JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum RIAA not bulletproof?

Hey all to those out there discussing the debate of legality of unpaid music download here's some food for thought. Now I don't think unpaid downloading is a good thing but I also think the RIAA has overstepped their bounds in enforcement. To that end at least Oregon has had the guts to stand against them in their fight to bring legal actions against grandmothers and children.
Derek RIAA get bullied back

Most people that break the law lose their right to privacy, which is what they are pleading here.

I have always said that most of the piracy problem is self inflicted. A result of not keeping up with the times and gross overcharging for legal material in the first place. If piracy is to be tackled properly then prosecuting students and grannies is not the way. Why do they not go after the big boys? It is not as if they keep themselves well hidden. Can the RIAA not use Google?

I didn't see the "rest" of the article, but I believe the "privacy" issue is this: you have to dig through a lot of innocent people's private records to ferret out the few wrong-doers. So the question is: Is the crime or potential public harm worth giving up privacy rights to government (or private) organizations?

Most of the time the answer to this question is a resounding "NO!".

Kevin

Amen Kevin

And I think you got the jist of what I meant (sorry if I wasn't clear). The RIAA does not and should not have the right to invade peoples privacy just because they think a crime "might have" been commited. I could see if they knew who the Perpetrators were and only wanted to see their files and correspondence. But opening up all the colleges files that's just too much. I for one am glad that someone is not standing for the scare tactics of the RIAA and is standing up to them.
Derek

Good point Big Jim

There are full fledge operations out there illegaly selling music for profit that is not theirs to sell. There are tons of large websites illegaly sharing files. Why not go after the file sharing sites and such first? I know the RIAA is also on these trails as well but they need to focus more energy there than towards colleges children and grannies. As it is they are coming off like organized crime themselves.
Derek

Hi Everrette

While I agree that in most cases that is the case imagine this scenario. You are a student at this college who has a terrrible fear of people finding out personal information. You only talk with people you feel safe talking to about such things. Some of your conversation with these people is through email. Suddenly some big corporation wants to peruse your files and information to make sure you aren't illegaly downloading music. Can you say invasion of privacy? I do understand that criminals give up these rights however should the innocent be punished as well? This is why I am against the RIAA they aren't going after criminals they are trying to bully people into not illegaly sharing files. As my dad once said if they ever outlawed firearms in the united states (only outlaws would have them). That said those who are the true criminals are the ones trying to not get caught and knowing how technology works they probably won't. Meanwhile the grandma who lets her kids use her computer gets charged 10,000 dollars per song downloaded. Where is the justice in that?
Derek

The Attorney General supports the University of Oregon because litigation may be necessary to determe whether strategies employed by MediaSentry, an investigative company hired by the RIAA, are appropriate. It seems MediaSentry might be using data mining techniques to obtain private, confidential information unrelated to copyright infringement. Noteworthy is the fact that a spokeswoman for the company had no comment when asked whether MediaSentry had violated an Oregon criminal law requiring investigators to be licensed.

The RIAA is interested in protecting businesses involved in the recording industry. But the music industry has undergone such enormous transformation in the last decade that the RIAA itself may need to evolve. When watchdog agencies need hired guns to break the law in order to "enforce the law", it's time for an overhaul.

Ice Age, Stone Age, Bronze Age, Vynyl Age, Digital Age. Relics belong in museums, not on life support. Musicians shouldn't have to provide welfare for businessmen whose jobs have become obsolete, and convictions obtained illegally should be reversed.

I think it's odd that people automatically react when the concept of "prosecuting Grandma's and children" is raised. Huh? Everyone was a child at one time, many people are grandparents. Some turn out to be rapists and murderes. Why do we feel the age or offspring status acts like a prosecution shield? Saddam was a Grandpa.. guess we should have left him alone to rape and murder. The Menendez brothers were children.. we should let them free.

