# 12 Year Old Girl sued by RIAA



## Stridder44 (Sep 9, 2003)

Check the article here. I hope the RIAA burns in Hell (sorta ).


----------



## MikeXpop (Sep 9, 2003)

What's funny is that she thought by paying for Kazaa plus (which I only recently heard about, and I think is one of the stupidest moves Sharman has made), all the music she downloaded was legal. People need reality checks.


----------



## Stridder44 (Sep 9, 2003)

True, it stupid of her to buy Kazaa when you can get it for free..


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 9, 2003)

She's 12. For me this whole action makes as much sense as RIAA started to brake to homes in the 1970s and 1980s when the radio cassette players became popular, and the kids were recording songs from radio ...

Makes me really want to buy these t shirts.  (from http://www.thinkgeek.com)


----------



## symphonix (Sep 9, 2003)

They had a statistic on the news last night that said that over 40% of teenagers didn't know that file-sharing on services like Kazaa is illegal.

Of course, you'd be bound to notice the fine text of Kazaa's privacy policy in amongst all those ads for online casinos. :-(


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 9, 2003)

> "It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres.



That pretty much sums up this whole issue.  There is a gigantic industry going against a belief (right or wrong) that is embedded in the minds most of society that there is nothing wrong with downloading free music.

What I wonder is how did they get a 12-year-old's name?  Do you have to register your name with Kazaa?  Just curious how a minor's name was obtained.  Of course, she could have lied about her age.

d8n_two


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 9, 2003)

Well. If everybody just listened to the RADIO, RIAA would loose a lot. No income from sold cds either ...


----------



## Stridder44 (Sep 9, 2003)

Yea, thats a good point...they would of come to the person who's paying ISP, right? Its not like the ISP account is registered under the 12 year old. And the RIAA said they didnt get any background info on anyone, so how could they have known that he/she (her mom or whoever is paying ISP bill) could have a 12 year old? Hmm...


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 9, 2003)

Or if they had an airport or similar at home without passport, even their neighbors could have downloaded mp3z or pr0n on their bandwidth.


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 9, 2003)

I heard that the next big concern of the RIAA are hard disk recorders that capture digital satellite radio feeds (XM, Sirius).  Record it, rip it, ta da.  Near CD quality music for free.

Technology has the recoding industry on the ropes.

d8n_two


----------



## j79 (Sep 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by d8n_two _
> *That pretty much sums up this whole issue.  There is a gigantic industry going against a belief (right or wrong) that is embedded in the minds most of society that there is nothing wrong with downloading free music.
> 
> d8n_two *



Exactly.

P2P is like looting.
It's not legal, but if others are doing it, and you think you can get away with it, then what's to stop you??


----------



## Jason (Sep 9, 2003)

shhhh 

i hear that the 12 year old (familia) settled for $2000


----------



## Arden (Sep 9, 2003)

This really gets to me.


> "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."


 Yeah, I'm sure the RIAA absolutely _hate_ cracking down on people for sharing music.  I bet it's one of the low points of their day. 

So, when our monetary product is regularly stolen when we pay exorbitant fees for CD's that should cost a maximum $7 or $8, does that mean we get to take "appropriate action" as well?  And what exactly _is_ appropriate action, suing a 12-year-old whose age you didn't know but whose name you did? 

Whatever happened to that one *person* who was head of the RIAA?  I forget her name...

_watch the language arden..._


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 10, 2003)

Now, is there a fund being built to help this family defray the costs?

The online community tends to do these things, I wouldn't mind throwing a couple of dollars in the bin to help out...


----------



## adambyte (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *Well. If everybody just listened to the RADIO, RIAA would loose a lot. No income from sold cds either ... *



Every time a song is played on a radio station, the station takes note of it, and pays the proper royalty fees to the RIAA, which in turn goes to the publisher, and the artist. Music is not "Free" anywhere.


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Sep 10, 2003)

I hope this happens a lot. Yup, the RIAA has every right to sue a family when a child (naively) steals music. You can't expect children like this to understand the consequences that can arise from stealing music. Even if they realize that its stealing, no kid is going to believe that someone can actually track you down...they're going to say to themselves, this is wrong but how can I get caught? the internet is huge...

