There used to be three large music stores in my local mega mall. One still survives by selling DVD's and a VERY few CD's. They may very well sell crack cocaine and pot under the counter, for all I know.
Crosby, Still, Nash and (sometines) Young made their millions with LP's. If you are an "up and coming" band, get out there and tour your asses off 'cause you won't be selling CD's like they did "albums" in the "good old analogue days"!
If I could download digitized cars, you wouldn't believe what would be sitting in my driveway by tommorow!

When we were all young children,didn't our parents teach us to share.

This is a bit off subject but youll see where im heading.. How many times have you gone to wallmart or any other department store, bought something, PAID FOR IT, walked out the door and tripped the "You stole something" bong at the door. The person comes over and says she needs to see in my bag. I told him NO. In his mind, I was stealing something, but in reality, I didnt feel I needed to show hem anything. Everything in the bag was now mine, I showed her the recipt and started out the door. Next thing I know I was pounced on by security. I told them unless they had a search warrent, they could not search my property. I pulled away and told them if they touched me I was going to press assault charges on them. They called the police and I showed the policeman the bag and there was nothing stolen in my posession. Of coarse the cashier didnt deactivate the sensor, but is that my fault?

The question... If I paid for it with reciept in hand, It it really mine? Does ANYBODY have the right to "search me" because their computer system accused me of being a thief? That is kinda the same problem here. Just because I buy the music, does this mean I own it?

Did I just buy a cd or dvd, or did I just purchase a "license", and the music and cd is still the property of the record company.

hmmmm... Thoughts?

Originally posted by greghig:

---

This is a bit off subject but youll see where im heading.. How many times have you gone to wallmart or any other department store, bought something, PAID FOR IT, walked out the door and tripped the "You stole something" bong at the door. The person comes over and says she needs to see in my bag. I told him NO. In his mind, I was stealing something, but in reality, I didnt feel I needed to show hem anything. Everything in the bag was now mine, I showed her the recipt and started out the door. Next thing I know I was pounced on by security. I told them unless they had a search warrent, they could not search my property. I pulled away and told them if they touched me I was going to press assault charges on them. They called the police and I showed the policeman the bag and there was nothing stolen in my posession. Of coarse the cashier didnt deactivate the sensor, but is that my fault?

The question... If I paid for it with reciept in hand, It it really mine? Does ANYBODY have the right to "search me" because their computer system accused me of being a thief? That is kinda the same problem here. Just because I buy the music, does this mean I own it?

Did I just buy a cd or dvd, or did I just purchase a "license", and the music and cd is still the property of the record company.

hmmmm... Thoughts?

---

i hate those damn things at hmv they never disarm them. I would like to think that they dont have the right to search your property with out a warrant.

My wife got banned from a supermarket for 6 months due too a security guard seeing her pick up one of the kids toys and putting it in the dyper bag, the security guard said that she stole something and overuled the store-manager.

Besides how do u know the files that were on the hard drive where mp3 music files and not viruses which can be transmitted to other computers quicker than any mp3 i have seen!

No you do not buy a license to the music on a cd when you purchase it.
A license allows you to disseminate the music contained. Has no one here ever read the bit on cds dvds books the end of films etc, that tells you your are not allowed to transmit the material contained shown electronically, digitally etc to the public?

Basically the object is yours up to a point,what is contained can only be used for private use and that is curtailed to protect the artists, publishers record company...

Those advocating unhindered file sharing don't want to pay for what they consume.

Now thats bullshit

If Mr B, put his name on Mr A's song and claimed he wrote it yes that is definately a copyright infringement, I haven't seen that in the file sharing community but you never know, however Mr B isn't going to get any royalties out of it cause if it was shared it was recorded and not by Mr B...now what about SONY, and all the other companies that put out recording software and market them as "copy music movies etc?? They kidding me??? They know full well what their product is being used for, and its ludicrous to think I might need 100's of DVD's to backup production at work, even on a good day using MS Office I couldn't generate enough GB's to fill all the media they offer. And High Def Blue ray? Its made specifically for burning movies and HD tv, do they think the ave joe has a production company in their basement?? Maybe they ought to find themselves on the defense end of a lawsuit too. They target people to burn movies and music what they think is going to happen? How long would smith and wesson last if they marketed their products to "kill your neighbors accurately and neatly?"

