It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Court Rules In Favor of ISPs on Music Downloader IDs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   
A U.S. Appeals court in a second ruling indicated that the Recording Industry Association of America cannot force internet providers to identify file downloaders under a disputed copyright law. However, the ruling does not effect the ability for the RIAA to keep suing downloaders. The ruling specified that Charter Communications as a service provider was a conduit for the transfer of files, but not responsible for them. The RIAA states that they will continue to sue file swappers.

 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - A second U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that the recording industry can't force Internet providers to identify music downloaders under a disputed copyright law.

The decision doesn't significantly affect the industry's continuing campaign to sue Internet users.

The 2-1 ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis affirms another appeals court's decision in Washington in December 2003. Both courts ruled against efforts by the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade organization for the largest labels, to compel Internet providers to identify customers accused of illegally distributing songs over the Internet


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The record industry as we know it is dead. The industry simply does not realize it. The judge pointed out that the RIAAs campaign is expensive and cumbersome. Why they can still sue, they can no longer simply file suits, they must spend the court time and money to name each defendant.




posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
As an actor I can see both sides of the copyright issue. In three of the independent films I have played a lead or supporting role in, I have been contracted to do so, my compensation being for a small percentage of the net profits. Two of those films have made it to distribution, and I certainly wouldn't want people to just be able to download free copies of them. But then again, I have an EXTENSIVE collection of mp3 files collected from the old Napster. I realize my own hypocrisy, but I think digital technology has arrived and the film and music industry needs to simply adapt. If they don't adapt, they will suffer grievously. Once technology is out in the mainstream, there is no way to stop it really, at least not through civil litigations and fighting to supress it. When I heard Napster was going down in flames over copyright law, I wasn't a bit suprised, but I wondered why they simply tucked their tails and closed up shop when they could have simply made it a pay service to begin with. When a small band plays copyrighted 'cover' music in a bar, the bar pays a fee to RIFFA to protect the interests of the artists and make sure they are getting compensated, i really don't understand why Napster and other file sharing companies couldn't have simply negotiated a similar deal with the recording industry to pay them out. Of course they do that now, but IMO it is just as much the recording industry at fault for this mess for not realizing the potential and working with the new technology instead of against it. It would have been a real dream come true for the recording industry as well, they would have saved millions in the costs duplication, distribution, printing, etc. if they had bent instead of breaking. Now they have not only incurred enormous legal costs, but they have pretty much pissed off their target market and suffered a pretty serious drop in sales as a result of their own failure to get in on the technology while it was still small enough to contain. They could have bought Napster, instead they chose to shut it down. Their greed cost them millions IMO.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
This is my beef with the RIAA:

The created the digital medium. They saw it as a way to have people rebuy all thier titles. Promises at the time was that the really high cost of CD would come down and given the cheap production costs they would be as cheap as tapes. Untill recently that has not been true.

As you pointed out they misunderstood Napster and instead of controlling and profiting from it they as you said got greedy and shut it down. With that they lost thier last real chance to controll and profit from it. That led to the advent of true P2P file sharing.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
While I support the right of artists to control their work and to be appropriately remunerated, the recording industry is not making any friends by these storm trooper measures. People have been recording music for their own convenience and to share with friends ever since the first affordable recording device hit the market.

The internet has made that practice all the easier to accomplish, but in my heart of hearts, I doubt that the industry is being brought to its knees by this practice. In fact, I would guess that such measures in the long run are more likely to hurt the industry.

Commercial music is a wonderful medium which brings pleasure to my life, but like almost anything else in my life, I can take it or leave it. If consumers stopped buying music for three months, there would be an enormous impact on the industry. People wouldn't even have to use the internet. They could set up local music sharing clubs and do the same thing they now do with the file sharing software and downloading sites.

[edit on 05/1/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
One more rant:

When used CD's became popular for resale, the RIAA with thier greed tried to muscle in on the burgening industry and threatend lawsuits.

Greed Greed Greed



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
We are led to belive that by us using p2p sites such as napaster or limewire,kazza etc that all these poor record exec and artistis are going to end up poor and out on the street, or good forbib they may actually have to work for a living
lol

Sorry to say that they missed the boat on these site years ago, and since the advant of mp3 or dvd recorders, these site have set up and get millons of users per day downloading whatever they want.

Now with I-pod and other portable mp3 players selling like hotcakes, mp3 and filesharing is here to stay,

as it was put eariler these big companies can't afford to spend millions on getting britney spears face palstered over anything and everything they can, and dear old miss spears dosen't look like she short of a few $. then what is the problem with people sharing music with each other.

As long as people subscribe to such sites and not take the p*** by being a freeloader then we might see a stop to these stupid law suites against people who can even begin to afford to pay the court fee let alone the settlement amounts.

