We are all going to jail, all of us!

[Guest Downhome]

Here, just read it and be angered...

 

Ashcroft Asked to Target Online Song Swappers

 

Fri Aug 9, 8:27 PM ET

By Andy Sullivan

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers have asked Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) to go after Internet users who download unauthorized songs and other copyrighted material, raising the possibility of jail time for digital-music fans.

 

In a July 25 letter released late Thursday, some 19 lawmakers from both sides of the aisle asked Ashcroft to prosecute "peer-to-peer" networks like Kazaa and Morpheus and the users who swap digital songs, video clips and other files without permission from artists or their record labels.

 

The Justice Department should also devote more resources to policing online copyrights, the lawmakers said in their letter.

 

"Such an effort is increasingly important as online theft of our nation's creative works is a growing threat to our culture and economy," the letter said.

 

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

 

The recording industry says peer-to-peer services cut into CD sales, and has been battling them in court since 1999, when the five major labels sued pioneer service Napster Inc.

 

A U.S. federal judge ordered Napster to shut down its service in July 2001, but upstarts like Kazaa and Morpheus soon took its place. Kazaa, which in addition to music allows users to swap movies and other media files, said this week that its free software had been downloaded 100 million times.

 

Music labels have not ruled out suing individual users, and have pushed for the right to flood peer-to-peer networks with bogus files, or disrupt them by other means.

 

While a debate has raged on Capitol Hill over the proper balance between copyright and technological innovation, U.S. law-enforcement authorities have taken a minimal role.

 

The Justice Department filed a supporting motion siding with the record labels in the Napster case, but has brought no cases of its own.

 

The move was welcomed by the Recording Industry Association of America ( news - web sites), which represents the five major labels --Bertelsmann AG ( news - web sites), Vivendi Universal, Sony Corp., AOL Time Warner Inc . and EMI Group Plc.

 

"There is no doubt, mass copying off the Internet is illegal and deserves to be a high priority for the Department of Justice," said RIAA Chairman Hilary Rosen in a statement.

 

An analyst for a digital civil-liberties group said the Justice Department probably had better things to do with its time.

 

The letter "implies that Justice should be going after relatively innocent behaviors that I suspect most Americans don't think warrant the time," said Alan Davidson, an associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

 

On the other hand, "we would much rather see current authorities be used before Congress goes and creates brand new laws," Davidson said.

 

A staffer for Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, who signed the letter, said that lawmakers did not want FBI agents to arrest casual users but instead go after operators of network "nodes" that handle much of the traffic.

 

Among those signing the letter were: Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden; Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner; Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott; Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers; North Carolina Republican Rep. Howard Coble; and California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

 

...ok, maybe not ALL of us, but the good majority of the internet. I can understand the concept of being so against it, as I myself am into the entire "creation of audio/vido", but this is just going a bit too far. How about we clean the internet of illegal child/etc... porn first, you know, something that truly effects people other than the rich and famous of the entertainment industry?

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

You know, you'd think that Lawmakers would be more upset by the fact that little kids can get porn quite easily over the P2P networks. I thought that would be the most obvious reason to attack P2P networks.

 

Now, I do not agree that the music labels should be able to DOSA (denial of service attack) the networks and get away with it without penalty. The networks are used for legit reasons (although Id say only about 5% of total usage, but its still used for legit purposes) I found it funny when someone DOSA the RIAA website the other weekend, but they didn't find that too funny, now did they.

 

I also cannot wait for private P2P networks to start popping up. Set up a network with your friends or the people you work with, go to school with, etc...and only them. I'd make it very hard to get access to the network (like only give out the software in person and make people sign letters saying they won't give it out to anyone else) This way, it would be very hard for anyone else (including police, government, record and movie companies, deadbeat file traders..etc) to access your private network. The only downside is the fact that there won't be as many files available.

[Guest chirs3]

Wasn't there some study that showed CD sales nationwide have increased since Napster and Co. popped up? I swear I heard that somewhere...

