Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
from the this-may-get-interesting dept
Last month, the RIAA sued Limewire after Limewire wouldn't agree to simply roll over and pretend the RIAA's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in the Grokster case was actually what the Supreme Court said. The court actually said that services could be found liable, if they were shown to actively induce infringement. The RIAA and the MPAA pretended this meant that any file sharing network that had unauthorized content was flat-out illegal. Of course, that's a bit of a stretch. So, it already seemed like it would be an interesting case, but now Limewire has hit back even harder with counterclaims accusing the RIAA of antitrust violations, consumer fraud and other misconduct. Specifically, they seem to be making the case that the RIAA only wants to shut down Limewire because it is a competitive distribution mechanism that they cannot control, which helps compete with their monopolistic control on traditional distribution. It's an interesting claim that does make some sense, though the RIAA will simply try to paint Limewire as a tool for "thieves." As with many of these types of cases, there's probably a decent chance that the sides will settle before any decision is made, but in this case, it would be very interesting to see the actual outcome of any lawsuit -- both on the issue of whether or not simply running a file sharing network is inducement and on whether or not there really is an antitrust claim here. If the case does go forward and the RIAA loses on the antitrust issue, it could have a big impact on the traditional labels, and could actually be a catalyst towards forcing them to accept the changing nature of the market. This is becoming a case well worth watching.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Go Limey by dijital on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 12:18am
Woo yeah go limey you show them... hehe me carried away? never...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Good luck, they'll need it by Jo Mamma on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 12:49am
Never used limewire, but being such a presumably small outfit, I don't think their chances of winning on this one are good.
Though I think I am inclined to believe the RIAA definitely has monopolistic tendencies and tries very successfully to keep out competition... mostly to their own detriment. (whew, that was a lot of big words, huh?)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Music Pirate on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 1:41am
RIAA, you're going down. Down into the ground, down down down!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I so hope by Angry Rivethead on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 3:45am
They'll win, however, I don't think they will. Monopoly no. Cartel, yes. I thought cartels were illeagal in the US under the sherman laws?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I so hope by Todd on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 4:04am
" I thought cartels were illeagal in the US"
...as are dozens of other things in this country, yet they are as common in day to day life as sliced bread. Ever heard the saying "it's only illegal if you get caught"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I so hope by Todd on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 4:04am
" I thought cartels were illeagal in the US"
...as are dozens of other things in this country, yet they are as common in day to day life as sliced bread. Ever heard the saying "it's only illegal if you get caught"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Bob3000 on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:10am
It's too bad someone couldn't bankroll Limewire efforts to get this in front of a judge. This way they could attempt to force RIAA to submit evidence and they could be grilled in the witness box. Plus set a precedence.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is all B.S. by I Buy CDs on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:31am
Stop downloading music illegally off sites like Limewire and go buy a CD or download a single track from a legitimate music distribution site. Use file sharing for what it was created: Free Porn.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: This is all B.S. by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:37am
Uh, no.
GOOGLE was created for free porn. No need to install spyware laden p2p crap just to get porn.
Sheesh, some people are clueless.
As for your comment on downloading a single track from a legit service. There aren't any yet. Except eMusic, which doesn't carry major labels. DRM encumbered crap is not worth a damn penny. you're not actually buying the content when you buy drm crap, you're buying a license to listen to it today, with the implied expectation that you will buy it again and again and again if you want to listen to it tomorrow.
There is NO parallel between buying drm crap and buying a (red books tandard) audio cd.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Shawn B on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:38am
Quote:
This is all B.S. by I Buy CDs on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:31am
Stop downloading music illegally off sites like Limewire and go buy a CD or download a single track from a legitimate music distribution site. Use file sharing for what it was created:
-----------------------
You just proved Limewires case. File sharing is at the disposal of the USER, for whatever purpose they want.
Just like DOT is not culpable for thieves robbing a bank and then driving down their roads. Infrastructure does not imply intent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
P2P networks by Pixel Rider on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:50am
arent all illegal music, warez, and porn. I and many others use them to share our own creative works, be that music (like in my case), artwork, and writings.
I for one think this is a step forward for file sharing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by ScytheNoire on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:51am
the RIAA and MPAA are both corporate mafia's who use lawyers instead of hitmen.
so how have they been allowed to exist for so long, when they pretty much have monopolized the industry before the internet came along?
see, the problem is that the RIAA and MPAA know that they are screwed, and that they cannot operate in a world with the internet that allows the freedom of creation. that's why they are working so hard to get DRM into all the hardware, like DVD players, TV's, CPU, monitors, video cards, etc. they want to be able to control the content. but they are losing that control, and they are scared. first thing you do when scared, scream bloody murder, which is what they have been doing with all these pirating campaigns.
but until they outlaw corporations from lining the pockets of politicians, things won't change. american politics is so corrupted by corporate money, it's hard to find any politician who is actually "for the people". until they fix that problem, i don't see any true fairness happening.
so fight the power, support content that isn't owned by the MPAA and RIAA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Limewire by Captain Booger on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:55am
I found out, after much hassle with my high-speed provider, that Limewire was in constant with my computer.
This caused my connection speed to drop from about 700 kbs to 60-180 kbs.
Removing all traces of Limewire, plus not using it at all cured the problem completely.
I was never warned about this by Limewire. Fuck them.
The Captain.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Limewire by Captain Booger on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:55am
I found out, after much hassle with my high-speed provider, that Limewire was in constant with my computer.
This caused my connection speed to drop from about 700 kbs to 60-180 kbs.
Removing all traces of Limewire, plus not using it at all cured the problem completely.
I was never warned about this by Limewire. Fuck them.
The Captain.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Limewire by DETER1II on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:07am
Uhhh.... you have to shut it down when you are done using it or it will stay in contact to share the files that you have in your "share" folder, thats how it works. Don't slam something that you didnt read the instructions first.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Limewire by DoomLord on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:14am
Captain Booger , YOU are a CLUELESS MORON!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:24am
Everyone send Limewire a dollar to fight the riaa.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The bigger picture by Charlie on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:25am
I am a musician and I own more than 1000 CD's and a cabinet or two of Vinyl. I have no problem with the concept of purchasing music, IF I CAN FIND IT TO BUY!!!!! When the band wants to add a song to the list and we can't find it to buy, we turn to the file sharing guys. Never used Limewire, but I wish them good luck. The music industry needs to start listening to the consumers!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:37am
ha ha america
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Overcast on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:38am
YES!!!!!! Well deserved suit!!
