1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News RIAA court case comes to an end

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 5 Oct 2007.

  1. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
  2. dire_wolf

    dire_wolf Last Of The Dovakhiin

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2002
    Posts:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ouch, bet that was hard to swallow for her :(
     
  3. Nohawk

    Nohawk New Member

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    What did all the other people that got letters from the RIAA do?
     
  4. Delphium

    Delphium Eyefinity enabled

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2007
    Posts:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    35
    Forum link in article does not point to this thread.

    I fail to see how the 24 songs are worth $9,250 each :eyebrow:
    I dont personally touch P2P, so wll be business as usuall, ie, ripping my own cds to play on my digital player, I refuse to have to pay for a copy of my own cd's so that I may play them on a device I see fit.

    I am digging the way that Radiohead have released there latest album, im not a huge fan of them, but I made my purchase for the ammount I see fit, and to make a point, hopefully if enough people do it, with any hope it will start a new trend of how to sell the music online. Well heres hoping at least.
     
  5. sinkhead

    sinkhead Pleh

    Joined:
    4 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    They haven't touched Usenet yet, so it's business as usual for me :)

    - Sam
     
  6. mmorgue

    mmorgue New Member

    Joined:
    16 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, why bother with P2P when you can use various proxies and SSL connections to a Usenet server and get *almost* whatever you want, DRM free, if one were so inclinded...

    Makes you wonder why the RIAA (or the MPAA for that matter) haven't touched the usenet side of things. Perhaps because it's something they know they can never win against.

    But as for making a copy of a cd being illegal?? If you share, distribute that copy away then sure -- but if it's for your own personal use, how has that made any loss for the industry? You've bought the music already, you should be free to use it in any way you want so long as it doesn't leave your "possession" as it were.

    This whole thing just goes to show what a bunch of greeder f**kers the RIAA are.
     
  7. naokaji

    naokaji whatever

    Joined:
    8 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    10
    what worries me most is the following part:

    BURN IN HELL RIAA
     
  8. TheCherub

    TheCherub Member

    Joined:
    16 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    699
    Likes Received:
    9
    At least the British Phonograph Society have said they aren't going to go after people who rip music to their own hard drives / MP3 Players. But having said that, I don't use p2p at all, so I have avoided the more blatant copyright issues.
     
  9. Veles

    Veles DUR HUR

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    34
    I'd like to know how much of that money the artists actually receive, because it's all about the artists remember[/sarcasm]
     
  10. Duste

    Duste Sierra my delta, bravo!

    Joined:
    1 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    818
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rofl, none of it I bet. It'll all go back into the RIAA to fund future allegations.
     
  11. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    Yep, that bit worried me too... I buy CDs, not MP3s for obvious quality reasons.
     
  12. Paradigm Shifter

    Paradigm Shifter de nihilo nihil fit

    Joined:
    10 May 2006
    Posts:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    41
    Fuel on the flames of the fight between 'fair use' and 'if you don't buy the same song fifteen different ways, you're a pirate'.:sigh:
     
  13. Rebourne

    Rebourne New Member

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guilty of theft sure, but I mean come on she wasn't using them to make a profit. That fine is cruel and unusual when applied to a normal person like that.
     
  14. AcidJiles

    AcidJiles New Member

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    376
    Likes Received:
    4
    if it was legal I would burn down the RIAA legal offices and coporate headquarters, but only the top levels where the execs are. ( please note the Daily Mail is on the top of the list for places to burn down if legal)
     
  15. zabe

    zabe Perfect in my imperfection

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    The whole philosophy in RIAA/MPAA is idiotic and ridicule. People are just refusing to pay the extra price that nobody should pay. This means (for example), the author of an album earns, lets say, 2 euros per album. The recording label then adds about other 8 euros for their "work" (90% done by machines anyway), and finally, the store adds other 15 euros to the final product. There you go, instead of 2 euros, you're paying 25 for a music album in this case. Well, I refuse to pay to the label just for making the copies, and I refuse even more to pay to the owner of the shop, who is doing NOTHING more than place the disks on shelves.

    If RIAA/MPAA had just a tiny bit of intelligence among their staff, they would realize that online is the way to go: just sell your albums in digital format for, what, 6 euros? I'm prepared to pay that, I would be paying the artist and the label for their "work" (they're doing pretty little, but hey I understand that they have to earn something for commerce to exist). People just want to pay for what they get REASONABLY, and that's just not happening in the current business model.

    Were I president, I would completely ban RIAA/MPAA and treat them as the criminals they really are, destroying people's lives with ridiculous fines, that nobody except a rich person would be able to pay anyway, as a punishment for their own erroneous business model. Wake up dammit, eliminate intermediaries and take your business model to the year 2007, where things are online and reasonably priced!!!

    Thought of the day: you know how the shows you see on TV are really a copyrighted products, right? Well, then STOP recording in your VCR those episodes of LOST, Grey's Anatomy, Family Guy, etc when you're out, you're actually infringing copyright laws, cos the show is not your property, right? Yeah, whatever... I lmao in the face of RIAA/MPAA.
     
  16. jakenbake

    jakenbake full duplex

    Joined:
    5 Jun 2005
    Posts:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    shes not being forced to pay for just the worth of the songs. shes being fined for copyright infringement.

    well this sucks, i was hoping someone would stick it to the RIAA :sigh:
     
  17. Bluephoenix

    Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1
    I call foul on those amended jury instructions, thats grounds for appeal right there.

    damn trial-rigging RIAA
     
  18. Drexial

    Drexial New Member

    Joined:
    28 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    307
    Likes Received:
    0
    "act of making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright owner's exclusive copyright." this is the part that scares me

    but yes if you read in the article the 24 songs could have been a suit for over $3 million. because they have to assume that they lost revinue because of the people that DLed it. if they are so awsome at tracking people should only be held accountable for the songs they transfered. meaning if 3 people DLed a song off her then she needs to pay for teh lsot revinue for those DLs. but they seem to think that they are going to sell 133,333 coppies of each song that she shared (bassed on the 3.2 million)
     
  19. Drexial

    Drexial New Member

    Joined:
    28 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    307
    Likes Received:
    0
    sorry that was 3.6 million in damages
     
  20. Hells_Bliss

    Hells_Bliss New Member

    Joined:
    6 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    548
    Likes Received:
    0
    no doubt. She would have been off scott free if it was the first jury instruction. All they really proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that she ripped CD's to her computer, and i'm sorry but **** you RIAA that isn't stealing. If I can make a copy of my software for backup purposes on my harddrive, that's not stealing, I don't know why her lawyer didn't bring up that point since there's precedence for that and how could they prove thats not what she was doing.

    To me it sounds like she was a prolific buyer of CD's...I doubt she'll continue to be though.


    On a completely seperate note:
    The RIAA better wisen up to the fact that CD's are a dying format. There's DVD's, HD-DVD's, BluRay disks that can hold orders of magnitude more songs/space than CD's, I don't know why manufacturers don't put in combo players in cars/audio systems...of course that will never happen while money grubbing assholes like the record industry have the artists by the balls :wallbash:
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page