I bought my 50"s & 60's collection 3 times.
1. Vinyl (removal of subsonic filter ruined that)
2. 8 Track (players collection became obsolete)
3. Cassette (they 'wear out' over time!!! ugh!)
So... I refuse to pay for them 'again' as cd's.

As for the argument of whether P2P has increased or decreased, you do not have to take anyone's 'word' for it. You can see for yourself.
Just boot up any of the really popular P2P proggies, and somewhere on one of the screens it shows you how many users currently sharing. IT HAS LITERALLY BOOMED!!!
One of them used to be 500,000 to 600,000, and it is now regularly 3 to 5 MILLION depending on day of the week or holidays. The NPD group are, if nothing else, liars.

Gee after typing a beautiful response full of links to the truth, I find that afterdawn has timed me out and forced me to re-login; thereby destroying my response. lol

The short of it is this:

Recording radio and tv IN AMERICA is legal. I cannot speak for wherever you people may or may not be that has stated that it is not legal. But if you are in America you are sorely mistaken, been misinformed or have bought into the RIAA and Hollywood's campaign of propaganda.

Links:

The SUPREME COURT's ACTUAL ruling on BetaMax stating that time shifting TV (recording tv shows for later personal non commercial use) IS FAIR USE

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html

The EFF about LEGALLY recording off radio:

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr005=bb9nzv1za1.app6a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=157

Congress dealt with radio in 1971 and again in the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act.

So in summary:

Recording off the TV and RADIO for personal non commercial future use IS legal.

Next time before making ME spend a couple hours finding links to this information (and the truth!) to prove that I am not wrong, will YOU please do a little research yourselves. ok?

lol

Also, where on earth did i mention about time shifting/copying for commercial use (re: nursing homes)? I guess you were just trying to cover all the bases.

So to clarify:

PERSONAL NON COMMERCIAL PRIVATE USE

geesh! lol

Gee after typing a beautiful response full of links to the truth, I find that afterdawn has timed me out and forced me to re-login; thereby destroying my response. lol

The short of it is this: ...........

As long as your looking, Google analog hole and see what comes up. While you are correct in recording being legal in the sense that one will not be arrested for the act, the court in it's full decision papers considered it stealing. If you look up analog hole, you'll find that recording off the air is about to be plugged as far as newer equipment is concerned. As long as you can keep the old electronic units going, one can record.....

funny I'm just reading an EFF action letter on the Analog Hole and the latest attempt by MPAA to attempt again to force a broadcast flag upon us.

I stand by my origional links provided.

As for the hole being plugged that is yet to be seen. Perhaps if more people stopped whining about the loss of rights and acted upon their beliefs then this too can be averted once again, and hopefully forever.

The MPAA and the RIAA are acting on their beliefs also....Beliefs don't mean anything, it's who has the money and the power that counts. The MPAA, the RIAA, the studios, the entertainers need us more than we, [with few exceptions] need them....

While the EFF is fighting the broadcast flag, there are TV shows and broadcast movies that already have copyright protection. I use ATI to capture straight to DVD quality mpg files from cable. Around half of the videos pop-up a message ststing that the video is copyrighted and the capture program stops recording. I have found a way around this problem but I am not going to advertise it for the MPAA or RIAA to see.

Chicken shits! They'll never catch everyone. Hide you're IP addresses! Don't download off university servers.

The RIAA are blood suckers. Patents only last for 17 years. Companies spend huge sums to create something tangable. It costs about about a half billion with a B to product a new drug. Drug companies now are into copy cat drugs because they are so much cheeper to create.

These guys do not invest anything in their product except the contracts. Usually, they get a real deal on the contracts as well. Then the copywrite lasts for 100 years. That is because it only hurts the people. We have no clout with the potiticians who screw us overy daily and throw us a few bones around election time.

It's so funny and creepy how completely dumb the RIAA is. They are sueing the fans that buy and listen to their music. It's self-destruction at its best. Do you know how many people will stop buying music altogether because of this? And you can't blame them, the music is overproduced, overpriced, and overmarketed and nobody is going to buy that shit. And in the end, the artist is going to get screwed not "helped."

There will always be ways around their copy protections but I feel even better that karma will burn these MPAA and RIAA mobsters in the future as they are going to pull a stunt that will piss off the right or should I say the wrong person who is high up on the government scale so to speak. Just how long will the justice systems around the world accept bribes from these lobbyists who too in turn did not follow a simple court rulling when it came to the Kazaa case. Let us not forget that. This in the future will be a very strong wepon against the lobbyists who don't follow the very rules from athorities that they want to set for us grunts. And the Rootkit incident will be the final straw that will blow the lid off of the "lets copy-protect everything" drum these guys want to play on us. Keep fighting because these guys are desperate and desperate people do stupid shit in which often get them into alot of trouble.