The acts are either legal or illegal. I agree that the RIAA and Microsoft and others should NOT, even if illegal activity could be prevented, be allowed to randomly search peoples computers. In addition, if they ever DO that and find nothing, they should, by law in my opinion, risk being sued for invasion of privacy and open to civil lawsuits and judgement by a jury of their peers. I think one or two of those would empty their bank accounts.

The bottom line for me is that I don't care if someone is a nun or an ex con. If they break the same law, they should face the same liability. If a kid is under age, then the parents, who control their access to computers etc. need to be responsible, the same as if they committed any other crime. If Granny is doing something illegal, she should get exactly the same punishment as a single 35 year old. Why would it be different because she was older? That's stupid and I am tired of the argument which is hollow.

Brian

I agree Brian. However the point is not really about grannies and kids it is more about prosecuting the big boys first rather than just small fry and also invasion of privacy. Or is it a case of going after the easy prey and leaving the real harder to catch gangsters alone.

I understand that when you download illegal music, you leave some sort of trail that the RIAA can follow. I would think that they would follow the trail of those downloading high volumes of music before they would bother those only downloading a few. If kids or grandmothers break the law, there should be consequences. If they break small laws and get away with it, it might encourage them to break serious laws later, nip it in the bud. It is always nice if you can grab the gangsters that are putting the illegal tender on the market, be it music or drugs, but if there were no customers to purchase these illegal goods, then there would be no great profits for these gangsters to make, and therefore no reason for them to be in business. If someone comes to my door selling me something at a fraction of it's value and I buy it, and later it is found to be stolen, I am found guilty of buying stolen goods. Or if I buy poached game, I am just as guilty as the poacher, I am the reason he is in the poaching business.

Some people plead ignorance when they are caught doing something illegal, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Everett why do they not prosecute the download sites themselves as they are obviously illegal? If there are no illegal sites then folk cannot download anything illegally. Perhaps that is too clever for them and they prefer chasing grannies.

Hi Big Jim and Everette

Did you know there are "laws" that aren't enforced because they are too ridicolous for words? Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it isn't something that we all do without knowing it! So for example say there was a law against dumping soapy water down your drains. That would make it rather hard to wash dishes right? In the same way here we go prosecuting grannies because their grandchildren used her computer without her knowing they were illegaly downloading music. So Everette if I was an enforcement agent and I found out you were "illegaly" dumping soap into your drain would you like it if without a warrant I came in and arrested you at your dinner table?? I should think not! I'm not justifying people for stealing but this has gone a bit too far. I mean really is every illegaly downloaded song worth 10,000 dollars? It sure as heck shouldn't be! I know for a fact there are people who assualt who get less punishment than this. Heck the powers that be wanted to hold people who pirated operating systems to life sentences if the there was a problem with the software that could be construed to have contributed to someone's death. That idea is so loosely worded they could make it fit any scenario they want. And Big Jim you seem to be one of the only ones here that gets it! Thanks for your words they have helped to spell out the argument a little clearer. And a word to anyone reading this look up your local laws and see if you break any of them without knowing it!
Derek

Well,
Let's look at it from a monetary point of view. Say you had a song that an Artist recorded and sold a million copies. At the current statutory rate of 9.1 cents per copy mechanical royalities would be $91,000.00. Devided between you and the Publisher on a 50/50 split your gross amount would be $45,000.00.
Not to mention Airplay royalities. If it was illegally downloaded and sales were only 500,000 you would be cheated out of half of your share as well as the Publisher and the Artist, Record Label, etc. Now you may only be lucky enough to have one song that is sucessful. Are you willing to grant someone a pass and get your song for free?

Charging a very high price for a Cd may only result in less sales for a CD but doesn't give a pass to those that think it is all right to obtain it for free as a "lesson" to the Record Label. If something isn't selling there most likly will be a price reduction to move the product.

