Insteresting thread. I wonder, for example, I own all of the Doors original albums on vinyl. If I download a song that’s contained on one of those albums which I have already purchased (abet, years ago) is that illegal? I bought the album and presumably the right to listen to the music. Obviously, it’s clear I own the right to listen to the song already, but is using someone elses medium illegal to listen to that song? Just wondering?

Poor woman

God forbid she should take money from these billionares.

Also, one more thing. How many people out there wouldn’t like to see what is on this fat ass, smug bastard’s hard drive?

By looking at him…porn galore….. and thats just the tip of the iceberg, I’m guessing

I say if they think their music is worth $9,200+ a pop then we, as consumers, should have a right to a refund if we deem it unlistenable.

If the artists think they are worth this much money, then they should be able to back it up with a refund if we aren’t happy.

But that isn’t going to happen now, is it?

Because many people in the world can’t afford to see a concert and some can’t even afford to take the family to the movie I think there is a solution.
Once an album or movie makes a pre-determined amount of money’ the industry should then release it for downloading to sites that charge a flat fee per year of say $50.00 per person to join-This will be split between the site and the industry.This would put more money into the industry pocket as well as keep good public relations going.Also’ it allows more people to hear a new artists music and they may want to buy their next album upon release rather then wait for the download release date in 6 months or so-

The record industry lives and breathes on payola. I’m sure the judge got a big fat envelop handed to him under the table.

Bullshit. That fat fuck should worry more about looking like a bucket of lard on a bad day instead of some woman who sucks at relationships but likes to fuck without condoms sharing her shitty music library.

Disgusting ruling. On appeal, the verdict will be reversed and remanded by a judge with more of a brain.

The RIAA was given a lot of meat when part of the ruling ended up being that simply having files in a shared folder is enough to constitute redistribution. If anything, that is attempt and not the actual commission of a crime.

When all is said and done, bad lawyering and an expedited court case resulted in a LOT of evidence not being introduced. This means that on appeal, the RIAA cannot pull any new tricks. She’ll appeal, and she’ll win.

And hopefully the judge’ll lose his job.

stealing music is wrong as hell but I can’t believe the music industry doesn’t believe its getting enough money that they have to individually search for people who have pirated music. And how the hell did they choose this woman in the first place? There are millions of other poeple who could have been sued. Plus using a P2P Program TECHNICALLY is the same as letting your friend borrow a CD. .. Except your friends with a million people who are all your neighbors.

Illegal downloading is simply wrong. There’s no excuse for it.

But at the same time, record companies have been price fixing cds for a long time.

I think that lady from the RIAA is wrong, pretty sure you’re legally allowed to make a backup copy of your music or transfer it to another medium as long as it’s for your household only and you retain the original recording.

if u’re going to make someone pay a fine, dont do that to a single mother

You are right Kid, no one set the standar as Prince does, this year he give away for free 3 millions cd’s in Europe , something that not even NIN or Radiohead will do, his reward was 20 sold out shows in London, so may be that’s the solution, no charge for a CD, buy the concert ticket.

I’m not too familiar with US copyright laws, but Canadians have been paying copyright levies on blank audio recording media. The levies are then “supposedly” collected by a group representing the recording industry.

Further info can be read at this link:
http://neil.eton.ca/cop ylevy.shtml

And at:
www.cbc.ca/technology/sto ry/2007/01/11/copyright-canada .html

Prince has givin away his music for free for along time, he even give away the new DVD release of Sing O’ The Times on a UK newspaper. Trent Reznor and Radiohead are finally following his steps, Imagined what they can do united!

I think its about time the music fans rallied. A StopBuyingMusic.com type national movement (I’d start it if I could figure out how to use a computer, but I can’t, so the URL is anyone’s to keep). Even if we just blocked ONE WEEK of purchases, our voices would be heard. In 1988 when CDs started taking off, the industry promised prices would drop below $10. Then when the big cardboard packaging sleeves were removed, they promised it again. Never happened. Let’s make them keep their word. $7.99 for new bands and new releases. $4.99 album downloads. Think how they can lift the overall industry by making it more attractive for tens of millions of fans to buy the music again like we did in the good old days.

