I am going to lay off the whether or not downloading songs are legal or illegal, because I could go on for quite a while and that isn't even my main problem with the industry.

 

One thing I will say on that note, is that I used to download movies all the time instead of going out to see them. But I decided to go back out and see them on the weekends. Why? Well, I wanted to see them with my friends, the seats are comfortable, you can get a bite to eat later. But one of the big reasons? The movie industry didn't say squat about it. Sure, they have the random mini-commercials at the beginning of movies now. But you are already there, so it is no big deal. Besides, I like computers. But I would much prefer to watch a movie on a TV, thank you very much.

 

Now, my big beef with the music industry. The government has laws they have to follow when they are trying to get information or to search a certain thing. You know, fourth ammendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Why does the music industry think they don't have to abide by this when all levels of government do? The Police cannot barge into a house just because they smell marijuana smoke, they have to go and get a warrant to search the place. They can't arrest you if they feel you dressed inappropriately, they have to have a charge (whether or not this is followed all the time is irrelevent, 99% of the time it is and that isn't even the point right now but I know someone would have broughten it up).

 

The Police has to respect rights to private property, but the recording industry doesn't? They violate users privacy rights while they are suffering around the net, but their findings can be permissable in a lawsuit but the Police has their evidence suppressed when it is the result of an unlawful search? Please. The Music Industry is not above the government, which is not above the rights of the people. The Music Industry is the bottom of the rights food chain, and it is about time that the courts started standing by the people of the country instead of bad artists who complain only because their music is so lousy no one will buy it.

 

Oh, and on the side question (if you are gonna answer my post, answer the above and then this): I have an iPod, I gave my CD player to my sister as her bday present. I borrowed a CD of Metallica when they performed with the SY Symphony from my friend, and turned the songs into MP3's so I can have it on my iPod. Is that wrong?

Now, my big beef with the music industry. The government has laws they have to follow when they are trying to get information or to search a certain thing. You know, fourth ammendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Why does the music industry think they don't have to abide by this when all levels of government do? The Police cannot barge into a house just because they smell marijuana smoke, they have to go and get a warrant to search the place. They can't arrest you if they feel you dressed inappropriately, they have to have a charge (whether or not this is followed all the time is irrelevent, 99% of the time it is and that isn't even the point right now but I know someone would have broughten it up).

 

The Police has to respect rights to private property, but the recording industry doesn't? They violate users privacy rights while they are suffering around the net, but their findings can be permissable in a lawsuit but the Police has their evidence suppressed when it is the result of an unlawful search? Please. well, i wouldn't say the music industry violates anyone's privacy rights through its legal use of the internet in recording the IP addresses of file sharers. when one computer directly connects to another without a proxy, the two computers must know each others' IP addresses in order to communicate. it is not illegal for the RIAA to do this much.

 

the RIAA's use of the subpoena procedure outlined in the 1998 copyright act was initially believed to be legal and within the scope of the law as it was written. at the time, they did not believe they were breaking any laws by invoking the subpoena procedure to request users' personal information from internet service providers with the IP addresses. verizon aside, the internet providers were at just as much fault as the RIAA for not challenging the legal subpoenas that they were being presented with.

 

this latest court ruling now takes away the ability of the RIAA to simply subpoena internet service providers to get users' personal information. the RIAA has done nothing illegal in going after alleged file sharers, but now it will be much more difficult for them to do it.

 

i still think they will continue with their lawsuits. from the getgo, their campaign was to intimidate file sharers rather than actually seeking justice. judging from cary sherman's remarks, i don't think anything has changed here.

 

Oh, and on the side question (if you are gonna answer my post, answer the above and then this): I have an iPod, I gave my CD player to my sister as her bday present. I borrowed a CD of Metallica when they performed with the SY Symphony from my friend, and turned the songs into MP3's so I can have it on my iPod. Is that wrong?

well, it is clearly illegal to record a copyrighted work to which you have no legal entitlement, just as it is clearly illegal to download such works off of kazaa.

 

but as far as right/wrong, i don't think it is morally wrong to do what you're doing. i guess it's the culture we've grown up in, but i feel no moral remorse in downloading music. that which is illegal is not necessarily wrong, and i personally feel no pain in downloading something i am not entitled to.

