RIAA is at it again....more lawsuits.

[konichiwa]

tnitsuj: No one's arguing that they don't have the right to sue whomever they choose, but it's pretty clear that if you look at the situation here they're missing the boat in the largest sense of the term. They began digging the hole they're now in with a spade when they fixed prices, and now with their consistent and bellicose crusade against ISP's, P2P software and individual users they're digging the same hole even deeper, only now with a bulldozer.

 

[OptimisTech]

Wow... never would I have guessed I would see HDT's Guide to Civil Disobedience quoted in a mp3 argument. I heard this story this afternoon on the radio and the same two questions kept popping in my head...

1. The RIAA can only do what any other user of the software can do, otherwise it's invasion of privacy. So can't folks just share small pieces of their libraries at a time and avoid looking like big time pirates?

2. If they were really going to go after someone with, say, 1200 songs on their computer and sue them for $20,000 (that's on the low end of quotes the radio folks were throwing around) wouldn't it be cheaper for the defendant to simply buy the cds? (20,000 at an average of $15 per CD is 1333 CDs, not counting possible two-fers) After all the courts have already ruled that making an mp3 from a CD you own IS fair use.

One more point I haven't seen made in this discussion is that whatever you think of the practice of downloading music, the recording industry was sowing the seeds for this a long time ago. Remember 45s? Anyone?... OK, I'm the only fogey here. No major record label ever tried to introduce an alternative single-song purchase format to replace the 45 because full CDs have higher profit margins.

All of this is probably moot anyway. The genie is out of the bottle and we can't put it back. The RIAA can sue itself silly. It may even make a dent in music swapping, but not much of one. Blanket statements about the morality of owning digital music files don't do anything but lower the intelligence of the discussion. Morality judgments don't work, your morals are not mine, nor mine yours. So you can't ask me to be true to your morals. And anytime anyone makes statements like "It's the law so just do it" it accomplishes nothing except pissing everyone off. Laws have to make sense within the society they govern, or they will be ignored, no matter how firmly they are enforced.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: OptimisTech
Wow... never would I have guessed I would see HDT's Guide to Civil Disobedience quoted in a mp3 argument. I heard this story this afternoon on the radio and the same two questions kept popping in my head...

1. The RIAA can only do what any other user of the software can do, otherwise it's invasion of privacy. So can't folks just share small pieces of their libraries at a time and avoid looking like big time pirates?

2. If they were really going to go after someone with, say, 1200 songs on their computer and sue them for $20,000 (that's on the low end of quotes the radio folks were throwing around) wouldn't it be cheaper for the defendant to simply buy the cds? (20,000 at an average of $15 per CD is 1333 CDs, not counting possible two-fers) After all the courts have already ruled that making an mp3 from a CD you own IS fair use.

One more point I haven't seen made in this discussion is that whatever you think of the practice of downloading music, the recording industry was sowing the seeds for this a long time ago. Remember 45s? Anyone?... OK, I'm the only fogey here. No major record label ever tried to introduce an alternative single-song purchase format to replace the 45 because full CDs have higher profit margins.

All of this is probably moot anyway. The genie is out of the bottle and we can't put it back. The RIAA can sue itself silly. It may even make a dent in music swapping, but not much of one. Blanket statements about the morality of owning digital music files don't do anything but lower the intelligence of the discussion. Morality judgments don't work, your morals are not mine, nor mine yours. So you can't ask me to be true to your morals. And anytime anyone makes statements like "It's the law so just do it" it accomplishes nothing except pissing everyone off. Laws have to make sense within the society they govern, or they will be ignored, no matter how firmly they are enforced.

Well said.

 

[HiggaJigga]

"Edit I should say I have stolen too but now I realise it's wrong and try to only sample and immediatly delete after doing so. We bought an Imac just for our two iPods and Itunes"

Key word: TRY.

oh, and you misspelled realize.

sorry, i have no eloquent argument so say here. im not trying to prove im more intelligent by doing so either. bottom line is that p2p and mp3 is here to stay. where there is a will, there is a way.

out.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: HiggaJigga
"Edit I should say I have stolen too but now I realise it's wrong and try to only sample and immediatly delete after doing so. We bought an Imac just for our two iPods and Itunes"

Key word: TRY.

oh, and you misspelled realize.

sorry, i have no eloquent argument so say here. im not trying to prove im more intelligent by doing so either. bottom line is that p2p and mp3 is here to stay. where there is a will, there is a way.

out.

Hang out here a little longer and you'll find I'm full of contridictions and mispellings. No one is perfect.