So this lower income family now has to shell out 2 grand to a money mongering giant. It makes the giant look REALLY petty in the eyes of EVERYONE.



> "Are you headed to junior high schools to round up the usual suspects?"
> -Sen. Dick Durbin



http://www.theregister.com/content/6/32740.html


----------



## Cat (Sep 10, 2003)

I'd like to see some artists now saying something about this. Like, someone steps up and says "poor child, here I'll pay your fines and give you my CD collection for free." Or someone who says that they don't want to work anymore for an industry which sues small children. Or some band going to give  a huge free concert. Have artists lost their balls? Come on! Is nobody going to challenge the Rec. ind. A$$ of A.?


----------



## drash (Sep 10, 2003)

Dealing with minors is a different law set altogether.  All I know is RIAA better handle this one with kid gloves.


----------



## Jason (Sep 10, 2003)

its already settled, nothing more to handle.


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *Every time a song is played on a radio station, the station takes note of it, and pays the proper royalty fees to the RIAA, which in turn goes to the publisher, and the artist. Music is not "Free" anywhere. *



This is not true.  Terrestrial radio stations (in the US, anyway, not sure about other countries) are exempt from royalty fees.  In fact, record companies often pay radio stations fees to play their songs, which is why you tend to hear the same 20 songs looped over and over on your local ClearChannel(tm) stations, and is one small part of why radio today is so generic and crappy.

The RIAA WAS able to impose varying levels of royalty for internet-based broadcasters, including "per-play" fees, with some exemptions and special cases for smaller webcasters.

Fees paid to "the artist", what little there are, tend to be arbitrarily decided by the RIAA and actually have almost zero bearing on whether or not that artist's song was being played or not.


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jason _
> *its already settled, nothing more to handle. *



Yes, if the public just quietly lets it go, then there's nothing else.  But we're all too lethargic to actually make a stink about how rediculous the situation is...


----------



## brianleahy (Sep 10, 2003)

However rock-solid their legal footing, suing a 12-year old is disastrous PR.  I cannot help but think the net effect will be to lose a great deal more than the $2000 settlement they got.

I cannot help but think that the RIAA would be a lot better off if they FIRST worked to develop an appetizing legal alternative to illegal downloads (like Apple Music Store, but with a wider selection, with all RIAA studios included).   In my mind (and this is only me) the 'free' aspect is not the biggest motivator.    What I like is:

A) nearly limitless selection, including the latest hits all the way to 70s cartoon theme songs and commercial jingles
B) swift electronic searching, instead of endless hunting through racks.
C) ability to buy only the specific songs you want
D) immediate electronic delivery

As the success of the Apple Music Store demonstrates, many people ARE willing to pay for these conveniences.  In short, what people are ACTUALLY stealing, the RIAA is not offering at any price.   I predict that *never again* will sales of physical pre-recorded media be the dominant way that music is distributed -- and that is precisely the distribution method the RIAA is fighting desperately to protect.

I do not deny that they are well within their legal rights to go after music pirates - I only question the effectiveness of their present strategy.


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *Every time a song is played on a radio station, the station takes note of it, and pays the proper royalty fees to the RIAA, which in turn goes to the publisher, and the artist. Music is not "Free" anywhere. *



True. But at least in Italy the radio stations have been too famous for not being able to pay the RIAA fees. There are / were tens of thousands of small, private radio stations in the country, and I'm afraid only a small percentage has eough money to pay anything to even people running them. 

But the fee for YOU is different. Buying a cd has a cost. P2p isn't morally right. But listening to a radio is your free right, you don't have to pay the royalties to do that. Besides, as many of the readio stations play mainly the chart music, and that seems to be the most downloaded thing on p2ps, why to even bother if you can listen to the same music free on your radio?


----------



## brianleahy (Sep 10, 2003)

On the subject of radio listening - 

The only reason the RIAA has radio stations play the songs is to help promote sales of CDs.  If *everyone* turned to the radio as their only source of music - not buying any CDs - they'd be in worse trouble than they are now.  Any fees they collect from radio stations are a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 10, 2003)

Yes. Besides - If nobody knows who is Ricky Martin or Christina Aquilera, nobody buys their music either. With classical and specific genre (undergrounds) musics it's easier to spread the music (knowing artists etc) than with the chart music. My dad has never bought an LP, a cassette, a cd, a dvd .. how much money has RIAA "lost" for his habit of listening to radio?