[Guest Ravenbomb]

Yeah, and? Recording off cable is illegal. It's illegal for a babysitter to bring a tape and let the kid he/she's babysitting watch it if he/she's getting paid. BITE ME, LEGAL GUYS!

[Guest MrRant]

That's true. Its also illegal to pay residential rates for cable TV if you have a home business and say have clients come into your home office. You pay commercial How do I know? I work for the cable company. MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Did you know its illegal to not watch commercials? The TV networks say not watching the commercials constitutes stealing the show. They will eventually stop VCRs and the digital recorders from being able to skip commercials, even with the fast forward on a VCR..

 

Now that is a load of BS.

[Guest MrRant]

Eh... buy shit now before its illegal.

[Guest DrTom]

CD sales did increase during the heydey of Napster, and in the era of the original Morpheus. They've fallen in the past year, though that could certainly be attributable to both a tepid economy and the tendency of the record companies to produce plastic one-hit wonders instead of developing bands for long careers.

 

P2P will always exist. I haven't bought a CD in three years, and I've no plans to take up the habit again. When the record industry and others like them realize they need to pull theirs heads out of their asses and come up with a business model for the digital age, then I'll start patronizing tham again. But as long as they believe in using legislation (purchased thru bribing lawmakers) to try and stifle technology, they can fuck off and go to hell.

 

Besides, they get a cut of blank CD sales, too.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Congress should throw this back in the face of the RIAA and tell them to stop price gouging all their CDs. Really though, could a reduction in CD sales have anything to do with the fact that people are starting to realize how shitty their top 40 produced hit matchine is?

 

Maybe people don't want to pay $20 for a CD where at the most there is 3 songs worth listening to.

 

I haven't bought a CD in about 6 months from any of those record companies, not because of Napster/Morpheus/KaZZa, it is because music on the radio is pretty crappy and bland for the most part.

[Guest danielisthor]

Congress should throw this back in the face of the RIAA and tell them to stop price gouging all their CDs. Really though, could a reduction in CD sales have anything to do with the fact that people are starting to realize how shitty their top 40 produced hit matchine is?

 

Maybe people don't want to pay $20 for a CD where at the most there is 3 songs worth listening to.

 

I haven't bought a CD in about 6 months from any of those record companies, not because of Napster/Morpheus/KaZZa, it is because music on the radio is pretty crappy and bland for the most part.

this is pretty much what i was going to say. You're lucky to get 3 songs of a cd that is worth listening too.

 

Pretty much the only cd's i buy anymore are Greatest Hits from artists that i already don't own most of their albums.

 

 

Whats the difference of downloading the songs i want or getting a friend who did buy the disc to just burn it for me. Its practically the same thing. Somebody had to buy the disc, once bought he should have every right to share what he's bought.

[Guest CED Ordonez]

Like NorCalMike said, a major reason CD buying is on the decline is because we just don't like what's being put out at the moment. Personally, I really couldn't give eighteen dollars of a damn for most of the current artists out there right now. But as working for any big business will teach you, pointing figures away from you is a way of life, thus we get blamed for going on the Internet and using a P2P.

 

I'd like to sign off by quoting from the article:

 

"There is no doubt, mass copying off the Internet is illegal and deserves to be a high priority for the Department of Justice," said RIAA Chairman Hilary Rosen in a statement.

 

Well said. When I get filthy rich, I'll line your pockets to say otherwise.[/sarcasm]

[Guest chirs3]

Agreed - there's not much to buy at this point. And P2P programs have influenced be to buy (and not buy) certain albums.

 

I bought Warning because I downloaded all the songs on Napster and loved it.

 

I did not buy Kid A because I downloaded all the songs on Kazaa and didn't like it too much.

 

Besides, the only songs I have are songs I already have on CD, songs I can't find anywhere, or singles by bands I don't particularly like (except the one song). I shouldn't have to shell out 30 bucks for three decent Blink182 songs.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

http://www.peercast.org/

 

I wonder how long before someone wants to ban that because no one is getting paid when someone plays a song over it.

