A New York 12 year old sued for file swapping

[Guest Retro Rob]

Yeah, I don't get that either. Maybe she would download like every song off a given CD or something.

[sfaJack 0]

Mike, all you keep doing is adding the same remarks. "You're stealing. Stealing is bad." or "You wouldn't like it if somebody stole it from you." In my view, downloading is NOT stealing. It's piracy - and obviously piracy isn't good - but it's not stealing.

 

If I am a thief, I go up to you and take your CD. Now I have your CD and you do not. If I'm a "pirate", I make a copy of your CD. I now have the CD and so do you. So let's stop pretending that this is stealing. It obviously isn't. It doesn't rank up with Grand Theft Auto, or breaking into a jewelry store.

 

Downloading music is more like sneaking into a movie for free.The theater isn't actually "losing" money in the sense that nothing has been stolen from them, but I think everyone would agree that sneaking into a theater without paying is certainly wrong. However, it's not the kind of offense that you should be SUED for. You shouldn't have to pay $200,000 for every movie that you've ever snuck into, or had a friend let you see for free. Same thing here. You shouldn't have to pay $150,000 for every song you've ever downloaded, or had a friend let you borrow. The whole idea is absurd, and the RIAA is going to pay for it in the long run.

 

Is piracy right ? No. But it's not the only thing hurting the music industry right now. Not nearly as many people download music as one might think, yet CD sales continue to plummet. Lower the prices, perhaps add a few extras on the CDs (booklets on the band, interesting stories, etc), and business should start to improve. But taking $2000 from a 12 year old girl does nothing in the end except hurt their image. The last time I bought a CD was the Eminem Show sometime earlier in this year, and now I would NEVER give the RIAA another dime. Let them fix the problem instead of making it worse, and then we're talking.

I think you're splitting hairs, man.

 

Downloading IS stealing because you're getting something for free that you would ordinarily have to pay for. The terms "piracy" or "theft" or whatever else you want to call it are pretty much interchangeable.

 

I mean, think about it: let's say you "pirate" a copy of Windows XP from a friend of yours and install it on your PC. Are you telling me that that's not stealing??

 

That said, fuck the RIAA. I've gotten over 2500 mp3's, and have no plans to stop anytime soon.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, all you keep doing is adding the same remarks. "You're stealing. Stealing is bad." or "You wouldn't like it if somebody stole it from you." In my view, downloading is NOT stealing. It's piracy - and obviously piracy isn't good - but it's not stealing.

 

If I am a thief, I go up to you and take your CD. Now I have your CD and you do not. If I'm a "pirate", I make a copy of your CD. I now have the CD and so do you. So let's stop pretending that this is stealing. It obviously isn't. It doesn't rank up with Grand Theft Auto, or breaking into a jewelry store.

 

Downloading music is more like sneaking into a movie for free.The theater isn't actually "losing" money in the sense that nothing has been stolen from them, but I think everyone would agree that sneaking into a theater without paying is certainly wrong. However, it's not the kind of offense that you should be SUED for. You shouldn't have to pay $200,000 for every movie that you've ever snuck into, or had a friend let you see for free. Same thing here. You shouldn't have to pay $150,000 for every song you've ever downloaded, or had a friend let you borrow. The whole idea is absurd, and the RIAA is going to pay for it in the long run.

 

Is piracy right ? No. But it's not the only thing hurting the music industry right now. Not nearly as many people download music as one might think, yet CD sales continue to plummet. Lower the prices, perhaps add a few extras on the CDs (booklets on the band, interesting stories, etc), and business should start to improve. But taking $2000 from a 12 year old girl does nothing in the end except hurt their image. The last time I bought a CD was the Eminem Show sometime earlier in this year, and now I would NEVER give the RIAA another dime. Let them fix the problem instead of making it worse, and then we're talking.

