SilenceGold

Someone said:

RIAA rips off the artists. They are using those artist copyrights as an excuse.

Try starting up your own music band without RIAA....you would make a decent profit....but no...you can't...because Yahoo or Ebay won't allow you to sell your home-made cds. Where else could you be able to sell your cds? The only choice is to go thru RIAA. That's monopoly and THEY BROKE THE LAW.

That's where the citizens DOES NOT know. They need to put more pressure on the justice dept to urge them to take action on what RIAA is doing.

Banjo is fed by the information from RIAA and other misleading media hype.

Sorry, Banjo, you're not really trying to stay on the fence and learn the facts.

Facts:

1. It's illegal to download copyrighted images/files/and other materials listed to be permitted to be protected by the copyright law.

2. It's NOT illegal to use p2p softwares.

3. It's NOT illegal to create backups as long as you own the copyright legally (RIAA says otherwise because currently there's a bill to make it illegal) (also remember, a bill is not a law)

4. DMCA forbids security countermeasures on any copyright content of USA origin. That is what RIAA is claiming that the p2p softwares are doing, countermeasuring the security checkpoints of legal copyright music.

5. The facts all say it here at this link which I didn't hotlink so you can see what this link says. http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

SilenceGold

I didn't get sued. They just threatened that they will sue me if I go forward with this security countermeasure information. I could have done it anonymous but I want all the credits so I'm waitng for a change in the DMCA law.

Bush_in_2004!

SG sez: "RIAA rips off the artists."

that's kind of a blanket statement that makes your statement untrue. for one thing, the RIAA collects royalties from broadcasters and returns them to the artists. this is hardly "ripping artists off."

Yes, its true that it is difficult for new start-ups (new bands) to get established, but not impossible.

But this is the same for any business. Wanna write a book and sell it independently? You gotta pay the book God: RR Bowker. If you don't pay and get a ISBN# (includes videos) NOBODY will carry your product.



For the record I hate the RIAA almost as much as you. They've gone overboard and need to moderate their actions.


btw, I paid $180 to the RIAA in 2002 to do what I do to be RIAA-compliant. God knows what it will be in 2003.

LinuxGold

This convo start to sound like Microsoft. Microsoft collects ideas and monopolize them in whichever way they could.

SilenceGold

When I said "RIAA rips off artists" I meant that RIAA made so many misleading statements about their earnings for the artists. They even claim that they sold less cds than the years before. They also claim that they had to raise the prices of the cds to beat the low earning records. There are many misleading statements that even judges had to throw them out when RIAA failed to prove those statements or deblunker the other opposed statements. If you want to read about those....go and google it...there's a lot of results on their misleading statements. That's also known as FRAUD to both customers and artists.

The artists got dragged into this.

Imagine this...

RIAA spokesman walks up to you and says, "You used to sell millions of cds before napster software was obtained and regularly used to download your mp3 copies and we didn't gather any cents from those downloaders. Currently your cds are sluggish selling because of napster. We need your help to support us to go and fight to get all your hard earned money back for just you because you deserve it." You get nagged like that by various of different RIAA spokespeople.

Now here's the truth...

1. Why did they have to go and ask for their artists' support instead of asking them what they should have done?

2. How the hell did RIAA know exactly how much of those artists' mp3 were downloaded? It was just guessing games.

3. Did they really produce enough cds to be sold or did they really do low number of producing to sell it low on purpose then use that as an excuse that something should be done?

4. How can the artist get their money back if they're regularly spent on the lawyers and other court fees?

5. Many of artists have expressed their frustrations on what RIAA is doing. Even some got embarrassed when RIAA got bashed after getting personal informations from Verzion customers.

6. RIAA is just bunch of greedy people who is hiding behind the DMCA law which desprately is too broad.

Bush_in_2004!

SG, here's another problem . . . apparently most music artists support the actions of the RIAA, after all this organization is run by these artists to protect their interests. If enough of them opposed things, we'd see changes in the organization (they all have votes you know), but apparently most artists are happy with the RIAA which is why we see action in court and congress instead of from within.

javapride

WHAT the HELL is DMCA??? I know its for something but what does it fully stand for ?????

Stevey Boy

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-quer...t&Acronym=DMCA

javapride

thanks soo much stevey boy much apperticated

Stevey Boy

If RIAA entered in your computer via IPs, without asking or being aware about it, true? I find it wrong. You cannot seize something without the warrants.

It's part of the issue by supporting The First Amendment on this case that everybody have the rights to not download or dowload. That's their choices.

