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.

 

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I remember back when CD's first came out that there was something about unfair marketing practices being perpetrated on the consumer, and the government decided to step in. The crux of the case was basically this: Cassette tapes cost a buck or two each to manufacture, where the CD only cost pennies. Tapes only sold for about ten bucks, but CD's were going for 15-20 bucks. The record companies made some lame excuse about the costs of introducing the new format, so the government basically said, "well okay, you can go ahead and rip off the consumer, but only for a year. After that time CD prices must be brought down below the cost of tapes." I wish I could find a source on that. I remember it because I was working in a record store at the time, but I don't remember the exact details anymore and I don't know where to find them.

On another note...I had a cop come to my house one afternoon because of a noise complaint by my neighbor. I reminded the officer that the noise ordinance was only in effect after 10 p.m. He then threatened to arrest me for felony copyright infringement because the volume, and the fact that I had people there, constituted "public performance."




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Well, Because it's not illegal (yet), Allow me to tell you a true story.

Ever since I've had a computer, ripping software, and CD's, I have made backups of the original store bought cd's I had. Basically so I could listen to them on my computer which sounds better than my stereo.

Then came 5th May, this year (well for 25 hours anyway). My roomate parked his car in the garage, nothing new, he had a nice car. Ten minutes later the house started filling up with steam and smoke. Apparently his supercharger had overheated (it always ran hot). Long story short, I got myself, him and the rugrats out of the house in time to see the explosions from the gas tank of the car and an acytelline torch rig shooting from the garage. Fire department said they were there in 2.5 minutes. Felt like 30.

Now, after we got the all clear to go back in and literally "get watever you think you can save out". I discovered that my room wasn't in too bad of condition. I had my door closed at the time of the fire. But, Here sat a pile of metal foil and melted plastic that was my entire cd collection on the floor. Now, since I had a backup on my computer (got sooty, but not damaged), I still had all my cds. The insurance company said they would consider compensating me up to $5 a cd *IF* I could verify what cd's they were and where and when they were purchased.

Now If I wrote my sad story to the people at the recording industries, do you think they'd rather help me get replacement cds or would they make me buy new? So I say, I'm glad I backed them up, I'll continue to back them up, and you will never stop me from making a legit backup.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Wait if they are using methods such as hacking to see what people have on their PC's are they not the ones committing a crime.The last time I heard ;hacking was a federal offense.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MostlyHarmless
The insurance company said they would consider compensating me up to $5 a cd *IF* I could verify what cd's they were and where and when they were purchased.


Mostly
Thanks for the story, and am sorry about your house. It is the quote above that i would like to ask a question. Few of us have had to go through what you did with the insurance company. So could you tell me which company it was? I might have a better idea what to expect should I have to deal with them should this happen.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they decide that having friends round and playing a DVD or CD constitutes a public performance as well. After all, those freeloaders should go buy their own DVD's and CD's, not watch or listen to someone else's "personal" copy


The case mentioned in the original post seems to be nothing more than a sneaky interpretation of the copyright laws with the sole purpose of extracting money from people. Greed knows no bounds for these corporate sharks and their blood sucking lawyers.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem

Originally posted by MostlyHarmless
The insurance company said they would consider compensating me up to $5 a cd *IF* I could verify what cd's they were and where and when they were purchased.


Mostly
Thanks for the story, and am sorry about your house. It is the quote above that i would like to ask a question. Few of us have had to go through what you did with the insurance company. So could you tell me which company it was? I might have a better idea what to expect should I have to deal with them should this happen.


It doesn't matter which company it is. Standard practice in claims paying is you have to prove you lost what you claim to have lost, Also, if your policy does not include a replacement cost clause, then they will only pay the depreciated value of the lost property. If the policy includes replacement cost then they will pay the depreciated value until you actually replace the property. Once proof of replacement is provided, they pay the difference.

I used to be an insurance agent, so I have a little knowledge about it. But then a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.


As for the RIAA bull about ripping the CDs for which I have already paid... First they have to find my mp3 files. Flash drives are your friend. They are easy to "misplace".



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Theres more that meets the Eye on this. The only way they would've know if he had those songs, was if he had a peer to peer application on his computer, and the songs were in a shared folder. At that point, they can run a packet sniffer on the data stream, expoliate the public ip address, and trace that back to a ISP. Once there all cable ISP's correlate a public IP, to a private ip traced to a cable modem, that must be on a persons account in order to work. Same goes for DSL.

If this guy wasn't sharing, then there would've been no way to go after him. What there trying to do is scare him into settling, saying that since he was sharing all 2000, vs the one or 2 that they downloaded, he is liable for all of them, even though it might have been only one or 2 that got there attention. There trying to maximise damage in order to force settlement.


