OT: RIAA and Their Law Suits [Archive]

View Full Version : OT: RIAA and Their Law Suits

Atrocities

September 14th, 2003, 01:15 AM

For the record, I do not Subscribe to or believe in the swapping of music that you do not own or have not purchased. I own all the music on my computer and have the CD's to prove it.

With that said, I read this post made by someone at another site that I thought was interestingly silly.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A day after being sued for illegally sharing music files through the Internet, a 12-year-old girl has settled with the Recording Industry Association of America.

She's the first of 261 defendants to settle their lawsuits with the association.

Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared. Forgive me for saying this, but WTF are they doing? Taking the money from a 12 year old girl and her elderly grandmother?

Music is broadcast over the open air and can be copied. IMHO it is not software and should not fall under the catagory of piracy to download. If they play it over the radio for free, then it is "free."

"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service. I love music to and could understand that if a person could not find many of the songs they enjoy at a record store or an on line music shop, they might be drawn to download them.

If I were to download a song I would want to pay for it so I knew it was ok. But there are very few sites that can accomodate that desire. The RIAA will sue any one with a MP3 song on their computer regardless of wether or not it was bough legal or not. So these companies are selling you songs that will get you sued.

The RIAA said it was pleased with the settlement. There are 260 cases still pending.

"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."
Hell ya they are pleased, they just punished a 12 year old girl and her elderly grandmother who are barely making it. Way to go RIAA!

Monday, RIAA filed lawsuits against 261 individual Internet music file-sharers and announced an amnesty program for most people who admit they illegally shared music files through the Internet. The amnesty would only offer protection for songs represented by the RIAA and not from publishers, musicians or others with rights to songs. I say sue the radio stations as well. Hell they are playing the music for FREE!

Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, said the civil lawsuits were filed against "major offenders" who made available an average of 1,000 copyright song files. Mostly songs that are out of print and can not be bought at a record store or an on line music shop.

Record companies blame illegal music file-trading for a 31-percent fall in compact disc sales since mid-2000.Um hell no! The drop, if true and I am saying its an out and out lie, would be do to the fact that record companies have HIKED the price of CD's and given us utter crap in the way of new bands and songs over the Last few years!

Sherman also announced the Clean Slate Program that grants amnesty to Users who voluntarily identify themselves, erase downloaded music files and promise not to share music on the Internet. The RIAA said it will not sue Users who sign and have notarized a Clean Slate Program affidavit. Ya like I am going to ***king tell them who I am! Duh "My name is Dumb *** and I want to be sued now."

The offer of amnesty will not apply to about 1,600 people targeted by copyright subpoenas from the RIAA. The decision was made a few weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings mandated that Internet providers turn over the names of Subscribers believed to be sharing music and movies illegally.
I strongly suggest that g that you employ a similar tactic in your virtual life - by utilizing applications that anonymize

Until now, the only music file-swapping lawsuits filed by the RIAA were against four college students accused of making thousands of songs available on campus networks. Those cases were settled for $12,500 to $17,000 each.
Because they were dumb enough to think that by being public with who they were and what they were doing would garner support for their cause and somehow protect them from the RIAA. Bad decision boys!

Sherman said Monday that the RIAA had negotiated settlements in the range of $3,000 with a "handful" of Internet Users who had learned from their Internet service providers that they were being targeted for lawsuits. The industry is also pursuing subpoenas at universities around the country seeking to identify music file traders.
Hi-way robbery!

<hr /></blockquote>Buying music on line is easy, it cost on average of about $1.00 per song. The problem is that most songs that are rare can not be found. So P2P may be a song lovers only recourse.

What the RIAA did was kinda low, suing a 12 year old girl and her grandma, but a message had to be sent. *ya right*

Pirating software is something that I am against completely. I know the arguements and all, but I have to stand firm on it. Developers, except for MS, make very little on their work while it is popular and even less on when it is no longer popular. I do believe that the poster had a point when he said music is played for FREE on the radio and any one can copy it. YEs that is true, but it is also illegal. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Radio Station have to pay a licensing fee to use music. It is all inclusive and such and cost about 100k a year per station.

I would like to see more on line music stores that allow people to make there own albums filled with music they love for a reasonable price. A buck a song is not bad, but if you do the math, it is very costly over the long run.

The cost should be more reasonable and there should be in place a method to authenticate that you bought the song so you do not get sued for having illegal MP3's on your computer.

[ September 14, 2003, 00:20: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Cyrien

September 14th, 2003, 04:02 AM

My own views on this are mixed.

However I do believe that the RIAA is fighting a losing battle. Modern security and encrytion methods are available that can stump the NSA and CIA. Once advanced encryption becomes widespread it will become impossible for anyone to crack down on it.

Quite simply the old business model and crime prevention models for these people are dead. Instead of trying to bring it back to life they need to move on and come up with something else that will still let them make money. What is that? I don't know. It isn't my industry. Anonymous and encrypted peer to peer file sharing will spell the end for several standard business models in easily movable data. Primarily music, movies and games... Why not books? Simple. Most people still prefer a solid hard cover that they can easily carry around. Why E-books still aren't that popular. Maybe in time it applies to them as well.

PS: Last I checked the number of peer to peer music/movie pirates was estimated at several million not several hundred, in the US alone. The real damage isn't being done by a few people offering a lot of files it is by a lot of people offering a few.
If the RIAA even tried to sue several million people assuming they could make that list and track em down they would bankrupt themselves in the effort alone. Imagine the legal costs! Imagine the firestorm of bad PR! Oooo boy.

