MP3 Lawsuits

[spidermonky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/25/download.suits.ap/index.html

I just came across this.

[chachi 0]

Well I actually find this funny. There would be so many factors to getting the information and proving it to actually convict someone it is laughable. This is a ploy to get people to stop.

~Chachi

[riddler 0]

Agreed - the fact that they stated they're starting in 8-10 weeks proves this is just to scare people. This is nothing more than posturing by the RIAA.

Typical scenario - RIAA decides they really want to sue a user. First, they have to find out who it really is. They can only do this via the ISP, which has a privacy agreement that doesn't allow them to share user information. So the RIAA sues the ISP to get the information. Even if they succeed, by the time the lawsuit finishes, the ISP won't have the log file (they don't keep them very long). Even if they did, the RIAA would have to prove that the person they are suing was using that IP address and that computer, which would be impossible. And what would be the result of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of effort? They would find that some 15 year-old kid was downloading music, and not only are minors hard to sue, but they don't have any money.

If you really want to make a statement to the RIAA, stop buying from them. I prefer songs in CD format because they have better sound quality. I buy CDs used from individuals on the Internet. Sound quality of a used CD is just as good as a new one. RIAA gets no cash from me.

RIAA - yet another example of corporations destroying culture.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[spidermonky 0]

It's not totally laughable. I know for a fact the University of Tennessee receives several cease and desist notices a week for people who are hosting copyright music/videos. It's not very difficult to determine who they are. The trial costs would be expensive, but it might deter people enough to make it worthwile for the record companies.

I wouldn't be suprised at all if a few unlucky people were made into "examples."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Well I actually find this funny. There would be so many factors to getting the information and proving it to actually convict someone it is laughable. This is a ploy to get people to stop.

~Chachi

Not really. It's pretty simple to track someone down based on IP address. Especially now that there is a precedent setting case where an ISP was forced to give up that information.

Yes, it's a ploy to get people to stop, but there ploy is to go after the biggest violators to scare the smaller guys. They'll definitely be taking some people to court.

[spidermonky 0]

Quote

I buy CDs used from individuals on the Internet.

Where? Like ebay?

[riddler 0]

Quote

Like ebay?

Depends on what you're looking for. eBay will have newer titles, but more businesses selling them. Half.com is good. You can also click the "used" button on Amazon.com and connect with individuals selling their used CDs.

But you can also get great deals at garage sales, and flea markets, if you don't care about getting the latest music. Any time you don't buy new in the store, you are not giving money to the RIAA.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[TitaniumLegs 8]

This is from the same people who if you buy a CD because you heard one good song on the radio, then you find out that was the only good song on the CD, they won't let you have a refund.
Them: "How do we know you didn't copy it onto a cassette (in the old days) or rip MP3s or a CD-R (these days)?"
Us: "Because it SUCKED!!"

How about fraud on the part of the music industry? Did anybody get a refund when it was found out that Milli and Vanilli didn't sing on their CD?

How about abandonment of media by the recording and motion picture industries? How many people have vinyl records (any speed), reel-to-reel, cassettes, 8-track, DAT, Betamax (and even VHS) and laserdisk now that are or are becoming obsolete? How many times do we have to buy the same album or movie on a different format?
My take is that if I own a legitimate copy in any format, I am entitled to make a copy for my own use to protect my investment. If I obtain electronic copies of things I already own from the internet for my own use that is legitimate use.

If I download something and you want to sue me, you better prove I don't own it.

Of course, they not going after the downloaders - that's even harder. They're going after the people with the stuff availabel for download. The gotcha is who's really breaking the law? The people putting it up, or the people taking it?

Granted, some of this is stretching it, or perhaps even wishful thinking, but I do have a legitimate beef with the media abandonment.

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.