Hi Ray

While I respect your opinion and your logic does make sense. One person downloading one song illegaly doesn't take money from the performers pocket. The person who illegaly downloads probably wouldn't pay for the song if he couldn't download it illegaly. So there is no loss there. The only loss comes when that person shares that file with millions of others who might have bought the cd (might really breaks things down) So in the end an artist can still make as much money as his/her fans are willing to pay. Although really all that is beside the point. The person downloading music illegaly is commiting a crime I do agree what I don't agree with is the punishment. You want to punish these people? Make them do community service and make sure it's hard work! If someone download 10 songs and you charge them 100.000 dollars are they really learning any lesson? Not in my opinion except don't mess with big business. In the end those who cheat the system are hiding behind huge walls of network security. Those getting caught are the ones who don't even really know what they are doing. Again I do not excuse their behavior however make the punishment fit the crime for crying out loud! If you have 10,000 illegaly downloaded songs and your sharing them all then heck yes I'd be the first to throw the book at you! Download three measily songs (with low bit rates at that) And I'd ask you to wear a stupid sign for a week lol.
Derek

I probably should stay out of this because I have a pretty redneck view of things.
There is no grey area when it comes to stealing. You either stole it or you didn't.
These arguments about Grannies being prosecuted for a few songs are without merit.
The one "Grannie" that I know about was prosecuted for a couple dozen songs but in fact had two thousand songs on her hard drive and every time she logged on those two thousand songs were available to the rest of the world to share. So she not only illegally downloaded those songs she also had them available to to people to steal. Those two thousand downloads contributed to the theft by other people who downloaded them from her. It may have led too tens of thousands of illegal downloads.

How can you justify that.

And I don't know very many "Grannies" that don't have a clue what the Kids in her house are doing. If the kids are using her computer and playing the songs "Grannie" must be deaf, dumb, and blind.

As far as the Invasion of Privacy goes. Well, if the RIAA is allowed to simply log into someones computer and peruse their files I say NO
But...
If the invasion is them simply looking at the activity of people at the Internet provider and having it Flag people who log into File sharing networks and then looking to see if they are sharing copyrighted music files then I say YES.
It is like having a surveillance camera at the local gas station watching for drives offs. The camera reads everyones License plate but the only ones in trouble are the thieves.

I don't by the argument that the music id overpriced either.
If you think the music is to expensive don't buy it. The fact it is over priced does not give you the right to steal it.

I don't understand this statement
This is why I am against the RIAA they aren't going after criminals they are trying to bully people into not illegaly sharing files.

How else to you stop people from illegally sharing files if not by bullying them or prosecuting them. Isn't that what the law does? You don't say thank you to thieves and give them milk and cookies.

Derek,
You really don't know much about Crime and Punishment do you? Let me put it another way. In the Military if someone broke the rules but they couldn't identify the culprit everyone suffered. If Liberty was on the table everybody's liberty was cancelled. Sort of like in a War. If someone in a town did something to the occupying force the whole town may suffer maybe by killing a few residents.

Some say there is nothing worse than a thief. I guess you have never heard about the two farmers and their mules.

No Derek, you don't respect my point of view. It make take someone stealing something of yours to understand it a bit better. Sometimes you have to make an example out of someone.

This argument has been hashed out here already. No use going thru it again.

Ray

This was never intended to be personal I never said anything about you personally and I frankly am offended by your comments. For your information I have been stolen from and no it didn't feel good. However we aren't talking about physical property we are talking about intellectual property. I never said I condone stealing and the fact the you misconstrue my words on this angers me even further. Then we come to your statement that I must not know much about the criminal justice system. For your information I work in the criminal justice system! I have a much greater understanding of criminal justice than you probably ever will. I work with criminals on a daily basis. I have taken classes in criminal law and justice. And your argument of the two farmers and their mules holds no water because there you are talking about someones livelyhood. Here we are talking about the rich not getting any richer. I stil stand by my position that the RIAA are a bunch of greedy thugs. And I won't back down from that position untill they show me otherwise. They are the reason record sales are suffering not illegal downloads. I for one refuse to purchase cd's anymore. I'll make my own music an listen to sound click or possibly the radio. Since you have decided to make this a heated argument though I have only one thing to say how would you like to be held responsible for someone else's actions? Well here you go then the wages of sin being death under your system you just killed yourself how does it feel? Oh by the way you also killed your wife children and friends in the process! Oh and in my opinion something worse than a thief is a hypocrit!
Derek

