farm’–it wouldn’t happen. It *is* happening.

        Excellent points have been made regarding artists, their rights, programmers and their rights, writers and their rights, and finally, the consumer. Thank goodness there are still some of us who see we *do* also have rights. With those rights come responsibilities.

        I want the responsibility to make my own decisions about what I do and see on the ‘net. I’m an adult, and expect to be treated as one. I pay my taxes, send my kids to school for an education, try to stay within the speed limit and don’t drink and drive. I back up my data on to CDROM (hey, that’s responsible!), and my software (purchased from reputable merchants at princely prices) as well–thank goodness I did, because the original copy of a popular piece of productivity software I purchased some time ago is now unreadable. CD media eventually deteriorates–I’ve seen that first-hand. I’ve scouted around for another copy, and the only copies available are from dodgy shiesters–M$ took back all the copies left in stores ages ago. So I broke the law because I backed up my software? But I’m responsible… I wouldn’t do that! I was responding to the concept that data and software is stored on media that has a limited life span: create a working copy. Since I am constantly upgrading hardware and re-installing software, the need for reliable media becomes evident.

        Open-source is looking more and more attractive.

        • #3330669

          attractions of free and open source

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Responsibility is…

          FOSS is definitely a very attractive alternative to proprietary and closed source software. I’m typing this from a computer that doesn’t include a single piece of closed source software.

          Let me know if you need/want any advice or help with making the move to free and open source software. I may not have all the answers, but I can probably help you find the answers you need.

    • #3333641

      If ISPs are to be held culpable, then why not …

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      hold the U.S. Postal Service responsible for damages arising from the delivery of any and all mail whose contents are either deemed illegal or involve illegal conduct? E.g.:

      1) Obscene mail;
      2) Physically harmful mail (bombs, chemical & biological agents, etc.) ;
      3) Communications of a criminally conspiratorial nature;
      4) Communications which advocate criminal behavior; or,
      5) Libelous mail.

    • #3335317

      ISP = Library

      by erich1010 ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      There are laws on the books protecting libraries from being sued over the content of the books they hold on their shelves. They cannot possibly be held responsible for going over each and every book and making sure there is no illegal reference somewhere in it.

      In the same way, ISPs should be protected from, as one responder put it, having to check each bit to see whether it is an evil bit or a good bit.

      Yes, RIAA and MPAA have valid complaints and a real problem on their hands. Yes, stealing content is stealing. Many companies, these days, are only worth anything because of the content they create and sell. Information is worth money and should be treated as a valuable asset.

      That said, RIAA and MPAA don’t really have a choice in this matter. It is very difficult to exchange information publically and protect that information from the public, at the same time. Their legal battles are a losing race. It is just too easy to copy bits. The software industry, at least, has a better time of it, because those copies can actually tell the manufacturer, sometimes, when it is being copied. Even then, software copies abound. Software companies have learned to rely on support services for income. Yes, you can copy that software if you try hard enough. However, you won’t get updates and patches unless you pay.

      Likewise, RIAA and MPAA will have to evolve. They either have to find a way to keep hold of the music they distribute, which is VERY difficult to do, or they have to find other revenue streams to rely on. As someone else said, movie theaters will still show movies, and those movies will make millions at the box offices. Concerts will always attract money. There might even be revenue streams for meta-data about the music. People will pay to know what artists are doing or keep in touch with them through fan pages. RIAA and MPAA will just have to evolve to meet changing technology, just like everybody else.

      • #3335299

        I think you got it

        by jaygee21 ·

        In reply to ISP = Library

        erich I think you hit the answer. RIAA especially needs to make some serious change. When MP3s first hit I was planning on creating a CD with 100 songs plus that could be placed in businesses in lieu of Muzak morg back ground music. I contacted RIAA and was quoted $1 per song per disc and I would also need to pay each label and group or artist plus the writer(s). Oddly the other fees were less per song than RIAA. RIAA has made an adjustment in their rates since. What makes me very irrate and upset is that a site called reelradio.com that I donate to is charged for replaying old radio broadcasts. RIAA was paid a fee under law at the time of those original broadcasts yet is demanding and getting fee’s again and is able to state at what deteriated rate those programs must be at before they are re-broadcast. The stations that originally broadcasted those programs aren’t getting a penny but those in the legalized protection racket are. Many of those stations that the programs came from no longer exist and yet this site and others like it are required to pay a fee for making these obsolete programs available for free. Yes I agree RIAA must be made to change.

      • #3335215

        makes sense

        by mek804 ·

        In reply to ISP = Library

        You can fight it or you can take advantage of it–for music, at
        least… The Grateful Dead never cared about bootlegging: they
        make their money on concerts and t-shirts.

        Stop wasting time and money on trying to fight the spread and
        take advantage of it, instead

        Software? Private people get it for free or dirt cheap. Businesses,
        who have all the money in the first place, have to pay. Support,
        however, isn’t free for anyone. I hope that wouldn’t mean
        intentionally mean poor documentation (we have good
        documentation now?), though…

        As for the movies, though, I don’t have an answer for that one…

        Just some thoughts…

        mk

      • #3334076

        You are on to something…

        by coldbrew ·

        In reply to ISP = Library

        I think this is a well thought out approach. Hopefully the RIAA and MPAA will get it. Someone also made a comparison to a library. That’d be neat if someone could start that. I am an avid audiphile and love music. I think nikel and diming people to death is a turn off. Music should be shared and enjoyed and the artists should be compensated some kind of way.

      • #3328780

        ISP = road system

        by soundy ·

        In reply to ISP = Library

        The ISPs are not the equivalent of libraries in this analogy; they are the equivalent of the roads and streets one uses to get to the library. FTP and Web sites are the libraries. Maybe the closest comparison to P2P apps are the individual users’ homes.

        Going after the ISPs for enabling the connections between users and FTP/Web sites, and each other, is pretty much like going after road builders for making it possible for people to get to the library and each others’ houses to trade/borrow/steal CDs, books, etc. It sounds especially absurd when you think of it that way, and really, that’s how ridiculous the idea is.

    • #3335306

      Music & Film industry sale at All Time High

      by chaz chance# ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      The official figures for 2004 are that sales of pre-recorded CDs and DVDs were the highest ever.

      So, as there is no evidence that file sharing is hurting anybody, what is the argument against it, again?

    • #3335295

      ISPs can be compared to phone companies in this situation

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      In this case, I see ISPs similar to phone services. If someone makes an obsene phone call, for example, the phone service is not held responsible. Similarly, ISPs should not be held responsible for illegal activities by its subscribers, nor should they be the policemen actively looking for such violations. Does anyone know what the law actually is? I hope it does not hold ISPs responsible, but if it does, it needs to be changed.

      • #3335276

        Not that simple

        by slartibartfast ·

        In reply to ISPs can be compared to phone companies in this situation

        Unfortunately, the owner of the IP address gets the RIAA/MPAA violation notice. If that’s the ISP, the risk is that the ISP’s upstream provider will pull the ISP’s address space (not many ISP’s have SARIN allocated IP addresses, we just aren’t big enough) and that’s that. I don’t know if it’s happened yet, but these violation notices are pretty scary. I’ll post a (sanitized) one if people have never seen one.

        • #3335253

          Thanks for explaining

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Not that simple

          It is unfortunate it is this way, ISPs should be treated like phone companies, like in my example, and I hope the law could be changes so ISPs are not forced to by cyber-cops and so they would no longer be held responsible. The RIAA has too much power for a private (non-government) entity, similar to how the BSA (Business Software Alliance) has gestapo-like powers that even governments should not be allowed to have.

        • #3333950

          Fortunately, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Thanks for explaining

          the ISPs have been winning this battle in court.

          The dange, however, is the dunderheads in Congress who would hold otherwise.

    • #3335287

      p2p is here to stay

      by jrsp ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      That is the case
      once upon a time before developed recordings and superstarphoneys there was music in a perhaps not as a real moneysource but it was a living. Just as today with all the muscisans not hooked on a contract for ‘music’ meant for so many ears as possible.Now the fatcats in the 4-5 companies that runs the scam is acting up cause their free 2car garages and lobsterexcesses is not to be anymore.There are no way to stop p2p.
      Ed Felten at Princeton have written a p2p client just 15 rows coda with 80/r and its not so hard for a amateuercodeer to do it,
      ‘freedom-to-tinker.com/tinyp2p.html’ check it out.
      ho ho ho the organisations of la la is going down-im not mourning.

    • #3335280

      Workload on ISP’s

      by slartibartfast ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I run an ISP .. a lot of my customers are college students .. I get frequent RIAA and MPAA ‘violation notices’ because of my ownwership of the IP address space that services my customers.

      It used to be that I could just reply with ‘this is the external IP address of a NAT gateway, it is not possible to identify an individual subscriber from this’, because it was true. Now, the violation reports contain the Nat’d *inside* non-routable address as well. Somebody’s been investing a lot of money on tracking people down.

      Of couse in most broadband ISP’s even that won’t help, as nobody keeps track of which individual IP address is allocated to which subscriber, unless login is required. I’m guessing that it’s only a matter of time before ISP’s are required to keep records by userid and MAC address by NAT IP for 7 years, I’m dreading it frankly.

      I’m not sure how we can deal with the legal minefield (let alone the cost!) and still protect our customers privacy. If we just ignore it, we’re risking having action taken against us.

      How are other ISP’s dealing with this? What do people do when they get RIAA or MPAA violation notices?

      • #3351319

        Wouldn’t the simplest solution…

        by kgross ·

        In reply to Workload on ISP’s

        be to just not keep any records or log of internet traffic on your service?

    • #3335269

      Re: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      by linuxinlibraries.com ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I do not believe that the ISP should be held liable for the actions of their users. Once you start making the ISP watch the users every move, you may as well shut down the Internet. Big Brother needs to find something better to do than watch me. 🙂

      BitTorrent is a wonderful tool I have use on more than one occasion to download large open source applications. Makes the download go so much faster. I downloaded the NetBSD Live CD ISO in less than 29 minutes thanks to BT.

      I realize that BT can be used for nefarious purposes but if you try and stop it, users will keep coming up with new means to get what they want. What needs to happen is that the “industry” needs to find a way to embrace these technologies and give users incentives to use them properly and legally. My 2?, YMMV.

      • #3334013

        They are not holding ISP responsible

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to Re: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

        From what people are posting this is similar to asking the phone company for call records or a tap. In neither case are they saying either one actually commited a crime. Another post may have been refering to web hosting company, which are not generally same as ISP tho ISPs sometimes provide low end web sites probably used by people sharing music.

