RIAA offers file-sharers amnesty! - Page 2

monolith94 · September 7, 2003, 01:04

"RIAA will not pursue legal action if infringers delete all unauthorized music files from their computers, destroy all copies (including CD-Rs) and promise not to upload such material in the future."

How generous of them...

Q Classic · September 7, 2003, 01:18

interesting. they say there's a promise not to upload... but if there's nothing precluding them from downloading...

Nubclear · September 7, 2003, 01:20

I'm sure that in the contract the RIAA will put (in .1 size Wingdings) that if you do anything the RIAA doesn't want you to do, then you'll be prosecuted and given the death penalty.

Q Classic · September 7, 2003, 01:29

i have to admit, this really to me seems to have the same feeling as the situation that the desperate sco has done, with the "linux invoices" that they're sending out.

Urban Ranger · September 7, 2003, 07:19

There *is* an older thread.

Yup, it is on page 4

St Leo · September 8, 2003, 20:49

The thread I was posting this in got close and this appears to be the closest one in spirit.

Quote:

Belgium the belgiumming belgiummers of belgiumming RIAA. Belgiumming lawyers. Belgiumming belgium.

What the belgium are you starting at, belgiummers?

Go belgium yourself.

A number of music file sharers to the tune of

In some journalistic circles, colloquialisms are frowned upon.

261

Wow, RIAA is going to rob 261 virtuous people of their life savings to no effect whatsoever. I should be going wild with joy.

that's sick and tired of having songs illegally downloaded and shared over the World Wide Web.

Is it that hard to figure out that no one wants them to exist?

The lawsuits, which did not come as a surprise

Indeed, it does not. They've been blackmailing the real world with these lawsuits for months.

Until now, the RIAA had focused its legal threats on actual P2P sites.

Napster was neither, but I guess that happenned too long ago for the Fux audience to care.

Monday's lawsuits were filed in federal courts around the country by the Recording Industry Association of America (search) on behalf of its members, which include Universal Music Group,

Die.

BMG,

Die die.

EMI,

Die die die.

Sony Music

Die die die die.

and Warner Music.

Die die die die die.

Also, there should be a comma before the last [and] according to my religion.

More waves of lawsuits were expected, and the total could eventually reach the thousands.

/me congratulates RIAA for finding a new business model -- terrorism and extortion

Boris Godunov · September 8, 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Also, there should be a comma before the last "end" according to my religion.

I assume you mean "and," and no, there shouldn't be one there.

St Leo · September 8, 2003, 21:21

I did say that it was according to my Religion. My Religion could beat up your Religion.

lord of the mark · September 9, 2003, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If Osama is downloading my Mahler files, I'll be pissed!

You upload Mahler files? What, protesting the outrageous amounts of money paid to first violinists at major orchestras? The obscene profits at classical record labels?

Dont mean to pick on you BG, just i always assumed the filesharing is mainly pop music.

lord of the mark · September 9, 2003, 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
interesting. they say there's a promise not to upload... but if there's nothing precluding them from downloading...

right - the whole strategy is to go after the uploaders, not the downloaders.

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 12:56

why do people thing downloading music and software off the internet for free is legal? Just because you can do it does not make it right.

Q Classic · September 9, 2003, 12:56

my problem is not the legality of the situation. it's that i'm amazed that the riaa could be so inept in its handling of the situation.

Rogan Josh · September 9, 2003, 12:58

How can they possibly enforce this? Since things like Kazaa are P2P, isn't it an infringement of privacy laws to snoop in on what they are downloading? If it is, wouldn't they need to get a warrant for everyone who's files they check, and then prove that the copy of the file on a harddrive hadn't been paid for?

I have a lot of tracks on my comp which are pulled off my CDs (which I bought legally) just because it is inconvenient to keep sticking in the CD. I imagine everyone does. I don't need to keep a proof of purchase for my toaster (or whatever) just incase the cops come round claiming it is stolen, so why do I have to for CDs?

Also, isn't it legal to let someone borrow a CD, as long as they aren't making money off it?

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
my problem is not the legality of the situation. it's that i'm amazed that the riaa could be so inept in its handling of the situation.

What would you do? They are trying to stop it by enfrocing their copyright. If you did this with a book in a store, something similar would happen.

Rogan Josh · September 9, 2003, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
If you did this with a book in a store, something similar would happen.

By that token, reading your kid a bedtime story is illegal infringement of copyright via P2P storysharing.

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

By that token, reading your kid a bedtime story is illegal infringement of copyright via P2P storysharing.

On these filesharing programs you dont share files you copy files of other people. Thus you are making a copy of music and giving it away for free. If i made a copy of books and gave them out for free I would be charge for it. Reading a book to someone is not the same.

