Riaa Subpoenas Isps

[imported_stg1123]

:o
RIAA subpoenas ISPs
By Dinah Greek [21-07-2003]
US recording industry carries out threat of forcing ISPs to hand over P2P users
http://images.vnunet.com/v6_image/v6_news/pics/eminem.jpg



The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has begun to tighten the screws on hundreds of users of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing systems in the US.
It has issued subpoenas to internet service providers (ISPs) in the US to force them to identify customers who are illegally sharing copyrighted music over networks like Kazaa.

The RIAA, the US music recording industry's leading trade body, announced in June that it would use scanning software to find P2P users. Additional information freely available on the sites is then used to identify the user's ISP.

Under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ISPs must provide copyright holders with such information when there is reason to believe copyrights are being infringed. The RIAA can then sue the individual.

"This should not come as a surprise to anyone," said a RIAA spokeswoman. "Filing information subpoenas is exactly what we said we'd do a couple of weeks ago when we announced that we were gathering evidence to file lawsuits."

The clampdown has already started to take effect. Loyola University in Chicago has handed over to RIAA lawyers the names of two students alleged to have downloaded music files from P2P sites.


Source Page (http://www.vnunet.com/News/1142446)

[bc1785]

This is getting really ridiculous. Do they actually expect CD sales to increase because they're going to sue their customers? I think not...

I'm sending my CDs to RIAA and ripping them into shreds. I'll have to add something else to them, but I don't know.

[Messican]

Fuck the RIAA!

[Ron]

Originally posted by bc1785@21 July 2003 - 18:57
I'm sending my CDs to RIAA and ripping them into shreds. I'll have to add something else to them, but I don't know.
LOL

Actually, that's a great idea bc1785.
Why don't we all send them our 'illegal' mp3's back by email.
That should keep them busy for a while. :D

[opivy]

I have a question what exactly should they do about people stealing there stuff?
Dont get me wrong I download music to but you have to ask yoursealf what would you do if you lost millions a year?

[toddiscool]

Originally posted by opivy@21 July 2003 - 20:55
I have a question what exactly should they do about people stealing there stuff?
Dont get me wrong I download music to but you have to ask yoursealf what would you do if you lost millions a year?
You know I agree completly, I mean what do we expect them to do. I guess it is noice for me to able to sit back and see what happens ( i do not live in the US.) I mean I hope that filesahring will win in the end, but I dont know how we can get so mad at them for trying to keep their money ( i would kill for mine.)

I do hopwever have a problem with some of the leverage that they are trying to get with it all. I mean how many suppenas have been sent to verizon, and only a few to Any Time warner companies. (in the articel that corner pocket linked to in another thread.) I post awhile ago about how filesharing would not die because TIME warner makes more money from ISP's then they lose from this. The only reply that i got was "I do not see the connection" Well there it is it looks like Time warner is gonna use this to gain more customers from Verizon, then we will see what happens, if RIAA starts (mostly Time warner) prosecuting it's on ISP customers.

Perhaps it is time verizon seeks some action of its own against this. ( i know they fight giving up their customers identities, but that may not be enough.

Article from CNN mentioned (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/19/downloading.music.ap/index.html)

[RollUrOwn]

:) I 'try' to avoid 'wholesale' downloading. The majority of my dl's have been music I have already purchased before, either on record or tape. I bought at least 3 copies of 'Master of Puppets' on tape that I played to death. If Lars gets pissed at me for dl'ing....well.....fuck him! :P

[opivy]

Originally posted by toddiscool+21 July 2003 - 21:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (toddiscool @ 21 July 2003 - 21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-opivy@21 July 2003 - 20:55
I have a question what exactly should they do about people stealing there stuff?
Dont get me wrong I download music to but you have to ask yoursealf what would you do if you lost millions a year?
You know I agree completly, I mean what do we expect them to do. I guess it is noice for me to able to sit back and see what happens ( i do not live in the US.) I mean I hope that filesahring will win in the end, but I dont know how we can get so mad at them for trying to keep their money ( i would kill for mine.)