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

Whats the difference of downloading the songs i want or getting a friend who did buy the disc to just burn it for me. Its practically the same thing.

 

There is no difference. Burning another CD directly off of a CD is illegal too.

 

Technically, even creating MP3's is illegal. Know how on every CD, it has that little message that says "Unauthorized Copying of this recording is illegal" or something to that effect? Yeah.

 

However, I do think that there was some agreement reached somewhere that states that if you buy something, you can have copies of it for YOUR own use.

 

So like, if you don't have a CD player in your car, then you can record your CD's on tape so you can still hear them while driving. I think, but I'm not sure.

 

Anyway, I think that really, while it's probably not very feasible, bands should be able to decide whether or not they want their music traded online.

 

So, if Metallica doesn't want their stuff traded, fine. But if lesser-known bands want their shit passed around, go nuts. Really, I think it can only help bands like that; you sure as hell aren't going to hear new death metal bands on the radio - But if that's your thing, fire up your PC, and see what's new on the scene. If it sounds good, do the band a favour and pay them their money.

 

Remember, this IS how the artists get paid, after all...

[Guest EricMM]

I make MP3's of almost all of my CD's on my computer. It takes up space but I do it because it's easier than switching CD's all the time, and the space isn't that extreme.

 

I do also download MP3's but if I ever download and like a decent portion of a CD, I'll probably buy it, no joke.

 

If that makes me a bad guy, screw them.

 

I haven't boughten any new albums recently because no bands I like have put out new CD's. I'm no longer gonna be the person who buys sporatic CD's because I like a single, that made me get crappy CD's.

 

In the end I think all the proud talk from the RIAA about freedom in the like is what is most upsetting to me. They're using buzz words and not owning up to the less than admirable fact that they like making rediculous amounts of profit off of every CD and they don't care if we the consumers get a stellar product or not. Not only that but they don't want us to have any more fair use at all. I hate the RIAA and I think I have good reason, because a time in our history will soon be gone because they have congress and we don't.

[Guest DrTom]

Technically, even creating MP3's is illegal.

 

Actually, creating them is perfectly legal. Distributing them or making them available for distribution once you've created them is what is illegal.

 

I do think that there was some agreement reached somewhere that states that if you buy something, you can have copies of it for YOUR own use

Indeed there is. It's called the Fair Use doctrine, and it's been on the law books for years. Of course, the entertainment industry (read: the RIAA and MPAA) is trying to get fair use stricken from the books. They've managed to get the word out there that customer = criminal when it comes to entertainment content, and they've gotten Congress to go along with it.

 

bands should be able to decide whether or not they want their music traded online.

What they should do is tell the RIAA to fuck off and just distribute the music themselves. I have no problem paying bands for their music. If groups would set up web sites where their album could be downloaded in its entirety for $5, I'd be glad to do it. The artists would be getting the money, and it would be about 100 times as much as they got under a standard RIAA agreement. I don't buy CD's because I refuse to give one red cent to the RIAA, who might just be the biggest bunch of corporate criminals to come down the pike in some time.

 

Remember, this IS how the artists get paid, after all...

Not really. The average artist makes *very* little off of CD sales. Especially consider the RIAA's changing philosophy, where they're more interested in putting out flavor-of-the-week groups to capitalize on trends rather than developing musically-competent artists for a career. Even bands that sign those big contracts don't get all that money. It's an advance against sales, and if they don't meet certain sales figures, the cut they get is reduced. If the album tanks, they probably OWE money. The RIAA doesn't even let the artists own their own master tapes, after forcing them to pay for studio time, rehearsals, and equipment. They're a bunch of fucking thieves, and I hope they're driven out of business by consumers who are just fed up with all their posturing, bribery, and bullshit.

