here is an RIAA case to watch
anthonyberet
coputer could have been from their own CD collection, rather than
downloads, and that the RIAA's lackeys did not observe any of the files
being transferred to anyone else.
pdf file here:
http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/loudreplymemo.pdf
kim
news:3s05j6F...@individual.net...
> The aargument used in defense is that the files on the defendant's coputer
> could have been from their own CD collection, rather than downloads, and
> that the RIAA's lackeys did not observe any of the files being transferred
> to anyone else.
That's even worse. The prosecutors will argue the files were transferred
from CD to PC specifically for the purpose of uploading. Out of the frying
pan and into the fire.
(kim)
anthonyberet
them, which is half the potential accusation out of the way.
George Hester
news:djg2t9$gci$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
Hey I could argue the Man in the Moon is green. But without evidence that
won't go far.
--
George Hester
_________________________________
CQ
said...
> Hey I could argue the Man in the Moon is green.
And you do, on a regular basis.
> But without evidence that
> won't go far.
No, it never does, does it George?
--
CQ
42n8-1
"kim" <ntsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:djg2t9$gci$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
Technobarbarian
of magic bullet. If someone does find a real loophole the RIAA will buy a
fix very quickly.
"anthonyberet" <nos...@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:3s05j6F...@individual.net...
> The aargument used in defense is that the files on the defendant's coputer
> could have been from their own CD collection, rather than downloads,
Someone has already tried this arguement. It didn't work because the
RIAA was able to show that the files were downloads and not personal rips.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-08-27-riaa-technique_x.htm
and that the RIAA's lackeys did not observe any of the files
> being transferred to anyone else.
This arguement isn't likely to work either. If you make up a bunch of
hard copies and offer them for sale they don't have to show that anyone
bought them to prove infringement. To prove the publication element of their
case all they have to do is show that you were "offering" to distribute the
work.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#pub
> pdf file here:
> http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/loudreplymemo.pdf
What we have here is an attempt to protect the identity of a Jane Doe
defendent in a civil case. There is not, as someone here seems to think, a
prosecutor. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case than in a criminal
case. Annnnnd, when you get right down to it Jane Doe has already lost. Even
if she manages to beat this she's out the cost of a lawyer and time spent
dealing with it. The arguements are so thin that it looks like some lawyer
is going through the motions to get a fat fee. A small number of cases have
been defeated on procedural grounds, but the beat goes on.
TB
pooter
> LOL, you keep watching this stuff like there's going to be some sort
> of magic bullet. If someone does find a real loophole the RIAA will buy a
> fix very quickly.
Do you not see that that is exactly why it is so interesting.
It is one thing to get prosecuted because you have broken the law but
quite another when the charge is trumped up by an organisation that
believes they can buy convictions regardless of what the law actually
says.
And on top of that you have the apparent blackmail of a few individuals
in an attempt to frighten off everyone else.
If it was happening in certain countries with particular governments or
dubious regimes, we would all tut-tut and say "well, what do you
expect", but in the US?
Yes, it is interesting indeed.
Technobarbarian
"pooter" <a...@bff.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc64a758...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
> Technobarbarian [d_murry-...@excite.com] said
>> LOL, you keep watching this stuff like there's going to be some
>> sort
>> of magic bullet. If someone does find a real loophole the RIAA will buy a
>> fix very quickly.
>
> Do you not see that that is exactly why it is so interesting.
>
> It is one thing to get prosecuted because you have broken the law but
> quite another when the charge is trumped up by an organisation that
> believes they can buy convictions regardless of what the law actually
> says.
They don't have to buy convictions or trump up charges--they buy laws.
Which is exactly what makes this case so boring. Nuthin' is happening here
except that some lawyer working the mark for more money.
tb
pooter
>
> "pooter" <a...@bff.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1dc64a758...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
> > Technobarbarian [d_murry-...@excite.com] said
> >> LOL, you keep watching this stuff like there's going to be some
> >> sort
> >> of magic bullet. If someone does find a real loophole the RIAA will buy a
> >> fix very quickly.
> >
> > Do you not see that that is exactly why it is so interesting.
> >
> > It is one thing to get prosecuted because you have broken the law but
> > quite another when the charge is trumped up by an organisation that
> > believes they can buy convictions regardless of what the law actually
> > says.
>
> They don't have to buy convictions or trump up charges--they buy laws.
> Which is exactly what makes this case so boring.