      • #3331167

        home to roost

        by js_2000 ·

        In reply to Re: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

        I agree that this has been poorly handled. To sue children and your consumer base is almost as bad as being proud of it. The massive sales drop blamed by napster just happened to coincide with record numbers of radio induced vomit spells. I mean really, think of the road rage fatalities these labels are responsible for.

        p2p has likely hurt these companies. I guess I would care about copyright laws if I thought these companies produced anything I cared about, or demonstrated any sense of decency. But, they don’t. So, I don’t care.

    • #3335267

      Re: Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      by linuxinlibraries.com ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I do not believe that the ISP should be held liable for the actions of their users. Once you start making the ISP watch the users every move, you may as well shut down the Internet. Big Brother needs to find something better to do than watch me. 🙂

      BitTorrent is a wonderful tool I have use on more than one occasion to download large open source applications. Makes the download go so much faster. I downloaded the NetBSD Live CD ISO in less than 29 minutes thanks to BT.

      I realize that BT can be used for nefarious purposes but if you try and stop it, users will keep coming up with new means to get what they want. What needs to happen is that the “industry” needs to find a way to embrace these technologies and give users incentives to use them properly and legally. My 2?, YMMV.

    • #3335256

      Here’s what the RIAA sends the ISP

      by slartibartfast ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I’m guessing most of you have never seen one of these .. this is the scary stuff (note the: we can come after you if you ignore this clause) that an ISP gets all the time. I’ve sanitized it with but the rest is unabridged.

      ———————————-

      Re: Copyright infringement

      Dear Sir or Madam:

      I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of
      America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member record companies. The RIAA is a
      trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and
      distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound
      recordings sold in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we
      submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member
      companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound
      recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.

      We believe a user on your network is offering an infringing sound
      recording for download through a peer to peer application. We have
      attached below the details of the infringing activity.

      We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by
      copyright owners, their agent, or the law. We are asking for your
      immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity.
      Specifically, we request that you remove or disable access to the infringing sound recording.

      We believe it is in everyone’s interest for music consumers to be
      better educated about the subject of copyright law and music. In
      addition to taking steps to notify this network user about the illegal
      nature of this activity, we encourage you to refer him/her to the MUSIC
      Coalition’s website at http://www.musicunited.org. The site contains valuable
      information about what’s legal and what’s not when it comes to copying music.

      You should understand that this letter constitutes notice to you that
      this network user may be liable for the infringing activity occurring
      on your network. In addition, under the Digital Millennium Copyright
      Act, if you ignore this notice, your institution may also be liable for
      any resulting infringement. This letter does not constitute a waiver of
      any right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any such
      unauthorized activities, and such rights as well as claims for other relief are expressly retained.
      Moreover, this letter does not constitute a waiver of our members’
      right to sue the user at issue for copyright infringement.

      Thank you in advance for your prompt assistance in this matter. If you
      have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at
      antipiracy2@riaa.com, via telephone at (202) 775-0101, or via mail at
      RIAA, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C., 20036.
      Please reference Case ID A9492206 in any response or communication
      regarding this infringement.

      Sincerely,

      Genevieve Michaud
      Online Copyright Protection
      RIAA

      Infringement details:
      ———————————————-
      First Found: EST (GMT -0500) Last Found:
      EST (GMT -0500)
      Network: KaZaA
      IP Address:
      IP Port: 1920
      Internal IP: 10.

      Protocol: FastTrack
      Username:

      List of infringing content:
      ———————————————-
      Linkin Park – A Place For My Head
      Tracy Chapman – Fast Car

      • #3335249

        I imagined this letter…

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Here’s what the RIAA sends the ISP

        …being read in an exaggerated German accent by a man with lean harsh features and pale skin in a black SS uniform with swastika arm-band and a portrait of der fuhrer behind him.

        Ve have vays of making you turn over copyright violators!!!

        Not that copyright violators should get away with breaking the law, it is just not right that a privately owned gestapo has this power, and forces the ISPs do its bidding.

        • #3334890

          Met him once

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to I imagined this letter…

          Colonel Klink I believe it was………………used to like flashing a big MagLite in peoples eyes as he questioned them. LOL

      • #3334954

        Just so you know…

        by kaceyr ·

        In reply to Here’s what the RIAA sends the ISP

        … the RIAA uses their own modification of the Kazaa software to get the adresses and usernames.

        Kazaa reports the actual machine IP address behind whatever firewall, as well as the user information, protocol, port number, and a bunch of other stuff, then the router plugs in it’s own IP address in the transport header.

        • #3334922

          wow

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Just so you know…

          You’ve been studying up on this, I take it. Thanks for the details.

        • #3330272

          I looked into it …

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to wow

          … when I read about the RIAA attempting to lure music downloaders to particular servers so that they were easier to trace (and because my son wanted to install Kazaa).

          Word to the wise – If you plan to load P2P file sharing software on your machine, get the source and review it carefully then compile it yourself, or use a firewall with packet content monitoring and log the use for a few minutes. You would be amazed at the kind of data that some of these guys are sending out.

          If you’re an avid programmer and really want some P2P going on, I’d recommend obtaining the specs for the protocols you want to utilize and building your own from scratch. At least that way you know what’s going out and what level of local security you have.

        • #3330226

          agreed

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I looked into it …

          With the way things are going, that’s the only way to be safe for peer to peer filesharing. Most of the official filesharing clients are full of adware and spyware anyway, even if the RIAA doesn’t have its hooks in the clients. That’s just one reason of many that I don’t use such filesharing networks (another being that I have no interest in giving RIAA labels any free advertising).

        • #3334888

          Before or

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to Just so you know…

          after the knock on the door?

        • #3330210

          That’s why htere are stripped Kazaa versions.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Just so you know…

          You need to download the latest Kazaalite Revolution or Kazaalite Resurrection.
          They include and autoupdating RIAA IP bocker, they include NO ads or spyware, they offer file validation tools, MP3 repair tools, AVI Preview Tool , Kazupernodes, which allows you to find, use and lock onto only the fastest supernodes (Kazaa will jump for a good supernode to one that isn’t online otherwise).

          I use quite a few different P2P programs, depending on which band I am sharing music with, OR when a band needs a new song ‘leaked’, (such as U2’s suprise ‘leak’ that was completely planned) it is best to use the main P2P apps to ensure it gets penetration.

          Artists have usedfile sharing for a few years now as a way to get feedback on demo tracks, prerelease downloadsalso give an idea of what sort of marketing PUSH will be needed to move new work and if the music is still in demand. It’s actually a popular tool for them to analyze their potential market.

          But again though, I live in Canada, P2P file sharing is not an offense here, yet. The copyrights applied have been deemed are a breach of Canadian Constitutional Rights by several supreme court judges already, so the lawsuits applied fall to the wayside pretty quickly.

          The RIAA has been into Kazaa since Sharman took it over and started charging monthly. The people who have cleaned the software out, have also made an auto updater to block RIAA addresses from hitting you.

      • #3334855

        I’m glad that I don’t live in the states

        by house ·

        In reply to Here’s what the RIAA sends the ISP

        We get a few spam abuse notices every once in a while, but never a file sharing investigation. Most of the abuse stems from an infected machines, and is never usually by the user’s choice.

        • #3330211

          nice avatar!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’m glad that I don’t live in the states

          Looks better in the round version. 😉

        • #3330182

          yeah . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to nice avatar!

          I had a good chuckle over that icon, too.

        • #3331672

          Oz Media creation

          by house ·

          In reply to yeah . . .

          Oz whipped this baby up for me to use in my profile. Thanks again.

        • #3330668

          hah

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Oz Media creation

          funny

        • #3330477

          OH YEAH!!!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to hah

          WHAT’S SO FUNNY ABOUT IT?!?!?!?

          THEM THERE ARE FIGHTIN’ WORDS!!

          ]:)

        • #3330393

          What’s funny is that…

          by house ·

          In reply to hah

          1) You commented on how nice it looks

          2) He agreed with you

          3) I told him that it was your avatar in the first place

          4) Now, of course, you’re going ask me where my sense of humour went

          5) Down the drain after spending countless hours trying to solve the mystery of ‘div’ in Firefox – 2 minutes after posting a question in TQ&A, I got my response… nowhere else on the web was I able to find reference to the issue that would help out in any way – we should spam the world with this softcorp guy’s solution. Brilliant, but still a shot to my pride.

          http://tinyurl.com/4kshe

        • #3329763

          NO

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to hah

          I said how nice it looked, self gratification
          He said “yeah . . . I had a good chuckle over that icon, too.” okay some old school humor
          You acreditted it to me (thank you)
          He said “hah…funny”

          So in good taste and with controlled judgement I decided to fine out what was so funny about it.

          Your right, where’s YOUR sense of humour? I think apotheon got the joke without problem.

          “You laughing at me? You think I’m FUNNY? Am I some sort of clown to you or something??”

          Have to play that movie later.

        • #3329701

          you know what?

          by house ·

          In reply to hah

          YOU’RE A FUNNY GUY

          ha ha ha ha ha

        • #3329659

          re: funny guy

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to hah

          Yeah, he is that indeed.

        • #3329471

          Nah

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to hah

          I gave up stand-up a LOOOOONG time ago after friends coaxed me into a couple of shows, (some were great fun, others so so), just wasn’t into the coke thing at that time so I bailed, it seemed that to be in THAT business you need to be a cokehead. So I picked Heavy Metal bands instead.

          As for funny, well life IS a cartoon to me really, there’s nothing really serious about life because no matter how hard you concentrate and plan it, it still just flies by doing whatever it wants and then you’re dead. You may as well giggle and joke your way through it, it’s more fun that way.

          I even have a giant inflatable mallet of my very own!

          Haven’t found an giant Acme catalogue yet, but Year One Auto parts is close.

        • #3329457

          at that time?

          by house ·

          In reply to hah

          w-w-what are you t-t-trying to s-s-say?

          [i]drip[/i]

          [i]ah… the smell of a twenty dollar bill[/i]

        • #3328922

          That time was over

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to hah

          I had quit just before that and it really got to me when people were doing it around me. I wouldn’t start preaching because that’s futile, so I’d just just walk out of the room, but still…. eeeewwww.
          I fell off that wagon but jumped back on after a guy dropped and had a heart attack beside me in the back of an equipment truck.
          Oh well, he lived and I learned. He was at Popkomm a few years ago and looked like HE hadn’t woken up yet though.

        • #3328849

          kinda snaps you out of it

          by house ·

          In reply to hah

          1) an associate of mine dropped on oxy-contins in the bathroom of a Timmy’s

          2) another guy I knew banged air by accident

          kinda wakes you up a bit

    • #3335247

      another reason is discrimination !

      by andyinlondon ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      another reason is the unfainess of release dates.

      in music, movies, tv and even books, things are always released first in the usa.
      this obvious and blatant discrimination against everyone who does not live in the usa, forces anyone who wants to see hear or even read a new release to download it or have to wait, sometimes up to 6 months for it to be released in their home country.
      and the riaa and mpaa are surprised when something gets downloaded?
      stop the discrimination and perhaps the downloading will reduce.

