Should I be scared of the RIAA?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

but why do i have to be forced to line the pockets of no talent big shots?

I can use that one line to sum up your whole thread Cookie.  You don't.  You don't have to buy the CD's.  But that doesn't justify stealing them either.  You don't have to listen to the music, or you can listen to the radio.  

Letting supply and demand work is great.  Don't buy the CD's and eventually prices will drop (if all the public feels the same way).  When VHS first came out, they were charging like $70 and $115 per tape for most movies (quite a long time ago), but they came down within a year or so because nobody would buy them.  Now almost all of them are around $20 on DVD.  Supply and demand.

But, stealing has no place in that.  By stealing it, you are contributing to demand, demand that they still see a potential profit for.  So stealing it works against bringing the prices down.

[Ace]

For all the music stealers, err sharers, out there, answer me this question: Do you think it is right for you to download software (warez) that you have not paid for?

[BeefyFigure]

Heh, I'd be surprised if the RIAA weren't monitoring this right now...

[cookie]

but why do i have to be forced to line the pockets of no talent big shots?

By stealing it, you are contributing to demand, demand that they still see a potential profit for.  So stealing it works against bringing the prices down.

So if stealing is creating demand and potential profit, what is the RIAA bitching for? This makes no sense. What you just said would imply that stealing is helping the industry.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

So if stealing is creating demand and potential profit, what is the RIAA bitching for? This makes no sense. What you just said would imply that stealing is helping the industry.  

Nope.  I guess I didn't explain that well enough.

Stealing is creating demand and therefore potential profit, yes.  But they see the potential and want the actual.  So what results is:

1) them not lowering prices because demand is high.
2) them cracking down (applying pressure for the legislation and enforcement of laws) to turn that potential profit into actual profit.

By stealing you aren't helping the industry.

The point I was trying to make was that if you see the problem as a grossly overpaid machine with an overpriced product, you are hurting the cause to reduce prices when you steal.  Stealing raises prices.  

This is just how business works.  And, before anyone says if they lowered prices, then there would be less stealing, it doesn't work that way.  The only way to drop prices is to drop demand.  Don't buy and don't steal from any of the overpriced labels.  Don't request the songs on the radio.   Hell, just look at any software game that hasn't sold well.  In a month or two it's half price.  The music market is much bigger, and would take longer to effect, but the principle works.

On a final note.  Anything stolen that's available from the Apple Music Store none of the excuses fit for so far (yes, I know this doesn't fit for the non Americans or Canadians today - but that's part of available).  The AMS lets you listen to a good size sample as often as you want, to know if you like it.  And a buck a song is not too much.  You don't have to buy the whole CD, just the songs you want.  And $10 per CD isn't very expensive either.  Yeah, the selection still needs to grow, but it's early.  I think it's a great model.  

[Mr.Mellow]

Ahh, a lot of you guys are being very ignorant about this. You're saying that because the artist lacks talent, you shouldn't have to buy the CD? Well, you're still listening to it, aren't you? Don't be so hypocritical. You're like how I used to be. You're making up bullshit excuses so you can steal people's music. It's wrong. It's illegal, and it's immoral. What more do you want? There's no argument against it.  If an artist wants to share their songs on their website, then let them. If they don't though, there's nothing that you can argue that will prove what you are doing is legal and right.

[Blitz]

Okay, for one that is bullshit.  The RIAA and the government cannot search people's computers.  It is invading their privacy.  Also, they need warrents, like 2.5 million warrents to do this.  Plus, they need a whole shit load of evidence.

Blitz

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Okay, for one that is bullshit.  The RIAA and the government cannot search people's computers.  It is invading their privacy.  Also, they need warrents, like 2.5 million warrents to do this.  

What are you talking about?

Yes, they need warrents to search your computer, but guess what, they get them, and with the proper probable cause too.  Most of the stealing that you guys call file sharing is done openly, on public servers even.  You start sending out your files to whoever asks for them, and you are guilty.  They didn't even need to search your computer (but they have the probable cause to get the warrant and will do it anyway.)  

Give it a break.  All your excuses on why you should get away with this crime are useless.  There is no invasion of privacy, no entrapment.  The people that they have gone after so far have deserved it.  You guys sound like the dealer that gets busted with 100lbs of weed.  "But it's just pot".  

The facts are, it's a crime.  Like it, don't like it.  It is a crime and you can be busted if you do it.  And no amount of bullshit you spew about invasion of privacy is going to matter if it happens, because you guys obviously have never read a law book.  So, to answer the first question again.  Yes, if you have stolen a bunch of music online, and especially if you share a bunch of your files, you should be scared.  

[jn.loudnotes]

It is an invasion of privacy.  The only way to prove that files are being misused is a search and access to the computers.