[Guest bob_barron]

I haven't bought a CD in eighteen months and it's all cause I can get everything I want for free. If they didn't charge so damn much maybe I'd like buy a CD

 

Coming Christmas I will prob buy the new U2 CD.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Only labels I seem to buy CDs off of anymore are Century Media, Metal Blade, Nuclear Blast, Sanctuary, and maybe the occasional American Records or Evilive release (just for SOAD, Slayer, and Danzig). Hey, look at that: labels that pretty much thrive off of the allowance of P2P servers.

 

I don't download music. If I hear good things about a band, and hear them compared to a band I already like, or if a friend has a CD of theirs or has some of their songs on his computer and I like them...I'll buy the album.

 

Hmm, look at that, fan wants to hear good music, mostly from indy and foreign labels, and the major labels seem to keep producing shitty, shitty, shitty music...

 

I think I need to hear some Sex Pistols...

 

 

Now Playing: The Sex Pistols - "EMI"

[Guest Shaved Bear]

get rid of teen and pre-teen porn first then get to this

[Guest Human Fly]

raising the possibility of jail time for digital-music fans.

 

I'd like to see them try this. Where did all the jail space for millions of people just spring up from? It's reasons like this why no one cares about the record company, and their constant bitching

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<<<I do also download MP3's but if I ever download and like a decent portion of a CD, I'll probably buy it, no joke.>>>

 

Me too. In fact, I've bought many more CDs after I started downloading MP3s than I did before I started downloading them. Ironically enough, it was downloading MP3s that got me hooked on Metallica, and I've gone on to buy almost all of their CDs. So they got about $100 off me that they wouldn't have gotten had Napster not been available.

 

MP3s are just a medium, and it's a medium that the music industry can either use to their benefit or whine about in the impossible hope of making it disappear. They've chosen to whine about it, and to blame their poor sales on it, when their poor sales can quite obviously be attributed to the shitty quality of mainstream music over the past couple years. If they were the least bit innovative, they could be cashing in on the digital music market, but instead they're going to keep churning out derivative shit while whining at congress to fix their problems. Pathetic. And even more pathetic that congress actually listens to their bullshit.

[Guest Downhome]

Remember, this IS how the artists get paid, after all...

Not really. The average artist makes *very* little off of CD sales. Especially consider the RIAA's changing philosophy, where they're more interested in putting out flavor-of-the-week groups to capitalize on trends rather than developing musically-competent artists for a career. Even bands that sign those big contracts don't get all that money. It's an advance against sales, and if they don't meet certain sales figures, the cut they get is reduced. If the album tanks, they probably OWE money. The RIAA doesn't even let the artists own their own master tapes, after forcing them to pay for studio time, rehearsals, and equipment. They're a bunch of fucking thieves, and I hope they're driven out of business by consumers who are just fed up with all their posturing, bribery, and bullshit.

Damn, you just said almost the exact same thing that I was going to reply with. The general public is not really "in the know" as to how artists get paid. Many years ago, when I REALLY dived into the industry, I was quite shocked that some of these people we know of and hear sometimes end up having to own money, instead of making it.

 

The real money, when it comes to the music industry, is in touring, producing (and the such), and writing. Ever wonder why so many artists and bands write their own material? Let's put it this way, it isn't always just because they wish to "just do it". That is where they sometimes get the bulk of their income from.

 

CD sales are basicly income for the label's artists are signed with, not really the artists themselves.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The best solution is to stop buying CDs from Corporate radio artists PERIOD. Just turn off the FM radio. I haven't listened to FM radio period in about a year and a half, until I started working at my current job where radios were allowed. I literally didn't know any band or rap artist that had come out in the last 2 years. I still recognized the older stuff, but it was weird hearing the radio. Once you can get FM radio out of your system and look for other outlets for getting music, it will be weird hearing the TOTAL BLANDNESS of music on FM radio.

[Guest DrTom]

The general public is not really "in the know" as to how artists get paid.