      • #3334008

        Probably because fewer people pay in other countries

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to another reason is discrimination !

        Why should they release things first in Asia, Africa when the people pirate most of the copies and few are sold?

        • #3333961

          errr my point exactly

          by andyinlondon ·

          In reply to Probably because fewer people pay in other countries

          and i was thinking of europe anyway.
          but if the only chance you have to see or hear something new is to download it, then who is to blame?
          it is not a matter of paying or not paying … in europe you cannot pay to see a new film or buy a new album untill months after it is released in the usa.
          so it is not a matter of bieing unwilling to pay, but far more bieing not allowed to pay, unless you are in the usa.

          so my point is that riaa and the mpaa bring this on themselves by ripping people off and discriminating against them.

          there is no reason not to release movies albums etc at the same time globaly.
          except for non usa discrimination.

          so i ask a question? if someone does you wrong, then do you feel guilty if you return the complement?

          no i diddnt think so!

          so will riaa and the mpaa win the war on downloads ?

          not a chance

        • #3334943

          Flip side of the coin …

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to errr my point exactly

          Many times I’ve heard song excerpts from overseas bands (typically in England, Ireland, and France) that I’ve liked, but their CD’s are *never* released here in the US.

          This isn’t discrimination, it’s marketing. The company doing the marketing doesn’t believe that they will have a significant profit in a particular market, so they don’t release it there.

          Also, depending on the bands contract, the band can be the one that delays or prevents an overseas release.

          What that means in todays on-line society (the legal one, not the illegal one) is that you need to locate an on-line vendor who will sell you what you want.

        • #3330217

          ok but you have missed my point a little

          by andyinlondon ·

          In reply to Flip side of the coin …

          ok but you have missed my point a little.

          all hollywood movies are released globaly even the less successfull ones are released to all english speaking countries. BUT not untill several months after their us release.

          this same system applies to music and literature.
          us release followed several months later for the rest of the world.

          even popular tv series suffer this discriminatory policy, ER CSI FRIENDS etc are all at least 6 months behind the us.
          so when the up to date episodes get downloaded by desperate fans wanting to see the next one is it really a surprise?

          you could say they are victims of their popularity.

          but instead of making use of this popularity and allowing the fans of these series to have access to the latest episodes in a reasonable time, perhaps even charging a little more for early viewing and therby also making extra profits from it.
          the opposite is done and the delay stays the same and P2P is criticised for fulfilling this market demand.

          so in this situation will P2P go away?

          errr no!

        • #3330164

          I can’t speak to the TV series …

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to ok but you have missed my point a little

          … but the movie industry has a cost (a real cost, not a vapor cost) with the distribution of movies, and that is the actual production of the reels.

          Each copy of the movie that goes out on the reels have a cost (I’ve seen numbers from just under $10K to upwards of $100K for a single print) and that cost has to be worked into the marketing budget.

          Your typical American first run blockbuster will open in, let’s say, 1000 cities across the US. If you were able to make one print for $10K, that means your opening day requirement is $10 million bucks just for the reels.

          Over the next 4-6 months, the reels get moved from city to city, and then overseas. It’s extremely rare for the production company to make more prints just to send to other markets.

          Case in point:
          There’s a small film company that makes animated movies, primarily for home release but they’ve done one big screen release so far, called Big Idea.

          Big Idea is the creator of the “Veggie Tales” (and yes I’ve bought them all).

          They made and released a movie called “Jonah”, but their production funding was extremely limited so they didn’t make very many prints. To get the movie out, they opened in their highest market cities first, then moved the reels from city to city until they had covered the US. To date, I don’t know if they ever released it overseas.

          This isn’t discrimination, it’s market targeting. I know, for a fact, that Big Idea would *love* to be able to afford to release their stuff in every city, in every nation, on every continent, at the same time. But that costs *HUGE* amounts of money, and no one is going to spend that much to release any movie.

        • #3329467

          Thank you, an excellent analysis

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to I can’t speak to the TV series …

          I too have many “Veggie Tales” and appreciate that you have used them as an example.

        • #3329470

          You assume too much

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to errr my point exactly

          I think you assume too much, in a liberal democrat sort of way where you suppose you have a RIGHT to the artistic production of artists worldwide. How else can you be “wronged” for failing to provide you what someone in Alameda has done?

          “so i ask a question? if someone does you wrong, then do you feel guilty if you return the complement?”

          This is “Tit for Tat” but make sure it’s a “tit” before you “tat” or your tat could be mistaken for a tit and start a escalation of hostility.

          I don’t think we’re talking about feelings; the RIAA doesn’t really care if you feel guilty or not.

    • #3335246

      What’s wrong with the war on file sharing

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      .
      1. We should have gone into this with full support of the United Nations File Servers. Unless everybody is supporting the effort, it’s flawed from the beginning.

      2. We shared the files way too soon. We should have taken more time to build up the necessary number of files to share.

      3. The manager of the file servers did not pose an imminent threat to anything. Those charges were blown way out of proportion.

      4. We should not engage in preemptive measures. This is only a destabilizing strategy.

      5. Regardless of what they say, it’s all about turmoil. They just want unilateral control.

      6. The claims about worms of mass file destruction was a lie. We should have let the server inspectors do their job to prove it.

      7. This has caused the most divided Information Technology industry in history – and it’s all Bill Gate’s fault. (He did, after all, contribute to the George Bush election campaign.)

    • #3335219

      Barking Up The Wrong Tree

      by absolutezero ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I think we are looking in the wrong place. File sharing utilities such as bit torrent are a God send, and improve the efficiency at which we download and exchange data.

      The problems RIAA and other agencies are trying to solve lie solely with the consumer and not the ISP. People, who download the works of others and use them without the authors consent or without purchasing the work, if required, lack certain ethic and moral values. At some point in time, the CONSUMER will have to be held accountable for their actions if the illegal downloading of works is to cease. Asking the ISP to be accountable for the individual is like asking the bar to be held accountable for the drunk that gets behind the wheel and drives. Both currently happen, and both are dead wrong. Society has learned that blame lies somewhere else, and ?it?s not my fault?. The drunk says, it?s not my fault. The bar should have refused to serve me. RIAA and the consumer say ?it?s not my (the consumer?s) fault.? The ISP should have stopped the traffic. They knew this was illegal. Why didn?t they protect me? I didn?t know. Folks, remember from high school? Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. When will the madness end?

      If we as consumers don?t agree with pricing, there are avenues. If we don’t like the high price of a product we don’t have to buy the item. Either the price will come down, or the industry will bankrupt itself.

      RIAA and the other organizations are attacking the symptoms, and not the problem. At some point, the USERS must be held accountable for their OWN actions, not those that provide the conduit.

      We as a society need to wake up, start holding the right people accountable and move on!

    • #3334093

      What goes around always comes back

      by theantimike ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I can remember how the RIAA has this notion that they own all technology related to the recording of CD’s. When CD recording technology was becoming mainstream they tied it up in the courts and now they get a percentage of every blank CD purchased. WHAT’S WITH THAT? I know this–I wouldn’t be sleeping at night if I knew that I was being targeted by the technically savy underground. The RIAA has been ripping off both their clients and the public for years and now it’s time for them to reap what they have sown.

      And believe me it’s going to rain hard on the RIAA.

    • #3334074

      And the answer is…add value

      by john ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I have been saying this for years:

      I think legislation is the wrong approach to this problem. I think it is wrong to criminalize people who use this technology. I think the makers of music, movies and software should try and add value to the item they are trying to sell, rather than to try and sue people who share the products. They should give us a reason to buy rather than download…and I’m not sure exactly what value-added benefit they could add to it, maybe free concert tickets for the music cd’s or free movie tix for the dvd’s, and the software vendors should do the same, maybe free software or upgrades if you purchase direct? If some thought were put into this solution I’m sure they could come up with some value-added goods or services to make buying more attractive.

      I think this is the correct solution, but try selling that idea to people in this litigious society!

      -John

    • #3334069

      Control issues

      by ngl0578 ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I believe the main reason that the recording insudstry, and the motion picture industry hate file sharing is not profit motivated, but rather control motivated.

      consider this, the top 40, is not based on actual sales or requests for a particular song, but rather how many units are sold to retailers. reguardless of how many sit on shelves, or are sent on to discounters.

      essentially the recording industry decides who is or is not going to be popular, and promote them by falsely inflating numbers.

      with file sharing, audiophiles have the opportunity to decide for themselves what music they like and want to listen to. Some artists have embraced this technology, and are reaping some rewards from it. these artists are generally the ones who are not attached to a major label. and don’t have the clout to get their music out to the masses except via file sharing.

      but it all comes down to control, for decades we were being told what was popular, what to listen to, what to ignore. by the dj’s and mostly by the industry itself.

      just my .02$

      • #3334035

        precisely

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Control issues

        The RIAA and ClearChannel have been in bed together for years, and 85% of the radio market is controlled by ClearChannel. It’s all just a big economic oligarchy and, like Microsoft, they’re more interested in market dominance than value for the customer.

    • #3334045

      BitTorrent

      by z80man ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I use BitTorrent for Linux disto downloads, and similar uses. This scheme allows such large downloads to be offered without the need for a large infrastructure at the source. As with any tool, it can be used for various purposes. Killing BitTorrent won’t stop the P2P transfer of music files, but will significantly hurt the small software houses that depend on it.

      As usual, RIAA thinks they own the net, and will go to any length to control it, even though music content is not a majority of what is on the net. The sad part is that most of Congress is conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to say “Piracy” whenever anyone says “Internet”. The current administration’s pro-big business anti-consumer stance doesn’t help. Like other posting here, I have cut my CD purchases to the bone over the last couple of years. I don’t download music illegally – I just do without. If the artists started selling directly, I would start buying immediately, but that won’t happen any time soon.

      Until this is all settled, I download sample tracks and listen to Internet radio – there is a lot of good stuff out there that never makes it to the wasteland that is commercial radio (a topic for another discussion).

      • #3334026

        free, and/or direct from the artists

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to BitTorrent

        Here’s a good place to start:

        http://www.narcopop.com/musicians/

        http://www.boycott-riaa.com/links/

        http://www.opsound.org/opsound.html

        http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Music

        You can find freely-offered music and artist-direct music sales in both locations. Narcopop is just one site: the boycott-RIAA page lists scads of links to sites that offer music sales and downloads from non-RIAA bands and labels. Opsound is probably the coolest of the lot, as a record label that only deals in music registered under “copyleft” licenses; obviously, the RIAA wouldn’t like that idea at all. The Wikimedia Commons is maintained by one of my employers, and includes a collection of freely distributable music as well.