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *But listening to a radio is your free right, you don't have to pay the royalties to do that. Besides, as many of the readio stations play mainly the chart music, and that seems to be the most downloaded thing on p2ps, why to even bother if you can listen to the same music free on your radio? *



In theory, you do pay for it in the end - you listen to advertisements and in turn purchase products.  

If nothing else, you potentially pay for your radio listening time in time wasted listening to advertisements (and to the "RADIO WOW, All WOW all the time!" messages they have to insert between every single song...)

This is how the "free commercial radio" business model works, so in the end _ some_ of us consumers are paying for it...


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *Besides, as many of the readio stations play mainly the chart music, and that seems to be the most downloaded thing on p2ps*



...Which actually tells us that the RIAA's "play NOTHING but top 20" campaign works, and that kids seem to be too stupid to know any better (I'm mid-20s, so I guess I still fit that demographic).


----------



## dlloyd (Sep 10, 2003)

I have never downloaded music. Period. So I'm OK. 
Not to advocate the RIAA or anything, but if any one of you started recording would you like the idea of having your music downloaded free when you could be making $20 off them?

Of course most of the downloads are of music made by multi-millionaires, so I doubt it really hurts them. I imagine it would be a problem for little-time artists who haven't 'made it big yet' though.


----------



## bobw (Sep 10, 2003)

RIAA Beats 2000 bucks Out of Single Mom For Sins of Incompetent Minor


----------



## tree (Sep 10, 2003)

RIAA/Universal    
NEW YORK  The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers  including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun.
Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"

BOO-HOO! Maybe because she posted 1000 songs that weren't her property on Kazaa. Guess mom will be paying a lawyer's fee now. HA!


----------



## Jason (Sep 10, 2003)

nice wording there old man lol


----------



## bobw (Sep 10, 2003)

old man   -  why I'll come there and show you old you young wipper snapper. Send air fair and a wheel chair please.


----------



## dixonbm (Sep 10, 2003)

Tree, you are heartless. If you were 12 and had a bunch of lollipops sitting in front of you and everyone else was taking them and no one said anything about it being wrong wouldn't you take some too?


----------



## bobw (Sep 10, 2003)

Hey, that 12 year old knew what she was doing. Don't be stupid. Look at you guys here, the younger ones, you know more about computers than us old farts.


----------



## Cat (Sep 10, 2003)

Funnily enough, the tendency of the RIAA & A$$ociates to broadcast, sell, promote etc. only new hot Top 20 fake music has driven me into the arms of second-hand records, radio and filesharing. 75% of the music I downloaded was more or less '60 - '70 "abandonware" (like the complete Uriah Heep discography  and lots of cartoon tunes  ). Yes, it is illegal, but ... I did actually own already and later buy more LP records of my .mp3. Ripping vinyl to .mp3 has never been my favourite pass-time anyway ... moreover with scratched records the chances of failure and loss of quality are quite high.


----------



## Stridder44 (Sep 10, 2003)

Now what I never got is why the RIAA isnt comming after the stream ripper programs and the internet raido stations. Do you know how easy it is to rip music from an internet raido stream?? (hint: INSANLY!!!!!)


----------



## Jason (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bobw _
> *old man   -  why I'll come there and show you old you young wipper snapper. Send air fair and a wheel chair please. *



by snail mail? get with the times, man! 

back to subject, i dont agree with this ignorance deal really... my cousin, who is 11 knows what kazaa is for etc... the RIAA sucks, but she was committing illegal acts ::alien::


----------



## Arden (Sep 10, 2003)

How did the RIAA come to be the end-all, be-all for music distribution, anyway?  I don't see an Auto Industry Association of America controlling all car production worldwide, specifying what we can buy and for how much, at outlandish prices.

