...here we go again...!
Start saving up our pennies for some REALLY BIG fines... ...!
...(tens of thousands of dollars...).... ....!!!

Quote:
*****************************************
1st Suits Filed vs Online Music Swappers


Posted: September 8, 2003 at 12:28 p.m.
Updated: September 9, 2003 at 9:12 a.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The targets of the first lawsuits against music fans who share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely uses his computer, a Yale University professor and an unemployed woman in New York who says she didn't know she was breaking the law.

Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that could cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of its aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits across the country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as "major offenders" illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each, but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.

Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home. He said his grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the recording industry association.

"I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible," Pickle said in an interview. "It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that."

(Copyright 2003 by the Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
*****************************************
Un-Quote.

Article courtesy of...
http://www.kron.com

Cheers all..!
Paul.
(England).

This should be interesting to watch.....

Will

Durwood Pickle?

*smirk* Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

I don't think realistically that these people will be able to stop the P2P system. They created it by over-charging for so long, and now they want their monopoly back!
I personally don't download as my machine can be inspected at any time by the police here! So I'd rather not face a fine on my meager wages Need all the dough for bits of wood.... ah another fuselage rib will be finished this weekend 8)
I do however play CDs on my machine whilst working sometimes, and XP automatically turns them into MP3s on the HD, does this count I wonder? Probably not as I own the CDs, but who knows with these legal loonies!
As Will says, this should be fun to watch...

Ozzy

Quote:


  As long as you own the original copy, you can legally make backup copies for yourself, or transfer the music to an MP3 player, but if you distribute those copies to your friends you are breaking the law, at least that is what I have come to understand.

Quote:


1. A Yale professor should not only know better, but should certainly be able to afford to buy CD's!
2. Anyone who has a computer or a TV set KNOWS they are breaking the law by downloading music, it's not like it hasn't been in the news for MONTHS now, they even warned people ahead of time to give them a chance to clear their systems of any illegally obtained files.

  Anyone that gets busted now, I say they deserve it if they didn't heed the warnings and continued to download.

Quote:


  mmmm....BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Better watch it Fozzer.  You Cut and Pasted that article without permission.  You could be sued and end up with a hefty fine for bootlegging articles off of the web...

I'm in two minds over the whole thing. It's not such a big issue here, but I have heard all the fuss about it in the US.

The fact of the matter is, that it's ALWAYS been illegal to make unauthorised copies of copyrighted material. In this case we're talking about music.
When we used to tape the records on the old '3 in one' we were 'breaking the Law' and could be sued, however, only for the amount of money that the copyright owner had been 'diddled' because of the loss of sales caused by the 'illegal taping' i.e. the cost of one cassette of the material.

I am still a memeber of APRA (Australian Performing Rights Association). There is a 'affiliate' organisation in every country. I have written some music, that back in the '70's did bring in some royalties (nothing to speak of......but), the way it works is all the Radio Stations., TV stations, Concert venues and even Churches pay 'calculated fee' each year to the organisation to cover the 'public performance' aspect of copyrighted music, from rock to gospel etc, and that money is distibuted to the owners of the songs, according to a formula based on the amount of airtime, public usage etc, of the song. (A big job working that out, I can imagine)

As far as people 'duplicating' a product to save buying it goes, I feel it's the same as burning a copy of CFS or FS to save the money. And we all know how we feel about the people who do that here.
I know it's probably because I have been on the other end if the rope (albeit in a very limited way), that I think the people who do this deserve to be prosecuted.

It is unfortinate that technology has made it so easy for 'ordinary citizens' to 'mass produce' stolen material, and feel that they are not doing anything all that wrong. But they are.

Would you photcopy a book and give a 'bound file of the copies' as a gift to someone? No, it's clearly a copyright infringement. Well.......copying a CD onto another CD, tape or whatever is illegal, UNLESS it's for your own private use and you have the ORIGINAL.  

It's amazing the amount of people who don't realise that they are breaking the law by taping a movie on their VCR from the TV. But they are.
There are very few shows on TV which are not covered by a copyright of some sort.
I think you can tape the News, in some countries. Whoopie doooo!! 

gotta agree with the album reason, i have about 10 albums, that i only bought because of two or three songs, so that means i paid over $120's for the equivalent of a single album of songs i listen to, thats where the internet has helped people, i dont mind paying for a service as long as its of a high quality.
you all know the way round this? all you have to do is turn off the shareing option in Kazza, that means the investigators cant download the required files so they cant proove that you have them, they even have stated this themselves, as long as a person isnt SHARING the files, thats the main illeagal part.

Quote:


Hi Pippin...!
on a light note... 8)...!
Do you notice that whenever I post a protected article or protected picture on the Forum, other than my own, I ALWAYS acknowlege the source.... ...!
This, I hope, will generally keep me out of trouble... ...!

Cheers... ...!
Paul.
(England).

Thx, Orenda.

Although I've gotta say, your math is a bit off.  The artists WISH they got that kind of cut.

Truth be told, about a year and a half ago, I remember Britney Spears being all over the news because she was getting $2 per CD, which was double the other artists average cut.

Sad.  The artists don't even get the money.  I could almost see supporting THAT.

I can tell you first hand that for 'sheet music', the writer (or copyright owner, if the song has been purchased) gets 20 per cent of the retail price.
For recordings of music, the writer (or copyright owner) gets 7 per cent of the retail price and the performing artist gets 6 per cent (the industry has always valued the composer slightly higher than the artist - many can sing or play - but few can write).

The royalty shares from public performances/braodcasts of the work are supposed to all go to the copyright owner of the song.

These are standard Australian Music Industry contract figures from the late '70's and early '80's, but I'm sure the percentages would be much the same now and would have been pretty universal. Obviously, special deals are cut between 'extraordinary' artists and recording companies, but they would be confidential anyway.

As for Libraries lending books. No library in this country charges for borrowing of books. Late fees are charged to cover administration fees and have no relationship to the actual lending of the book itself.
This being the case Libraries here don't charge for lending books so are not infringing copyright. You can lend a book to anyone. You just can't COPY it. You can even sell it. But you can't sell copies.

If you read the copyright on the inside of any book you will see it is forbidden to reproduce for any purpose whatsoever, any part of the published material, without permission. There is no mention of profit, or own use etc. You can't copy them unless you have permission from the copyright owner/publisher, who will give certain organisations (like charities and Churches etc) limited permission to do so for specific purposes.

As for the Entertainment Industry types claiming to be 'unfussed' by the money and being only in it for the 'self expression'. I agree - Bullsh*t.
But the Law is the Law, and they are right until it's changed.  

Quote:


As I understood it, the Library pays a one time licence fee per book, very similar to the way video stores operate. I don't know how the library could afford to pay a "percentage" to the author seeing they're given a set budget by the government and everything eles they gets comes from fines and the sale of library cards.  

Quote:

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. People aren't asking for money when it comes to Kazaa. They aren't making copies, it's Kazaa itself that does that. If they want to get rid of this, punish Kazaa not the public.

Quote:

If artists make so little, then how come people like Snoop Dog and  Fifty Cent live in giant mansions with a dozens of fancy cars in the driveway and carry arround all that "bling bling"? $2 per CD can still add up to $2 Million a year.

AMEN SCORPION!

I could be wrong about this; but if I remember, Napster based their file sharing on files that they kept on a server.  That means they were supplying bootleg music for people to download.  Kazaa is based on everyone sharing files with everyone else, so Kazaa has no control over what is shared.  That's why they can't be shut down.  Kazaa does have legitimate file sharing uses, like the gun camera footage we were talking about last week or new artists trying to get their material heard.

I do not mind paying for my CD's.  I like the booklets you get, and I like reading the liner notes to find out who else may have appeared (like Duane Allman playing on Layla).  Personally, I'm not so sure the industry is getting what they deserve.  Yes they rip us off, yes the artists are the ones who should be gtting the money, but there will always be people who bootleg cd's and cry poor no matter how cheap cd's are.  Go to the payware forum and look how many people moan about 'oh, I would love to, but since I can afford a decent computer to play on and $50.00 for one game, I can't afford to PAY for an airplane...'  It's the same thing. 

I don't like the recording industry, I don't like paying $18.00 to get a CD with one song on it that I like, but if you're going to bootleg, at least be honest and admit you're just being cheap...

There seems to be two threads about the same thing going on - on in the 'Cafe' - no harm. Just a mention.

Quote:


The whole concept is that, if music is available to be downloaded free, the direct result is that the CD won't be bought, hence lost sales.

I know how everyone feels about the Artists (some) and the Record Companies (all). But there are others who are being diddled.
(I've covered this in the other thread, so for a more comprehensive explaination see that but, just quickly..........)

The people who write the music are not always the artists. Few of the writers are 'Stars', nor do many of them have the luck to have a song go to the top 10, after being taken on by a 'Major Artist'. Most are 'part time' or 'struggling' and rely on royalties which are calculated on retail sales or public braodcasts by radio stations, TV etc.
They are being diddled out of their income, everytime a sale is lost due to a free download.
They deserve their rewards for their work.

I beleive many Artists have their own Websites now where you can 'sample' their wares, before purchasing. But don't expect to be able to download from there, they're not idiots. Why don't Kazaa, if they believe they provide this option for people, just get rid of the ability to download (steal) the song and just make them 'listen only'. Like a 'read only' document.
That way, people with limited budgets can hear what they're buying before they do, and Artists get 'free' promotion. 

(I always thought you could ask to hear an album before you bought it in a Music store. That's what those booths are for!)