RIAA to Sue Internet Song Swappers

[JesFine]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=582&ncid=582&e=1&u=/nm/20030625/wr_nm/tech_music_dc

The Recording Industry Association of America said it hopes to curb online song-swapping by tracking down the heaviest users of popular "peer to peer" services like Kazaa and suing them for damages that could range up to $150,000 per violation.
...
Starting on Thursday, investigators will track down users who make their digital-music collections available for copying, he said. Those who download songs but do not allow others to copy them will not initially be targeted.


In the past the companies sued the Kazaa's and the Napsters of the world. But this is the first time they will actually sue users and potential customers.

Isn't this a pretty blatant violation of the Constitution? I don't see how they can do this.

Even if we disregard the Constitution (more and more common these days?), this can't help the RIAA's business in the long run.

This bugs me.

[Thumper]

What is a violation of the constitution?

The fact that a person posts their music so others can copy it?

[svero]

You know it's hard to feel sorry for an industry which has used so many underhanded tactics to maintain it's stranglehold on distribution, and produces little or nothing of value anymore. On top of that they stick us everytime we buy a blank cd or tape with ******** hidden taxes that most people don't even know are there. Radio stations are basically just big commercials. Slumping sales? Look at 10 years of acts researched and generated by corporations using looks as a measuring stick instead of musical talent before looking at song swappers. I won't weep for the RIAA when it goes the way of the dodo.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Thumper
What is a violation of the constitution?

The fact that a person posts their music so others can copy it?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
They are using some nebulous "scanning software" to determine the "worst offenders". Who knows what the software scans for, and who knows how they determine who are the worst offenders. That is unreasonable.

Also, there are millions of people who use these file-sharing utilities. Are they going to search millions of people's computers? Also unreasonable.

I agree with svero. This will hurt the RIAA more than it helps.

[Cain]

This will hurt the RIAA more than it helps.

The RIAA is a dying cartel. The five or so major corporations that control all our music are less popular than oil companies. They pretending what we think of them long ago.

[Thumper]

Ummmmmm...

Correct me if Im wrong, but the constitution only applies to the federal government. Any extension of these constitutional laws must be specified explicitly. (cf Amendment X)

[American]

All they have to do to stop song swapping is reveal the names of people who do it and the embarrassing titles that they download.

Like if they ever found an MP3 of Madonna's "Lucky Star" on my computer, I'd probably have to move to Russia before my friends found out. Hypothetically.

[John Harrison]

Also, there are millions of people who use these file-sharing utilities. Are they going to search millions of people's computers? Also unreasonable.


Unreasonable? Isn't copyright violation also unreasonable?

You know it's hard to feel sorry for an industry which has used so many underhanded tactics to maintain it's stranglehold on distribution, and produces little or nothing of value anymore.

Doesn't make it right, though. The best way to make them change would be for everyone to not buy any CDs for a few months. Bet they would change real quick.

[Boo]

Kazaa rates it users by the number of files they download or share. The more you log on and open your drive to others and swap the better your rating. Kazaa also allows for the swapping of games and software apps. I wonder who else might be a silent party to this and is using RIAA as a front man.



Boo

PS Thanks for the heads up. :D

[svero]

Originally posted by John Harrison

Doesn't make it right, though. The best way to make them change would be for everyone to not buy any CDs for a few months. Bet they would change real quick.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the need for intellectual copyright protection. I do have a slight feeling that to some extent two wrongs make a right though. Consumers have been taking it up the butt from these companies for some time now. I bought a CD recently. Cost me close to 30$ - Totally ridicuous. The thing is, in this case I don't think the RIAA is really looking to protect copyrights or musicians etc... as they claim. What they're looking to protect is essentially the true key to their wealth, which is their monopoly on music distribution, which allows them to screw consumers and charge whatever they want without fear of true competition. Why shouldn't consumers be allowed to fight back to some extent if the govt only protects the record companies and doesn't protect consumers from unfair business practices? If the RIAA were smart they'd realize that their time is up on this thing and try to embrace the new technology rather than fight it. An example of what I mean is when MP3.COM started allowing consumers to download songs they'd actually purchased so they wouldn't have to wait for the CD to arrive. The RIAA put a stop to that as quickly as they could. Why? They were selling the CD's weren't they? It was the distribution mechanism that was threatened.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Thumper
Ummmmmm...

