PDA

View Full Version : RIAA to Sue Fileswappers (PART I)



mojosalsa
June 26th, 2003, 19:28
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard this. The Recording Industry Association of America is going to be gathering evidence from Kazaa and Morpheous to crackdown on all the file sharing.


To gather evidence, the RIAA says it's using software to scan public directories available to any user of a P2P network. The software then downloads information on users who make files available to the P2P networks, recording data such as what file is being offered and when it was made available. The only way to ensure you're not a target of the RIAA is to disable your software's ability to trade files, or get rid of the software altogether. --Tech TV (http://www.techtv.com/news/news/story/0,24195,3463091,00.html)
If they got around Napster when the powers that be got after it, they can probably get around this too, right?

Can they really come after us? Anyone know anything else about this?

~Mojosalsahttp://66.227.101.70/contrib/slim2g/Fridge.gif

Will
June 28th, 2003, 10:03
I've had several talks with Prof Watkins about situations like this. It is possible they can get you and kazaa p2p servers are already screwed...... but really, think about it... we arent the only ones that are downloading music or movies. Just about the whole world is; and no I'm not using that statement for the encouragement or as an arguement to why one should download shared files. Unfortunately, it's clear that if people can get something for free, then they will, regardless of their ignorance. Just the other day I was getting some extra ram at my friends computer shop. And one of his usual customer's, who is an officer of the law (he had his uniform on), came in to have a conversation some how the subject became about downloading shared files. THe officer was talking about how he does this stuff all the time cause its free and he SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED-" I'm not going to stop until they notify more or warn me, cause according to the law they cant touch you without personally notifying the wrong that you are doing first."- I was like woa...

OK I'm not generalizing, but I'm sure there are more cops like him as well as other types of enforcers of the law out there that are just as ingnorant as the majority of civilians with home computers.

I personally dont use Kazaa, its stupid. Indeed there are other ways of getting shared files, and I'm not talking about other P2P servers, like Edonkey, Emule, Limewire, WinMX, or Grockster. Those are stupid too.

But anyways, like I said, of the 2 billion humans living on this planet, I'm pretty sure half of which have a computer at home primarily to send email, chat, and download music or other files. Feds can track you by IP, but that can easily be handled by unplugging and replugging your modem everyday, and Viola!!! A new IP address!!!!! tee.. hee.. tee..hee..hee..hee

Really you shouldnt have to worry about this, that is if.. you are doing this stuff.. and targetting users of those p2p servers isnt going to do jack. Cutting off the tail of a lizard is useless, its going to grow back anyways.

But piracy is like a snake in the garden of Eden, the only way you can kill it is by chopping off its head. The problem is.. this is no ordinary snake, this type of snake adapts...rather anticipates... every swing.. of the blade that tries to strike it.

Thomas Monberg Thompson
July 2nd, 2003, 12:58
Well, Im sorry to say, but have you guys ever tried file sharing through irc? well kazza or other p2p programs are obsolete compared to what you can do with a chat client only.... sorry but even if they get users using kazza, it will be impossible in order to obtain and smak down all users that share files. They even had a piece of this on the oriely factor, in which the govt's main concern is not the sharing of files, but instead its other more serious crimes that exists (internet fraud, ect.) those are the ones which should be delt with the most and which is being delt with the most. On top of this, we are not public enemy #1 when it comes to the sharing and piracy of files. Russia for instance has over 80% of there software that is pirated. Also if you look at the groups who do cracks for games and software like Dev1ance and Razor 1191 they are mostly groups in britain and russia.

JIHAUS
July 3rd, 2003, 21:53
Like stated, a lot of people in the planet do this daily. If you ask me, prosecuting file-sharers (probably a couple billion people) is a waste of time, especially if this kind of thing will not die that easily. I say they can better use this effort for MORE IMPORTANT THINGS, such as heavier crimes like murder. Hell, it'd probably be more cost effective to nuke a city than to hunt down all the file sharers living within it. Seriously (although you would get the "innocent" at the same time).

Excuse the graphic nature of that example. I just strongly believe it to be a ridiculous waste of effort.

Isrithe
July 5th, 2003, 17:42
File sharers are nice people. They share!
Why do we download music for free? Because its too freakin expensive for a cd and not only that, most of the time you only like one song from a certain band and buying the cd is really a waste of money. Of course there are some bands that have an array of great songs on one cd, these are called greatest hits!

Thomas Monberg Thompson
July 6th, 2003, 22:13
Also how is it stealing? if I take a machine and clone another car, then drive it off the lot using my machine, is that realy stealing?