You think that is boring?
If that is a common attitude, then I guess that explains how come it is
allowed to happen.
Technobarbarian
This particular case is boring. There's nothing new here and it's
extremely unlikely to go anywhere. It's just another shyster seperating some
fool from their money.
>
> If that is a common attitude, then I guess that explains how come it is
> allowed to happen.
So, ok, if you think it's so damn interesting what are you going to do
besides sit and watch. I don't know how it is where you live, but in the
good ol' USofA money talks--bullshit walks. Buying senators and congressmen
is business as usual here. Americans are so unconcerned that we keep
electing the same crooks over and over. So what's the plan Stan? You gonna'
send Jane's shyster $10? Download one for the revolution? Throw your body in
the machine and ask for your own personal lawsut? What? My plan is that I
don't send the RIAA money and I don't put myself in the position of standing
in front of the bulldozer waiting for the sheep to help me out of a
situation that only a fool gets in in the first place.
tb
George Hester
news:djhlmd$7cf$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
Gee I think that's what people do when they go to the movies or rubberneck.
What's so weird about that?
>I don't know how it is where you live, but in the
> good ol' USofA money talks--bullshit walks. Buying senators and
congressmen
> is business as usual here. Americans are so unconcerned that we keep
> electing the same crooks over and over. So what's the plan Stan? You
gonna'
> send Jane's shyster $10?
You are losing me here. The plan should be not to acquiese and supporting
that seems like the right thing to do.
> Download one for the revolution? Throw your body in
> the machine and ask for your own personal lawsut? What? My plan is that I
> don't send the RIAA money and I don't put myself in the position of
standing
> in front of the bulldozer waiting for the sheep to help me out of a
> situation that only a fool gets in in the first place.
>
Again I'm at a loss here. Are you saying that this RIAA threat has made you
so fearful that you are NOT going to share copyrighted material anymore?
Well you do know that when we beat the RIAA at this game you will share in
the proceeds if you choose to. You see it is interesting to see how the
RIAA is to be combated here. If you feel there is no reason to fight them
because the Politicians and People are in the back pocket of the RIAA then
that in itself is interesting. But I don't think so. I don't think they
are. I think a well reasoned argument could stop the RIAA. What that is
don't know but I'm sure it is out there. No one believed OJ Simpson was
innocent come on he was as guilty as the day is long. Trouble was the
prosecution was inept and his defense was superb. I believe that is also
possible here. Remember Michael Jackson? What about Baretta?
> tb
>
>
>
--
George Hester
_________________________________
-Angela-
<heste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Again I'm at a loss here. Are you saying that this RIAA threat has made you
>so fearful that you are NOT going to share copyrighted material anymore?
>Well you do know that when we beat the RIAA at this game you will share in
>the proceeds if you choose to. You see it is interesting to see how the
>RIAA is to be combated here. If you feel there is no reason to fight them
>because the Politicians and People are in the back pocket of the RIAA then
>that in itself is interesting. But I don't think so. I don't think they
>are. I think a well reasoned argument could stop the RIAA. What that is
>don't know but I'm sure it is out there. No one believed OJ Simpson was
>innocent come on he was as guilty as the day is long. Trouble was the
>prosecution was inept and his defense was superb. I believe that is also
>possible here. Remember Michael Jackson? What about Baretta?
>
>> tb
>>
>>
>>
George,
A few questions,
Does the RIAA have a copyright on my MP3 file? Not since last time I
looked. I am not sharing anything that is theirs. If they (RIAA)
distributed MP3 files, and I obtained one or more, and shared it,
perhaps a case would exist.
Are audio CD's digital or not? If so, why then when I rip a CD, I
don't see their copyright in the first 512 characters of the digital
file? (using a hex editor or 'debug')
Do the numbers comprising an MP3 file match those of a digital rip of
a CD so closely a claim can be made of sufficient similarity to be
considered an infringemnet? I think not! They don't match at all !
If an MP3 file can be qualified in court as being sufficiently similar
to the original digital file [sic], then has the RIAA sued the makers
of MP3 players for distributing a device or software capable of
restoring otherwise nonsence numbers back into recognisable sounds
that are perceptually similar to those they own a copyright on? Since
the RIAA would like to believe all MP3's are illegal, they are missing
an income opportunity there.
Just wondering
-Angela-
kim
news:0jqol1hehekhmdo5q...@4ax.com...