The problem is that there's no one to compete with the RIAA, and if a group started, they'd probably get sued into the ground for some issue or another.  If someone could successfully start the MAA (Music Association of America) or something, and treat consumers & artists like people instead of ATM's, I bet they could get the RIAA shaking in their blue-suede boots & diamond-lined fur coats.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Sep 10, 2003)

the problem is that cds are too expensive to buy  

if music was cheaper i wouldnt support p2p apps

but the way things are going DVDs will be cheaper than music cds in a few years. its pathetic 

teenagers love listenin to music ... if they cant afford it >>>> kazaa


----------



## Jason (Sep 10, 2003)

apparently p2p groups are offering to pay the $2000 bill for the girl and familia


----------



## tsizKEIK (Sep 10, 2003)

yeap: http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5074227.html


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *if any one of you started recording would you like the idea of having your music downloaded free when you could be making $20 off them?
> *



Not to pick too many nits, but under most contracts today you, as an artist, would only see about $4-$5 of the $20 CD.  Of course, chances are that you wouldn't actually see this money - it would go towards the $700,000 you "borrowed" under your contract to the record company for them to produce and promote your album and tour.

I don't disagree that stealing music via Kazaa, etc is wrong, and I WOULD be concerned about it.  I'd also be *more* concerned about the estimated 30% of albums sold worldwide that are manufactured by organized pirates.

However, sales have been floundering, and execs need a target so as not to be revolted against by shareholders.  The execs so far have only needed to find a scapegoat long enough that they have time to cash in (i.e. Hillary Rosen, RIAA pres) and move on to "the next project"...


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Stridder44 _
> *Now what I never got is why the RIAA isnt comming after the stream ripper programs and the internet raido stations. Do you know how easy it is to rip music from an internet raido stream?? (hint: INSANLY!!!!!) *



Well, they already have...  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Internet radio stations now are required to pay fees to the RIAA for each song.  Part of the way this was pushed through the FCC was the thought that digital broadcasting allows for the "perfect" duplication of a media, whereas terrestrial broadcasting always produces an inferior copy (I'd beg to differ on the "perfect" part when listening to my 56Kbit Village Voice stream, but they pay the fees anyway...)

Some countries, like Germany, have imposed a tax on every blank CDR sold that supposedly goes to pay media industries for supposed copyright violations.  Essentially I'm being told that I, as a CDR consumer, am assumed to be a criminal - I can't possibly be buying a blank CDR for any purpose other than stealing...


----------



## edX (Sep 11, 2003)

so long as there are theives, the rest of us will have to pay for what they steal. i'm all for getting rid of the thieves instead. as for this girl and her family, sounds like what she needs is what most americans need - education in how things work. nothing is 'free' and doing something because other people do it doesn't make it right. but i'll admit, i wish they'd get hold of some of the teens that freak on this stuff knowing damn well what they're doing. and if that's you, then so be it.

now, on the other hand, the Grateful Dead freely distributed and encouraged others to distribute their live concert tapes. as a result, they were one of the top grossing touring bands. they probably made more money in merchaindising at a few shows than one of their real records brought in for the same year. they were very tight about protecting their artwork. 

so maybe the rules should change. but untill they do, people participate in file sharing at their own risk. they shouldn't cry when they get caught.


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ripcord _
> *Some countries, like Germany, have imposed a tax on every blank CDR sold that supposedly goes to pay media industries for supposed copyright violations.  Essentially I'm being told that I, as a CDR consumer, am assumed to be a criminal - I can't possibly be buying a blank CDR for any purpose other than stealing... *



In Italy too. All media storage has added tax since this year. CDs, DVDs, hard drives (computers), iPods... Preassumption: EVERYBODY uses their media / harddrive etc to store illegal mp3z. Logic: add tax and that pays to RIAA etc. How are they going to figure how much who is going to get? And, the assumption "everybody is guilty" is so wrong. All money got with that tax will be money only for Berlusconi and other corrupted members of government, no cent of that money will ever go to any artist. (Except maybe to live shows of some local porn artist  ). So wrong.


----------



## wiz7dome (Sep 11, 2003)

Im surprised at the comments on this subject.  First of all, file sharing is only assumed to be illegal.  The logic is " if your downloading a song, your not paying for it. Therefore it's stealing."  This is not true.  As others have mentioned there is a tax on "blank media" that goes DIRECTLY to the RIAA for the purpose of paying royalties to artist.  Its no sursurpriseperise that the RIAA does not want to discuss how much money they've collected or paid out as a result of this "tax".  There are many issues here other than "stealing music".  The RIAA is trying very hard to protect a dying business model.  Remember, you can only inflate the price of a bunch of 1's and 0's (mp3, AAC files).  If the RIAA is really concerned about people obtaining artist work without the artist being paid, why not go after the 1000's of "Buy, Sell, and Trade" music stores.  In those cases money is being transfered and there is more of a  argument for copyright violation. 