Professor Watkins
July 7th, 2003, 10:33
A few things to note:
[list=1]
You don't have to be warned before being arrested, sued, or jailed for breaking the law. How many times have you heard a cop say, "Ignorance is no excuse"? If you break the law, regardless of whether you knew you were breaking the law, or if you were warned, the consequences are the same.
The RIAA is indeed going after individual users. Hundreds of them....see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30875-2003Jun25.html
Yes, swapping files is stealing. Consider the following example: You as a digital artist/designer spends 3 months of your life creating an amazing webpage. Some site swapper or lazy designer comes and "swaps" your page - just steals the design for his own use. Even if he doesn't sell the webpage, you are uncompensated for your 3 months of work. He has indeed 'stole' money from your pocket. Musicians and animators are the same. If they/we create something, and people use it without permission, or copy their purchased copy and give it to others (who then do not purchase it), the musician/animator has been stolen from - they have less money than they would if people were honest with the assets.
When you buy a DVD of Monsters Inc. are you paying $15 for the actual plastic and disc inside? Of course not. You are purchasing the right to view the content at your discretion. You are purchasing the right to view other people's creative efforts. Stealing is more than removing a physical object from a store without paying. Especially since it isn't the physical object that you are paying for.
We as digital creators should be especially sensitive to these issues. Someday, we are going to want companies to pay us for our creations and our creative efforts. If the company's sales are hurt by file swapping (swapping games, movies, or tv episodes), guess who's out of a job?
We as consumers are the ultimate victims as well. I know of at least 3 game companies who's sales declined so precipitously due to file-swapping that they closed their doors. This just means there are 3 less companies creating games. This doesn't just mean that there is a smaller quantity of games - it means that there is less competition and ultimately less quality.
As a producer of content, it is my livelihood that is being threatened by file sharers. Since the people who track down file sharers are different folks than those who find murderers, rapists, etc...It is not a matter of either/or. Since it is a matter of feeding my family, I would hope that my tax dollars would go toward catching those who steal my digital content.
Finally, its becoming clear that many, many folks, when presented a legal alternative will take it as opposed to the illegal one. Apple's online .99 cent/song store has cleared the 6 MILLION songs sold mark. Considering this is just on Apple brander computers (less than 3% of the market), this is a staggering amount. Other competing services which are getting started and will be available on PC are sure to double that amount in its first week or so.
[/list=1]

I think the real issue is that we are creative artists. Whether the practice is legal or not is really secondary to the issue that swapping is really unethical (both unethical as consumers and unethical as part of the production framework that y'all want to become a part of). True, swapping takes money out of the bottom line of the big corporations, but these big corporations pass their losses on to the consumers by ceasing to sign new artists and slowing production. Ultimately hurting the artist and us as the consumer.

Ultimately our economy is founded on the idea of paying what you use unless the producer gave it away for free. Students have lived their life almost entirely as a consumer - but someday, these same students will be a producer or consumable products. I hope that by that time they have the file swapping under control a bit more, or these same students will be hard pressed to find a job.

Personally, I file swap to check something out (like test driving a car, or browsing a store, or playing a game at Best Buy). And if I like it, I buy it. If I"m going to use it for more than the test, I buy it. I consider it my small contribution to the future of my student's careers :-)

Thomas Monberg Thompson
July 7th, 2003, 18:39
Agreed adam, my point 2 posts higher though is that the real big problem is the people over seas that are mainly responsible for the misuse of another artists creation (which is what it is). They are the main reason for the problems of file swapping, cracking, basic outright stealing and debauchery. On top of that it supports terrorist groups and other forms of dispicable crimes. I cant think of a group within the US that does this sort of work, and if they were even mentioned, they would deserve to be punished. I do it only to test as you do. I cant think of anything on my comps that hasnt been purchased yet.

ProfClayton
July 8th, 2003, 10:23
I agree with Adam's try-it-before-you-buy-it methodology when it comes to dl-ing programs or music. I've purchased more music in the last two years that I did in the last 5 years before that. If I like the music, I'll support the artist by buying it.

I love Apple's new strategy for purchasing music on-line. Come on, a song for $.99 or the whole album for $9.99, that's a better deal than most sales at CC or BB.

romeoandjuliet146
July 9th, 2003, 22:20
I know one victim of file sharing is doing all right. He can still afford his many houses, cars, etc. I think he'll be okay.

Will
July 10th, 2003, 05:35
Is it true that everytime you turn on your computer, it sends signals to microsoft? like a content-listing of whats on your HD?