I do hopwever have a problem with some of the leverage that they are trying to get with it all. I mean how many suppenas have been sent to verizon, and only a few to Any Time warner companies. (in the articel that corner pocket linked to in another thread.) I post awhile ago about how filesharing would not die because TIME warner makes more money from ISP&#39;s then they lose from this. The only reply that i got was "I do not see the connection" Well there it is it looks like Time warner is gonna use this to gain more customers from Verizon, then we will see what happens, if RIAA starts (mostly Time warner) prosecuting it&#39;s on ISP customers.

Perhaps it is time verizon seeks some action of its own against this. ( i know they fight giving up their customers identities, but that may not be enough.

Article from CNN mentioned (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/19/downloading.music.ap/index.html) [/b][/quote]
I agree its really crazy how this will how play out in the end I guess there in a tough spot if you ask me if they fight for there money they will look bad to most but if they dont fight they just keep loosing money they cant win and there is nothing they can do.

[Jibbler]

The RIAA is just making news, nothing more. Filesharing will continue but it will be encrypted and secure. The artists aren&#39;t losing money, the record companies are. They can no longer control the music that you purchase, and their advertising dollars are becoming a waste. I suggest they put out a better product and stop worrying about what we do. ;)

[default_12]

this is bullshit. they cant do shit to us. they r trying to scare us. and if they can i recommand everyone to dpwnload kazaa 2.4 and zone alarm to prevent it. :)

[toddiscool]

See i am starting so see a diffrent trend here, this may be weak but think about it. Ok so verizon is the one getting all the supena&#39;s right. Who is Time warner&#39;s only compitition? So if you are gonna choose an ISP which one is the avearge person gonna choose, the one where people are not getting supenas. AOL, Road Runner or Earthlink. So time warner (who is unquestionably the main part of of RIAA) creates itself a real good monopoly, by dominating the market. (that is legal).

And what from there, well AOL alreaddy blocks Kazaa right? Road Runner and Earthlink do not use proxy&#39;s so they don&#39;t, but don&#39;t you think that is a possibility? I know it sounds kinda thin, but... It does make a little bit of sense.

I hate Time warner.

[Adster]

Its reidiculous ok then I&#39;m a musiciasion ok so what??? who cares about money??? its about the music its jsut plain ridiculous. aretist is the only ones that matter and they only get 2 bucks out of that 30 bucks I used to pay for a CD.

Say If I ahd a CD and lent it to a friend he lsitened to it ok??? isn&#39;t that classified as sharing??? whats the f*king difference??? Or you downlaod something on the net becaseu your not sure if its good you say ohh I like tah I wanna buy the real thig.

RIAA just care about money and that it they don&#39;t give a f** about the musicians

all I can say is RIAA can go f*ck themselves

[abu_has_the_power]

when the riaa talk about scanning programs, how strong r they? r they able to break through zonealarm firewall and the rules i put in for blocking all the bad ips?
if they&#39;re not able to, i&#39;m cool with dat. tere&#39;s nothin to wory bout... eh? B)

btw: THE RIAA AND THAT MPAA THING CAN SUCK MY DOGS FAT COCK&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :P :P :lol: :lol:

[llamastad]

I laugh at the RIAA. :lol:

The real question, however, is when will the RIAA wake up and realize they are producing negative effects for everyone?