Bill

I don't consider your viewpoint fitting in the redneck view at all so please don't act as their rep. You have some great points however even so I don't think you are as educated on the subject as you pretend to be. I don't know for sure which grannie you are talking about but the one I was writing about had grandchildren who downloaded a "few" songs not thousands. And no she didn't know about it cause the immeadiatly backed it up onto an mp3 player. And as I have mentioned repeatedly I don't condone stealing however I also don't condone the way the RIAA is handling things. They are a bunch of thugs in my opinion and I am for one glad that some one (Oregon college) Decided to stand up to their gastapo tactics. Yes I am calling the RIAA communists! And further more I have a right to voice my opinions! I may be wrong in some of my facts but that in no way lessons my feelings about the RIAA. I am usually not the type to hide behind the 1st amendment but in this case I feel my point is merrited you have the right to disagree all you want and so far I don't feel I tried to make this personal however you and Ray have decided (from what I see) to make this personal well I for one will not tolerate that since this made this turn I ask that it be locked because I for one don't plan any comments after this I'm done!
Derek

The gestapos weren't communists -- they were facists (lol). My take on the thing is this: If the solution doesn't solve the problem, then that "solution" becomes part of the problem.

Kevin

Derek
I would like to know where I made a personal attack on you.
I made general statements about the situation. Period
The only thing I directed at you was the question about the bullying because it did not make sense to me.

As far as my redneck stance goes. Well it simply means if you took something that does not belong to you then you stole it. Period.
I don't have to be smart to understand that. I don't have to be Edumacated to understand right from wrong.
If you take something that does not belong to you it is STEALING. pure and simple.

And I make no distinction between physical property and intellectual property. It is still my property.

You seem to think it is OK to steal Intellectual property. Or am I misunderstanding that?
I have reread your posts and you repeatedly defend the people that have stolen the files and justify it because you don't like the RIAA. Or am I misunderstanding that?

I am confused by your statements. I meant no disrespect to you. I was simply responding to the situation.

You make a statement like this
One person downloading one song illegaly doesn't take money from the performers pocket. The person who illegaly downloads probably wouldn't pay for the song if he couldn't download it illegaly.

You are justifying the theft. How can you say it does not take money from the artist. So by this reasoning if 2 million people only stole from him once it would be OK?

Oh! and I think people educated in the legal system might know how to spell illegally.(sorry, had to say that)

Just to clarify my point of view. I do not condone theft. I also do not condone overpricing either The public have been ripped off for many years by overcharging for merchandise and recorded music etc.
I certainly do not approve of chasing after petty matters before arresting those ringleaders involved in organised crime. That sends out the wrong message and smacks of corruption and incompetence.
I do believe in protecting individuals privacy. However there are ways to investigate SUSPECTS properly without intrusion and looking at private files. I also believe up to a point in the saying that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Good point Jim!
Normally you go after the "Big Fish" first because those are always bigger "fish to fry"! You make some money suing them and then use them to set an example for the rest. You work "top down", which by the way also puts a stop to most of the online "collaborators" which enable all the elicit uses on places like YouTube, GoogleVideo and what not.

So what are the really "Big Fish"? To start with, probably most of the file sharing places, but the tricky thing is to narrow it down to known illegal uses since many can also be completely legit.