      • #3333799

        Torrents

        by house ·

        In reply to BitTorrent

        The last few distros that I acquired were through ftp and http. I triggered these downloads after a few hours of waiting on the torrents.

        Linux enthusiasts… please keep your torrents alive for a little while after download – out of respect for the developers and their sites. 🙂

        • #3335058

          sure thing

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Torrents

          If I ever use BitTorrent, I’ll see about engaging in that sort of courteous hanging-out for people like you. Heh. Of course, I still haven’t used any filesharing networks (unless you count the Internet as a filesharing network), and am not likely to any time soon, including BitTorrent. I think BitTorrent is a great idea, and I’m all for it, but I don’t particularly need it myself.

        • #3334885

          It’s not for me…

          by house ·

          In reply to sure thing

          …so much as it is for the hosting sites. Offering an ftp or http download can be hell on a server. Torrents offer a multi-stream solution that distributes the load among the peers involved… you even download chunks from incomplete downloads… this is the “why” factor that should encourage the use of BT, but fails miserably when nobody contributes.

        • #3334845

          indeed

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to It’s not for me…

          I’m going to have to do some serious examination of BitTorrent clients before I actually decide for sure, one way or another, whether or not I’ll use one at all. My computing situation is somewhat nonstandard, and I like to know exactly what I’m getting into before I go starting to use anything new here.

          I don’t download much, anyway. Maybe one ISO every three months, typically.

        • #3330197

          Heard of one called Shareaza?

          by data ninja ·

          In reply to indeed

          I recently heard of one called “Shareaza” that connects to multiple sharing networks, depending on your preferences. Uses the BitTorrent methodology and is totally free.

          Has anyone used or heard of this one? I don’t do the file sharing scene, but if I were, this one sounds better than most I’ve heard of?

        • #3330181

          nope

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Heard of one called Shareaza?

          I haven’t heard of it. I might look into that, just to figure out what the back-end technology is.

        • #3331713

          Shareaza uses

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Heard of one called Shareaza?

          an updated gnutella protocol. Provides access to several different P2P groups including bit torrent. The best thing about it however is it’s open source, so the more geeky of us can make sure of what’s going in and out of our systems. There are still one or two annoying features/bugs in it bugs in it as well, so you could even contribute.
          I’ve olnl had one bit torrent download work on it though, but I think that’s lack of sharers not a problem with the software it self.

        • #3351494

          Shareaza

          by sheera_azm ·

          In reply to Heard of one called Shareaza?

          From what I’ve seen, Shareaza is banned from quite a number of Bittorrent tracker. Something to do about falsifying it’s statistics, and disconnecting ass soon as a download is completed, not when it had reached a fair download ratio.

    • #3334012

      I despise file sharing,but…

      by htos1 ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I hate file sharing because of the damage I’ve seen inflicted on clients’ systems.Mostly from naive teens going to porn,cracker sites,etc., and not knowing how to navigate past the destructive vb scripts that reset jumperless boards and burn up(overclock)the system.I’ve seen this several times and show the client exactly what they did when I take the drives and install them on the bench system.
      Having said that,what is the technical difference between file sharing now,and the intro of the VHS vcr in the ’70’s?They basically do the same thing with different technologies.You couldn’t link vcr’s remotely,however.Like our culture,it’s not designed for amoral/immoral types.

      • #3333974

        There’s a difference between

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to I despise file sharing,but…

        Warez web sites and P2P. Warez sites are almost wholly commercial fronts, particularly the porn ones. You certainly can get a virus on P2P, if you are dumb enough to run an executable without scanning it first, but it’s not the ‘stealth’ mode crap warez sites come out with. As far as I’m concerned anyone who goes there deserves to pay you for fixing their machine. Anyone who uses P2P without an up to date virus checker can be despised while they are paying you uinstead of being pitied.

        As for infringement of copyright, well that’s been going since we started scratching marks in stone. I could get more worried about it ,if the guys who whinge most about it weren’t legally ripping me off at every opportunity.

        • #3335003

          Whining the most

          by dc_guy ·

          In reply to There’s a difference between

          The “copyright protection” movement has actually been going on for decades since used record stores started popping up. I loved the fact that they always hired millionaires like Bonnie Raitt and Garth Brooks to plead the case.

        • #3334977

          End of problem then

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Whining the most

          The music industry needn’t lose any sleep on missing out on a sale with me on either of the above. I can’t stand country & western and american ‘popular’ music is something I associate with Barry Manilow, wouldn’t download either one if they paid me.

    • #3333958

      Is it price or quality?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I work on BOTH sides of the fence so I have refrained from offering opinion to this point. That plus P2P file sharing has not been deemed copyright infringement ‘in Canada’ yet as there are still may protections detailed in constitutional rights that make it a grey area. IN fact several such cases have been won already based on copyright issues as being unlawful restriction on personal rights.

      I sell music in the US for artists who are looking for exposure (obviously welcoming P2P sharing) and other artists who don’t need exposure via P2P. Funny enough though NEITHER side cares about P2P in fact one very well known group would rather give its music away to fans at this stage and just rely on touring revenues.

      The issue is a corporate one, labels care, nobody else does.

      That’s places such as Japan, South America, Europe (certain genres), and Canada really don’t give a toss about file sharing and while it is still an issue, it is not focused on as stringently as in the US, were large corporations dominate the industries.

      From a SHARING point of view, the general concencus is that music THESE days isn’t worth the price of the CD, not over inflated costs (CD’s are usually pretty cheap) as much as CONTENT.

      There haven’t been too many CD’s produced in he last 7+ years that had 13-15 GOOD QUALITY tracks, a good cover insert with lyrics, band info, photo’s etc. The title track is picked before the ‘artist’ gets to a studio (which often consists of mere overdubbing to samples). It is marketed, T-Shirts are sold, (and every other little merchandising gimmick) befor ethe CD is even released. It is played on a constant rotation because the record companies own virtually EVERY major radio station in North America (including Canada)and DRILLED into teen heads, long befor ethe CD is released.

      BY the time it hits stores, several million in marketing has been spent to promote a single track, unfortunately, after paying $14.00 for the new CD, people find out that the ONLY decent track is the one that has been heavily sold.

      People are sick of paying for one track, a few remixes and maybe a live track.

      NOW:

      Cross the pond, Asia, South America, etc.
      MOST studios are very small, production costs are FAR lower and marketing is done by word of mouth, appearances in stores, web marketing, and mostly live shows. This all takes place AFTER releasing the CD. People get used to hearing multiple new tracks, therefore they MUST include quality and consistency in engineering for multiple tracks.

      These artists often get downloaded a LOT, but then people like it and go buy the full CD. You get good inserts and full quality of music throughout the CD .

      I often download a track to hear a new release, I then either run out and buy it if I like it (the download is just due to impatience)or get sent promo copies.

      The biggest downloads on P2P programs are back catalogues though, in most cases nobody is losing a dime, other than some label. IE: Who should be paid for Howlin Wolf’s backcatalogue?
      How many times do I have to buy Pink Floyd – The Wall before I can justify downloading an MP3?

      IN 1983 I paid my every dime to see Iron Maiden Live, I then spent money on a t-shirt, album (the big black disks), at LEAST one tape, plus further live versions, then did it all over again on CD’s.
      If I then DOWNLOAD an mp3 due to convenience, who am I stealing from?

      I own 99% of the music I have ever downloaded. Downloading is convenient, I have an immense CD selection, to pick out a playlist and rip it takes quite a while, if I want to download music for my MP3 player before I run out, should I then be prosecuted for it? I paid for the music, the band AND record company has received MY payment for their production and packaging.

      The issue is with CRAPPY CD’s being made, people would much rather download the ONE song that they like, the one that’s played on the radio daily that we can tape/encode anytime.
      If the REST of teh CD was good and had worthwhile packaging, inserts, people would feel ‘ripped’ off with a mere MP3 and would rather BUY the CD.

      Remember Pink Floyd- Dark Side of the Moon?
      It came with a really cool reversible poster and stickers?

      Remember Cheech and Chong’s Big Bamboo with the giant rolling paper in it?

      Remember Iron Maiden’s Live After Death, with the 12 page booklet, double album and really cool jcket grapics with the live stage in the center fold?
      This is what artists USED to do to stop people taping albums as opposed to buying them.

      This is absent from NEW music though. If you look to those older artists nowadays, they are STILL putting out FULL CD’s of quality tracks with premium engineering and production quality.

      In some studios it’s 2 weeks of overdubs, and 6 weeks of sampling and engineering, a $3.00 CD that sells for $15.00 and has ONE track worth buying.

      I would download all of my music too if I had Enrique Iglasias and Jessica Simpson thrust down my throat. Show me what I get for my money with thier latest releases that isn’t played on the radio daily.

      • #3333945

        Pink Floyd

        by dafe2 ·

        In reply to Is it price or quality?

        I still have Darkside Of the Moon..(Album)………LOL including the poster….

        Actually, (For ALL the reasons you mention) the only CD’s I buy today are box sets BUT even they cheaped out now too:

        The Pink Floyd Box set includes a cofee table book, rare cuts and all CD’s they produced.

        Same with Led Zeppelin & a few others.

        I was at a store checking to see what’s new & guess what? I saw a “box set” with a cheap case, four CD’s & a sleeve I could produce with a $20.00 printer & MS Paint for $96.00 ca.

        F.uck……………..makes me want to puke.

        I spent a crapload of cash on my CD collection & audio gear……………….I can’t stand the sound of MP3’s…………but the music “business” is making it VERY EASY for me to overlook the sound quality and build an “mp3 collection”

        • #3329707

          Still on the charts!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Pink Floyd

          Dark Side of the Moon has been on the charts, WITHOUT INTERRUPTion, since its release.

          This may be a record that is never broken.

        • #3328928

          one can only hope

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Still on the charts!

          My confidence in the good taste of humans in general isn’t that high, I’m afraid.

        • #3328851

          Yup……Some guy just

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to one can only hope

          drove through the neighborhood playing some funky Rap Crap.

          Made me want to shove some bling (my kind) up his subwoofer.

        • #3328850

          syllables and beats – diamonds in the rough

          by house ·

          In reply to Yup……Some guy just

          There are very few rap artists who impress me. I do listen to Big Punisher, The Notorious BIG, The Roots, and a few others who believe(d) in the art. 99.9% is crap.

          More recently, I’ve found all music to be crap, and haven’t been able to tolerate much outside of Bob Marley and Smashing Pumpkins. A little bit of Johnny Winter too (don’t ask).

        • #3328843

          More like coal……LOL

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to syllables and beats – diamonds in the rough

          You must be dealing with the winter blahs???……My wifes been watching that “American Idol” aka “American Wingnut”…..It doesn’t take me long to stick a CD in to get those sounds outta my head!!!