:lol:

[opivy]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 July 2003 - 00:36
The RIAA is just making news, nothing more. Filesharing will continue but it will be encrypted and secure. The artists aren&#39;t losing money, the record companies are. They can no longer control the music that you purchase, and their advertising dollars are becoming a waste. I suggest they put out a better product and stop worrying about what we do. ;)
Would you buy music if it was a better product? I doubt it.
It seems everyone here is trying so hard to make excuses to why they are stealing and why its not wrong.
Is it wrong to go into a music store and steal a cd?
Is it wrong to go into a book store and steal a book?
how about a video game or a movie?
I would bet that most of you would say it is wrong but what is the diffrence?
So many people try to make this into some kinda holy war or something if you dont like the way things are stop listening to the music stealing just tales the music industry thats its to easy to get something for free and not that there is something wrong with there product either way I highly doubt if they dropped music costs to &#036;8 you would stop downloading them.
Look were all stealing things and its against the law why do you people insist that its not?
Atleast the common thief would admit that what there doing is against the law most of us cant even admit that much and when it comes down to it thats what we all are is thiefs I can admit that I am why cant anyone else?

[Adster]

admit that I am why cant anyone else?

nope its called file SHARING

so all we are doing is sharing data therefore in court it cannot be ilegal hare ones own data is not ilegal. :lol:

If so why not call it File Stealing???

[Faethe]

Its only stealing if you sell it.

http://eff.org/

Read up some on copyrights and fair use before you go calling people who share music thieves. Copyrights are not meant to be permanent, niether are they assigned to all form of media simultaneously when they are created. The philosophy is that copyrights are meant to inspire innovation and creativity amongst the people of the US.

Think thats not the case? Then why does the UK prefer to enforce its own form of fair use, outside of the DMCA, as do all the european nations. Why is it you can go to a library and check out music - but you can&#39;t on your computer? Read up and get smart. The only people winning here are the idiots who are busy filing frivilous lawsuits against thousands of consumers in the US. If it was steaking, the cops would be at your door- end of story. The cops are not.

And as for the poor artists loosing money because of all the downloading, that is a load of shite. Organizations like EFF have tried to set up a bank of funds payable directly to the artists themselves in exchange for downloading. These attempts were blocked by the RIAA. KNOW who you are dealing with, and you are not &#39;thieves&#39; so get off it.

[ru4realdude]

I&#39;m jumping in on this thread a little late and kinda off topic, but here goes. On another thread someone said that the RIAA had spent something like &#036;143 million trying to stop filesharers, when I saw that I was like wtf they&#39;re going after us for taking money from them when they can waste that kinda bread per year. I only wish I had that much money.

And as to being honest about what I do, yeah I download and upload files, so what. Does that make me evil? I don&#39;t think so when you consider all the stuff going on in this world why should I care if a record company or movie congloberate gets the &#036;8.00 or so bucks I choose to spend or not on their product. Esp. when they f**k the artists with their twisted contracts.

[balamm]

I&#39;m not stealing, I&#39;m collecting the evidence. When I have enough, I&#39;ll certainly pass it along to the appropriate agency.
Honest ;)

[AR8]

With them suing us... there&#39;s no way I&#39;m going to buy music then. NO WAY, I&#39;m going to boycott this, it&#39;s ridiculous. The simple phrase: &#39;two wrongs doesn&#39;t make a right&#39; obviously doesn&#39;t apply to them. It&#39;s unbelievable.

But, my question is, are they able to get us in trouble if we download music videos or TV episodes? I know movie downloading is illegal, but... TV episodes and music videos, those can&#39;t be illegal to download, can they?

[opivy]

Originally posted by AR8@22 July 2003 - 07:26
With them suing us... there&#39;s no way I&#39;m going to buy music then. NO WAY, I&#39;m going to boycott this, it&#39;s ridiculous. The simple phrase: &#39;two wrongs doesn&#39;t make a right&#39; obviously doesn&#39;t apply to them. It&#39;s unbelievable.

But, my question is, are they able to get us in trouble if we download music videos or TV episodes? I know movie downloading is illegal, but... TV episodes and music videos, those can&#39;t be illegal to download, can they?
You say two wrongs dont make a right but many people on this board think that it does.
I understand that them suing us is lame but what the hell do you expect them to do loose a few million a year and do nothing about it.
The music industry is the same as any business if you take money away from them there going to come after you any big company would do that.
I dont claim to know anything about the situation just playing devils advecate and throwing stuff out to see how people feel about it.