> Are audio CD's digital or not? If so, why then when I rip a CD, I
> don't see their copyright in the first 512 characters of the digital
> file? (using a hex editor or 'debug')
There is no legal requirement to include a copyright warning in order to
receive copyright protection. The fact that something has been 'published'
automaticaly grants it a certain amount of copyright protection.
> Do the numbers comprising an MP3 file match those of a digital rip of
> a CD so closely a claim can be made of sufficient similarity to be
> considered an infringemnet? I think not! They don't match at all !
If you wish to go down tis road - and I advise that you don't - it has
already been established in court that copying 'a single recognisable bar'
of music is sufficient to bring a copyright suit. That has led to some inane
court judgements such as the "He's So Fine/My Sweet Lord" plagiarism suit
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm but nevertheless it is still the
law.
(kim)
Morton Davis
Never mind that the only way the RIAA can invaded your system and browse
your drives is for them to violate federal law.
AlmostBob
like fu_ a porcupine
1000 pri_ks against one
_
> dubious regimes, we would all tut-tut and say "well, what do you
> expect", but in the US?
>
> Yes, it is interesting indeed.
Newsflash:: the US is the one place where everybody 'would all tut-tut and
say "well, what do you expect", '
FatKat
anthonyberet wrote:
> The aargument used in defense is that the files on the defendant's
> coputer could have been from their own CD collection, rather than
> downloads, and that the RIAA's lackeys did not observe any of the files
> being transferred to anyone else.
Didn't read the reply, but if it's anything like your summary, I don't
see how it's an effective defense. I thought the complaints of the
RIAA weren't your downloading the songs, but your making them available
to others for DL purposes.
anthonyberet
I don't think this helps sharers. They are derivative works, at the very
least, and thus subject to any copyright that might apply.
I believe for musical copyright to apply, a derivative work must have 4
or more bars of identical melody - It doesn't matter if you play
Stairway to Heaven on a Trombone, if you play 4 or more bars of the same
notes, and distribute a recording, then you owe a fee to the copyright
holder (whoever that is).
I don't think the 4 bars thing is specified in law, but there is an
agreement amongst record companies not to sue each other every time a
new hit sounds like something pre-existing.
The same applies for phone ringtones, sheet music, elevator musak and so on.
anthonyberet
is different in the UK, but the principle still applies.
anthonyberet
making them available is *not* infringement unless somebody takes
advantage of it. - It cites more than one case where this has been
established in the past.
We shall see what happens.
MAO
bankrupcy soon as and artist can upload his music and I can buy it right
from him no record company needed.
then no record companys no riaa
thats the way it will work just watch.
"anthonyberet" <nos...@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:3s05j6F...@individual.net...
audiohead
> extremely unlikely to go anywhere. It's just another shyster seperating some
> fool from their money.
> >
> > If that is a common attitude, then I guess that explains how come it is
> > allowed to happen.
>
> So, ok, if you think it's so damn interesting what are you going to do
> besides sit and watch. I don't know how it is where you live, but in the
> good ol' USofA money talks--bullshit walks. Buying senators and congressmen
> is business as usual here. Americans are so unconcerned that we keep
> electing the same crooks over and over. So what's the plan Stan? You gonna'
> send Jane's shyster $10? Download one for the revolution? Throw your body in
> the machine and ask for your own personal lawsut? What? My plan is that I
> don't send the RIAA money and I don't put myself in the position of standing
> in front of the bulldozer waiting for the sheep to help me out of a
> situation that only a fool gets in in the first place.
>
> tb
Finally, an intelligent response from someone who doesn't have their
head halfway up their ass. I sincerely apologize for the previous
'shit cock' remark.
Technobarbarian
"George Hester" <heste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4vZ6f.13272$Bv6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Nuthin' weird *or* useful 'bout that. I've worked some wrecker calls.
The first thing the rubbernecks ask is "was anybody hurt". They ain't
interested in helpin', they's just looking for some blood. If you're lookin'
for blood this is a good case to watch. Jane is going to be bleeding money.
>
>>I don't know how it is where you live, but in the
>> good ol' USofA money talks--bullshit walks. Buying senators and
> congressmen
>> is business as usual here. Americans are so unconcerned that we keep
>> electing the same crooks over and over. So what's the plan Stan? You
> gonna'
>> send Jane's shyster $10?
>
> You are losing me here. The plan should be not to acquiese and supporting
> that seems like the right thing to do.