And that's a problem. The RIAA and their purchased pets in Congress can make farcical claims like "Piracy cost artists $1 billion last year," and it's a complete crock of shit. Unfortunately, most of the public doesn't understand that. They see people living the "rock star life," and assume all musicians are millionaires. The reality is, very few of them are, and those who are get revenues from the sources you mentioned: writing, producing, touring, and merchandise sales.

 

I've ranted against the RIAA several times on my own website, so I did a fair amount of research into how they operate, as well as how the standard contracts for recording artists work, and how much the RIAA benefits from those deals.

 

As Aerosmith sang, "If Japanese can boil teas, then where the fuck's my royalties?"

[Guest Downhome]

The general public is not really "in the know" as to how artists get paid.

And that's a problem. The RIAA and their purchased pets in Congress can make farcical claims like "Piracy cost artists $1 billion last year," and it's a complete crock of shit. Unfortunately, most of the public doesn't understand that. They see people living the "rock star life," and assume all musicians are millionaires. The reality is, very few of them are, and those who are get revenues from the sources you mentioned: writing, producing, touring, and merchandise sales.

 

I've ranted against the RIAA several times on my own website, so I did a fair amount of research into how they operate, as well as how the standard contracts for recording artists work, and how much the RIAA benefits from those deals.

 

As Aerosmith sang, "If Japanese can boil teas, then where the fuck's my royalties?"

*sigh*, exactly. Hell, I used to think that almost all in the music industry, and all we hear on the radio are well off, but it is very much not true. I love the music industry, it means a lot to me and is a huge part of me, but it is very corrupt in many ways. I love it for the music, and many others, just love it as a sorce of a quick buck, and that is one of the problems right there.

 

The music isn't the focal point any longer, it's just to get your pockets that much deeper. Everyone isn't like this, there are still many valid people out there in it for the music, but there are way too many out there now just in the business of fucking others over.

[Guest J*ingus]

"Such an effort is increasingly important as online theft of our nation's creative works is a growing threat to our culture and economy," the letter said.

 

"There is no doubt, mass copying off the Internet is illegal and deserves to be a high priority for the Department of Justice," said RIAA Chairman Hilary Rosen in a statement.

How about we stop the daily murder, rape, assault, robbery, child molestation, drug abuse, and companies overestimating by over $7,000,000,000 before we make stopping the copying of music as "a high priority"?

[Guest EricMM]

QUOTE (Downhome @ Aug 10 2002, 11:57 PM)

"Such an effort is increasingly important as online theft of our nation's creative works is a growing threat to our culture and economy," the letter said.

 

"There is no doubt, mass copying off the Internet is illegal and deserves to be a high priority for the Department of Justice," said RIAA Chairman Hilary Rosen in a statement.

 

 

How about we stop the daily murder, rape, assault, robbery, child molestation, drug abuse, and companies overestimating by over $7,000,000,000 before we make stopping the copying of music as "a high priority"?

 

We'd need to get a congressional lobby... Alright who here is secretly the head of some kind of big business?

[Guest Ravenbomb]

ME! Well, no, not really. I tried, but nobody wanted what I was selling, so we went out of buisness.

 

Now I really hate the RIAA.

[Guest Retro Rob]

I bought one CD this year, Red Hot Chili Peppers By The Way ($12), only because they are my favorite band. I refuse to spend money on music because most of it sucks and I can get the few good songs for free or listen to them on the radio.

[Guest §uperÛnknown]

The recording industry says peer-to-peer services cut into CD sales...

Heh... Ever since Napster, then to Morpheus and now to WinMX. I've gotten into more music than I thought I would prior to using P2P File Sharing software. I'm actually planning on buying the CDs of a majority of the bands that I've downloaded material of once I get the money. It seriously saves me the trouble of making the mistake of buying something like "Break the Cycle" or "Silver Side Up" based on one decent and / or catchy song I heard ("Outside" and "How You Remind Me" respectively) from the artist I listened to.