[Serus]

WTF are u talking about&#33;&#33;??&#33;

its not stealling
ok look
Marco goes into a music store buys a cd for &#036;29.99, listens to it, likes it, burns a copy for his friend (sharing the CD) Friend rips the cd to his harddrive, converts to mp3&#39;s, sends them to his buddies online, buddies leave those files in their shared folder, 2 days later 6,000 users have a copy.

is that stealing?
the story started off with a legit purchase of a CD for &#036;29.99
The copies were made from this legit purchse, No actual item was stolen.
ONLY THE "PREDICTED" SALES REVENUE WAS FOILD BY A SINGLE GENEROUS CUSTUMER.

is the RIAA wasnt so greedy in its sales prediction this wouldnt even be a problem.

Heres another story about the same kid:

Marco goes into a grocery store buys an apple for &#036;0.29, eats half the apple, likes it, gives the other half to his friend (sharind the apple) Friend eatsh the apple keeps the seed, plants them, tree grows, more apples, people on the street pick apple from the big tree and plant those seeds 20 years later 600,000 apples are produced daily for free.

is that stealing?
This story started off with a lgit purchase of an apple for &#036;0.29
The copies were made form a legit purchase, no actual apple was stolen.

[Xanex]

@Serus

Man that is pure genius LOL

Apples = CD&#39;s

I can see where the RIAA are comming from but their attitude and the way they go about things is just wrong. NO i am not stealing if i download a mp3 from a m8. YES i am stealing if i take it from the store without paying for it or download it then sell it on.

The RIAA remind me of that big fat black dude in the film "hackers" he has just the right attitude to this. over enflated ego trip he is on and his crusade to make the world a better just place.

As for the music artist they are getting screwed any way by the record companys and those that do get a lot of money are just big headed dick farts that trash up hotel rooms for fun, big kids really. dont think i want to listen to their music if they gonna act like that.

iTunes had the right idea with the 99c a DL but they are getting squashed by the RIAA too, so what are you going to do. These big coporate companys are crying to the courts that their little plan to monopolise the world is being spoilt by a bunch of file sharers. BOO FUCKING HOO, and the courts are listening to them. if this carrys on it will be AOL this or TIME WARNER that, and M&#036; everything. there will be no little guy. yes america is supposed to be the land of the free but its also the land of the big coporate company back dealing the courts for technical details.


Recent news in the UK. BT have been orderd to cut their BB package by 17% bcos its too high priced and not compettitive enough. There must be some organisation in the USA that can order companys to cut prices and cut their profits. (OFFTEL)

tho i agree that if i was on top why should i be the one to back down and let someone else have a go , im doing something good and people like what i do ergo im on top. but companys like M&#036; and AOL alike should now go into early retirement and let some other company try. That way we get better technology quicker, it stops the big compantys from having this cool new stuff and leaking it to us slowy so they can maximise their profits.

Xan
(to be continued)

[cppwarrior00]

i swear on my baby girl i never going to buy another cd in my life until RIAA goes out of business , because this fucking company is really pissing me off, really why in the fuck hacker not trying to fucking blow this baster server or something ? instead trying to hack into goverment system. i swear if i ever get fucking letter from RIAA i am going to reply back with "FUCK YOU, shove your fucking copyright shit up where the sun can&#39;t shine" fucking baster...
ahh

sorry i am very pissed off

[Jibbler]

The RIAA is trying to scare all of us, though, since they don&#39;t own the copyrights, I really don&#39;t see how they can press charges/sue us. :huh:

[agentx127]

