The RIAA lawsuits clarified once and for all

AnyMal

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
15,780
0
76
There has been a lot of discussions/debates/flame wars regarding the lawsuits. IMO majority of misunderstandings come from the lack of knowledge, so I thought I'd share this article with you. Hopefully, it will calm some people down.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Originally posted by: AnyMal
There has been a lot of discussions/debates/flame wars regarding the lawsuits. IMO majority of misunderstandings come from the lack of knowledge, so I thought I'd share this article with you. Hopefully, it will calm some people down.

Good post, but it doens't support the popular view, so I think this'll slip under......
 

NogginBoink

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
5,322
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
I thought having a monopoly was illegal too.

You thought wrong.

It's perfectly legal to have a monopoly in the United States. Unless you acquired the monopoly illegally.
 

hawkeye81x

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2001
1,742
1
0
Originally posted by: her209
I thought having a monopoly was illegal too.

Not all monopolies are illegal. The government allows some.
Prime example: local phone service or gas/electric service.

 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: hawkeye81x
Originally posted by: her209
I thought having a monopoly was illegal too.
Not all monopolies are illegal. The government allows some.
Prime example: local phone service or gas/electric service.
So where do the anti-trust laws apply? :confused:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: AnyMal
There has been a lot of discussions/debates/flame wars regarding the lawsuits. IMO majority of misunderstandings come from the lack of knowledge, so I thought I'd share this article with you. Hopefully, it will calm some people down.
Excellent article.
 

AnyMal

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
15,780
0
76
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: AnyMal
There has been a lot of discussions/debates/flame wars regarding the lawsuits. IMO majority of misunderstandings come from the lack of knowledge, so I thought I'd share this article with you. Hopefully, it will calm some people down.

Good post, but it doens't support the popular view, so I think this'll slip under......

I know what you're saying, but my intent was not to agree/disagree with the "popular view" but rather state the facts. So often "popular view" is flawed simply because the lack of facts creates misconseptions, which in turn instills fear and anger. I thought that the article did a great job of spelling out the details behind RIAA actions. It was neither pro or against, just the facts.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
Key points 4 and 5:

"Myth No. 4: Downloading a song illegally is just like stealing it from a store.
This old chestnut has been bandied about quite a bit in the past five years, but that doesn't make it true. CDs are physical things, and copyright is an abstract right. As Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote (somewhat obliquely) in 1985, "[copyright infringement] does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud...The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use." There you have it: Infringing on copyright is materially different from stealing physical CDs, according to the highest court in the land (the "thief" in question was acquitted of theft in the case in question, Dowling v. United States). While not definitive, Blackman's statement shows that there is substantial doubt as to whether copyright infringement should be equated with outright theft.

Myth No. 5: Every infringing download represents lost sales.
The labels love to recite this statistic in various forms, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell you that just because someone was willing to download something for free, it doesn't mean they would have bought the song on an album. Most downloaders grab lots of stuff they would never, in a million years, plunk down their hard-earned money for. Therefore, those downloads do not represent lost sales, no matter what the RIAA's public relations team tells the papers.
"

because we all know by now, the recording industry has lost exactly one bazillion dollars due to mp3 piracy...
 

Krugger

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
820
0
0
actually that is incorrect, as they sued 4 college students for running search engines that simply indexed shares on the college LAN. or, running napster like networks as the RIAA called it... right. that's not in there anywhere though. also, suing 12 year old girls, for 1 or 1000 songs, isn't gonna make people happy. further, forcing ISPs to give out personal information backed by only their word is crazy. They throw the DMCA around and judges buy it b/c they don't know any better...
 

styrafoam

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2002
2,684
0
0
I don't think the RIAA has ever said in any certain terms what they are planning as far as litigation goes, there aren't any actual facts anyone can swear by. I did like the paragraph about copyright law, but the rest was pretty much what we know now based on events as they have unfolded. Also, I know that the 1000 shared files limit has been mentioned before, but were they(RIAA) the ones to state this target? What about that amnesty business a couple weeks ago? You don't think that has any kind of ramifications as far as their future plans are concerned? In this interview with the RIAA president he states that their idea is to keep the lawsuits coming to show people they are serious. Based on his answers there are no concrete goals to what the lawsuits will accomplish and he has no idea when the lawsuits will stop.
I think they are concentrating on sharers for now because distribution is easier to prosecute. They have lots of money and are willing to sue, they may even be tracking downloaders right now while they concentrate on the uploaders.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Lazee, you're easily influenced, man.



Personally, I could care less about anything to do with the RIAA. To hell with the industry. I bought their stupid sh!t, downloaded their sh!t, and quit doing anything with their sh!t as soon as they decided to sue people like me.

They are suing their customers. That makes me hate the RIAA. I want the RIAA to be phased out and the industry to change. Therefore, any article in support of the RIAA is against my hate of the RIAA. I hate the RIAA. Unless they do a 180, I will always hate them.

Sorry, but the whole idea of music being for the most part run by five companies is awful. Might as well run it by the government. Buy new laws. Lie to the public. Steal from the artists. Line your pockets. Then, go to hell as everyone who actually understands what is going on decides it shall stop.

Music was meant to be free. If I like it, I might pay something for it. But, what I pay is for me to decide.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Lazee, you're easily influenced, man.

They are suing their customers. That makes me hate the RIAA.

Why does everyone keep saying this? There are a lot of computer science people here... if I worked for a software company, and people were pirating our software, and we decided to sue those people for their copyright infringement - would we be suing our customers? No, because they never bought our software.

Music was meant to be free. If I like it, I might pay something for it. But, what I pay is for me to decide.

Says who? Would you like it if I said [insert your industry here] was meant to be free, what I pay for it is for me to decide?

Edit: Interesting article, but I'd hope most people know better than to think downloading ANY music from the Internet is illegal, or downloading copyrighted music IS legal.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,118
18,646
146
Originally posted by: her209
I thought having a monopoly was illegal too.

How is the RIAA a monopoly? It is a group of many different record labels, IIRC. It's more like a union than a company.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,118
18,646
146
Originally posted by: brxndxn

Music was meant to be free. If I like it, I might pay something for it. But, what I pay is for me to decide.

Who are you to decide another man's work product is free?

 
Dec 4, 2002
18,211
1
0
don't myth 2 & 3 kind of contradict themselves? I know no. 2 is saying that some less known artists probably want people to dl their music, but to look at it realistically, the mainstream dls today's "hits," thus making it illegal.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: CheapArse
don't myth 2 & 3 kind of contradict themselves? I know no. 2 is saying that some less known artists probably want people to dl their music, but to look at it realistically, the mainstream dls today's "hits," thus making it illegal.

Yeah, but the point is that it's not the fact that you're downloading MUSIC that's illegal, it's that you're downloading copyrighted music without permission. There is music in the public domain, and there are legal ways to download music as well (as mentioned in the article)
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,545
1,707
126
Originally posted by: brxndxn

Music was meant to be free. If I like it, I might pay something for it. But, what I pay is for me to decide.

Music, huh? What else should be free?

Water?
Food?
Medical care?
Housing?

Who are you to decide whether something someone made should be free?