I'll be sending them money - I'll NOT buy CD's - but if you sue the RIAA, you may well get a donation!! lol
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:40am
i'd watch/listion to it if the local networks aired it, they don't so have to get it from p2p. I'd buy it if the stuff was availalbe locally, it isn't so have to p2p!!!
sell it to me damn it, and I will buy it. Don't make it availalbe to buy outside certain countries then my only option is to P2p it. I guess that is why the RIAA only tends to sue state side
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Limewire by htcstech on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:50am
If you had any branes, then you could have throttled down the upload speed easily enough.
Just check the options next time you download a P2P application!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Limewire by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:54am
If you had any branes..
You have no idea how funny a statement that is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Limewire by Chris G on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:58am
You might want to learn to spell brains before you ridicule the guy just because he didn't throttle an application.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
lawsuit by bob on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:59am
"Infrastructure does not imply intent."
That is beautiful.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:05am
hahaha
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
duh by Bob Noxious on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:14am
BOYCOTT THE RECORD COMPANIES !!!! STOP BUYING MUSIC FROM THESE ASSHOLES! DO NOT PUT ANOTHER DOLLAR IN THEIR POCKETS. THE ARTISTS THAT YOU LOVE ARE ONLY MAKING MAYBE A COUPLE OF BUCKS FROM EACH SALE. WHY CONTINUE TO FINANCE THESE REAL PIRATES ?
I AM SICK OF THESE GUYS ONLY SELLING THE MUSIC/PROMOTING THE ARTISTS THAT THEY WANT TO. WE HAVE TO TAKE WHAT THEY GIVE US, THINK ASHLEE SIMPSON. THESE GUYS HAVE CONTROLLED THE INDUSTRY AND RADIO FOR YEARS, AND ITS TIME FOR A REVOLT!!! LETS BRING EM DOWN!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:24am
he coulda used branes as a joke.
as for suing state side, i don't think the riaa could sue outside of us jurisdiction
granted most uses of p2p are sharing of protected files, i'm glad to see someone taking a stab at the riaa. the internet isn't some free ticket you can use against people because your maket methods are outdated. i doubt the riaa would lose a battle with limewire, based on shear money limits. but ohwell. good luck all
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I've used Limewire for years by JS on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:39am
I've been using Limewire for yeeeeears, been a pro user for more than 5. Upon hearing this news I'm donating money to their cause. I really hope this pans out, the RIAA is a gigantic tool!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Nic Stevens on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:40am
Actually Limewire doesn't own the network (Gnutella) ... they just sell software.
A good analogy would be to sue Microsoft because the Unibomber wrote his manifesto with Word.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by i p freely on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:42am
so um... has the riaa even looked at limewires site, or better yet tried to download the software? you cannot download the software if you click the button that says you "might" use it to download unlicensed / pirated stuff..
FUCK THE RIAA, or anyone for that matter, trying to take away a medium that allows people to share their works.
and for the retard who says its "spyware laden".. dont "assume", we know what that does.
and for the other retard, who lost 90% of his "connection" speed.... you should know better that a p2p app works because other people are "losing connection speed" when YOU download. Dont flame something just because you couldnt figure it out.
"fucking car! i didnt know it used gas when idling in park!"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The bigger picture by Nic Stevens on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:43am
The RIAA controls what is sold in stores. At any given time less than 25% of their CURRENT artists material are actually being sold.
They own the market. They create a false demand by withholding material. They sue people for obtaining material they don't offer for sale.
So far, from what I have read, too, the RIAA has not paid artists for which monies on "legit" digital distribution has been obtained -- so their claim that they are protecting artists is also bullshit.
The RIAA is a band of thieves and deserves not only civil penalties but criminal penalties (fraud)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: duh by Charlie - Fab 4 Drummer on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:44am
Well you have some great points, but not buying music anymore isn't the answer. It is the artist that will suffer. A band that has a million selling album only gets about $20,000 to split between it's members. Not much, huh? A change in the system is needed. Someone has to stand up to the big boys to start that change. If you don't like the choice of artists that are being shoved down our throats, tune into Nashville Star, or American Idol and VOTE! Otherwise the Simon Cowell's of the world will continue to force feed us!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Duh by Bob by Paul on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 7:57am
You wanna support an artist you like? Go see them live. Buy a t-shirt. They make more off a single concert ticket than 10 album sales. They make more of a t-shirt sale than 50 album sales. The record companies make all the money off the artists. They sign people with a little talent and stars in their eyes, them make them sign away their souls. That is why the really good artists start their own labels after much success.
I hate the RIAA. I hate the MPAA. I buy music and movies used to avoid putting my dollar in their pocket, and I buy everything legally. That said, I support the idea of file sharing and P2P. There are great sites with user created content like overclocked remix, as well as legit reasons for P2P, like downloading patches for video games and independant works.
I hate the monopoly that has become the recording industry and the movie industry have become. I hate that they use scare tactics. I hate that they alienate the consumers with foolish ventures like DRM. I really hate the DRM. Really. I hate that they can't change with the times. I hate politics here in America. I hate crooked politicians. I hate bribery. I hate lobbyists. I hate it all.
Here is my questions for you all. Who here has done anything at all? Have you all written your senators or representatives? Have you stopped buying new music? Have you done anything? These are easy to do kids. You can google your senators and they have ONLINE forms on which you can contact them.
But sadly, of the 20-25 people who are still reading this post, I bet that not one of you will. It's easy to sit back and complain. It's not that hard to stand up and take action.