Why don't the all record companys sit down with the major sites and sort out some way of working together,so they have access to the download market and the artist and rec exec can buy their new lexus or bentley or house in the hamptons lol or buy a second yatch without having to spend millons & millons and tie up the courts with these pointless cases.

Well that my 2 cents worth added


[edit on 5-1-2005 by James291077]



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
One more rant:

When used CD's became popular for resale, the RIAA with thier greed tried to muscle in on the burgening industry and threatend lawsuits.

Greed Greed Greed


Agreed.

I think a good example of corporate hypocrisy and greed is Sony.

They produce CD & DVD burners, Mini Disk Recorders and Compact Cassette Decks (Tape decks) all of which are used to record and reproduce copyrighted material. Even though they normally have a clause somewhere in the instruction manual advising that it is illegal to copy or distribute copyrighted material, they know full well that one of the main reasons people buy such products is to do exactly that.

Its a bit like a gun manufacturer saying they don't condone the use of their product in maiming or killing.....!!??



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
As a veteran file sharer. who has downloaded libraries of music in the past during napster's heydays, i can honestly say, the record companies are paranoid, clueless, greedy criminals.

Sure, I have downloaded entire albums. But the albums I have downloaded were ones I had already bought. I wanted music files of my CD collection on my computer, but I had nothing to copy them to disk with, so I downloaded the music i already had. Thus, i was stealing nothing. I had already paid them their overinflated prices for their CDs and videos, I was simply copying something I already owned. If I did not own it in one medium or another, it was because I thought it sucked. I would not download something that sucked, thus, id not be stealing music.

The only time id download something that I did not previously own:

1. Some told me it was good, i should get the CD, so, before i forked over the ridiculous amount of money the record companies want for a CD, I download a couple songs to see if the CD is worth my time. If I like the Music, i will buy it, plain and simple. I have a large CD collection, and while mp3s on my comp are good, I need to buy the CD, as CDs contain things you cant get on your comp. Like the album art, ect. CDs, especially certain CDs, are collectable, and a big CD collection always looks cool. So downloading music will lead me to purchasing new music.

2. The paticular file is a rare one, something that cant be bought in record stores or even from the company itself. Like, a rare demo, a missing track, a home video, ect. Since the record company is not selling it, in fact, no one is selling it, no one is losing any money.

The record companies are plain greedy, pure and simple. They blame file sharing for their loss in profits, but in reality, the reason record sales have dropped, is because they are producing pure, unimaginitive crap.

Listen to the radio sometime. About all I ever hear is some pop star clone doing cover tunes. I havent reALLY heard anything new or refreshing, or even original. Just a bunch of no talent rappers, rockers, ect, who cant even come up with their own tunes. There simply hasnt been an artist produced by the industry that has inspired people to shell out their hard earned cash in droves. Most of us sit back at home, listening to older tunes from bands and artists who could actually create their own music.

The record industry should be getting the hit. people can only handle so much of plastic, mass produced commercialized boy bands and girly sluts before we become totally turned off by the whole industry. They should start REALLY digging about for something new and crazy, even if it doesnt appear "sellable". Look at Grunge. On the surface, they looked like the opposite of what the industry was used to selling, even wanted to clean up Cobains image. But they didnt, cuz Curt said no, they simply played.....and voile. A new wave of music began.

The record industry shold start taking their cues from the public and find out what WE like, not what their own image and data and marketing goons want to put together.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I'll be blunt and honest. I've been downloading MP3s, movies and cracked software over P2P and other means for several years and I won't lose any sleep over it.

I used to buy music in my youth and looking back, I wish I didn't waste my money. And like most middle-aged and up folks, I have no inkling to buy a CD these days. I can take it or leave it, so one way or another, they'll get no more of my money. I'm glad at least that I can find MP3's of old tunes that aren't otherwise available for sale. If they're not selling it and I can't buy it, who's losing money then?



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
As a veteran file sharer. who has downloaded libraries of music in the past during napster's heydays, i can honestly say, the record companies are paranoid, clueless, greedy criminals.


Skadi, Napster brings back fond memories in its heyday
. We lived in an apartment that had its own T1. Only 10 people out of a complex of 400 units used it so late at night, we had huge bandwith. I can't and don't want to get intop the number of files I downloaded during that time.

The record industry is getting what they deserved. boycottriaa.com has tons of good info on how they are playing nasty. And hurting the artists? Boy they should look in the mirror once and a while.

If I actually buy a CD now and then its ALWAYS and indie lable.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
All I can say is w000000000000000000000000000000000t!!!
RIAA R.I.P. Superfast Payper d/l or Subscription d/l services your clear to take off! MPAA You're next, Hollywood better watch and learn. I am so glad the VD game industry isn't resorting to strong arm tactics. At least one Entertainment Industry segment is taking the wise approach.

[edit on 5-1-2005 by sardion2000]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join