And the beat goes on...
Michael

I have never downloaded illegally, don't intend to start, and am not encouraging anyone to break the law. Having said that, as a songwriter/busker I see file sharing as beneficial: a way to publish and promote oneself inexpensively and efficiently, providing better opportunity to pursue a career free of outside control.

Traditionally, record companies and music publishers have held all the marbles, and have been able to abuse artists at will because of it. File sharing deconstructs that monopoly, which would explain why recording industry executives are leading the charge against it.

For songwriters who are not performers, file sharing threatens to dilute royalty income. But nothing prevents songwriters from striking deals directly with performers - except maybe publishers and record companies.
So, all things considered, file sharing adversely affects very few people, the majority of whom might be considered parasites anyway, and the remainder of whom might be better off sans RIAA.

If you need to break the law to enforce it then you are no more than a criminal. Criminals need to be punished. Unpunished crime leads to more crime, and amoungst law enforcement coruption and injustice. If it is demonstrated the RIAA hired people who broke the law on their behalf, all those who were involved in the approval process should be prosecuted for the criminals they are.

This should apply to every agency! There is too much support for the ends justifing the means... where the innocent get hurt, by corrupt and criminal officials... The ends does not justify the means EVER!

JMO

Derek,
I believe your Education is a work in progress. It might intrest you to know that a lot of lawbreakers ,(Not You), eventually work in Law Enforcement. My comments was intended to inform only. By the way, we have the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center here less than 6 miles from me. And as we speak the County is Enlarging the Jail because they have run out of room.

Sometimes you have to kick a little a** to get someone's attention. But hey, a few shoplifters here, a few shoplifters there and pretty soon you have a whole store.

When you work, do you do it for nothing or do you expect to get paid? Same with someone's hit song. If someone wants it, they should pay for it. If the price is too high, wait until the sale. Kemo Sabe?

They have closed a number of sites but new ones open and some of them off shore where the RIAA can't get at them. Like I said, when there is big money to be made, crooks will be there to fill that need, if the need dries up, crooks move on.

Well Ray

Seeing as how you put it that way and I am calmed down from my tirade I see what you are saying. And maybe some of my knowledge is incomplete. I know I am still learning and I never intend to stop. I just feel that we have all made mistakes some large some larger and to me sin is sin and what is illegal is illegal no punishment for crime ever makes things right. It might curb bad behavior for a while but it's mans nature to break the laws of God and men. I have thought long and hard about your take on this and I am beginning to see your side of it. Give me time I might just be on the soap box with you.
Blessings
Derek

I remember a day.
It was not too awful long ago.
Our Jails had inmates and when a new criminal was sent to prison there was a room waiting for them. Now we have to build them one.
It was a day when most people could walk down the street without fear.
Women didn't worry too much about rape because the rapist got hung.
Killing happened but not as often because the killers got hung.
Most people didn't lock their doors because theft wasn't a common problem. The thieves went to jail, for a long time at hard labor.

Then we got civilized, started worrying more about our privacy than our safety.
Started treating the rapee like the criminal.
Quit hanging people for murder.
Theft became a minor annoyance rather than a crime.
Kids were no longer punished for being a brat.
Teachers were no longer allowed to discipline the kids.
The kids were able to steal with out being punished.

Ah yes. We have progressed.

Bill

I wish you would read my posts more thoroughly. I agree yes I was wrong you weren't attacking me and I was rather bold in my statements for that I apologize. However I mentioned more than 3 times in my last 5 posts that I don't condone illegal music download. Now to your point about spelling. Do you always spell things correctly? I think we all mispell sometimes especially when we are in (forgive the pun) The hear of the moment. I'm sorry if I came off strong it's only because I feel for those who are punished more severely than I feel they deserve. I agree people must be held accountable for the crimes they commit. However I still strongly feel the punishment must fit the crime. And that part I am still not seeing. Maybe I'll have a epiphany but either way I think there still needs to be room for mercy and grace without it my home would be the depths of hell. The least I can do is offer it to my brother even when he does me wrong. And as Jesus said who are my mothers and brothers? Then again who is my nieghbor? You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you but I plead please lets not let this harm any relationship we have. I frankly have nothing against you Bill and I'd hate to see our difference of opinion get in the way of any possible friendship. what say we bury the hatchet?
Derek

