For A L L That Use P2p Or Share Files

[RealitY]

Double Post

[RealitY]

Do you believe the crime fits the supposed punishiment.
Do you believe there isn't a better solution such at those suggested at...
http://www.eff.org/share/compensation.php

Do you believe the artist is losing income due to file sharing.
Do you believe they lost income due to radio and vcrs as well...
Or did radio and other medias they claimed as the enemy actually help them profit.

Do you believe the AA is justified in their assult on the public...
Then make sure you don't let your friend borrow that new DVD you got.
Throw away your VCR, your Betamax, your DAT, your Tape Deck, turn off your Radio.
Oh, and according to the folks at the AA your CDR is the the enemy, throw it away.
Might as well chuck your Computer while your at it along with all Technology.

Oh, and by the way it is NOT stealing on any level, it is refered to as copyright infringement.

Also the idea, or thought, of it being distrubution is also now being challanged by the Jane Doe case...
Read http://zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/08132003c.php.

"Distribution implies sending, rather than leaving something where it may be taken,"

As for blaming them, I only blame them for being ignorant fools for 100 years.
With the mentallity of being a common street thug running an insurance racket.
I think the idea of "Copyproof" is where they have some brains working for them.

The only thing I wish to be accomplished is an end to the madness and kaos...
That is subject to the Public, the ISP's, the Courts, and...
Also Our Right To Privacy.

[A2Z4Me]

Hey REALITY. Good for U. Stealing. don't think so!!! Hey letter of the law. heh heh. Maybe I'm off. But heres another view. I have bought music since 1965. I've bought videos since 1990? Of course various Media. it wasn't called media then. But My understanding is the purchase includes a license. How many times do I have to pay for a license? My vinyl collection was 370 plus way back when. Then there was 8track and cassette, then there was CD. How many times do I have pay for it? The same stuff!

OK OK I paid for it 2-3 times same songs same sh*t. And I hear it free on radio. And I pay & play it in the jukebox. I pay and pay. enough. ENOUGH.

IM BROKE.

[Mr.Maniotis]

Originally posted by REALITY@15 August 2003 - 03:33
Do you believe the crime fits the supposed punishiment.
Do you believe there isn't a better solution such at those suggested at...
http://www.eff.org/share/compensation.php

Do you believe the artist is losing income due to file sharing.
Do you believe they lost income due to radio and vcrs as well...
Or did radio and other medias they claimed as the enemy actually help them profit.

Do you believe the AA is justified in their assult on the public...
Then make sure you don't let your friend borrow that new DVD you got.
Throw away your VCR, your Betamax, your DAT, your Tape Deck, turn off your Radio.
Oh, and according to the folks at the AA your CDR is the the enemy, throw it away.
Might as well chuck your Computer while your at it along with all Technology.

Oh, and by the way it is NOT stealing on any level, it is refered to as copyright infringement.

Also the idea, or thought, of it being distrubution is also now being challanged by the Jane Doe case...
Read http://zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/08132003c.php.

"Distribution implies sending, rather than leaving something where it may be taken,"

As for blaming them, I only blame them for being ignorant fools for 100 years.
With the mentallity of being a common street thug running an insurance racket.
I think the idea of "Copyproof" is where they have some brains working for them.

The only thing I wish to be accomplished is an end to the madness and kaos...
That is subject to the Public, the ISP's, the Courts, and...
Also Our Right To Privacy.

First off - I respect your intelligent response, as opposed to what I expected from some of the self righteous venom spewers we find here. Here is my response to yours.

1) The punishment fits the crime. If you knowingly take the risk of copyright infringement (yes, it is stealing), then whose fault is it if you get caught and have to pay the price. There is no punishment if you don't do it.

2)I don't know - I haven't visited that site yet.

3)Yes, they are losing income due to file sharing. You know that. Or you should know that. And they should not lose income. There are more than the artists involved here. Many people work at producing these products. Not all get rich, but it is how they make a living. I am tired, too, of people complaining how the record companies and artists make too much money. It's the classic success envy. They don't make money by forcing people to buy what they don't want to buy. They make it by successfully creating something people want. And success deserves reward. If you don't believe that, stop by the produce market to pick up some fresh grapes. Those sour ones are doing you no good.

4)Radio play is different. It is desired by the producers of music. They hope it leads to record sales. Someone hears a song they like and want to hear the whole CD. In order to do that, they are supposed to buy it. It keeps the music industry running. What good is it to them if people just download the music for free? How do they benefit?

5) The RIAA is not assaulting the public. They are trying to force them to respect the existing copyright laws. If they asked nicely, would anyone stop? No. So they are taking the necessary steps to represent those who produce the music we so enjoy. Again, it's not just the rich artists we are talking about here.

Letting your friend listed to a CD is different than saying, "Here is a CD for ALL of you who want it. Now you don't have to buy it!" With all due respect, and I do respect your position (just disagree), you know that there is a difference.

