Have any ANANDers been slapped with RIAA subpoenas yet?

[SunnyD]

Just curious, the Yahoo article says about 800 served already and something like 75 more each week or something like that.

No, I haven't. I don't share, I just leech.

 

[chin311]

not meeee, not yet anyway

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: chin311
not meeee, not yet anyway

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
No, I haven't. I don't share, I just leech.

Still waiting for someone to say

"And that's supposed to make it legal?"

Actually, according to what the RIAA is doing... yeah.

 

[chin311]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: SunnyD
No, I haven't. I don't share, I just leech.

Still waiting for someone to say

"And that's supposed to make it legal?"

Actually, according to what the RIAA is doing... yeah.

well, someone's gotta share, might as well be me

 

[jagr10]

So who are they targeting? Isn't it college students right now? Or are they actually logging onto kazaa and checking to see who has how much music?

how gay is the RIAA!

 

[SunnyD]

Well, according to the article I read, they're targeting:

1. Verizon (725+ subpoenas)

1. Colleges (<30 subpoena)

1. Everyone else (<10 subpoenas)

 

[SP33Demon]

Just use Kazaa Lite 2.4.0 that has built in RIAA protection. Not that hard folks.

 

[dman]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Just use Kazaa Lite 2.4.0 that has built in RIAA protection. Not that hard folks.

All that does is block a certain list of ip/or users from accessing your files. Don't think they could just have their lawyers (using a non-banned IP) get your list instead?

 

[jagr10]

So instead of the music companies coming up with a big ass site with all their music available for download for a reasonable fee, they waste that money going after regular joe's. I mean, if they charged a yearly or monthly fee that was decent, people might actually download quality music from them.

 

[clamum]

They'll never get me! Muahahaha!

Just kidding I would never download or share MP3s.

 

[SunnyD]

Hey jagr10 - at this very moment your postcount spells LEET in h4x0rzp34k

ROFL

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jagr10
So instead of the music companies coming up with a big ass site with all their music available for download for a reasonable fee, they waste that money going after regular joe's. I mean, if they charged a yearly or monthly fee that was decent, people might actually download quality music from them.

But then they'd be stuck with all the extra crap songs they throw on CD's to boost the cost. Nobody would buy those so they would lose money

 

[chin311]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Hey jagr10 - at this very moment your postcount spells LEET in h4x0rzp34k

ROFL

yes, never post again, you can be l33t 4evaR!!!1

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jagr10
So instead of the music companies coming up with a big ass site with all their music available for download for a reasonable fee, they waste that money going after regular joe's. I mean, if they charged a yearly or monthly fee that was decent, people might actually download quality music from them.

But then they'd be stuck with all the extra crap songs they throw on CD's to boost the cost. Nobody would buy those so they would lose money

And that's worse than the exctra production cost of producing and delivering CD's for those artists that truly suck and never sell more than two copies?

3 or 4 meg of server space per song versus an average production load of 2 million units + distribution + advertising? If I were the industry I'd be making love to the online music world rather than jerking off in it's eye.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jagr10
So instead of the music companies coming up with a big ass site with all their music available for download for a reasonable fee, they waste that money going after regular joe's. I mean, if they charged a yearly or monthly fee that was decent, people might actually download quality music from them.

But then they'd be stuck with all the extra crap songs they throw on CD's to boost the cost. Nobody would buy those so they would lose money

And that's worse than the exctra production cost of producing and delivering CD's for those artists that truly suck and never sell more than two copies?

3 or 4 meg of server space per song versus an average production load of 2 million units + distribution + advertising? If I were the industry I'd be making love to the online music world rather than jerking off in it's eye.

I agree with you, I was being sarcastic.

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: jagr10
So instead of the music companies coming up with a big ass site with all their music available for download for a reasonable fee, they waste that money going after regular joe's. I mean, if they charged a yearly or monthly fee that was decent, people might actually download quality music from them.

Innovate not Litigate

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jfano

Originally posted by: jagr10
So instead of the music companies coming up with a big ass site with all their music available for download for a reasonable fee, they waste that money going after regular joe's. I mean, if they charged a yearly or monthly fee that was decent, people might actually download quality music from them.

Innovate not Litigate

If the IP does not fit, you must acquit.

 

[TJN23]

stop being a beech and let em leech

 

[Monel Funkawitz]

If they supoena me, I'll supoena them and sue them for invasion of privacy for going through my files without my permission.

 

[Nyical]

Originally posted by: Monel Funkawitz
If they supoena me, I'll supoena them and sue them for invasion of privacy for going through my files without my permission.

Don't think you can sue the US Goverment, or there would be a new claim every freaaking hour of the day :disgust:

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Nyical

Originally posted by: Monel Funkawitz
If they supoena me, I'll supoena them and sue them for invasion of privacy for going through my files without my permission.

Don't think you can sue the US Goverment, or there would be a new claim every freaaking hour of the day :disgust:

WTF? RIAA is not the fvcking u.s goverment ...even though they tend to act like it...


Ausm

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: dman

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Just use Kazaa Lite 2.4.0 that has built in RIAA protection. Not that hard folks.

All that does is block a certain list of ip/or users from accessing your files. Don't think they could just have their lawyers (using a non-banned IP) get your list instead?

Only if they have a previous arrangement with the ISP sys admins to keep logs of connection activity that will hold up in court, or have some form of certified recording method. While it may be easier for the RIAA to get subpoenas for connection logs they do have to have some proof, rather than just someone's word. Right now the IPs they're using are either operated by the RIAA or have agreements with them for the purposes of aquiring activity logs, and as these facts are publicly available it's easy to figure out which IPs to block.

 

[Ness]

Uhh, you do understand that by sharing the files you are giving anyone who uses KaZaa permission to access your files, right?

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: ness1469
Uhh, you do understand that by sharing the files you are giving anyone who uses KaZaa permission to access your files, right?

Uhhhh...you do understand that's the whole foundation of the way KaZaa works, right?