          My music tastes are kind of all over the place…Pink Floyd being right up there. Funny thing though, I’m still very partial to Blues & some/most of the East Coast bar bands & ‘Southern Rock’…………& of course good ol stanby’s like Rush & Supertramp.

        • #3341979

          Funny isn’t it?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to syllables and beats – diamonds in the rough

          NO matter how diverse musical taste, no matter how different two people’s tastes are, they BOTH listen to Floyd.

          Unfortunately, when I worked at the first Floyd concert in BC Place (when it ws still new)I was backstage and didn’t get a chance to meet anyone. The stadium is just too big and you’re just too busy to stop, especially AFTER the show.

          I DID see Roger Waters shortly after he left though. He played a small and very intimate concert at ExpoBowl (a small outdoor stage built for Expo’86). THAT was cool, you could actually phone him on stage from a booth in the audience and request a song. Based on the theme of his album Radio Chaos.

          It was a heart breaker to see him leave PF but they have hardly even skipped a beat, either of them, in continuing. I see it as TWO PF’s now instead of one. 🙂

        • #3341948

          Two Floyds

          by dafe2 ·

          In reply to syllables and beats – diamonds in the rough

          Are better that one LOL

          I wasn’t lucky ennough to see them, allthough my sister saw the in Germany doing The Wall.

          When they split, I just ‘expanded’ my Floyd collection to include all of Gilmour & Waters stuff LOL

        • #3341991

          Yup. Were it not for the “Old Rockers,” …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to one can only hope

          the tour producers would have been sh*t out of luck for the past 2 years.

          Take a look at Pollstar’s reports re. attendance, % of capacity sold, and revenues.

          Today’s “musicians,” and I do use the term very loosely, just can’t cut it.

        • #3341976

          No doubt

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yup. Were it not for the “Old Rockers,” …

          I have happily paid well over $100 for a good show, and regretted spending $45 on others.

          Bands used to sell music by performance, and regardles sof the STYLE, it was still generally a group of VERY talented musicians.

          Now it is presold before release. CD sales are EVERYTHING now, that’s why there’s all the hype over P2P. These wannabe’s producing garbage are not selling it. Seem to me that if they actually produced quality, they would be selling just like others that DO produce good CD’s and have long since left the veil of the label.

        • #3341918

          And, all often, the CD’s merely a promo for …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No doubt

          the tour, the videos, the branded merchandise, etc..

          And, the promoters and TicketMaster & its ilk have the nerve to call independent ticket brokers “scalpers”!

      • #3333830

        The Dollar behind..

        by promartinus ·

        In reply to Is it price or quality?

        Dear, I swear it’s very artificial envirnoment, there designed just to make money on people like you , that’s music production company business to ripp you off from every dollar till drain.

        If you belive in logic, copyright b/s , or so remember p2p is not about that…

        music production companies, have a financial problems beocuse their distribution monopoly was hitted.

        the artist get’s maybe less then 5% od CD retail price,

        rest goes to the production comapny.

        I am game developer, and that is a ripoff to my business as well – as the logic whould said..

        but the economy logic is quite not colinear to Logic-logic..

        I know if somebody cannot afford my product at retail, or official online distributor, he will copy that.

        no one saids that in 95% of countries overseas, people have diferent acquiring power, and will nto pay that amounth of money per cd, os so..

        form other hand, it’s a life no everyone who sits in the cinema paids the ticked.. there are always back doors, and even due raising inconvinience poeple who can’s afford the price will find them.

        personally, I know many marketing data from the entertainment/software market and one can I guarantee…

        once prices of the goods will be slashed, p2p wil have diferent meaning.

        shop price is artificial “product of the marketing”, and p2p is the natural erruption of the man perverted creation.

        if there will not be the dollar cult and to many people whould not make to much on software goods, there will be no p2p complications..

        a years ago, music was always inexpenisve, it’s ok to raise the prices to make the business, and charge whatever amounth, but that is the “friction” of whole operation.. higher it goes more sollutions people gonna find to distribute it illegaly, I know in many places overseas p2p is not needed, everybody just copies tons of DVD with mp3, mp4 movies, cracked license software ( even alladin or hasp dongles) or so..

        so don’t soap the eyes with the illusions. It takes to charge $2 per CD to make Jessica Simpson or Michael Jacksom millionere.. so just guess where the cash goes..

        • #3335027

          Well that’s reasonable for part of the market

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The Dollar behind..

          I have many artists that would disagree with you, BUT that is the reason I am involved. I get artists OUT of that market and into a fair market overseas.

          As for saying they get 5%, well that is generous these days, not too many SIGNED artists in North America get that much. 7-15 CENTS perhaps but not as much as 5%.

          The crappy part is that labels here dominate the market and OWN the outlets, radio stations etc.

          Unless you are pulling in money for them, you have no chance at market exposure. DJ’s can’t just decide to throw on your CD to give it airtime. IN fact they pretty much NEVER have anyway due to solicitation issues. YOu can’t get prime store real estate either.

          In other countries this is absolutely the other way around. Record companies get the same floor space indie bands get, the stores can be approached unsolicited with a box of disks to sell. Your videos and music get air time all the time and people soak up creative work and not polished ;flavour of the day’ sounds.

          The large labels have destroyed their OWN industry, low quality garbage even when from quality performers and people have had enough.

        • #3351174

          The Point..

          by promartinus ·

          In reply to Well that’s reasonable for part of the market

          Well from what I hear you really agreed to my point.. big labels truly destroy their OWN industry,
          p2p is a natural way of distributing music, movies, and so to expand, and once their price will not be reduce not much will be changed.

          ps. I did not say p2p is good. but it’s natural and have lo harm to the economy.

        • #3351032

          Only corporate economy…

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The Point..

          …that seeks to abuse the industry.

          Everyone else see it as a great outlet. THEY are the musicians, they KNOW most people buy a CD they like if they are serious about the music and not a trend.

          They also make most of their money from people LISTENING to music anyway they can and then buying concert tickets, t-shirts, wrist bands, tour programs and all the other band merchandise. Bands here don’t REALLY tour anymore though, not when compared to working artists anyway.

    • #3333828

      IT’s NOT A WAR !!

      by promartinus ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      hello,

      all the rummor around files-goods distributed over the internet without benefiting rightfull owners…

      that’s erruption not a war..

      Soviet Union does not last long, beocuse it was artificial creation against the human nature, desires, and ambitions.

      it’s unlikely somebody can be in war with nature, wind, friction, or weather…

      p2p is a natural human reaction to share goods, to improve in a the easiest way…

      it’s naive someone could fight it.

      If Joe will not download it then joe will not buy it.. where is the loose ?

      • #3235568

        Archival and Retrieval Functions of Copyright Law

        by derithc ·

        In reply to IT’s NOT A WAR !!

        I am asking for someone to address this issue from a broader perspective. I’m confused and troubled by different consequences of limiting access to information, apart from the entertainment industry. Please, rather than discuss what individuals would purchase for what price from whom, I would like to hear debate on the archival and retrieval functions of digital information.

        The music industry is having to deal with the unforseen consequences of forcing the market into the digital age. This was not a market driven evolution. It was industry driven. I did not appreciate having to buy a cd player to listen to cds. One day, vinyl was available; the next day, that choice was gone. But show me how file sharing has hurt that industry?

        To paraphrase and (I admit, grotesquely) simplify the Copyright Office Report to Congress, since p2p and the music sharing began, copyright applications have increased tremendously, paid out royalties have increased phenomonally, profits have skyrocketed… The attention has generated monetary increases like never before seen. Copyrights have been extended 70 years passed the death of the artist…the list is long.

        This file sharing issue with regard to the music industry is having a profound effect on all digital information. I am wary of putting information in the hands and control of a few. The Alexandria Library burned. What’s to prevent a similar catastrophe in this digital age?

        Please, help me see the bigger picture.

    • #3333825

      bs

      by phista4169 ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I feel these corporate buttheads are just looking for another excuse to pry away our civil liberties such as privacy. and they will do this solely for their already huge pocketbooks. these software companies are already billionaires. they must be those same whining pussies that cry about how we were attacked on 9/11 but didn’t want their children signing up. they want something done as long as it’s someone else’s kid. they need to sit down and enjoy a nice hot cup of shut the F*** UP!!!

    • #3334917

      I had a discussion with my 17 year old …

      by kaceyr ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      … that was both enlightening and aggravating.

      One day he asked me if he could load some file sharing software on the family PC. I said no. He was … shall we way, upset?

      During the course of our discussion about my decision, I asked him why he wanted to load the software. His reply was that he “wanted to get some songs off the internet”. When I asked him why he doesn’t want to buy the songs through iTunes (yup, I’ve got an iTunes account, and I’m not ashamed to use it!), he replied that he didn’t want to pay for it. Now here’s the aggravating part, when I asked him why he didn’t want to pay for it his answer was “Because they already have enough money”.

      ….

      Okay, I can already hear many of you saying “Yeah! I’m with him on that one!”, but I’m calling BS on you.

      You’re the consumer. You don’t have any right to steal a product because you feel that the manufacturer (artist, publisher, etc) has enough money. Get over your jealousy. Your mad that the record labels put out CD’s that only have one good track on them for $15-$20. So don’t buy it. If you want one track, pay for it. If you can’t get the one track, go without it.

      You’re not being denied a necessity of life here, it’s a luxury product and you’re expected to pay for it. If you don’t like the price, don’t buy it. Simple.

      The fact that the music companies are still making money and selling *a lot* of CD’s at $15-$20 is an indicator that there are people out there WILLING TO PAY that much for them. If they found that they had no sales, of *ANY* CD at that price, the price would come down.

      The same holds true in the software industry. Lately everyone wants to bash Microsoft over their pricing, but the products sell. Some of the people who can’t afford it acquire pirated versions then get upset when they get caught. Too f****ng bad! You *STOLE* it. You didn’t buy it, you have no right to have it. If you don’t want to pay for it, use an alternative. There are lots of them. Just because it doesn’t say Microsoft doesn’t mean your PC won’t run it.

      If I create a song or a program that I want to sell, you have neither the power nor the right to try to force me to make it free or to lower the price. Your only recourse is to tell me that you’d buy it if I’d lower the price, or by simply not buying it, but I can still set the price at whatever I want.

      You don’t have the right to steal it just because you don’t want to pay for it, and if you steal it I have every right to prosecute you.

      Unfortunately, the piracy war is spilling over into the “usefull technology” region. File sharing and P2P networking is, and will always be, a useful element of our computing age. What the RIAA (and all the other acronym organizations) need is to have a judge smack some sense into them. This little “war” is kinda like when Microsoft got denied the copyright (or was it a trademark?) to the word “Windows”, because the vast bulk of the population still considers Windows to be “a device, usually made of glass, that allows you to see through a wall or door”.

