I think I'd get more peace of mind knowing that my money hadn't funded the kind of slimy blood sucking music industry leaches who brought this case to court...

These days I try to avoid buying any new CDs with a major label and RIAA connection. I try to support the genuine indie labels and buy merchandise and music directly from the artist whenever possible. I'll definitely be paying a reasonable price for the new Radiohead download, despite them allowing it to be downloaded for free.

When I really want a CD on a major label I wait a while and look around for it second hand. At least then the damage has already been done, and my cash is just going to a little used record store or ebay seller.

Apart from the moral and legal issues of paying for music and supporting the artist; I don't have a particularly fast internet connection and like being able to create my own lossless files.

Of course according to the music industry I'm still breaking the law and stealing music:

"Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said."

A bit ironic that you suggest we should buy CDs for moral reasons; I think there's a good moral argument for not doing so when most of the money goes to a greedy and litigious label rather than the artist.

Lest we forget about this precious little piece...


Goodnews, take your off-topic drivel elsewhere!

This thread serves no real purpose to this forum. Speaking of precedence, perhaps we should revisit TOS #9:

I think this place would be better served if it read:
Discussions about illegal filesharing are not wanted here and can lead to a warning or worse.

Wow, I didn't have any idea this thread would mushroom like it has. I definately touched a "sore spot" with some people. Remember I am not the RIAA, just the messenger who started this interesting thread about this newsworthy story I read about that I thought would benefit those here on the HA forums.

I am not surprised at the personal attacks in this thread against me because I am a Christian, and also a Christian minister and Internet evangelist. I was one of the first to use the Internet for evangelism back in 1995, and have been distributing millions of copies the Bible (audio and electronic text form), plus Christian books, music and software over the years on the Internet. Much of the stuff that I archive, edit and publish I have released to the Public Domain. I have had a problem for years with people stealing both my copyrighted and public domain work and selling it, modifying it and republishing it under their names. I have for the last few years copyrighted much of my work with the U.S. Copyright Office to cut down on people passing off my work as theirs (especially for a profit).

A laborer is worthy of his hire, and I run a small one person, which consists of myself, indie Christian book and music publishing Internet outreach. I am not supported or affiliated with any denomination or church, but rather I travel around the world (mostly on cruise ships) ministering as the Lord leads. Thousands of people a day come to my website (I am witholding its name and my name as not to be seen as promoting myself or my site here), and they can try the music (listen to the whole MP3 or FLAC tracks) before they decide to buy. I use FLAC for all my audio masters, and have been a big FLAC supporter for years here on HA and other places.

I give away my music and books to people who can't afford it (example: 3rd world countries or people on very limited incomes.) So to all those who prejudged me, that is your opinion, but I am trying to balance earning a decent income where I can further my ministerial work, and also produce new albums with start-up artists. I use CDBaby for all my music store (iTunes, Rhapsody, etc.) and physical CD sales.

Thanks for allowing me to discuss this interesting court case with you all. I appreciate HA and the people here. Through positive discussion, maybe we can work toward changing the copyright system to better serve both rights holders and consumers...

ok the new law (from now on): music should not be in any way profitable (i'am sure jezus would agree).

Personally speaking, I don't care about funding Christian, Muslim, Satanist or any other agenda of a music 'publisher' either when I buy music. I do care about the artist however. Unfortunately, to me, your targets are none of my concern in this transaction. And fundamentally in the age of the internet and cheap distribution, the role of a music publisher should be irrelevent.

Woops, I got his name/alias wrong, didn't I? Apologies, goodnews.


Very interesting. Do you have some manner of streaming them, or do you just offer them for download?

Back to the topic at hand, I personally implore you to learn more about RIAA, and the music industry in general, before making any determinations as to whether the news you reported is "good" or "bad". You've gotten some interesting responses because it seems you feel the judgment is a just one (or at least your posts reflect that), when many of us here are keenly aware of the so-called "dark side" of the recording industry (of which the RIAA is, for whatever reason, a part of).

I don't think the flak is so much about as the judgment, as excessive as it seems to me, than it is about the RIAA. Plunge deeper into the rabbit hole, and you'll begin to see why.

I believe that I have the right to defend myself against attacks and misstatements made about me on this forum by others, just as any other member does. By the way of clarification, I commissioned, was involved in authoring and recording/sound engineering the music I have for sale, and am not just the publisher. I own all rights to these song recordings and all royalties they generate. Hope that clarifies things to the naysayers...

Here are 2 more News.com subsequent news articles that help add to this healthy discussion about this court case:

Why the RIAA should have won (but the fine was too high)

Democratic congressman: RIAA's $222,000 win is 'excessive'

P.S. The username goodnews has nothing with me posting good or bad 'news threads' on this forum, but rather is another name for the Gospel (good news)...

I'd imagine peoples responses to this topic are pretty much down to the industry Kool-Aid you seem to have drunk.

I've very pleased for you owning these song recordings, and am sure you will defend your ownage of them to the fullest extent.

As any good steward would... Remember they aren't mine, but God's, and I am steward over them during my lifetime here on earth. People who pirate Christian music aren't stealing from me or the other Christian artists/publishers, but rather from God Himself. How can they expect to worship Him with stolen Christian music?

