Comments on: All lawbreakers, everyone

By: feeblemind

feeblemind — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:37:26 +0000

I have one more thought to add to the discussion. First the disclaimer. I have dial up service so downloading music isn’t even an option for me. I haven’t bought a record in 25 yrs. What infuriates me about going after the file sharers is the penalties they have to pay. From my point of view they are totally unjust, especially for a first time offender. In some cases, 6 figure settlements have been imposed. If you are a person of modest means, it is economic murder. How is a person making 20 or 30k supposed to pay off a 200k judgement? Such a person would become a virtual life-long slave to the RIAA trying to pay that off. I am not a lawyer, but I see people doing far worse than file sharing walking away with much less punishment. In the case of the first offender, the law is usually pretty lenient, especially for minors. Not so in file sharing cases.

By: teqjack

teqjack — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:29:05 +0000

As noted above, it was the sharing (indiscriminate here, but also if limited) that was being hit.

I think that various courts have ruled that one “backup” copy is OK, and while RIAA is certainly on record (no pun intended, sorry) as opposing that I don’t believe they have actively fought it for a few years. Well, except for DRM/DMCA and other schemes which do not allow ANY copy. And not allowing even a one-for-one backup to be playable on equipment (eg iPod) other than that on which it was made (no, RIAA says you cannot backup your old vinyl to a CD). And of course, even legitimate backups must not include “mix” recordings. And about a week ago, the UK’s RIAA sued a guy who listened to his radio in the office because other people could hear it and that constituted a “[re-]broadcast” - idiocy runs rampant…

But then, history shows suits against player-piano rolls for some of the same reasons as are used now. And the printing press was opposed because it would put copyists at risk. Probably stonecutters, especially of slate and chalk, inveighed against that new-fangled “papyrus” stuff.

By: MarkD

MarkD — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:41:20 +0000

I don’t own an IPOD, have no music on my computer, and every CD I have was purchased. I have no dog in this fight.

The RIAA lawyer’s statement was stupid and wrong according to the Fair Use Doctrine. It antagonized me. I used to buy CDs - I own hundreds. Now, I might buy one a year, if that, mostly because I don’t like most of the newer “music.”

Insulting your customers and lying to them about their rights is not a viable business model. I don’t condone theft, but the RIAA is going about this in a stupid way. Even Bush was smart enough to change course when it became obvious the old tactics weren’t working.

By: staghounds

staghounds — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:33:16 +0000

I will never, ever buy a commercially recorded cd or dvd from any source in the distribution chain. Solely because of this sort of RIAA nonsense.

Used, rips, or free downloads only.

By: feeblemind

feeblemind — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:59:05 +0000

I wonder how much business the RIAA has driven away by attacking and intimidating their customer base? I understand pirating is a serious issue, but what they are doing is a PR disaster. Enraging your customers does not strike me as a sound business practice.

By: John

John — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:54:48 +0000

A followup:

http://www.cio-today.com/news/RIAA-Not-Targeting-CD-Ripping-After-All/story.xhtml?story_id=13300C81I5JE

By: John

John — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:53:44 +0000

The Washington Post is not telling the whole story here; the accused was ripping the CDs and storing them on a shared folder on Kazaa. That is what makes this illegal. Marc Fischer was being, at best disingenuous in this article.