BRAL, you hit it on the head! The reason why this is going to court is that it is winnable. The advocates of the RIAA will perjure them selves to win a case. The jury might just see the witch hunt for what it is. I would guess most household wireless networks are not secure. They want to say that is a crime. It was probably set up for them by a Geek Squad. How would they know it was not secure? If the bad guys lose, that will set them back in their move to subjigate the world.

Quote:

---

"a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy." Most music stored on MP3 players doesn't come from legal downloads, but other sources including ripping tracks from personal CD collections and indeed, software like iTunes possesses the ability to do so.

---

They are going to lose! That Parsier is a real @ss hole! She has already done away with fair use without a change in the law. If only one person in the jury has a lick of sense they do not have much of a chance of winning. What a shame! This is too good to be true!

greghig,

You purchased something that was copy writed. Fair use in the copy write law allows you to copy that material for your own use. It is illegle to sell it or give the copy away.

The RIAA couldn't care less about what 'The Law' states ..

Since 99.99% of their targets 'give in', the RIAA are never forced to consult it .. !!

To them, 'The Law' (in any country), is what they say it is ..

Procode ..

OK, in a nutshell. I have about 300 old LP's. I have transfered them (through recording) to MP3's and put them on CD's for MY use only. One reason is because getting needles for my record player is becoming impos. Another is so that I can listen to the tracks in my bedroom (while going to sleep). I do NOT allow the CD's to be borrowed, copied, etc.

This is not as easy with CD's (other than the RECORDING through the CD Player's Line-Out), which usually ends up in a degraged copy. The MP3 converters say that the CD is copy-writed and will not copy, not even for my PERSONAL use.

I am NOT sharing my private music so why can't I put in on a media that I can listen to where I want? That was the point of buying the CD. I say this, knowing that I could take the CD BACK and FORTH from the front room to the bedroom which leads to accidents (dropping etc.) so the copy would ONLY be played in the bedroom, and the One if the front room would NOT be played at the same time.

Guess I am now WRONG for wanting to do this.
Lance

Lets think
Of the 26,000 internet users that have been targeted. You could win this. Set up a fighting fund. If 26,000 know they are targeted and donate $10.00 each, and that raises 260,000. I don’t have anything to do with it and I would donate through pay pal $20.00 to put these corporate bullies in their place.

Originally posted by icanucan:

---

The argument of many on this subject seems to be this,"...You buy a cd, you own it. You own the music on it and can dispose of it as you wish".

Ok everyone lets just sit back for one minute and think what that actually would mean if it was true.

Mr A records a song. Mr A releases a cd. The cd is bought by Mr B. Mr B now owns the cd and all the music on it and can do what ever he likes with it.

Mr B copies the cd and puts his name on it. Makes no reference to Mr A. Is this fair?

Mr B copies the cd. Sells it on the street, to his local cd shop they sell it on give him a cut.
Mr A sees no money. Is this fair?

If I buy a car I own that particular vehicle. Not the design. I can't copy that car and give it to others.

I have heard many arguments over file sharing and none seem to get over two basic facts.
Mr A wrote a song. He owns it.
You buy a cd you own that, not the song.

Much is spoken in the "file-sharing community" of the protection of personal freedom. What of a persons expectation that they should receive the fruits of their labour?

Finally lets be honest. This is not about personal freedoms being eroded by big business. Its about the oldest desire in the hearts of men. To get something for nothing. I would have more respect for the advocates of file-sharing if they just admitted this.
Please just once....? Eh pretty please

---

Of course, legally you are correct. But let me ask you this:

If you've been *bleep* in the ass for years in order to get your food, when the day comes that you can get that *bleep* food for free, are you going to insist that he continue his assault? Or will you just take the free food?

I'm not saying it's legal or even the right thing to do, but perhaps the illustration will help you to see why we are where we are. Or course, that bully will use the legal system to club you over the head so that he may continue his assault. But if the opportunity arises for the *bleep* to get back at the *bleep*, chances are that, right or wrong, he's gonna do it.

"What goes around, comes around" or if you prefer, "you reap what you sow."

Never fails.

-Lloyd7

PhntomG, you have not broken the law. In fact even down loading music is breaking the law but a prescident has been made to allow persons to record TV and radio. They do not try to get you on that. What they will go after is when you give them of sell them to someone else.