Well, if one analyzes "what is actually the case", then the longterm answer is: there is no future for copy-right - there are just alternative systems which work completely different.

Why is that so? Well, quite simple - you do not physically own the means to copy. It is out of your hands. You dont own the cd-burner in my machine. You dont own the inet-connection which i have - and so on. You may have a means to copy the material as well - but so have nearly every customer.

The most important consequence of this is: copying is cheap. It is almost no effort to copy something. All which you can offer when you are selling copies, is the act of copying something for someone else. In the case of a label, you can also offer a nice interface for exploring and copying material. But thats it.

When copyright was invented, this was radically different. The act of copying was related to a significant effort. Therefore it was just fair to be compensated for this effort. But this situation has almost nothing to do with today - yet, copyright still exists like a monument of a long forgotten past.

Therefore, when it comes to ownership - you actually dont own much regarding the act of copying. It is cheap. And it is almost NO EFFORT. Why should someone else pay you a ridiculous price, for something, which requires you almost no effort? You are in that case doing almost no work, yet expect a high payback. There is a word for this - it is called "fraud" and "parasitism".

What is a lot of effort for an artist, is the act of creation. Creating art is lots of effort, and this is what an artist actually owns and for which he actually should be compensated - the act of creation.

There are various alternative models, which could work more efficiently in nowdays scenario. The problem with all of them, is the lack of infrastructure for them - this world is so adapted to an hopelessly obsolete salesmodel, that it doesn't even have a means, for efficiently transitioning to new models. It is stuck in a time of a few hundred years ago. Therefore, most of the following alternative models, suffer from lack of infrastructure and support - thus, they will probably not become mainstream near-term - instead, intermediate models will bridge the gap:

- Funding by the masses: In this case, an artist is paid BEFORE he actually releases the creation of a work. The funding is driven by the fame, trust and quality of his previous works: the customers like what the artist is doing, want more of it, and thus support him in creating more.

- Rent usage: Typical example is online-games. The client-material is free... but the creator is able to keep a physical grap on a part of the work, which is necessary to consume it.

- Selling services: The work is free - but additional services regarding the work, are not. Another possibility would be that for example a distributor offers the users easy and comfortable access to works - and is then compensated for this service - not for the works.

- Selling modifications: This is similiar to the services-model... in this case, a person is compensated for doing certain desired modifications to a work - individualization. In an extreme variant of this model, the creator is able to create some kind of "generator" which he physically owns. He then sells output generated from this generator - possibly modified according to customer wishes.

- Gift-Economy: This model is typically underrated, because most current implementations are inefficient. The idea is to strenghten the personal relationship between artists and fans... and making if VERY easy for fans to donate to the artist. An efficient implementation should not just be tied to one artist, or a single label.... what would be necessary is a large scale system - like filesharing with builtin means to donate to artists, socialize, get additional features, keep track of donations, and so on.

- Lyx

Regardless of the verdict and the morality of file sharing, the dollar amount of the judgment awarded seems way out of line. US courts are out of touch with reality. It happens often, not just when the RIAA is involved.

That is strange logic.
So is mentioning that you work for a Christian Indie label and then complaining when other people mention it.


ps // Sorry for the religious, somewhat offtopic post. I hope, and think, that everyone here believes that copyright laws are in desperate need of updating.
Charging someone 9,000 dollars for sharing a song is somewhat the equivilant of charging someone 9,000 dollars for running a red light to me. "It could kill someone. How much is a life worth to us?"

The moment people bring their deity into the discussion like this, is the moment I'm going to attack you and your religion.

Religion, especially organized religion, is brought forth purely by it's member. God didn't send down his songs to you, you and people before you have made them up. Claiming you're somehow a special person put here by your deity to protect and profit from his word, is the point where sanity check out, and irrationality checks in.
Second: if that material you sell was property of your god and he would actually mind if people copied them, he's a stupid god, a bad god and a raving lunatic. How dare you say that your god actually cares? How dare you use this logic to make sure you get your money? You are an opportunist. A religion isnt property, work created by its followers isnt his. How crazy are you?

Even if the music was gods, how do the people inspired by his word repay him? Why doesn't god take care of his own property? Why are you getting rich by copying his work and are you allowed to forbid us others?

You are nothing but a RIAA-tool, using their logic and your religion (in the spirit it pretty much always has been used) to make sure you live in comfort while doing nothing more than what we can do ourselves: copying music/material.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous invoking the interest of *your* God in this. I suppose He told the RIAA to pressure legislators for increased copyright periods and penalties too?

If He did have anything to do with it, then remember He also made all those lovely ripping tools too, in which case I thank Him for Freeme, DVDDecrypter et al

Besides, the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me that it was okay to copy music...

Frankly, if I had my choice, I'd rather the RIAA continue suing filesharers into the stone age than implementing ever-more restrictive DRM regimes. Unfortunately, they can do both.

I still don't get the music industry's flawed logic that every downloaded song would be bought on CD if the download wouldn't have been available ... contryry to the record industry's claims, I dare to claim that the music business' sales would not be that much better without the opportunity for downloading.

In my opinion, the record industry has - when evaluating the threat of music downloading - a much more serious quality problem which, in the end, leads to customer's disrespect towards their low-quality products. This is valid for mainstream music mostly (and one should ask oneself why most of the sobbing emerges right out of that specific branch of music).