The illegality of the RIAA's actions are this: IPs are stored by the ISPs, not freely accessible to anyone who wants them on a whim. The RIAA sued Verizon originally to force Verizon to handover some ISPs. That inandofitself is the problem, you can't force an ISP to violate it's users' privacy just because a corporation said so. The original judge made the wrong call in the case, but the Apellate Court got it right. We will probably hear about this one again, so we'll see.

 

And now it makes it ALOT harder for the RIAA to get anything done, because they have to do it legally now.

haha sounds good to me

 

BTW juanky when did you get the ipod? one of the older models? i thought the new ones just came out weeks ago

 

im getting one :cool

um....

 

 

after glancing through all of this thread....

 

 

my question I posed to Mr. Morality has not been answered.

 

 

Has SorianoFan ever [/b]NOT[/b] recorded anything off the tv via VCR?

 

 

 

Question

The illegality of the RIAA's actions are this: IPs are stored by the ISPs, not freely accessible to anyone who wants them

on a whim.

i don't want to get all geek here, but IP addresses are free for viewing when two computers directly communicate with each other. hell, every time you post here, the forum records your IP address for the mods to see... it's not a violation of anyone's legal privacy.

 

The RIAA sued Verizon originally to force Verizon to handover some ISPs. That inandofitself is the problem, you can't force an ISP to violate it's users' privacy just because a corporation said so.

until this week, the subpoena provision under the 1998 copyright act allowed the RIAA to subpoena ISPs (internet service providers) requesting the personal information of a violator given his/her IP address. the judge this week ruled that the RIAA is not entitled to such information under the 1998 copyright act. however, the act of issuing a subpoena has never been illegal.

 

really the only thing i disagree with you on is the supposed illegality of the RIAA's actions. they are using every legal avenue available to them to go after file-sharers, but they haven't broken the law yet. i have no knowledge of any justice department investigation of the RIAA here, but i'd love to see one.

 

The original judge made the wrong call in the case, but the Apellate Court got it right. We will probably hear about this one again, so we'll see.

 

And now it makes it ALOT harder for the RIAA to get anything done, because they have to do it legally now.

amen.

Das, you never seemed to reply to my arguments against the a priori and a posteriori arguments is the religious thread either.

 

And the VCR thing, i wrote:

1. You buy the product anyway

2. You would never buy the product unless you downloaded it

3. You like the product, but not enough to actually pay for it

 

These are pretty broad loopholes. However, the majority of "sharing" replaces four mediums: the cinema, dvd/vcr, cd, and radio. Buy downloading these things for free, you are literally stealing from the movie makers, music companies, and the radio broadcasters (ironically, these guys are all part of the same massive conglomerates anyhow.) When you use files to literally replace an once desired medium, its stealing thus immoral.

 

Now the very few above who actually just get a burned cd because a friend of theirs want them to have it and they would of never bought it, need a good sampling before they buy it, or like the product, but would of truly never bought it are not stealing, because in reality they would of never decreased the media providers business, thus taking their fair share of profits.

 

Yes, I am mr. morality, thank you.

 

Kidding aside, the courts ruled just like now that copying stuff on VCR is okay.

 

but are they the same? I record something on TV, I still have to watch the advertising and furthermore if I was out and really wanted to see a show, by recording it, I am literally giving a TV company business, downloading music is not the same. I actually bought tapes off the history channel which i wanted to watch way more than once, so I follow my moral standards I have above.

 

Do i have burned CDs? A couple, things people gave to me that I would of never bought, thus not losing the record or video game companies any business. Do I have VCR recordings? Yes, stuff I wouldn't buy, or wasn't home for, or is not on TV anymore. These are not the same as stealing music industry's music.

 

On this matter, these are the rules once must follow:

1. You buy the product anyway

2. You would never buy the product unless you downloaded it

3. You like the product, but not enough to actually pay for it

 

In short, if one follows these, they are not depriving anyone else of money. When one starts doing that, like not buying DVDs, CDs, singles, or going to movies, they are depriving someone else of money, and that's stealing. I don't think my standards are really that bad.

so then with that logic...

 

 

i hear a song say Dream On by Aerosmith.

