Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41
  1.    #21  
    I was surprised to hear that Tenenbaum was a PhD student.

    I liked what Tenenbaums attorney said:

    ...When asked about the size verdict, Tenenbaum's attorney and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson told Ars that "it's a bankrupting award."...

    Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song - Ars Technica
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  2. #22  
    I don't see the big deal paying .89 or .99 for a song. When I downloaded for free, it seemed as if the quality wasn't as good on many occasions or people had added odd stuff to end of the song. As someone who grew up buying Albums and then CDs, I'm just glad I can buy one song that I want and avoid the rest of the songs on the CD. Yes, I could have bought the "45s" back in the day (for those youngsters, that isn't a gun, it's a small record that had a song on each side) but they were a bit annoying if you ask me. So to me, I'll buy the singles, get a good copy, and enjoy the music. Just my 2 cents....or usually 99 cents.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The person doing the sharing has certainly violated copyright. However, that does not mean the punishment fits the crime.

    He admitted to _downloading_ more than 800 songs. Downloading music is not a violation of copyright per se. It only becomes a violation if they are left in a location where they can be downloaded by others. Copyright is only violated if you are distributing copies without permission.
    Not so. If you're downloading copyrighted material with (1) the permission of the copyright holder and/or (b) paying for it on terms agreed to with the copyright holder, you're violating the law.

    IOW, if you pay and download from iTunes, you're fine unless you share it. But if you download from a peer-to-peer network that isn't paying licensing fees, you're breaking the law whether you share it or not.


    That said, the music industry should be sued under RICO. They've become hard to distinguish from the mafia in their attitudes and tactics.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    Not so. If you're downloading copyrighted material with (1) the permission of the copyright holder and/or (b) paying for it on terms agreed to with the copyright holder, you're violating the law.
    I think you may have some missing words there (or meant 'unless' instead of 'if').
    IOW, if you pay and download from iTunes, you're fine unless you share it. But if you download from a peer-to-peer network that isn't paying licensing fees, you're breaking the law whether you share it or not.
    Perhaps in the world of the RIAA where I'm breaking the law by ripping a copy of a CD to my iPod, but this is certainly a new class of copyright law for me. I will admit I haven't kept up with it in a while, though.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #25  
    I say do like I do and not buy music... well, now I will buy through amazon. Never will forget the he** I went through when I changed computers and had a bunch of drm music. Instead of cheating the artist, I stopped buying (or use Amazon)... although, I still do xm.

    Copyright goes further than just RIAA... but it gets complicated since other countries have different copyright laws and many talk in reference to their country. Then throw in "fair use" and an argument can be made.

    At the end, the jury decided each of these people were guilty... not the RIAA. How the RIAA got some of their evidence should be called into question, but the evidence was accepted by the court.

    Guess I don't like thieves.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I was surprised to hear that Tenenbaum was a PhD student.

    I liked what Tenenbaums attorney said:

    ...When asked about the size verdict, Tenenbaum's attorney and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson told Ars that "it's a bankrupting award."...

    Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song - Ars Technica
    Considering what happened to the other lady who demanded a second trial, I'd bet Tenenbaum doesn't go down that route.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I say do like I do and not buy music... well, now I will buy through amazon. Never will forget the he** I went through when I changed computers and had a bunch of drm music. Instead of cheating the artist, I stopped buying (or use Amazon)... although, I still do xm.
    I just take the simple route and buy CDs. I can then rip and transcode to my portable player. I store the CDs in binders and as long as they are kept in the proper environment, I can rerip if anything happens to the digital version. Obviously that's only within the theoretical life of a physical CD.
    Copyright goes further than just RIAA...
    I think in some ways it's the other way around. The RIAA is trying to abuse what the copyright laws have traditionally meant to squeeze new revenue streams out of things.
    but it gets complicated since other countries have different copyright laws and many talk in reference to their country. Then throw in "fair use" and an argument can be made.
    I'm not even necessarily referring to fair use. Copyright laws have traditionally dealt with physical media (physical copies or phonorecords). Digital copies are something relatively new which are still being argued. When I wrote a couple pieces of software a ways back, there was no way to deal with it under copyright other than registering the actual code (or more accurately a substantial portion of it). Compiled code was not (and as far as I'm aware still isn't) covered under copyright. The code could be registered as a 'literary work' and the physical media could be copyrighted. The digital binary was a different matter. For some reason, I am recalling that this may have been dealt with since, although it could have only been archive related.
    At the end, the jury decided each of these people were guilty... not the RIAA. How the RIAA got some of their evidence should be called into question, but the evidence was accepted by the court.
    But notice what was ruled upon in the articles. He wasn't penalized simply because of the downloads. He was penalized because of the redistribution.
    Guess I don't like thieves.
    I'm not fond of them myself. However, what makes a thief? Am I a thief for owning a TiVo? I can record broadcasts and watch them at any later date I choose as many times as I choose. I can use software provided by TiVo to transfer some of these recordings to my PC and then to my iPod if I choose. Am I an unwitting thief? Traditionally time/format-shifting has been considered non-infringing.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    ...At the end, the jury decided each of these people were guilty... not the RIAA. How the RIAA got some of their evidence should be called into question, but the evidence was accepted by the court.
    I have a friend that got a letter from Comcast for downloading a TV show he forgot to record on his DVR.