The music industry thus would be much better off fighting large-scale commercial product piracy and product counterfeiting in e.g. east asia and east europe. That'd be money spent the right way.

Back to topic:

In the golden days of FM radio, I had my analog and digital audio tape decks hooked up to my FM tuner and used to record music (FM came over cable without noticeable static) for free without necessarily buying CD's (which I nonetheless did if I liked the artist and still do). FM transmittance is quality-reduced (as is lossy encoding) but I always was comfortable with the quality and i did even trade tapes with my friends (and I know a hell lot of people that did just the same).

So ten years ago, I could basically record music from radio without the fear of being sued. Today, I can legally record internet radio streams (and even specifically search the online radio station's playlists for artists and songs) in 192 kbps without the fear of being sued.

But if I get caught with my fingers in the P2P cookie jar, RIAA sues the hell out of my bank account? There is something wrong with commensurability here ...

Today's filesharing and streamripping simply have - from my point of view - taken the place of yesterday's radio music recording.

By paying today's royalties in form of copyright fees on DAP's, CD/DVD burners and CD/DVD media (which is today's equivalent of yesterday's practice with e.g. cassettes, tape reels and tape decks), there should be no point in sueing non-commercial music downloaders, especially with legally non-critical alternatives like streamripping being easily available.

Edit: typo

PIRACY is definitely something fomented by the music/movie/whatever art industry. I used to spend tons of money acquiring vinyls which by today haven't got a single turn-table to be played at. Solutions: re-buy all your music. But wait... it much more expensive than before. Online music is not that mature enough - limited catalogues, missing rarities, low quality files. This is way no near the effort of a person who built an entire genuine purchased LP/CD/K7 collection. Piracy is a worldwide scale situation. Russia, China? Amongst the champions on that field. As it is this big - it's the industry's fault to not provide fair priced products at a considerable vast amount of catalogue. What do you think people who like music will do when something is out of print, unpurchasable - borrow from someone of course.

There is a huge difference between sharing music and shoplifting. Law here understands that theft has to do with subtraction of a material good. That does not apply for sharing songs. I personally think that all record companies found their end on this one. Give more 10 years, and this whole copyright crap won't stand still.

Sue a 30 year old lady over 24 songs is just absurd and sends messages to no one. I am yet to see RIAA actions outside the U.S. - if the guys start to sue every people around the world then I will maybe fear this. But they can keep sueing the locals, won't change my situation here. Most of us really don't care. Record companies showed everything up to this point but one thing for sure: that they don't have any intelligent brain.

So were the damages awarded with respect to 24 songs or thousands of songs? Either way, it's ludicrous. I'm glad the vast majority of my music comes from indie labels, and I think that's only going to increase so I can avoid funding idiocy like this.

It was only for the 24 songs in question. You can find the jury worksheet here.

Not to divert too much traffic away from this site, but if you really want to dig through the info go to http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/.

As to my take on the issue....
In a capitalistic society, people set the price of their products based on what people are willing to pay for them. If they are priced too aggressively, sales go down and profit isn't maximized. Filesharing throws a wrench into the proper setting of prices. The demand is there, but there is an unlimited supply outside the system. A thing to think about... If P2P was ended RIGHT NOW, what would happen to RIAA music prices?
ANSWER: RIAA has and will continue to adjust in order to maximize profits for itself. Whatever price nets the most profit will win. Things to consider here would be the affect of independent labels and increased purchase volumes.

Before I talked about capitalism. Capitalism would also state that consumers are balancing a large number of variables when they choose a method of obtaining their songs: Quality, selection, Morality, Legality/repercussions, convenience(distribution/technical), format, $$$$, etc. These ALL are costs.

So... what to choose... CD vs. P2P vs. DRM vs. Non-DRM purchases vs. advertising (note the chronological progression and that innovation is being driven by the gaps left by the old. People aren't going for the free stuff just because it is free. There are costs associated with these free products. It is the RIAAs best interest to find the distribution formula that puts the most into their pockets (convincing as many as possible to pay top dollar).

The Internet is damn scary place for anything that is FOR PROFIT (audio, movies, TV, news, software, porn , forums). Your business must come to the internet and participate or loose audience. But if you don't compete when you are there, it's pretty damn easy for your audience to go find some alternative. Less annoying/ Less costly / More interesting / Less biased / More features, etc. (Just look at the rise in Open Source software)

I just have to end my typing now..... My mind is going off into so many differing directions. Closing thought... People aren't stupid. They will go where there is a good balance for them.

What kills me is, I could go into a record store and steal 100 albums, and the penalty wouldn't even come close. I understand that this is how the law is written, but it doesn't seem reasonable regardless.

the question that comes to mind here is how many of you are citizens of the USA. this is not really a threat concidering the fact that 50+% of the world's population does not live in the US, so most of us are still safe.

One reasoning is that, as a filesharer, you are distributing copies of the intellectual property to potentially thousands of people, not just taking a discrete copy for yourself. You could argue that the damage done by the filesharer is infinitely worse (note that so far the RIAA is going after people who are sharing, not just downloading).

well ... commonly used p2p-clients like the mule, torrent or kazaa do work only when you are sharing what you are downloading ... there simply is no difference between sharing and downloading so any sharer is also a downloader and vice versa.

