RIAA tells students: Pay up for downloads

[OldSand]

so the recording industry of america wants to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...i didnt realize they had republican roots

 

 

 

Don't take this personally but your reply is highly uninformed, and has unfortunately become the slogan of those who try to rationalize theft.

 

 

My signature says it all. Come up with an argument against it.

 

 

 

The message from the RIAA is simple: If you choose to break the law, prepare to face consequences.

that was the purpose of my post...it is sarcasm...but my point is...whether it is legal or not...i have a hard time justifying handing over my hard earned money to million and billionaires...maybe the RIAA should realize that a good portion of america has a hard time buying a cd for 10-20 bucks when it cost 10 cents to make...and as for your point about the law...if colonists never opposed British law, we would be paying for our music with dead queens rather than dead presidents and if drunks abided by prohibition, america would have no more irishmen...my point is...because some genius somewhere thought it would be a good law, doesnt mean it is a good law and maybe if enough people fight this law things will change

 

do you go to baseball games?

[Jimmy42Jack0]

so the recording industry of america wants to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...i didnt realize they had republican roots

 

 

 

Don't take this personally but your reply is highly uninformed, and has unfortunately become the slogan of those who try to rationalize theft.

 

 

My signature says it all. Come up with an argument against it.

 

 

 

The message from the RIAA is simple: If you choose to break the law, prepare to face consequences.

that was the purpose of my post...it is sarcasm...but my point is...whether it is legal or not...i have a hard time justifying handing over my hard earned money to million and billionaires...maybe the RIAA should realize that a good portion of america has a hard time buying a cd for 10-20 bucks when it cost 10 cents to make...and as for your point about the law...if colonists never opposed British law, we would be paying for our music with dead queens rather than dead presidents and if drunks abided by prohibition, america would have no more irishmen...my point is...because some genius somewhere thought it would be a good law, doesnt mean it is a good law and maybe if enough people fight this law things will change

 

do you go to baseball games?

yes sir i do

[FishFan24]

Stealing? Stealing is having to pay $18.00 for a CD that contains 1 or 2 good songs and 8 or 10 other pieces of turd. Thats just my opinion though..

[TheDon]

Stealing? Stealing is having to pay $18.00 for a CD that contains 1 or 2 good songs and 8 or 10 other pieces of turd. Thats just my opinion though..

 

 

 

 

Then do one of the following:

 

A) Buy the 1 or 2 songs you like for .99 each online or

 

B) Don't buy the CD then you won't have to complain about the price.

[Guest Juanky]

Both of those are happening. Consumers are trying to give signs to the RIAA, they really are. They've been trying to for over a decade. Instead of acknowledging this, the RIAA tries to slay as many of its customers as possible.

 

I hope they finally tumble soon enough so everyone learns this is a horrendous way of doing business.

[OldSand]

so the recording industry of america wants to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...i didnt realize they had republican roots

 

 

 

Don't take this personally but your reply is highly uninformed, and has unfortunately become the slogan of those who try to rationalize theft.

 

 

My signature says it all. Come up with an argument against it.

 

 

 

The message from the RIAA is simple: If you choose to break the law, prepare to face consequences.

that was the purpose of my post...it is sarcasm...but my point is...whether it is legal or not...i have a hard time justifying handing over my hard earned money to million and billionaires...maybe the RIAA should realize that a good portion of america has a hard time buying a cd for 10-20 bucks when it cost 10 cents to make...and as for your point about the law...if colonists never opposed British law, we would be paying for our music with dead queens rather than dead presidents and if drunks abided by prohibition, america would have no more irishmen...my point is...because some genius somewhere thought it would be a good law, doesnt mean it is a good law and maybe if enough people fight this law things will change

 

do you go to baseball games?

yes sir i do

 

You shouldn't, since you have a hard time handing over your hard earned money to billionaires.

 

I hope you realize how ridiculous your argument is.

[Passion]

I hate this mentality that those who are successful or those who are trying to earn a profit are scum.

 

I don't know if it jealousy or childish individuals being vocal during this liberal movement we are experiencing, but Americans need to grow up.

QFT.