Our apathy lends power to those we hate. Action is what causes change. Get off your butts and go complain to someone who can make a difference.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Liberated music by Ray Beckerman on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:03am
I have started a collection of links to sources of non-RIAA music, which I call "Liberated Music". http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com#liberated_music
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: This is all B.S. by detour on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:03am
no no no, you're both wrong. Pornolizer was created for free porn. Google was created for researching stuff. File sharing was created for downloading episodes of your favorite shows.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You guys are morons by Frank on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:04am
Intellectual property laws (including the copyrights you guys are violating everytime you download a song using Limewire) are designed to allow a limited monopoly on the property subject to the right. These monopolies are necessary to encourage innovation and allow the creator of an idea to receive some benefit of her hard work and investment before freeloaders like you all can come in and get something for nothing. That's the whole point. There is no antitrust violation for protecting a legally valid copyright or patent. Send Limewire all the money you want, you're just lining the lawyers' pockets, because the suit's not going anywhere.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Frank shouldn't be calling people names by Ray Beckerman on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:13am
Frank you should be more careful about the words you throw around. You're confusing 2 entirely separate issues.
One is the RIAA's copyright case against Lime Wire. The other is Lime Wire's antitrust case against the RIAA. Your comment doesn't seem to address the latter at all, which is what the news article is about.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Where Have You Gone Oh RIAA? by Max_bialystock on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:17am
To Qoute McLean and McLean.
Before they went after file-sharing, it was home taping.
These idiots throw tons of money (yours by the way) into stopping the exchange of music.
I hope they get nailed to the wall.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:20am
Limewire for the WIN!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:20am
Limewire for the WIN!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: duh by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:24am
"...not buying music anymore isn't the answer. It is the artist that will suffer. A band that has a million selling album only gets about $20,000 to split between it's members. Not much, huh?"
-------------
Um, so at what point am I supposed to feel sorry for the band for joining up with RIAA? Every one of the artists that RIAA represents signed their name to the contract. No one put a gun to their head. And don't give me that "if you want to make money" line, either. If you want to make money, get a real job. You want to make music, do the work to put on concerts and distro your content. Stop signing the short cut doc and crying about it later. It's not RIAA's fault.
peace
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE: Shawn B. by That Guy on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:27am
"You just proved Limewires case. File sharing is at the disposal of the USER, for whatever purpose they want.
Just like DOT is not culpable for thieves robbing a bank and then driving down their roads. Infrastructure does not imply intent."
Brilliant. We need more thinkers like you.
Case Closed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You guys are morons by Charlie - Fab 4 Drummer on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:35am
An artist does not need the RIAA to uphold or protect copyright law. That is what our court system is for. The RIAA is only looking to safeguard it's own bank account. If you think that the RIAA "Protects" the artist, let's go talk to some artists that woke up one morning to find out that they were broke. Ask them just how much "Protection" the RIAA is giving them! And just so you know where I am coming from: I BUY (legally)all the music I can get my hands on because I too am a musician who depends on our broken, lopsided system!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Controlling content by mdwstmusik on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:35am
AMEN! This whole RIAA/MPIAA fight is not about copyright infringement, it's about losing market share to independent content creators. "The little guy" now has the ability to create and distribute quality content without the need for the RIAA/MPIAA's services. That's what they are scared of.
DRM-ed content has not, and never will, to stop "fair use" (AKA "piracy"). However, DRM enforcing hardware can make it very difficult and/or expensive for independent content creators to distribute their non-DRM-ed content.
This is the world that the RIAA/MPIAA is fighting for, and it's already happening. My NEW DVD player refuses to play any DVD that I've made from my own 'Home Movies.' They continue to play "just fine" on my OLD DVD player.
Until recently, the ONLY way that an artist could mass market and distribute their creations was through the RIAA/MPIAA. And, in order to get them to LOAN you the money to develop your product, the artist had to sign over a large percentage of his or her rights to their creations. Artists still have to pay this money back, even if the album/movie doesn't return enough to pay for this loan. That's a major reason why you'll see 'one hit wonder' bands touring dive bars for years after they've faded to obscurity. They're often doing it to pay back the money advanced to them by their former record company.
The only people who buy the whole "it's for the artist" BS coming from the RIAA/MPIAA are the ones who have no idea about how the business actually works. With few 'big name' exceptions, online, self production/distribution leaves far more money for, and control to, artist.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Funny Shit by Anonymous on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:37am
I remember the days of the Commodore 64 and how companies came out with cartridges that allowed you to stop and peek inside any program while it was running or copy it from a protected floppy diskette to another, yet none of the software companies sued the makers of these products. Today we have the same prinical on a larger scale yet the RIAA is suing everyone.
Very shameful world we live in now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hmmmm by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:45am
What I never could understand is... How does the RIAA and MPAA get away with suing people who have content and saying that those people have made them loose money??? The fact is, you can't claim a loss on a potential sale! People aren't stealing something tangible... it's digital... the only thing a Record Label looses is a potential sale!
So they are screaming FOUL because they THINK they could have made more money. Look how they do their math... If 10,000 have illegally downloaded a song that cost $0.99, they say they lost $9900.
1. They didn't loose anything... just a potential sale..
2. What make's them so sure that without file sharing, 10,000 would have paid for the song?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: duh by Charlie - Fab 4 Drummer on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 8:49am
You are correct! No one "made" anyone sign up with RIAA. No one "made" you buy gas from "Big Oil" either, but if you want to drive somewhere . . .
Do you have any concept of the amount of cash it takes to bankroll a concert tour? Or to print up 50,000 tee shirts? Or to produce a million CD's? I'll take that as a "no". Go down to your local night club Friday night and ask the band how much money they have in the bank. Do you have a job? Do you work for a company that produces something? Can I have it for free? How about 10 million of us, can we all have it for free????