Right, but as I understand it, they are prosecuting based on sharing, not downloading. That is, infringing on the IP by distributing it, not "stealing" specific content, so the theft-from-a-record-store analogy doesn't wash.

"What we’re dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the law." © The Prodigy - Their Law

Emule is facing the end of its days. Apparently something occourred to the network that brought it to a very critical state. Demonoid.com was brought down for a week by a canadian entity - they're back now but with canadian traffic blocked. I mean... what needs to be "fought" here is those apps and sites - not users over 24 songs fined US$9.000 each song. people only "download" because this kind of software exists and estimulate people to share music.

If they can track down a "simple user" who downloaded 10 songs... they can track down eMule's creator, or any other P2P site admin. I just don't get it... it's so easy to fuck up users... but I have never seen a headline "emule's creator being sued".

I get that ... but to me there isn't much logic in the prosecution basing their actions on sharing only because sharing and downloading are bound together by most (not DC-based applications, though) p2p-software's inner workings.




P2P is and will always be a great way of distributing larger files (keep in mind that not every ed2k or torrent transfer contains parts of 'illegal' copyrighted data) ... personally, I wouldn't download 4GB Linux iso images (or even 200+ MB Nero updates for that matter) if BitTorrent would not exist ...

Regarding ed2k: a good number of european servers have been taken offline by local authorities recently (basically just a drop of water on a hot rock) ... most people will simply switch to decentralized ED2K (with encryptetd Kademlia and no connection to any servers) and leeching will happily continue.

Besides of the flawed logic behind your above reasoning, you still didn't get it: you cannot control the creation and distribution of information (yes, thats also data) anymore! Filesharing-Devs getting sued? Who cares, just switch to anonymous development and distribution methods. The only thing, which your "they must be punished!"-approach achieves, is an acceleration of current developments - because you have no foundation of your power-base anymore - you lost already and are just trying to stop the waves with your bare hands, instead of starting to learn surfing. You are trying to extinguish the fire in which you are standing, by dropping even more gas into it. Apparently, some people like to shoot themselves in the foot over and over.

- Lyx

flawed logic behind your above reasoning

becoming a cliché...

Justice could demand these applications/sites wouldn't store audio data. You will get your LINUX ISO just FINE.
Yes, you can put audio inside an ISO. But believe me, since ED2K has banged... millions of users are having difficulty accessing it. Try that, try a new emule installation. Besides the people who know what a ISO file actually is, believe me, the MP3-mass downloaders wouldn't quite figure anymore where to get their songs.

There's always a solution to the problem. And yes, eMule/Shareaza/Whatever app creator could be sued his ass off by making available a way to get MP3/audio in a very convenient way. Now, suing users is a no go. I insist, if there is one to be punished, is the software creator, for intentionally creating the software for that purpose. Of course they hide behind the "there's legal content to download" curtain... but we all know that everybody smokes the weed, right?

A similar concept to this is the relation of a drug dealer and drug user. Ordinary people who download songs are primarily victims of the Drug dealer who "doesn't necessarely have the drugs at hand" but leads the user to the stash. If web crimes can be tracked down, viruses creators can be arrested, I am sure the control of information is not that lousy.

So what? Every idiot knows how to rename files or how to put together a zip archive with password protection ...



Regarding their so-called "intent" ... innocent until proven guilty, I guess ... and as long as software coders encourage their users to obey laws on copyright (like the bittorrent creator does), there is no base for any prosecution to make a case (well, dictatorships or absolute monarchies don't count since we are talking civilized systems).

Edit ... the solution is so simple and is still being ignored by major record business execs ... simply offer high-quality (lossless) music at a decent price, combined with simple webshopping - and beat filesharers at their very own game. There have actually been university studies on that topic suggesting exactly that as a solution. Another approach - putting copyright fees (with fair distribution among copyright owners which workjed very well with cassettes and tape decks or cd media and burners) on internet connections and at the same time allowing music downloads - has been bashed by the record business as well ...

But wait ... it is so much easier to criminalize people than to actually come up with a working plan ...

In U.S. civil trials (which is what these lawsuits are -- they are not criminal charges), the burden of proof is a "preponderance of evidence," and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." In other words, you only have to prove that the defendent "more likely than not" was culpable. Criminal trials are where "innocent until proven guilty" is more strictly enforced.

I am not a lawyer, but I would guess that the design features of many kinds of P2P software would make it likely that a case could be made for there being no other reasonable explanation for their use, and thus that they were intentionally created to break copyright laws.

No jean... Not every idiot know what a RAR file is. Try that with your local neighborhood. The vast majority of people download plain MP3 songs. If this is filtered, the percentage of shared music (inside RAR, whatever) will be really really smaller. You also don't get that many people downloading FLACs off the web.

Of course the intention of these softwares *IS* to share illegal music, eMule doesn't say it, but have you heard that expression "it's written in the face". eMule is faulty software designed to break copyright laws. Napster got killed because they acted in the right way closing down the "free" service - not by suing users absurdly. They went straight to the core - the service. The drug dealer.