[Hotcorner]

I don't think that's anything new penguino. But agreed.

[TheDon]

I don't think that's anything new penguino. But agreed.

Well one of the things that impelled me to say that is all of the anti-Loria talk. I know that most of you disagree with me on that though.

 

 

 

Its amazing isn't it?

 

 

It seems like everyone in the WORLD has a right to make money EXCEPT Jeff Loria and musicians.

 

 

And musicians AS A WHOLE make way less than the average consumer realizes. I recently signed a non-exclusive licensing agreement in which I receive $0.05 PER UNIT sold. The wholesale price on the compilation is $8.19 per unit.

 

 

Do the math.

[Flying_Mollusk]

I hate this mentality that those who are successful or those who are trying to earn a profit are scum.

 

I don't know if it jealousy or childish individuals being vocal during this liberal movement we are experiencing, but Americans need to grow up.

 

 

It has as much to do with people whining about the good old days ala the conservative resistence to change. Look at how athletes are supposed to resist higher salaries and more lucrative big city markets to appease the "good old days" folks who love when athletes were loyal and stuck out it out with cities and teams out of pure loyalty to the community.

[Das Texan]

Ya, musicians make the real money in live events, or at least the vast majority do, save for the really big names.

 

 

Its the labels that really rake in the cash. Hence why you see so many artists going to smaller labels, which dont rape them nearly as much.

 

Its about profit motives. Yes. But there are also concepts called fair profits, its the same thing that people go after Starbucks for and any other company that uses sweatshops or buys their products from third world country and paying fractions of a penny, instead of paying a fair price for your product.

 

Regarding Loria, he can make whatever profit he wants to make. But as consumers of his baseball team, we also have every right to call him cheap when he is the cheapest owner in professional sports. It goes with the territory.

[FishFan24]

Stealing? Stealing is having to pay $18.00 for a CD that contains 1 or 2 good songs and 8 or 10 other pieces of turd. Thats just my opinion though..

 

 

 

 

Then do one of the following:

 

A) Buy the 1 or 2 songs you like for .99 each online or

 

B) Don't buy the CD then you won't have to complain about the price.

 

 

 

That is why I haven't bought a CD since iTunes came out. Just saying

[bobbob1313]

I haven't paid more than 10.99 for a new cd (non double album, of course) ever.I don't know where people get the 18.00 figure, or the fact that there's only 1 or 2 good songs on each album. If you listen to good artist, you never have to worry about that.

 

My policy is to download what I want, and if it's an artist I especially like or want to support, I'll buy the cd.

[Guest Juanky]

I can't speak for everyone else, but my problem with the music industry isn't that they're money hungry or that they're trying to make a profit. Good for them; anything that's worth doing is worth doing for money. Problem is when they want to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

Likewise, my issues with Loria are his history of ruining franchises, not his lack of money spent. Doesn't take billions to make a champion.

 

My policy is to download what I want, and if it's an artist I especially like or want to support, I'll buy the cd.

I think that's the policy that many people have, and is the way that the market as a whole will be in the future. CDs are modern things anyways, no reason why the industry can't adapt.

[Jimmy42Jack0]

so the recording industry of america wants to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...i didnt realize they had republican roots

 

 

 

Don't take this personally but your reply is highly uninformed, and has unfortunately become the slogan of those who try to rationalize theft.

 

 

My signature says it all. Come up with an argument against it.

 

 

 

The message from the RIAA is simple: If you choose to break the law, prepare to face consequences.

that was the purpose of my post...it is sarcasm...but my point is...whether it is legal or not...i have a hard time justifying handing over my hard earned money to million and billionaires...maybe the RIAA should realize that a good portion of america has a hard time buying a cd for 10-20 bucks when it cost 10 cents to make...and as for your point about the law...if colonists never opposed British law, we would be paying for our music with dead queens rather than dead presidents and if drunks abided by prohibition, america would have no more irishmen...my point is...because some genius somewhere thought it would be a good law, doesnt mean it is a good law and maybe if enough people fight this law things will change

 

do you go to baseball games?

yes sir i do

 

You shouldn't, since you have a hard time handing over your hard earned money to billionaires.