Try it out. Download E-mule or some such, connect and use the built in search feature to search for whatever movie/game/music you can think of. I bet you find it, despite 200+ people offering thousands of files for download being forced to stop.

PS: Please note that the RIAA amnesty offer only applies to lawsuits they themselves would enter into. It does not say that they won't give your name upto some other interested party and that that party won't sue you. BEWARE!!!

[ September 14, 2003, 03:06: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Fyron

September 14th, 2003, 04:06 AM

128 KB encryption is the standard now, and it is a tough nut to crack. Wait til 1024 KB or higher encryption comes out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Atrocities

September 14th, 2003, 04:18 AM

The RIAA is most devious!

narf poit chez BOOM

September 14th, 2003, 04:22 AM

incryption could be used to show that you bought the song, if you bought a download.

[ September 14, 2003, 03:22: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

September 14th, 2003, 04:51 AM

Yes, and it could be used to remain completely anonymous... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Baron Munchausen

September 14th, 2003, 05:06 AM

Cyrien:

This loophole in the RIAA amnesty has been pointed out by many others, and there have actually been lawsuits filed against RIAA for this 'amnesty' tactic, claiming it is a form of entrapment....

I wonder how many people have been paying enough attention to the news to notice their cynical lobbying tactics, as well. They've had lobbyists before congressional committees claiming that P2P networks are supporting terrorism in hopes of stampeding lawmakers into some extreme action to shut them down. Most recently thay've been shouting about all the p0rn available in P2P and the lack of controls to prevent children getting access to it. As if kids need to go to P2P if they want p0rn? How many ordinary middle-class dads (erm, or moms... 60 percent of Playboy Subscribers are female... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) lock up their Playboy magazines? And how many 14-year-olds can't get p0rn from 16-year-olds, who got it from 18-year-olds? But they'll try anything. I'm sure they'll start screaming about the evil 'bomb making information' available on P2P networks or something else like that soon...

Baron Munchausen

September 14th, 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes, and it could be used to remain completely anonymous... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There are open discussions in Slashdot stories covering the current RIAA legal maneuavers about completely "blacked-out" P2P networks that trade a constant flow of encrypted fake data so you can't even tell how much traffic any one site is carrying let alone what files are being moved. And also discussions of preventing any one site from having to serve all of a given file, further obfuscating the actual data being traded and creating some difficult issues of 'legal liability' for the copyright hounds. If this is already being discussed in the open, there's a lot of work already underway in the quiet corners of the 'hacker' community. There will be a new generation of P2P applications coming out, probably within months, that will give RIAA nightmares. They really cannot win.

[ September 14, 2003, 04:13: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Suicide Junkie

September 14th, 2003, 05:45 AM

I do believe that the poster had a point when he said music is played for FREE on the radio and any one can copy it. YEs that is true, but it is also illegal. You can tape TV shows with that handy-dandy VCR, no prob. You can record the radio station with your cassette tape.

The only difference is the format you've saved it to. Everything is fine with analog recordings, but "digital" is the boogeyman.

Without the internet, it would be a non-issue I'm sure.

Fyron

September 14th, 2003, 05:51 AM

Yeah, cause those digital bits are just EVIL!

narf poit chez BOOM

September 14th, 2003, 06:08 AM

well, people are just going to have to learn self-control.

either that, or with technology quickly outstripping common sense, where going to destoy ourselves.

Atrocities

September 14th, 2003, 06:26 AM

Look at all of the artist that got nothing for their work in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and yes even into the 90's because of crooked record companies. They claim they are doing this for the artists. Bull ****!. They are doing this because there is a market on the internet and the first step to controlling a market is to surpress it, regulate it, and then manage it. Its all about the all might golden dollar.

If artists were the issue I'd say hell ya, pay to download, but its not. The artist get next to nil for each record they sell. Something on the order of 11 cents per disk if they are lucky.

"Music is broadcast for free. Books, and software are not. Movies are not. Although TV does air movies, we all know that thay are hacked to crap and full of commericals."

"New music should be free from P2P for a period of a year or so. Then open the gates. Embrace the P2P market and allow the industry to grow. Stop trying to scare everyone strait and use the system to make the system work."

These are true enough statements, but we all know that sooner or later we are going to be seeing P2P clients on America's Most Wanted.

Cyrien

September 14th, 2003, 08:22 AM

Court cases trying to show P2P networks as illegal, based on the availability of illegal copyrighted material, have already been heard. The court rulings all pretty much stated that the P2P networks themselves are not illegal as their is a great deal of legal material that can be obtained, thus giving P2P networks a legal footing.

In fact the current crop of law suits is arising as a direct result of the failure of the record industry to get P2P applications made illegal. Tactic A fails try tactic B. So they have two options... they can try and get a law passed that will likely be found unconstitutional as so many recent internet restricting laws have been. Next they could try and get a constitutional amendmant passed. The public outcry against anything like that would kill any attempt almost instantly. The Senate and Congress members do need to get reelected after all.

So as for P2P on Americas most wanted... I doubt it. Even so that would only solve a fraction of the problem. Look up server locations on your local P2P networks. I bet a large fraction of them are not even in the US. The other countries would have to be just as rabid about it as the US based recording industry is trying to make the US.

Quite simply I don't think it is going to work.

I think this Quote can sum up the position of the Current Record Industry quite well.

We will not go quietly into the night,
We will not vanish without a fight.

