Do you like your mp3s?

Discussion in 'alt.music.midi' started by XCobraJock, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. XCobraJock

    XCobraJock Guest

    Do you like mp3s? How would you feel if the RIAA sent you a subpoena to
    appear in court to pay $750 for each song?

    The Recording Industry Association of America is demanding (and getting)
    lists of
    names from internet service providers such as Verizon, names that their
    clients believed
    were strictly confidential. If you don't want your name to wind up being
    turned over
    to lawyers for the RIAA, see the simple plan to stop this injustice here:

    Dear Congressman http://nogov4me.net/archive/riaa.htm

    If you want to protect your right to privacy from the music industry
    bullying your ISP
    into giving them your name, please forward this email or the above link to
    everyone you know.

    --Bill Malloy
  2. paco120

    paco120 New Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I definitely think we should start a protest or something to prevent the court from sueing us!
  3. Jim Higgins

    Jim Higgins Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:23:07 GMT, in
    <fxQVa.4370$NG4.2281@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
    Bill Malloy <X-Cobra@pacbell.net> wrote:

    >Do you like mp3s? How would you feel if the RIAA sent you a
    >subpoena to appear in court to pay $750 for each song?


    I would be very upset because I'm not one of the folks who are
    using P2P programs to share music files.

    >The Recording Industry Association of America is demanding
    >(and getting) lists of names from internet service providers such
    >as Verizon, names that their clients believed were strictly confidential.


    Anyone who believes his identity remains strictly confidential
    while committing wholesale copyright violation is at least
    ignorant, and probably stupid.

    >If you don't want your name to wind up being turned over
    >to lawyers for the RIAA, see the simple plan to stop this
    >injustice here:
    >
    >Dear Congressman http://nogov4me.net/archive/riaa.htm
    >
    >If you want to protect your right to privacy from the music industry
    >bullying your ISP into giving them your name, please forward this
    >email or the above link to everyone you know.


    There's no parallel to the war on drugs here - contrary to what
    your web site states. The war on drugs is covered by criminal
    law and it's a case of the dopers vs "the people"/government.
    The battle with the RIAA is about copyright violation. It's the
    creators vs the consumers. In this case the creators want to be
    paid for their work and the consumers want to steal their work.
    It will be battled out in civil court between two private parties
    - the RIAA and the thieves.

    --
    Jim Higgins, quasimodo AT yahoo DOT com

    alt.music.midi FAQ - http://home.sc.rr.com/cosmogony/ammfaq.html
  4. XCobraJock

    XCobraJock Guest

    "Jim Higgins" <UseAddressBelow@pandora.orbl.org> wrote in message
    news:r1ejivcuuvf9prhat73astsfnb8ca87kie@4ax.com...
    > There's no parallel to the war on drugs here - contrary to what
    > your web site states.


    Just because you refuse to admit it, doesn't mean . . .

    > The war on drugs is covered by criminal
    > law and it's a case of the dopers vs "the people"/government.
    > The battle with the RIAA is about copyright violation. It's the
    > creators vs the consumers.


    It's more like the "producers" versus the consumers. The corporate
    music industry represented by the RIAA is trying to control electronic
    signals and use the power of the state to extort money from people
    who merely capture the signals (like sound waves at a concert, for
    example) that find their way to the public domain. They cannot
    succeed in controlling digital signals once they are out of the original
    medium (CDs) -- however, like the War on Drugs, they CAN cause
    a lot of people unjustified hardship. Whether you think that's "stealing,"
    the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot by pissing off the people who
    make up their market.

    > In this case the creators want to be
    > paid for their work and the consumers want to steal their work.


    It's not "stealing" anymore than borrowing a CD from the library is
    stealing, and recording it for one's own personal use. Downloading
    copyrighted material is only "stealing" when one PROFITS from the
    work of another without compensating the creator.

    --XCobraJock
    http://nogov4me.net
  5. >> In this case the creators want to be
    >> paid for their work and the consumers want to steal their work.

    >
    >It's not "stealing" anymore than borrowing a CD from the library is
    >stealing, and recording it for one's own personal use. Downloading
    >copyrighted material is only "stealing" when one PROFITS from the
    >work of another without compensating the creator.


    Is it "buying" when you hand over money for a CD, but make no profit
    from its use (apart from your personal pleasure)? Why shouldn't you
    just hand over a few pennies for the cost of the plastic and get the
    music for free?

    If you can buy it, why can't you steal it?

    CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
  6. Jim Higgins

    Jim Higgins Guest

    On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:04:14 GMT, in
    <2FlWa.363$VE5.32982343@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "XCobraJock"
    <X-Cobra@pacbell.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Jim Higgins" <UseAddressBelow@pandora.orbl.org> wrote in message
    >news:r1ejivcuuvf9prhat73astsfnb8ca87kie@4ax.com...
    >> There's no parallel to the war on drugs here - contrary to what
    >> your web site states.

    >
    >Just because you refuse to admit it, doesn't mean . . .
    >
    >> The war on drugs is covered by criminal
    >> law and it's a case of the dopers vs "the people"/government.
    >> The battle with the RIAA is about copyright violation. It's the
    >> creators vs the consumers.