 

I hope you realize how ridiculous your argument is.

ha...i go to basebal games in general...it doesnt cost anything to watch high school ball or its like 10 bucks to see the paw sox or less to see the worcester tornadoes...i havent been to a sox game in a while because the tickets are near impossible to get and id just rather watch nesn and listen to the marlins on xm...and yeah...we have to pick and choose what billionaires we choose to support...i dont buy a cd unless im 100% positive i will love it or its a band that i follow...other than that...i choose not to pay for it...does it make me a bad guy? no...should that make eligible to fine? debatable...but really...if anything the internet in my opinion has the power to make serious artists work harder to produce a better work so that people such as myself would actually go out and buy it...and really...

[Jimmy42Jack0]

So if you have XM aren't you paying for music?

yes...but i love my marlins and its the best way to hear em...plus as i just said...you have to pick and choose which billionaires to hand your money over to...my dentist happens to be the other :banghead

[legacyofCangelosi]

Stealing is stealing except when it isn't stealing. As in, it isn't theft. As of right now its a violation of copyright to give out other people's works for free, but you don't go to jail for it, you just may have to pay the plaintiff a sum for violating his copyright.

 

So it isn't theft, nor is it illegal in the criminal sense. Its the violation of an artificial right created under the common law and furthered by the Lanham Act.

 

 

 

 

So who's paying the copyright holder the sum for the violation?

 

9 times out of 10, no one is.

 

 

 

You can spin it all you want bro, it's stealing. End of story.

 

I remember Anthrax used to have a bunch of their more popular songs available on their website for free download with a message that read "We were going to sue our fans for downloading our music, but we decided to just give it to them for free."

 

But seriously, I'm not advocating illegal downloads, but in it's defense, the record companies made a lot more from me than they would've if I didn't download them. There have been so many songs that I downloaded and because I ended up liking them, I went out and bought the actual album. Stuff that I never would've bought without downloading them before hand. Fact of the matter is, they've gotten more business from me because of downloads. I support the artists I like and if I don't like them, I delete it off my computer. Simple as that.

 

 

 

So what's wrong for instance with the 20 second sample of the song that ITunes offers prior to purchasing the track?

 

You come across as I consumer that has spent a lot of money on music so Im not coming after you personally so please dont take it that way.

 

 

Spin? Find me the provision in any penal code that criminalizes a copyright violation. Lanham Act is a civil statute. So it isn't theft nor stealing. If anything, and I use the term loosely, its conversion.

[TheDon]

Stealing is stealing except when it isn't stealing. As in, it isn't theft. As of right now its a violation of copyright to give out other people's works for free, but you don't go to jail for it, you just may have to pay the plaintiff a sum for violating his copyright.

 

So it isn't theft, nor is it illegal in the criminal sense. Its the violation of an artificial right created under the common law and furthered by the Lanham Act.

 

 

 

 

So who's paying the copyright holder the sum for the violation?

 

9 times out of 10, no one is.

 

 

 

You can spin it all you want bro, it's stealing. End of story.

 

I remember Anthrax used to have a bunch of their more popular songs available on their website for free download with a message that read "We were going to sue our fans for downloading our music, but we decided to just give it to them for free."

 

But seriously, I'm not advocating illegal downloads, but in it's defense, the record companies made a lot more from me than they would've if I didn't download them. There have been so many songs that I downloaded and because I ended up liking them, I went out and bought the actual album. Stuff that I never would've bought without downloading them before hand. Fact of the matter is, they've gotten more business from me because of downloads. I support the artists I like and if I don't like them, I delete it off my computer. Simple as that.

 

 

 

So what's wrong for instance with the 20 second sample of the song that ITunes offers prior to purchasing the track?

 

You come across as I consumer that has spent a lot of money on music so Im not coming after you personally so please dont take it that way.

 

 

Spin? Find me the provision in any penal code that criminalizes a copyright violation. Lanham Act is a civil statute. So it isn't theft nor stealing. If anything, and I use the term loosely, its conversion.

 

 

 

 

Ok.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

 

 

Will you at least concede that it is the equivalent of "theft" in the civil arena?