If the shyster was doing something useful I could agree (to a point, in
general I'm not much for helpin' those who didn't help themselves in the
first place). He (or she) ain't--they're just seperating Jane Doe from as
much money as possible. First they lose this round by putting up arguements
that have already been shown to be losers, then they tell her X number of
more dollars to defend her from the actual lawsuit, then X more for the
appeals, if she hasn't wised up that she hasn't hired the "Dream Team" at
that point. So how much are you sending?
>
>> Download one for the revolution? Throw your body in
>> the machine and ask for your own personal lawsut? What? My plan is that I
>> don't send the RIAA money and I don't put myself in the position of
> standing
>> in front of the bulldozer waiting for the sheep to help me out of a
>> situation that only a fool gets in in the first place.
>>
>
> Again I'm at a loss here. Are you saying that this RIAA threat has made
> you
> so fearful that you are NOT going to share copyrighted material anymore?
Nope, but I don't intentially put my hand in a buzzsaw either. For the
most part, for MP3s, P2P is not the way to go--as simple as that. Binary
Usenet groups are superior any way you look at it. Seen any RIAA/usenet
lawsuits yet? Sooner or later we probably will, but it will be people who
didn't bother with the necessary anonymous posting steps.
> Well you do know that when we beat the RIAA at this game you will share in
> the proceeds if you choose to. You see it is interesting to see how the
> RIAA is to be combated here. If you feel there is no reason to fight them
> because the Politicians and People are in the back pocket of the RIAA then
> that in itself is interesting.
I'm already getting my share of the proceeds. I beat the RIAA by using
the right tool for the job. There's no glory in using a sledge hammer to
make french fries.
But I don't think so. I don't think they
> are. I think a well reasoned argument could stop the RIAA. What that is
> don't know but I'm sure it is out there. No one believed OJ Simpson was
> innocent come on he was as guilty as the day is long. Trouble was the
> prosecution was inept and his defense was superb. I believe that is also
> possible here. Remember Michael Jackson? What about Baretta?
So, you gonna' try this theory with your time and money? Ya' got the
sort of change it takes to hire the same lawyers those folks use? None of
those people set precedent, which is what's needed to help the people who
don't have the money to hire this sort of hired guns when the RIAA comes
knockin'. Even if a third of the people being sued by the RIAA could afford
this sort of representation it's not going to have any effect on the rest of
the cases.
tb
Angrie.Woman
> I take comfort in knowing that all the recording company will be filing for
> bankrupcy soon as and artist can upload his music and I can buy it right
> from him no record company needed.
>
> then no record companys no riaa
>
>
There was a Doonesbury cartoon a while ago, where a minion was
suggesting to an executive that in the future the music would be
essentially free, and the income would be generated by touring and live
performances.
(The executive said "Then where will we get our divas?" The underling
replied "Opera, like it used to be.")
A
Zombie Wolf
don't have to "buy" anything - all they have to do is convince a few
congressmen and judges that file sharing is "evil by its very nature" ..
fairly easy to do , since nobody is there to argue an opposing vewpoint....
What do you expect from a country that currently has laws that allow you to
be arrested if law enforcement "thinks you might commit a crime" ? They can
now bug your house, do illegal searches, listen in on client - lawyer
consultations and use that in court, etc, etc ad nauseum. the Patriot Act
allows them to all this and much more - without ever having to obtain a
warant or court order. They are answerable to noone. Following 9-11, what i
call red-white-and blue blindness struck the congress and house, and they
voted for anything and everything shoved at them by law enforcement....
Nobody questioned it, since they didnt want to be branded "unpatriotic" by
the Bush administration. Wake up - your rights as a defendant in court or
anywhere else were GONE quite a while ago. In the meantime we preach
"democracy" and "freedom" in places like Iraq, while there is none here at
home....
"pooter" <a...@bff.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc64a758...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
pooter
> extremely unlikely to go anywhere. It's just another shyster seperating some
> fool from their money.
> >
> > If that is a common attitude, then I guess that explains how come it is
> > allowed to happen.
>
> So, ok, if you think it's so damn interesting what are you going to do
> besides sit and watch.
I am not American so there is nothing to do except sit and watch, in
horror.
> I don't know how it is where you live, but in the
> good ol' USofA money talks--bullshit walks. Buying senators and congressmen
> is business as usual here. Americans are so unconcerned that we keep
> electing the same crooks over and over.