Actually, ripping CDs is way easier and relyable than capturing vinyl. I don't listen to original CDs either. All my originals are archived. MP3s do not wear out or get broken. Why would you play anything else?

Lloyd7, you are saying what many of us feel. However, your choice of wording might get you kicked off the forum. I would edit want you said if I were you! You are a newbie, which provides some protection from breaking the by-laws but I have seen other newbees kicked off for less.

There was a time when slavery was legal and women could not vote. Those abominations have changed due to public pressure. Copyright laws do not represent ethical or moral absolutes. They are contrived to protect business interests. Those interests are sometimes valid in a society but sometimes they may not be entirely ethical, natural or right. Public pressure or technological change may be needed to highlight the overall wrongness of a law protecting business interests. As many people have already pointed out, consumers and artists have frequently been and are fooled and cheated by the recording "industry". The lack of clear mechanisms for protection from such acts of corporate vandalism are often simply being compensated for by peoples' downloading or otherwise sharing of recorded music/video.

The recording industry is as wrong in attempting to sue people for sharing music as restaurants would be in suing people for making and sharing a meal they first tried in a restaurant. People pay to eat in a restaurant for the ambience, quality of food, competitive price and even because they don't have to wash the dishes. Restaurant prices reflect the value added to a meal. If the recording industry wants to fairly earn money they should offer something enticing and non-reproducable. Selling CDs and DVDs is a bit too simple a way to expect to make a fortune. It's too easily replicated. The industry could more ethically make money by promoting lots of great live concerts (real music making!), and the industry should depend on a fine cinema experience for profits.Cds/DVDs should sell at low mass distribution prices to reflect the neglible value of a recorded medium compared to the public spectacle of great cinema. Thus much less downloading and sharing would occur.

Corporations are the first to claim the need for so called "free-market economies" alla Milton Freidman. Pity they don't want to let a proper free market decide what it really wants to pay for their products!

GAME OVER MAN!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138115/article.html#

Here is the link to a court judgement for sharing music files open the flood gates and you all better watch yourself they are coming for us..

dpilarz, Patents also had a 100 year span but companies lobbied to get it cut to 20 then 17 years. This is all the get for sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to develope a patent such as most drugs. That is why we have to pay $10 a pill. Copy writes are only ideas. Very little effort was made compared to a patent. Why do copy writes still last 100 years? The main benefactor would be the public and we don't have high paid lobiests contributing to the politicians. Instead the bad guys have the high paid lobbiests.

Originally posted by Mez:

---

dpilarz, Patents also had a 100 year span but companies lobbied to get it cut to 20 then 17 years. This is all the get for sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to develope a patent such as most drugs. That is why we have to pay $10 a pill. Copy writes are only ideas. Very little effort was made compared to a patent. Why do copy writes still last 100 years? The main benefactor would be the public and we don't have high paid lobiests contributing to the politicians. Instead the bad guys have the high paid lobbiests.

---

It has always been that way he who has the most bucks win. Look at the oil company and medical firms who pay lobbiests.... Its all about the money.

Originally posted by user81:

---

Lets think
Of the 26,000 internet users that have been targeted. You could win this. Set up a fighting fund. If 26,000 know they are targeted and donate $10.00 each, and that raises 260,000. I don’t have anything to do with it and I would donate through pay pal $20.00 to put these corporate bullies in their place.

---

You missed a point here. you would put 20$ through paypal? and put the corporate bullies in place? well in doing so you actually are aiding the corporate bullies!!!!! you just gave 5% of your donation to a HUGE corporation called PAYPAL! just ironic.

---

anyone watch MTV`s cribs ? and they say the artists arent getting as much!

wish i could afford what most of those artists have!

---

C1c, I think you need to be a bit selective corporations you are going to boycott unless you are willing to live in a tent and not buy anything. Paypal provide a service and I am not aware that they are doing anything anti social. However, we would be better off biding our time until the media maffia trys to alter the law to screw the public more. They will want ISPs to monitor copy write infingement. Tell them this is insane! Why should the world be forced to make one company rich. Then mobilize and flood the congress with hate mail. Accuse them of being on the take, ect. Pose the question why are patents 17 years and copywrites 100 years. Demand an answer. Demand that copy writes only last 10 years. That would solve the problem of internet copy write infringement cheaply. Say you are tired of seeing laws being passed that force other companies to enforce a stupid law that makes one company rich. If congress gets enough of these they will realize the media maffia has touched a nerve with their voter base. For all their bribe money the MM will lose its political clout. They might even back off. A 10 year copy write law would do them in.

sopcannon, I think the point is the artists make a tiny part of the 'pie'. The Media Maffia pockets most of the money, claiming to be the protectors of the artists. That is why some of the well established artists are giving away their music for volintary dontations. They are probably making as much that way as with the MM.