6) Throwing away my computer is a little rash, don't you think? The music industry was not concerned about an individual making a copy for themself or a friend. What happened was they were blindsided by the leap in P2P technology and recognized a threat to the rights of those who produce music to be compensated. As an artist, who makes a living at it, I would be livid if someone made a copy of my work and gave it out to thousands of people for free! I would be forced to go into another line of work. Having my work hang in a museum where people can view it without buying it is the equivalent of a musician having their music played on the radio where people could here it without paying for it. Like the musician, I would hope that the exposure would lead to more commissions.

And I sure as hell would be rooting for whatever agency took the steps to protect my rights to be compensated for what I do.

Lastly, the difference between active distribution and making something available for anyone to steal? (Jane Doe case) That's just lawyers bending words, as they do all too well. The end result is the same.

[RealitY]

1) The punishment fits the crime. If you knowingly take the risk of copyright infringement (yes, it is stealing), then whose fault is it if you get caught and have to pay the price. There is no punishment if you don't do it.

Do you even know what the suggested punishment is?
Well its $150,00 per song uploaded.

2)I don't know - I haven't visited that site yet.

Look, it may open your eyes.

3)Yes, they are losing income due to file sharing. You know that. Or you should know that. And they should not lose income. There are more than the artists involved here. Many people work at producing these products. Not all get rich, but it is how they make a living. I am tired, too, of people complaining how the record companies and artists make too much money.

Why is it not shown on their income/loss statements, its a lie, they are NOT.
This appears to be about power and control more than about money.
Many artist are openly saying that they HAVE profited directly due to filesharing.
The ones making a living that may suffer is the exutes nephew on an open payroll.
I don't care how much they make, and as I've said, anyonyone that spews that carap, needs to shutup.

4)Radio play is different. It is desired by the producers of music. They hope it leads to record sales. Someone hears a song they like and want to hear the whole CD. In order to do that, they are supposed to buy it. It keeps the music industry running. What good is it to them if people just download the music for free? How do they benefit?

I could easily argue that point, you listen, you like, you buy.
Perhaps tell a freind and get a shirt or a poster or go see the show.
Point is these idiots tried to shut down radio as well, do you homework.
They though it was the enemy as well at one time.

5) The RIAA is not assaulting the public. They are trying to force them to respect the existing copyright laws. Letting your friend listed to a CD is different than saying, "Here is a CD for ALL of you who want it. Now you don't have to buy it!" With all due respect, and I do respect your position (just disagree), you know that there is a difference.

Pure ASSULT through the manipulation of the DCMA and its originally intended purpose.
ASSULT on the Public, the ISP's, the Courts and so forth without care for a solution.
Read number two as stated earlier, they neglect to want to resolve anything.
This is why this appears to be a clear cut case of power and control.
My REAL position is THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

[Mr.Maniotis]

Originally posted by REALITY@16 August 2003 - 04:09

3)Yes, they are losing income due to file sharing. You know that. Or you should know that. And they should not lose income. There are more than the artists involved here. Many people work at producing these products. Not all get rich, but it is how they make a living. I am tired, too, of people complaining how the record companies and artists make too much money.

Why is it not shown on their income/loss statements, its a lie, they are NOT.
This appears to be about power and control more than about money.
Many artist are openly saying that they HAVE profited directly due to filesharing.
The ones making a living that may suffer is the exutes nephew on an open payroll.
I don't care how much they make, and as I've said, anyonyone that spews that carap, needs to shutup.

4)Radio play is different. It is desired by the producers of music. They hope it leads to record sales. Someone hears a song they like and want to hear the whole CD. In order to do that, they are supposed to buy it. It keeps the music industry running. What good is it to them if people just download the music for free? How do they benefit?

I could easily argue that point, you listen, you like, you buy.
Perhaps tell a freind and get a shirt or a poster or go see the show.
Point is these idiots tried to shut down radio as well, do you homework.
They though it was the enemy as well at one time.

5) The RIAA is not assaulting the public. They are trying to force them to respect the existing copyright laws. Letting your friend listed to a CD is different than saying, "Here is a CD for ALL of you who want it. Now you don't have to buy it!" With all due respect, and I do respect your position (just disagree), you know that there is a difference.

Pure ASSULT through the manipulation of the DCMA and its originally intended purpose.
ASSULT on the Public, the ISP's, the Courts and so forth without care for a solution.
Read number two as stated earlier, they neglect to want to resolve anything.
This is why this appears to be a clear cut case of power and control.
My REAL position is THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

The RIAA did NOT try and put a stop to radio play. It is too easy to make unvalidated statements here. Show me where you got this information. This taints your argument and you should drop that point if you want to be taken seriously.

It is not a case of power and control. It is a case of enforcement.

And how do you know what is shown on the income statements? It is none of your business anyway. The artists and recording companies own the rights to these songs. Even if they weren't losing money by pirates (and they are - why else would this be happening?), they have every right to prevent free distrubution. They own the rights! It's theirs! It belongs to them to do with what they wish! You do not own the rights. You can not dictate how the producers of this product distribute their product. I know you would like to, but legally, and morally, you can not.