No, it flat out IS stealing. Everybody here is attempting to justify an act that is not justifiable. "Oh, RIAA is mean" --- no, RIAA is watching out for itself and the artists who, should this get REALLY out-of-hand, will lose ANY incentive to actually record music, since the money won't be good enough to make it worth their while.

 

If you get my CD without spending a dime for it --- no matter how you acquire it --- it is, in fact, theft. Even if I GIVE you a copy I made, I still did something I have NO right, whatsoever, to do. Is it as bad as grand theft? No --- but it isn't exactly an innocuous, victimless crime.

 

"Oh, RIAA is greedy". Guess what --- they're in it TO MAKE MONEY. That is why they exist. This is NO different than shop-lifting. Sneaking into a movie is stealing intellectual property as you get the usage of the material without any license (which the movie ticket provides) in so doing. You can attempt to justify it however you wish --- it is theft and I hope to see more people suffer for doing so.

 

"Oh, but you shouldn't be sued for it" --- then what the heck SHOULD they do about it, pray tell? They asked for it to stop, it didn't. They attacked big sites, it didn't stop. They have to protect themselves and, sadly, this is the last option left to them.

 

What you're experiencing is what is a sad fact of life --- if you don't have have the license to use the product, you have to pay whatever the person who holds the copyright wants. This is similar to people who steal cable.

 

Why should RIAA improve things when people steal things?

-=Mike

[lomasmoney 0]

My question is how can the RIAA determine how many files one has downloaded and which mp3's are from CD's that a user actually bought. I would say that about 70% of my MP3 collection are songs off cd's i bought or had stolen from my car and couldnt afford to replace

[NoCalMike 0]

Question: If the the person who originally puts the song on kazaa or any other file-sharing program did indeed rip the song from a cd they BOUGHT. How is the process of someone else downloading it illegal? Once you buy a piece of music I thought you could do anything you damn well want with it, BESIDES re-sell it for profit. I mean wouldn't this fall under the same category of someone buying a wrestling ppv and then inviting 10 people over and letting them watch the ppv, tape it onto a blank tape, and let others watch it if they like? Yes it may hurt sales, but is that illegal?

[NoCalMike 0]

I expect the RIAA to keep going after helpless people that can't afford any type of adequate defense for themselves, until one day they mess with the wrong person who CAN AFFORD a great attorney, the attorney will find some type of loophole, goodbye lawsuits one and all, and everyone can give a big collective fuck you to the RIAA. It is only a matter of time.....

[JHawk 0]

Does anybody else see the head of the RIAA and Vince McMahon going to the same barber or something?

 

 

RIAA: "I don't get it, Vince. I tell the fans 'This is the image you have to like because we're going to force-feed it to you', and they refuse to listen to it. They'd rather watch American Idol and vote for some fat black guy who can actually sing!"

 

Vince: "Dammit, the fans don't know what they want! Give them another boy band with guys women find adorable and men think are gay!"

 

RIAA: "Good idea, Vince! Ever since Timberlake went solo, we've only had 20 of those!"

[Guest JMA]

I expect the RIAA to keep going after helpless people that can't afford any type of adequate defense for themselves, until one day they mess with the wrong person who CAN AFFORD a great attorney, the attorney will find some type of loophole, goodbye lawsuits one and all, and everyone can give a big collective fuck you to the RIAA. It is only a matter of time.....

That would be sweet. The RIAA certainly have it coming. And your above analogy is a good one.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I dont know how legit it is, but:

 

I am going to auction off a system for that 12 year old girl who just paid the RIAA $2,000.00. We can easily do this, 400 tickets at $5 each. I'll donate the computer and we'll see if we can't do something GOOD for the 12yr old honor student, Briana LaHara. If the RIAA decides not to go through with collecting the money from the family, then all the better...maybe the family can save the money we raise for something productive, like college. ..