I would add the Last part... but I don't think it applies, because they won't survive or live on. Not as they are anyways.

And here is an interesting article that shows how internet downloads are very likely not at the heart of decreased music CD sales. But rather the industry itself is at fault with its bad business practices and attempts to control the industry and kill off the free internet competition, illegal or otherwise.

http://www.bricklin.com/recordsales.htm

Course those are just my opinions.

Unknown_Enemy

September 14th, 2003, 09:11 AM

I own all the music on my computer and have the CD's to prove it. You're lucky.
I don't.

And there is no way I am about to keep my long dead tape of Pink Floyd Drak side of the wall just to prove that I did buy it years ago.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

oleg

September 14th, 2003, 10:08 AM

That girl will be OK, several internet providers offered to paid her fine. It is a cheep advertisement and very good publicity for them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Will

September 14th, 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
128 KB encryption is the standard now, and it is a tough nut to crack. Wait til 1024 KB or higher encryption comes out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Fyron, that's 128-bit encryption that is the standard now. If 128KB encryption was the standard, only broadband Users would bother with transmitting encrypted data. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Although, having 131072-bit encryption would be super-duper-ultra-secure. As long as nobody else has the key, that is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Atrocities

September 15th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I own all the music on my computer and have the CD's to prove it. You're lucky.
I don't.

And there is no way I am about to keep my long dead tape of Pink Floyd Drak side of the wall just to prove that I did buy it years ago.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif <hr /></blockquote>Great now the RIAA knows who you are and will force Shrapnel to give them your user info and IP information. Then they will force your ISP to give them your personal info and by this time next week you will be looking down the barrel of a very nasty and in my opinion, wrongful lawsuit.

Been nice known ya UE.

Fyron

September 15th, 2003, 07:57 PM

The RIAA can not possibly go after even 1% of the Users that have illegal mp3s. To do so would bankrupt them with legal fees. All they can hope to do is to (what should be) illegaly acquire the personal information of major mp3 distributors and sue them. This of course will do nothing to stop piracy, as you still have millions of Users worldwide sharing a small number of mp3s each, as well as all the non-American major distributors that the RIAA can not touch.

Unless you share 10000 mp3s on a high bandwidth pipe, your chances of being sued by the RIAA are probably less than winning the lottery.

[ September 15, 2003, 18:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Erax

September 15th, 2003, 08:22 PM

I just wonder... what would happen if a small/independent recording co. started printing a small label on the back of their CDs : "We are not affiliated with RIAA. We do not support RIAA policies." Could turn out to be good advertisement.

Loser

September 15th, 2003, 08:54 PM

That's what I'm waiting for, Erax.

Fyron

September 15th, 2003, 10:17 PM

That would indeed be good advertisement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

oleg

September 15th, 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Erax:
I just wonder... what would happen if a small/independent recording co. started printing a small label on the back of their CDs : "We are not affiliated with RIAA. We do not support RIAA policies." Could turn out to be good advertisement.Well, but how can you get people to forfeit their royalties ?? We all know the modern musicians to it for money and money only. The 60s will never come back http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Loser

September 15th, 2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Erax:
I just wonder... what would happen if a small/independent recording co. started printing a small label on the back of their CDs : "We are not affiliated with RIAA. We do not support RIAA policies." Could turn out to be good advertisement.Well, but how can you get people to forfeit their royalties ?? We all know the modern musicians to it for money and money only. The 60s will never come back http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <hr /></blockquote>Why would they need to forfeit their royalties? Just because you're not affiliated with the RIAA doesn't mean you don't make money. I mean, it's not like it's some socialist state-run record company, it's just a very successful corporate bully.

Unknown_Enemy

September 16th, 2003, 12:12 AM

Great now the RIAA knows who you are and will force Shrapnel to give them your user info and IP information. Then they will force your ISP to give them your personal info and by this time next week you will be looking down the barrel of a very nasty and in my opinion, wrongful lawsuit. Yes, the RIIA is an US monster. But it seems to reproduce quickly and it is breeding new laws everywhere. At the moment the french government is playing dead on this subject as he already got his hand full. No need to alienate just another bunch of people.

But it is just a question of time. It is not "IF" but "WHEN" some dumb DMCA will be voted in France.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Atrocities

September 16th, 2003, 01:26 AM

I can see it now. The French people stand up and march in the streets and there government surrenders to them. Just like old times. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I read somewhere that the word surrender was described simply in a german WWII handbook as "French."

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Sounds true enough. j/k

[ September 16, 2003, 00:27: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Mephisto

September 16th, 2003, 01:33 AM

He is lucky, he lives in France. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Atrocities

September 16th, 2003, 01:37 AM

Regarding the RIAA, I read today in the paper that the reason they only filed some 200 lawsuits is because they can't prove anything. They went after the cases that they new would "settle" only to stir the pot and make people scared to trade music. It worked. On line uses of P2P programs have dropped off by an estimated 70% over the Last week.

The RIAA cannot prove, or identify people who trade music or movies. People can say their IP was hijacked, which can and has happened.

The article goes on to say that the RIAA is being counter sued by some rights group for placing worm viruses and spy ware on peoples computers in order to find out who they were. That the programs were "enbedded" in the data of the song and when the song was played, the spy worm program was activated. They claim that only about 200 or so of these worms actually worked and those are the people being sued.

"If this is true and accurate, as evident by the increased detection of spy ware and other privicy violating programs by anti adware programs such as Pest Patrol in many of the songs downloaded over recent months, then we do have a big problem."