Correct me if Im wrong, but the constitution only applies to the federal government. Any extension of these constitutional laws must be specified explicitly. (cf Amendment X)

Are you saying I'm only protected from search and seizure if the federal government wants to do it? Private citizens can search and seize me all they want? I think not. The RIAA still can't violate this even if they are not the feds.

Originally posted by Thumper
Unreasonable? Isn't copyright violation also unreasonable?
Yes, but isn't the usual course of action for a copyright violation to issue a cease and desist? Not a full blown lawsuit?

We also don't know how this "snooping software" works. What would happen if I make a bunch of files with fake names "Lucky Star.mp3" (not that anyone would have that one, right American?), etc. and then I get sued? I'll tell you what: I would countersue the living bleep out of the RIAA hand hopefully put them out of business. In fact, that might be good. A little civil disobedience never hurt nobody.

I am not a lawyer, nor a constitutional specialist (whatever that's called), so I don't know if this is legal. I can't imagine it is. I do know that I hate the big brother aspect of this and I do know that this will cause a huge backlash.

[John Harrison]

Why shouldn't consumers be allowed to fight back to some extent if the govt only protects the record companies and doesn't protect consumers from unfair business practices?
They can fight back. They can decide to not purchase the product. Complaining that the product is overpriced is no excuse for stealing, especially when it is a luxury item such as entertainment.

If the RIAA were smart they'd realize that their time is up on this thing and try to embrace the new technology rather than fight it.
I agree.

I saw a post by someone on another board last year that captured the situation quite well:

The studios believe that piracy is hurting their sales. And they do have a point. I mean, why would you steal something if you did not want it? If people want it, why are they not buying it? Because it is 'easy' and 'risk free' to steal it? How to combat things then.. but trying to curb those who are stealing.

On the other side is the consumer. Many actually do not like much of the music being produced. Their voice would be much louder if not for the fact that literally millions are actively participating in the illegal distribution of material (including alot of new music). This only reinforces the studio views that they have a valuable product, and that the core solution is to minimize the ease and low-risk aspect of music piracy.

Unfortunately, people who would like to see more great music produced are the losers in this game. The juvenile activities of many who decry the industry while illegally consuming the product reinforce the egocentric view of the studios that their content is not the problem.

The answer? Who knows. But if piracy was not such a rampant force in randomizing any underlying issue, perhaps paying consumers would better be heard and studios would be in a better position to respond.

[svero]

Originally posted by John Harrison

They can fight back. They can decide to not purchase the product. Complaining that the product is overpriced is no excuse for stealing, especially when it is a luxury item such as entertainment.


But at the end of the day, with only one choice given, there will always be enough consumers to keep the monopoly going. Controls are put into place and they aren't that easily side-stepped. To me it's a little like Canada where there's one phone company. If I don't like the practices of Bell telephone so I can opt-out right? I can't switch to another phone Co. It's not as much of a luxury item as music is, but I think the same lack of choice and the way music is commercialized reduces it to a similar scenario. Ideologically I get what you're saying, but in practice the way the market is controlled leaves consumers with few choices. Besides, when I buy a blank audio casette do I have a choice to pay or not pay the record companies? No I don't. And that has nothing to do with copyrights. (at least if you listen to me and not them) So they play unfair and consumers play unfair. If they want people to respect their right to property they should have to do likewise.

[John Harrison]

Yes, but isn't the usual course of action for a copyright violation to issue a cease and desist? Not a full blown lawsuit?

To be honest I don't know. If you are more familiar with copyright law please set me straight, although I don't see the problem of suing individuals that are violating copyright law.

We also don't know how this "snooping software" works. What would happen if I make a bunch of files with fake names "Lucky Star.mp3" (not that anyone would have that one, right American?), etc. and then I get sued? I'll tell you what: I would countersue the living bleep out of the RIAA hand hopefully put them out of business. In fact, that might be good. A little civil disobedience never hurt nobody.


Lot's of "what if's" and ranting against the man here. The only relevant point is about how the software works. I'm curious as well.

I do know that I hate the big brother aspect of this and I do know that this will cause a huge backlash.

What kind of backlash? Would people start stealing musi... oh wait, they're already doing that.

[John Harrison]

But at the end of the day, with only one choice given, there will always be enough consumers to keep the monopoly going.

But that's not one choice. There is still a choice to not buy. Perhaps the issue should be why some people are willing to pay through the nose for CDs.

Ideologically I get what you're saying, but in practice the way the market is controlled leaves consumers with few choices.