 

Raffle Closed:  -Steve

Raffle is closed. In what must be world record time we have gathered up the full amount to take care of young Briana LaHara's RIAA fine. We have allowed a buffer so the last few stragglers can enter, but 10pm Central Time is the cut off. We will be contacting the family in the morning with our check, and have a winner for the computer drawn at the same time as well.  We will have details and an announcement posted here by noon 9-11-03.

 

http://www.hypothermia.us/

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

RIAA is watching out for itself and the artists who, should this get REALLY out-of-hand, will lose ANY incentive to actually record music, since the money won't be good enough to make it worth their while.

 

How would they lose incentive? The internet has done wonders for genres that don't get any airplay. It's free exposure to a variety of people over the world, and that's worth a whole hell of a lot more to an upstart band than the shitty contract negotiated in the label's favor. This lets bands skip the business end of shit, and write music BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO WRITE MUSIC. If a band's incentive in being a band is only to make money, chances are, they aren't worth listening to. Also, notice that pretty much the only bands bitching about this are the hotshot rich bastards like Metallica.

 

Essentially, without P2P, there's a LOT of music that would suddenly lose every bit of exposure they have. That's worse than stealing. It's outright genocide of artistic expression.

[Anakin Flair 0]

wait, this lady PAID for Kazza?

 

 

Bwahahahaha!

[AboveAverage484 0]

Heh, TheMikeSC is just mad that he doesn't have a CD burner and can't join in the fun.

[NoCalMike 0]

File-sharing has done way more good then it has done bad. This is another attempt from the RIAA to control what we listen too. The money issue is a smoke screen. If you are bringing in 12.6 billion a year, there is no fucking money issue.

 

Without file-sharing, people would be expected to just "press their luck" when trying to explore artists not featured on MTV or FM radio. File-sharing has allowed a wide variety(just about every single artist that has recorded a song) to get airplay SOMEWHERE.

 

File-sharing is not hurting the artist because the contracts they sign don't give them any profit off the cds they sell. They make all their money from touring and promoting and appearances. The Artists KNOW THIS....so I lose respect every time someone joins the "stop file-sharing" bandwagon.

[Guest deadbeater]

The RIAA will one day get fucked if they go after someone who, I don't know, happen to own all the copyrights to the works he is allowing to be downloaded.

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

It's outright genocide of artistic expression.

 

Satan smiles on you once again good sir.

 

Personally, I'm preparing demos for two different music projects. Yes offering these on the net for free is foolish in one sense, but it also gives whoever wherever a chance to maybe want to buy a concert ticket. They would have never known us before...win win.

 

 

September 11, 2003 -- Good Samaritans have stepped forward to pay the $2,000 that 12-year-old Brianna LaHara had to pay to the music industry for distributing tunes over the Internet.

"We think that the record business is in terrible shape, and jerking people around like this doesn't help anybody," said a Rochester radio-station talk-show host who goes by the name Brother Wease.

 

Wease, who contacted The Post, runs a children's charity in Rochester, Wease Cares, and has distributed money to a variety of causes.

 

Wease said that $2,000 is likely a good chunk of change for Brianna's family, which lives in an Upper West Side housing project.

 

At the same time, MusicRebellion.com, an online retailer, said it would give $2,000 worth of free music to Brianna.

 

"MusicRebellion . . . hopes that online music fans who might otherwise be unaware of a legal alternative will now recognize the vast availability," the company said in a statement.

 

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/5509.htm

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No, it flat out IS stealing.

No it isn't. Supreme Court said so. Is it illegal, immoral, etc? Yes. Actually able to be defined as stealing? No. Why? The only losses are on paper. A potential sale is simply potential and doesn't have any real worth. However, copyright violation is copyright violation. It's still not the same thing as stealing in all legal definition.

 

Everybody here is attempting to justify an act that is not justifiable. "Oh, RIAA is mean"

 

How about this? The RIAA is the largest vertical monopoly since Carnegie Steel in the early 1900s. They are controlling everything from the production to putting it on the shelves, and there is no opposition.

