<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/national/main3330186.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/national/main3330186.shtml</a></p>
<p>I fully support the industry on this.</p>
<p>me two (too)</p>
<p>It’s illegal to copy and distribute someone else’s copyrighted material without their permission. What’s so hard to understand about that?</p>
<p>Many of our younger folks truly think everything should be “free”. Especially if it can be distributed over the internet.</p>
<p>I don’t download music (other than what I pay for on Amie Street) but in her defense the way Kazaa works is that if you download a song it automatically is being shared with the rest of the world on Kazaa - and I think 99.9 percent of Kazaa users don’t know that. They just think they are downloading a song. If they set their preferences to not share songs already downloaded, they would probably be fine. You could download one song on there, but wind up sharing it 25000 times without even knowing… to 25000 individual people who will wind up each sharing it another 25000 times. </p>
<p>And in that article, they sent her an instant message that she’s violating law? Gee, that’s official. If I recieved an instant message on the computer from a ‘record company official’ I would ignore it as spam in an instant and completely block them in the future… same thing with an e-mail. I want a letter, in the mail, to my home. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that it’s right of her to have downloaded the songs and like I said I don’t download songs, but the record industry is completely whacked. </p>
<p>I still buy CD’s, and spend a ton of money on music (a couple of cd’s per month, usually) , but I really do wish this money was going to the band - not the record company… and that’s where a lot of this downloading comes into play. Everyone knows the band gets a tiny miniscule cut from each CD. Just like the normal songs on Itunes where you can only burn them 3x or whatever their limitations are. Once you buy that song, it’s yours… you should be able to do with you want with it. If I buy a CD, I can make a copy to keep in my car, I can rip it to my computer, I could put it on my Ipod if I had one, I could put it on my computer again after I format my computer, etc. Whereas a song from Itunes or anything NOT DRM Free will only let you copy it x amount of times AND it’s a lower quality then what you get on a CD… which astounds me when people actually purchase MP3’s. You’re purchasing a compressed version of the song for about the same price as it would cost you to buy the actual album. Buy the album and rip it at the quality you want it to be - not the crappy version they are pawning off on you.</p>
<p>The bands make more money off the concert tickets, the shirts, the merchandise, etc… and people are still willing to pay for that kind of stuff… but very few people are still willing to shell out money for CD’s because they are super overpriced. We have an excellent store here where the cd’s are about 10 bucks each which is where I do all of my music shopping… but big chain stores are still trying to charge 20 bucks each for CD’s and the band gets like 25 cents.</p>
<p>I mean, a DVD starts off at 20 bucks, after a year is ten bucks, and after that it’s probably in a 5.00 bin somewhere. A cd usually winds up going up in price. Explain that to me? It costs a lot more to produce a DVD - and pay all of the actors, producers, extras, film companies cuts, etc… yet they are significantly less than a CD… When you are paying 2x for the movies soundtrack you know something is wrong with the industry.</p>
<p>That’s my rant on that. ;)</p>
<p>I just wanted to add another thing I love about Amie street is that it’s website based so any songs that you buy you have access to anywhere that you have the Internet. I bring up the Amie Street Player at work sometimes for something to listen to. I’ve gotten a couple of comments about where I’ve found the music - because a lot of it is indie and not available in stores. My boyfriend sells his music on there… and after a certain amount you start making a decent cut on your music, for any musicians out there looking for a place to distribute your music.</p>
<p>I bought three albums on there today - one for $1.38, one for $1.25, and one for $3.50. It’s a great place to find out about new music before it is selling for a dollar a song or whatever - and there are no restrictions on what you do with it.</p>
<p>Actually, WashDad, it’s not illegal in all countries. In Canada, for example, as a result of the blank media tariff that is levied on all blank recordable media (a result of industry lobbying), downloading is actually legal.</p>
<p>As for the downloading, it’s obviously not really moral, but I find it odd that the recording industry is using this strategy to fight it. It’s one of those things that isn’t really going to go away. Even if the industry started being a little bit more innovative with pricing and distribution strategies to fight downloading, obviously the downloading wouldn’t totally disappear - but that strategy would be far more effective than the “prosecute, prosecute, prosecute” one.</p>