The Home Recording Act deals with this.  Thats why it's NOT illegal to record music of off the radio.  Royalties from  songs recorded of off the radio come from the blank media "tax".


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 11, 2003)

Well, the "blank media" tax doesn't exist everywhere.  Besides, you can't assume that because a person pays a tax for CDRs that it makes up for downloading free music, and therefore it's not stealing.    One can't excuse the other.

I'm fairly neutral in this debate, in that I think the RIAA is crap and shouldn't go around suing 12-year-olds, but I have friends in a band that had the #1 pirated song for awhile this summer.  They busted their a$$es and went in to debt to record a hit album.  The fact is there are a lot of really popular bands that don't make money until their 3rd or 4th album because of the money they borrow from the label to make the first one.  When (if) illegal downloads affect sales on an album, it affects whether or not they get a chance to make a 2nd or 3rd album.

I'll be honest, I used to download music at a moderate pace, but after hearing my friends' story, I've either deleted the files, bought the albums, or replaced them with iTMS files.

d8n_two


----------



## brianleahy (Sep 11, 2003)

Actually, I think I *did* hear about a failed legal action taken by some studios regarding used music stores.  As I say, it failed, but it didn't stop them from trying.

d8n_two - I wonder if your musical friends had managed to bypass the studio and somehow get their album directly onto iTMS if they'd have fared better...

Another random thought:  I think it's absurd to suppose that if a song has been downloaded 1 million times, that means that the song **would** have sold 1 million copies if p2p sharing were outlawed.  When computing record company losses, a 1-to-1  download-to-lost-sale ratio is not supportable.


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 11, 2003)

brian,

I'd like to believe that alternative distributing would have worked out better for my friends.  They did self-distro for a long time and had minimal success.  Once a major label was interested.  They exploded.  The money the label put behind them got them massive radio play and allowed them to record three videos, of which one got was top 10 on MTV for a long time.  Not to mention the ability to work with world class producers and studio hands.

I should clarify, though.  My friends are doing just fine now.  They were lucky enough to have one blockbuster hit and two moderate hits to follow it.  They were just really nervous when record sales started to level and the hit single was very popular on Kazaa. 

You're absolutely right though, the idea that there is a 1-to-1 ratios of illegal download and lost sale is ridiculous.

d8n_two


----------



## wiz7dome (Sep 11, 2003)

I do agree with some of the above.  I also use the iTMS to download music.  I cant argue with the fact that bands (myself included) does not get paid for music downloaded of p2p networks, my main point is that this issue is not a clear cut as the RIAA would make most people believe.

The "blank media" tax does not make up for every song downloaded or played over the air.  Its not ment to do that.  It is set up to offset the "supposed" losses the companies take form those who record music off the radio.

The next time someone says "downloading music is  copyright infringement", ask them why.  There are 3 key issues that the copyright act covers.  Sales, copies, and distribution.  The "logical" argument the RIAA wants people to believe is the p2p networks illegal constitute distribution.  Not so fast. P2p software allows people to have "access" to a folder or set of folders.  If having a file in a folder can be considered distribution, how do you distinguish between a music file and any other file on a network?  Using that same example, if someone saw a CD in my unlocked car and took it would that be a violation of the Copyright Act?  

The Copyright Act and the Home Recording Act actually defines why file sharing is Legal.  The DMRA is why the RIAA is now going crazy.  

There is a very interesting debate on this issue over at Mac-central.  Im not sure if im allowed to post the link, but you can search for "why the RIAA lawsuits are invalid".  It really is a good read.


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 11, 2003)

According to copyright laws, part of the rights held by a copyright owner is the ability to say how and when their product is distributed.  Most P2P programs are a form of distribution.  Whether it is used to distribute workload (distributive computing) or files, distribution is what these programs do.  When a person knowingly shares a file that has a copyright held by by someone other than themself, they are opening an illegal distribution channel.  It's not that much different than a guy in the alley selling burned copies of albums.  