 

The RIAA actually ruins competition by being a middleman of all the labels. Without the RIAA in place, the actual labels would have to compete and would result in lower costs for consumers.

 

Organizations like the RIAA go against almost every rule of successful Capitalism.

 

--- no, RIAA is watching out for itself and the artists who, should this get REALLY out-of-hand, will lose ANY incentive to actually record music, since the money won't be good enough to make it worth their while.

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../11/MN12066.DTL

 

"Lawsuits on 12-year-old kids for downloading music, duping a mother into paying a $2,000 settlement for her kid?" said rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy. "Those scare tactics are pure Gestapo."

 

"File sharing is a reality, and it would seem that the labels would do well to learn how to incorporate it into their business models somehow," said genre- busting DJ Moby in a post on his Web site. "Record companies suing 12-year-old girls for file sharing is kind of like horse-and-buggy operators suing Henry Ford."

 

Artists are feeling the downturn in sales, too. "My record royalties have dropped 80 percent since 1999," said Steve Miller, whose greatest hits album has been a perennial best-seller since its 1978 release. "To me, it's one of the weirdest things that's ever happened to me because people act like it's OK. "

 

Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales.

 

"Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis.

 

Many artists painted the record industry as a bloated, overstuffed giant with too many mouths to feed and too many middlemen to pay, selling an overpriced, often mediocre product.

 

"They have all these abnormal practices that keep driving the price up," said Gregg Rollie, founding member of Santana and Journey. "People think musicians make all that money, but it's not true. We make the smallest amount."

 

The RIAA did not initiate these lawsuits to defend artists' rights, the musicians say, but to protect corporate profits.

 

"For the artists, my ass," said Draiman. "I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection."

 

Sneaking into a movie is stealing intellectual property as you get the usage of the material without any license (which the movie ticket provides) in so doing. You can attempt to justify it however you wish --- it is theft and I hope to see more people suffer for doing so.

 

So let's pretend something. A person crawls in through the window of an empty hotel room and spends the night in it. He doesn't mess the beds, doesn't touch the mini-bar, doesn't harm a thing. He leaves in the morning before the housekeeping comes.

 

Is that stealing? What precisely is stolen? This is the kind of thing we're talking about. You're under no legal obligation to buy a movie ticket to get into a movie. But the movie theater can excercise their right to throw you out. A movie ticket is not so much a license as it is a proof of purchase like what is on your cereal box and other goods.

 

The hotel example is trespassing on private property, but is it theft? No.

 

They have to protect themselves and, sadly, this is the last option left to them.

They could come out with new technology that is more copy-proof than this. Check out what the movie industry does: They haven't been suing individual downloaders. They've been putting out feelgood "don't download movies" ads while shutting down the people who are responsible: the groups video cam'ing the movies in the theaters and the sites that distribute them to the public.

 

Or, the more likely scenario, they die like the gigantic dinosaur that simply grew too huge, ate everything in it's habitat, and is trying desperately to survive. The music industry has a whole lot of other incomes like tours and whatnot, but price fixing CDs is an easier way to make money for an organization that large.

 

The MPAA is playing it smart. They will keep movie trading down to a minimum of those "in the know" who are willing to play the cat & mouse game, while the RIAA continues to act like a battleship that knows it's sunk and is firing all it's cannons simply because it can.

[Firestarter 0]

Excellent analogies and excellent arguments all around, JotW. Thanks for doing the research on this one; I don't know much about the issue and it was enlightening to see some of the original sources.

[Guest Choken One]

I expect the RIAA to keep going after helpless people that can't afford any type of adequate defense for themselves, until one day they mess with the wrong person who CAN AFFORD a great attorney, the attorney will find some type of loophole, goodbye lawsuits one and all, and everyone can give a big collective fuck you to the RIAA.  It is only a matter of time.....

That would be sweet. The RIAA certainly have it coming. And your above analogy is a good one.

Bill Gates should pretend to be a 14 year old dling Limp Bizkit and Metallica and let the RIAA catch him...