      The RIAA (and all the others) still have the right to pursue people who steal music from their members, but they shouldn’t be surprised when someone accuses them of entrapment because they were running their own file sharing system and someone downloaded music from their own server.

      • #3334852

        returning the favor

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to I had a discussion with my 17 year old …

        I’m going to call BS on a lot of what [b]you[/b] said now.

        It’s not stealing. I don’t even recognize “intellectual property”, in the sense in which it’s enshrined in law in the United States, as valid. It’s unethical and otherwise Bad. Once I hear it, it’s mine. Once I have a copy, it’s mine. That’s the ethical truth of the matter. Unless I [b]deprive someone else of a copy[/b], I haven’t stolen anything. Stealing is depriving others of things. If I have a copy that didn’t exist in anyone else’s possession previously, I haven’t stolen.

        Yes, I think Microsoft is price-gouging. Yes, I think the labels selling $20 CDs are price-gouging. No, I don’t think I have a right to steal just because they’re price-gouging, but no, I don’t think that downloading songs without the permission of the copyright holders is theft, either.

        I don’t use file-sharing networks at all. Not only is the risk not worth it to me, but it actually benefits the RIAA member organizations for me to participate in free advertising for their crappy CDs. There are great arseloads of free music out there (legally free, ethically free) that are available to us, anyway, and I’m not brainwashed by the 85% market saturation of Clear Channel radio stations and their RIAA conspirators. They may dominate the market at large, but they don’t dominate my stereo.

        If I really wanted music distributed by Time Warner or BMG, and it was easy for me to get it for free and without risk, I wouldn’t feel bad about it at all. Time Warner and BMG don’t own those bits of data. It’s that simple.

        On the other hand, I’m just as aggravated by the answer you got as you are, probably. I’m not aggravated because I think it’s stealing, but because the kid wants to download the music for the wrong reasons. Saying “they already have enough money” means nothing. Saying “I don’t believe that copyright law has any more validity than any other justification for racketeering,” on the other hand, means quite a lot.

        I want to go out and take a brick to the skulls of everyone that says “Yeah, it’s stealing, but I want free music!” for a number of reasons, and the fact that they’re perpetuating the myth of “intellectual property” isn’t the least of those reasons.

        Intellect is not property.

        • #3330246

          Not enough coffee, hope this makes sense …

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to returning the favor

          I think that we disagree on the definition of stealing, but we agree that intellect is not property and Microsoft is price gouging along with the music corporations.

          Theft:
          I think you’ve hit the crux of the definition of stealing here. Possession. Let’s take music as our example: I create a song and cut it to CD, the CD is marketed (at a ridiculous price) and is purchased by someone. This someone rips the song to their hard drive. Have they stolen? In my opinion, no. They bought the CD outright, the music is theirs to listen to (it’s in their possession) wherever they choose to listen to it. Down the road they let a friend download the file. Has the friend stolen? In my opinion, maybe. If they have never previously purchased that same version of the song on any other media, then yes (they never had legal possession of the music). If they have previously purchased the same version of the song, no (they already had legal possession of the music).

          My view of the music is the same as when I was growing up. If I buy an album (I still prefer the vinyl), I’m free to make copies, for my own use, as many times as I like on as many media types as I like. If I pass it on to someone while still keeping the original, I’ve become a party to a theft.

          Extending my view to today, if I find a song on the internet that I already own (same version from the same album), why should I have to pay to download it? The problem for someone monitoring the download is that, without coming to my home, there’s no way to verify that I really own the album.

          I understand your point of view, I just don’t agree with it because I think your definition of theft is too constricted.

          Intellectual property:
          On this we agree. Intellect is not property.

          However (there’s always a However, isn’t there?),
          With my intellect I create a computer program. That program itself is a product. Property. If someone else comes up with the same program and they clearly didn’t steal my source code, then they also have created a product. Again, property. What we choose to do with this property is up to us, but there’s no way I should be able to sue the other guy for thinking along the same lines as me. I would submit that *anyone* who believes the no one could *ever* think the same as them is both arrogant and insane.

          Where theft comes into play here is if they stole my source code. But they didn’t steal the idea or the thought process, they stole the product. The *actual* property.

          Microsoft has created many products. For their software, they have set a price for the purchase of a license to use the product. Note that I did not say “purchase the product”. Microsoft always retains ownership of their software. This is where I think that our opinions will separate, because I recognize that I’ve purchased a license for use, and you (if I extend your definition to software), recognize that you have purchased the software itself.

          That’s a very important difference, because if the software was purchased outright, you can do (almost) whatever you want with it, including, for example, reverse engineering it to learn how something was done. If the purchase was for a license to use, then I’ve (usually) agreed that I may not reverse engineer it (among other things).

          The last time I checked, when you purchase music it’s purchased outright, so the “license to use” argument won’t fly for the music industry.

          Back to what I can do with my product, if I choose to sell it, I get to set the price. If I want, I could set the price very high. Is this price gouging? It could be. If the product flies off the shelves, then perhaps I’ve priced it too low. If it doesn’t move, then either I’ve overpriced it (I’m gouging) or it’s not as good (or usefull) as I thought.

          If I come out with a new version that costs more, that’s not gouging, but if the “upgrade from a previous version” costs more than the original version, I’m clearly gouging. That’s what I see Microsoft doing, constantly.

          On the kid:
          I couldn’t agree with you more on this one. That he believes that he’s not stealing isn’t my issue with him, it’s his reason for believing that it’s “sometimes ok” to steal.

          Had he told me that he disagrees with the copyright law, I would have been ok with that. Maybe I wouldn’t have agreed with him, but he’s old enough to form his own opinions and I’m not going to stifle that.

          In conclusion (just thought I’d throw in that phrase):
          There are many people who create works (music, software, etc) who feel that it should be openly shared with the world. To those people I say, great. Share it all you want. The choice is yours, but recognize that not everyone feels the same as you. There are many others who approach the creation of their works as a business, with the intent to sell a “product”. Whether you intend to share it freely or sell it, the work you create is still a product, and the choice for distribution of your product belongs to you, not the public.

          BTW: I loved what you said about the nature of the soul of the bits! 🙂

        • #3330213

          itemized responses

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Not enough coffee, hope this makes sense …

          [b]possession:[/b] You base your definition of theft on whether or not someone has “already had legal possession of the music”. The detail that makes that statement meaningless is the use of the term “legal”, and the fact that you can’t make that point without using some kind of qualifier like “legal”. A statement is not logically justified if it has to reference itself in its justification. Circular logic isn’t valid. If you’re only talking about legal definitions of theft, you’re right, of course; I’m talking about ethical definitions of theft, though. Thus, you can say “legal” ownership (the opposite of theft according to the law) is a follower to “legal” possession, but not that “ethical” ownership is the follower to “legal” possession, because ethicality and legality are not indivisibly related terms (much as it would be nice if they were).

          So let’s get to the heart of the matter. Ethical ownership (essentially, the opposite of the unethical act of theft, regardless of the current state of the law which might change tomorrow anyway) is dependent upon ethical possession. Now, we need only define ethicality. I will posit at this time that anything that does not involve the initiation of force (through violence, threat of violence, or fraud) is ethically acceptable. If you can use that to logically support the concept that copying a CD and giving away, or selling, the copies is unethical, or if you can logically dispute that definition of ethicality in some way, we’ll have something to talk about.

          [b]intellect as property:[/b] You say on one hand that intellect isn’t property, and on the other that something like a computer program is. There are two ways to approach this that are logically consistent.

          The first is to say that intellect is not property, and thus intellections (the processes of the intellect) are not property. This all adds up to the definition of that which holds property, not the property itself. I am the sum of my intellections, and cannot be owned as an individual. There is no demonstrable line between my mind and my thoughts, and I doubt you’d claim that anyone has the right to control my thoughts anyway. That being the case, any time I think about something that someone else has conceived before I did, that other person does not have a claim on my thoughts due only to the previous existence of his thoughts on the matter, whether my thoughts were original or inspired by perceiving the results of his previous intellectual labor. My thoughts inform my actions, and are themselves actions. Expressing my thoughts, whether in verbal or written form, is a function of self-determination and communication. In that expression, I can replicate the production of hardcopy versions of others’ efforts, thus infringing on copyright through nothing more than the process of thinking and expressing my thoughts. The fact that my thoughts were sparked by someone else’s actions doesn’t change that. Thus, either copyright is wrong or the idea that intellect is not property is wrong.

          The second is to say that intellect is property. I own the thoughts in my own brain, just as you own the thoughts in yours. Thus, there’s a basis for “intellectual property”. Unfortunately, once I encode my thoughts on a physical medium, such as writing on paper, I’ve just created physical property. There is no intellection in that physical property: it’s just a collection of pigments and cellulose, with a few extraneous bits of other chemicals and compounds. I can transfer that physical property to you, either by gift or by sale (else it wouldn’t be “property”), at which point it’s yours. If you read what I’ve written, your thoughts are inspired by what you see encoded on that paper, and you have created “intellectual property” of your own. Once again, someone has thoughts in his head, which are the property of the intellect that houses these intellections. Using those intellections, you can in turn produce physical property. In this sense, “intellectual property” is wholly nontransferrable as long as we don’t master telepathy. There must be a physical mechanism for transferral of ideas from one intellect to another, and those ideas are not physically transported. All that is transferred is a pattern of physical property that is commonly understood to represent collections of thoughts. The end result of this is either that copying a book is not wrong, no matter who wrote it or what permissions he may or may not wish to have given, or copying it is wrong but the whole concept of property as it currently stands goes out the window because it isn’t transferrable. Either the person that buys the book owns it, or he doesn’t. Either he can do whatever he wants with the physical object and its contents, or he can’t. Either he owns the thoughts he has in his head, or he doesn’t. If you tie the intellect to property, you have to be willing to grant the right to do what people want with that property when they own it, and you have to grant ownership when someoen pays for it and ethically takes possession of it.

          [b]license:[/b] I don’t actually consider myself to have bought software when I come into possession of a Microsoft CD (assuming for the moment that it was bought, rather than gifted or gained through work). The software doesn’t exist except as a process in action on a computer. What I have bought is the physical recording medium. Nothing is, strictly speaking, actually “stored” on that medium. Rather, there are physical patterns of the material of the medium which, when a laser is applied properly (in the case of a CD), will hopefully produce something meaningful (software). The software isn’t the property I’ve purchased, but the CD is.