If the RIAA is embedding worm virus in songs that they release into the P2P community to track and catalog P2P useres, then they should be sued. Sued into bankruptcy!

[ September 16, 2003, 00:38: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Unknown_Enemy

September 16th, 2003, 02:00 PM

I can see it now. The French people stand up and march in the streets and there government surrenders to them. Just like old times.

I read somewhere that the word surrender was described simply in a german WWII handbook as "French."

Sounds true enough. j/k ????

Mephisto

September 16th, 2003, 05:20 PM

I�m amazed that so many people think of the French as �cowards� or something like this. There are few countries with a more glorious military history. BTW, the joke with the rifle you can buy, dropped only once, is quite an old joke and originally about the Italian WWII-Army. Just FYI.

Erax

September 16th, 2003, 05:39 PM

French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, near-defeat in WWI and defeat in WWII was the result of outdated military doctrine. Which may say something about the rigid thinking of their generals but has no bearing on the prowess and courage of the individual soldier.

Ruatha

September 16th, 2003, 09:04 PM

Here in sweden it's still legal to download music from the net, to burn those on a cd and to give them to your friends, as long as there is no commercial gain.
But it's not legal to share the songs on the internet, to upload them to a server or by sharing them through p2p, only downloading and posession is legal.
There was some discussion about if this was legal or not some time ago so one of our ministers downloaded some songs, burned them to cd and gave to a friend and filed a report to the police about it, the prosecutors did an investigation and came to the conclusion that there was no law against it. (Not the same minister that was killed a week ago (Anna Lind) but another one (Margot Wallstr�m)).

The same goes for movies but not for software, downloading software is illegal.

The law will propably change soon to include movies but music will propably not be included.

[ September 16, 2003, 20:09: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Baron Munchausen

September 17th, 2003, 04:35 AM

Artists are starting to speak up:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0903/11rocked.html?urac=n&urvf=10637657236910.42777730564461625

They don't like the suits either, and they know very well this lawsuit bull**** is not for their benefit.

And Orson Scott Card, a fairly prominent Scifi/fantasy author, also knows what copyright is really about:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html

Fyron

September 17th, 2003, 08:36 AM

Strike one against RIAA:

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030916/ZNYT01/309160363

narf poit chez BOOM

September 17th, 2003, 09:35 AM

it doesn't matter if it's the wave of the future, it doesn't matter if it'd be hard to stop, it doesn't matter if the recording companies are engaging in unjust business practices, piracy is piracy and another's actions do not justify your own.

i know i normally don't take a serious stance like this, but it seems like there's to much justification going on.

dogscoff

September 17th, 2003, 12:21 PM

one of our ministers downloaded some songs, burned them to cd and gave to
Wow... most of our ministers don't even know what a computer is, let alone know how to download a bunch of crap and burn it to cd. Doesn't stop them passing laws on technical matters though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif That's half the problem- in the absence of knowledge, policy-makers rely on ppl with vested interests (ie the music companies) to explain things to them and shape the law.

Narf: I think if a law is unjust then there is no shame in breaking it. This whole "intellectual property" gig is unjust, and if we all just drop our troUsers and bend over for the sake of law and order then there will be nothing to stop big biz getting what it wants: every idea on the planet up for ransom.

tesco samoa

September 17th, 2003, 03:44 PM

Blame Canada

A desperate American recording industry is waging a fierce fight against digital copyright infringement seemingly oblivious to the fact that, for practical purposes, it lost the digital music sharing fight over five years ago. In Canada.

"On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use."

-- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision

The Copyright Board of Canada administers the Copyright Act and sets the amount of the levies on blank recording media and determines which media will have levies imposed. Five years ago this seemed like a pretty good deal for the music industry: $0.77 CDN for a blank CD and .29 a blank tape, whether used for recording music or not. Found money for the music moguls who had been pretty disturbed that some of their product was being burned onto CDs. To date over 70 million dollars has been collected through the levy and there is a good possibility the levy will be raised and extended to MP3 players, flash memory cards and recordable DVDs sometime in 2003.

While hardware vendors whine about the levy, consumers seem fairly indifferent. Why? Arguably because the levy is fairly invisible - just another tax in an overtaxed country. And because it makes copying music legal in Canada.

A year before Shawn Fanning invented Napster, these amendments to Canada's Copyright Act were passed with earnest lobbying from the music business. The amendments were really about home taping. The rather cumbersome process of ripping a CD and then burning a copy was included as afterthought to deal with this acme of the digital revolution. The drafters and the music industry lobbyists never imagined full-on P2P access.

As the RIAA wages its increasingly desperate campaign of litigation in terrorum to try to take down the largest American file sharers on the various P2P networks, it seems to be utterly unaware of the radically different status of private copying in Canada.

This is a fatal oversight, because P2P networks are international. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may make it illegal to share copyright material in America, the Canadian Copyright Act expressly allows exactly the sort of copying which is at the base of the P2P revolution.

In fact, you could not have designed a law which more perfectly captures the peer to peer process. "Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.

Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.

The premise of the RIAA's litigation is to go after the "supernodes," the people who have thousands, even tens of thousands of songs on their drives and whose big bandwidth allows massive sharing. The music biz has had some success bringing infringement claims under the DMCA. Critically, that success and the success of the current campaign hinges on it being a violation of the law to "share" music. At this point, in the United States, that is a legally contested question and that contest may take several years to fully play out in the Courts.