Yep. You get 2 => Purchase or Do Not Purchase

A luxury good that is overpriced is no excuse for theft.

As far as expensive blank CDs - Where I live they are practically free. How much do they cost in your neck of the woods?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by JesFine
In the past the companies sued the Kazaa's and the Napsters of the world. But this is the first time they will actually sue users and potential customers.

Isn't this a pretty blatant violation of the Constitution? I don't see how they can do this.

Even if we disregard the Constitution (more and more common these days?), this can't help the RIAA's business in the long run.

This bugs me.

What are you, like 12 years old?

Blatant violation of the Constitution? What, you mean suing people who are breaking the law?

Why does this bug you?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by svero
You know it's hard to feel sorry for an industry which has used so many underhanded tactics to maintain it's stranglehold on distribution, and produces little or nothing of value anymore. On top of that they stick us everytime we buy a blank cd or tape with ******** hidden taxes that most people don't even know are there. Radio stations are basically just big commercials. Slumping sales? Look at 10 years of acts researched and generated by corporations using looks as a measuring stick instead of musical talent before looking at song swappers. I won't weep for the RIAA when it goes the way of the dodo.

So if their product is such crap, why do you steal it?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by svero

I bought a CD recently. Cost me close to 30$ - Totally ridicuous.

So if you feel something is over priced, that gives you the right to steal it? Cool!! I think Ferarri's are over priced. Gonna get me one tomorrow!!

[svero]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


So if their product is such crap, why do you steal it?

I never said I did although I can see why you'd come to that conclusion. As someone who makes a living selling intellectual property I'm pretty straight and narrow when it comes to how I live my life.

My point wasn't so much that I advocate file swapping, as that I don't particularly feel much sympathy or empathy for the RIAA who IMHO are the last people who should be taking any moral highground. I find their business practices to be dishonest. How badly would you feel for someone that just stole a tv set only to have it robbed from them? Personally I can't shed a tear.

As for the product itself... there's still a few good things here and there, but yeah the quality has pretty much been reduced to a point where it's not worth stealing it. I recently visited a CD shop and the only thing of any value was some old led zepplin recordings they re-released. Stinks of desperation. They have nothing. I actually kind of doubt that file swapping really hurts their sales. I think sales are down because they've mismanaged their businesses. They should get back into the music business some day.

[svero]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


So if you feel something is over priced, that gives you the right to steal it? Cool!! I think Ferarri's are over priced. Gonna get me one tomorrow!!

What if all cars were 1000% overpriced? Now you have a new choice. Walk 30 miles to work every day or buy one even though you know you're being gouged. That's more akin to the scenario at hand.

[svero]

Originally posted by John Harrison

As far as expensive blank CDs - Where I live they are practically free. How much do they cost in your neck of the woods?

I don't care if they cost 1 cent each. I don't think it's the govts busniess to collect money for record companies on my blank cd purchases ever no matter how much is collected.

[karl]

Originally posted by svero

What if all cars were 1000% overpriced? Now you have a new choice. Walk 30 miles to work every day or buy one even though you know you're being gouged. That's more akin to the scenario at hand.

I don't see how you could possibly believe this, unless you've got some strange addiction to music that can only be satisfied by specific new CDs. Please explain why you need music so badly that only being able to listen to it on the radio is akin to having to walk 30 miles to work every day.

[svero]

Originally posted by karl


I don't see how you could possibly believe this, unless you've got some strange addiction to music that can only be satisfied by specific new CDs. Please explain why you need music so badly that only being able to listen to it on the radio is akin to having to walk 30 miles to work every day.

Well the comparison is to say that while you never actually *need* music, in that it's a luxury item, there are times where you like some music enough that you really want it and you're willing to pay even though you know you're being ripped off. It doesn't need to be 30 miles which is a little excessive... say 5 miles even. There will be enough people willing to pay.

The problem here is that the market is sown up in a way that as a consumer you have little or no choices. You can either pay for it and have it or not have it. That's the choice. You never have the option of a cheaper or better car because the manufacturers have arranged the market in such a way that nobody else can get in and charge a resaonable price or present an alternative like a more comfortable or fuel economic car. The over-inflated price comes from the fact that the market has a quasi monopoly/cartel structure, not from the fact that cd's or cars are expensive to produce.

The guy working in my example doesn't really need a car, but at some point he may want one enough to buy one anyway, even though he knows he's being ripped off. In practice, as I've said, there will always be enough consumers to keep the cartel structure in place so merely voting with your dollar isn't enough to give consumers a fair shake.