Now... nothing wrong with torrent files. You will agree that FEDORA project would NOT host "Steve Wonder - Full Discography (FLAC)" in their website download section, would they? - That's what I am saying... ...

It's a whole mess - the industry acts stupid instead of smart (no decente music service legal download) I would pay for DRM-Lossless downloads. Justice acts stupid instead of punishing the ones who really deserve.

Besides sharing all kinds of copyrighted content, there are lots of reasonable explanations for the existence of p2p clients. The software creator could argue that his software is not bulletproof against "filesharing abuse" and he thus could be convicted to make his software more rigid against that kind of abuse. But then again, with info spreading the internet really fast and in an uncontrollable manner, it would be a matter of days before a way to circumvent a protection against that kind of filesharing abuse would be announced.

Disabling the sharing of audio/video/game content simply won't cut it ... because there does exist a lot of non-copyrighted and freely available audio/video/game material (think of the famous Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tapes, game demos or movie trailers).

The software creator would need some kind of error-proof indicator mechanism (like some DRM code) that would identify the content ... then his software could deny any inbound/outbound connections for these kinds of files. This indicator mechanism would have to be provided by the copyright owners themselves, though. Right at this time, I see no such approach.

Comparing Napster with ED2K somewhat lacks ... Napster as a platform was specifically designed to share music whereas ED2K-clients take a more "broadband" approach towards the P2P idea which makes it hard for lawyers to go up against. A simple but clear disclaimer/EULA that strongly encourages users to obey copyright laws is all it takes to make a potential lawsuit a sure failure.

Stop repeating this unlogical bullshit. Your logic is "the person which creates a tool is responsible for the users which actually use it to do stuff." Even ignoring the lack of practicability in laws, this is still unlogical: The creator of a tool is only responsible for creating it, for what his tool can be used for, and to whom he makes this tool available. And thats it. Therefore, a creator could only be responsible for creating a tool which is meant for bad actions..... but it is logically impossible that he is responsible for the people, which execute this action.

It takes at least two entities for any interaction. NEVER one.

Your proposal is theoretically AND practically flawed, and it tries to fix effects instead of causes. And if this weren't enough, it is highly probable to result in the opposite results of what its intentions are. This is pretty much the worst rating, which any "solution" could get. Its total shite.

- Lyx

I think people would soon learn if their supply of free music was cut off. In most modern operating systems zip archives are handled pretty transparently, there's no need to download any software and to the user they're little different from uncompressed directories. People on audio sharing forums and MP3 blogs generally zip the music and use file storage sites like Rapidshare to enable downloading.

I think stopping MP3s being downloaded illegally would take a lot more than just filtering audio files from file sharing apps.



To me the idea of suing people just because their software can be used for illegal purposes seems ridiculous. It's the same as suing the creators of EAC and LAME because people use them to rip and encode some of the audio that ends up on the file sharing networks.

Actually, according to Sony BGM's lawyer, even copying your own CDs for personal use is stealing. The creators or ripping and encoding software know what it'll be used for so surely they should be liable?

According to some major U.S. TV execs, not watching the commercials and taking a leak instead is stealing as well ... ^^




Exactly ... guns don't kill humans, humans kill humans.

Man may get 15 years for Single Doughnut theft

Well a lady has to pay $220,000 for 24 songs and a man may get 5 to 15 years for stealing a single doughnut. Is it just me or do both cases still sound like that the court system is still in need of SERIOUS Tort Reform.

The Court System IS out of control on both issues.

I agree. Here our legal system wants a person to pay $220,000 for distributing a measly 24 songs (which comes out to $9166.67 a song) while other criminals go unpunished or their cases remain in limbo. Seriously, why are they are intent about prosecuting illegal downloaders. I understand that it is copyrighted material and the artists deserve their money but still, there are many crimes that are worse out there.

Whatever this (shite, as Lyx would politely put) is - one thing I know. The U.S. Court is the most unreasonable system in so many ways. Stealing a donut gets the man 15 years. Threaten a person with verbal words may take 6 years to life. We outside US never understand why those silly crimes are punished "to life". An over-extreeme form of mad justice living in the U.S.

First, they will never get that money because she will never have it in her entire lifetime. Second, if the courts attach her wages, then for as long as she lives, she will not be buying other products because that spending money will be going to the record companies--and not the artists. This will hurt the overall economy when multiplied by thousands of people. That sort of fine may bankrupt people also, further contributing to economic instability world wide.

What this really shows us is that if you want to share using P2P networks, use an encrypted onion router. Either that, or share files among your friends locally and set up sharing networks by passing music along by hand. You would be surprised at how fast that method can replace P2P.

In the end, there is no amount of scare tactics that will stop this, nor will DRM--DRM will be circumvented. The only thing that could possibly stop this is a complete lock down of internet access by taking away all anonymity--no more onion routers, etc.

Last, the music you buy online is cheaper to make than retail version by far, since there is no packaging and no transportation costs, no liner notes, etc. That and the fact that music is no where near a bit by bit copy, but lossless. Now add up 99 cents per song and were back to 15+ dollars per disk. The exception are those artist making songs that last 30 minutes and have 5 songs per disk--something like Miles Davis' "Bitches Brew." Not only that but the record companies have no way to fund a law suit against every person that shares files. They'd go broke trying it, and people are not going to stop.