RIAA spokesperson Amanda Collins seemed unaware of the situation in Canada. "Our goal is deterrence. We are focused on uploaders in the US. Filing lawsuits against individuals making files available in the US."

Which will be a colossal waste of time because in Canada it is expressly legal to share music. If the RIAA were to somehow succeed in shutting down every "supernode" in America all this would do is transfer the traffic to the millions of file sharers in Canada. And, as 50% of Canadians on the net have broadband (as compared to 20% of Americans) Canadian file sharers are likely to be able to meet the demand.

The Canada Hole in the RIAA's strategic thinking is not likely to close. While Canadians are not very keen about seeing the copyright levy extended to other media or increased, there is not much political traction in the issue. There is no political interest at all in revisiting the Copyright Act. Any lobbying attempt by the RIAA to change the copyright rules in Canada would be met with a howl of anger from nationalist Canadians who are not willing to further reduce Canada's sovereignty. (These folks are still trying to get over NAFTA.)

Nor are there any plausible technical fixes short of banning any connections from American internet Users to servers located in Canada.

As the RIAA's "sue your customer" campaign begins to run into stiffening opposition and serious procedural obstacles it may be time to think about a "Plan B". A small levy on storage media, say a penny a megabyte, would be more lucrative than trying to extract 60 million dollars from a music obsessed, file sharing, thirteen year-old.

If American consumers objected -- well, the music biz could always follow Southpark's lead and burst into a chorus of "Blame Canada". Hey, we can take it....We'll even lend you Anne Murray.

Jay Currie is a Vancouver writer whose writing and blog is at www.jaycurrie.com (http://www.jaycurrie.com)

Erax

September 17th, 2003, 03:46 PM

From one of the articles linked to by the Baron :

Many of the musicians pointed to the iTunes Store recently opened by Apple Computers that sells individual songs for 99 cents apiece to downloaders. [Several artists] all endorsed the officially licensed site -- run, significantly, by a computer company, not a record label. Heh, heh. Basically, Apple is telling the recording industry, "Wake up... you're obsolete". They still have time to catch the direct-download boat, but they'll probably stick to their stupid lawsuits and miss it entirely.

David E. Gervais

September 17th, 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I should have encluded a poll in this thread. Hindsight is always 20/20.But what kind of Poll? A Flag Poll? A Telephone Poll? A North Poll, or were you refering to a Poll(ish) person?

This post 'Includes Humor', but one man's humor is another man's tumor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

DavidG

September 17th, 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:

The Copyright Board of Canada administers the Copyright Act and sets the amount of the levies on blank recording media and determines which media will have levies imposed. Five years ago this seemed like a pretty good deal for the music industry: $0.77 CDN for a blank CD and .29 a blank tape, whether used for recording music or not. Found money for the music moguls who had been pretty disturbed that some of their product was being burned onto CDs. To date over 70 million dollars has been collected through the levy and there is a good possibility the levy will be raised and extended to MP3 players, flash memory cards and recordable DVDs sometime in 2003.
Hehehe I'd forgotten they did this. How nice for the music industry that I pay them for all the CD Roms I buy that are used exclusivly for backing up data and giving out large files to our clients. Of course no doubt the music industry is handing all those profits back to the artists. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

tesco samoa

September 17th, 2003, 06:20 PM

problem with apple is that if you download it in the usa you can only use it in the usa. Your not allowed to take the music out of the country

ot

http://www.theonion.com/3936/top_story.html

This hit close to home. A little too close

Erax

September 17th, 2003, 08:34 PM

And how is Apple (or anyone else) ever going to enforce that ?

Wardad

September 17th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QUOTE]
... This whole "intellectual property" gig is unjust, and if we all just drop our troUsers and bend over for the sake of law and order then there will be nothing to stop big biz getting what it wants: every idea on the planet up for ransom.PAY UP Dogscoff!!!
That idea was mine first. I have records.

BTW: "Glutinous Maximus" was mine too. I created it and I want my royalties.

[ September 17, 2003, 19:52: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Atrocities

September 18th, 2003, 01:07 AM

I should have encluded a poll in this thread. Hindsight is always 20/20.

narf poit chez BOOM

September 18th, 2003, 04:44 AM

protests of unfair actions still should not be done by breaking the law; and it is not the law that is unjust, but the recording company's. mass blackmall by angry musician's would fix it quick. people need to start boycotting more.

Joachim

September 18th, 2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr />
one of our ministers downloaded some songs, burned them to cd and gave to
Wow... most of our ministers don't even know what a computer is, let alone know how to download a bunch of crap and burn it to cd. Doesn't stop them passing laws on technical matters though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif That's half the problem- in the absence of knowledge, policy-makers rely on ppl with vested interests (ie the music companies) to explain things to them and shape the law.
QB]<hr /></blockquote>Ditto in Oz, I remeber the debate about internet gambling, some archaic pollies calling for its banning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif . Any one with half a brain saying that it is pointless 'cause they will go offshore - much better to allow it and tax and regulate it.
Of course if you could ban gambling world wide that might be a good thing as it is a tax on stupidity - then again if you *really* think you can beat the odds - heh go for it.

narf poit chez BOOM

September 18th, 2003, 06:56 AM

oh, sure, anybody can beat the odds...