The music industry is broken and needs to be fixed. Not paying for music won't fix it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 9:36am
all american idol is...is just an avenue for the RIAA to bitch slap us with more shitty music. is clay or ruben around? i haven't heard of them. only kelly. that's it. but then again, i live under a rock and listen to techno music. voting for american idol is a game. piece of shit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 9:41am
Limewire is my hero!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: This is all B.S. by me on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 9:44am
bullshit, RIAA shill.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: American Idol by Anonymous Coward by Charlie - Fab 4 Drummer on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 9:51am
Well, actually Clay is still around and just released a new album. But let's talk about Kelly Clarkson: She was the "people's" choice. She has done amazing things in terms of success. Simon didn't like her and didn't want her to win. If the record company exec. had his way, we wouldn't have Kelly! That brings me to Carrie Underwood. Simon did everything he could to keep her from winning. She is now on her 4th big hit from her first CD. She is the ONLY double winner in the CMT Video Awards this year, she has broken record after record. My point: American Idol is not perfect but it is a place to express "our" opinion over the record companies. If you don't VOTE and express your opinion - THEY (the record companies) WIN. If you want things to change, do something that makes a difference - get involved!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Donations by Me on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:12am
I'll donate to the legal funds for Lime Wire RIAA needs to be reined in a lot they are an overzealous big hammer slamming everyone and anything they feel remotely threatened by regardless of its legit or not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:17am
"so fight the power, support content that isn't owned by the MPAA and RIAA."
http://www.radiolovers.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: This is all B.S. by Giraffe on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:21am
Actually Winamp is great for free porn, just go to Shoutcast TV and there is plenty there, just make sure that you have those specific ratings (XXX) enabled to be displayed in preferences. As for MP3 download services www.allofmp3.com is great. It is a Russian site with American and European music as well as great selection of Eastern European music. No DRM and you even get to pick how it is encoded, all that for $1-$3 per album in most cases.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Go Limewire on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:22am
everone who uses limewire upgrade to pro, its well worth it and will give limewire the dollars to really do a job on the legal issue
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
P2P offers more than Itunes ever could. by Boobs McGee on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:39am
It's impossible to get rare tracks and collaborations and otherwise unpublished materials like live concerts outside of P2P. The wealth of individually recorded tracks and small-time bands out there worth listening to is gargantuine, and I'm sorry, but all I find on itunes (and I do download from them as well) is the same stuff I would find in a music store.
20,000,000 songs isn't all that much when 19,999,500 are garbage crap tracks that all sound the same.
I rest my case.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: I so hope by Steve on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:43am
You've got that right! But it goes deeper than that. The politicians control the corruption in this country and they have the monopoly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Limewire by DREi on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:44am
Ummm...You are a DUMB ASS if you don't shut the application off of course it will continue to use bandwidth. Any file sharing application you use will do that Silly ass Dude. Geez this is a the reason why folks get into trouble with file sharing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: P2P offers more than Itunes ever could. by Charlie - Fab 4 Drummer on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:45am
Ouch! I believe that you have hit the nail right square on the head :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by DREi on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 10:49am
"fucking car! i didnt know it used gas when idling in park!" Bahahahahaha!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You guys are morons by DREi on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 11:00am
Well Ummm...FileSharing isn't leaving us anytime soon...Don't forget that...The RIAA sued 10,000 individual users everyone was in shock but people are smart and the fear of being sued wore off as they found more secure ways to download. Sue 10,000 users and 2,000,000 more users take there place. It's that simple the market for music has changed and the RIAA and MPAA haven't adjusted. Too bad for them. And you Frank are are what I call a NUT RUB Head!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Limewire by obilesk on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 11:23am
AAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!!!!! priceless
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RE: Shawn B. by obilesk on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 11:29am
AMEN
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Duh by Bob by obilesk on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 11:32am
- "Our apathy lends power to those we hate."
Absolutely the greatest quote ever. Should go down in history. The URL to take action:
http://www.senate.gov
It only takes a few minutes. BE HEARD! Then you can complain all you want, guilt free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Frank shouldn't be calling people names by Frank on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 11:45am
Perhaps you're the one who is confused, Ray. Limewire's aintitrust claim has been asserted as a counterclaim in the RIAA's copyright infringement suit. Thus, Limewire is attempting to defeat the RIAA's claim by alleging that the RIAA's actions (in defense of the copyrights) are anti-competative. My comment (and try to read a little more carefully this time) was that Limewire will have very little success attempting to convince the court that the RIAA is violating antitrust law by defending a valid copyright.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: You guys are morons by Frank on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 12:04pm
"The market for music has changed" only to the extent that it has become easier for halfwits like DREi to get what they want for free. How would you have the RIAA and MPAA adjust, genius? Do you expect them to say, "Oh well, I guess we should just let the consumer have our product for free and we'll just eat all of the costs of production." Here's the bottom line for DREi and the rest of you people: Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner. If it was your copyright, you'd want to protect it too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
feel bad? by tom on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 12:25pm
Go limewire....
I feel bad when I see musicians bitchin and moaning about people downloading music......with their million dollar houses and 8 exotic cars in the background, they are barely getting by! I used to be a Metallica fan until the Napster episode....now I turn the radio station whenever Metallica comes on....no kidding!! I will not even listen to them!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Whoa, whoa, whoa... by Slaykat on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 12:34pm
This may be floating the fine line here, but wouldn't the definition of copyright infringement be taking someone's original works, and either wholesale stealing them and claiming them or changing something only slightly with the same result?
Talking about twisting things up. What's the difference if I download a song off the internet, or I wait for it to come on my choice of *free* radio stations and record it? The difference is the transmission method and storage method. One is digital, one is analog (or digital depending on what you use). I'm not taking the music I download, renaming it to list my name, or band, and resending it out as *my* original work. I'm just listening to it. I'm not selling it. I'm not in anyway, shape or form, altering the original song/movie.
Since when is it a crime to use your ears and listen? It's not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I've heard it all! by Lay Person on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 12:47pm
I've heard it all!
This same old crap over and over...I wanna PUKE!
....WoooWhooooaaaauuugh!!!....Oh excuse me...
*Shitheads saying sharing is illegal.
*Other shitheads say it should be bought.
*Still more shitheads talk of nurturing competitive growth.
*Further, shitheads with fireside legal knowledge, contemplating copyright laws.
Does it ever end? All you shitheads are just that...SHITHEADS!
An artist..a true artist (art for arts sake) could care less about being compensated for their work. First, the artist must be good at what he does. If they're good, the RIAA and the MPAA don't even matter. They are there to get paid, not the artist. A good artist can produce art, get paid and be famous without either institution present.
All we get from these institutions, now, aren't even artists. They are first businesses, and if any even possess an iota of talent, artists second. All these products from these instituions are just that...products.
Talent sells itself..it always has and always will. Sure artists will get paid for their work. They may not make millions but thay will manage as all of us do. In fact, the greatest asset an artist has are the fans and fans have a unique way of turning others on to their art far better than the media can.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Gabriel Tane on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 1:12pm
Ok... here we go.