Also another point that no one has mentioned...What is this "LOSS" that the recording industry is suffering. Well, there isn't any loss; i.e. the recording industry isn't loosing money, they just are not receiving any money for the sharing...but what about all of the sales that are made because of sharing. CD and DVD media, mp3 players and equipment, storage for the media, sales for better readers and burners, software for doing the transfers like Nero and NTI.. Seems to me that the reason that they are headhunting for downloaders is because they are pissed that other companies are profiting off of the p2p and not the RIAA. And, of course the little folk are easier to pick on, lacking the money to fight these fucktards, and end up caving in because they scared of them. Sure hope they don't come after me. I don't sink so easy and I really don't care about their strong arm tatics...I have the supreme court that backs me on the ability to back my media...So.....fuck em.

Sneaking into a walk-in theater or a drive in is about the same as downloading a movie. Does the MPAA plan on suing the 'sneeker' for $600,000.00 and threaten 5 years of jail time ?? One viewed the movie without paying....

When one listens to a track or two in an audio store, does the studio get a royalty payment for the music used??

If the studios have sued 7000 people and collected an average of $3200.00 a suit, that would come to $22,400,000.00 total. Seems to me that they are making a lot of money off of P2P anyway... Where is the loss ??

You know it seems to me that more electronics creators like iRiver and Creative should be fighting the RIAA and MPAA tooth and nail till death does one of them or should I say a group of them apart. If I were an Mp3 manufacturer I'd want to compete and kill the iPod. What better way than to strongly say on every box "We are the ones fighting for your rights by going against the RIAA. Every dime spent on this player will go towards the EFF fo fight mobster tactics." I think the company would lose for a while, but in the end they'd be the most popular Mp3 player manufacturer in the entire world. And with 60,000,000 people all buying the players to piss off the RIAA they'd make trillions of dollars and could own the RIAA. Something to think about.

The reason why you gus are getting confused is becasue of the first commentor's statement, which was factually irrelevent to this case: he/she said:

"i agree at the fact that it is illegal to download copyrighted music and if you wanna do it and get caught you shouldnt complain"

These people were not sued for downloading. no one has been. they were sued for uploading, ie massively distributing to others.

S2K said..."These people were not sued for downloading. no one has been. they were sued for uploading, ie massively distributing to others."

Tell that to the 12 year old girl that downloaded a kids jingle and the RIAA sued her mother... Tell that to the grandfather that is being sued for $600,000 by the MPAA because his grandson 'downloaded' 3 movies. Tell that to the grandmother that didn't even own a computer or an internet connection that the RIAA started to sue for downloading music. [The RIAA backed off quickly when they realized their mistake..]

The point is that the RIAA and the MPAA are sueing downloaders... They are using the excuse that programs like bittorrent also upload as the program downloads. The studios have no way to find the first seeder so they are suing as many people connected with a file as they can find.

What is ironic is that file sharing has been going on since before the internet went public. Most BBSs had file sections where one could download software, music, and if one was patient, movies. While the internet has made this more easy, it wasn't until the studios {music and movie] started putting out crap and losing customers and money that the MPAA and the RIAA began to use file sharing as an excuse for their own failures.. When Universal, Paramount, Fidelity Records, Imperial Recording Studios, and many others were failing during the 1950s, they tried to blame TV and radio for their problems. Later, it was tape recorders and video recorders.... The entertainment industry is always ready to blame something or someone else for their own failures... When new techknologies emerge, the studios will once again jump in and try to stop it, curtail it or blame it for the crap the studios put out. Things will not change, it is the studio's operating procedure..

dufas said:
"Tell that to the 12 year old girl that downloaded a kids jingle and the RIAA sued her mother"

She UPLOADED it after and distributed it to a potentially infinate numbe ro f others -- that is what she was sued for AND ONLY THATt.

"Tell that to the grandfather that is being sued for $600,000 by the MPAA because his grandson 'downloaded' 3 movies."

Also being sued for UPLOADING and ONLY UPLOADING.

"Tell that to the grandmother that didn't even own a computer or an internet connection that the RIAA started to sue for downloading music."

Also being sued for UPLOADING and ONLY UPLOADING.

"The point is that the RIAA and the MPAA are sueing downloaders."

NO the "point" being they NEVER HAVE. Not once.

There ae 100 ways to download files, there are only a handful of ways whihc require you to upload them back. You can only be sued for UPLOADING.

"Tell that to the grandmother that didn't even own a computer or an internet connection that the RIAA started to sue for downloading music."

Also being sued for UPLOADING and ONLY UPLOADING.


Yep, that dead woman really flooded the internet.....

Y"ep, that dead woman really flooded the internet..."

Well she did distrbute and tha tis the only thing she was sinlged out for. Thousands of individuals have been sued for uplaoding yet not one for downloading.