...oh, you mean without cheating http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Jack Simth

September 18th, 2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Joachim:
Ditto in Oz, I remeber the debate about internet gambling, some archaic pollies calling for its banning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif . Any one with half a brain saying that it is pointless 'cause they will go offshore - much better to allow it and tax and regulate it.
Of course if you could ban gambling world wide that might be a good thing as it is a tax on stupidity - then again if you *really* think you can beat the odds - heh go for it.Anyone who gambles for profit without being the house is an idiot, granted. However, for those who gamble properly, a loss is expected - gambling takes on the role of entertainment, where a loss of money is reasonable, not something done for profit. For that portion of the population, gambling is not a stupidity tax. For the rest of the population, however....

Joachim

September 18th, 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Joachim:
Ditto in Oz, I remeber the debate about internet gambling, some archaic pollies calling for its banning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif . Any one with half a brain saying that it is pointless 'cause they will go offshore - much better to allow it and tax and regulate it.
Of course if you could ban gambling world wide that might be a good thing as it is a tax on stupidity - then again if you *really* think you can beat the odds - heh go for it.Anyone who gambles for profit without being the house is an idiot, granted. However, for those who gamble properly, a loss is expected - gambling takes on the role of entertainment, where a loss of money is reasonable, not something done for profit. For that portion of the population, gambling is not a stupidity tax. For the rest of the population, however....<hr /></blockquote>Problem is that it can become a very expensive from of entertainment that can result in all sorts of crazy stuff. Such as kids locked in cars at Casinos, no money for food because the pokies ate it instead.
It is hard when a form of entertainment can be so obviously problematic to some - the question is - when is the social detriment worse by allowing it than banning it?
(aren't we all happy that a SEIV addiction is so comparatively cheap!)

Atrocities

September 18th, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Joachim:
Ditto in Oz, I remeber the debate about internet gambling, some archaic pollies calling for its banning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif . Any one with half a brain saying that it is pointless 'cause they will go offshore - much better to allow it and tax and regulate it.
Of course if you could ban gambling world wide that might be a good thing as it is a tax on stupidity - then again if you *really* think you can beat the odds - heh go for it.Anyone who gambles for profit without being the house is an idiot, granted. However, for those who gamble properly, a loss is expected - gambling takes on the role of entertainment, where a loss of money is reasonable, not something done for profit. For that portion of the population, gambling is not a stupidity tax. For the rest of the population, however....<hr /></blockquote>Jack, do you want to play some 7 card roll your own, no peek, low spade in whole stud poker? Or do you prefer the odds of Black Jack? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Loser

September 18th, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Jack, do you want to play some 7 card roll your own, no peek, low spade in whole stud poker? Or do you prefer the odds of Black Jack? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif No Peek makes it a monkey game, much like uncounted Black Jack.

While playing for money inarguably makes it gambling, properly played Poker is not a Game of Chance, but a Game of Skill. Luck might determine the course of a single hand, but Skill determines the course of a night.

That said, I prefer Texas Hold'em, Seven Card Stud, or Five Card Draw for their simplicity, or any number of insane 'home games' for variety and to keep the Math Masters on their toes.

We play once a week, and 'friendly' means that the buy in is low enough that losing it is no cause for sympathy.

dogscoff

September 18th, 2003, 03:16 PM

Only time I ever put money on at the bookmakers, it was because I knew I could beat the odds: I had a 100% chance of winning.

A few years ago one of the Online gambling sites had a promotion to encourage new Users: For every �1 you placed on your first bet, they would match it up to �100.

I put in �100 and got them to match it. Then I split the �200 on a football match- half the money that side A wins, half that they don't.

Inevitably, I lost one of the bets and won the other. I think I wound up with around �120, so I simply withdrew the cash and closed the account.

This little loophole in their promotion had been publicised by www.ntk.net (http://www.ntk.net) (that's how I came to know about it) and I wasn't the only one to pull it off. The offer was soon withdrawn...

Atrocities

September 18th, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Atrocities:
Jack, do you want to play some 7 card roll your own, no peek, low spade in whole stud poker? Or do you prefer the odds of Black Jack? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif No Peek makes it a monkey game, much like uncounted Black Jack.

While playing for money inarguably makes it gambling, properly played Poker is not a Game of Chance, but a Game of Skill. Luck might determine the course of a single hand, but Skill determines the course of a night.

That said, I prefer Texas Hold'em, Seven Card Stud, or Five Card Draw for their simplicity, or any number of insane 'home games' for variety and to keep the Math Masters on their toes.

We play once a week, and 'friendly' means that the buy in is low enough that losing it is no cause for sympathy.<hr /></blockquote>Oh I agree whole heartely. I hate that game and 7 card no peek ***** kills. That game and I do not get along at all.

Mine is seven stud roll your own, low spade in the whole. (Meaning if you have the lowest spade, typically an ace, you get half the pot) These game usually draw a huge pot. Everyone playing the worst cards they have in hopes of succering someone else.

Games like 5 draw duces wild drive me bonkers. zookiers (sp) is ok, but can get expensive if you loose to often. High low is ok too. I do hate hate stait low ball though.

There are hundres of games, but mostly the people I play with stick to basic staple games.

Never bet on the other mans game. Rule 1. Rule 2, the house always has the advantage. Rule 3, never bet more than you can aford to loose. Rule 4, never show your hand unless you have to. Keep em wondering. Rule 5, expect to loose, and to loose often. Rule 6, never get mad about loosing even if it is to the same guy seven times in a row. It will happen. And rule 7, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif never count your money while sitt'n at the table. There will be time enough for counting when the dealings done.