          I actually think that record labels who want to protect their “intellectual property” and have started putting labels on their CDs saying that the CD itself is still the property of the label and can be recalled at their discretion are, finally, doing things the right way. By simply granting open-ended license to the physical property without granting ownership, they have an ethical right to dictate how it will be used and to assume agreement of a contract wherein the patterns recorded on that medium won’t be copied and distributed. I won’t likely pay for those CDs bearing those labels, because that doesn’t strike me as good value for my money, but at least it’s not an unethical protection racket.

          This means, of course, that some of what’s in a Microsoft EULA about how you may use Microsoft-designed software (of course, it wasn’t actually designed by Microsoft, which is a fictional entity created by paperwork, but rather by programmers in MS’s employ) would be completely valid with only minor alterations to the language used and the removal of a couple of phrases here and there that contradict the ethical support for that approach to licensing. I just don’t happen to like Microsoft branded software design enough to overlook those minor discrepancies, and choose to avoid Microsoft branded software entirely, where possible.

          [b]product:[/b] What I put to paper, or to magnetic recordable media, or any other persistent form is a “product”, true. What I do with that product is my business. When I give you a copy, whether by streaming it over the Internet, handing you a physical recording medium such as a CD, or selling you a three-ring binder with printed code on the pages, I no longer possess that copy. You can redistribute that copy if you like. More to the point, if you produce (key word here, “produce”) a copy of that copy, that is your product, not mine, and it’s up to you to distribute as you see fit.

          None of this means you can’t make a living with your creations. You can make a chair, a book, or a commotion, and if people are willing to pay for that effort in some way, more power to ya. If they then go elsewhere and make a chair, a book, or a commotion of their own, that belongs to them, and they can make money or not as they see fit.

          [b]soul:[/b] Thanks for the kudos about the souls of bits. Someone else around here (either in this discussion or in another on a similar subject) started talking about the RIAA testing for “evil bits”, and I kinda ran with the idea.

        • #3330188

          I’ll buy Kacey’s definitions.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to itemized responses

          I see your explanation of Kacey’s circular definitions as being circular themseves.

          As far as PROPERTY, you need to read a copyright law or two, there are thousands available.

          SO you are saying, if YOU write a best selling book, it isn’t YOUR property and I can buy, photocopy and sell it, then I am completely within my right to do so?
          Maybe I can change the ending even?

          Sorry but I would me a multimillionaire in about a week if that was legal.

          What do you pay for when you buy a CD? Someone’s IDEAS? Someone’s MUSIC?

          That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you could provide me with some idea of how much it actually costs to record, engineer, produce, market, tour, promote, and all the other goodies that CD’s pay for.

          If someone else invests millions and I invest $12.00 plus a stack of blank CDRs and an ink cartridge, WHY should they be entitled to reap the same rewards? How would an artist possibly sell more than ONE CD, how would MS sell more than ONE copy of XP or sever 2003?

          More importantly, WHY would they do it again and not just let someone else go to all the work so THEY could resell it at a reduced cost?

          I see selling someone’s product as the line that can’t be crossed. Download and listen to if if you want, but you can’t make a profit from someone else’s work. Otherwise, any street urchin could become a millionaire from other people’s work.

          You mentioned that you feel if people have the same idea they should be able to capitalize on it,even if spurred by someone else’s work. But what if they DON’T have the same idea, what if some loser with no HOPE of possibly creating such works can also make money from selling it? This isn’t half as justifiable now. BUt how do you enforce such a law? You can’t PROVE people didn’t have that idea. The only way out is to protect those that did FIRST copyright that idea.

          It’s no different that a ‘patent’ on an invention.

          You seem to see the view of others being just as capable, but not the worst case issues of those that will ‘steal’ work and pawn it off as their own. This is theft and it IS illegal, that’s why we actually have musicians that spend money to get work produced.

          Do you have ANY idea how many years a musician puts in for NOTHING, not a DIME, before they can actually make money SELLING their work and playing live shows? Or how much TIME is invested while other go and party, work, or play games.

          Do you have ANY idea how far in debt musicians go to produce music, even for a MAJOR label?

          If I could reproduce and market their music, I am stealing this revenue from them.

          If a store is selling chocolate bars and I take ONE, have a lab reproduce it and then I sell it under the same name in MY store, how did I NOT steal that form the original creator/manufacturer?

          Should I be able to copy XP disks and sell them? Who will/should support them?

          You must consider the worst case scenario, not just the most excusable.

        • #3330175

          Intelect as property

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to itemized responses

          Well you have broken that down into a technical form of bits and bytes versus thoughts and creation.

          Thus me buying a book and copying it for resale is not illegal. The thoughts and ideas were printed and distributed, therefore cannot be legally protected?

          You work for an advertising agency and it’s only a a week before your big presentation to the boss.

          A coworker takes that same idea because he has worked with you openly on the collaboration thus far and you have shared notes, ideas and theories, he tweaks your idea a bit and sells it to the boss a day before you and gets a promotion and a new car.

          You WON’T be here the very next day complaining that a coworker had stolen your ideas and presented them to your boss for HIS gain and you got nothing? How unethical it is, how it should be illegal, how you were backstabbed, how the “idea” was STOLEN from you?

        • #3330165

          wrong example

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Intelect as property

          Don’t conflate plagiarism with theft. He’s lying about the origin of the idea if he claims it as his alone. That’s plagiarism, a form of fraud, and not theft.

        • #3330022

          Fine line

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to wrong example

          If talking about a marketing group presenting an idea and YOU were going to present it and get such kudos, it is a very fine line.

          In fact while an extreme example, he has just as much a right to present it as you do.

          As for music, it is written and published along with lyrics. It is no different to claim that as yours once you purchase the provided media. YOu have paid for a COPY of the music on a given media. It is also expressed that in purchasing that ownership of that specific media, you will not recreate it, in a media form of your choice, OR profit from it. It’s a responsibility you assume when you purchase the disk, like agreeing to a EULA. In your case you choose NOT to purchase music because you don’t agree with this responsibility and that’s fine and dandy. It is NOT acceptable for people to be able to profit from copyrighted creations. They can share it, but don’t go selling it.

        • #3331623

          rights for ideas

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to wrong example

          He has the right to present it. Sure. He does not have the right to lie about it. Thus, the not-so-fine line between ethical use of an idea and fraud.

          In cases where the physical media is not sold, but is provided on a contractual basis with a license agreement [b]explicitly[/b] presented, I’d agree with you. Thus, my lack of ethical problem with CDs that have big red labels on them that make statements about the right of the record label to reclaim the media at any time, et cetera. It’s clearly and explicitly offered as property of the record label that can be acquired under a use license by the consumer without expectation of return excepting where such is requested.

          In cases where a CD is sold, though (and that’s most CDs: they’re in record stores with the implicit understanding of [b]sale[/b] and no explicit license agreements to contradict that), that approach is 100% wrong. You can’t be ethically held to a contract you didn’t know exist, and of which you were not explicitly informed. Yes, the words “you may borrow this, but I need it back by Sunday” do constitute an explicit, ethically enforced contract, because acceptance of an object under those terms followed by willful violation of those terms would involve a lie, and thus constitute fraud (in case you were going to go there).

        • #3330676

          It’s not the disclaimer that counts though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to wrong example

          When you buy A CD you buy A CD, not a bunch, not a tape, not an MP3 but a finished product.

          Licence says you cannot reproduce that music and profit from it. It is someone’s writing, someone’s talent for you to enjoy, not yours to profit from.

          When you BUY a CD you do just that, you buy ONE copy of a finished product. That product is designed, published and is meant for listening to and that’s all, not selling it as a tape, MP3 or anything else so other people can pay YOU to listen to what someone else provided.

          Why would people even BOTHER creating music if it wasn’t their intellectual property? Why not just wait for someone ELSE to write music and you can reproduce and sell it to reap the rewards without the costs or creativity involved.

          There’s absolutely NO logic to be found in your comment at all, except that YOU feel YOU should be able to copy whatever doesn’t have a big red label on it.

          There ARE visible licences that you agree to when you buy music, it is called a copyright and is on every CD you buy. ANYONE on the planet can tell you that a copyright means you can’t reproduce and profit from somebody else’s work. Does it NEED to be on a big red label for you to understand/accept it it?

          Do you know just how BIG a CD would be IF the copyright licence was included?

          It is one of those ‘common knowledge issues’ people understand the BASIS of copyright even if they don’t understand all the fine print.

          So if I think of a song, write it down and tweak it, find a group of musicians and spend nearly a year and a mortgage producing it, protecting my written work, packaging, marketing it, all the while paying others for their services; you feel you honestly have a right to purchase ONE copy and reproduce it and sell it for your own profit.

          That is amazing, all I can say is; no wonder you like Microsoft so much.

        • #3330656

          it should be

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to wrong example

          According to law, the disclaimer on the package is, for the most part, not what makes a difference. It darn well should be, though, and that’s what I was getting at. If there isn’t an explicit agreement in force, the consumer should not be penalized for doing what he wants to with what is his property.

          “When you buy A CD you buy A CD, not a bunch, not a tape, not an MP3 but a finished product,” you say. Sure. That’s what the law says, all right. That’s not what I’m talking about. This is irrelevant to what I’m talking about, and the law does not equate to ethicality, much as it would be nice if it did.

          “That product is designed, published and is meant for listening to and that’s all,” you say. Claw hammers are designed, sold, and meant for pounding nails and pulling them back out again, but I don’t think I did anything unethical last night when I used the claw on one to pry one piece of metal off another last night.

          “Why would people even BOTHER creating music if it wasn’t their intellectual property?” you ask. Perhaps you should ask the people who created music and performed it for others, sometimes even being paid to do so, for thousands of years before the concept of intellectual property even existed.

          “There’s absolutely NO logic to be found in your comment at all, except that YOU feel YOU should be able to copy whatever doesn’t have a big red label on it,” you say. If you really believe that, you haven’t been paying attention. I laid out quite a bit of the logic in what I said quite explicitly, and trying to ascribe invisible, ulterior motivations to my statements doesn’t in any way invalidate them. If there’s a logical flaw in what I’ve said, you aren’t prevented from pointing it out. Simply declaring it so and trying to make me out to be a bad, bad person, bent on thievery, doesn’t make for a very effective argument, though.

          “There ARE visible licences that you agree to when you buy music, it is called a copyright and is on every CD you buy,” you say. News flash: some supposed contracts are invalid. Operating under circumstances of coercion isn’t equivalent to freely entering into an agreement. Record labels are “selling” CDs and retaining almost all rights to them at the same time, according to current law. That’s ludicrous, and constitutes an agreement made in bad faith, thus invalidating it. That’s what copyright does to recordable media: it assumes an agreement that cannot be in good faith because it implies contradictory rights.

          You seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying not that copyright isn’t valid because it isn’t printed on the CD, but that only an agreement that both applies to the disposition and use of the physical property and is explicitly understood is valid. Since copyright doesn’t even apply to the disposition and use of the physical property, it’s useless, ethically speaking.