Again, I think the 24 hour rule is a state-by-state issue, but unless I am very much mistaken there are statutes that allow a download of a file for a limited period of time.

Anyway, here's why - first of all, there's is absolutely nothing illegal about downloading a backup copy of material you own.  This is why there are still Hotline servers around, although some of them I can't fathom why they haven't been arrested for something.  And whether you believe one side or another as to the morality of music stealing/sharing - there's no way to prove the misuse without a search.

Therefore, the people downloading the files can hardly be legislated, because how can you prove the way in which people are using the files, or whether they have any right to them?  Thus, the RIAA is going after uploaders.  But what exactly is illegal about that?  There's a huge burden of proof there as well.  Simply offering something that people may or may not use legally is not a crime.

This is like prosecuting a gun dealer.  People can use guns legally and illegally.  Likewise, people can use a downloaded song/movie/whater legally or illegally.  But it's not the uploader's responsibility.  Morally, perhaps, but not legally.  To continue the CD store analogy, if the owner puts a CD in a customer's hand, and then they run away and steal it - is the store owner responsible??

Finally, I have a sneaky feeling you're going to say the law for some reason prohibits any copying of a file, even for personal use.  If it does, I'm surprised, and that needs to change.  There are perfectly justifiable and legal reasons for copying a music file, including backup - and thus the proof necessary to stick wrongdoing would inevitably destroy personal privacy.

[cookie]

$1 for a song? fuck that. i don't have a grand to spend on nice sounding clicks and beeps.

love, cookie.


on a side note, isn't it funny that it seems to be only the big shot musicians that complain about p2p networks, as if they needed the extra money, and not the smaller groups who actually need it?

funny indeed.

[tasty]

I think supporting the RIAA on this issue is the ultimate example of seeing things completely black and white. Stealing=wrong. Paying=good. You refuse to acknowledge that my behavior is advantageous to the RIAA. Like it or not, I grew up with p2p file sharing, and if it is taken away I simply won't buy records unless I can listen to a majority of the songs on the album, all the way through. I illegally download music to aid my legal music purchasing. I couldn't care less about the artists that are whining and bitching about having their intellectual property stolen, because I don't have a single mp3 by any of those bands on my computer. I also don't give a shit about market forces: the record companies should lower their prices because its the right thing to do, out of respect for the consumer. I think if everyone had the same downloading habits as me, there wouldn't be a problem, and I don't want my experience ruined by a bunch of cheapskates that can't handle the responsibility of being able to take music freely.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

It is an invasion of privacy.  The only way to prove that files are being misused is a search and access to the computers.

Not true at all.  I can think of many ways that don't involve searching anyone's actual computer, or sniffing the packets they are sending.  Hell, if you are using Peer to Peer, you could be sending them to a cop right now.  And that's not entrapment.  Think about it.  Sharing them at all is misuse by federal law, and since we are dealing with the internet, you are dealing more with federal then state laws (most connections are passing over state lines.)

IAnyway, here's why - first of all, there's is absolutely nothing illegal about downloading a backup copy of material you own.  

Ahm.  There are things illegal about it.  Depends on the license you agree to when you buy it.  And it's make a backup copy, not download / upload / share.

This is why there are still Hotline servers around, although some of them I can't fathom why they haven't been arrested for something.  And whether you believe one side or another as to the morality of music stealing/sharing - there's no way to prove the misuse without a search.

That little misconception has gotten many a criminal convicted.  You can prove it without a search.

Therefore, the people downloading the files can hardly be legislated, because how can you prove the way in which people are using the files, or whether they have any right to them?  Thus, the RIAA is going after uploaders.  But what exactly is illegal about that?  There's a huge burden of proof there as well.

Um.  Downloading files that you do not own legal copies of is a crime.  If you are seen downloading from a public source, they have probable cause to get a warrant and do a search, and there is nothing illegal about that.  That's the magic phrase, Probable Cause.  If a cop sees you driving like shit, he has probable cause to pull you over and check for alcohol, even if you are just a shitty driver.  If you are seen downloading thousands of MP3's that are copyrighted, that's probable cause.  And that's downloading.  The hard part.  Not so hard.

If a cop jumps onto Kazaa or bittorrant, or any other P2P app, and does a simple trace to see where the files are coming from, well, there ya go.  End of story.  Just the act of distributing the copyrighted material is a crime (even when not making a profit).  Read the laws.

Simply offering something that people may or may not use legally is not a crime.

There's a problem, right there.  There is no legal use of that material.  Distributing it is a crime itself (violation of the copyright for recorded materials).  

This is like prosecuting a gun dealer.  People can use guns legally and illegally.  