Erax

September 18th, 2003, 04:06 PM

Gambling is like drinking. Some people can do it for fun and others - for reasons we are only starting to understand - can't control it. And still others see absolutely no point at all in it.

There is no easy solution. Whether you allow it or outlaw it, someone will always be on the unfair side of the deal.

Jack Simth

September 18th, 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Joachim:
Problem is that it can become a very expensive from of entertainment that can result in all sorts of crazy stuff. Such as kids locked in cars at Casinos, no money for food because the pokies ate it instead.
It is hard when a form of entertainment can be so obviously problematic to some - the question is - when is the social detriment worse by allowing it than banning it?
(aren't we all happy that a SEIV addiction is so comparatively cheap!)And that would be why it is an idiot tax for the rest of the population, as I alluded. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Seriously though, all banning gambling does is cut back on it and drive it underground; by regulating it you can at least get the taxes - the caveat being that gambling will go up, and with it comes a rise in the crime rate.

Originally posted by Erax:
Gambling is like drinking. Some people can do it for fun and others - for reasons we are only starting to understand - can't control it. And still others see absolutely no point at all in it.

There is no easy solution. Whether you allow it or outlaw it, someone will always be on the unfair side of the deal.I would agree with that statement.

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Jack, do you want to play some 7 card roll your own, no peek, low spade in whole stud poker? Or do you prefer the odds of Black Jack? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif No thanks - I don't find gambling entertaining enough to be worth the money spent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Tesco, Loser, Dogscoff, Atrocities: Those are some methods for keeping it at the entertainment level, especially Atrocities's list of rules.

By the way, Atrocities: You forgot to include 8) Know when to hold 'em, 9) know when to fold 'em, 10) know when to walk away, and 11) know when to run (although they should go just before #7). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Loser

September 18th, 2003, 04:28 PM

I'd have to modify your Rule 3, Atro: never bring more money to the table than you're willing to lose. When it comes to how much you bet, it's time to watch the pot odds. Another rule might be "watch tells", Poker is about people, not about cards and odds and math and money.

We call the spade-split game Chicago, and play it both High and Low. I do dig Chicago. Makes for nice big pot. Wild games (Baseball, King Little, and a hundred other variations on the concept 'wild') can make for nice pots too, but mostly only when someone at the table doesn't realized that their trip-kings isn't all that much when there are six wild cards in the deck.

Not sure what you mean about the house... No house in Poker, just House Take on pots.

The only time I've ever gotten mad about losing is when I've realized that I was on tilt and playing like a fool. Then I was mad at myself, not my friend who saw my tells and took advantage of them.

As for restraint, it's important in everything. I'm not confident I will always be able to practice restriant, but for now I'm keeping it to Friendly games. Someday I'd like to get a modest sum together and go have a time at the card houses up in the mountains...

tesco samoa

September 18th, 2003, 04:54 PM

blackjack i can count 4 decks now.

Mind you it has taken 2 years to count that many decks.

5 will be tricky

Atrocities

September 18th, 2003, 05:06 PM

The house always has the advantage in games like Black Jack. I avoid that game and all gambling games other than poker.

A few years back I was in a game with 5 other players. My mother and uncle were in the game as well. I had four 9's on the dealers left, I got them natural. Two showing, two in the whole. I was high so I bet a 50'c. I was called and raised a $1.00 by my uncle. He was called and again the pot was raised by a $1.00. Each player raised the pot by a dollar until it came back to me. I raised it by $5.00 figuring everyone would fold out and I would make a nice profit. Nope, everyone called. The post was already at $5.00 by the time I got my fourth nine and placed my bet. (50'c anti a peace = $2.50 + one hand at 50'c each = $5.00)

The next round I am dealt the Ace of hearts. (9c, 9s, 9h, 9d + Ah) I am still high with a pair of 9's and the ace showing. My mother had the 10, jack, queen of spades showing,(10, Js, Qs,) my uncle had two fives and a seven showing, (5, 5, 7) Art had two eights and the ace of clubs.(8, 8, Ac) The dealer had a king queen and jack showing. (K, Q, J)

I bet a $2.00. I was called and every one rased by a buck each. I again raised $2.00 and was called with everyone staying in.

The sixth card was dealt.
Me - ITH 9, 9 - Showing A, 9, 9 - was dealt a 2
My Mother - ITH * * - Showing 10s, Js, Qs - and was also delt a 2.
My uncle - ITH * * - showing 5, 5, 7 - and was delt a third 5.
Art - ITH * * - showing 8, 8, Ac - and was delt a third 8.
Dealer ITH - * * - showing K, Q, J, - and was dealt a 10.

Another round of betting.

The Last card was delt down and dirty. I was given a second 2.

My hand still beat everything showing. I bet $5.00. I was called and everyone rased $2.00. The Last raise was to me and I max bet $10.00. Everyone called. Oh this was going to be a cake walk.

I laid down first:
9, 9, 9, 9 with 2, 2, A

The deal went next:
K, Q, J, 10, A with 4, 3

Art put his cards down:
8, 8, 8, 8, with A, 3, 5

My uncle laid down:
5, 5, 5, 7, 7, with K, Q

I won http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As I was reaching for my money, my mother gently put her hand on my arm and smiled. She then laid her cards out onto the table for all to see.

10, jack, queen, king, and Ace of spades.

And to add insult to injury, she also had low spade.

(This recollection is not exact, but you get the picture. I had the second highest hand and was beaten by a Royal Flush. I have played over 10,000 hands of poker and have only seen this twice.)