First: I despise the RIAA and it's tactics. They are underhanded and unethical. They rely on the financial inability to defend ourselves to browbeat us into doing things thier way.
Second: The RIAA is right to enforce the copyrights they impose. But, has it been decided by law that P2P is violating those copyrights? Serious questions here, I don't remember if anyone said a definitive "yes" or "no"
Third: it was said that the RIAA is a bit overboard. Ya think? Seriously. I don't have the link, but a previous TechDirt article pointed to an article written by a defense lawyer that was helping one of the moms that was fighting back. The article explained the RIAA's tactics and how questionable (but not quite illegal) those tactics were.
Basically, the RIAA gets a list of songs that it "knows" were downloaded and a list of IP addresses that it "knows" facilitated the downloads. The resultant John Doe's are subpoenaed and are found to be in default when they don't show up (nice loophole, huh?).
Once that happens, the RIAA gets court orders to scour those IP addresses for names, then hits each individual up for every one of the songs on that list, without proving that the individual downloaded any of the songs at all. That's why the RIAA drops the cases that start to fight back. They know there's no proof of their allegations. They are relying on the belief that we lowly pirates won't be able to afford to lose the fight, and therefore won't risk it. We'll take the definite loss of the settlement in exchange for the possible higher loss.
So, that's the process some in this thread were coming damned close to defending.
Now, all that said, let's look at points from the posts:
and this will help how? The law is already in place. The Legislative branch has done its job. Now it's time for the Judicial side to interpret that law and decide how it is to be enforced (i.e. precedence). Unfortunately, they've done a cock-up job of it so far.
You know, I almost gave this a pass until I realized you were serious.
How much of those extortion-like settlements that the RIAA has bullied from consumers has actually been paid to the artists? How many artists have seen one single red cent from that? Yeah. Thought so.
Uh... American Idol is entertainment... well, for some anyway. Hate it myself.
AI comes out with one new "idol" per season. That's hardly enough to say "there's our voice changing the music industry". The point is that our way of changing the music industry should be our purchasing power. If a band is well-liked, people will by the albums. If not, the band won't go anywhere.
Now the choke-point of that is through distribution. If no one hears of you, how can they buy your stuff. That's where the RIAA still holds its control. We're seeing things change as more and more artists are doing small, local releases and telling fans to spread the love. Also, the MySpace music thing is a step in the right direction.
But I hardly see American Idol really doing anything about the Cookie-Cutter-Crap-Pop problem now-a-days.
Given what I said about how miniscule an effect AI has on the music industry, I'd go so far as to say that the voting and opinion-voicing ability delivered by AI is a token at best.
So, it's there for a reason. One could argue that it's a way for the record companies to placate us by giving us something that will make us say "finally, a way to voice my opinion!". If that's the case, then you are letting the record companies win by voting.
My final penny:
If you want to help; if you want to stop one of the meanest and biggest bullies in the market... stand up to them. If the RIAA bully wants our lunch money, we all band together and say "no". Support those who are currently going toe-to-toe with the RIAA (that mother that was wrongly accused, Limewire, all the other defendants who challenged the accusations). Through a determined and unified defiance of these tactics, we can put a stop to anything.
Remember, it was over 200 years ago that a determined group of colonists told a king "no more" to what they considered unfair taxing practices. (sure, there was a lot more to it, but it gets my point across).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 1:43pm
damn long post heh
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 1:46pm
the reason they drop cases when defendants fight back is because they know (i hope) their "evidence" wont stand up to scrutiny and above al else, they dont want a ruling not in their favor that would set precendent for all the judges that cant think for themselves
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Gabriel Tane on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 1:55pm
It has been said time and time again, ad nauseum, that you can compete with free. The market has changed so that copies of music are available for free to those who can find them. Here's the point... those copies are crappy. It's poor recording at sub-cd quality. It's not the cost, it's the value. I've stated before here
I'm not saying that they shouldn't protect thier product. I'm saying they should use tacitcs other than an extortion racket.
And as far as "Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner."...
You're right. It is (possibly) a violation of copyright laws. I could throw out a bunch of what-if's but that's not what I want to do.
What I do want to do is keep the focus on where it belongs. On the fact that the RIAA isn't trying to protect intelectual property. They are trying to protect thier monopoly on the distribution of that intelectual property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Gabriel Tane on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 1:57pm
That's what I get for coming in after 70 posts. Sorry bout that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Gabriel Tane on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 1:58pm
-Anonymous Coward
My point exactly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Say it again by cb on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 2:15pm
So well said, I thought I would copy and paste it again.
If you want to help; if you want to stop one of the meanest and biggest bullies in the market... stand up to them. If the RIAA bully wants our lunch money, we all band together and say "no". Support those who are currently going toe-to-toe with the RIAA (that mother that was wrongly accused, Limewire, all the other defendants who challenged the accusations). Through a determined and unified defiance of these tactics, we can put a stop to anything.
Remember, it was over 200 years ago that a determined group of colonists told a king "no more" to what they considered unfair taxing practices. (sure, there was a lot more to it, but it gets my point across).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Lay Person on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 2:20pm
You know I've been meaning to commend you on your effort in this post.
It is well thought out and substantiative.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Damin this site!...I get lost some times...sorry.. by Lay Person on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 2:27pm
I was referring to #71 Gabriel Tane
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: duh by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 2:29pm
You are correct!
--thanks
No one "made" anyone sign up with RIAA.
--ya
No one "made" you buy gas from "Big Oil" either, but if you want to drive somewhere . . .
--I use bioD. petrol is bad for the enviroment
Do you have any concept of the amount of cash it takes to bankroll a concert tour?
--ya, ever heard of starting small?
Or to print up 50,000 tee shirts?
-ya, again, ever heard of starting small? maybe 100 at a time... put in some leg work. do something other than get drunk and beat a drum set for 2 hours a week at a bar?
Or to produce a million CD's?
--ya, $24.95 per 100 blanks at Fry's + $150 for a good, fast burner.
I'll take that as a "no".
--you'd be wrong
Go down to your local night club Friday night and ...
--sorry, I dont like drunks
ask the band how much money they have in the bank.
--before or after they blew it on drugs? all the bands I know make a good profit, then again they arent wasteoids with no investment sense...oh right, and they don't suck. maybe there's a connection
Do you have a job?
--ya
Do you work for a company that produces something?
--ya
Can I have it for free?
-- sure! http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
How about 10 million of us, can we all have it for free????
--SURE! http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The music industry is broken and needs to be fixed.
--no shit, mostly these kids need to get over the "I have a guitar so give me a million dollars" routine
Not paying for music won't fix it.
--never said it would... then again buying all my CDs used didn't give a dime over to the artist either, but you dont see RIAA trying to sue me, or some drummer screaming at me online.
don't quit your day job.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Greg on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 3:13pm
"A good analogy would be to sue Microsoft because the Unibomber wrote his manifesto with Word."
Nice analogy, man. Dead on.
Captain Booger: Four letters: RTFM. You're even accountable for the parts that you don't understand. Play with fire, get burned.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: duh by Lay Person on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 3:21pm
Dude, your rebuttal is hilarious!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Anonymous Coward on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 3:31pm
What I do want to do is keep the focus on where it belongs. On the fact that the RIAA isn't trying to protect intelectual property. They are trying to protect thier monopoly on the distribution of that intelectual property. - Gabriel Tane
I appreciate your coherent argument (as opposed to some of the lunatics on this board), but I think you're making a distinction that doesn't exist. Protecting the intellectual property necessarily means protecting the distribution of that property. That's the whole point of copyrighting a work--so you can make people pay to see/hear/use it. If anyone can distribute the product (and here's the key) without paying the copyright holder, then the copyright is worthless.
As for the reduction in quality argument, I think you're being pretty disingenuous, because the difference in quality is negligible at best (we not talking about a tape made by placing a mic in front of the speaker of your CD player). It's also quite irrelevant legally. If I make a somewhat blurry photocopy of the newest bestseller and passes it out to anyone and everyone so they won't have to actaully pay for it, the copyright violation doesn't go away just because it's a little harder to read than the printed book. The key is that you're not doing anything to alter the substance of the work; it's an exact copy of the song, perhaps lower quality, but exactly the same in all substantive respects.
I don't understand how you can attempt so strenuously to justify what is clearly against the law. Is it really so important to be able to listen to the newest Eminem single for free?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Frank on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 3:54pm
Sorry, that last one was from me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
If you love music... by if you really love music on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 4:27pm
People don't realize that those of us who share music and download P2p probably own more CD's than anyone else if they really love music. Any artist will tell you... if you love my work? Don't buy my CD. Go to my show. Even the large artists, unless they own their own recoding label, they make shit on CD's sold. Literally, they can make pennies for each CD sold. Where does the rest go? The record label. Considering that it can cost less than a penny per CD created and CD cases aren't that much either.... these large recording labels aren't doing too badly. You want to support the artist? Go see them play on tour. Yeah, buying the CD helps but you're padding the haunches of the record company more than anyone else.
I am not dumb about what is going on either. Yes, it takes millions of dollars to fund a grand tour for a famous band across many contries. Yes, it takes millions of dollars to produce millions of cd's and market to spreak the artist's work and not all recording industries are bad. I point at many industries that are formed by artists themselves. (Nothing records.... blue black labels... ect. ect. ect.)
People need to be more informed because it's becoming more and more difficult for smaller bands who might rely on p2p to create a name out there to actually thrive. Metallica was giving away tapes in their infancy and if people weren't copying them for one another then who knows how they would have ended up?
Alright, I'm done.
Later.
later.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Frank shouldn't be calling people names by Mike on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:51pm
Perhaps you're the one who is confused, Ray.
I'll let Ray speak for himself, but you do realize that he's a lawyer involved in a number of these cases? He knows the details pretty well...
Limewire's aintitrust claim has been asserted as a counterclaim in the RIAA's copyright infringement suit. Thus, Limewire is attempting to defeat the RIAA's claim by alleging that the RIAA's actions (in defense of the copyrights) are anti-competative. My comment (and try to read a little more carefully this time) was that Limewire will have very little success attempting to convince the court that the RIAA is violating antitrust law by defending a valid copyright.
No, there's much more to it than that. Limewire is alleging that the RIAA is abusing its antitrust position in some of its actions. That goes beyond just protecting its copyright. That goes for completely shutting down alternate means of distribution, even if they have legal purposes. That's not just protecting a copyright, that's shutting down a system that others might want to use.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Mike on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 6:54pm
"The market for music has changed" only to the extent that it has become easier for halfwits like DREi to get what they want for free
Are you new around here? The market has changed in a lot more ways than that.
How would you have the RIAA and MPAA adjust, genius? Do you expect them to say, "Oh well, I guess we should just let the consumer have our product for free and we'll just eat all of the costs of production."
Not at all. As we've pointed out REPEATEDLY (do a search), there are plenty of ways that the RIAA and MPAA can embrace sharing and actually end up EXPANDING their market and making MORE MONEY. By recognizing the content, by itself, is a promotional vehicle for selling other things (and I won't go through the list of possible other things yet again, but it's long and quite lucrative).
Just because you don't understand that there are other business models doesn't mean they don't exist.
Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner. If it was your copyright, you'd want to protect it too.
Hmm. This is the argument I understand the least. We've defended this position repeatedly using FREE MARKET language. Nothing Marxist about it. Free market economics teaches you that price gets driven to marginal cost. In the case of content, that's zero.... It's all about free market economics.
I do agree that it's breaking the law, but that doesn't mean the copyright owner shouldn't realize there are other opportunities to make more money by embracing what it's customers want.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Gabriel Tane on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 9:00pm
Thanks for the nod. It's nice to see that honest, good-spirited debate is still appreciated.
No the distinction does exist. The point I was making is that the ##AA doesn't care about the intelectual property. They know that if they lose that property, the can go clone some more. What they don't like about this is the loss of control over the distribution. It's a power, trip. Plain and simple.
Uh... google books? Wasn't it decided that that was not copywrite infringment?
As to the rest of the quality... yes, mp3's aren't that bad. But the RIAA has the resources to produce a product that is so far superior in it's value through features that they would be worth it to buy. They just don't.
