zeronyne Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Story Here "For instance" is not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phait Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Your 2 avatars combined are probably the best avatars on one page ever in the history of electronic communication. THEN I CAME ALONG! BOOYA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I doubt this will pass muster in the courts, but I do think there have been really dumb applications of copyright law by the RIAA in tracking down filesharing abusers. The case in question appears to be one in which a simple cease and desist order should have been issued, rather than the RIAA's heavy-handed insistance that each defendant pay thousands of dollars. There are file sharers that deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, who understand exactly what they're doing and that it constitutes stealing, no matter what the courts say. Just because I can take $5 I just saw someone drop doesn't mean I should. Just look at how we perceive people who return large sums of cash that's lost, but easily identified as property of another person, company or bank. Our moral obligation is clear, even if the law would protect us from prosecution for not adhering to it. This mother and daughter do not, to me, seem to be savvy enough to have even realized what they were doing (by sharing, then leaving the files available to others) was beyond fair use. Of course, you can't make an example of someone in this game unless you extract real consequences. The RIAA has thinks that should trump common sense. Unfortunately, I think the courts will agree. It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovepusher Sly Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Shouldn't the Artists be suing the record companies using the RICO statutes? Sly Whasineva ehaiz, ehissgot ta be Funky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyote Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hate to say it, but in a way the artists have only themselves to blame. They go knocking on the doors of these companies, along with thousands of other wannabees. Their goal is the MAJOR RECORDING CONTRACT, and they pursue it relentlessly because they crave the riches they believe will come with it. In a rush of emotion, they sign whatever the companies put in front of them.... meanwhilt the companies KNOW they aare in the driver's seat, and that if this band doesn't sign the usurious contract the next one will. Thus you end up in a band which pays for its own studio time, and sweats out its artistic creations - only to find the contract calls those creations "works for hire" that are owned by the record company. And they find their name owned by the company, along with their likenesses and logos and availability to record or perform in any venue or setting. It truly is a pact with the devil. Originally posted by Groovepusher Sly: Shouldn't the Artists be suing the record companies using the RICO statutes? Sly I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist. This ain't no track meet; this is football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovepusher Sly Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Yeah, I know the artists are guilty by association. But before it was all out in the open (pre Prince) the record companies were (and probably still are) doing some shady things. Sly Whasineva ehaiz, ehissgot ta be Funky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Klopmeyer Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by Groovepusher Sly: Yeah, I know the artists are guilty by association. But before it was all out in the open (pre Prince) the record companies were (and probably still are) doing some shady things.Really? Ya think? No, say it ain't so! I like Coyote's point...people debase themselves in any number of ways to realize that misguided dream of a major label contract. "Please, A&R man...let me sign the paper that says I work my ass off and you take all my money. I want you to force me to be someone I'm not and then accept all the blame when my product isn't successful." Knowing what I know, I am about as interested in signing with a major as I am having a root canal or a coloscopy. Perhaps the latter comparison is the most similar, though. - Jeff Marketing Communications for MI/Pro Audio My solo music and stuff They Stole My Crayon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonym Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 which they said were offered for illegal swapping over the KaZaA network Wouldn't the labels sueing the third party involved make that collusion with KaZaA? The fact that they don't shut-down KaZaA, and then use that to go after the others? Isn't the definition of Piracy: Copying or reproducing the product for re-sale? The spirit of the law these day's has been so perverted by the chicken-shit lawyers just after $$$$$$$, that it can be interpreted any 'ole fucking way anymore. Sounds like a case for the Supreme Beings of the Supreme Court! WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOKUMDANO Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 "....Isn't the definition of Piracy: Copying or reproducing the product for re-sale?.. No. And if you're going to talk about lawyers and laws and courts, the term is Copyright Infringment. You can use "piracy" if you want but the statutes equate piracy to the charge of copyright infringment. And in terms of laws protecting copyrights from being infringed, "resale" has nothing to do with it. Try this experiment and see for yourself.... Go to Office Depot and buy Windows XP. Go home and make copies if you have access to how...now go stand outside Microsoft and "give" the copies away to people...guess where you'll end up in a few hours. Then...watch what happens when you say "but I wasn't selling them" ...or ..."hey Microsoft you can't prove you lost any sales because how do you know the people I gave xp to would've bought a copy..." ".........The spirit of the law these day's has been so perverted by the chicken-shit lawyers just after $$$$$$$..." Clarification....the lawyers are h-i-r-e-d by the normal everyday people who are getting ripped off. Lawyers (at least the ones I know) don't do a-n-y legal work unless asked to by some normal everyday person who pays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonym Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 My point was that they attacking the wrong people, thats all, they seek-out the weak and go after them, it's called extortion, I just happen to use more a universal language when describing them. Didn't they shut-down Napster? And now it's a paying for music downloads web application? Maybe I just don't get it? And what has a lawyer ever produced in this world anyway, besides more Bullshit? WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.