<p>I agree with what you said about the innovative pricing. There are plenty of different things out there. I know some places where you name your price you are willing to pay for the music and it’s yours. They make a lot more than you would think they do. The way the site I use works is all songs start off at free, and the more popular they become they raise in price. So it’s to encourage you to explore and find new music while it’s cheap, and if you discover them “late”, which is still before most people do, you pay 98 cents just like the other music stores. It also is great for upcoming musicians because most people aren’t willing to pay 10 bucks for something they’ve never heard, but on this type of site you can try it out really cheap and if you see it’s up to 98 cents per song you know a lot of people must have liked it for its cost to go up that much.</p>
<p>There are so many other ways that things like this can be done… like the music shop near here with 10/cds. The place is always packed. yet you go by FYE in the mall and the place is dead. </p>
<p>Them prosecuting a woman won’t make people download less. Honestly, I don’t think it will change anybodys mind on if they should download or not. It might persuade some people to turn off the file sharing in Kazaa, but that’s about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People are presumed innocent under the United States Constitution and Laws. What’s so hard to understand about that? You want to know what is scary about this? Ok. Say tomorrow I park my car by your house, hack into your wifi network, and start sharing files over the internet. Or a new neighbor does the same. You get a letter about a copyright violation…you have kids so you think it might be them or the wife or whatever (after all, your network is secure right? You have WPA! or WEP! no one can get in so it has to be one of the family) You have a talk and get another letter awhile later. Now what could happen eventually is that you get targeted for prosecution (God forbid). You know it wasn’t you so you say that in court. RIAA and your ISP says your account was responsible. You respond by saying you don’t have the files at all - but you reformatted to upgrade to Vista didn’t you! Yes you did! Imagine if that happened and you were found guilty. This is why this ruling is a little unsettling - sure she might actually be guilty but the precedent that has been set basically says that if an account under your name is used for illegal file sharing then you must be guilty.</p>
<p>Oh and if you think the hack example I gave is extreme, think again.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1814[/url]”>http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1814</a></p>
<p><a href=“WPA Cracking Proof of Concept Available - Wi-Fi Networking News”>WPA Cracking Proof of Concept Available - Wi-Fi Networking News;
<p>hell with the .iso available for free at remote-exploit.org just about anyone can get into a lot of the “secured” wireless networks out there. Lets hope that the RIAA at least takes into account whether or not the user was really responsible before prosecuting. I’m sure they try to prevent that type of thing happening now but in the future they might not be so careful.</p>
<p>For registered college students with non-Apple computers **ruckus.com **provides free music.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s illegal to copy and distribute someone else’s copyrighted material without their permission.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess the whole world is turning into China… Canada is certainly the exception in the industrialized world. The EU certainly doesn’t follow this theory.</p>
<p>Washdad, i’m a bit confused… what did your comment have to do with what you quoted of what I said? Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell… no need to try to pick an arguement with me over nothing. I don’t illegally download music.</p>
<p>If you were referring to the other part of my post about making yourself a copy, putting it on your computer, or on your IPOD - that is legal. It’s illegal to copy and distribute yes, but not to make a copy for yourself.</p>
<p>Copying CDs (from musicunited.org)</p>
<p>It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.</p>
<p>It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.</p>
<p>However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as: </p>
<p>The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own</p>
<p>The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.</p>
<p>·The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying. </p>
<p>Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.</p>
<p>In my opinion, it would be easier to slam P2P providers (e.g. Kazaa) with heavy fines in order to dissuade users from downloading music, video, and other forms of copyrighted material. Still, with the technology out there that essentially eliminates the middleman, the law has a lot of catching up to do.</p>
<p>How exactly would you define “copying” and “distribution”, especially in the context of software such as BitTorrent? With BitTorrent, you are essentially downloading packets/fragments of information to create the complete file. You (usually) are never downloading the entire file from one source. It is entirely possible (though, this is an extreme case) that the sources you are downloading from do not have complete copies of the file that you are looking to download, but they have the pieces necessary to create the whole file for you. Do you then file damages for the fragments of information that the distributors provided? Do you file damages against the person who created the metafile providing the BitTorrent tracker enabling you to download? I’m no lawyer, but the law here is not exactly clear here. While intellectual property, copyright, etc. protections are in play and in place to protect the artist (and the record companies), the law isn’t exactly black-and-white here.</p>