BigPoppaPump
July 18th, 2003, 13:19
I think the big brothers from Microsoft have been using WinXp for that purpose. In order to complete the WinXp installation, you must register it online. I did a few install, and it only took a few minutes. But I bet the Big brothers at MS can easily peek at what I have under the hood. For my own personal use, I stay away from WinXp and future development from the MS big brothers. Anyways that is why I am sticking with my Apple! I love it to death! A Reborn Mac Lover! hehe

phoenixrai
July 20th, 2003, 13:43
hey..i just found this online today:

"Music fans are fighting back with technology, using new software designed specifically to stymie monitoring of their online activities by the major record labels.

A new version of "Kazaa Lite," free software that provides access to the service operated by Sharman Networks Ltd., can prevent anyone from listing all music files on an individual's machine and purports to block scans from Internet addresses believed to be associated with the RIAA."

Kazaa Lite...that's all i have to say ;)

JIHAUS
July 22nd, 2003, 03:32
Yeah, I go by the try and buy system myself...If I could find the stuff I'm getting through such programs I'd buy them, but some of them are a little harder to find. This kind of thing also somewhat advertises newer musicians and stuff anyway.

Professor Watkins
July 23rd, 2003, 23:00
http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3484600,00.html

The first subpeona is out. The list of kazaa users that the RIAA is going after to start with is there. Most of them are in the Washington DC area. The first settlement (for $12,000) has happened.

Note, that there are several who are Kazaa-Lite users. Are you on the list?

BigPoppaPump
July 24th, 2003, 08:39
there lucky if they get a dime out of me. Better yet the dirt in my backyard. Wait I live in an appartment.

Professor Watkins
July 24th, 2003, 15:10
Hate to point this out, but they don't take it out of your non-wealth now (if you don't have it). They take it out of your future earnings.

It's called Wage Garnishing. What happens is that any job you get, the RIAA (or any organization to whom you owe money) can then take out up to 1/4 of your earnings (out of each paycheck) before it gets to you. Even worse is they get to look at income taxes at the end of year, and if they didn't get their 25%, they can take it out in jail time.

To top it all off, if you get caught doing freelance and not paying the 25% wage garnishment; its considered fraud (a felony) and carries big jail time.

Not to put a downer or anything on the conversation; but I'm afraid being a poor student is no shelter from these sorts of things.

BigPoppaPump
July 24th, 2003, 15:12
Man you really on top of it.

Professor Watkins
July 24th, 2003, 15:15
nah...just a little worried....if you know what I mean...;-)

BigPoppaPump
July 24th, 2003, 15:18
They can take away the fancy car.
They can take away the fancy house.
Thay can take away anything materialistic

but they can never take away my freedom!!!!!

anyways all kidding aside, life is to short to be bother by such BS, and when one passes on they will not be worried about the mpg3 songs they downloaded last year.

Don't sweat the big stuff - sweat the small the stuff, that is my moto.

ProfClayton
July 24th, 2003, 15:19
Originally posted by Professor Watkins
To top it all off, if you get caught doing freelance and not paying the 25% wage garnishment; its considered fraud (a felony) and carries big jail time.

I know that you are refferring to wage-garnishment/freelancing... but you also have to figure taxes when you freelance.

Off Topic: That's why everytime I get paid for a freelance gig, 25% of it goes into the bank for that wonderful end of the year experience!

I love my tax lady though. So far, my deductions have always outweighed my income on such things, that its balanced out fairly well... that and I haven't freelanced all that much in the few years.

... and Larry, you gotta lay off the 2 Pac... ;)

ProfClayton
July 24th, 2003, 15:22
One more thing... the guy who got nailed by the RIAA for $12,000... he made it back in an online fundraising campaign.

You can read about it here: www.chewplastic.com

Professor Watkins
July 24th, 2003, 15:25
Might be hard for all 5000 defendants (named so far) who will have to settle out of court to make that $12k back tho....you can only contribute to so many folks :-)

ProfClayton
July 24th, 2003, 15:29
Maybe Larry should start one of those 'fund-raisers' in the event something does happen... ;)

Professor Watkins
July 24th, 2003, 15:33
I'll start one for an experiment and see how much money I can get. Yee ha! Maybe I could afford a vacation to Seguin or Somerset or some exotic faraway place like that.

ProfClayton
July 24th, 2003, 15:35
Where do I send my donation!? :lol:

BigPoppaPump
July 24th, 2003, 15:49
Someones dropping names, man now everyone know who I am!

OK Micheal!

BigPoppaPump
July 24th, 2003, 15:56
Anyways just finished talking with a friend of mine, and basically he said what Adam said. That basically they might put a lean on you, and if later down the line you want to purchase a house. You must take care of the lean before they will let you buy a home. NO I do not know who they is or are, maybe the government I suppose. In any case I have never ever download a song from the Internet – and that is the story that I am sticking with. But man I cannot wait to see how far the guys are going to go with these lawsuits. How many people will they need to make an example of, before they realize that as long as it’s free, people will not hesitate to download it?