How is ripping songs from a bought CD theft?? Especially now that CD players are obscure, how the hell are we gonna put those songs that we PAID FOR in CD form onto our mp3 players?? This is ridiculous.

I wonder what the outcome would be if there were a cage match between Metalica and radiohead and NIN. I know that Metalica is like, 10 times heavyer tham Any1 in radiohead but maybe RH and Trent reznor could win if it were like, 10 vs 5 or something.

awww sh!t!! I wonder if Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, The Smashing Pumpkins, MC Lars, and all those other fantasric artists thay dont give a damn about P2P could gather up all their money colectively and simply take down All Record Labels, Then Create their own. I know it sounds massively stupid, but it would be Good material for a sci-fi movie.

Way to bite the hand that feeds, RIAA. Now, if hey can just sue every other customer they have, they just might litigate themselves right out of business.

Oh, and we’re still waiting for that $5 price drop for CDs after they were found guilty of price fixing. Now who’s the fucking theives?

Steel,

no matter what people do, the industry and the artists are still raking it in and getting rich, believe me.

I’m to the point where I may never pay for another cd again. I support the artists and the music they make, but do not support the greedy labels who are sucking the life out of music and by suing the very people who listen to the music they are making people hate them even more. So what if cd sales are down, FIND ANOTHER WAY to sell or market your product.

Downloading is not going to go away. How about make tracks available for 15 cents to 25 cents as opposed to $1 or more (yes I know that option is out there). 17 million downloads of a track at 17 cents adds up to a lot more than 1 million downloads at $1.00. Make cd’s a standard $9.99 period. Make new releases $7.99. Dvd movies are cheaper a lot of time.

This is a goddamn disgrace. There are 2 kinds of music listeners these days. People that pay for music, and people who do not.
It’s the 21st century, and it’s a lit easier to get music for free.
Someone should start a fund to help this lady pay for this. At a dollar a person, we could do it.

You’re welcome. I should make a clarification…The software application will allow the consumer to “legally download” and listen to the entire song track(s) 3 times. The song file is then disabled until it is purchased.

thank you for the info.

A tip for indie music artists who are selling their music directly without a middleman…
Google “Weed Software”. The software application will allow the consumer to listen to the entire song track(s) 3 times. From that point, the consumer can then decide whether he/she wishes to purchase the track(s). It is a win/win solution which protects the artist’s intellectual property rights while enabling the consumer to listen to the entire song (and not just a 15 second sampling of the track), before deciding to proceed with the purchase.

I’m going to start stealing music just to spite these motherfuckers. And if that bulbous piece of shit with the shit-eating grin on his fat over-fed face tries to sue me I will grab him by his fat fucking neck with my left hand and repeatedly beat his face to a bloody pulp with my right fist.

Re: Get A Clue. I’m perfectly happy to pay for an artist’s music through iTunes. But P2P is useful in that it gives you a chance to evaluate whether you want to purchase it. Besides, if you look at the breakdown of the $ an artist gets from iTunes/etc, it’s actually quite small. There are a core cadre of artists whose material I’ll always purchase, and others who I will purchase occasionally. Realistically, most artists make a living from touring, so if you really want to support a band and help them survive, go to shows.

The fact is, labels scoop up the vast majority of the album proceeds for themselves. Purchasing directly from the artist is really the way to go - because it’s easier to steal from a faceless corporation than it is from the person actually making the music. That’s why Radiohead is sure to turn a profit - regardless of band status, (most) people don’t want to rip off the people who actually made the art that you are enjoying.

Why is this man smiling?

Because for another day he has enough money to attract women that use him for his money.