[ September 18, 2003, 16:09: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

geoschmo

September 18th, 2003, 05:16 PM

You card guys have a whole 'nother language don't you? I was able to follow Atrocities post ok, but Losers Last post may as well have been Greek.

trip-kings?
I was on tilt and playing like a fool?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Loser

September 18th, 2003, 05:29 PM

"Tilt" means you're no longer rational about the game, no longer in control of yourself. People get this way when they lose enough money that they get scared, then they do stupid things to get it back.

People also do this when they let other things in their life interfere with the game. One Saturday night, I got a call from a young lady I was seeing that really set me off. I went back to the table and continued to play, still ticked. I was throwing money around until I noticed my stack (the amount I had on the table) was getting low and tried to figure out how that happened. Needless to say, I figured it out. Calmed down after a smoke and a shot. (Yep, that'd be what you call 'self medicating'. Don't do that kids, you are not qualified to treat your own problems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

I was using the way I speak when I said 'trip kings'. It just means Three of a Kind, Kings. That'd be a nice strong hand in a five- or seven-card game played 'straight up', but not one with wilds.

I was once dealt a Straight Flush to the King natural. Unfortunately it was in a quirky seven card draw game we call Anaconda, Pass the Trash, or That F**king Game. In this game you start out with seven cards and pass, to your left, three, then two, then one, with rounds of betting at all the predictable intervals. This means you do not get to keep five cards out of the seven you are dealt... That's the closest I've been to a natural Royal.

I've never played agaisnt family, as my parents ans sister are fairly puritan. I have played agaisnt my friend's family, however. Some nights it's just me and a table full of Junglings.

Atrocities

September 18th, 2003, 05:38 PM

""Tilt" means you're no longer rational about the game, no longer in control of yourself. People get this way when they lose enough money that they get scared, then they do stupid things to get it back. "

Tilt often happens after you have had a few drinks. This is why Casino's server gamblers free drinks.

If your going to gamble, follow rule 8, Don't drink.

dogscoff

September 18th, 2003, 05:38 PM

I once zipped a four-penny side overdraw on a cold cracker day. There were six of us, and my friends just couldn't believe it. Then, immediately afterwards, I got a seven-bleat hogwild and reamed the old greenknuckle in teeth! Of course, next thing you know the legs open and suddenly all the lads are polerushing to get themselves deep fur-buried.

Ahhh, those were the days. Laugh? I nearly uncreamed my spangwettle!

Loser

September 18th, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
If your going to gamble, follow rule 8, Don't drink.Actually, I've found I play better with a shallow shot of hard liquor and a careful amount of some stimulant, coffee since I've stopped smoking, again. (Ack! More 'self medicating'! Don't try this at home kids. Chemicals are not the solution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

But only a little too much and I'm
http://www.sandman43.fsnet.co.uk/images/merch/inadequate_tshirt.jpg

Atrocities

September 18th, 2003, 05:53 PM

Feed the kitty or leave the city.

Seven down, slip the nought, suicide king kills, ***** gives it up on dime down, role a duce and call it momma, match the pot come low hog or one eyed jacks. Cowboys are king.

[ September 18, 2003, 16:54: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

tesco samoa

September 19th, 2003, 01:53 AM

I can beat the odds in betting on football and hockey.

But there is an investment of time and keeping strict control on your balance and percentage of bet. 3% of the total is good number for a wager. And you never increase that percentage. That way when times are lean or good your bets reflect that.

And lots of reading. and stats to analyse. It can be done. But one must also look at what they picked and why they picked it. Each week as well.

Loser

September 24th, 2003, 05:02 PM

Strangeness (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/09/24/kazaa.sues.ap/index.html)

Baron Munchausen

September 24th, 2003, 07:48 PM

No, not 'strangeness' at all. It's standard business practice these days to sue over anything and everything you can find grounds to file over. And in this case there's a particularly large bonus if they win. Due to a quirk in copyright law you can have the copyright cancelled on works that have been 'abused' in a certain way. If Sharman/Kazaa wins, which is unlikely but still slightly possible -- and will take many years of appeals of course, it could result in just about the whole catalog defended by RIAA being dumped into the public domain. That would give them a great big pool of free stuff to grease their network and attract more people to see the ads that are their actual source of revenue.

[ September 24, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Loser

September 24th, 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
it could result in just about the whole catalog defended by RIAA being dumped into the public domain....
No way...

I mean, I don't know law, but...
No way.

Baron Munchausen

September 24th, 2003, 11:32 PM

Oh yes! There is a provision for voiding the copyright on works when the copyright is used in a monopoly fashion.

Kazaa Strikes Back:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-982344.html

The �legal consequences� Sharman is seeking are potentially severe. Sharman is asking the judge to declare the copyright holders guilty of antitrust and related violations, and to bar them from enforcing any of their copyrights.

It's a long shot, but not impossible. Napster was working in this direction before it was finished off.

Last year, federal judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered an investigation into the record labels� licensing practices towards Online companies and into the structure of Pressplay and Musicnet, services largely owned by record labels.

"The evidence now shows that the plaintiffs have licensed their catalogues of works for digital distribution in what could be an overreaching manner," Patel wrote in a February 2002 decision that was part of the Napster lawsuit. "The evidence also suggests the (record labels�) entry into the digital distribution marketplace may run afoul of antitrust laws."

If they are 'barred from enforcing' their copyrights they are effectively stripped of them. 50 years of 'Rock-n-roll' would be free for the copying! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ September 24, 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]