[legacyofCangelosi]

Stealing is stealing except when it isn't stealing. As in, it isn't theft. As of right now its a violation of copyright to give out other people's works for free, but you don't go to jail for it, you just may have to pay the plaintiff a sum for violating his copyright.

 

So it isn't theft, nor is it illegal in the criminal sense. Its the violation of an artificial right created under the common law and furthered by the Lanham Act.

 

 

 

 

So who's paying the copyright holder the sum for the violation?

 

9 times out of 10, no one is.

 

 

 

You can spin it all you want bro, it's stealing. End of story.

 

I remember Anthrax used to have a bunch of their more popular songs available on their website for free download with a message that read "We were going to sue our fans for downloading our music, but we decided to just give it to them for free."

 

But seriously, I'm not advocating illegal downloads, but in it's defense, the record companies made a lot more from me than they would've if I didn't download them. There have been so many songs that I downloaded and because I ended up liking them, I went out and bought the actual album. Stuff that I never would've bought without downloading them before hand. Fact of the matter is, they've gotten more business from me because of downloads. I support the artists I like and if I don't like them, I delete it off my computer. Simple as that.

 

 

 

So what's wrong for instance with the 20 second sample of the song that ITunes offers prior to purchasing the track?

 

You come across as I consumer that has spent a lot of money on music so Im not coming after you personally so please dont take it that way.

 

 

Spin? Find me the provision in any penal code that criminalizes a copyright violation. Lanham Act is a civil statute. So it isn't theft nor stealing. If anything, and I use the term loosely, its conversion.

 

 

 

 

Ok.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

 

 

Will you at least concede that it is the equivalent of "theft" in the civil arena?

 

I concede that it is something that creates civil liability. For example, if I draw a comic book with a character in spandex that can fly and shoot laser out his eyes, I might violate the Lanham Act but am I stealing superman? So semantics aside, it is something which creates liability, but I dont equate the 16yo that downloads music on limewire with the kid that robs the convenience store.

[TheDon]

Stealing is stealing except when it isn't stealing. As in, it isn't theft. As of right now its a violation of copyright to give out other people's works for free, but you don't go to jail for it, you just may have to pay the plaintiff a sum for violating his copyright.

 

So it isn't theft, nor is it illegal in the criminal sense. Its the violation of an artificial right created under the common law and furthered by the Lanham Act.

 

 

 

 

So who's paying the copyright holder the sum for the violation?

 

9 times out of 10, no one is.

 

 

 

You can spin it all you want bro, it's stealing. End of story.

 

I remember Anthrax used to have a bunch of their more popular songs available on their website for free download with a message that read "We were going to sue our fans for downloading our music, but we decided to just give it to them for free."

 

But seriously, I'm not advocating illegal downloads, but in it's defense, the record companies made a lot more from me than they would've if I didn't download them. There have been so many songs that I downloaded and because I ended up liking them, I went out and bought the actual album. Stuff that I never would've bought without downloading them before hand. Fact of the matter is, they've gotten more business from me because of downloads. I support the artists I like and if I don't like them, I delete it off my computer. Simple as that.

 

 

 

So what's wrong for instance with the 20 second sample of the song that ITunes offers prior to purchasing the track?

 

You come across as I consumer that has spent a lot of money on music so Im not coming after you personally so please dont take it that way.

 

 

Spin? Find me the provision in any penal code that criminalizes a copyright violation. Lanham Act is a civil statute. So it isn't theft nor stealing. If anything, and I use the term loosely, its conversion.

 

 

 

 

Ok.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

 

 

Will you at least concede that it is the equivalent of "theft" in the civil arena?

 

I concede that it is something that creates civil liability. For example, if I draw a comic book with a character in spandex that can fly and shoot laser out his eyes, I might violate the Lanham Act but am I stealing superman? So semantics aside, it is something which creates liability, but I dont equate the 16yo that downloads music on limewire with the kid that robs the convenience store.

 

 

 

 

I can live with that. But technically speaking "robbing" a store is a felony so it's not a fair comparison.