 

Gates goes HA! and gets that loophole from some obsecure lawsuit in 1912 and buys the CD burner market and charges $250 a pop per CD burner...

[NoCalMike 0]

No, it flat out IS stealing.

No it isn't. Supreme Court said so. Is it illegal, immoral, etc? Yes. Actually able to be defined as stealing? No. Why? The only losses are on paper. A potential sale is simply potential and doesn't have any real worth. However, copyright violation is copyright violation. It's still not the same thing as stealing in all legal definition.

 

Everybody here is attempting to justify an act that is not justifiable. "Oh, RIAA is mean"

 

How about this? The RIAA is the largest vertical monopoly since Carnegie Steel in the early 1900s. They are controlling everything from the production to putting it on the shelves, and there is no opposition.

 

The RIAA actually ruins competition by being a middleman of all the labels. Without the RIAA in place, the actual labels would have to compete and would result in lower costs for consumers.

 

Organizations like the RIAA go against almost every rule of successful Capitalism.

 

--- no, RIAA is watching out for itself and the artists who, should this get REALLY out-of-hand, will lose ANY incentive to actually record music, since the money won't be good enough to make it worth their while.

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../11/MN12066.DTL

 

"Lawsuits on 12-year-old kids for downloading music, duping a mother into paying a $2,000 settlement for her kid?" said rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy. "Those scare tactics are pure Gestapo."

 

"File sharing is a reality, and it would seem that the labels would do well to learn how to incorporate it into their business models somehow," said genre- busting DJ Moby in a post on his Web site. "Record companies suing 12-year-old girls for file sharing is kind of like horse-and-buggy operators suing Henry Ford."

 

Artists are feeling the downturn in sales, too. "My record royalties have dropped 80 percent since 1999," said Steve Miller, whose greatest hits album has been a perennial best-seller since its 1978 release. "To me, it's one of the weirdest things that's ever happened to me because people act like it's OK. "

 

Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales.

 

"Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis.

 

Many artists painted the record industry as a bloated, overstuffed giant with too many mouths to feed and too many middlemen to pay, selling an overpriced, often mediocre product.

 

"They have all these abnormal practices that keep driving the price up," said Gregg Rollie, founding member of Santana and Journey. "People think musicians make all that money, but it's not true. We make the smallest amount."

 

The RIAA did not initiate these lawsuits to defend artists' rights, the musicians say, but to protect corporate profits.

 

"For the artists, my ass," said Draiman. "I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection."

 

Sneaking into a movie is stealing intellectual property as you get the usage of the material without any license (which the movie ticket provides) in so doing. You can attempt to justify it however you wish --- it is theft and I hope to see more people suffer for doing so.

 

So let's pretend something. A person crawls in through the window of an empty hotel room and spends the night in it. He doesn't mess the beds, doesn't touch the mini-bar, doesn't harm a thing. He leaves in the morning before the housekeeping comes.

 

Is that stealing? What precisely is stolen? This is the kind of thing we're talking about. You're under no legal obligation to buy a movie ticket to get into a movie. But the movie theater can excercise their right to throw you out. A movie ticket is not so much a license as it is a proof of purchase like what is on your cereal box and other goods.

 

The hotel example is trespassing on private property, but is it theft? No.

 

They have to protect themselves and, sadly, this is the last option left to them.

They could come out with new technology that is more copy-proof than this. Check out what the movie industry does: They haven't been suing individual downloaders. They've been putting out feelgood "don't download movies" ads while shutting down the people who are responsible: the groups video cam'ing the movies in the theaters and the sites that distribute them to the public.

 

Or, the more likely scenario, they die like the gigantic dinosaur that simply grew too huge, ate everything in it's habitat, and is trying desperately to survive. The music industry has a whole lot of other incomes like tours and whatnot, but price fixing CDs is an easier way to make money for an organization that large.

