Riaa Subpoenas Isps

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'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't quite cut it. CD burners are made to prevent sharing.
Taping TV shows or movies on a videotape isn'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'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't own the copyrights, so they can'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'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's still illegal to do so!! So we pay extra money to the artist, but we still can't copy? Nowthat'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't get me wrong. I download and share, but I know I'm doing something not quite legal. Thinking it should be legal isn't enough.

from panzer-magazine.com
"Disturbed'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'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'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'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'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's a standard fee for doing a service, or for having a service available to them. They'll do it, and at the end of the month, they'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't think of this. It seems like I'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's just preposterous to me that labels, for the most part, are the reasons for their own demise. They'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'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'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'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'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's a huge problem, but instead of giving people more reasons to buy the product, they don't worry about that. I think you have to enhance the value of the product. Like when Kiss was putting out records, their 'Alive' 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's so much stuff that added to the value of that package. There wasn't a Kiss fan out there who didn't want the whole thing, because everything that came along with the music was so worthwhile to them. It's not rocket-science, this stuff."
Source: Blabbermouth "

Therefore
RIAA = dumb*&^@#$%#%

:D

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'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:

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 ;)

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:

Quote:

---

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?  Copyright expires seventy years after the death of the author.  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's IN the word. The holder of the copyright holds the right to copy it, you don't.
Now, we all copy music here, so I'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't think it ever will be legal.

This article applies speifically to inline image linking but If you read it carefully, it isn't hard to draw some parallels with movie and music sharing.

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

If it isn'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't really be considered copying unless it can be proven that you actually made a permanent copy. Real networks operates on this principle!
Although the file is stored or cached locally, it'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'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'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't it?

Quote:

---

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't it?

---

Actually, that's what a lot of companies/countries do in the gold, oil and diamond business, so I really don't know what to answer to that.

Ok. Here'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:

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.

Thanks. What do you others think?