As for distinguishing between a music file and something else, you can't, other than the file extension, which can be altered.  The person, however, knows if the file (s)he puts in that public folder should be shared or not.  That's why Steve Jobs was right when he said this is not a technical issue, it's a behavioral one.  

Having a file in a folder is one thing.  Opening the folder to the world and allowing others access to copy the file is distributing it from your computer to theirs.

d8n_two


----------



## nervus (Sep 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by d8n_two _
> *Well, the "blank media" tax doesn't exist everywhere.  Besides, you can't assume that because a person pays a tax for CDRs that it makes up for downloading free music, and therefore it's not stealing.    One can't excuse the other.
> 
> I'm fairly neutral in this debate, in that I think the RIAA is crap and shouldn't go around suing 12-year-olds,
> ...



We have it here though: the music industry gets money out of blank tape cassettes, blank CDR's, blank DVDr's. 
In my country you are paying through your nose for direct (50%) and indirect (20%) taxes. Above that there are  extra additions for poor Polygram and its Ilk.
If you think I exaggerate please check (just as an example  ) the prices at Apple's dutch webstore.

"As this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers," Mitch Bainwol, the group's new chief executive, said in the statement.   

I wonder, what is the moral standard of man who thinks that parents should invade the privacy of their children?   I would not do that to mine ... (And believe me they know the difference between right and wrong: they buy their CD's).

Greetings
nervus


----------



## edX (Sep 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by wiz7dome _
> *Using that same example, if someone saw a CD in my unlocked car and took it would that be a violation of the Copyright Act?
> *



i believe that is a violation of a more common law called theft - taking what isn't yours. one that is also included in the moral guidelines of the 10 commandments as well. taking or sharing a file that doesn't belong to you constitutues the same crime. copyright is just a method of assigning ownership.


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by nervus _
> *...(And believe me they know the difference between right and wrong: they buy their CD's).
> 
> Greetings
> nervus *



But there you have it.  A lot of parents don't teach their kids as well as you.  Some ignore the fact that their kids are doing it, and some encourage it by example (read: do it themself).  Some are just clueless.  I think parents should just make themselves aware if their kids are doing it, and understand the consequences both they and thier kids could face.

As for the laws in your country, I feel for you.  Is it not understood that there are many legitimate uses to those media that have nothing to do with the music industry or piracy?  What was the public debate like in passing those laws?  Also, is that just in the Netherlands or throughout the EU?  Just curious.

d8n_two


----------



## nervus (Sep 11, 2003)

> As for the laws in your country, I feel for you.  Is it not understood that there are many legitimate uses to those media that have nothing to do with the music industry or piracy?  What was the public debate like in passing those laws?  Also, is that just in the Netherlands or throughout the EU?  Just curious.



Our governement is quite uninterested in matters as long as it is put in "rules" ("aanwijzingen van de minister"). We still have the mentality of the old regents (you know, from the 1700's) : "if it is good for trade, it is allright" and  "Sunday is for God, the rest of the week for Mammon". Ah well, it created an interesting society  
Public debate is not of any interest in these matters: the chosen ones in parliament just decided it. Remember: you choose a party not a person here; your choice (once per 4 years) is determined by a package deal.
I believe we have it in all EU countries in some form (percentages will differ).

Greetings
nervus


----------



## Arden (Sep 12, 2003)

What band are your friends in, d8n?


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *What band are your friends in, d8n? *



Well, I was trying to avoid sounding like a name dropper, but since you ask, they are  The All-American Rejects.

d8n_two


----------



## Satcomer (Sep 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by d8n_two _
> *According to copyright laws, part of the rights held by a copyright owner is the ability to say how and when their product is distributed.  Most P2P programs are a form of distribution.  Whether it is used to distribute workload (distributive computing) or files, distribution is what these programs do.  When a person knowingly shares a file that has a copyright held by by someone other than themself, they are opening an illegal distribution channel.  It's not that much different than a guy in the alley selling burned copies of albums.
> d8n_two *



I agree with your position, just not your wording to convey it. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.