I know.
> So what's the plan Stan? You gonna'
> send Jane's shyster $10? Download one for the revolution? Throw your body in
> the machine and ask for your own personal lawsut? What? My plan is that I
> don't send the RIAA money and I don't put myself in the position of standing
> in front of the bulldozer waiting for the sheep to help me out of a
> situation that only a fool gets in in the first place.
All for oneself and oneself for all?
pooter
> This follows the same mindset that is rapidly eroding our civil rights. they
> don't have to "buy" anything - all they have to do is convince a few
> congressmen and judges that file sharing is "evil by its very nature" ..
> fairly easy to do , since nobody is there to argue an opposing vewpoint....
> What do you expect from a country that currently has laws that allow you to
> be arrested if law enforcement "thinks you might commit a crime" ? They can
> now bug your house, do illegal searches, listen in on client - lawyer
> consultations and use that in court, etc, etc ad nauseum. the Patriot Act
> allows them to all this and much more - without ever having to obtain a
> warant or court order. They are answerable to noone. Following 9-11, what i
> call red-white-and blue blindness struck the congress and house, and they
> voted for anything and everything shoved at them by law enforcement....
> Nobody questioned it, since they didnt want to be branded "unpatriotic" by
> the Bush administration. Wake up - your rights as a defendant in court or
> anywhere else were GONE quite a while ago. In the meantime we preach
> "democracy" and "freedom" in places like Iraq, while there is none here at
> home....
Glad everyone doesn't share the view of the OP that this sort of thing
is "boring"!
Zombie Wolf
sell his music , without a giant organization with money bulging out of its
pockets to pay to "promote" them ? Promoting these artists costs millions,
an investment the recording industy is only willing to make if they are
reasonably sure the artist will make MORE than they will have to invest to
promote him. "Art" has been boiled down into accounting numbers. Take a look
at the artists who DO post their "free" music on the internet right now, and
tell me how many of them are "making it", either financially or in terms of
fame.... You will find the very few that are have "signed up" with a label
somwhere. This fantasy of artists being able to sell their art directly over
the internet without some kind of intervening organization to support and
promote them, is a pipe dream.
"Angrie.Woman" <Angrie...@ggmail.com> wrote in message
news:cIp7f.1909$jV2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Cliff Haynes
anthonyberet
Speaking as the OP, I don't find it boring at all ;-)
anthonyberet
> This will never happen. How will the artist even become well-known enough to
> sell his music , without a giant organization with money bulging out of its
> pockets to pay to "promote" them ? Promoting these artists costs millions,
> an investment the recording industy is only willing to make if they are
> reasonably sure the artist will make MORE than they will have to invest to
> promote him. "Art" has been boiled down into accounting numbers. Take a look
> at the artists who DO post their "free" music on the internet right now, and
> tell me how many of them are "making it", either financially or in terms of
> fame.... You will find the very few that are have "signed up" with a label
> somwhere. This fantasy of artists being able to sell their art directly over
> the internet without some kind of intervening organization to support and
> promote them, is a pipe dream.
Check this story out:
Arctic Monkeys reach No 1 thanks to internet
Sam Jones
Monday October 24, 2005
The Guardian
A Sheffield rock band who used the internet to build a loyal fanbase and
a record contract were celebrating last night after their first fully
marketed single topped the charts.
I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor, by Arctic Monkeys, knocked the
Sugababes into the No 2 spot. The group is one of a growing number of
bands to have harnessed the marketing power of the internet.
Over the past three years Arctic Monkeys have built a following by
talking to fans online and encouraging people to swap their songs. The
band were signed to Domino Records, the home of Franz Ferdinand, in May.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/netmusic/story/0,,1599504,00.html
Technob...@gmail.com
pooter wrote:
> Technobarbarian [d_murry-...@excite.com] said
> >
> > "pooter" <a...@bff.com> wrote in message
> > This particular case is boring. There's nothing new here and it's
> > extremely unlikely to go anywhere. It's just another shyster seperating some
> > fool from their money.
> > >
> > > If that is a common attitude, then I guess that explains how come it is
> > > allowed to happen.
> >
> > So, ok, if you think it's so damn interesting what are you going to do
> > besides sit and watch.
>
> I am not American so there is nothing to do except sit and watch, in
> horror.