 

The MPAA is playing it smart. They will keep movie trading down to a minimum of those "in the know" who are willing to play the cat & mouse game, while the RIAA continues to act like a battleship that knows it's sunk and is firing all it's cannons simply because it can.

Excellent work Jotw.

 

It is nice to see that there is a only select few artists that actually support the RIAA. For every ONE Lars Ulrich, there is at least 10 Chuck D's.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

More on the Supreme Court's "Copyright is not Theft" thing:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=473&invol=207

 

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

[Guest MikeSC]

Heh, TheMikeSC is just mad that he doesn't have a CD burner and can't join in the fun.

Actually, I have a CD burner.

 

I just have a healthy respect for intellectual property.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

No, it flat out IS stealing.

No it isn't. Supreme Court said so. Is it illegal, immoral, etc? Yes. Actually able to be defined as stealing? No. Why? The only losses are on paper. A potential sale is simply potential and doesn't have any real worth. However, copyright violation is copyright violation. It's still not the same thing as stealing in all legal definition.

 

Everybody here is attempting to justify an act that is not justifiable. "Oh, RIAA is mean"

 

How about this? The RIAA is the largest vertical monopoly since Carnegie Steel in the early 1900s. They are controlling everything from the production to putting it on the shelves, and there is no opposition.

 

The RIAA actually ruins competition by being a middleman of all the labels. Without the RIAA in place, the actual labels would have to compete and would result in lower costs for consumers.

 

Organizations like the RIAA go against almost every rule of successful Capitalism.

 

--- no, RIAA is watching out for itself and the artists who, should this get REALLY out-of-hand, will lose ANY incentive to actually record music, since the money won't be good enough to make it worth their while.

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../11/MN12066.DTL

 

"Lawsuits on 12-year-old kids for downloading music, duping a mother into paying a $2,000 settlement for her kid?" said rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy. "Those scare tactics are pure Gestapo."

 

"File sharing is a reality, and it would seem that the labels would do well to learn how to incorporate it into their business models somehow," said genre- busting DJ Moby in a post on his Web site. "Record companies suing 12-year-old girls for file sharing is kind of like horse-and-buggy operators suing Henry Ford."

 

Artists are feeling the downturn in sales, too. "My record royalties have dropped 80 percent since 1999," said Steve Miller, whose greatest hits album has been a perennial best-seller since its 1978 release. "To me, it's one of the weirdest things that's ever happened to me because people act like it's OK. "

 

Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales.

 

"Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis.

 

Many artists painted the record industry as a bloated, overstuffed giant with too many mouths to feed and too many middlemen to pay, selling an overpriced, often mediocre product.

 

"They have all these abnormal practices that keep driving the price up," said Gregg Rollie, founding member of Santana and Journey. "People think musicians make all that money, but it's not true. We make the smallest amount."

 

The RIAA did not initiate these lawsuits to defend artists' rights, the musicians say, but to protect corporate profits.

 

"For the artists, my ass," said Draiman. "I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection."

 

Sneaking into a movie is stealing intellectual property as you get the usage of the material without any license (which the movie ticket provides) in so doing. You can attempt to justify it however you wish --- it is theft and I hope to see more people suffer for doing so.

 

So let's pretend something. A person crawls in through the window of an empty hotel room and spends the night in it. He doesn't mess the beds, doesn't touch the mini-bar, doesn't harm a thing. He leaves in the morning before the housekeeping comes.

 

Is that stealing? What precisely is stolen? This is the kind of thing we're talking about. You're under no legal obligation to buy a movie ticket to get into a movie. But the movie theater can excercise their right to throw you out. A movie ticket is not so much a license as it is a proof of purchase like what is on your cereal box and other goods.

 

The hotel example is trespassing on private property, but is it theft? No.

 

They have to protect themselves and, sadly, this is the last option left to them.