If I was this guy, first thing I would do is trash my router, buy a new one, hook it up, get a new ip. then I would plug in 5-6 computers directly into the modem. Each device has a mac address, and the mac address is tied to the public IP. Arp entries on routers are limited to 1-3 usually of a device. That device being his modem. Since you have multiple new ips assocatiate with the modem now, you then eliminate any current data relevant to the original offending IP.

Next, he can request copies of all data associating his modem to the ip in question, as well as get data as to when the original content was found, exact time and date, and when the ISP correlated the IP to the his modem, exact time and day. If the dhcp lease is less then the time between when the incident occurred, and when the ISP actually checked, then he has reasonable doubt, as it is possible another modem could have gotten that ip during that time and the uploads came from them, and since there is no data linking his modem to the offending IP, the case can be dismissed for lack of evidence.

Just my humble opinion,

Cheers,

Camain



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   


This entire case is ludicrous. I believe the Riaa will lose their case because we have always been able to back-up our originals whether it was a album to cassette or VHS.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
another reason i don't 'share'.
all my stuff is on an external HD. not plugged in unless i am transfering something over.

i use p2p but i do not have a shared folder.
the riaa is never going to win in the big picture but they're also never going to stop trying, imo.

there are always going to be ways to get around this type of thing



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
This RIAA stuff is just the last gasp of a dying business model anyway.

The record industry is obsolete.

Most musicians make very little on record sales anyway - the recording contracts are structured so the artist is essentially paying the company to record, promote and produce the work, then the artist gets what's left over, if anything. Most artists, except for the biggest acts, depend on live performances to make money, because the record company basically takes everything.

That's why you see artists like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails starting to distribute their own music digitally - the recording industry is essentially parasitic, and is going the way of the dinosaurs.

Their recent attempts to basically purchase legislation to protect themselves is shameful, but not surprising.

[edit on 12/31/07 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


I really kind of hope your right with your prediction. I don't see the industry dying any time soon. I just feel they have been reaming the public for a long time, and would like to see it stop.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by camain
If this guy wasn't sharing, then there would've been no way to go after him. What there trying to do is scare him into settling, saying that since he was sharing all 2000, vs the one or 2 that they downloaded, he is liable for all of them, even though it might have been only one or 2 that got there attention. There trying to maximise damage in order to force settlement.


You could be right. Check this out:


Originally posted by drflux

RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading.


engadget.com

i just read the title and i made another thread but ill put that information on here.


People must've missed that post by drflux's on the previous page.

Alternatively, RIAA could've double-backed after the uproar this news made in the blogosphere and the rest of the internet. Wouldn't want to give the impression that one is attacking their own customers, now would we?

As of today, most news websites still haven't updated their articles with this little tid-bit.

Good.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOplayerhater
 


I looked over their Terms/Service and nowhere did I see anyone being safe from either the MPAA or the RIAA. Actually I have yet to see them mentioned on the site at all. This leads me to believe you are paying for a service yet can still face penalties from either.

There are actually some readings in the Terms/Service that lead me to believe that you are at risk of facing charges if they feel the need to pursue the issue.

I’m not a lawyer but I would have one look it over very closely before I would commit to using it. You may end up realizing you wasted $40 a month on a service that in fact is not protecting you.

This is just a small piece of humble advice use it as you see fit.

Raist



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
So, let me get this straight. They are pretty much trying to eliminate MP3 players all together? Because how on earth would you get music onto it, if you can copy a CD over to it? Even if you buy a 2nd copy of the CD...you still have to COPY it in order to listen to it. So, now we have to resort back to big bulky "walkmans" :LOL:


This is just ridiculous IMO



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
So, let me get this straight. They are pretty much trying to eliminate MP3 players all together? Because how on earth would you get music onto it, if you can copy a CD over to it? Even if you buy a 2nd copy of the CD...you still have to COPY it in order to listen to it. So, now we have to resort back to big bulky "walkmans" :LOL:


This is just ridiculous IMO


What they are basically trying to make you do is buy one copy from a company like i tunes for your mp3 player and another copy from same company for your pc and maybe another for your laptop as well as maybe owning the cd to play in your main stereo system



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Guys, the guy is getting smacked because he got caught sharing, plain and simple.

His arguement is that he had copies of CD's for backup. This is irrelevant to the fact that they have data stating that they shared from him.

What he needs to do, is dispute the data, you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you can inject reasonable doubt, your free and clear.

I have already laid the premise for how I would do it, should it occur to me, but this being said, don't use P2P. you open yourself up to a can of worms, and its just not worth it, IMO.

If you really want the stuff for free, I suggest newsgroups, without tracking. You're downloading the stuff from the newsgroup servers, not the other peoples computers, and thus the responsibility is laid on the newsgroup to remove illegal posts, not you for downloading.

Cheers,

Camain



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join