This is nothing like a gun dealer.  Gun dealers are licensed sellers.  This is like the guy that buys guns from a gun dealer then turns around and sells them or gives them away without following the laws.  Doesn't matter if the gun is used legally or illegally, he's still guilty of a crime (ok, it gets worse if the gun is used illegally, but the point still stands, he committed a crime).  In your analogy, the gun dealer is the record store owner.  They sell and pay to the distributors.  It's the customers that then go on to break the laws.

But it's not the uploader's responsibility.  Morally, perhaps, but not legally.  

What laws are you reading?  I really want to know.  Because that's not what I'm reading.

Finally, I have a sneaky feeling you're going to say the law for some reason prohibits any copying of a file, even for personal use.  If it does, I'm surprised, and that needs to change.  There are perfectly justifiable and legal reasons for copying a music file, including backup - and thus the proof necessary to stick wrongdoing would inevitably destroy personal privacy.

Backup is covered under licensing.  In the case of music and software, I believe it's one backup copy for personal use only unless otherwise stated.  Some software doesn't allow you to make any backup copies (you should read before clicking the I AGREE button sometime, you'd be surprised what you see).  You agree to the licensee, so it is binding.  Too bad for you if you don't read the fine print.  

But the laws are pretty clear.  Ignoring them doesn't make them change.  And thinking that it has to be an invasion to get the proof is just not thinking it out.  But, that's why most criminals are caught, dumb mistakes.  There is a world of information available without invading your personal computer, and that information is enough to bring you down.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

$1 for a song? fuck that. i don't have a grand to spend on nice sounding clicks and beeps.

So, if you don't have $3000 is it ok to steal a new G5?  If you don't have $10,000 is it ok to steal a new car?

Simple choices.  Steal or not.  You don't have to steal music to survive, you could listen to the radio, etc.  

I think supporting the RIAA on this issue is the ultimate example of seeing things completely black and white. Stealing=wrong. Paying=good.

I think you have way too many Robin Hood delusions.  Just because the RIAA is corrupt, bloated and greedy doesn't make stealing from them ok.  It's not like you are starving and stealing food.  It's entertainment.  And it's not like you are only taking money away from the RIAA, like I pointed out to you.

Like it or not, I grew up with p2p file sharing, and if it is taken away I simply won't buy records unless I can listen to a majority of the songs on the album, all the way through.

Go to a music store then.  Listen to the tracks.  All nice and legal too.

I couldn't care less about the artists that are whining and bitching about having their intellectual property stolen, because I don't have a single mp3 by any of those bands on my computer.

You are still taking money out of the pocket for every band that you have an illegal MP3 of.

I also don't give a shit about market forces: the record companies should lower their prices because its the right thing to do, out of respect for the consumer.

Spoken like someone that just doesn't accept reality.  Supply and demand and market forces will not ever go away.  Learn how to use the system, or get used by it.  

I think if everyone had the same downloading habits as me, there wouldn't be a problem, and I don't want my experience ruined by a bunch of cheapskates that can't handle the responsibility of being able to take music freely.

Sure, but you aren't really abusing the system much.  The RIAA isn't going after guys like you.  You said you don't have any MP3's on your computer that you don't own the CD for (or rights to some other way I'll assume you mean).  Great.  You have nothing to worry about.  But the fucktards that they have gone after are abusing the hell out of the system, aren't they?  So you should be glad that they are being removed.

[Ace]

First, since nobody has responded, I'll post this again.

For all the music stealers, err sharers, out there, answer me this question: Do you think it is right for you to download software (warez) that you have not paid for?

Second, about the legality of catching people for sharing files. If you run a P2P program with a public server and allow the according TCP or UDP connections from your firewall, you are giving permission for anybody to connect to your server. If the RIAA uses the same P2P program and catches you sharing copyrighted materials, you just gave them free access to incriminating evidence. Don't falsely blame them for an invasion of privacy when you left the door wide open, so to speak.

As for the debate about the advantages/disadvantages of P2P in the RIAA's eyes, the whole point is that it is not your decision about whether it is profitable to them or not. They think that it is not profitable, so they are exercising their legal right to protect their copyrighted materials.

[Mr.Mellow]

Yep. And, if you're the uploader, it doesn't matter if you own legal copies of the albums or not. 99% of all CD's say on the back "No unauthorized distribution blah blah blah", so already you're breaking the law.

[Jeb]

I haven't bought a cd from any label under the RIAA for more than a year, mostly because the music is garbage (or rarely downloaded the trash for free). I started to listen to trance music as an escape from the shit thats put out day after day by shitty rock groups. Occasionally there will be a new band that comes out thats great, but mostly its old bands like metalica trying to hump every last cent out of the consumers by putting out a horrible cd, a one hit wonder's 2nd cd which is shit, or enimen putting out another track about getting beaten up by black people.