There's one thing I don't get it, I am not following this issue closely, how come you don't get in trouble for recording your favorite show which it sounds like breaking copyright/ illegally to you?

Also supposed if you buy a CD, and you decided to upload one of your favorite song from a CD, and that song u uploaded already got copyrighted info and how can it be not legal if you uploaded a copyrighted material in a p2p program?

Bush_in_2004!

"There's one thing I don't get it, I am not following this issue closely, how come you don't get in trouble for recording your favorite show which it sounds like breaking copyright/ illegally to you?"

the courts already ruled in an landmark lawsuit about 20 years ago (Sony/betamax) that it was okay to record off TV to watch later (time shifting). One of the arguments was the quality of recorded material was simply too poor for anyone to easily make money at it. The quality has improved considerably since, but the court's ruling stands.

downloading copywritten material and p2p hasn't been fully addressed by the courts, further, the DCMA and RIAA issues are still in the midst of "arbitration" involving the RIAA, broadcasters, Congress, the Library of Congress, and, of course, thousands of lawyers.

as the law currently stands, many say that most courts will rule its illegal in individual cases, so, download and or p2pinate at your own risk!

kalboy

Remember, Downloading music online is not ILLEGAL... it is not illegal to use p2p software. I believe one of the purpose of the internet is made to share all information avilable known to man.

P2P software is being widely accepted by internet users and it is hard to take it away from the people once they like something. It is only matter of time before IP blocking feature becomes avilable on some P2P software so people can keep sharing whatever they have. RIAA is just a bunch of sour losers who are trying to stop a revolution that cannot be stopped.

Psycrow

I'm willing to bet that in a few years, the RIAA is going to be broke due to a reversal of lawsuits and the people finally getting pissed off enough about this mess.

Banjo

Prove it please.

As far I am concerned, it is illegal to steal. I don't recall songs that were intended to be released solely for p2p softwares.

They were released to generate money, not theft.

If you want songs, buy them!

If not, then you're a thief and a cheapskate.

Of course, it isn't illegal because it's a legal freeware filled with pop-up ads, spywares, etc. There's no infringement in any copyright acts in the software.

It's the ACTIONS that the Internet Users are taking violates the copyright laws.

Of course, it's one of the purposes to make all the information available known to man.... legally.

People always want to get something for free. Tough luck.

You have to earn them.

Revolution?

Why would we want a Theft Revolution?

No thanks, because it'll just make our economy go belly-flopping. How are people supposed to keep their jobs if people like you keep stealing?

According to your assumption where 90% of Internet population steal files.

If that was true, then we wouldn't have any new songs, movies, softwares, and more because all of them would be out of business.

But if it is on the rise, then they have to be stopped.

Once a Thief, Always a Thief, A Great Way to Live Such A Shameful Life.

kalboy

downloading things on the internet is not stealing. When songs/movies/porno clips are saved in the shared folder that means the owner has granted premission to share what they own to the public. If I buy a cd then I feel that I can go ahead and make copies for my friends if they want it, because I paid for it.
the US economy will go down the drain because of P2P software? Oh please, I haven't heard Greenspan said anything negative about p2p software online.
Also, not all those p2p software are full with pop up ads and spyware, you just need to know how to find the right one and modifiy the code. It just prove how ignorant you are about the whole p2p sharing philosophy. Your whole arguement is based on thievery. But guess what? people are not stealing, they are sharing.

Stevey Boy

Kalboy, I strongly agreed everything what you said. I applause you taking some point of views against the RIAA and their actions.

Nobody controls the Internet.

I don't understand why some people being whining to the other people about to not break the laws since the whiners actually broken the laws before (double standards, if you called it). I swear to god, everybody broke the laws more or less.

Banjo

Yes, but 15,000 stolen songs is inexcusable.

Now, that you're calling people like me a bunch of whiners. I advocate to stop piracy.

The whiners are the one who want everything for free.

I'm talking about copyright laws, not the RIAA. I don't really give a hoot about RIAA to tell you the truth.

DefMATRIXense

Banjo, I hate to say but I have to agree with kalboy because in technical, sharing users did not steal over 100,000 songs. They downloaded that song from someone who owns the original songs or not. That is how they saved it and sharing with other users. It is spreading over the USA. However, the illegal is you download any songs if you do not have the original song

__________________

kalboy

that bring up a good point. Next time you got a letter from the lawyers at RIAA saying you have x, y, z, etc songs on your computer. go out and buy the CDs to avoid paying $250,000 in fine.