    >
    >It's more like the "producers" versus the consumers. The corporate
    >music industry represented by the RIAA is trying to control electronic
    >signals and use the power of the state to extort money from people
    >who merely capture the signals (like sound waves at a concert, for
    >example) that find their way to the public domain. They cannot
    >succeed in controlling digital signals once they are out of the original
    >medium (CDs) -- however, like the War on Drugs, they CAN cause
    >a lot of people unjustified hardship. Whether you think that's "stealing,"
    >the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot by pissing off the people who
    >make up their market.


    Clearly the RIAA are past the point of caring whether or not they
    piss off that portion of their market that is violating
    copyrights in a wholesale manner. Whether or not their actions
    prove to be foolish or self defeating, their actions are
    supported by law and those folks receiving subpoenas are going to
    be *very* unhappy before it's over. The goal of the RIAA (in my
    opinion) is *NOT* to stop just those particular 700 or so people
    who have received subpoenas, but rather to stop another few
    million by the example they will make of those 700.

    >> In this case the creators want to be
    >> paid for their work and the consumers want to steal their work.

    >
    >It's not "stealing" anymore than borrowing a CD from the library is
    >stealing, and recording it for one's own personal use. Downloading
    >copyrighted material is only "stealing" when one PROFITS from the
    >work of another without compensating the creator.


    You clearly know nothing about copyright law. Borrowing and
    returning is legal. Borrowing, copying, then returning is not.
    Profit has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not copying
    is a violation. If you don't believe or understand that, then
    you need to plug "copyright" into Google and get educated. You
    may not agree with the rules, but if you're going to fight them
    you damn well better understand what you're fighting.

    --
    Jim Higgins, quasimodo AT yahoo DOT com

    alt.music.midi FAQ - http://home.sc.rr.com/cosmogony/ammfaq.html
  7. XCobraJock

    XCobraJock Guest

    "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:879kivsmf5hv8avevmd2gqgoj6epam4vf9@4ax.com...
    > >> In this case the creators want to be
    > >> paid for their work and the consumers want to steal their work.

    > >
    > >It's not "stealing" anymore than borrowing a CD from the library is
    > >stealing, and recording it for one's own personal use. Downloading
    > >copyrighted material is only "stealing" when one PROFITS from the
    > >work of another without compensating the creator.

    >
    > Is it "buying" when you hand over money for a CD, but make no profit
    > from its use (apart from your personal pleasure)?


    Yes.

    >Why shouldn't you just hand over a few pennies for the cost of
    >the plastic and get the music for free?


    If the producer will agree to do that, you should.

    > If you can buy it, why can't you steal it?


    I CAN buy it, and I CAN steal it. "It" being the material
    medium upon which the producers convey the product to me.
    (People CAN defend themselves from theft, too -- with force.)
    I have the right to use it any way I wish, if I bought it, so long
    asI am not making a profit from it (and not sharing such gain
    with the producer). I have no right to steal a CD. Whether
    I buy a CD or steal a CD I have no right to profit -- from
    the art the producer conveyed to me via the CD -- without his
    consent.

    CAN I capture sound waves, digital signals, or other transitory
    expressions of the art? Yes. Can I use them any way I want?
    Yes. Is it ethical? That's for me to decide. However, while the
    state is fairly effective at securing physical media for storing such
    signals, it is completely incompetent to secure the right (of people
    who produce such signals) to profit from them, when they are
    broadcast literally through the air. So, as a practical matter it is
    asking the impossible to try. The law is enforced ultimately through
    potentially lethal armed force. (If it weren't no one would pay any
    attention to it.) The attempt to control music transmitted via sound
    waves/digital signals is a prescription for worse mischief than the
    drug war, and is doomed to result in more injustice than it is
    designed to prevent.

    --XCobraJock
  8. XCobraJock

    XCobraJock Guest

    "Jim Higgins" <UseAddressBelow@pandora.orbl.org> wrote in message
    news:lunkiv8v7usbcu68qhng10calcoi5376qr@4ax.com...

    > Clearly the RIAA are past the point of caring whether or not they
    > piss off that portion of their market that is violating
    > copyrights in a wholesale manner.


    Okay, well let the games begin!

    > Whether or not their actions
    > prove to be foolish or self defeating, their actions are
    > supported by law


    So?

    > and those folks receiving subpoenas are going to
    > be *very* unhappy before it's over.


    Since when is that the standard of right and wrong?

    > The goal of the RIAA (in my
    > opinion) is *NOT* to stop just those particular 700 or so people
    > who have received subpoenas, but rather to stop another few
    > million by the example they will make of those 700.


    Okay. You may be right. However, they are using penalties designed
    to thwart huge corporations from pirating and mass-marketing a
    product someone else produced in order to make tons of money,
    and applying them to people who are merely listening to the stuff.
    If they were smart, they'd accept that millions of people will be giving
    their music FREE ADVERTISING. I personally have bought a few
    CDs that I would never have known about had it not been for P2P
    sharing. On the other hand, some of the stuff I was willing to sit
    for five minutes to load from Napster I never would have paid
    a nickel for if it were only available in a store. In any event, it
    is really bad PR for the RIAA (Capitol Records, Big Records,
    MCA, Time/Life, etc. -- i.e., its members) to cast themselves as
    a big bully out to bankrupt American Youth over some frivolous
    issue such as sneaking a "free" song off the internet.

    What is 700 as a percentage of sixty million filesharers? The
    odds of getting caught are about like being struck by lightning.
    Let them go ahead and do it, though. Let's see what happens.

    > >> In this case the creators want to be
    > >> paid for their work and the consumers want to steal their work.

    > >
    > >It's not "stealing" anymore than borrowing a CD from the library is
    > >stealing, and recording it for one's own personal use. Downloading
    > >copyrighted material is only "stealing" when one PROFITS from the
    > >work of another without compensating the creator.

    >
    > You clearly know nothing about copyright law.


    I admit, I don't know copyright law. I don't care about it, either,
    in this case. It's not a legal issue. It's an issue of right and wrong.
    Is the "law" inherently righteous? Of course not. If it were, slavery
    would have been right when it was "legal." That would be absurd.
    When the "law" is on the side of a net injustice it results in things like
    the War on Drugs. Everyone knows what a colossal failure that is.
    Yet innocent people who have done nothing wrong are still locked up
    for drug offenses. It was a mistake when Richard Nixon imposed
    the current "schedule" of controlled substances. It has resulted in
    a huge expense dedicated to catching people who weren't "criminals"
    before the new "schedule," and it has not stopped people from using
    drugs. The attempt to control sound waves is even more difficult
    than controlling drugs, which you can actually capture and hold in
    your hand. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the "law" says if it
    cannot be enforced, and the net result is a huge injustice.

    > Borrowing and
    > returning is legal. Borrowing, copying, then returning is not.
    > Profit has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not copying
    > is a violation. If you don't believe or understand that, then
    > you need to plug "copyright" into Google and get educated. You
    > may not agree with the rules, but if you're going to fight them
    > you damn well better understand what you're fighting.


    I'm not fighting the rules. If you actually read the link I posted,
    you will see that I suggest people write congress and urge them to
    REPEAL the penalties for P2P filesharing. The copyright rules
    that make sense (corporation vs corporation) can stay as far as
    I'm concerned.

    --XCobraJock
  9. thebombs12

    thebombs12 New Member

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i have to have my mp3s.
  10. Michael Pace

    Michael Pace Guest

    I agree with your view that the creator of a song,has the right to be paid
    for his work.Full stop.However,I cannot see any injustice done,if I have
    already purchased his (creator)material and then decide to exchange it,with
    someone,who has also paid for the material ,be it CD,sheetmusic or whatever.
    Mike Pace
    "Jim Higgins" <UseAddressBelow@pandora.orbl.org> wrote
    in message news:r1ejivcuuvf9prhat73astsfnb8ca87kie@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:23:07 GMT, in
    > <fxQVa.4370$NG4.2281@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
    > Bill Malloy <X-Cobra@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Do you like mp3s? How would you feel if the RIAA sent you a
    > >subpoena to appear in court to pay $750 for each song?

    >
    > I would be very upset because I'm not one of the folks who are
    > using P2P programs to share music files.
    >
    > >The Recording Industry Association of America is demanding
    > >(and getting) lists of names from internet service providers such
    > >as Verizon, names that their clients believed were strictly confidential.

    >
    > Anyone who believes his identity remains strictly confidential
    > while committing wholesale copyright violation is at least
    > ignorant, and probably stupid.
    >
    > >If you don't want your name to wind up being turned over
    > >to lawyers for the RIAA, see the simple plan to stop this
    > >injustice here:
    > >
    > >Dear Congressman http://nogov4me.net/archive/riaa.htm
    > >
    > >If you want to protect your right to privacy from the music industry
    > >bullying your ISP into giving them your name, please forward this
    > >email or the above link to everyone you know.

    >
    > There's no parallel to the war on drugs here - contrary to what
    > your web site states. The war on drugs is covered by criminal
    > law and it's a case of the dopers vs "the people"/government.
    > The battle with the RIAA is about copyright violation. It's the
    > creators vs the consumers. In this case the creators want to be
    > paid for their work and the consumers want to steal their work.
    > It will be battled out in civil court between two private parties
    > - the RIAA and the thieves.
    >
    > --
    > Jim Higgins, quasimodo AT yahoo DOT com
    >
    > alt.music.midi FAQ - http://home.sc.rr.com/cosmogony/ammfaq.html
  11. >I agree with your view that the creator of a song,has the right to be paid
    >for his work.Full stop.However,I cannot see any injustice done,if I have
    >already purchased his (creator)material and then decide to exchange it,with
    >someone,who has also paid for the material ,be it CD,sheetmusic or whatever.


    If the other person has already paid for the material, why does he
    need your copy?

    Are you suggesting that filesharing systems are used to replace
    accidentally damaged copies of paid-for media? :)

    CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm

Share This Page