I don't understand why you would so blindly hide behind the justification of "it's the law". Not all laws are just and not all wrongs are illegal. I'm not saying that copyright laws don't have thier purpose and that they don't serve to protect... they do. But, I don't think this is an appropriate application of those laws. And I'm not going to accept it "just because it's the law" or, as you put it: "so clearly against the law".
I had this whole soap-box speech on a previous thread about giving up your little liberties. I think it applies here as well: Enjoy
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Legal shit by Oilslug on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 3:17pm
most artists are fucking rich anyway, and dont mind ppl downloading thr stuff (ive seen interviews where countless bands have saind they dont care, INCLUDING lars ulrich of metallica) its completely the MPAA and RIAA just wanting to make as much money as they can.
BASTARDS
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by lol on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 4:27pm
YEA LIMEWIRE! GET THOSE FUCKS! man bout time some1 did something.... torrentspy just took it and left.. they wer scared to do anything bout it.. well i agre.. who would risk their whole company just to prove a point but yea some1s gota do it.. btw SUPPORT AMERICA! check out my site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: I so hope by Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 4:31pm
"It's only illegal if you get caught"
A common misconception.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Music Sharing/File Sharing by Depricated Musician on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 4:59pm
Well now...this whole RIAA thing makes me wonder if perhaps the Louvre should be sueing websites that post images of the Mona Lisa, or other things that are in their possession though not their property?
Or perhaps authors should sue websites that tease readers into buying a book by giving the first chapter[instead of the first 13 lines, which is technically not publishing, though an entire chapter is]
I myself am a musician, though I'm certain you've never heard anything I've recorded, unless you know me. I don't have a label or anything fancy like that. If my songs were being swapped around on Limewire I would be excited. I exalt musicians who promote music "sampling" such as Green Day[they sell green day patterned blank CDRs, with the banner "You downloaded the music, now heres a place to shove it!" on the website]
The RIAA does nothing but keep Musicians and Profit down. They do no good for the people they "serve" and only cause chaos and terror in the general populous...and thus, we can safely say, that the RIAA are Terrorists...in fact i wouldn't be surprised if their monopolistic scheme were somehow tied into Al'Qaida...
j/k on that last part...but for reals, way to go Limewire, kick their ass!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: duh by Stevo on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 6:18pm
QUOTE "The music industry is broken and needs to be fixed.
--no shit, mostly these kids need to get over the "I have a guitar so give me a million dollars" routine"
this is a fair point .. u can't be sued for buying used cd's or if someone gives you their cd.. im not sure about a copied version of it though so this may be wrong.. but if the original mp3 was bought and then passed on then its not illegal is it.. it would only be illegal if the person with the mp3 in first place didn't delete it making the copied one not really a copy.. that gets messy coz even the mp3 in 1st place is a copy of the cd i suppose. but all im saying is if u can buy used cd's or get them for free and its not illegal then surely its the same sort of thing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by leftwing on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 6:24pm
Actually only a very small amount of artists are rich, you just barely hear about the rest.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by stevo on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 6:26pm
damn i quoted the wrong part lol..
QUOTE
"Not paying for music won't fix it.
--never said it would... then again buying all my CDs used didn't give a dime over to the artist either, but you dont see RIAA trying to sue me, or some drummer screaming at me online."
thats the right quote and again my response
this is a fair point .. u can't be sued for buying used cd's or if someone gives you their cd.. im not sure about a copied version of it though so this may be wrong.. but if the original mp3 was bought and then passed on then its not illegal is it.. it would only be illegal if the person with the mp3 in first place didn't delete it making the copied one not really a copy.. that gets messy coz even the mp3 in 1st place is a copy of the cd i suppose. but all im saying is if u can buy used cd's or get them for free and its not illegal then surely its the same sort of thing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
WTF??? by Jesus Chrysler Funnycar on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 6:53pm
actually there is a video have from Frank Zappa where he does an exact breakdown of how much money he recieved from Warner Brothers records when he had a contract-per LP sale, per concert Ticket, Per piece of merchandise, and then he started his own record company, then did the same comparison. Major Record companies have ALWAYS been theives, usually headed up by some dopey young dipshit who "knows what the kids want" because he's so "hip and young". I worked in the record industry for years, it was bullshit in the 1970's, 1980' 1990's and even bigger bullshit today, especially since 1/2 of the record companies have been bought out by one another. That's why there are 29, count em' 29 flagship labels working under Atlantic Records alone. Virgin records has been bought out for the Umpteenth time since it's start in 1972. they started as cotillion (the label that started "E.L.P", yeah thanks for THAT!). BMG has officially bought out 10 labels in the last year due to the popularity of shitty teenybopper acts and labels such as Jive/RCA Records(who by the way signed and then quickly dropped acts such as "Kid Rock" and "John Denver" to make room for more palatable acts such as "New Edition" and more recently "Britney Spears" not to mention "Kevin Federline" as well has been signed to that shitty label as well. BTW, just a footnote - Joh Denver made over 250 million dollars for that label in the 1970's & 1980's. My answer is to start your own label and continue downloading, you are not stealing from a sole (or soul..however you see it). It costs approximatley $2.85 to press and package a CD (unless you're "Tool", and have to make up for the fact that you have been milking the same "King Crimson" cow for a decade, so in that case it costs maybe a buck more. The record label gets 85 1/2% per draw on every cd sale. that's about 11.00 per sale, unless it's Sam Goody or one of those crappy stores, Then the record label gets about 20 bucks, Basic cost for a chain to buy a cd box-lot of 25 or 30 is 10.30 per disc-The artist ONLY gets paid if the sale goes through from the reatil chain to the teenager. Bottom line is MERCHANDISING is what pays the artist, Getting the name out there, and not in an "US Magazine" Jessica Simpson/John Mayer are dating kinda way (God, that poor bastard is an excellent guitarist, I don't think the world will ever know), But in a Jeff Buckley, play every friggin' night until you die kinda way.Half of the "stars" from 5 years ago are a joke now-Christ 'member when Hammer was big???, how about Korn or Limp Bizkit. All I'm saying is, Support acts by NOT buying tickets through ticketmaster, But buying in person at a box office, Buy some swag they sell at the concert-don't give in to the crap the RIAA says about "stealing"-They have been stealing from Great bands since the "payola scandal" that put great DJ's out of work, and some into their grave. Remember the band "Badfinger", they were signed by Paul McCartney, (You know him right?), They were the 2nd biggest band in the world behind the Beatles at one point, and the label exec's at capitol bought out the rights to Apple records when the Beatles could'nt run it anymore, and Badfinger lost everything. Their music, their publishing, their royalties, the homes, their cars, everything, so much to the point that 1/2 of the band committed suicide due to all of the stress brought on by the record industry. I can go on all day. SCREW THE RIAA! Torrents! Limewire! Bearshare! Go, just support for the right cause!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fuck RIAA and bible hugging assholes by Wr3ck on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 6:54pm
LimeWire rocks. I have hundreds of files.