 

What about a kid who downloads music on limewire and a kid who walks into a store and puts a pack of gum (valued at $1.00) in his pocket and walks out (therefore in the process commits a petit theft).

 

How do the above 2 teenagers stack up?

 

 

 

One downloads a work that he getting the benefit thereof and the other is permanently or temporarily depriving the owner theref.

 

Sounds the same to me.

[Guest Juanky]

An update on this:

Unlike the University of Wisconsin, which refuses to rat out its students to the RIAA, the University of Nebraska is playing along with the recording industry's efforts to sue people for piracy. But if the RIAA wants Nebraska's help, they'll need to pay up.

 

The university has estimated that each complaint - basically a warning that a computer on the UNL campus is being used to pirate music - costs about $11 to process, Weir said. So the university wants to be paid for its trouble. Wiltse's letter to the Denver firm representing the RIAA asked the recording industry to reimburse NU for the cost of finding the offending students.

 

"We're spending taxpayer dollars tracking down RIAA problems," Weir said. "Are we an agent of the RIAA? Why aren't they paying us for this?"

 

In response to NU's request, the RIAA's Engebretsen said, "It is neither practical nor appropriate for us to entertain a reimbursement request."

 

 

Let's be clear: UNL *did* play along with the recording industry, and tried to find the pirates in their midst. But their IT system doesn't keep good records. The university changes IP addresses regularly, and they only keep one month's records. So they're unable to help the RIAA, and the university nonetheless runs up expenses.

 

On the one hand, boo-hiss UNL for dancing with the devil. But good on 'em for sending the RIAA a bill! ? MARK ASHLEY

Source

[Guest Juanky]

More on the subject:

The University of Maine System has refused a request from the Recording Industry Association of America to produce names of students who allegedly downloaded copyrighted materials.

 

The system has also opted not to forward the RIAA's pre-litigation letters offering settlements to those students, although the schools those students attend will inform their students of the letters and give them a chance to pick up the letters if they so choose.

 

At the University of Maine, students with pending RIAA lawsuits were told on Friday.

 

"It's not the university's role to, in effect, serve papers on our students for another party," John Diamond, spokesman for the university system, said of the decision.

 

At the same time, the university has ensured those students get a chance to settle. "We want our students to be aware of it, but we do not feel that it is our obligation to be the arm of the RIAA beyond simply sharing the information," Diamond said.

 

On Wednesday, the RIAA sent 27 letters to the UMS to forward to its students offering settlements before their alleged music piracy could go to court. The letters direct students to the Web site http://www.p2plawsuits.com, where students can admit guilt and settle for an amount far lower than the RIAA could get in court.

 

Of the 27 letters, 14 went to UMaine students. The remaining 13 went to students at every other UMS school except Farmington and Augusta.

 

The RIAA sent the system only the numerical Internet addresses of students the industry has accused of copyright violations. They asked the UMS to provide the names of those students.

 

Diamond said the RIAA's request for student information asks the system to violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which bars the UMS from divulging information not considered public.

 

The Internet addresses the university assigns to students accessing the network is not public. Despite this, some institutions have given up their students' names to avoid court fees.

 

"The only way the RIAA can get that information is if the RIAA takes us to court to get those names," Diamond said.

 

According to Jon Ippolito, a UMaine new media professor and associate curator of media arts at the Guggenheim Museum, the university has taken a principled stance.

 

"[The RIAA] have so many lawyers that they can afford to send frivolous subpoenas right and left, and the mere threat to do so has caused some universities to cave right away," said Ippolito, an expert on digital media.

 

On Thursday, Ippolito sent a letter to the university system urging administrators not to reveal students' identities to the RIAA.

 

Ippolito said the practice of subpoenaing universities won't necessarily hold water in court, and was critical of the RIAA's newest tactics with colleges, a policy he called "mafia-like."

 

"They want to bully universities into exposing students and also bully students directly into signing onto a discount," Ippolito said. "There's no legal process and that's the end of the story."

 

According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a 1998 bill meant to protect copyrighted material in the digital age, the university is not responsible for copyright violations on its network. The university system needs only to make sure students delete any copyrighted works found by an outside agency such as the RIAA.

Source