 Aside from my anger with the recent slump of rock music, i've taken to listening to hiphop more, maybe because there still is a bit of emotion put in their songs.

Downloading music is the best outlet to listening to new stuff i wouldn't hear on the radio. With this saturation of available music, most of which is pretty unknown and good, putting out a crappy video on MTV is having less of an effect. The RIAA is losing my purchasing money because i've found greener pastures, not because I'm stealing their music.

And now, a rant about Trance. Sure i could buy a trance cd as an import, or for 40$ per cd, but i don't. Most singles aren't released on cd, so i'd have to spend years searching out vinyls that contain a certain remix i want. In this world producers and djs embrace the internet as a facet to let their music be heard. Example being... Itunes built in web radio features 11 rock stations, 7 top-40 stations, 11 rap stations, and a whopping 62 trance stations. And yet trance is 1/100 of any of those other music genres but its so widely embraced on the net. Djs and producers listen to their fans and are more concerned over the quality of their productions than the money they might make from cd sales. And yet no one in this community is upset about the internet. Remixers get paid to remix a single by another artist which is released on vinyl, and Djs get paid to dj. Somehow i've found a genre thats still about music, and not about making money and everyone is happy.

[*DAMN Mauti]

First Bucc I think you are seeing this too black and white simply because the radio allowed you to do the same and nobody complained! I could call my favourite local radio station and they played my song. I recorded it with my cool ?berold tapes and voila I listened it again and again... Nobody complained like it is nowadays.

Now I don't listen to the radio - I download my favourite music. I bought 2 handful CDs in my life: 10cd before I had internet and half after I started to download music.

May I'm stealing someones music but I hardly doubt that I would have bought 213cds within the last year(=amount of downloaded music) which would have cost me approximatly 3000Dollar. I only bought last year Smashing Pumkins Greatest Hits because I really like them but that's it. All in all my indie pop music isn't that easy to find at medium sized cd stores if at all.

With or without RIAA I continue to downloading music and I don't have a bad feeling doing so simply because I copied music my whole life(radio-tape and now mp3). Downloading apps is something different especially concerning games: I bought R6 and GR instead of downloading it simply because I liked them and every pirated game hits a small game market, like the Mac game sector double hard(Mac top games, like UT, MOHAA , are sold only between 20.000 - 40.000times.) Also I get most software for student prizes (Flash 6 - 20bucks or Adobe Illustrator for 18bucks) so there is no need to download it.

Bye,

Mauti

[*DAMN Hazard]

It could also have to do with what I heard on the radio the other day. Korn was working on an album for months, set a release date and somehow people already had their entire cd 3 months before it's release. If you worked on an album that long I think you would be pissed too. My friends are trying to put together a demo and they are putting so much work into it. So I can just see where some artists are coming from.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Well you can't make p2p responsible for this in general. Then you could make the general globalisation also responsible for every bs. I think I would have missed fantastic indie music without p2p. I don't think you take much notice of bands like Hooverphonic, Pixies, Athletes, Ok Go,... without p2p.

I love p2p and music sharing or how often do you buy a cd from a group you have never heard before!?

Mauti

[jn.loudnotes]

Bucc, I don't spend my time reading laws to letter because I'm still idealistic enough to think about how they should be, whether they are or not.  My impressions as to the actual wording of the law come from what I see in the news media and the like.  So, legally I'm going on impressions, but ethically my arguments are sound.

For example, you've said it's illegal to distribute a copyrighted file.  I've always thought the law had exceptions for examples such as this, and if it doesn't, it should.  Say a friend of mine buys a CD that I also have a copy of.  One day he loses it.  I should be allowed to copy my CD for him.  That concept, on a larger scale, is the moral (and legal?) justification for mp3 file sharing.  Whether that actually happens or not is very difficult to determine simply from an IP address.  The government would have to determine whether the downloader owned the song or not.  Quite simply, that cannot be accomplished without invasion of privacy.

Your probable cause is ridiculous.  There is no instance of probable cause when the target population is so great.  The government doesn't have probable cause to investigate millions of file transfers.  The fact that someone downloads many mp3s might suggest that they don't own them all, but it's unreasonable for that possibility to justify search.  Where do you draw the line?  How on earth could you ensure fair standards as to that.  And don't use irrelevant analogies.  If you're driving badly, the only reason the copy can pull you over is because you're endangering yourself and others.  If you're driving badly on your own private race track at home, no cop can come in and give you a Breathalyzer.  And exactly how could you determine whether they owned the material without a search??

Obviously you can prove someone downloaded something or upped it without searching.  But how can you determine whether they own it?  Frankly, if the licenses don't allow backup copies, that's ridiculous.  And I'm not sure it would hold up in court.  If I assist my friend as in the earlier example, how can the company force him to purchase a new CD?