 

 

i like this song only and would not buy any albums by them.....so therefore there is nothing illegal about downloading this song only by them because I am not goign to buy the album nor have any intention of buying said album?

 

 

Apply this argument to any single you might hear.....

could you buy the single?

 

yes, your logic is faulty.

could you buy the single?

actually, you can't buy that single.

how is my logic faulty....

 

 

i like a song...

 

 

i use the same logic you use, just turn it around a little.

 

 

pardon my ignorance or logical infallicies.

I record something on TV, I still have to watch the advertising and furthermore if I was out and really wanted to see a show, by recording it, I am literally giving a TV company business, downloading music is not the same.

 

Sorianofan you said you still have to watch the commercials if you record something.

 

Not really true have you heard of the fast forward. If you actually watch the commercials when you dont have to....

 

Well I think that explains it.

When you hear a song on the radio, the station pays each time it is aired.

 

The music labels pay the radio stations to air their songs... Not the other way around

haha sounds good to me

 

BTW juanky when did you get the ipod? one of the older models? i thought the new ones just came out weeks ago

 

im getting one :cool

I have the older version, with the movable cursor. I think it is cooler. Plus, I have firewire so I don't need the new one just for USB.

 

And if you want you can look on eBay, there are a few cheap ones there.

 

About the IP Address note alkazoid made, yes they are recorded in many transactions. But IP Addresses are not public information by Federal Law. I'm not saying the act of a subpoena is illegal, just what they are trying to get and the law they were using to justify it is. The act was vague and had no mention of stuff of this matter because it was before the explosion.

 

The fact of the matter is privacy is one of the things this country is based on. Just because it is on a computer doesn't mean it can be violated. I'm sure this fight has happened before on a different level back in the day, but it always goes back to privacy. And in the end, privacy has to be protected. Hopefully the Supreme Court will enforce the Apellate Court when the time comes (because you know it is going to happen).

Sorianofan you said you still have to watch the commercials if you record something.

 

Not really true have you heard of the fast forward. If you actually watch the commercials when you dont have to....

 

Well I think that explains it.

Now this brings up something else. If i record something, there would of been no way of me watching it on its original time, thus giving the television's advertisers no exposure. if i record something, those same advertisers get an infinite amount of more exposure, even if it is really fast. Some is better than none.

 

how is my logic faulty....

 

 

i like a song...

 

 

i use the same logic you use, just turn it around a little.

 

 

pardon my ignorance or logical infallicies.

Is this ignorance of logic? Logic is like math, I give you this equation:

 

((5+8)-2)*5=55

 

Now if you "turn it around a little"

((5-8)+5)/2=1

 

You cannot twist things for your liking, you change the subject you are talking about.

but yet you can?

uhhh, no?

You cannot twist things for your liking, you change the subject you are talking about.

Yes you can, it is an art that with practice can be mastered.

You cannot twist things for your liking, you change the subject you are talking about.

So you never do this?

Now we are getting off subject. I presented my argument, and unless you show how its logic is flawed (the argument that is), then the argument stands.

About the IP Address note alkazoid made, yes they are recorded in many transactions. But IP Addresses are not public information by Federal Law. I'm not saying the act of a subpoena is illegal, just what they are trying to get and the law they were using to justify it is. The act was vague and had no mention of stuff of this matter because it was before the explosion.

ok, i dont want to get into geeky details, but basically EVERY SINGLE TIME your computer communicates with another computer (e.g. to download something), the computers must identify each other by IP address (which is a number assigned to each computer by its internet provider) in order to make a connection. an IP address is assigned to your computer each time you connect to the internet, and it has nothing to do with privacy or personal information... it is an internet address that is property of your internet provider and is used expressly to identify any user's computer on the network.

 

there is no federal law relating to the privacy of IP addresses. your IP address is open and free for any computer to connect to. if you choose to connect to another computer, you must provide that computer with your IP address to make the connection (or use a proxy which provides an IP address... same thing). if you keep all your files available for download on kazaa, whenever someone wants to download a file from you, your computer must identify itself to make a connection.

 

anywhere on the internet, if someone breaks the law (e.g. sends you a bunch of garbage data to kill your connection), you can easily notify their internet provider and get the person in trouble. you tell their internet provider the time of the occurrence and the IP address used, and they will check their records and determine which user was using that IP address at that time.

