AnyMal
Lifer
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.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The RIAA lawsuits clarified once and for all
- Thread starter AnyMal
- Start date
NogginBoink
Diamond Member
You thought wrong.
It's perfectly legal to have a monopoly in the United States. Unless you acquired the monopoly illegally.
hawkeye81x
Golden Member
Not all monopolies are illegal. The government allows some.
Prime example: local phone service or gas/electric service.
AnyMal
Lifer
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
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...
"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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
imported_Mike
Lifer
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