Professor Watkins
July 24th, 2003, 16:09
Here's an anticdotal story about garnishments and leins told us by our lawyer when we were suing an uninsured driver that ran into my wife:

A woman gets rear-ended by an unisured driver. She tries unsuccessfully to get the guy to pay the
$1000 bill to repair the back of her car. So she takes it to small claims court where they (the government) immediately place a lein and wage garnishment against him. He was able to weasel out of the wage garnishment by getting an employer who would not claim that he was paying the guy. But the lein remained in effect.....

So, now fast forward 15 years. The guys mother dies, and leaves to her son her home that appraises for $250,000. As he goes in to work out the paperwork, the government comes to him and says, "Oh, by the way, it looks like you've got this lein against your name, with the interest (compounded monthly) applied to the original amount, you owe $265,000. So, we're taking possession of the house, we'll sell it and pay that toward your lein; but you still owe $15,000."

So I guess we still have hope that the guy who ran into my wife will someday inherit a bunch of money (maybe in 20 years or so) and pay for our vacation to Seguin or Somerset after all.

BigPoppaPump
July 24th, 2003, 16:14
There has to be a way around that? There has to be a way to get around that and still be able to get the money or the house.

That is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - look at the Martha Stewart Scandel. Do you really think that Martha Stewart is going to see time - you might have a better changes taking away social security from the elder.

ProfClayton
July 24th, 2003, 16:16
Poor guy's gonna make you rich one day! :lol:

(... BTW, I hope you guys are ignoring the fact that the forum looks different each time you post... I'm just trying to fiddle with some stuff.)

Professor Watkins
July 24th, 2003, 16:21
Well, the CEO (Sam Waskal) of the company she's been accused of insider trading with is sitting in jail right now. He entered the prison last week for the start of his 7 year sentence; plus he was fined $3 Million. Although, I'm sure he's still got some cash (he'll need it in prison). So every so often, the rich get a little of their just rewards.

Hey, maybe the RIAA will go after him ! That'd be interesting justice. I bet that $12k is really painful to him.

Professor Watkins
July 24th, 2003, 16:25
Originally posted by BigPoppaPump
There has to be a way around that? There has to be a way to get around that and still be able to get the money or the house.


I guess the way around it is to not get into the trouble in the first place. Or if you hit someone, to pay the consequences up front....if that guy who ran into that lady would have taken responsibility for his driving uninsured in the first place, he'd be sitting happily in his Mum's pimped out house.

BigPoppaPump
July 24th, 2003, 22:05
Don't get me wrong, I really believe that if you do the crime then you must do the time. That only applys in the perfect world, but you know and I know that perfect world does not exist. There are some good people in the world and there are some bad people in the world, and sometimes the good people get the shaft. So in that case it is good to know the law. That way you are not being taken advantage of. I do agree 100% percent that if you do the crime then do the time. Man up and take it up the ????

but.....

Lets take Enron for a good example. out of all the people invloved in this scandel, are you telling me that all of them will be persacuted. I don't thinks so, and that scapegoat might get a couple of years in jail. But really do you think they will be doing hard time, with real hardcore jailmates. They wouldn't last a freaking day.

ProfClayton
July 25th, 2003, 08:21
No one is safe from these guys. Read this... (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOWNLOADING_MUSIC?SITE=OHCLE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Will
July 26th, 2003, 00:20
Funny thing is, right when Kazaa and all those P2P servers are permenantly shut down, out pops a new file sharing software with advanced qualities and options. I'm not on the side of piracy, but the way I see it is, if piracy will constantly update itself to current secure systems of technology, you can never put it to a halt, nor could you moderate or minimize the number of people that will be doing such illiegal acts. Does this mean RIAA isnt going to stop till they find every single ignorant file sharer out there? Sure anything is possible, but wouldnt they have to put more money in then they'll get out of it, if they really want to get them?

Professor Watkins
July 26th, 2003, 07:34
Well, the problem with that logic is......

"right when Dahmer and Manson and all those mass murderers are permenantly shut down, out pops a new mass murderer with advanced qualities and options. I'm not on the side of mass murder, but the way I see it is, if mass murder will constantly update itself to current secure systems of mass murder, you can never put it to a halt, nor could you moderate or minimize the number of people that will be doing such illiegal acts. Does this mean law enforcement isnt going to stop till they find every single ignorant mass murderer out there? Sure anything is possible, but wouldnt they have to put more money in then they'll get out of it, if they really want to get them?"

Personally, I would hope that law enforcement doesn't ever stop, even though there will always be more mass murderers out there.

