Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

RIAA: so now we have a legal precident

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Actually, all music file swapping could be made to cease and desist easily under existing provisions of the US Patriot Act, which is already being widely abused. It's just that the RIAA hasn't got the clout of say, military manufacturer crony companies, or the tobacco industry.

[Edited on 10-9-2003 by MaskedAvatar]




posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 06:01 PM
link   
you can come and take my tv if you need to.
The Buddha said, "take what is given". If you need it, then your should have it. You will see eventually that all possessions are transient and fleeting and its our emotional attachment to them and the desire to have them that keeps us locked in this world of desire and suffering.
If I saw that you needed the TV for your personal evolution, I would give it to you freely and then I would TRULY own it.

Take what you need and you will find that you never needed it.

[Everything is permissable]



posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I have a feeling as more and more of these show up, CD sales will slump further and further...

Of course, the labels will just say that it is further abuse of Kazaa, and will file more and more lawsuits...

And sales will slump further and further...



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 12:19 AM
link   
So now the RIAA has the LEGAL RIGHT to collect royalties and copyright money to material THAT THE RIAA DOESNT EVEN OWN??????????

Ummmm..... Doesnt that sound like STEALING????

Designated Agent for Unaffiliated Copyright Owners. Read literally, section 114 appears to require that Services pay the statutory royalties directly to each Copyright Owner. As a practical matter, it would be impractical for a Service to identify, locate and pay each individual Copyright Owner whose works it performed. As a result, in the administration of the predecessor statutory license for noninteractive subscription services, a Collective was appointed to receive and distribute all royalties. The RIAA has served as the Collective for the nonsubscription services.

www.underreported.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I've always wondered:

Let's say I own a certain CD and I want a certain song from that CD in MP3 format to listen to on my PC. I then download it from a file-sharing service.

Is that scenario legit?

(Why or why not?)



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 03:04 PM
link   
No.

Because the source is illegal.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Bob

I agree with William entirely on that.

You can use any current jukebox or media player to alter the format from WAV to MP3 from your source CD, and you are fine.

Such are the grey areas in the wild wild west of the first decade of 'teh intarnet'.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Let's say the user isn't technically capable of doing that AND the source has legally obtained their MP3's.

(Believe me - I'm not supporting file swappers!).

But, my point is exactly that, MA: gray areas. AND going after a 12 yr old girl isn't worth it to me, terrible PR already causing a backlash.

someone said 'the internet doesn't waiting for anybody' - it didn't wait for the RIAA to utilize the internet to better their industry. They missed out and along came napster and the rest of them. Had they realized what a vehicle the Internet was and thought up something like napster, where they can generate money, this wouldn't be a problem. Instead, they push talent-less artists and gouge us when we go buy a CD. They should have thought something like itunes long ago and lay off 12-year-old girls because they're starting to do their industry a disservice, imho.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Strangely enough, I believe the deterrent effect of going after a 12 year old girl and her mother (who were not as innocent as they may have first appeared) outweighs the negative press effect.

And I am in no way a supporter of ridiculous law suits.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Just BOYCOTT BOYCOTT!!!!!

Can someone explain to me what the mother payed 29.95 for? I thought kazaa was free.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Does anyone who is bitching about the RIAA actually play in a band for a living??



posted on Sep, 22 2003 @ 08:48 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The RIAA is just like any other company. They aren't happy with the millions they have now.. they want more more more. 2 words..... Greed and Power.


BTW who the hell is going to pay for cds nowadays. Didn't they say that they were going to drop the price of CD's. They did the complete opposide and jacked the hell out of the prices.

The other day I went to HMV to buy a cd. First one I looked at was "A perfect Circle" their new one.... $16.99 not bad I would have maybe bought that another day... then the next 2 cds I loooked at were insane

$21.99 for the new pennywise

$26.99 for NOFX

like cmon...... I am not going to pay 30 bucks for like 4 songs I like... that just rapage.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Okay, I ha a huge post planned but then the forum crashed so I am back to square 1.

If you are a fellow Brit and share music then the RIAA cannot do anything to you. They have no authority to sue anyone in this country. Instead of the RIAA we have the BPI.

The BPI said the sueing people is an extreme "last resort". Instead, the BPI has designated safe download sites where you can download music and the Recording Artists will still get money from the host companies.


I live in the UK, but US computer users will be able to access the songs I share on file-swapping networks. Will the RIAA sue me?

No. The RIAA's UK equivalent, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), says this is a US action that is affecting only music downloaders in the US because international laws are different. The RIAA cannot take action against people outside the US.


BBC News - Q&A

This is link is interesting for British and US users alike.



posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 11:26 AM
link   
RIAA falsely accuses woman of sharing music:
www.boston.com...

(you won't find that on the RIAA website)



posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Makers of Kazaa suing record labels

Turning the tables on record labels, makers of the most popular Internet song-swapping network are suing entertainment companies for copyright infringement.

www.cnn.com...

Ironic but very funny.

_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS



posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Yeah, well this "drastic price reduction" means instead of making a cd cost $20, it now costs $15. I'm sorry, but this is too much to pay for an album that I only like 3 songs on. I'd much rather pay a couple bucks for each song that I actually like, than even a buck for one I don't.

They need to come up with another solution...not suing their customers....that's just bad business....



posted on Sep, 25 2003 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I remember when I was a youngster there were cassette tapes with the 'hit song' on it along with a few others and before that there were 45's (you know, the 'small' albums) which were basically the same concept: buy the song you like, get a B side song as well, while not paying for the songs you don't want. I don't see that concept anymore these days really.



posted on Sep, 25 2003 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Where's the ACLU when you need them:

Currently, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits copyright holders to subpoena an Internet service provider for the name and address of a person they believe is violating a copyright. The one-page subpoena request can be issued by a court clerk and doesn't require a judge's signature.

Full story: www.wired.com...

That's a HUGE privacy issue. So, let me get this straight: The same clerk behind the window at the court house that takes my money when I go pay my fines (I mean, hypothetically speaking of course
) CAN ALSO ISSUE A SUBPOENA, which in turn allows an ISP to fork over my personal information? NO JUDGE NEEDS TO REVIEW THIS?

Now, the infamous Patriot Act, section 215, that has librarians across the nation screaming that were in a civil rights crisis, still requires a judges signature for the feds to get a hold of someone library records. YET, no one is worried about a court clerk being able to sign a subpoena??





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join