Okay, here is a point. Lets say that they make music downloads that have the same quality as the CD (mp3s are not the same quality&#33;). Now, would I buy a song with that quality before I listen to it? No, no way. I would still download a mp3 of that same song and listen to it before buying the same song with a higher quality. So, I do not see file sharing going away any time soon. And, if was not for file sharing I would not known such bands as Hammerfall or Dream Theater, because I don&#39;t want to risk &#036;17 bucks everytime I want to check some new thing (new to me at least), since I do not listen to top 40 stuff. I agree with the independent lables&#39; opinions about mp3s. Let it be. A worst problem is making copies of CD&#39;s and giving it away or selling it. Maybe they should go after all the CD burner manufactures and put a tax on them to recuperate the cost of music CD burning (not to mention DVD burners) <_< And since most file sharers are pretty young and some outside of the US, I don&#39;t know what the RIAA is going to accomplish by making them sour customers. BTW, Apple&#39;s online service won&#39;t last long on my opinion, or if does it won&#39;t be as large as they claim will become. Wait and See.

[English Wolf]

Don&#39;t know what every1 is gettin so work up about especially those who live outside America (considering these fuckers have no juridiction outside of the US), Anyway wasn&#39;t there a report recently saying that by downloading music more people was going out and buying cd&#39;s so whats thier problem? Also another point worth noting is the fact people aren&#39;t going to buy cd&#39;s of bands they haven&#39;t heard of so by downloadin afew tunes ppl will go and buy those albums. Sorry if this made no sense but im tired.

[default_12]

guys, guys
RIAA and MPAA r not gonna ever win this way.
let me start with this topic. what do u think the CD burners and DVD burners r for? to copy music and movies. also to copy the files to ur comp. right? i personally use my cd burner for burning songs on blank cds that i have downloaded from kazaa. do u think if they find a way to block p2p sharing, people would still go buy blank cds and cd and dvd burners? most people wont. also, why do u think people go buy bigger HD? to put more files on their HD and get more files from other people. therefore, if people stop buying blank cds and CD burners and etc., the companies who produce this products r gonna lose a lot of money. as a result, they gotta support p2p sharing and not let it die. and they r not small companies. they wont let these laws pass and RIAA and MPAA will lose and have to find some other way.

[default_12]

agreed? :ph34r:

[Faethe]

Yes - they are trying to block the manufacturers of CD-rs and DVD -rs

Yes - they are trying to stop the sale of TiVO - rationalization being that if you do not watch the commercials, you are stealing what you are watching.

I am NOT kidding.

Yes - they will certainly try to serve you if you download television shows. If you download ANYTHING anyone who is a member of the RIAA produces, there is a chance you can be served.

Please go here and check this out

http://eff.org/share/

This is NOT the first time they habe tried this shite - they have been trying to lock people up since 1903 for various forms of music sharing. They have always lost, once it got to congress.

What is most likely going to happen in the near future, is that a fund will be established, where people downloading music will pay a monthly fee (remember Nabster was trying to do this for &#036;5 a month?). This fee will get distrubuted directly to the artists, as are the funds collected from radio stations, top 40 bands, etc. They are NOT going to agree to this without a fight - they have not in the past. Congress has had to push &#39;compulsory" licensing on the RIAA, to force them to agree to let radio stations play, top 40 bar bands play - on and on.

Everything will be OK :)

[Ron]

Guys, where in hell do you get the idea that Europe (or anyplace outside the US for that matter) is safe?
The RIAA is international. It has organisations in every country to take care of her interests. People in Belgium, U.K., Germany and Spain are getting e-mails from their ISP as well.
CD and DVD writers are made to let us copy stuff we bought. They&#39;re not made to let us share. Think about it. If you burn a CD, why would you keep whatever it is, still on your HD? A normal person would delete it, to make room for new stuff. So that excuse doesn&#39;t quite cut it. CD burners are made to prevent sharing.
Taping TV shows or movies on a videotape isn&#39;t legal either, neither is the use of a tapedeck to tape music off the radio, like we probably all did in the past.
Weird, I agree, but true.
So please stop the "RIAA can&#39;t touch us" crap. What we are doing, is legally wrong, and they have a right to sue us, if they choose so.
Someone above said that they didn&#39;t own the copyrights, so they can&#39;t do a thing. Well, they represent the copyright holders, just like a lawyer represents his client in court.