    I am also seeing things written about copying a CD to your computer or MP3 player as being illegal. I don't know how accurate any of these stories are. Like these:

    RIAA's legal rootkit: Copy your CD to your iPod, get sued | rare pattern

    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/12/riaa-copying-mu/

    Addendum: Some people are saying it's fine to copy to your portable player and this has been incorrectly reported:

    http://tech.yahoo.com/blog/patterson/12165
    Last edited by palandri; 08/02/2009 at 03:33 PM.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I think in some ways it's the other way around. The RIAA is trying to abuse what the copyright laws have traditionally meant to squeeze new revenue streams out of things.
    I don't agree. The RIAA must do something to protect their livelihood. Can't say I necessarily agree with all their methods, but I can't fault them for attempting to do something.




    But notice what was ruled upon in the articles. He wasn't penalized simply because of the downloads. He was penalized because of the redistribution.
    Okay... not sure why you keep pushing that, but it is fine. Obviously, the RIAA will have a harder time finding out who only downloaded music vs. who is downloading and sharing. But doing a downloading and sharing argument (for the prosecution) more than likely sounds better to the jury anyway... not to mention the amount of evidence they more than likely had.


    what makes a thief? Am I a thief for owning a TiVo? Am I an unwitting thief?
    Are you? Or does it fall under "fair use?"

    That is the argument.

    I doubt very seriously anyone here would say the people sued were innocent. You might not like the final amount or the guilty verdict, but you can't say they did not deserve it.

    I remember those times... some bragging about how many files they were sharing or what they had downloaded.
    Last edited by theog; 08/02/2009 at 03:43 PM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I don't agree. The RIAA must do something to protect their livelihood.
    Their livelihood seems to consist of suing.
    Can't say I necessarily agree with all their methods, but I can't fault them for attempting to do something.
    I don't fault them for attempting to do something per se. I fault them for some of the things they're doing and saying.
    Okay... not sure why you keep pushing that, but it is fine.
    I'm 'pushing' it because it's the way I understand the copyright laws.
    Are you?
    If the RIAA were handling TV broadcasts, yes, apparently I am.
    Or does it fall under "fair use?"

    That is the argument.

    I doubt very seriously anyone here would say the people sued were innocent. You might not like the final amount or the guilty verdict, but you can't say they did not deserve it.
    I'm somewhat indifferent to the guilty verdict as is. I think the award only makes sense from a redistribution standpoint.
    I remember those times... some bragging about how many files they were sharing or what they had downloaded.
    I remember those times too. I'm one of the few people I can recall defending Lars for his position on Napster. However, even Lars wasn't looking to go after the fans. He was going after the facilitators who were looking to make money off of his livelihood. I fully support that.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Addendum: Some people are saying it's fine to copy to your portable player and this has been incorrectly reported:

    Reader Mail: Is it Legal to Copy CDs and DVDs? : Ben Patterson : Yahoo! Tech
    Read the brief (page 15). According to it, creating an mp3 is an unauthorized copy. They're just not choosing to go after it ...yet.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #32  
    The RIAA are a bunch of tools. Can't believe people still support them. They're claiming to protect their artists through these lawsuits, but they've admitted that the money they're collecting from these lawsuits will not go to the artists, but back to funding more of their anti-piracy campaign and more of these lawsuits.

    RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy told TorrentFreak that the ‘damages’ will not go to any of the artists, but to more anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” he said.
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by BlaqkAudio View Post
    The RIAA are a bunch of tools. Can't believe people still support them. They're claiming to protect their artists through these lawsuits, but they've admitted that the money they're collecting from these lawsuits will not go to the artists, but back to funding more of their anti-piracy campaign and more of these lawsuits.
    I am sure they aren't going to collect any money from a couple of these latest cases. Those people will just file for bankruptcy.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I am sure they aren't going to collect any money from a couple of these latest cases. Those people will just file for bankruptcy.
    Whether they collect money from a couple of cases really isn't the issue. The legal precedents that they set are.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Whether they collect money from a couple of cases really isn't the issue. The legal precedents that they set are.
    Yup... and the power to say, "Hey, don't want to settle for $3000 or even $7000? Well, look at what happened to these people!"
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Yup... and the power to say, "Hey, don't want to settle for $3000 or even $7000? Well, look at what happened to these people!"
    Did you read that somewhere? That they were offered a $3000 to $7000 settlement, and they rejected it? Just curious.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by BlaqkAudio View Post
    The RIAA are a bunch of tools. Can't believe people still support them. They're claiming to protect their artists through these lawsuits, but they've admitted that the money they're collecting from these lawsuits will not go to the artists, but back to funding more of their anti-piracy campaign and more of these lawsuits.
    Not true...

    Which go back to helping the artists (not directly). Not to mention they have now stopped the lawsuits... for now... taking another approach.

    The wins allow them to shed light on the issue. This is a big issue... one that I'm glad they are taking up. Copyrights in America are being trampled to death.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  18. #38  
    If the RIAA is claiming that each song is worth X amount, then X amount should go directly to the artist/recording company, not towards their stupid anti-piracy campaign.

    I don't see how anti-piracy lawsuits are going to help artists at all. If anything, it will just result in people pirating less. That still doesn't generate any income for the artist. If the RIAA actually opened its eyes, they would realize that their current model is not working and that they should focus on adapting to the changing industry and give people a reason to buy.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by BlaqkAudio View Post
    If the RIAA is claiming that each song is worth X amount, then X amount should go directly to the artist/recording company, not towards their stupid anti-piracy campaign.
    The RIAA does not represent the artists. It represents the Record Companies. They are not protecting songs per se. They are protecting sales of physical media.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #40  
    Does the service you use to download the mp3 impact the copying and/or licensing? Is there one service that gives you more options, than others? I'm about ready to finally join a service, but I'm not sure iTunes will be the right one for me. I want to be able to copy it to my pc, move it over to my Centro, and listen on both.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions