531 more music file sharers sued
 

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne....ap/index.html

OOOOHHH!!! Trembling in my boots!!! These record companies can go sit on a stick!! Drop your prices,increase your sales,proffit should level out!!! Greedy wankers!!

:( i just deleted 250 files of my music by accident.

ugh i was so mad. :banghead:

but yea.. iono how they're going to try and stop everyone, becuz i'm sure if they restrict it, someone will find a way to get around it anyways.


:hphones: **** em.

So I read up on all that stuff yesterday and I was so irritated by the end of the read. I mean I download music so I might be biased but I think I do it in an appropriate way. I mean I think if you download a song to preview it and then like it and go out to buy the CD, what's wrong with that? There's no difference between doing that and going to FYE and scanning in a CD to check it out, or to one of the boothes in Tower or Virgin and listening to a whole CD. I buy at least 2 CD's a week and I really don't see why it should be wrong to preview music using P2P sharing.

I also noticed that it's not the downloaders but the ones that are sharing music are the ones that are being sued. I still don't see a problem with that. If I bought the CD and have it somewhere for others to preview and then buy the CD themselves, it's actually a good thing. Not all artists showcase their music on their websites and amazon only showcases the first several tracks off the CD. And snippets in my opinion suck because it's like the boring parts of the songs. Refrains, intros, yadda yadda when it's like the bridge or the hook that gets me interested.

I know that the system can be abused. People can download a whole CD and never buy the CD or support the artist. Personally I buy the CD because I like the artist and want to support them. The thing is, some idiot researching for RIAA doesn't know what the intentions of the user are. It's like, you see me buy a red sports car with a 240mph reading on the speedometer so you're gonna sue me because I'm going to speed. And to take actions that are questionably unconstitutional over these shallow assumptions is just irritating. Because they can't stay with the times and figure out an appropriate way to distribute their product they have to inconvenience the ISP's which drains resources which drives our ISP costs up. So higher ISP costs, more expensive CD's, and people that start losing interest in music from the mainstream.

I totally agree with that girl from Jersey that is sueing them beause of mob like tactics. They shouldn't be able to intimidate people for $3K each. And it really gives them a monopoly of sorts. The artists associated with this union get the benefits of all that money being thrown around to promote themselves in ways they deem legal. The little guy coming up in the business however doesn't have all that money to use for promoting and not many people want to pay to download songs from a band they have never heard of just on a whim. Free downloading gets their name and sound out there. But the little guy loses that advantage and the big boys continue to over charge. I mean what's the difference between me downloading the whole Incubus album or going to the their web site and downloading it a week before the CD is released? There was a reason for that and whatever reasoning they had for doing that is a good argument for P2P from an artist covered under RIAA.

All right all right... I've spent way to much time ranting... back to work. Just keep reading these articles that Rock posts and get more and more irritated about the subject. If anyone disagrees... feel free to. I mean it IS a discussion forum so I'd like to hear other sides to the topic.

Sue Their Asses More

I don't think they really target people who download a song, keep it for a few days, and then delete it. They have more of a problem with someone who keeps 2,000 songs in their "Shared Folder" for everyone to download. Those are the people who are being targeted.

I just dont share my music. I download it, and move it into a seperate folder.

.... that's still illegal...lol

I just don't think people understand it .. oh well they will when they get sued lol

I actually read somewhere that the downloading of the music wasn't protected in copyright laws by the company, and one of the people the RIAA sued countersued and won his case. It's just people are giving in to the RIAA. Also, I just download it, I don't share it, so they can eat it.

Yeah I noticed that but even then, the stuff I wrote in the second paragraph of my rant I think still applies. If I have 2000+ files in my Shared Folder that I legally bought and copied onto my computer, and then share it, all I'm doing it letting them preview it and later they might buy the CD's. I mean it's like me buying a CD and then lending it to my friend to listen to for a bit and he can get his own copy if he likes it. Except... it's a couple thousand of my friends. :-P

Point is, no matter how you look at it, they don't know the intent of the user so I don't think it's ethical to sue if the reasons are innocent. Like the two girls who are being sued when they were using the files for some school project or whatever.

Besides.... Take away Kazaa and the like and then you have mIRC or even IM Software.

they passed a law that banned MP3 sharing, and sending files over IM programs isn't illegal, it's peer-peer network programs that they are trying to stop.

On Napster once you buy a song you can download it 3 more times and also send it to 10 "Napster" friends... I mean if that isn't enough leeway for you then that's just sad =\

But that assumes that your have 10 Napster friends share your same interests. If you don't like the same type of music as your online friends than that really doesn't help you. Or even if you do share the interests, still limits you if you want to go outside of that genre that you share. I listen to Alternative as do most my friends but I still listen to some hip hop. I heard Aesop being thrown around in the forums here one time so I downloaded a crap load of their stuff to see what CD I want to buy. If I had to do it the napster or i-tunes way, I'd have to pay 10 bucks just in previewing the songs before I'd buy the CD. I might as well buy a couple of their CDs blindly and just listen to the one I like more.

And as for IM and mIRC, frugal computer geeks will aways find a way. So if P2P is no longer an option, than an IM workaround will be found. An IRC workaround is already there and has been there before Napster was even a dream, but RIAA hasn't figured that out yet.

It's not about the leeway that is given or not given, its that point that they can control the leeway... or are working towards that "power". Now it's just Kazaa or the like... seems like a logical place to start. If things keep going in that direction we'll have to pay for IM transfers and IRC. (OK that point is a little eggarated but you see my point...)

Not exactly dude. The area is still kind of grey. RIAA is just trying to convince everyone that it's not, by trying to scare them...

I really don't know any of the legal ****... but I guess it's not too great for the companies, but if I didnt have my music to download i would cry :'( I mean.. if I buy cds i only like about 2 songs or 3, So when i download then I can try out new music and I can listen to their **** and if I like enough of it then i buy the cd... but i see how they dont want people downloading a whole cd worth then burning it or whatever.

oops no swears... sorry guys

It's RIAA... you should be able to swear about them. Haha.

thats why they created pay per song services so people cant b-itch about 1 and 2 good songs on a cd

Or people could just buy good ****ing cds

If the majority of mainstream artists werent lazy rich ****s and people werent mindless drones buying the new hot mediocre thing we wouldnt have this problem, it gives me such a headache

/dies

How does the RIAA know where you live, and stuff like that?