Anyway.. that's basically my view of music companies. They're a cartel, and they use price fixing strategies to undermine normal competition. I think they use other questionable business practices in a number of ways like lobbying and legal tactics to introduce questionable controls that benefit them relative to consumers and artists. I think they're thieves basically, which is why I find it ironic that they should now be crying fowl when someone is stealing from them. I can't really defend music swapping on it's own. It's indefensible, but again, I don't really feel that badly for the RIAA. On some level I can't help but be pleased to see things turned around on them a little for a change.

[Tmy]

Its a bluff by the RIAA. They wnat to make a few examples in order to scare people. Do you know how hard and costly it woudl be to prove the theft.

And how do they figure $150,000 in damages per violation????

[Mike B.]

I am always amazed at the mental gymnastics (nobody on this thread) used by those who copy these files to justify what they do.

[Tmy]

Yeah, the best excuse is that "music is to expensive".

Downloading music is criminal. You know what this means. White people are responsible for most of the crime in this country!!!

Sorry I couldnt resist.

[karl]

Originally posted by svero

The problem here is that the market is sown up in a way that as a consumer you have little or no choices. You can either pay for it and have it or not have it. That's the choice. You never have the option of a cheaper or better car because the manufacturers have arranged the market in such a way that nobody else can get in and charge a resaonable price or present an alternative like a more comfortable or fuel economic car. The over-inflated price comes from the fact that the market has a quasi monopoly/cartel structure, not from the fact that cd's or cars are expensive to produce.


Just to present a different view here -- the way I see things, the market is merely the sum of all consumer actions. They can't "arrange" it or control it. All they can do is take advantage of the fact that, as a whole, consumers are lazy, stupid, inflexible, uninformed and short-sighted. That's the basic principle behind all monopolies that aren't required by law. You have the market and prices you deserve.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by John Harrison

To be honest I don't know. If you are more familiar with copyright law please set me straight, although I don't see the problem of suing individuals that are violating copyright law.
Nope. I don't know either. I am basing this on icidences I have seen (second hand) in the past where, for example, someone has some Homer Simpson sound files on their website, and fox sends them a letter asking them to take it down.

Lot's of "what if's" and ranting against the man here. The only relevant point is about how the software works. I'm curious as well.
Yep. I agree. Until I see how it works, I will continue ranting too.

What kind of backlash? Would people start stealing musi... oh wait, they're already doing that.
No. People will stop buying music. Has there ever been a case where suing the customers made any business sense?

There is no study to back this up, but then again, I don't see how you would implement one, but every indication I see is that most people use Kazaa and it's kin to a)Find music that is hard/impossible to find elsewhere, b)Try out music that they wouldn't have listened to otherwise, and c)Legitimate/Illegitimate non-music uses.

I would contend that c) is the most criminal act that the file-sharing utilities are being used for -- copying software specifically. The music is a non-issue. People that download music will buy the CD if they like it, unless they are in the "not a lot of disposable income" class, in which case they wouldn't have purchased the CD anyway. Doesn't excuse it, but in that sense it is not costing the RIAA anything.

Anyway, I know at least one person who this has already affected. I was talking to my friend about this the other day and he said he was about to go buy a White Stripes CD after he downloaded a couple of songs. Now he isn't. I believe his exact words were "bleep the RIAA". I told him to at least check to make sure the White Stripes label is even a member of the RIAA, but who knows if he will or if he would have had I not said anything. The backlash could affect all record labels, not just the RIAA.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
What are you, like 12 years old?
"Good". I am "glad" you posted this. It was "intelligent" and "witty". It really "added" to the conversation. I "look forward" to reading more of your "insights".
Blatant violation of the Constitution? What, you mean suing people who are breaking the law?
As I said, I am referring to the unreasonable search aspect of it. Please read before posting.
Why does this bug you?
As I said before the big brother aspect is the most irksome. I have no idea what the RIAA SnoopingSoftware(tm) consists of, but I do know that the RIAA has a history of using their power/money and influence to push legislation through that is iffy at best. And now I'm supposed to just smile and wave as they are granted access to my hard drive?

I have no idea what this software is. Maybe it is benign. I would love to find out, but I can't, and I have been looking since yesterday. If somebody can point it out to me, and it turns out to be harmless, maybe I will soften (a little). Until then bleep the RIAA.

