It seems that the RIAA is opening up a new salvo in its battle to stop music sharing, by sending out hundreds of thousands of instant messages ("millions" in the coming weeks) to users of Kazaa and other services, informing those people that they're "not anonymous."
Of course, no one is anonymous on the Internet anyway, because it's a relatively easy task to do an IP trace, get ISP information, and more. And sending instant messages with serious content like this wouldn't necessarily qualify as spam, either -- assuming that they're not just sending to an entire list, but have some kind of criteria.
Still, the "We're watching you" message seems to have sinister connotations for the future. What with the apparent carte-blanche permission for the RIAA and their bunch to hack servers that are sharing pirated music (a clear invasion of privacy if I've ever heard of one), this seems to be one more step in letting megacorporations manage the public's private lives.
Personally, I'm not against the push to impose restrictions on music sharing -- while the RIAA's charges for music are often high, it's still a product of supply and demand in some ways. And not paying anything at all is IMO wrong too, because music is still legitimate work. As I said to a friend recently, would you steal a Mercedes and then claim that the car is overpriced as your justification for taking it?
And in the mean time, I'm going to go download some music legally, at the new Apple music store. Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
Oh dear. Now if only everyone who received one of those messages emailed the RIAA, they would soon be flooded with messages and would stop sending them.
Incidentally, does anyone know the UK's laws on filesharing etc?
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
As a avid reader of Slashdot, I consider myself reasonably up to date on matters of digital privacy (and RIAA's violations of it), but the ever-increasing piles of bullshit RIAA can get away with are REALLY beginning to irk me.
The Mercedes analogy is flawed, because, oh, 95 percent of the price you pay for a CD goes to the music industry. One, MAYBE two percent actually reaches the artist(s). Legitimate? Try exploitation. I will NOT put up with that situation, and I refuse to offer RIAA an incentive to continue.
No, I prefer rewarding an artist/band directly, instead of lining the pockets of some pimpass record label owner. RIAA is a cartel of commercial monopolist leeches clinging to a hopelessly outdated business model, and needs to be disbanded ASAP.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: Incidentally, does anyone know the UK's laws on filesharing etc?
I'm not sure we have any specific ones; there's all the usual copyright arguements though. Most of our laws are getting on a bit. The Offences Against the Persons Act was passed in 1861 and is still in force.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: I'm not sure we have any specific ones; there's all the usual copyright arguements though. Most of our laws are getting on a bit. The Offences Against the Persons Act was passed in 1861 and is still in force.
It would appear from this and this (both from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) that downloading music from the net is a civil offence (they can sue you for the cost of the single, I suppose), but not criminal (as you can only be prosecuted for distributing, not obtaining or possessing).
Although I could be wrong...
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: The Mercedes analogy is flawed, because, oh, 95 percent of the price you pay for a CD goes to the music industry. One, MAYBE two percent actually reaches the artist(s). Legitimate? Try exploitation. I will NOT put up with that situation, and I refuse to offer RIAA an incentive to continue.
Same with the car. 95% goes to feeding upper managment, and only a fraction of a precent makes it down to the level of the workers.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: It would appear from this and this (both from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) that downloading music from the net is a civil offence (they can sue you for the cost of the single, I suppose), but not criminal (as you can only be prosecuted for distributing, not obtaining or possessing).
..and bearing in mind the cost of a civil case I sincerly doubt they'd bother. Sounds good to me!! Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Actually, the Mercedes analogy is flawed for a different reason. If you steal a car, you've deprived someone else of a physical object which is now in your possession, and no longer in theirs. When you copy music, the person who had it originally still does have it.
A correct analogy would be that copying and sharing music is like having a Trek-esque replicator, making copies of your Mercedes, and giving them away for free.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Just to play the devil's advocate here...
Your analogy is dangerous in the sense that it can be applied to any IP. Books, medicines, practically any scientific endeaveur, patents, all don't have a physical manifestations that can be protected in the conventional sense of theft.
Making the case that music is overpriced and buying it in stores exploits artists is perhaps more valid, even when compared to the movie industry (which is sad). A CD costs $20 or more CDN, a DVD here costs $30. Thats just dumb, especially since most of the CDs I buy are movie soundtracks, it just adds insult to injury. Yes, its still stealing...but making the argument that copying any IP isn't stealing seems counter-intuitive.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
At any rate, the most powerful argument that file-sharing networks aren't damaging RIAA's precious economic stranglehold is that they led to a BOOST in music sales, not a decline.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: I will NOT put up with that situation, and I refuse to offer RIAA an incentive to continue.
No, I prefer rewarding an artist/band directly, instead of lining the pockets of some pimpass record label owner. RIAA is a cartel of commercial monopolist leeches clinging to a hopelessly outdated business model, and needs to be disbanded ASAP.
So everytime you download a song, you write out a cheque and send it direct to the artist(s)? Or is this just a nice crutch for your moral high horse to lean on?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: At any rate, the most powerful argument that file-sharing networks aren't damaging RIAA's precious economic stranglehold is that they led to a BOOST in music sales, not a decline.
Cite? Corellation, or causation?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Arrrr mateys! Sure an' I'm a music pirate on the high seas of the digital sea, I am! Remember Amazon Women On the Moon ?
I'll buy an album after I make sure the thing does'nt suck on ice. I prefer the quality of the master CD as a rule, but one hit wonders are mine via Kazaa. ...and for legality's sake, I am not Jason Abbadon, but a undisclosed friend that is staying over and we all know Mr. Abbadon would never do anything to infringe on a record exec's hard earned profits. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'll buy an album after I make sure the thing does'nt suck on ice.
I usually do that by listening to a single or two that they play on that great already-free medium, the radio.
Why, I can get an impression of THOUSANDS of albums' contents, without ever breaking a single copyright law!
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Yes, everything that is good and right with music can easily be listened to on the radio or MTV.
Also, never, ever has a single been made "radio-friendly" and very distinctly clashed with the rest of the album.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'll buy an album after I make sure the thing does'nt suck on ice.
I usually do that by listening to a single or two that they play on that great already-free medium, the radio.
Why, I can get an impression of THOUSANDS of albums' contents, without ever breaking a single copyright law!
In West Virginia, you've got Classic Rock stations, that play stuff from about 99 back, you've got an oldies station, country, gospel, and talk radio. If it's new. you may hear it once or twice in a weeks time, then they wont play it again unless it is a major hit and has already sold a million copies. I've been listening to Radioio online, and it is a fantastic mix of everything, but most are people I've never heard of, most of what I have purchased in the last few years, I've heard through friends.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
I usually do that by listening to a single or two that they play on that great already-free medium, the radio.
Why, I can get an impression of THOUSANDS of albums' contents, without ever breaking a single copyright law! [/QB][/QUOTE] South Florida radio is suck city. They play nothing I'd ever want to hear.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I'm in the same boat as Jason. Radio in Southern NB is horribly horribly icky.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ah, ah, but NONE of you have as many country music stations as I do.
Game, set, match.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well Yee-Haw. I have seven all spanish stations in my city alone. At least you can understand when the hicks are crooning. Here's a joke for ya: What do you get when you play a country song backwards?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Re: all the great music on the radio: EXPLODING HEAD EFFECT
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I can pick up Norweigen radio. It, quite simply, rocks.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)