LOL, you're posting from a British server. Substitute BPI for RIAA
and you'll find P2P lawsuits where you are too. So the question still
stands. What are you doing except sitting on your hands? And further,
what are you suggesting from your lofty perch that we do? Do you think
there's something grand and glorious and revolutionary about using P2P
for MP3s?
>
> > I don't know how it is where you live, but in the
> > good ol' USofA money talks--bullshit walks. Buying senators and congressmen
> > is business as usual here. Americans are so unconcerned that we keep
> > electing the same crooks over and over.
>
> I know.
>
> > So what's the plan Stan? You gonna'
> > send Jane's shyster $10? Download one for the revolution? Throw your body in
> > the machine and ask for your own personal lawsut? What? My plan is that I
> > don't send the RIAA money and I don't put myself in the position of standing
> > in front of the bulldozer waiting for the sheep to help me out of a
> > situation that only a fool gets in in the first place.
>
> All for oneself and oneself for all?
Isn't that exactly what you just told us your position is? You
think you're immune so it's not your problem? Personally I try not to
stand in front of bulldozers and I'm not particularly in favor of
rushing out to rescue adults who mindlessly do just that. I have
repeatedly posted about more sane methods than using P2P for MP3s in
volume. There's not much else I can do to keep people from doing
foolish things.
TB
pooter
Whoops.
I was actually referring to the person I replied to earlier in the
thread and for some reason, for a moment, I thought that they had
started the thread but I now realise that was simply because I had
failed to engage my brain.
No offence intended and I get the impression that none was taken. :-)
Technob...@gmail.com
news:4vZ6f.13272$Bv6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Nuthin' weird *or* useful 'bout that. I've worked some wrecker
calls.
The first thing the rubbernecks ask is "was anybody hurt". They ain't
interested in helpin', they's just looking for some blood. If you're
lookin'
for blood this is a good case to watch. Jane is going to be bleeding
money.
>
>>I don't know how it is where you live, but in the
>> good ol' USofA money talks--bullshit walks. Buying senators and
> congressmen
>> is business as usual here. Americans are so unconcerned that we keep
>> electing the same crooks over and over. So what's the plan Stan? You
> gonna'
>> send Jane's shyster $10?
>
> You are losing me here. The plan should be not to acquiese and supporting
> that seems like the right thing to do.
If the shyster was doing something useful I could agree (to a
point, in
general I'm not much for helpin' those who didn't help themselves in
the
first place). He (or she) ain't--they're just seperating Jane Doe from
as
much money as possible. First they lose this round by putting up
arguements
that have already been shown to be losers, then they tell her X number
of
more dollars to defend her from the actual lawsuit, then X more for the
appeals, if she hasn't wised up that she hasn't hired the "Dream Team"
at
that point. So how much are you sending?
>
>> Download one for the revolution? Throw your body in
>> the machine and ask for your own personal lawsut? What? My plan is that I
>> don't send the RIAA money and I don't put myself in the position of
> standing
>> in front of the bulldozer waiting for the sheep to help me out of a
>> situation that only a fool gets in in the first place.
>>
>
> Again I'm at a loss here. Are you saying that this RIAA threat has made
> you
> so fearful that you are NOT going to share copyrighted material anymore?
Nope, but I don't intentially put my hand in a buzzsaw either.
For the
most part, for MP3s, P2P is not the way to go--as simple as that.
Binary
Usenet groups are superior any way you look at it. Seen any RIAA/usenet
lawsuits yet? Sooner or later we probably will, but it will be people
who
didn't bother with the necessary anonymous posting steps.
> Well you do know that when we beat the RIAA at this game you will share in
> the proceeds if you choose to. You see it is interesting to see how the
> RIAA is to be combated here. If you feel there is no reason to fight them
> because the Politicians and People are in the back pocket of the RIAA then
> that in itself is interesting.
I'm already getting my share of the proceeds. I beat the RIAA by
using
the right tool for the job. There's no glory in using a sledge hammer
to
make french fries.
But I don't think so. I don't think they
> are. I think a well reasoned argument could stop the RIAA. What that is
> don't know but I'm sure it is out there. No one believed OJ Simpson was
> innocent come on he was as guilty as the day is long. Trouble was the
> prosecution was inept and his defense was superb. I believe that is also
> possible here. Remember Michael Jackson? What about Baretta?