They could come out with new technology that is more copy-proof than this. Check out what the movie industry does: They haven't been suing individual downloaders. They've been putting out feelgood "don't download movies" ads while shutting down the people who are responsible: the groups video cam'ing the movies in the theaters and the sites that distribute them to the public.

 

Or, the more likely scenario, they die like the gigantic dinosaur that simply grew too huge, ate everything in it's habitat, and is trying desperately to survive. The music industry has a whole lot of other incomes like tours and whatnot, but price fixing CDs is an easier way to make money for an organization that large.

 

The MPAA is playing it smart. They will keep movie trading down to a minimum of those "in the know" who are willing to play the cat & mouse game, while the RIAA continues to act like a battleship that knows it's sunk and is firing all it's cannons simply because it can.

1) Stealing of copyrighted material is intellectual theft. If I write a book that is virtually identical to "The Da Vinci Code (good book, BTW)", I suppose what I did was not, flat out, stealing the intellectual property of the author, using your logic. Piracy and theft is the same thing --- the splitting of hairs is why most people have precious little affection for the legal community.

 

2) So, two wrongs make a right here? I do not have any great affection for RIAA, but as long as they have the RIGHTS that they legally have, they are well within their rights to exercise them. They violate no laws in exercising their rights --- downloading songs IS illegal, like it or not.

 

Heck, the diamond industry is one of the most powerful monopolies in the history of the world. I guess we can steal diamonds now because of that, huh?

 

You have a problem with RIAA? Artists have a problem with RIAA? Then they and you had best propose SOLUTIONS --- not simply commit crimes to protest (or, if you wish to break the law, don't bitch when you're punished).

 

3) Again, these "artists" (calling a rapper an "Artist" is bastardizing the term) are reading the headline, not the story. She downloaded, apparently, about 1000 songs. The RIAA doesn't have the resources, or desire, to prosecute EVERYBODY who downloads music --- but she went a bit over the line here. If they don't care, fine. RIAA wishes to protect its property and I applaud them for doing so.

 

It'd be like me saying about the Columbine killers --- "Oh, they're just kids".

 

4) What, precisely, is stolen? You're using the room/viewing the movie/whatever without any license in so doing. It's no different than software --- you can argue that you're only stealing 1's and 0's, but you are, in fact, using software without a license and that is piracy --- which is theft.

 

And, contrary to your opinion, you ARE legally obliged to buy a ticket to watch a movie. If you weren't, they could not toss you out for not doing so.

 

The hotel room example, again, is using goods without license for doing so.

 

5) They could do all of that --- and it wouldn't work as hackers have so little when it comes to lives that they'd get around it. The record companies TRIED shutting down the sites that DL music (Napster?) --- but unlike movies, it is significantly easier to get music than movies, so FAR more sites DL music.

 

The RIAA has far more people stealing the property, so they have to put FEAR in people, since nothing else really works.

-=Mike

[lomasmoney 0]

Could someone explain to me why a calling a rapper an "artist" is bastardization of the term. Rap music is as much an art form as poetry is.

[Firestarter 0]

Maybe, if you're referring to Jewel's "poetry." Or Maya Angelou's, for that matter.

[Guest MikeSC]

Could someone explain to me why a calling a rapper an "artist" is bastardization of the term. Rap music is as much an art form as poetry is.

MOST poetry is crap.

 

Pretty much all rap is crap.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

3) Again, these "artists" (calling a rapper an "Artist" is bastardizing the term) are reading the headline, not the story. She downloaded, apparently, about 1000 songs. The RIAA doesn't have the resources, or desire, to prosecute EVERYBODY who downloads music --- but she went a bit over the line here. If they don't care, fine. RIAA wishes to protect its property and I applaud them for doing so.

 

It'd be like me saying about the Columbine killers --- "Oh, they're just kids".

I just have to say that this may be the absolute worst comparison I've ever heard. Comparing the Columbine killers to this 12-year-old girl. Let's see.....one group shot up their school, brutally shot and murdered classmates, wreaked havoc in the entire school, and broke up dozens of families.....while the other one downloaded music on the internet.