@Mez
yeah I get the point buit I just thought it was ironic. This is the first case of many more to follow. It got a lot of media attention and that's all they wanted. Now they scared off a lot of people with this trial.

Oh and by the way, we can't do anything about it. You can write all the letters in the world but lobbyists and people with more money will always win.

We are slaves in this world. They want us to watch our plasma tvs and play our 360's, anything that will keep us unfocused from learning the truth. When the ISP's start ratting its customers out, then the party will be over. Then you will see some anonymous underground ISP's popping up.

I wish there was a leader/group for us people in this digital age. I would donate money to this group and have THEM lobby congress for our digital rights.

---

Good luck to the people taking on the riaa cause their really crap.

c1c, one person writing their congressman is just spitting in the wind but if you have hundreds of people writing in that is a 'horse of a different color. I have seen my scum-bum congressman make an about face. He broke party lines to keep his job. He just survived a very close election. He is real sensitive to write ins. The standard formula is for every letter or email there are 10 to 20 that feel the same but are too lazy to write. They are even more sensitive about appearing on the take. I am sure we will see a bill go onto the floor that will force internet providers to police the internet for copywrite infringements. The US will have to pay huge bucks to make it work. That is the right time to strike. Anyone with any brains at all will realize anyone for that bill must be on the take. It will probably cost the US 10 times what the Media Maffia will gain in profits.

You hear all these CEO blow holes spouting lets wage all out war on the pirates. What they are really saying is lets get the public to spend billions of dollars so I can make a few extra million dollars. That way my industry can still make as much money while we create crap as we did when our industry was creating great stuff. Whe music was not big business artists could jam with who ever they wanted. Everyone learned from one another. For a long time the recording industry wants a recording rights for all live performances. This means two artists working for two different record Cos can't play together because of greed. I say it is greed not pirates that ruin the industry.

They claim morality is on their side because of an out dated law. I am sure they would be for a tax on breathing air as long as they got a piece of it!

Originally posted by icanucan:

---

The argument of many on this subject seems to be this,"...You buy a cd, you own it. You own the music on it and can dispose of it as you wish".

Ok everyone lets just sit back for one minute and think what that actually would mean if it was true.

Mr A records a song. Mr A releases a cd. The cd is bought by Mr B. Mr B now owns the cd and all the music on it and can do what ever he likes with it.

Mr B copies the cd and puts his name on it. Makes no reference to Mr A. Is this fair?

Mr B copies the cd. Sells it on the street, to his local cd shop they sell it on give him a cut.
Mr A sees no money. Is this fair?

If I buy a car I own that particular vehicle. Not the design. I can't copy that car and give it to others.

I have heard many arguments over file sharing and none seem to get over two basic facts.
Mr A wrote a song. He owns it.
You buy a cd you own that, not the song.

Much is spoken in the "file-sharing community" of the protection of personal freedom. What of a persons expectation that they should receive the fruits of their labour?

Finally lets be honest. This is not about personal freedoms being eroded by big business. Its about the oldest desire in the hearts of men. To get something for nothing. I would have more respect for the advocates of file-sharing if they just admitted this.
Please just once....? Eh pretty please

---

not everyone is lucky like u, man! people who buy original cds are rich people. however, not everyone is fortunate to be rich like them who can afford the money to buy. when you are poor and the only thing that can help u is music, i dont think it is wrong for them to share or download music. besides, life is more than just money. what counts in life are your kindness, deeds u have done, etc...... the world is shitty because of one's selffishness. therefore, if u can buy it, then buy it. if not, then download it or get it from a friend. besides, which is more important? helping a friend or suing a friend?

Originally posted by DADEO1:

---

When we were all young children,didn't our parents teach us to share.

---

does this mean that you will share your wife with me? hahahahha