As stated in iTunes legal disclaimers:

“Sharing is intended for PERSONAL USE ONLY, and is possible only with computers in the same network subnet. If the playlist contains songs purchased from the iTunes Store, you can burn the playlist to a CD up to seven times.
You can BACK UP your iTunes library, playlists, and iTunes Store purchases for safekeeping.
You can import songs from your CDs into your iTunes library. Imported songs are stored on your hard disk so that you can listen to them without having the original CD in the disc drive.”

Where are the recording industry’s legal disclaimers? They will need to be much more clear with consumers regarding specific legal terms. We as consumers are the ones who support music artists. Don’t bite the hand that feeds.

Counter sue the RIAA! WHY the hell aren’t they going after the ILLEGAL[as they term it] sites on the net?!!! It appears the RIAA/FREE downloading net sites have conspired against the public to illegally take $$$ from them. Has anybody even tackeled it from that angle? Maybe the “free downloading sites” actually were staged by the RIAA! America: STOP buying music! Fuck them right back! Tape your songs off the FREE RADIO stations and listen to them till you get over being caught up in the moment, then stash them for later.

That’s crazy. There are more “uncommercial” bands making a name for themselves than ever, and it is all thanks to the exposure they get on the internet. The Shins, Arcade Fire, Modest Mouse, Regina Spektor, Feist, The Flaming Lips, LCD Soundsystem, and Death Cab for Cutie are all doing just fine financially. Even if they’re not all multi-millionaires, guess what- they get to make music for a living and don’t have to sit in a damn cubicle all day. God forbid someone has to put some effort into doing what they love.

And selling your songs to a commercial is no worse than making a video on MTV, it’s just the new way to do it since MTV doesn’t play videos. Videos are commercials anyway, aren’t they?

Actually, ripping a CD to your computer is NOT stealing- you are perfectly allowed to make a backup for yourself. The RIAA actually expects us to re-purchase everything we’ve already bought if we want to listen to it on our iPods!

After making millions by getting people to buy the same material numerous times- with the introduction of tapes and CDs- now they’re pissed that the next format is something we can just transfer ourselves, at BETTER quality than what they are selling us? Fuck that!

I’ve never seen such a bunch of money-hungry assholes so out of touch with the way their customer base works. I am horrified that the jury took their side.

The real cancer on the recording industry is the people who feel they don’t have to pay for copyrighted material. You’re right is about money, stingy Americans who think that everything should be free. Remember, it’s not just the record labels who get screwed by P2P, it’s the artists as well. Have you noticed how the far the quality of popular music has gone down since P2P started? Labels are scared to back adventurous artists, they want a sure thing (Fergie, Nickelback, Linkin Park). Meanwhile artists with true talent aren’t given the money they need to properly record or promote themselves. They’re either given the choice to ‘commercialize’ their sound or take a hike. Then it’s the same people who steal their music that then turn around give them crap about licensing their song to a commercial just to make a living.
CD prices were too high, that was a fact. Saying that ‘making another copy of your song for personal use is stealing’ is also ridiculous. But not paying for music just to spite the record labels also screws everyone else involved in the creative process. Unless P2P is stopped, there will never be another Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Radiohead or Janis Joplin.

He’s not an icon, but he had a couple of nice songs (his debut album was actually quite good). Hopefully, after your done killing Richard, you’ll turn the gun on yourself!

Richard Marx? She should be shot too, and so should he.

It’s not actually about the money, it’s about fear.

What a bunch of BS. P2P should be allowable under gifting statutes, which is what makes it legal for you to make a mix CD or tape (remember those?) for a friend without running afoul of copyright law. Granted, a whole CD is a little trickier, but the comment from the RIAA idiot at the end shows that these people care nothing about music, fans, or the artists involved. It’s all about $$$. Let’s hope Radiohead’s gambit and NIN’s stance on piracy go a long way toward removing this cancer from the music industry…