[John Harrison]

No. People will stop buying music. Has there ever been a case where suing the customers made any business sense?

Two points on this: 1) If people stop buying music => This is good, since the best way to get the RIAA to change is to hit them in the wallet. 2) It makes perfect business sense to sue your customers if they are stealing from you.

Find music that is hard/impossible to find elsewhere

You mean you can't mail order music from pretty much anywhere? Cite?

People that download music will buy the CD if they like it[/b]

In this case, would you support downloads that would expire after a pre-set time limit, a sort of "try before you buy" type of thing?

[quote]Anyway, I know at least one person who this has already affected. I was talking to my friend about this the other day and he said he was about to go buy a White Stripes CD after he downloaded a couple of songs. Now he isn't. I believe his exact words were "bleep the RIAA". I told him to at least check to make sure the White Stripes label is even a member of the RIAA, but who knows if he will or if he would have had I not said anything. The backlash could affect all record labels, not just the RIAA.

This is the perfect way to get the industry to change.

And now I'm supposed to just smile and wave as they are granted access to my hard drive?


I thought this was specifically aimed at people that are publically sharing copyrighted material on the internet, so aren't these people already granting access to the general public?

[Thumper]

Originally posted by JesFine


Are you saying I'm only protected from search and seizure if the federal government wants to do it? Private citizens can search and seize me all they want? I think not. The RIAA still can't violate this even if they are not the feds.

In the private sector, search and seizure is called breaking and entering. It is not illegal according to the constitution. The constitution ONLY sets limits on the federal government (and a few limits on state government). State constitutions set limits on state government. Neither sets limits on what private citizens can do.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by John Harrison
You mean you can't mail order music from pretty much anywhere? Cite?
For my parents 40th wedding anniversary party last fall I made cd's of the top 100 songs of 1962. (http://top40.about.com/library/weekly/aa1962a.htm) Just try finding many of those for sale anywhere! Probably would have had to buy 10 songs for every 1 I needed. In fact, if I had to buy them I wouldn't have even bothered. So did the industry "lose" $ because of this? BTW, this is the only time I downloaded music illegally.

The RIAA is a dying animal making it's last desperate gasp to stay alive. It won't work, as technology has allowed artists to cut out the middle men (RIAA) who coerce (very close to stealing!) them to sign over the rights (publishing, mechanical, copyrights, etc.) to the music they create in order to get recorded and promoted.

The RIAA even convinced Congress to tax blank media w/ the proceeds going to the RIAA. I do live recordings of bands as my hobby, many bands allow this. (http://btat.wagnerone.com/search.php?oneClick=1) But if I legally record a Wilco (http://www.wilcoworld.net/) concert part of the price I pay for the DAT tape goes to the RIAA - insane! Fortunately, DDS tapes are interchangable w/ DATs and are not subject to the tax, so I buy those and save the $ that would otherwise go to the RIAA. If you've ever wondered why computer grade cdr's are so much cheaper then the "audio use" cdr's it's because of the RIAA tax.

The RIAA is about as unsympathetic a "victim" as can be, their latest action will make them only more so.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by svero


What if all cars were 1000% overpriced? Now you have a new choice. Walk 30 miles to work every day or buy one even though you know you're being gouged. That's more akin to the scenario at hand.

But that is not your call to make. Taking something that is for sale without paying for it is stealing. And besides, CD's aren't exactly one of lifes necessities, so if you fell they are over priced, don't buy them!

And sorry for implying above that you were on of the theives. I to am in the intellectual property field, and so this hits close to home.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yeah, the best excuse is that "music is to expensive".

Downloading music is criminal. You know what this means. White people are responsible for most of the crime in this country!!!

Sorry I couldnt resist.

LOL!!! Good point!! :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tmy
And how do they figure $150,000 in damages per violation????

I suspect the figure is set by copyright law.

[svero]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


But that is not your call to make. Taking something that is for sale without paying for it is stealing. And besides, CD's aren't exactly one of lifes necessities, so if you fell they are over priced, don't buy them!


Well -- I agree with you on this point, and as I said above it's pretty much impossible to actually defend song swapping itself.

But at the same time when it comes to the RIAA I just feel like it's the pot calling the kettle black. I really do believe that they're dishonest.