 

in some cases, the internet provider is required by law to hand over a user's personal information if you can prove that the person committed a crime against you. according to this latest court ruling, the RIAA can no longer use the 1998 copyright act to subpoena internet providers and get them to hand over a user's personal information just because of an alleged act of copyright infringement.

 

the RIAA did what they were lawfully entitled to do. seeing an IP address is legal and every computer does it. reporting the IP address of someone who has committed a crime against you to their internet provider is also 100% legal and has nothing to do with privacy. if you get caught sharing copyright songs and the RIAA reports it to your internet provider, you will probably have your subscription terminated, at the very least. fortunately, your internet provider is not required to hand over your personal information because of copyright violations, so it'll be much harder for the RIAA to file a lawsuit against you.

 

regardless, nothing the RIAA has done is illegal or violates privacy. if a company comes to your internet provider telling them you have committed a crime and requesting your personal information for a lawsuit, and your internet provider hands the information over to that company, who has violated your privacy? the person requesting your personal information via subpoena, or your internet provider who has the information and actually hands it over?

 

the recording industry violated no one's privacy. if your information was wrongly handed over, it is your internet provider's fault.

I'll say it, I download music.

 

So I guess I am stealing but I don't care, and judging from the 3,443,731 users using Kazaa right now, they don't care either.

 

Sorry but I am 14 years old and don't have a job, I am not gonna go buy an album for $10-15 for every song I like, or even a single for $2-5.

 

I'm not saying this makes it right to do this, I don't know about you but if you had the opportunity to go download songs for free or spend $10-15 for every album, I would sure as hell rather save my money and spend it on something else.

 

But hey, that's just me.

the RIAA did what they were lawfully entitled to do. seeing an IP address is legal and every computer does it. reporting the IP address of someone who has committed a crime against you to their internet provider is also 100% legal and has nothing to do with privacy. if you get caught sharing copyright songs and the RIAA reports it to your internet provider, you will probably have your subscription terminated, at the very least. fortunately, your internet provider is not required to hand over your personal information because of copyright violations, so it'll be much harder for the RIAA to file a lawsuit against you.

Thats the difference, right there. The RIAA was not personally going out and finding IPs on it's own and then reporting them to the ISPs. It was going to the ISPs and forcing the ISPs to turn over information on it's users. And that is legal how?

the RIAA did what they were lawfully entitled to do. seeing an IP address is legal and every computer does it. reporting the IP address of someone who has committed a crime against you to their internet provider is also 100% legal and has nothing to do with privacy. if you get caught sharing copyright songs and the RIAA reports it to your internet provider, you will probably have your subscription terminated, at the very least. fortunately, your internet provider is not required to hand over your personal information because of copyright violations, so it'll be much harder for the RIAA to file a lawsuit against you.

Thats the difference, right there. The RIAA was not personally going out and finding IPs on it's own and then reporting them to the ISPs. It was going to the ISPs and forcing the ISPs to turn over information on it's users. And that is legal how? 1) requesting that an ISP hand over a user's personal information after a crime is committed to your property for the purpose of filing a civil suit is NOT illegal. issuing a subpoena has never been against the law. any ISP can easily say no and take the issue up in court. after verizon refused, the RIAA took verizon to court and won the first judgement, forcing them to hand over violators' information. this latest ruling is the result of verizon's appeal.

 

2) were the RIAA's actions in issuing DMCA-based subpoenas illegal, there would already be a justice department investigation going on to investigate this (there isn't one.). believe me, you wouldn't be the first person to notice that laws have been broken.

 

3) i hope you weren't the one who was planning on going into law (j/k)

So, let me get this straight. It's alright to hear a song on the radio, and then go buy the cd, but it's not alright to download a song by someone you wont hear on the radio (say, Cast Iron Filter, Widespread Panic, Ben Harper, etc.), and then go by the cd.

 

So, what I must do, is go to cdnow.com, amazon.com, etc. and listen to 15 second snippets, and decide if I am going to spend 11.99-15.99 on a CD that I may or may not like?

 

Beautiful. You call it stealing. I call it smart.

Keep on preaching ..... :thumbup