<p>Admittedly, I lack the patience to download anything off the Internet that would put me in violation with the MPAA. (Add to that the fact that I’m rather fond of DVDs and CDs… legally downloaded or not, why have something that hogs up to a gigabyte in storage space when I can have it on a handy disc.) I don’t download songs, and if a particular song interests me, and I cannot find it elsewhere, I buy the song or album off of iTunes. (This has been particularly helpful in finding rare, hard-to-obtain songs off of soundtracks, etc.)</p>
<p>Still, I recognize the fact that we should not be too quick in judging those who download off of Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc. The RIAA/MPAA cannot possibly file a lawsuit against every single offender, nor would a sizeable sum against one defendant (such as this case) be a deterrent to serial downloaders. While I certainly do not agree with the statement, “It’s the new generation, deal with it,” I do recognize the need to adapt. iTunes has thrived rather well in this era of online media, perhaps the rest of the recording industry should do the same.</p>
<p>Personally, I have little sympathy for the record companies (though, I’ve never downloaded a song in my life, legally or otherwise). Honestly, why should a CD cost almost 20 dollars? Once it’s recorded, they can reproduce it for pennies. It’s the ARTISTS who should be receiving the lion’s share of the profit from their own intellectual property, not record executives who most likely can’t even carry a tune. Not even galleries rob their artists so shamelessly (most galleries receive a 50% commission on the art they sell). Why is it that recording artists receive only pennies per CD sold, when that CD costs the consumer $18.99 and up?</p>
<p>Personally, I’m happy to see the way new technologies have given artists the opportunity to present themselves to a worldwide audience, by-passing the record companies entirely. Record companies are not the gate-keepers they once were, solely determining who gets heard and who doesn’t. I think they’ve seen the writing on the wall and are peeing their pants in panic.</p>
<p>I like the idea of artists being able to sell their work, and cut out the greedy record companies entirely. And I think that day is rapidly approaching. Technology is getting cheaper and cheaper. People are able to set up pretty sophisticated recording studios in their own homes, and rip their own CDs. The internet has made marketing to a worldwide audience easier than ever imagined.</p>
<p>I definitely disagree with the stealing of intellectual property. I think the property in question should belong to the one who created it (the musicians) and NOT THE RECORD COMPANIES. If anyone is actually guilty of stealing, it is the record companies, who take an artist’s creative output, pay them next to nothing for it, and make money hand over fist.</p>
<p>“I do recognize the need to adapt.”</p>
<p>Yep. The law is the law and that’s fine. But I think it’s the height of stupidity for the record industry to make the choice to attack their own consumers this way. All this publicity is going to do is reassure downloaders that the record executives are a$$holes, they will be even less inclined to put money in industry pockets. For about eight years now, the industry has reacted to the online music world by sticking their fingers in their ears and throwing a tantrum. It doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong on the law. The realities of the market have changed, period. They will adapt or they will go out of business.</p>
<p>I’m mystified why record companies think that recorded music will go away if they go out of business. Musicians --as opposed to the record industry employees we hear on the readio – will find a different and probably better way to reach the audience.</p>
<p>WashDad: Watch it with the tone, please. The recording industry are totally reaping what they’ve sowed in Canada. They convinced the government to make everyone who buys recordable media pay to compensate them for assumed infringements, and now as a result they can no longer sue people for said infringement.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m sure the record companies are working both angles. But Kazaa would not exist if the end users were too scared of consequences to be part of it.</p>
<p>Several people have taken shots at the record companies in this thread. It doesn’t matter (legally) what we think about them: the musicians have entered into legal agreements with the record companies, and part of that agreement includes the enforcement of legal copyrights. It doesn’t matter if the musicians aren’t getting the money you think they deserve – they are adults who voluntarily entered into a legally binding agreement. It’s not your business to protect them by giving their work away for free to your friends (a bizarre response, in my opinion, but one that I’ve heard scores of times over the years. If everyone was so concerned about musicians being enslaved by record companies, why aren’t they showered with cash from grateful listeners? It is a vapid argument – stealing from one party does not enrich the other. The real root of this lies in the calculus of theft. It’s easy to steal music and give it to others, the chance of getting caught is low, and until recently the penalties were low or nonexistent.)</p>
<p>No one is forcing anyone to sign recording contracts, and just because theft is easy and low-risk doesn’t mean it’s not theft.</p>