Anyway what you're saying above is basically, if the RIAA has managed to form a cartel and price all music unfairly, then society should just do without music altogether to eliminate them. But let's suppose that in terms of group mentality I'm right, and that that simply isn't going to happen. The RIAA are smart enough to not price cd's at 1000$ where practically nobody would buy them. If swapping hurts the RIAA and it is going to result in their downfall... well maybe that's a good thing. Maybe two wrongs do make a right. Consumer self protection taking a form it can't at retail?

[Mauler]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a bluff by the RIAA. They wnat to make a few examples in order to scare people. Do you know how hard and costly it woudl be to prove the theft.

And how do they figure $150,000 in damages per violation????

It's a civil case so the burden of proof is lower than that of a criminal case. The 150K is the maximum they could get per violation.

From : http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by John Harrison
Two points on this: 1) If people stop buying music => This is good, since the best way to get the RIAA to change is to hit them in the wallet. 2) It makes perfect business sense to sue your customers if they are [b]stealing from you.

1)I agree, but check out *this* scenario. Now what happens in 2004 when people boycott the RIAA and sales go down. RIAA starts screaming about their sales losses and get more powers to invade our privacy. Why not?
2)Well ultimately, "business sense" is determined by how much business you can drum up. This will turn away business and thus my "no business sense" comment.
You mean you can't mail order music from pretty much anywhere? Cite?
What WildCat said above. Also, I was thinking of the little known artists who have a smaller ability to distribute. Local acts, etc.
This is the perfect way to get the industry to change.
Hopefully. But you would have thought the industry would have changed once they saw the potential the internet provided and they didn't. I don't think they'll change. I think if they would have hopped on the p2p bandwagon early, and provided quality online music sales, single song sales, and maybe some kind of song "tryout" downloads, this would not be an issue today. It is too late now to know if this is true.
I thought this was specifically aimed at people that are publically sharing copyrighted material on the internet, so aren't these people already granting access to the general public?
This is exactly what I don't know, and this is exactly what the RIAA is specifically keeping secret, and this is exactly what bugs me the most.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Thumper


In the private sector, search and seizure is called breaking and entering. It is not illegal according to the constitution. The constitution ONLY sets limits on the federal government (and a few limits on state government). State constitutions set limits on state government. Neither sets limits on what private citizens can do.
I believe while technically true, this is a bit pedantic. I mean technically copyright infringment is not stealing, but that doesn't stop people from using that term. I tell you what: I will stop calling this Unconstitutional once the RIAA stops calling copyright infringement "stealing". Deal?

[BobK]

Originally posted by JesFine

I believe while technically true, this is a bit pedantic. I mean technically copyright infringment is not stealing, but that doesn't stop people from using that term. I tell you what: I will stop calling this Unconstitutional once the RIAA stops calling copyright infringement "stealing". Deal?
Actually Jes I believe there's nothing technical about it.

I believe getting caught stealing you go to criminal court, while with copywrite infringement you go to civil court.

Seems like quite a difference to me.

Maybe one of the legal eagles here could confirm this?

[Mauler]

For most actions there are civil and criminal actions that could be brought. Copyright infringment is no different.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html

Civil cases are just easier to prove. There is also a possibility that the RIAA could gather the evidence, win a civil case, and then hand the evidence over to the government for criminal action.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by JesFine
1)I agree, but check out *this* scenario. Now what happens in 2004 when people boycott the RIAA and sales go down. RIAA starts screaming about their sales losses and get more powers to invade our privacy. Why not?

You are assuming that if their sales go down it automatically means that their music is being stolen. A boycott means that people stop buying music. I fail to see how the RIAA can tie this to the need to invade privacy.

2)Well ultimately, "business sense" is determined by how much business you can drum up. This will turn away business and thus my "no business sense" comment.

I see. Good for us, though.

What WildCat said above. Also, I was thinking of the little known artists who have a smaller ability to distribute. Local acts, etc.

Thanks. That is a problem. I don't know the solution, but it still is no excuse for theft.

Hopefully. But you would have thought the industry would have changed once they saw the potential the internet provided and they didn't. I don't think they'll change. I think if they would have hopped on the p2p bandwagon early, and provided quality online music sales, single song sales, and maybe some kind of song "tryout" downloads, this would not be an issue today. It is too late now to know if this is true.

Why is it too late?

This is exactly what I don't know, and this is exactly what the RIAA is specifically keeping secret, and this is exactly what bugs me the most.

It's quite simple. People put copyrighted material on their hard drives, then share their hard drives on the internet to allow other people to copy the material. They do not have permission from the copyright holder to do this.