Q Classic · September 9, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

What would you do? They are trying to stop it by enfrocing their copyright. If you did this with a book in a store, something similar would happen.

what would i do? realize that filesharing is the wave of the future: invest heavily in DRM technologies, coopt the competition by setting up and pushing very hard something akin to the itunes store, and give extras--which are cheap, to those who join the store. maybe it's a secret track; or different remixes; or exclusive art, i don't know. finally, rather than sending out these letters which make everyone mad--mostly because they're demanding $150k per violation--i'd send out cease-and-desist letters first, before taking further legal steps.

it's not hard to do better pr than these folks. they're as bad as sco or the bush team.

Rogan Josh · September 9, 2003, 13:11

It's still a transfer of information. What if the listener has a tape recorder? Or a very very good memory? What if you were reading it out down the phone to say 10 people?

Japher · September 9, 2003, 13:15

It really is a no win situation for the Record Companies to sue... Why? The cases are going to cost so much that it will take them years to recoup a profit from it. On top of this, by that time there will be a new and crazy way to pirate things again...

What the record company needs to do is find another way to make a profit; cut costs by putting songs online for the soul purpose of download, encourage file sharing through there own filesharing program, promote more tours and sales of parafanila(spelling?), offer something "special" on CDs that are file encrypted so that they can't be copied... Or, just increase security measurements on the current CDs, and reduce the cost of the current CDs...

Heck, there are a lot better ways to go about this than stabbing their patrons in the back and discrediting their love for music by showing how much they only care about cash.

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

What would you do? They are trying to stop it by enfrocing their copyright. If you did this with a book in a store, something similar would happen.

what would i do? realize that filesharing is the wave of the future: invest heavily in DRM technologies, coopt the competition by setting up and pushing very hard something akin to the itunes store, and give extras--which are cheap, to those who join the store. maybe it's a secret track; or different remixes; or exclusive art, i don't know. finally, rather than sending out these letters which make everyone mad--mostly because they're demanding $150k per violation--i'd send out cease-and-desist letters first, before taking further legal steps.

it's not hard to do better pr than these folks. they're as bad as sco or the bush team.

If people can share music for free why would they pay an online service for it? That does not make sense.

Q Classic · September 9, 2003, 13:17

because they won't be paying for the songs. they'd be paying for the extras. make the extras juicy enough, and they will bite.

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It's still a transfer of information. What if the listener has a tape recorder? Or a very very good memory? What if you were reading it out down the phone to say 10 people?

Its already a matter of law, no one can sue you for listening to someone playing a CD or reading you a book. ONly when you make copies of it are you voilating the law.

Japher · September 9, 2003, 13:18

If they really wanted to sue someone why not go after Sony instead of Kaaza and other file sharing services? I mean, Sony holds the patent on burnable CDs and was one of the first to sell CD burners and MP3 players... Sony is more responsible for propegating pirating than are the programs...

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
because they won't be paying for the songs. they'd be paying for the extras. make the extras juicy enough, and they will bite.

I dont know about that. Besides someone would buy the extras and put it onto the filesharing program and then people can download that for free too.

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 13:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
If they really wanted to sue someone why not go after Sony instead of Kaaza and other file sharing services? I mean, Sony holds the patent on burnable CDs and was one of the first to sell CD burners and MP3 players... Sony is more responsible for propegating pirating than are the programs...

You cant, already a matter of law. The same reason why you cant go after the people that make video recorders.

Sprayber · September 9, 2003, 13:20

I want to know when they are going after people who record off the radio?

lord of the mark · September 9, 2003, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
If they really wanted to sue someone why not go after Sony instead of Kaaza and other file sharing services? I mean, Sony holds the patent on burnable CDs and was one of the first to sell CD burners and MP3 players... Sony is more responsible for propegating pirating than are the programs...

cause its legal to burn a CD for your own purposes. You could be burning something youve paid for, something in the public domain, or even music youve made and recorded yourself.

Q Classic · September 9, 2003, 13:22

which is why, as i mentioned earlier, i'd invest heavily in DRM. there is no getting around the fact that p2p filesharing is here to stay; the only way these dinosaur companies will ever survive is if they adapt--if they learn how to use these new technologies to their advantage. rather than trying to stomp these programs out of existence, they should be trying to use them to their advantage.

Japher · September 9, 2003, 13:23

Ah, good point.

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
which is why, as i mentioned earlier, i'd invest heavily in DRM. there is no getting around the fact that p2p filesharing is here to stay; the only way these dinosaur companies will ever survive is if they adapt--if they learn how to use these new technologies to their advantage. rather than trying to stomp these programs out of existence, they should be trying to use them to their advantage.

The whole thing about p2p is that is free, and I dont see how people are use to getting music and software for free would now want to pay for it. Copy right protection on software is not full proof.