          “all I can say is; no wonder you like Microsoft so much,” you say, and I say “What the hell?”

        • #3330474

          Once again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to wrong example

          sure

      • #3330225

        My answer to a 17 year old

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I had a discussion with my 17 year old …

        .
        So you think they have enough money. Okay, but first of all, define “they”. Who exactly are “they”, and how is the money distributed? And at what point does it get to be too much? And who should decide how much is too much? And who should decide when you, yourself, reach the level of earning “too much”? And how much should that be?

        The answers would result in a great opportunity for some interesting and enlightening conversation.

        • #3330222

          Nope it will will result in

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to My answer to a 17 year old

          I’m off out, and some very impolite mutters.

        • #3330150

          Believe it or not …

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to My answer to a 17 year old

          … that’s exactly what I tried and what I got was some mumbling, a few exasperated sighs, and finally the statement “I’m not going to talk about this anymore”.

          Pursuing the matter would only lead to additional frustration, and we’ve got enough of that as it is.

        • #3330096

          But you DID provide

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Believe it or not …

          .
          …some food for thought.

          He or she might have said, “I’m not going to talk about this anymore”, but only because he or she probably didn’t quite know what to think of it, and perhaps because he or she might think about it some more. And I wouldn’t have pursued it either. I’m not the sort of parent who insists on bringing such things to a conclusion, especially one where it’s in agreement with mine. The end of a discussion is a constantly dynamic thing; some require conclusions, some don’t. The skill of thinking about such things within the context of the bigger picture and drawing one’s own conclusions is about as much as we can hope for — in fact, it’s the exact thing we should hope for.

          Later…

        • #3329981

          I thought you might appreciate this.

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to But you DID provide

          Last night my 17 year old came to me and started asking some very pointed questions about copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

          I guess I did get the wheels turning, because he and his friends are diving in full bore. They want to start a band but they (their words, not mine) “don’t wanna end up on the couch with ‘The Man’ bangin’ us backwards tellin’ us how awesome everthing is” (I’ve got to admit, they have *very* graphic imaginations). To which I replied “Thanks for the image. Try this website …”.

        • #3329755

          Unfortunately they are right

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I thought you might appreciate this.

          ‘The Man’ in their case the record company WILL own them. In the US you sell out or move out,two choices, yours to make.

          MTV will jump on ANY indies bandit can, convince them to let MTV cut a video and release it globally.

          Believe me, ANYONE who has EVER accepted such an open ended offer from MTV Video regrets it, EVERY one of them. THat is the first mistake many make,they jump at opportunity. If peoplecome after you, you don’t need the people, that’s the whole point really. They convince you that you need them,when you don’t, beceause they want a piece of a potential pie.

          They will flood Kerrang with your video and that it. Done deal, no help.

          Rlease indie music under a studio that has copyright to all it’s prduction, then your lyrics and music is protected by THEIR copyright (big money and time saver). It’s not THAT expensive and if they get serious about what they are doing, it is a worthwhlie investment.

          This waythe studio doesn’t have any legal ownership of YOUR property, but as they produced it, THEIR work is protected, thus yours is too.

          Sell your OWN CD’s,not just in the US, you will get indie space in the stores, but online through Amazon, send copies out to college radio stations and European, Japanese distributors, who will ALL carry your music at a low cost.

          The web has removed the need for record companies.

          Wish them luck and tell them to keep their heads up, the country is FULL of liars who will lead them stray, it’s not just a bad industry myth.

          Send me a few demos if you like, I can shop deals for them overseas if it is put together properly.

          Why would I be any different than other ‘urchins’?
          I am not interested in teh North American record industry. It doesn’t pay, and it certainly isn’t fair.

        • #3329678

          Thanks

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to Unfortunately they are right

          I’ll keep you in mind and let them know.

        • #3329455

          Beware Teenagers of Any

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to My answer to a 17 year old

          Logic versus emotion.

          Oops, I’m not sure how this got posted three times with one click of “submit” and I don’t see how to just eliminate this so I’ll shorten it.

        • #3329452

          Beware Teenagers of Any Age!

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to My answer to a 17 year old

          Logic versus emotion. “They make too much money already” is a red herring and to speak to it predictably produces silence. How can there be meaningful discussion when we all know he has not actually spent ten seconds thinking about where the money goes and whether the artist has any rights to his productions?

          Since my teenager is primarily emotional (ISFP type, near as I can tell), logic means nothing.

          SF’s generally don’t use words to mean things; they use words to express feelings. Feelings don’t come in many flavors, in this context just “I want.”

          So the trick is to create a counter feeling “You’d better not or else” and make the “or else” something relevant to the “I want.”

          The ideal Pavolvian conditioning is the internet itself. Minor infractions produce the result that his hub connection is unplugged for a day. Serious infractions get the cable cut for a week or more. yes, cut, snip-snip; RJ-45 tossed from me to him with a few words about what it’ll take to get a new one crimped on.

          When my daughter was very young, she excused her trespasses by asserting, “But I want it!” as if merely wanting something justifies all trespasses. Battling this is VERY difficult and I think always requires a bit of “tit for tat” game; big sister gets to take something from little sister because she ‘wants’ it. After a while, children learn that whatever excuse is used, works for others. If it is okay to copy your songs and not pay you; then it is okay for you to take something of mine and not pay me — ie, I work for free and so do you. Not!

          However, having said all that, some exceptions do exist and I do not believe that the RIAA is “right” all or even most of the time. An exception is broadcasted performances, TV and radio and maybe some other types of broadcast channel (cable for instance). What no exception allows is for me to make those broadcast copies and then distribute them to my friends. They have to make their own from the same broadcast channel.

      • #3329461

        Not Teenagers! Say it’s not so!

        by mgordon ·

        In reply to I had a discussion with my 17 year old …

        I’m kidding, of course. The idea of “honor” is extremely rare among teenagers; to the extent they obey a law depends upon their fear of being caught, the consequences they may face and perhaps just a drop of honor that is overwhelmed by the possibility of shoving 20 gigabytes of crap (em, “music”) into a portable disk.

        The risk of getting caught is increasing, but what risk is there to the teenager? Not much. It’s the parents that get zapped. Since they cannot very well police the teenager (*I* can, but I’m a network engineer), parents that allow their teenagers on the internet AT ALL expose themselves to extreme risk while the RIAA is in their shotgun mode.

        I have a player, but I hardly ever use it for music — it makes a DANDY traveling software storage device. When I go on the road to install client software, I load up the 20 gb player and it is a LOT faster than loading software from CD. It is also a handy photo library.

    • #3330420

      file sharing

      by jrice ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      Personally I think file sharing on the Internet blows. I don’t care what you do, or what you share its still stupid. If you have legimate files for people open a proper FTP server. Technologies like BitTorrent serve a purpose, and I doubt that purpose was for average Joe to open his hard drive to the world. When I see P2P software on any network that I manage I see red. In my mind its an abuse of company resources, and it wastes my time dealing with these children that just need to get that new MP3 at work. As for being held responsible for p2p software I certainly hope it never comes to that for the IT guys that manage those networks.

      • #3329980

        Then …

        by kaceyr ·

        In reply to file sharing

        … get management buy-in and set some firewall rules to stop the P2P software.

        There’s nothing that requires a company to allow it’s resources to be exposed.

        But if management *wants* to be able to use P2P, or has a reason (or even a desire) to keep it available, then you (you’re listed as a LAN Admin) don’t get to make the choice and shouldn’t worry about it.

        Of course, most managers don’t understand anything about how firewalls really work, and throttling *is* a usefull tool ……..

    • #3328798

      Australia and Kazaa

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      In 2003, California courts said they would try Sharman networks (Australian Based Kazaa HO ) in a California court. This was SAID to be legal because so many people in California had downloaded teh P2P software. It was also said to be the end of Sharman networks, comparing it to Napsters quick demise.

      One year later, Kazaa HO in Australia is raided and computers are seized. Judge rules information inadmissible in court.
      A few months later, in an appeal, judge rules for the inclusion of this evidence.

      More than a year later, Feb 2005, the Australian Courts then find this evidence INADMISSIBLE again and the case is once again set aside. As it is an invasion of privacy laws, and can’t be used to enforce copyright laws.

      ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.

      Where it stops everyone knows, the NEXT available sharing/copying media. Blank cassette tapes, double cassette decks, HiFi VHS, blank CDROMS, MP3’s, the list goes back as far as the first recordable media and yet they STILL keep whining. NEXT!

      • #3341914

        Next, they’ll want to make it illegal for you to remember …

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Australia and Kazaa

        anything that you’ve seen, read, or heard.

        That would make for the ultimate pay-per-(fill in the blank).

      • #3331835

        Question

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Australia and Kazaa

        How can a company in Australia that operates in Australia be subject to California law? That is similar to Germany banning American companies based in the USA from selling Nazi memorabilia on line from American based web servers. I don’t see how Germany (or California) can get away with telling a company in another jurisdiction what to do simply because people from their jurisdiction access a foreign web server. A web server in Australia should be subject to Australian law, not California (or any other jurisdiction’s) law. If California had problems with Sharman, they should go to the Australian courts and sue there under Australian law, not under their own law. Gov. Terminator has no power outside of California, and Sharman should tell California “Hasta la vista, baby!” unless Sharman is sued in Australian courts. Good for Australia for ruling the evidence inadmissable.

        • #3350368

          That’s the whole argument Tom

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Question

          There was a HUGE fuss about it being tried under California law, get this , IN a California COURTROOM!

          They said that seeing x million people had downloaded and used the Kazaa desktop in California that it constitutes widespread marketing to users in California and therefore was subject to Cliafornia laws. These people will grasp at the thinnest and most brittle little starws they can sometimes.

          That’s why I always laugh when people say that certain accusations would never be applied in a courtroom due to logical or ethical circustances, often referring to civil or constitutional rights in the process. 😀 ANYTHING is applied in a courtroom, regardless of civil or constitutional rights, silver tongued men and women with an itch for money will TRY anything.

    • #3341910

      Irony?

      by techierob ·

      In reply to Why the war on file sharing is far from over

      I know I have joined this discussion a bit late – so I have no idea if it has already been mentioned…

      I am just wondering that with all this nice discussion on P2P software and how it is generally deemed ‘illegal’ due to it’s copyright-infringing nature; if anyone has noticed that Techrepublic itself actually advertises P2P websites at the bottom of it’s newsletters?

      Does anyone else find this painfully ironic?

      • #3331921

        hmm

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Irony?

        That’s kind of interesting. Of course, it must be something particular to the HTML versions of the email newsletters. I don’t think I’ve gotten any of those, but I get plain text email newsletters from TR.

Viewing 32 reply threads