Banjo

First of all, I am not talking about RIAA. I'm not even interested in RIAA.

I am referring to the COPYRIGHT LAWS.

Sorry if I wasn't clear the whole time, but I've always been talking about the copyright laws, not the RIAA.

I did mention RIAA in a couple posts, but that wasn't my priority to begin with.

Copyrights Laws, they are not to be taken lightly. In fact, it is a huge problem today.

The owner of the songs has granted permission to share what they own to the public?

The owner?

Legally, the people who own the rights to the songs have the rights to do whatever they want to do with them. Not the people who own copies of the songs.

I never said downloading things off the Internet were illegal. But to download a copyrighted song from a person who only own a copy of the songs is illegal. These people who own copies of the songs don't own the rights to share these files. They are intended for private uses.

Even if it's just "sharing."

You are entitled to play the copy you bought from the store. But you are not entitled to share them on the Internet because you don't own the RIGHTS to these songs.

You BOUGHT the copy, your friends didn't.

According to the copyright laws, it is illegal to make copies and pass them around. It's even more illegal if you made copies and sell them.

The more you share files, the less sales are being made.

What made you think it's perfectly legal to share files?

You don't own the songs, you only own the copies of them. You don't even own the rights to these songs.

If you write and create your own songs, you own the rights to them and if you want to share them. You can share them for all I care since it's your songs.

But to share somebody else's songs just because you bought the CD doesn't give you the rights to share them.

It proves me how ignorant I am?

No, it just proves how ignorant you are when it comes to copyright laws.

I never said p2p softwares are "evil" or anything. It's just a software, nothing more. They are not responsible for any legal problems. The Internet users are responsible for their actions.

The fact is very simple...

You cannot abuse copyright infringement rights without suffering the consequences.

Please do yourself a favour and take a look at the "agreements" on thsee p2p softwares. They'll tell you that they are not responsible for your legal troubles. Therefore making it your responsibility to watch what you are doing.

DefMATRIXense,
No, the person who owns the original songs would be the person who wrote it or sung it. Most of these people own a COPY of the original songs. They don't own the songs, they own a COPY of the songs. They don't own the rights to the songs, they are just given the permission to play the songs in private. (meaning not broadcasting the song in public)

Did you know that it is still illegal to download game roms even if you own the original copy?

Hard to believe, I know but it's true.

kalboy

You know what is more inexcusable? bootleg copies of dvd movies and songs sold in south-east asia. Last time I went to Singapore there were bootlegged movies for sale on the street everywhere and it costs less than $1. Those people who are behind this are mostly local mob leaders who want to make a profit by sending some people in the movie theaters with a camcorder and go back and sell the tape. Now, take in account that Asia is a huge market, with population over 10X than the US. Just image how much money is lost from this and profited the mob leaders.

I am suprirsed that the RIAA is taking less action to address the bootleg issue. Instead they are suing poor college students and clueless parents who never knew their kids installed Kazza on their computer.

kalboy

What happening right now is that RIAA is abusing the copyright laws. I know there are such law existed. But by abusing copyright laws to take down the freedom of the internet and violate people's first amendment rights by look at their activity online is totally out of control.

DefMATRIXense

Banjo, Of course, I know that... not only that game but movies too. thanks for telling me but the part I disagree with u is you have a right to copy a game for back up if the original game has damaged. In addition, you have a right to copy if you own the original game.

according to your post here and in PM you sent to me, If your law expert is right and then the blockbuster bought one video and then copying for 20 tapes more and then people rent a copied movie for years. In addition, why does No one sue blockbuster. Can you explain this one?

__________________

DefMATRIXense

R.I.A.A believe it is not ok that you copy or download a song even u own the song that u purchased. However, Copyrights laws, you have a right to make a copy movies, game, music if in case the original is damaging. As Kalboy said, RIAA did abuse copyrights laws. RIAA sued P2P software, kazaa, Edonkey, etc programs and lost all in court. What does KIAA doing next? Of course, KIAA is suing sharing users. Why is that? KIAA needed fucking money the owners either did or did not support RIAA. Now, most of sharing users won in court against RIAA. A week ago, I heard RIAA started suing downloading users too. WHAT THE FUCK? What were they thinking of?

__________________

Bush_in_2004!

"blockbuster bought one video and then copying for 20 tapes more and then people rent a copied movie for years"

can you point to a source for this? I don't believe blockbuster is knowingly doing this.

Bush_in_2004!

"I swear to god, everybody broke the laws more or less."

yes, but if you get caught, YOU go to jail -- not everybody else!

LinuxGold