The thing that does seem paradoxal to me, is the fact that, in Belgium, government voted a law that taxes blank CD&#39;s, making them about twice as expensive as before. That tax is used to compensate artists for the loss of income due to copied music. But it&#39;s still illegal to do so&#33;&#33; So we pay extra money to the artist, but we still can&#39;t copy? Nowthat&#39;s the sort of thing we should be talking about.

As for the apple thing btw:
The friend has to buy a piece of land to let the appletrees grow. He needs to invest in drainage equipment, and insecticide. After 20, 30, 50 years, he has a nice little orchard, and people from all over the world come around to pick his apples
for free. Will he still like it?
Don&#39;t get me wrong. I download and share, but I know I&#39;m doing something not quite legal. Thinking it should be legal isn&#39;t enough.

[agentx127]

from panzer-magazine.com
"Disturbed&#39;s Frontman Talks About Illegal Downloading
7/18/2003
Disturbed frontman David Draiman, who recently landed his own label imprint (Intoxication Records) through Warner Bros. Records, spoke to Metal Edge magazine about his stance on illegal music downloading.

"I think that labels are foolish in not using the Internet, instead of being afraid of it," he said. "I think that if AOL Time Warner were smart enough, they&#39;d enter into a contract agreement with their own company — AOL — and agree on one thing: They have the ability to track anywhere that a message comes from, no matter what service you&#39;re signed up with, via an IP address. You just make sure that whenever a song is downloaded by somebody utilizing your server, whether it&#39;s AOL, or Mindspring, or anybody else, you access a minimal charge for these downloads. It could be 75 cents or a dollar, a dollar-fifty… This way, at least you&#39;re making money off it. At least this way the people who are supposed to be making money off the product still can, as well. It still gives people the opportunity to go ahead and download as much as they want. It&#39;s a standard fee for doing a service, or for having a service available to them. They&#39;ll do it, and at the end of the month, they&#39;ll have their AOL statement, or their Mindspring statement, and it will have their download tax added onto the bill. And it will keep on going. The labels don&#39;t think of this. It seems like I&#39;ve been talking about this to deaf ears on this topic for the last five years. Before we even got signed, I was talking about this. It&#39;s just preposterous to me that labels, for the most part, are the reasons for their own demise. They&#39;re just so stuck in this old way of thinking, and unfortunately, the good elements of their old way of thinking have all gone away. They don&#39;t spend enough time developing artists, they throw a whole bunch of shit against the wall and wait for something to stick, and when it doesn&#39;t, they let it fall off.

When asked if he feels that getting the music free precludes fans from buying the actual album, Draiman said, "Nonsense. I think that the problem isn&#39;t with them downloading the song, the problem is when they buy the record and when they burn a million discs off their computer for all their friends. That&#39;s the reason why every single band, no matter who you are, your sales are chopped by fifty to sixty percent after your first week out. It&#39;s a huge problem, but instead of giving people more reasons to buy the product, they don&#39;t worry about that. I think you have to enhance the value of the product. Like when Kiss was putting out records, their &#39;Alive&#39; record sold so well because it made you feel like you were part of the concert experience. There was also an actual program in the thing, all these pictures, the Kiss Army stuff… There&#39;s so much stuff that added to the value of that package. There wasn&#39;t a Kiss fan out there who didn&#39;t want the whole thing, because everything that came along with the music was so worthwhile to them. It&#39;s not rocket-science, this stuff."
Source: Blabbermouth "

Therefore
RIAA = dumb*&^@#&#036;%#%

:D

[default_12]

Ron, we go back to the topic of sharing then. sharing isnt stealing. i bought something and i wanna share it. its my right to do whatever i want to do with the product. if i wanna destroy, it i can. if i wanna share with it other people i can and its not illegal, because i paid for it. i dunno why people claim that sharing is illegal. im not stealing anything. im using someone else&#39;s product which is already paid for and the owner is generous enough to share it with other people. therefore, when a person goes to a store and buys cds and shares the songs with others, This shouldnt be illegal, because he has paid for it. :ph34r:

[Scared_ShitLess]

This is the best thing that could happen to the p2p industry, now they will have to come up with some idea to make it fair for both parties involed in this situation or just throw us all in the pound me in the ass prison, hahaha ;)

[Ron]

Default: take any, and I mean ANY CD you bought in your collection.
Look at it.
What does it say?
"Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited"
You can only copy copyright material for personal use, on the condtion that you have the original in your possession.
copyright according to Oxford dictionary:

copy•right /kpirat; AmE kp-/ noun, adj., verb
noun [U, C] ~ (in / on sth) if a person or an organization holds the copyright on a piece of writing, music, etc., they are the only people who have the legal right to publish, broadcast, perform it etc., and other people must ask their permission to use it or any part of it: Who owns the copyright on this song?&nbsp; Copyright expires seventy years after the death of the author.&nbsp; They were sued for breach / infringement of copyright.
adj. (abbr. C) protected by copyright; not allowed to be copied without permission: copyright material
verb [vn] to get the copyright for sth

It&#39;s IN the word. The holder of the copyright holds the right to copy it, you don&#39;t.
Now, we all copy music here, so I&#39;m not coming down on you, but you have to face the fact that what we are doing is illegal until further notice.
And with all the lawsuits, I don&#39;t think it ever will be legal.

[balamm]

This article applies speifically to inline image linking but If you read it carefully, it isn&#39;t hard to draw some parallels with movie and music sharing.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inline_linking.html

If it isn&#39;t "saved to disk", it would appear not to be a copyright infringement according to the logic here. So watching or listening to a file from another users computer can&#39;t really be considered copying unless it can be proven that you actually made a permanent copy. Real networks operates on this principle&#33;
Although the file is stored or cached locally, it&#39;s not considered a copy.
If you claimed ownership of the renamed temp file, then it would be a problem.
Offering it for upload would of course blow that defense though.
The court in this case ruled that a thumbnail, a resized copy of the original, isn&#39;t a copyright infringement. It also recognises that displaying the thumbnails was actually benefiting the image owner by directing traffic to their site and increasing exposure of the product.
If the RIAA argues that artists and music companies do not want additional exposure or traffic, then maybe it&#39;s time to examine anti trust and marketing laws to see what exactly is going on here.
Withholding product for the sole purpose of creating an artificial shortage and a price increase is illegal isn&#39;t it?

[Ron]

Originally posted by balamm@24 July 2003 - 03:09
Withholding product for the sole purpose of creating an artificial shortage and a price increase is illegal isn&#39;t it?
Actually, that&#39;s what a lot of companies/countries do in the gold, oil and diamond business, so I really don&#39;t know what to answer to that.

[www.k-lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite]

Ok. Here&#39;s the deal. I am 14 and my Mom is a First Grade Teacher at a school. I download music at school. What are the chances of the school giving my name to the RIAA if the Admin. (computer tech) notices the music on the computers hard drive?

<_< :unsure: :unsure:

[Aimless6]

The odds of the RIAA asking your school for you identity is very small. However the chances of you getting suspended for abuse of educational tools are considerable.

[www.k-lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite]

Thanks. What do you others think?

[CChaos]

About the school deal: if you use the computer at a regular, predictable time frequently, then yes they /could/ track you down. However, the actual chances of them bothering is pretty small. Most likely you&#39;ll just get it for downloading inappropriate material or what have you.

As for the whole is downloading MP3s equal to stealing, I don&#39;t feel that it is. Of course I haven&#39;t ever downloaded an entire album, I just tend to go for single songs, so I&#39;m looking at it from that angle.

I equate it to recording a song off the radio, which as far as I know, isn&#39;t illegial (yet). The way I see it, the original cd/tape/etc was purchased. Someone had to buy it. The company got their profit.