OK, ok, I know, extreme example; but you could substitute mass murderer for petty thief, or child abuser, or stop-light-runner, or public-nose-picker, or......

Just because the crime continues to evolve doesn't mean that the fight shouldn't continue.....

And the bottom line is that whether someone sees you pick your nose or not; it doesn't make it any less disgusting...or wrong.

The choice is really up to us the file-swappers.....are we going to continue to do it now that the boom is coming down; or are we going to pay for what we consume?

Will
July 26th, 2003, 07:53
woa, I like the way you put it. never saw it that way. Well like you said, how long before the people realize it? I'll just do my part.

BigPoppaPump
July 26th, 2003, 20:06
But what do you really think about the RIAA, and what it stands for?

I think their full of BS, and they cannot not possible succeed. Look at prohibition as an example – what the mass wants they will get. Supply and demand baby!

Also….

I really like what apple has done with purchasing songs online – maybe that is the answer to the dilemma. Build more competition and make it affordable to the mass.

ProfClayton
July 26th, 2003, 20:23
The funny thing about this is the only ones who are belly-aching are those that are fearful of getting caught.

Not that I am pointing any fingers, or placing blame, but its a funny observation.

(Do you think the fine will increase if you dl'ed lousy songs? (That'll be an extra $10k for aquiring the Best of Color Me Badd illegally... ;) )

BigPoppaPump
July 27th, 2003, 18:44
I have nothing to fear, but fear itself. haha!!

I just don't understand why they haven't done anything about it before. If they couldn't do it when Napster was the focus of there attention - then why can they do it NOW.

Plus...

I am just continuing the conversation, and maybe try to understand what the BS is all about. Didn’t think I was going to be branded for the things that I believe. I have never been in the position to judge another person, but if you have the authority to judge others then you’re a better man than I.

eightballuiw
July 27th, 2003, 23:57
Come on now Somerset,
I come from around that little town. Am I protected because they won't believe such a little town has technology for that? I get Internet through some Dixie cups and a string:) Seriously though, file sharing is not necessarily a good thing especially to the RIAA (stating the obvious). But the music industry has been price gouging the price of cd's for years and lost when they went to court. But of course 2 wrongs don't make a right. But whenever we feel that we have been betrayed, in this case by the music industry, we feel that we should get even. This price gouging should be taken into consideration IMHO when considering the price put on these users heads. Something that I read in the article that was posted that I considered interesting was the fact they were looking for people who had music for sharing on their hard drives. From what I understood from the article it wasn't people who were downloading music but rather sharing the music for others to download. If I am correct on this would a person not be in as much legal trouble if they burned their collection off of their computer? Also, what if the person went to the store and bought the cd and ripped the cd in an mp3 format on their computer? Would they be subject to the lawsuit for putting up these files to be shared inadvertly through kazza without actually downloading music? I personally know that when I buy a cd I like having the digital version (mp3) because I can burn it on a cd and play it in my Apex DVD player and have an assortment of songs that can last up to 10 hours rather than a hour like a normal audio cd. Also, I think the ability to download a song for under a dollar is very promising and I hope more companies see this as the possible way of handling music in the future. If I had access to a (good working song and not those really bad versions that float around) song in digital form I would see no problem paying for it. I would save me encoding time and I wouldn't have to sit there with new cd's and convert them to the format of my choice. Now I think the Apple option is for Apple's only if I'm not mistaken. Puts people with PC's, who are the majority, out of luck. Although I either read it somewhere or something about another company who has taken this highly publicized Apple idea and made it available for PC's at a cheaper price than $.99 a song. I believe this other company is $.10 to $.20 cheaper. May not sound like much but it adds up if you download a hundred or so songs. The only thing I didn't like that I heard from that company is that there were restrictions on the digital form of the media such as not being able to burn them to a cd which I don't like because sometimes you need that extra room and you need to burn that music off of the old hard drive. Oh well, enough ranting and raving about the RIAA. Can't we go back to the days where no one was on the Internet and practically everything was free? (Thinks back to simple text pages, midi, and large wave files. "Ok never mind") I just hope everything comes to an end and all parties are pleased with the outcome. I hope this paves the way for possible changes the way music is distributed and maybe, just maybe the record companies can see this as a great opportunity to distribute their music (they should have learned this back in the Napster days) instead of becoming angry with their mostly loyal consumers. Sorry for the long post :)

BigPoppaPump
July 28th, 2003, 15:39
The Napster 2.0 might well just be the competition for apple, with songs starting at 79 cents per music. Below is the link to the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/28/napster.reborn.ap/index.html

BigPoppaPump
July 29th, 2003, 12:00
What will they think of next?


http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/29/private.fileshare/index.html

ProfClayton
August 11th, 2003, 21:39
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=5&u=/pcworld/20030811/tc_pcworld/111956


RIAA Suffers a Setback in Piracy Battle
Mon Aug 11, 9:00 AM ET; Scarlet Pruitt, IDG News Service

The U.S. recording industry received a setback in its nationwide campaign to quash music piracy on the Internet Friday when a federal judge ruled that two universities did not have to comply with subpoenas requesting that they hand over the identities of students who could be illegally sharing music online.