There are silly laws on the books and they don't get enforced. Some of these laws go back for maybe a hundred years, but back there these laws made sense. Most laws have small fines for first time offenders or innocent breakers of the law, but laws also have maximum fines for those that willingly break laws. Copyright infringement must be considered important to the lawmakers or else there would be smaller fines. Counterfeiting is considered serious because it can undermine the economy of a country. Copyright infringement can undermine a whole industry. Do you know that the entertainment industry contributes 5% of the GNP of the USA.

Hey Everette

Ok I'll admit I was a bit hasty in my comments yesterday. I apiologize if I cam of rather strong. It's just I still wonder does the punishement truly fit the crime? I'm coming around on this one but it's taking me some time. I really don't condone music theft online or in the store. However is a shoplifter held accountable to this level? I could see giving a fine of a minimum thousand dollars to a maximum of 10,000 (not per song) And even some jail time 60 to 90 days even. However at 10,000 dollars a song it seems a little contrived to me. I have heard the arguments and I don't disagree that people need to be held accountable I am just not sure about the level. I also feel the RIAA is pushing their agenda rather strongly and in the process pushing people around. I don't disagree that the music industry has been harmed by music theft. However I think it's also been hurt by the price gouging I feel the RIAA is doing. At any rate no harm intended and I hope it hasn't soured your feelings against me (however I would understand if it did.
Blessings
Derek

I have heard the argument many times that illegal file sharing is "different" than stealing something tangible. The argument goes on to say that illegal file sharing does not really cost the owner anything because the downloader probably would not have gone out and bought the product otherwise. Both these points are utter nonsense.

This point of view can only exist if one believes that only tangible items have value. Again, this is preposterous.

If you don't believe that, help yourself to cable TV service illegally. You may enjoy it for a while, but if you get caught, try to tell the judge that your actions really didn't cost the cable company anything.

The sad, sad thing about this argument is that it often comes from musicians, who apparently believe that their talent has no value whatsoever.

If I go to an attorney and avail myself of his services, and then refuse to pay the bill he sends me, I am stealing. It is theft of services. I did not steal his computer, or a painting on his waiting room wall, but what I did is theft nonetheless. And to say that it is justified on the basis that it did not actually cost him any cash out of pocket is patently absurd.

RIAA is not getting anyone into trouble. This, they did themselves, knowingly, and with but one motve: greed--the wish to get something of value for free.

If these cases against grannies and children are so unfair, then judges will throw them out. If the cases have merit, RIAA will win them.

Don't steal--our mothers taught us that before we went to kindergarten. Mother didn't teach us that it's okay to steal sometimes, but not others. Mom was the bomb.

They are NOT "leading the charge" against file sharing. Every major label has embraced it and you can legally download just about any song you can think of. They are leading the charge against ILLEGAL file sharing. All the RIAA asks of people is that they pay for what they get. Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

Hi Truman

Oh boy I gues I have really stepped in it here. Ok that argument was not intended to justify theft. I hear what you are saying and I agree with you probably part of the problem is that I don't agree with the way the RIAA is carrying things out. I never once said I don't think people deserved to be punished. In fact I recall saying several times that I don't condone it. My only question is whether the punishement is fitting the crime. Mom also wouldn't want to see her child doing 15 to 20 for downloading barney illegaly lol. I just don't like the way they are going about it I think we need to encourage civil liberties rights. And this is why if they can invade peoples privacy so they can find illegal music downloaders then what's stopping them from taking away the right to bear arms? Or the right to own property? And to let me make this perfectly clear so no one else misses it.