The only upside I can see to songs at 99 cents each is that musicians will be forced to no longer have 30%+ filler songs on a disk. I also agree that sharing music is a cultural thing--although not conducive to capitalist economic structures. Perhaps songs would and should cost X amount for the first year they are released, and then be free, or a pay per month for unlimited downloads. And let's not forget how many good musicians have been ruined by economic success--think Metallica for one. You know as well as I do that people into music will buy those disks and not want to wait a full year to get them at a reduced price, say from 99 cents to 10cents per song. There are many ways to overcome this problem. Companies are not into giving people what they want. They are into making as much money for their stock holders as possible. If they do not, they can go to jail, at least in the US. It's a sort of socio pathology built into American style capitalism.

This is because US corporations are actually the governing body, not the populace anymore. They will do whatever they can to protect their profits, cheap whores, fancy cars, and multi million dollar houses, including , if they could, making it mandatory that you watch commercials if you watch their programs, or even buy a specific amount of their products yearly. It doesn't matter if it is logical. Their motto is might makes right. Corporations have the might. So they are right in the US.

In fact, corporations are now getting military might--see "Backwater"--complete with helicopters and paramilitary troops. Conservatives love it. They believe there should be absolutely nothing "social" and that all things should be privatized--even though the private military in the US charges teh tax payers 10 times what each troop costs as a government troop (Marines, Airforce, Army, Navy), and that corporations vying for profit should make the laws. Why do you think the new President of France is so well liked in the US--he's a capitalist conservative, even telling the people of France that their "lazy" work week was over, and that they would have to work longer hours now with less vacation--same thing happening in Germany.

It's called "The New World Order." Translation: Rule by Corporations.

Encrypting and obscuring communication channels recently isn't just a useful perspective for filesharing or directaccess-dataprotection anymore. It is starting to become a general perspective. I have never been one of the typical paranoids out there, and even often argued, that it may be counterproductive. However, surveilance laws recently are getting scary..... i dont care much anymore about the client-nodes and hops.... i'm starting to wonder about something, which in the past was seen as a "safe zone": service providers. I am pissed off and - as someone else already suggested - completely lost trust and respect in "the system".

- Lyx

My comments are futile and aren't going to achieve anything but I feel like making them anyway.

One argument I have seen put forth how artists have enough trouble struggling to make a living as it is. If you are an artist and you cant make enough money to survive then maybe you should not rely on your artistic abilities for your income, get a job in a fast food joint.

Create your music as a hobby, for fun... I thought music was bout being creative and enjoyment..

I guess I would like to see the open source model happen with music. Some people got together and coded mozilla firefox... millions of people love it, they use it, they donate to mozilla to see firefox improved.

Likewise artists could give there music to others, if people love it, they will provide the artist with what they need to make more. If not many people like your music, then maybe you aren't cut out to be a global success, or even successful enough to make a living from it.

I feel like RIAA and the like don't respect me, so i feel no shame in not respecting them. If an artist says to me, "hey I made this, here have it, I hope you enjoy". Then I respect that artist and their efforts to please me and I try to please them in return.

Off course not every artist will want to be like this... But if you are an artist and you produce something I like, and expect nothing from me like those "greedy artists", you have my respect.

Altruism never ever worked longer than temporary anytime in evolution. Same for egoism.

If you cannot defend yourself, you are inviting abusers and in fact, legitimizing their existence. If you cannot respect others, then you will get marginalized and are just shooting yourself in the foot anyways, because lasting interactions are no one-way street.

To get to the point: mutualism is neither egoism nor altruism. The latter two are instead those, which failed at mutualism. Self-Interest and caring about your interaction-partner, are not mutually exclusive. In fact, you actually need both, for efficient relationships. If you want to understand why, check out the IPD (iterated prisoners dilemma) - its like the PD, but with one important difference: it includes the factor time.

Any gift-economy model without safeguards against abusers, will suffer and ultimatelly fail. And it deserves so. People may not per definition be greedy and "bad". However, if you act altruistic, then you are making abuse a short-term working tactic - thus, legitimizing what you wanted to avoid. And not to forget: You are living in a civilization, which was trained from their birth onwards to act either greedy or naive. Thus, any beginnings of a larger gift-economy, will need to have defense-methods against a hostile-environment.

- Lyx

'THE' most unreasonable system? Really. In the whole world. Right.

It's a fine. It is NOT a compensation ("payment") to the plaintiff. It is intended to deter the defendent and others from future infractions on the plaintiff's intellectual property. For major copyright infringement, $10K per work really isn't too strong at all. Get some perspective.


On the contrary, evolving legal procedures plus developing technology will probably only make this easier and more predictable for the damaged parties. The RIAA isn't, or shouldn't be, interested in nailing every individual who rips off a few MP3s. They are interested in establishing precedents and dealing with the major catalysts in piracy - namely, the distributors of the content. I see no reason their strategy won't be successful in general.


Actually the costs on a per album basis for online distribution see that the sale price should be around half that of a $17 CD. Let's say $9. So it isn't "far cheaper to make than retail" - and as to the 99c per song, that's what you get for buying on a per track basis. It's just a marketing concept... if you don't like it, don't buy 'em.