Both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites) and Boston College won their requests to reject subpoenas issued by the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) over jurisdictional issues, according the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The universities argued that the subpoenas, which were filed in Washington D.C., did not apply to them in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro's ruling in the universities' favor could prove an obstacle for the RIAA's piracy offensive, given that the group has reportedly filed some 2,000 subpoenas through the Washington D.C. court, according to the EFF.

More Complicated

The ruling could mean that the group will have to file subpoenas in courts across the country where it believes infringement is occurring, a much longer and more complicated process, the EFF said... continued in the link above

BigPoppaPump
August 12th, 2003, 08:12
Oh well!, maybe they can try next year!!

Will
August 13th, 2003, 09:28
AHAH!!

ehem.. I mean.. awwwww..

hopper2k
August 19th, 2003, 22:20
Here's the link: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=18543

Thomas Monberg Thompson
August 24th, 2003, 15:17
Actually the way to get around ANY CRIME is to place a copywrite on your name and title. The judge himself can go to jail if he prosecutes you for any crime (the only way around this is if they have video taped evidence against you). Go ahead, ask a judge, they will tell you that this is true

Will
August 26th, 2003, 05:31
Sorta like that Mr. Ray retard from up north tryin to sue Pixar? But I dont think he placed a copyright on his name. What a loser.

Professor Watkins
August 26th, 2003, 07:43
Originally posted by OptimusDinkus
Actually the way to get around ANY CRIME is to place a copywrite on your name and title. The judge himself can go to jail if he prosecutes you for any crime (the only way around this is if they have video taped evidence against you). Go ahead, ask a judge, they will tell you that this is true

Er, no, that's not true. I've actually talked to a judge about it.

Napster had a copyright on it's name and title. Martha Stewart has a copyright on her name. Wal-Mart, Sony, NASA, University of Michigan, Toshiba, Jack-In-The-Box, etc...all had copyrights on their names and titles and they were all prosecuted and all lost.

Most notably, Microsoft has a copyright on not only its name, but Bill Gates has a copyright on his name, Windows has a copyright on its name, the technology in Windows has a copyright, Internet Explorer has a copyright, as does the browser tab within it. None of these things saved Microsoft from being prosecuted.

Basically, copyright means that others cannot steal YOUR property (assuming that its yours in the first place). It provides no protection against you stealing others property, or any protection against any unlawful conduct.

Sorry.

BigPoppaPump
August 26th, 2003, 08:03
that is so true AWatkins!

Remember there really isn't a sure things in life but taxes and more taxes!

ProfClayton
August 26th, 2003, 08:13
Originally posted by BigPoppaPump
Remember there really isn't a sure things in life but taxes and more taxes!

... that and death.

http://www.vintagepbks.com/images/belarski/pop_168.jpg

Thought I'd add in an image to give some life to all this text! ;)

BigPoppaPump
August 26th, 2003, 08:17
didn't want to mention that word - bad karma - but is indeed ture.

There will always be death and taxes; however, death doesn't get worse every year.


that was a good one!

found that one here: http://www.cherrylanepillows.com/death_quotes.htm

Thomas Monberg Thompson
August 26th, 2003, 15:56
Well, as we all do make mistakes, it applys I think to civil laws mainly(DWI's, Speeding tickets, ect.). As far as the people listed though they are a part of a corprate entity, not the same as if your name is just copywrited. Since they are bistanderds of a corp they there for are not being sued, the corp itself is. In fact, why would bill gates have one or any of the following people have one? do you really think they are completly innocent (laughs). Another point to make is if it is an international copywrite. In this case its international law not national itself. From what I hear it is very expensive to get. Since however you the person and every part of you is a copywrite, they have no way of using any evidence against you in a court of law unless you give them the consensous to. Just FYI this was told to me by a lawyer who works and deals with these cases mainly, so I dont know if its completly 100% true. But this could also explain why certain irresponsible ceo's are not doing hard time from there petty corprate shinanigans

Professor Watkins
August 27th, 2003, 09:00
Originally posted by OptimusDinkus
Well, as we all do make mistakes, it applys I think to civil laws mainly(DWI's, Speeding tickets, ect.). As far as the people listed though they are a part of a corprate entity, not the same as if your name is just copywrited. Since they are bistanderds of a corp they there for are not being sued, the corp itself is. In fact, why would bill gates have one or any of the following people have one? do you really think they are completly innocent (laughs). Another point to make is if it is an international copywrite. In this case its international law not national itself. From what I hear it is very expensive to get. Since however you the person and every part of you is a copywrite, they have no way of using any evidence against you in a court of law unless you give them the consensous to. Just FYI this was told to me by a lawyer who works and deals with these cases mainly, so I dont know if its completly 100% true. But this could also explain why certain irresponsible ceo's are not doing hard time from there petty corprate shinanigans

Er, 'fraid that's not right again. Let me give you an example...or two....