I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED.I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. I DONT CONDONE STEALING MUSIC I FEEL THOSE WHO STEAL MUSIC SHOULD BE PUNISHED. is that clear enough?
Derek

Is this true? Do you KNOW it to be true?

The complex question here, that is going to have to be decided by courts, is just how much "privacy" can a person expect when they voluntarily step into the internet?

If that's true Truman lord help all of us! rofl

"The complex question here, that is going to have to be decided by courts, is just how much "privacy" can a person expect when they voluntarily step into the internet?"

One thing I will mention as well though Truman is that colleges are private networks and searching them without permission (forcefully) is as against the law as the crime they are trying to prevent.
Derek

Ok not to stir things up again (yeah right)
But check out the industry message forum and a post about illegal downloading down there. Ever burn a cd onto your computer in mp3 or wma format? Or even lossless? oog vorbis whatever etc etc. Apperantly we who have are criminals! And no it doesn't matter if your not sharing the music or not. This is why I hate the RIAA.
Derek

HiDee Bro D et al!

Yeah, maybe it is "Kinda Tough" to bust a Grannie for rippin' off 3 songs. But don't forget how MANY Grannies are OUT THERE, Bro. It doesn't take TOO many before Tens and Hundreds of THOUSANDS of Illegal Ripoffs have taken place..all by those "Innocent Grannies."

Betcha that Innocent Grannie takes control of her computer from now on...& whatever way WOULD ya get the word out that Ripoffs ARE Illegal? (Lord knows, RIAA HAS tried many a method..earlier.)

But..ya nail a few Grannies..& suddenly Folks ARE Aware. (& here we are, Debating about it!)

My own guess is that Overseas Ripoffs..CD Labeling-&-all..are even bigger than Domestic Ripoffs..& we need more Retaliatory Response to countries that ignore Copyright Conventions.

But, yeah, it's easier to collect the Nickels & Dimes here at home that the Bigger Bucks abroad...for now.

As for crooks having "a right to privacy"...if they weren't crooks in the first place, who'd need to look?

& the argument that the RIAA should start after "the BIG Fish first" rings hollow, too. ANY fish is quite worthy for fryin'..& definitely Word Gets Out...& hopefully Folks Get Honest again.

Oh, & let's not forget there's really NO Guarantee of "Privacy" on The Internet. (Whatever made you think there WAS?)

Big Guy-Bug,
Stan

Derek, no hard feelings, just debating the subject. Maybe downloading one song will not hurt anyone a great deal, but does it stop at one song.

I was a vegetable farmer and every once in a while I would come across a spot in my fields where someone had helped themselves to a cabbage or two, no great value, maybe $1.00 at retail. They probably justified it to themselves that I'd never miss a cabbage or two, but if a few hundred people did the same thing, I would soon be out any profit that I was entitled to make for my hard work. One night my wife caught someone stealing vegetables from my neighbours field, she called the cops and they caught him with the vegetables in his car. He was fined more than the vegetables were worth, but not enough to discourage him from doing so again. If the fine is too small, it is no deterrent. I know of poachers that put aside the money they get for the sale of their first poached moose, so they have money to pay the fine they get when they finally get caught, maybe after selling 50 moose. The fine was just part of the cost of doing business. After the law wised up and started taking trucks, boats, quads, etc., only then did poaching slow down a bit.

Just as crooks will use young teenagers to do their dirty work, knowing if the teen gets caught, they will only get a slap on the wrist, while the real crook is not implicated in the crime. That is what these illegal sites are doing, they are telling people it is OK to download someones music, knowing that they ( the downloader) will be the ones punished, not the crook that offers the service for a small fee or for the advertising revenue it brings into his site. Sure, they should be the ones punished too, but if there were no customers, there would be no suppliers. Maybe the firms that pay these sites to put up their ads should be held accountable, they are aiding and abetting the down loading of illegal music.