 

Not equal at all, dude. Not equal at all. Awful comparison.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Piracy and theft is the same thing

The highest cort in the whole land said it wasn't. What part of that do you not understand?

 

Heck, the diamond industry is one of the most powerful monopolies in the history of the world. I guess we can steal diamonds now because of that, huh?

 

If Microsoft can be investigated for monopolies, surely the RIAA should be. I've already went on about how the labels would actually have to compete like companies sharing the same market do, but appearantly that's irrelevant and we should keep shelling out $16 for CDs to an organization that flies in the face of the capitalist principle of free market.

 

Was your ancestor the guy who was on the sidelines at the Boston Tea Party and telling everyone what they were doing was wrong?

 

3) Again, these "artists" (calling a rapper an "Artist" is bastardizing the term)

 

Thanks for inserting arguable views that have little to no relevance into the thread. I have little love for rap, but on other boards, this would be called trolling. Whatever.

 

It'd be like me saying about the Columbine killers --- "Oh, they're just kids".

 

This example is simply appalling.

 

4) What, precisely, is stolen? You're using the room/viewing the movie/whatever without any license in so doing.

 

But there is no license. What you buy when you pay for the hotel room is the trust that they won't throw you out of it and the usage of the facilities therein, as well as maid service and other things that wouldn't be impacted by our example.

 

It's no different than software --- you can argue that you're only stealing 1's and 0's, but you are, in fact, using software without a license and that is piracy --- which is theft.

 

There's an actual agreement which has been proven in court to be legally binding. That's not the same thing.

 

And, contrary to your opinion, you ARE legally obliged to buy a ticket to watch a movie. If you weren't, they could not toss you out for not doing so.

 

No, you aren't. They have the right not to provide any service to any customer for any reason. However, if you feel you were denied unfairly and the judge agrees with you, you can reclaim your damages. However, having a movie ticket is no way legal immunity from them being able to remove you from their property.

 

 

You are seriously deluded. Your delusions have caused you to lose the debate, whether you care to admit to it or not.

[Firestarter 0]

Heck, the diamond industry is one of the most powerful monopolies in the history of the world. I guess we can steal diamonds now because of that, huh?

Rather a piss-poor example, Mike. Executives of the DeBeers diamond cartel don't dare to set foot on United States territory for fear of being arrested and thrown into federal prison on charges ranging from maintaining illegal monopolies, price gouging, exploitation of workers, and being accessories to war crimes, among others.

[Ripper 0]

Heck, the diamond industry is one of the most powerful monopolies in the history of the world. I guess we can steal diamonds now because of that, huh?

Rather a piss-poor example, Mike. Executives of the DeBeers diamond cartel don't dare to set foot on United States territory for fear of being arrested and thrown into federal prison on charges ranging from maintaining illegal monopolies, price gouging, exploitation of workers, and being accessories to war crimes, among others.

If nothing else, they should be arrested for their piss poor reason people should not buy cultured diamonds.

 

I will leave the rap artist thing alone, seeing as there is a far better debate going on. But if there wasn't.....

 

*shakes fist*

[Guest MikeSC]

Heck, the diamond industry is one of the most powerful monopolies in the history of the world. I guess we can steal diamonds now because of that, huh?

Rather a piss-poor example, Mike. Executives of the DeBeers diamond cartel don't dare to set foot on United States territory for fear of being arrested and thrown into federal prison on charges ranging from maintaining illegal monopolies, price gouging, exploitation of workers, and being accessories to war crimes, among others.

The point was --- and the analogy was hardly great as the DeBeers cartel is REALLY bad --- committing crimes to protest a group doing what it legally can is not a good option.

 

You have to change the system. If all these artists really hate the RIAA, they have more than enough clout to get it changed. If people hate the RIAA, don't buy the CD's --- but do not steal them.

 

Stealing makes you as bad as the RIAA.

-=Mike