So, you gonna' try this theory with your time and money? Ya' got
the
sort of change it takes to hire the same sort of lawyers those folks
use? Jand Doe obviously doesn't. None of those people set precedent,
which is what's needed to help the people who don't have the money to
hire this sort of hired guns when the RIAA comes knockin'. Even if a
third of the people being sued by the RIAA could afford this sort of
representation it's not going to have any effect on the rest of the
cases. Even if someone does find a loophole the RIAA will just buy a
fix for it.
tb
Peterson
to get their music out to the masses before MTV. You just have to go out
and build fan bases, pure and simple. Constant touring, word of mouth,
patience, and actual honing of a band's songcraft.
I mean, let's face it, for the bulk of the bands on major label contracts,
the only revenue they see is from selling merchandise while on the road.
Ticket sales go to pay the venue, record sales go to pay the label.
Stickers and t-shirts go to feed the band. And considering the success
bands like Fugazi have had by self-distributing (I'd include botique labels
like Righteous Babe, but I don't know if they're in an umbrella or not),
it's not impossible. Sure, you deal with smaller fan bases, and you won't
sell maybe as much as you can through the labels, but let's face it, the
bands that we all want to download are usually the ones the labels aren't
marketing very hard, either.
If anything, this whole digital age makes it even more cost-effective for
bands. They don't have to pay to produce actual cds, they can just release
an album digitally. And if they were to perhaps work with a pay service,
they have an easy avenue to sell their work.
Yes, it'll be harder to spread the word and get their sales really rolling,
but it will take PHENOMENALLY less sales to overcome their oppressive label
contract and to actually start seiing profits from their work, rather than
feeding some fatcat who knows even the best band is just as disposable as
the next in this current system.
And it should be noted, that most of the free streams or downloads are, in
fact, simply more promotion!
-Peterson
"Zombie Wolf" <zm...@gwi.net> wrote in message
news:uZ6dnbqP1bL...@giganews.com...
FatKat
MAO wrote:
> I take comfort in knowing that all the recording company will be filing for
> bankrupcy soon as and artist can upload his music and I can buy it right
> from him no record company needed.
That's something you take comfort in? The bankruptcy of company's
whose economic fate may affect thousands of people?
>
> then no record companys no riaa
Would this be a bad time to broach the subject of how record companies
figure in the production of albums?
kim
news:1130735072.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MAO wrote:
> > I take comfort in knowing that all the recording company will be filing
for
> > bankrupcy soon as and artist can upload his music and I can buy it right
> > from him no record company needed.
>
> That's something you take comfort in? The bankruptcy of company's
> whose economic fate may affect thousands of people?
Yes it really upsets me that record executives with no talent of their own
who earn vast sums of money off the backs of others will lose their jobs and
the millionaire lifestyle that goes with them. Sob :o(
(kim)
FatKat
Technomage Hawke wrote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> >
> > MAO wrote:
> >> I take comfort in knowing that all the recording company will be filing
> >> for bankrupcy soon as and artist can upload his music and I can buy it
> >> right from him no record company needed.
> >
> > That's something you take comfort in? The bankruptcy of company's
> > whose economic fate may affect thousands of people?
>
I don't have to rejoice over the financial collapse of total strangers
to lighten my load.
>
> most recording companies aren't really hurting that much and if one goes
> under, there are 50 others that will take up the slack.
But the above poster made no distinction between different music
companies. If you've got a business that goes under, are you soothed
by the survival of your competitors?
>
> personally, I'd rather pay the artist for his/her time and talent than some
> faceless company that takes all the money and screws the artist.
Does this mean that you'll send your money directly to those artists
every time you DL their music?
dolly7
> could have been from their own CD collection, rather than downloads, and
> that the RIAA's lackeys did not observe any of the files being transferred
> to anyone else.
www.elkom.com.tw/files/HDDKEY_beta2.pdf
www.elkom.com.tw/files/HDDKEY_beta2.pdf
www.elkom.com.tw/files/HDDKEY_beta2.pdf
dolly7
> That's even worse. The prosecutors will argue the files were transferred
> from CD to PC specifically for the purpose of uploading. Out of the frying
> pan and into the fire.
www.elkom.com.tw/files/HDDKEY_beta2.pdf
www.elkom.com.tw/files/HDDKEY_beta2.pdf
www.elkom.com.tw/files/HDDKEY_beta2.pdf
dolly7
>> The aargument used in defense is that the files on the defendant's
www.elkom.com.tw/files/HDDKEY_beta2.pdf
www.elkom.com.tw
anthonyberet
Why post the link 3 times though?