IMHO your above analogy is flawed. The person in the alley is SELLING the burned copies is doing it for PROFIT. A P2P network (by the vast use of it) is NOT getting a fee from distribution of the songs. The real argument should be a person PAYING for the P2P program. That's were the fee comes from. There should be the argument.


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Satcomer _
> *I agree with your position, just not your wording to convey it. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.
> 
> IMHO your above analogy is flawed. The person in the alley is SELLING the burned copies is doing it for PROFIT. A P2P network (by the vast use of it) is NOT getting a fee from distribution of the songs. The real argument should be a person PAYING for the P2P program. That's were the fee comes from. There should be the argument. *



The fee or what the guy in the alley is charging is irrelevant to what I'm saying.  I'm only arguing that both situations are distribution channels not authorized by the legal copyright holder.  That is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder.  The issue of paying for a P2P program is another part of the issue to which your point is well taken.  There is more than one side of the issue that must be (is being) argued.

d8n_two


----------



## Arden (Sep 14, 2003)

Off-topic, but still:  I'm pretty sure I've heard of AAR, though I've never heard them.

I've always wondered at filesharing programs that try to get you to upgrade to a "pro" version.  They don't bring much of anything new, and I'm not going to pay $10 for a program that lets me download stuff for free (legal/moral/ethical issues aside).

I wonder if anyone has ever shared the registered version of a P2P Pro application? :|


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Off-topic, but still:  I'm pretty sure I've heard of AAR, though I've never heard them.
> 
> I've always wondered at filesharing programs that try to get you to upgrade to a "pro" version.  They don't bring much of anything new, and I'm not going to pay $10 for a program that lets me download stuff for free (legal/moral/ethical issues aside).
> ...



What I found kind of funny is the maker of Acquisition, the beautifully made Gnutella client for the Mac, basically had to start a manhunt for people who where using his program to download its own pitrated registration key so they wouldn't have to pay $15 to avoid the little nag.

While I wouldn't want to encourage this, it is rather telling how quick people are to  bite the hand that feeds them.

d8n_two

BTW: The Rejects big hit was "Swing, Swing"


----------



## Tarambana (Sep 14, 2003)

I bet it is a bit off-tpopic, yet it might be of some interest.


In Spain, where I live, sharing music is not a crime (all that you can do is exercise a civil action). Furthermore, our copyright laws allow every person to make one copy for personal use, and also to share.

Sadly, recently our Goverment has made a Law which adds a "blank media tax" (which is stupid, by the way, as it is not only referred to CD Audio, but to any digital media); and, probably, by the end of the year, they will change our copyright laws so as to prevent even private copying.

This is terribly stupid.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Sep 14, 2003)

I download video game midi's from vgmusic.com =<D


----------



## MikeXpop (Sep 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by d8n_two _
> *BTW: The Rejects big hit was "Swing, Swing" *


Funny story about that song. I have an .mp3 file of that song (and 3 other AAR songs) on my hard drive, that I downloaded from the internet. I got it from (wait for it) http://allamericanrejects.com  Someone told me to download it and tell them what I thought of it. I didn't really like it, but for some reason I kept the .mp3's anyway. That was right around the time that their record was released. A couple weeks later I flip through MTV and I see them. I laughed pretty hard, and checked their website. Now they only had the lyrics for each song and the ability to stream Swing Swing. Funny what fame does to a person.

I wonder what the legality of those files are now. Oh well.


----------



## d8n_two (Sep 14, 2003)

> Funny what fame does to a person.



It's more like what it does to your record company, promoter, etc.  When they find out they can make a lot of money off your product, they sure as heck don't want you giving it away.

A lot of bands do that anyway, put MP3s up before an album is released or before songs get on the radio, and then pull them once things get rolling.  It's all about marketing.

d8n_two


----------



## Arden (Sep 15, 2003)

I doubt anybody can do anything to you for having those songs, since you legally downloaded them straight from the source before they decided to take it off.  Not even the RIAA has the right to indict you for something you did while it wasn't illegal (if it even is now ).


