Chances of being sued by the RIAA

[broon]

Originally posted by: wchou

Originally posted by: BriGy86
what exactly is it that gives the RIAA the right to sue people?

the organization doesn't own or make the songs that are being pirated

or is it the people that belong to the group that makes it able to sue people?

lawyers who are out to make easy money from those that are insecured about their own well being.
1. don't want to share anything because then they wouldn't be so stinking rich in the first place.
2. they want to deprive us of our rights to enjoy anything without pay.
3. this legal vs illegal crap is all a scam, about control over the mass population who are looked upon as their milking machine so they can sit on an empire and laugh their socks off how gullible we are.
Everything that people do that don't involve money is illegal to them but it is our right to do so, and they can't take that away as long as we're alive.

1. Why should they?
2. No one has the right to enjoy anything without pay.
3. It's called enterprise, not some conspiracy

The "they already have enough money" argument is old and no good. Come up with a valid one please.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: walla
all music should be free. we should be communists, and share wealth equally.

Been there, done that, didn't work out. Next.

 

[HonkeyDonk]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Here's a clue, for those that just don't get it......

if you don't share music on P2P, you can't get sued by the RIAA!! DOH!!! :shocked:

[sarcasm]But that would mean that I'd...I'd...I'd have to pay (gasp) for those songs[/sarcasm]

you can download and not share.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: HonkeyDonk
you can download and not share.

From what I understand about P2P you have to share to even get on the network. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with paying for music.

 

[Gurck]

Makes sense, they control a good chunk of the media - why sue in great numbers when you can spend far less to sue just a few and highly publicize it for free?

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: HonkeyDonk
you can download and not share.

From what I understand about P2P you have to share to even get on the network. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with paying for music.

this is true, but who says you have to keep your media on the specified shared folder you create when signing up

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Makes sense, they control a good chunk of the media - why sue in great numbers when you can spend far less to sue just a few and get it highly publicized for free? They're trying to get back money they stole, not spend it.

Don't you think it's more of the threat? How many more people would speed if they knew they would never get caught. But the thought of getting a ticket deters many. Just like the possibility of getting slapped with a large lawsuit.

Face it, many people would be more likely to take something if they knew they would never be caught.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: HonkeyDonk
you can download and not share.

From what I understand about P2P you have to share to even get on the network. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with paying for music.

this is true, but who says you have to keep your media on the specified shared folder you create when signing up

Regardless you're still doing something illegal.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: Gurck
Makes sense, they control a good chunk of the media - why sue in great numbers when you can spend far less to sue just a few and highly publiciz it for free?

Don't you think it's more of the threat? How many more people would speed if they knew they would never get caught. But the thought of getting a ticket deters many. Just like the possibility of getting slapped with a large lawsuit.

Face it, many people would be more likely to take something if they knew they would never be caught.

Certainly; but you can achieve that threat in two ways - by making it a very real one, or artificially inflating it. They chose the latter, as it was cheaper, thus the miniscule chance of actually facing a lawsuit.

 

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: Gurck
Makes sense, they control a good chunk of the media - why sue in great numbers when you can spend far less to sue just a few and get it highly publicized for free? They're trying to get back money they stole, not spend it.

Don't you think it's more of the threat? How many more people would speed if they knew they would never get caught. But the thought of getting a ticket deters many. Just like the possibility of getting slapped with a large lawsuit.

Face it, many people would be more likely to take something if they knew they would never be caught.

Point being?
The vast majority will never be slapped with a lawsuit. Not a very effective deterrent.

Reality is that not all music is available legally. A very large amount of the music I listen to comes from europe and is totally unavailable over here and is next to impossible to order from there. So I'm left with the choice of downloading it, or not listening to it at all.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: globalcitizen
Keep in mind that those people not living in the US dont get screwed. I have a buddy in Europe who has 17 gigs of music:shocked: all from Kazaa, Gnutella etc.

Not in the UK anymore. The BPI (UK version of the RIAA) has started filing C&Ds already over here, and some lawsuits too.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: broon
Don't you think it's more of the threat? How many more people would speed if they knew they would never get caught. But the thought of getting a ticket deters many. Just like the possibility of getting slapped with a large lawsuit.

Face it, many people would be more likely to take something if they knew they would never be caught.

Point being?
The vast majority will never be slapped with a lawsuit. Not a very effective deterrent.

Reality is that not all music is available legally. A very large amount of the music I listen to comes from europe and is totally unavailable over here and is next to impossible to order from there. So I'm left with the choice of downloading it, or not listening to it at all.

Point being? Which point?

I don't have an answer for your EU music. However, I don't think you'd be persued by the RIAA for that.

 

[Gulzakar]

I don't do a lot of downloading of music.

I usually take my portable hard drive and steal it from my friends

besides, if I could actually buy an album that wasn't A)loaded with 90% crappyness or B)Grossly overpriced

I happily purchase music again

The only time I purchase music is for CD's that I can't find in stores and not many would have online.

Bluegrass colelctions
ethnics musics
classic albums

ettc.

 

[axelfox]

<Lloyd Christmas> So you're telling me there's a chance . . . YEAAAH! I hear ya . . . </Lloyd Christmas>

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: wchou

Originally posted by: walla
all music should be free. we should be communists, and share wealth equally.

Sarcasm?
Everything in life should be shared equally including water, knowledge, internet, oxygen, electricity and wealth

Don't forget sex

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
/me hides the little blue frog!

Is it already time for another game of find the little blue frog?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
/me hides the little blue frog!

Is it already time for another game of find the little blue frog?

Just as long as that little blue frog doesn't happen to be naked!