Games, Movies, Music... LimeWire is fucking awesome. I grew tired and weiry of Ares and spyware.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Case by Zurain on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 7:32pm
The RIAA and the MPAA don't have a leg to stand on in this battle. It like saying that remington should be sued becasue of how many people used their product to kill someone.
Ultimetly it is up to the user to decide how the product is going to be used. If people decide to steal music that is thier choice not Limewire's.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Awesome by Shane on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 8:04pm
I just gained a whole lot of respect for limewire
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
analogy by sleepy on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 8:47pm
To me RIAA and artists are like pimp and whores.
People are embracing 'open source' more and more every day. Why do we try to go backwards and asserting Intellectual Property on songs ?
If the sales of records keeps going down day by day, then the artists will eventually realize they can do better without pimps. The pimps rarely helps, the whores with looks and talents will be the popular ones.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Good luck, they'll need it by Sean on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 9:02pm
Limewire is more wellknown then kazaa, not as much as napster though, anything to fuck these riaa bastards over i support, why pay for a CD when you may only like two or so songs on the whole disc
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 9:46pm
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO i , well i will just go to all the other one and jack music, we will miss u limerwire
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Josh on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 3:32am
Has there even been a report or research on how much revenue RIAA MPAA loses to unlawful downloads anyway, compare to how much they do get ?
i mean the content doesnt come out of thin air, it comes from someone who owns the material and or otherwise viewed it.
Im really curious about this.
Also, wouldn't the person who came up with the conversion code for MP3 be the owner of all digital Audio in MP3 format ?
we use they're code and its now as common as a knife and fork ?
wanting ownership on everything will bring us down and tear us apart. it would be like claiming the Moon
You must admit though, with the changes made in recent history through fear and control the world isn't seeming like an altogether excellant world.
Control creates Chaos ... its the natural order.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
People really need to listen by Nick on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 6:37am
Limewire does have some fall backs, it can use alot of system resources but there are fixes out there if people would just look!
Limewire does not contain any spyware, go to kazaa for that BS.
The vast majority of the time people use Limewire for single songs not downloading full albums, thats what bittorrent is for.
You would think the MPAA & RIAA would learn that charging rediculous prices for CD's, DVD's ect. would make them lower the price instead of loosing Millions of Dollars sueing little girls and boys.
They have shut down countless websites and guess what? they reappear in a different country on a different network! they will never stop the file sharing world, unless they grapple on to it properly and stop with 15/30 bucks for DVD.
NCMITGBM
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
money by no use for name on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 8:00am
its all money and bullshit..buying a cd, that is expensive, and only because i heard 1 song on the radio or tv or some shit..end up buying it and listening to the rest of the cd and found out you paid for junk..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Frank shouldn't be calling people name by Frank on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 11:53am
"I'll let Ray speak for himself, but you do realize that he's a lawyer involved in a number of these cases? He knows the details pretty well..." - Mike
Don't worry, I know who Ray is. I also know which side he's on and the agenda he promotes. As with all of the arguments on this board, "the details" are subject to some pretty heavy interpretation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The breakdown. by Platy on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 12:29pm
RIAA for the artist is the most blatent lie ever told. Here's a couple of accounts of where the money goes.
By Steve Albini (produced Nirvana's "In Utero")
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
And one lengthy one by (strangely enough) Courtney Love:
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.xml?pn=1
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Frank on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 12:54pm
"...there are plenty of ways that the RIAA and MPAA can embrace sharing and actually end up EXPANDING their market and making MORE MONEY." - Mike
Just because you think it's a good business decision for the RIAA, Mike, doesn't mean you get to force them into taking that route. This is what I don't understand about your position: What gives you the right to decide that someone else isn't handling their business correctly, and that you should be able to take action to force their hand?
"Free market economics teaches you that price gets driven to marginal cost. In the case of content, that's zero." - Mike
I'm guessing you're not a Wharton grad, right, Mike? I think you mean that profit is maximized when price equals marginal cost. If the marginal cost of producing music was in fact zero, then the record companies wouldn't be making all this money that you all are ranting about. The marginal costs IS zero to Limewire users, because they didn't incur the costs of production. And the RIAA's big problem is that with file sharing, the price to consumers is now zero, well below the producer's marginal cost, which of course has a negative effect on profit.
I STILL can't understand how you can spend so much effort attempting to justify what you all know is theft. Wouldn't it be easier to just say (as some have on this board): "Yes, I'm stealing, but the risk of getting caught isn't a big enough deterrent to make me stop."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Gabriel Tane on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 1:15pm
I'll reiterate my previous point, and expand:
1) Who says its theft? Show me the court case that backs up your interpretation of copyright law that says downloading copies of digital music files is theft. Show me the court case that has been closed and is no longer being appealed and reviewed.
2) If we disagree with a common interpretation of a law, is it not our right to stand up and say so? Isn't that what our whole legal system of appeals and precedence based on?
3) Who says we have to share your view of what is and is not theft? Who says your interpretation is any more or less correct than mine? Now, if you are an official of the Judicial branch of our government, and you have signed off on a case that sets the precedence, making your interpretation the interpretation, then fine. I'll stop downloading. Until then, I believe I am right and I will continue acting in accordance with my conscience.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons by Frank on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 1:58pm
"If the music is copyrighted, such swapping, which involves making and transmitting a digital copy of the music, infringes copyright." In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1107 (2004), reh'g denied, 543 U.S. 1180 (2005). It doesn't get much clearer than that.
(reply to this comment) (