I do however agree that resellers are not taking proper advantage of this. I think they perceive the online "option" to have added value in terms of availability and immediacy, and that customers are therefore prepared to pay more. They may be right. Their problem is that the illegal options for their target market have the same added value.


Companies must give their customers what they want, otherwise they won't be successful. On the contrary, it is the mass market mentality which is largely to blame. Don't underestimate how many lemmings are happy to pay their 99c to download Britney Spears' latest single.


If you were involved in anything where your livelihood depended on profiting from the intellectual property of your work, you would rapidly change your opinion of open source distribution models. It works to a degree for software, because your business model can depend upon support services, but nothing else. Wikimedia etc is great for certain things if people are willing to give up their inherent copyright - but then they're not trying to earn a living.

As to music, re-mixes and covers annoy the crap out of me as it is. Anything that encourages more of it cannot be a good thing .

I am a part-time writer - copy my stuff or make it available to others to a degree that it starts affecting me, and I will not be taking prisoners when asking the court to hand down punitive damages. I am sure I would feel the same were I a musician.


Your respect should be for the law. It is not the RIAA which is directly responsible for any of this, the fines etc are decreed by the court. If you really don't like that, and feel disillusioned with the "system", then how about moving to New Zealand? No? Then it isn't that bad.

Hey someone didn't like my forceful statements so here's yesterday's post again, less the more, ahem, forceful wording.

You pro piracy folk are so naive it ain't funny. You sound like these 13 year old kids ranting on about why Pirate Bay is so great. Wake up and get real.

QUOTE(Lyx @ Oct 6 2007, 04:46)
As for hurting and piracy. In the case of indie-artists, your remarks may be true. In the case of RIAA-artists however, it is not, because the RIAA doesnt give a fuck about its artists - it just cares about itself. And it is the artists own fault, that they became the whore of the biggest abuser in the music world. And: Piracy or not, it doesnt make much of a difference to an RIAA-Artist anyways, because as already mentioned, the RIAA is not the saviour of its artists, but instead their abusive slavemaster.

The RIAA looks after the interests of its member labels which look after the interests of their signed artists. Artists that do not want their abusive slavemasters may simply remain independent. However, if I am a singer songwriter and I don't know dick about album production, distribution, or sales, let alone protecting my copyright, then I need someone to help me. That distribution doesn't have to be via physical CDs in record stores, it could be via the internet. But I don't have the skills to do it myself.


QUOTE(Brent @ Oct 6 2007, 05:37)
It mostly hurts people who don't contribute to society: the labels. They're just what I call box-mover: a facilitator (or should be, that fact that they actively market and create music is appaling IMHO). So that doesn't concern me a bit, as I don't see why they should take 50% of every euro/dollar we spend on music.

All distributors in the world of business are "box-movers". Whether that's a regional distributor of physical CDs or a website serving MP3s, that middle-man is a specialist who's good at their job and getting the artist's product in front of you. They are and always will be necessary for the majority of artists. There is also a cost associated with that which you cannot avoid.


QUOTE(Brent @ Oct 6 2007, 05:37)
As I said before, this so-called morality you speak of is only a hundred years old. Before that nobody thought of making a buck out of music. Before that, sharing music was 'the way to go', that was how it was done. No, I don't care much for opportunistic businesses trying to make a buck of what is essentially a basic cultural need.

For God's sake man. All of the classical era's music was produced mostly in direct solicitation and for compensation. Try stealing Handel's new score in 1690 and playing a public performance without permission and see how well your idealistic "sharing" hippie rubbish would have protected you. It goes back much further than that, ask a historian about the origins of plaguarism as a concept.

In a philosophical sense, all consumer products meet a "basic cultural need", because consumers "desire" them. If they don't, they don't succeed. Businesses profit from that. You don't like it, move to a commune and share your weed.


QUOTE(Brent @ Oct 6 2007, 05:37)
Downloading is not stealing, downloading is copying.

Uploading is infringement of copyright and willful disregard of it by enabling others to co-conspire in your tort. The case of the OP does NOT concern downloading.


QUOTE(Brent @ Oct 6 2007, 05:37)
Move over to Europe and don't worry, be happy! $150k for a song is ridiculus, no matter how you look at it. The way you blindly accept that as a reality is shoking, it's clear that you accept you're being ruled by institution and it is not you who rules, the way it should be in a democracy.

The $150K is not a price for a song, it's a statutory fine against a guilty offender, found so by a court of law - perhaps the pillar of your democracy. So please, get it straight okay?


QUOTE(spockep @ Oct 6 2007, 05:40)
I can't understand the huge amount awarded. The only damage that really took place would be the cost of those 24 songs. So the amount should have been no more than $40. In other words the price of 2 expensive CD's.

The $150K is not a price for two CDs, it's a statutory fine against a guilty offender... see above.


QUOTE(de Mon @ Oct 6 2007, 06:36)
Today more than 50% of people have downloaded a book or a song (or duplicated) at least one time. And 0,0000000001% of people (which name is RIAA) count this crime.

It's time to change rules. As most people would like them to be.