Meet John Doe
The RIAA runs its lawsuits as a volume business, and sometimes downloaders just gotta settle
by Nick Mamatas
March 7th, 2005 2:05 PM


# Stealing Music Back From the Man
fluxblog.org; coolout.blogspot.com; cocaineblunts.com
By Julian Dibbell
Of the millions of people who illegally download free music using various peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, only about 8,400 have been sued by the recording industry—including, last month, an 83-year-old dead woman from West Virginia. Those odds seem pretty good, until it happens to you. This past October, my former Internet provider alerted me that they had been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of its member labels with the demand to turn over the names and addresses of 100 "John Does" that the RIAA had detected downloading music. The RIAA is now appealing an 8th Circuit Court decision, which ruled that Internet services providers don't have to reveal names of customers who have not yet been sued.

-------------------------------------snip-------------------------------

12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading
Tuesday, September 09, 2003


NEW YORK — The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers — including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun.

Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.

"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.

"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"

The Recording Industry Association of America (search) — a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits — couldn't answer that question.

"We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.

Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."

---------------------snip---------------------------------------

Sued for Downloading Music?
Last month, the RIAA announced in this press release that it was serious about taking legal action against individuals who illegally download copyrighted music. The statement immediately set off a firestorm of media coverage featuring provocative illustrations of teenagers in police line-ups and behind bars. The RIAA has already filed suit against many university students, some of whom settled out of court with large fines (read more). Now popular peer-to-peer technology is being upgraded to "block" the RIAA's scans (read more). What will it all come to?

---------------------------snip-----------------------------------

how is it possible for them to catch someone who downloads/shares these music files?

Your internet [IP] address is displayed somewhere in most P2P programs for one, another is that anyone with a 'packet sniffer' can feret out the addresses of the sender and the reciever of any data packet that is being sent over the internet................

dufas the reason why other posters are laughing at you is yo simply dont understand the basic terminology.

NO ONE has ever been sued or forced to settle for downloading in the US.

There is NO SUCH offences.

You are quoting articles where people have been sued for uploading

Your internet [IP] address is displayed somewhere in most P2P programs for one, another is that anyone with a 'packet sniffer' can feret out the addresses of the sender and the reciever of any data packet that is being sent over the internet.

Incorrect use of terminology. mu guess is you have no idea what you are talking about.

Packet sniffers for receivers are meaningless and not legal proof in any court.

dufas said:

Actually, it is illegal to record the radio and TV signal. The Betamax court case stipulated that while recording of the air waves was stealing,

not what betamax said.

If you would have used the complete statment, you comment would not have made any sense.

A court's stipulation or an opinian is not the same as a court decision. A decision is what makes up the court's verdict. A stipulation or an opinian is what a judiciary body includes in thier verdicts to explain how they arrive at a particlar decision..

The court's opinion was that recording was the same as stealing but did not do anything about it because the betamax had so many other uses. They equated that opinion to the automobile that is used in bank robberies but since the automobile had many other uses, they would/could not make the use of an automobile illegal..

A more severe case would be in the case of one person killing another. Killing another person is illegal, yet the court can 'stipulate' that the person acted in self defense or it was an accident and therefore render a verdict of not guilty of murder or manslaughter even though the person did in fact kill another person.

S2K................


"dufas the reason why other posters are laughing at you is yo simply dont understand the basic terminology."

.....The only one laughing is you and you do not know what your talking about................

"NO ONE has ever been sued or forced to settle for downloading in the US.

There is NO SUCH offences."

....You had better do some more checking.......

"You are quoting articles where people have been sued for uploading"

...........Someone will have to replace 'downloading' in all those articles with 'uploading' to make you feel better.......



"Your internet [IP] address is displayed somewhere in most P2P programs for one, another is that anyone with a 'packet sniffer' can feret out the addresses of the sender and the reciever of any data packet that is being sent over the internet.

Incorrect use of terminology. mu guess is you have no idea what you are talking about."

...........IP stands for Internet Provider...Most P2P programs will show a list of IP connections. Maybe you haven't checked in the advanced area of your P2P program The RIAA and the MPAA can and has stated that this is one of the areas where they obtain internet addresses. Most of the time, they do not get the exact address of the person 'downloading' a file and that is why they are trying to supeonae the records of internet providers in order to zero in on a suspect............

"Packet sniffers for receivers are meaningless and not legal proof in any court."

......Packet sniffers can show the exact location of someone's internet connection and while it is 'iffy' evidence in a criminal case and up to a judge to decide, the evidence can be used in a law suit which is not so stringent in the type of evidence or how it was aquired....

....You must be a 12 year old kid or an RIAA or MPAA stooge or sleep with one of them...........

Nah Dufas,

Look at yor posts, you keep insisting that people have been sued for downloading when everyone here knows that this is not happening and can't happen. It shows you have skims some material, mostly from the RIAA and MPAA and assume it to be true when it is false.

You also don't understand the basics of the Betamax, Nand are compeltly misunderstanding it.

NOw you accuse me of workign for th eRIAA? how childinsh. You are the one parroting their line that they are suing downloaders, -which is false, and a technical and legal impossiblity.