----------



## GroundZeroX (Sep 18, 2003)

A lot of what happened with the 12 year old girl is propaganda. Everything I have read said that they are going after people with playlists consisting of 1,000 songs or more. The girl lives in the projects, and she "supposedly" paid $30 to kazaa? The NY Post said that they joined Kazaa for $30 3 months ago. So in 3 months, a 12 year old girl downloaded over 1,000 songs? How many 12 year olds do you know that can name 100 songs off the top of their head? Not only that, but in order for her to download 1,000 songs from Kazaa, this girl who lives in "public housing" (projects), would either A) have to have two phone lines, with one permantely connected to the internet with a HUGE que to be constantly downloading, or B) they have broadband. Either way, when I got online when I was living with my parents, my mom wouldn't let me get a second phone line, let alone broadband if it was avaliable. Personally, I think that the girl and her mom were both downloading stuff from Kazaa, and knew it was illegal. You can't tell me that living in "public housing", you don't know that Kazaa is the best way not to pay for music. Not only that, but they have all ready shown that they are working the system if they obviously had enough money to pay $30 for Kazaa Plus, and about $45 a month for broadband, but they can't pay rent on a place of their own. I do feel sorry for the family, but I don't think she is as innocent as the media is making them look. Any thoughts? I know this all sounds extremely insensitive, but the girls entire story seems so full of crap. Of course everyone wants to feel sorry for the little girl, and the RIAA will look awful. It is all propaganda.


----------



## Steve Bosell (Sep 18, 2003)

Why would anyone support a system that the artist gets paid 4% of the revenue from the music they create?  So if there are four people in the band, they get 1% each.  it is sickening. 

Fight the power!


----------



## GroundZeroX (Sep 18, 2003)

I agree with you, the system sucks. But, by pirating music, you are taking even more of the 4% away from the artist. Stealing is just wrong. I admit, I did the Napster and Acquisition thing, like everyone else here,whether or not they care to admit it. But I've stopped, and just have music that I legally own. By continuing to pirate music, you are screwing over the artist even more. The change needs to come from within the RIAA. I've all ready seen two of my favoriate bands lose their record contracts because even though their singles had great radio air time, and was popular, the singles weren't making any money, so they got dropped.

I support the system that only pays the artist 4%, because even though it may be little, it is the only system that exists as of now. I'd rather continue to support the artist, with the existing system, then stab the artist in the back, and not let them get any money at all for what I listen to. 

Give every man what you owe him. If you owe revenue then revunue, if taxes pay taxes, if respect give respect.


----------



## Steve Bosell (Sep 18, 2003)

By "pirating" you are hurting the giant corporations literally 10x more than the artists, forcing a new busyness model will benefit the artist big time, and it is long overdue.  These giant record companies are irrelevant, I can record an album in my spare bedroom with 95% for the production value as any record company.  They have a strangle hold on the media outlets like best buy and the radio stations nation wide, and the artists and the music we listen to  are suffering


----------



## GroundZeroX (Sep 18, 2003)

By pirating, you are not really forcing them to go with a new business model, as much as forcing them to do the same thing they are doing now. Piracy isn't the answer. The more you pirate, the more great bands will be cut for stupid bands like Good Charlotte or Britney Spears. That scares me.


----------



## Arden (Sep 19, 2003)

You may be cutting into the $20 or so that the RIAA would get from you by downloading an album instead of buying it, but you are not really hurting the RIAA as much as the artist.  The RIAA has billions of dollars to push around; I mean, they finance the artists.  If the sales of a CD don't make a profit, the RIAA looks to another artist and the first artist goes broke from trying to afford studio time, tour costs, etc.  You won't affect the RIAA in any noticeable way.


----------



## Steve Bosell (Sep 19, 2003)

I don't understand your logic, the riaa makes its money from selling cd's.  The artist makes the vast majority of their money from playing live shows.  The record companies created the riaa to protect their interests.  I would argue that the record companies are moving away from supporting artists or musicians.  How can you describe Justin Timberlake as an artist or musician?  The majority of the record companies resources are going to manufacturing bands like linkin park and britney spears, they produce performers, not artists.   If you haven't noticed entire genres have been dropped by the major record labels like JAZZ!  Just like Chuck D said it is a Gestapo, it makes no since that if I am an artist in Detroit, I need to go through a record company in LA or New York to be played on the radio in Detroit.  Their busyness model needs to change, and they are doing everything they can to stop it.


----------