No, rather a great deal of people, particularly the lawmakers which YOU elected and the judges installed in power by the appropriate authorities in YOUR democracy, would "like" those laws to be in place. Believe it or not they are there for the good of all. And clearly the majority of the electorate continues to accept the justness of these laws - I don't see any mass protests in the streets of American cities or the issue being raised as policy by any election candidates.

Don't believe me? Write to your local senator or whatever and ask him nicely if he'll please present a bill to allow you to get your music for free.


QUOTE(de Mon @ Oct 6 2007, 07:03)
Can you tell me how many percents gets artist and how many percents of total goes to you? Maybe then I will tell you why people share music.
Most of times all these legal proceedings are initiated by recording studios and producers. And not by artists.

Of course they are - because that's their job, as they are obliged to do so for their signed artists. You expect some small band bringing in a few hundred K a year, if they're lucky, to prosecute a multi-million dollar lawsuit?

A $17 CD? Try this:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Record%20company

This is the cost and profit breakdown for a typical CD:
Manufacturer's Costs:
Recording expense: $.065
Manufacturing expense: $1.25
Packaging: $1.30
Advertising and promotion: $2.00
Artist's royalty: $1.60
Freight: $0.09
Payment to musician's trust fund: $0.65
Manufacturer's Profit: $2.94
Distributor's expenses and profit: $1.50
Retailer's expenses and profit: $5.00
TOTAL: $16.98

As an aside, a simplistic analysis of this would suggest that an online download for the same album should cost approx...
Recording expense: $.065
Advertising and promotion: $2.00
Artist's royalty: $1.60
Payment to musician's trust fund: $0.65
plus a few $ to cover costs of label and reseller: $3
TOTAL: $7.32 (?)


QUOTE(xip @ Oct 7 2007, 16:09)
What kills me is, I could go into a record store and steal 100 albums, and the penalty wouldn't even come close. I understand that this is how the law is written, but it doesn't seem reasonable regardless.

You would probably end up in prison for some time and a permanent criminal record as a thief. How do you compare the penalties?

The TOR onion router encrypts the data from your computer to the P2P client anonymously. There is no way, barring governmental all out force, to decrypt and trace--trace, even if it were possible--that sort of protection. It could be done, but it would take millions and millions of dollars and time
a lots of governmental resources. It's not going to happen. Use TOR and a tunneling program and you're pretty damn safe. Of course you have to know how to set it up, but that is getting easier too.

There are several reasons even before encryption and anonymous connections take place that this is so secure that you cannot be traced:
1. Your ISP cannot and does not know what you are moving and they do not know where you have gone. You're invisible to them.
2. If they don't know where you are going, then you can't be back-traced either.
3. If companies don't know what it is being transmitted int eh encrypted "tunnel" it's very hard for them to get any sort of court order to prosecute.

Now countries like Iran and China know this, that it is virtually impossible to crack and trace an encrypted and anonymous data stream, much less a boot level encrypted hard drive. Solution: Encryption and anonymous software are legislated to be ILLEGAL. You get caught with it, you go to jail. This will be a very sad day in the free world when this happens--no more privacy due to the need for profit.

People in power love that idea because it makes it virtually impossible for the everyday person to organize and overthrow dictatorial leaders, CEOS, etc. without being uncovered--read about union busting in the USA. I fear we have only seen the beginning of a world controlled and dictated by corporate interests.

Well, it all is a much more complex problem than we always think it is. I don't like enough music to have any need to buy 100 disk a year anyway, so I can afford everything I want to hear. It's the stuff I would never buy that I copy from friends. I never us P2P clients for that reason.

I understand the artists need--I'm a photographer. I also understand that for people who love my photography, but could never afford it, I will most likely give them a framed print for cost. Sometimes I give away free prints to people who cannot afford them. It feels good and it is good for them and me. The last image I gave away was to a college student that was working an auction where I had several pieces. She was just beside herself about one of my images, but could never afford it. The next day I brought her that image--she works at the nonprofit that was having the auction. I just could not believe the look on her face. It made me feel really good, and she mailed me a thank you card. Sharing like that is very conducive to a well rounded world.

But enough. I understand both arguments. Large scale pirates making money off of other's hard earned effort should be prosecuted. Prosecuting those who are not going to be able to afford the product anyway is another story. And yes I know there are many gray areas here. It's not black and white. The point is that major pirating outfits are not going to stop pirating because Jane was fined 250K. They know what the penalty is and they are willing to take the chance. The same thing goes for drugs. You can bust all of the users you want, but unless you cut off the supply, you're spinning your wheels.

What I'm totally opposed to is stopping me from putting legally bought collection on and SD card so I don't have to carry around or insert disk after disk. I now have my entire collection in aac format on one 8GB SD card, and that plays in my car stereo. It's soooo nice to have that much music right at my fingertips, especially on long trips. Not only that, but I never have to worry about my disks getting stolen. This helps insurance too, since they will never need to pay for my stolen disks.

It's a complicated matter

Mr. Monkey, please get your facts straight. This was not a criminal trial. The $220,000 was for damages, and is payable to the record companies. Here's a link to a CNN article:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/04/news/downl...oney_topstories

Without regard to the right or wrong of it, I can't help but feel sympathy for the young defendant. If the judgment stands (I understand that it's being appealed), it's unlikely she will be able to pay the debt down within her lifetime.