And the RIAA has every right to use the methods necessary to track down the perpetrators that the perpetrators use to commit the offense.

Self righteousness is an ugly trait and indefensible.

[RealitY]

Unfortunattly I got dumped off the board before finishing...

6) Throwing away my computer is a little rash, don't you think? Like the musician, I would hope that the exposure would lead to more commissions.

Not harsh at all, just making a point that they would prefer it that way.
They would make you if they could twsist an act such as the DCMA to their needs.
EXPOSURE, couldn't P2P acomplish that.

And I sure as hell would be rooting for whatever agency took the steps to protect my rights to be compensated for what I do.

As so will I root for anyone defending my RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

Lastly, the difference between active distribution and making something available for anyone to steal? (Jane Doe case) That's just lawyers bending words, as they do all too well. The end result is the same.

Bend away I say, as they are bending the DCMA to supenoa users identies without even a Court order or showing how they have even aquired the information they have gathered.

First off - I respect your intelligent response

Well, Thanks.

I will find the articles regarding others.

[Digital Jammer]

Awesome post REALITY. Very informative indeed.

However, I must point out that like every username on that bust list from TechTV was a Kazaa username. It seems to me that Kazaa is the entire focus of the RIAA, and I must question why there isnt at least one user (or something that infers a non Kazaa p2p user) that wasnt on Kazaa.

Frankly, with so much mp3 swaping via other p2p programs (WinMx is a biggie) I just dont understand the RIAA's entire Kazaa obsession.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Mr.Maniotis+16 August 2003 - 14:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr.Maniotis &#064; 16 August 2003 - 14:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The RIAA did NOT try and put a stop to radio play. It is too easy to make unvalidated statements here. Show me where you got this information. This taints your argument and you should drop that point if you want to be taken seriously. [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-EFF
Voluntary Collective Licensing
This is how the "problem" of radio was ultimately resolved (only after copyright owners gave up on trying to sue it out of existence, of course). A "performing rights organization" (PRO) was formed, songwriters and music publishers were invited to join, and blanket licenses were given to any and all radio stations that wanted them.[/quote]
I think the mentallity at the time was that people would listen to Radio and stop buying the music or perhaps something along those lines. If I am not mistaken there is a current campaign that has shut down, by bruteforce such as threat of lawsuits, some internet radio medias as well.

It is not a case of power and control. It is a case of enforcement.

I think comes down to a matter of opinion, after their track record I guess you could say its enforcement at any avenue or chance they can get at perhaps. They&#39;ve lost battles in the past, such as vcr, betamax, and so forth, and are setting themselves up again.

Although I guess I should give them credit for manipulating and generating additional income through media such as CDR&#39;s which they get revenue for regardless of their use. I feel this may be their aggenda in the end regarding filesharing as well to extract additional income from sources such as the makers of P2P and ISP&#39;s through possible Bandwidth Levies. Truth is that could be considered FAIR.

And how do you know what is shown on the income statements? You can not dictate how the producers of this product distribute their product. I know you would like to, but legally, and morally, you can not.

I think they would&#39;ve shown those losses publicly if it exsisted just to substantiate their point.

Also I&#39;m not trying to dictate anything. This is clear cut case of REALITY, do you think think the actions they are taking are SANE, no they are INSANE, to try and sue countless millions of people overloading ISP&#39;s, Courts, and attempting to ruin peoples lives. There are better alternatives.

Technology changes, as it has in this case, and you don&#39;t adapt, well get lost. They had their chance to become a part of Napster when it was a centrilized system and possibly control and charge for the media going throug it, instead they chose to shut it down and create a bigger monster, KaZaa, a decentralized system.

If they continue this campaign, filesharing through animonity will flourish quickly, using proxies, bouncers, IP spoofing , and other means to hide users identies. There are thousands that are dedicated to creating this type of software. This will also give many who are involved in severe illegal activity a safe haven to hide as well. Point here is if you take down the beast, such as Napster, there is bigger one to come, such as KaZaa, and even bigger ones on the horizon. Some P2P applications are already using proxies and offering direct downloads of copyright material from their servers.

And the RIAA has every right to use the methods necessary to track down the perpetrators that the perpetrators use to commit the offense.

Perhaps, but as I&#39;ve said there are better alternatives, CLEARLY.

Self righteousness is an ugly trait and indefensible.

I&#39;m sorry, who is actually being self righteous here, I am only looking for a solution and an end to the madness and kaos, as I imagine Congrees will soon agree with as well, I know there is already some getting involed in looking for a solution.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Digital Jammer@16 August 2003 - 16:12
Awesome post REALITY. Very informative indeed.

However, I must point out that like every username on that bust list from TechTV was a Kazaa username. It seems to me that Kazaa is the entire focus of the RIAA, and I must question why there isnt at least one user (or something that infers a non Kazaa p2p user) that wasnt on Kazaa.

Simple, Fast Track is the largest having 3 million plus user on at any time according to Slyck..

Oh, And Thanks.