TV Stars with Copyrighted Names:
Natasha Lyonne
Kelsey Gramar
Kim Delaney
OJ Simpson
Jeff Connaway
Robert Conrad

Sports
Steve Mcnair
Reggie Arden
Charles Strawberry
Steve DeBerg
Bruce Smith

This is just off the top of my head; but all of these people have copyrighted names and all have been prosecuted for DUI and all have lost or had to cop a plea. In fact people like OJ Simpson have an international copyright on their name and image (as he is an international star), and it didn't seem to keep him from being prosecuted.

I'm afraid the whole, they can't use your name if its copyrighted is not right at all. By that logic, if a Coke bottle was found on the site of a crime, it couldn't be used unless Coca-Cola gave permission to use it. In fact if that were really the case, I couldn't even mention "Coke" in this post without their permission.

Copyright, is the right against copying or duplicating.

Copyright is defined as the exclusive right of a creator to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform, display, sell, lend or rent their creations.

It has nothing to do with being mentioned in evidence, articles, TV or anywhere else. In fact, as long as I put "alleged" in front of a statement about most anyone or anything (as long as I'm not saying it for the first time), I can write most anything about anyone without any legal repurcussions.

And the law; well they can say anything they want in a court of law in pursuit of a case. Its up to the jury to decide was bogus and not.....

BigPoppaPump
August 27th, 2003, 09:19
You never cease to amaze me Adam. You really know your stuff! When do you find the time to acquire all this knowledge? I would like to see you pull a rabbit out of a hat! Just kidding but man your on top of it - (knowledge).

ProfClayton
September 2nd, 2003, 08:57
How the RIAA tracks users is revealed in this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/28/downloading.music.ap/index.html)

hopper2k
September 8th, 2003, 13:31
More stuff on this is on the front page of cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com)

Apparently the RIAA is allowing people to come forward and sign some clean slate amnesty thing that says you admitted to downloading files and if you do that you won't get sued.

They also said more info on the clean slate program can be found at www.musicunited.org (http://www.musicunited.org)

Isrithe
September 8th, 2003, 18:44
they are probably doing that cause they dont want to get killed.

Professor Watkins
September 9th, 2003, 21:33
The RIAA's latest list included a 12 year old girl living in housing projects. She's the daughter of a single mother....

No one is safe....

The RIAA, after a rash of terrible publicity about it settled for $2000 (ah, the generosity is killing me):

RIAA Settles with 12 year old girl (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=501&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_en_mu/downloading_music_11&printer=1)

Will
September 10th, 2003, 03:31
stinks, and scary

BigPoppaPump
September 10th, 2003, 07:58
I don’t understand how a 12-year girl can be held responsible for her action, so I think they probably went after the parents. I guess if a child shoplift she probably would have to face some consequence, but 2000.00 dollars just to settle out of court is down right disgusting. These guys are trying to make an example, and this example will blow up in there face. What will they think of next? an 80 year grandmother?

Yeah I hear that one of the reasons these bozos are taking action is because records sales have fallen 30%. But with all these lawsuits and prosecution going on - do they really think that sales are going to improve. Err! Record sales are still falling and there is nothing they can do about it. RIAA is trying to educate the public about the wrongness they are doing. Maybe the public should just boycott the music industry, teach them a lesson for charging ridicules prices! Hehe

Its almost like a thief calling a theif a theif! - if that makes any sense at all/hehe :)

ProfClayton
September 10th, 2003, 10:34
Nope, the reason they are going after them is simple... to them [The RIAA] i'ts theft, and they want restitution.

No one is safe.

:(

BigPoppaPump
September 10th, 2003, 10:48
RIAA hit by EFFing music campaign

Engage in Congress, ginger group says


By Adamson Rust: Monday 30 June 2003, 09:27

THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER Foundation will formally announce today a campaign aimed at persuading American citizens to demand changes in the copyright laws.
The "Let the Music Play" campaign, said the EFF, will counter the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) bid to file thousands of lawsuits against people who use file sharing software.