Teens could use their grandmothers PC to down load music and transfer it to their own PC or burn it to CD, hoping if it was traced to their grandmothers PC, that the RIAA would take pity on their grandmother. Using your grandmother for a front, could happen, especially with the morels of today's youths, oh oh, the last time I said that, a holy war started.LOL

Hey Stanamigo

Thanks for bringing a somewhat lighter heart to this discussion. I think I still (somehow) haven't made it clear enough. I don't condone theft even from grannies lol. I also don't condone the way the RIAA is treating this issue. If you want to know why I'm so passionate about this read a post down in the industry message forum called download (something?) I can't remember the exact name but it's at the top. With the way things are headed it's a good thing I am making my own music because I certainly won't be buying any.
Derek

I don't actually blame ya Derek!

I prefer listening (Free) to FM Broadcast Radio...to "stay current"..& buy my CDs at The Flea Market. Sure, they're a wee-bit Older-than-Current...but they're a dern sight cheaper than new..AND someone Else has ALREADY paid a Fair Price, back when they just HAD to have it.

I've only bought ONE CD for Full-Retail all year...the Stone's Latest CD..at Starbucks. (WISH I'd waited for it to show up at the Flea Mkt, too...now that I've heard it a few times.) Ah well...I'm admittedly jaded/used to Better Music from them.

Anyways..there ARE Alternatives to stealin' Music. But kids basically NEED to learn that Music AIN'T necessarily Free/You can STILL "Get what you pay for"...(If you're patient)..and "Crime Doesn't Pay, Unless You're O.J."...

Big Guy-Hug,
Stan

I went and read some of the court documents that are part of the extended story. You would have to read those documents yourself and make that determination. In short the University makes the claims that a) laws were broken in obtaining this information, b) that the RIAA goes after those who can't afford to defend themselves as a matter of policy (settlement is cheaper), c) that suspect IP addresses are/can be used by numerous people (you have to do extensive interviews to get down to the possible "culprit"), d) RIAA seeks disclosure of information that is protected by privacy laws....

Kevin

Derek

Make no mistake about it.
I have absolutely no hard feelings with you about any of this. It is a simple matter of different opinions on a subject. If you can't argue with your friends who can you argue with?

The only reason I mentioned the spelling thing was you made a point of questioning my knowledge or intelligence. I really did not mind that either because truthfully I don't know a thing about most of the cases filed by the RIAA. Just the one I read about.
It is my understanding they have filed about 22,000 suites against people. I am sure a few of those were probably innocent parents or Grannies.

We won't solve the problem here. I don't know if they can solve the problem. Perhaps someone a whole lot smarter than me will come up with a solution.

I do think we have gone ridiculously soft on crime and that is part of the problem but that is another discussion.

We have all these "Laws" that are supposed to protect the innocent but really all they do is hamper law enforcement

Ha,Ha.,
This reminds me of the Fearless Fosdick character in the L'il Abner comic strip. Al Capp really knew how to use a subject. It happened after Eisenhower put Earl Warren on the Supreme Court. I think it was after the Miranda decision came down and you had to be read your rights when you were arrested for a crime. Poor Feerless Fosdick was always in trouble. One time he was charged for getting in front of some crooks gun and interfearing with the path of the bullets. He always had several bullet holes in him. For a look at Fearless Fosdick type Al Capp into a search engine. This case at the "Universty of Oregon" sure rings a bell.

They didn't have this problem in the old west when they caught a horse thief.

Hi Again Bill

I am sorry I didn't mean to make it sound like I was questioning your intellegence I wasn't. I simply wasn't sure if you had knowledge of the cases in which innocents get sued. Either way it doesn't matter what does matter is that we can agree to disagree and still be friends! Hope your having a fine one!
Derek

It is worth noting that many universities, though apparently not this one, willingly hand over data to the RIAA about student activities. Likewise for ISPs. These entities deserve as much blame as the RIAA itself, frankly, for not being more defensive of the rights of their students/customers.