Shari Steele, head of the EFF claimed that copyright law in the USA is out of kilter with the views of the American public.

She said: "Rather than sue people into submission, we need to find a better alternative that gets artists paid while making file sharing legal".

The campaign will place adverts in a number of publications and attempt to make it easy for voters in the USA to write Congress politicians.

Senior lawyer Fred von Lohmann claimed: "Congress needs to spend less time listening to record industry lobbyists and more time listening to... 60 million Americans who use file sharing software today".

BigPoppaPump
September 10th, 2003, 12:33
<b>Just read this intresting passage:</b>

<font color="#666666" size="1">When groups of people start expecting something for nothing, society starts to develop socialistic programs--welfare, special rights, entitlements, and the whole lot. The price tag for these entitlements, however, is far too high--they enslave those who become dependent upon them. Self-reliance is crushed. </font>

Thomas Monberg Thompson
September 10th, 2003, 18:46
that is disgusting. But I do have a question. Lets just say I got a soppeana in the mail. If I went online and bought every song for 99 cents on apples website would they consider the charges to be droped. If not this is one retarded move that the RIAA is imposing. It should be more of an ultimatum rather than a sue charge for christ sakes.

Thomas Monberg Thompson
September 10th, 2003, 18:55
Also another question. Im a DJ. I go and buy recoreds from artists legally, mix them and play them at clubs. At those clubs I sell my mixed version of the songs in which I gave the artists credit. IS THIS LEGAL I ASK? well it seems preaty shady to be justified as right by the RIAA's eyes. Because the artist could sell the cds for 5 bucks each making his demand high and him gaining a profit. And btw this is done alot, more than I could think of. Thats all professional DJ's do, they get records/cds mix the music in various ways with different effects of choice and gain a profit.

Professor Watkins
September 10th, 2003, 19:22
Originally posted by OptimusDinkus
that is disgusting. But I do have a question. Lets just say I got a soppeana in the mail. If I went online and bought every song for 99 cents on apples website would they consider the charges to be droped. If not this is one retarded move that the RIAA is imposing. It should be more of an ultimatum rather than a sue charge for christ sakes.

Nope...they wouldn't drop the charges. In fact, right now, you could go online and sign a form that says basically, "this is who I am, yes, I've been downloading illegally, and I promise not to ever again." They give you amnesty; which means they promise not to sue you.

The catch: no amnesty for those who have already received subpoenas. Basically, if you get subpoened, you've got to settle; which is an expensive proposition.

Professor Watkins
September 10th, 2003, 19:27
Originally posted by OptimusDinkus
Also another question. Im a DJ. I go and buy recoreds from artists legally, mix them and play them at clubs. At those clubs I sell my mixed version of the songs in which I gave the artists credit. IS THIS LEGAL I ASK? well it seems preaty shady to be justified as right by the RIAA's eyes. Because the artist could sell the cds for 5 bucks each making his demand high and him gaining a profit. And btw this is done alot, more than I could think of. Thats all professional DJ's do, they get records/cds mix the music in various ways with different effects of choice and gain a profit.

Nope, that's not legal. If you sample another artist's work, you must pay them royalties. For instance, the most famous example of this is Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice, Baby" used a sample bass line from Queen's "Under Pressure' [actually written by David Bowie]. At the height of his fame, Vanilla Ice was sued by Queen and lost; forcing him and his label to turn over mass amounts of dough to Queen.

An example of things happening legally is Dire Straits "Money Ain't for Nothin'" There's a part of that song where the lyrics go: "I want my....I want my....I want my M - T -V." Turns out that lick was actually from The Police's "Don't Stand so Close to Me." Dire Straits gave Sting co-writing credit for that one lick; and the royalties netted sting over $14 million dollars.

So DJ's who mix songs and play them at a club are fine. As soon as they sell the mixes without publishing rights or royalties to the original artist - they are illegal.

The big DJ's who sell their work, make sure that they are paying the appropriate royalties to the appropriate artists. Then, the DJ's get to really keep the money they earn.

Thomas Monberg Thompson
September 10th, 2003, 19:42
question though, if an artist is dead and has lost his copywrite to the music he created, is it then free grabs>?

Professor Watkins
September 10th, 2003, 20:49
Nope; if an artist is dead, the rights to his/her music is usually indicated in their will. An artist may allow their copyright to lapse, or their family may, ,which then makes it public domain....but unless that happens, rights (publishing/royalty/merchandise) to music typically is owned by someone even after they are dead.

ProfClayton
September 10th, 2003, 21:12
This one's getting a little long.

Closing this thread and starting PART II...

RIAA to Sue Fileswappers (PART II) (http://www.cgauiw.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=497)