The Music/video Indrustries Are Fighting Bak

Because of the recent ruling of declaring P2P programs legal :P the record/movie companies are going to be making more harmful viruses.... go here and read the article.

Quote:

---

One method is a "Trojan horse" program that simply redirects users to Web sites where they can legitimately buy the songs they had tried to download.

Another locks up a computer for a certain amount of time, minutes or hours, risking the loss of data that was not saved if the user restarts the computer, the paper reported.

---

Old news, but still interesting. I really don't think they are even using those techniques. I believe its a scare tactic to keep the newbies from expanding their horizons. :)

They couldn't do this. Doing this is more illegal than trading music and movies and can ruin them. I.E. being sued, gov dismantling their corporation and putting THEM in prison. :lol: That would be great.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by downloader2008@12 May 2003 - 17:01
Because of the recent ruling of declaring P2P programs legal

---

Do you have a link for this info. I would like to read about it.

Thanks -

TS

I think it's in the other P2P section on our board.

Basically a judge ruled the Grokster had "substainal non-infringing uses," just like when the VCR was put on trial.

:ninja:

Well, the industry is "fighting back" in the media. They are bringing the filesharing question to the public wherever they can. For example, on the recent cover of Spectrum Magazine (the magazine for the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers - IEEE), they show a "scary" graphic to theme their issue, Invasion Of the Music Snatchers!:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/images/covmay03.jpg

And just this morning, an RIAA spokesman was on CSPAN to discuss the file-sharing situation with Gigi Sohn, from the "Public Knowledge" group. As a matter of fact, CSPAN opened up phone lines for callers, pro and con, and I just couldn't resist trying to dial in ... and, as luck would have it, they got me on. I brought up the $400,000,000 theft of music consumers courtesy of the music industry. I also brought up last year's settlement of the multi-state antitrust lawsuit which only required the industry to pay back between $143-$144 million. And, I asked point-blank -- "What happened to the $256,000,000?" And I also asked why he thought it was OK for the industry to rip off the public but it wasn't OK for the public to rip off the industry.

And...

I captured it on RealVideo. You will need RealPlayer software to view it. And, though it's a streaming download, it still constitutes a download. So, rather than provide "links" I can only provide locations you'll have to cut/paste into your browser location window:

If you're a broadband user, visit here --- www.novelhost.net/riaa-hi.ram.

If you're a 56k modem user, visit here -- www.novelhost.net/riaa-lo.ram.

Note how the RIAA guy sidesteps the question about where the $256,000,000 is ... as if we all don't know. B)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kabal@13 May 2003 - 06:08
They couldn't do this. Doing this is more illegal than trading music and movies and can ruin them. I.E. being sued, gov dismantling their corporation and putting THEM in prison. :lol: That would be great.

---

Not if they move the office where they launch these tactis to Bermuda or some country like that. I think.

Incidentally, you might want to click on that link to Spectrum Magazine in my last post. There are a few articles available online that might be of interest to P2P users.

:D OlderThanDirt You are awesome! :D

Love in the video link, they never seem to take responsibilty that they have ripped the public off. I realized something while watching the clip and was wondering what you all thought. You all know how poeple get together and someone might sing an artists song. Well on of my friends was singing and playing guitar to for a song last night. Wouldn't it be legal for him to sing a song that Metallica sings. I mean this is a country of free speech. So if I can play their song than why can't I share it with friends as long as I don't profit from it. If people recognize this and filesharing copyrighted material is somehow gets blocked do this method. I am sure there are plenty of good singers out there and band members. If these musicians think they have a special talent, they are in for a rude awakening becasue there are millions of people who could sing their songs just as good. Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

MOTOMATT wrote:

OlderThanDirt You are awesome!

---

More lucky than awesome, hehe. It took me ten minutes of dialing before I got through. It was unfortunate that I was running up against CSPAN's timeclock since they had to cut away to a Senate hearing. I had a LOT more questions for Mitch Glazier, the RIAA's poster-boy. First, the $400 million estimate by the FTC was a conservative estimate. Early on in the multi-state suit process, Eliot Spitzer (the NY Attorney General who spearheaded the case) hinted that the real theft could be somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion! But here's the big question.

The multi-state class-action antitrust suit was just that ... a civil suit on behalf of states. With a theft of at least $400 million proven by the FTC, where was U.S. Justice Department? Why didn't this become a criminal case as soon as the FTC released its findings? Why aren't the engineers of this monumental theft cooling their heels behind bars in a Federal penetentiary? Only John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney General has the answer to those questions and I'm unaware of any explanation on his part for DOJ inaction.

This is a kind-of Robin Hood situation ... where the industry took from the poor and gave to the rich while the Sheriff of Nottingham (Ashcroft) stood idly by. If people merely downloaded files without sharing them, they could be classified as common thieves (unless they're downloading a song they already own). But, in sharing what they've downloaded, they begin to look a lot more like Robin Hood (grin).

Quote:

---

kildred11 wrote:

So if I can play their song than why can't I share it with friends as long as I don't profit from it.

---

The music industry is very insular. If anyone sang an artist's song in public for nothing, it's not their concern. Even if someone sang an artist's song in public for profit, it's still not their concern (they'd leave that up to the musician's union or an artist's licenseer). But a CD is "their baby" ... their product ... and they take it very personally when someone messes with it. In short, it's their bottom line, not the artist's bottom line, that forces their hand.

BTW, prior to my CSPAN call, Gigi Sohn (bless her heart) brought up the CD theft usually not discussed -- the selling of 15 songs where only 1 or 2 are bonafide "hits" ... with the other songs being "filler." This is the REAL reason the industry is scared. P2P was a wake-up call for consumers ... helping them to realize they were paying top-dollar for a product they only use "part" of. In another topic area, I compared this to a visit to a grocery store. Imagine you go to a grocer to buy an apple and the grocer says, "Sorry, I can't sell you that apple unless you also buy these 14 lemons, too," you'd think the grocer was nuts. But this nutty logic has been the cash-cow for the music industry since the 1950s. And P2P dismisses the value of the "album" format of consumerism and champions a "song-by-song" format. Scary stuff to industry honchos.

P.S. -- For anyone interested, Gigi Sohn is the head honcho for Public Knowledge, a political action group that, for the most part, is on our side. Click here to visit their homepage.

Brief P.S. -- BTW, don't think that only "liberals" champion our cause. The current music brouhaha is just a small part of a larger battle -- to restore rights of public domain ownership taken from us illegally. The Copyright Act of 1909 and all subsequent Copyright laws are unconstitutional because they violate Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution in two ways. First, the right was meant to be "limited" (not life plus 50 years as the current law says). Secondly, the right was meant to be "exclusive" to the artist (not the RIAA, artist estates, holding companies/corporations or licenseers).

This article in The National Review, a very conservative magazine, makes the case.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TerminatorStout+13 May 2003 - 02:13--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TerminatorStout @ 13 May 2003 - 02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--downloader2008@12 May 2003 - 17:01
Because of the recent ruling of declaring P2P programs legal

---

Do you have a link for this info. I would like to read about it.

Thanks -

TS [/b][/quote]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ech_music_dc_14

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tyberius+13 May 2003 - 10:38--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tyberius @ 13 May 2003 - 10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Kabal@13 May 2003 - 06:08
They couldn&#39;t do this. Doing this is more illegal than trading music and movies and can ruin them. I.E. being sued, gov dismantling their corporation and putting THEM in prison. :lol: That would be great.

---

Not if they move the office where they launch these tactis to Bermuda or some country like that. I think. [/b][/quote]
You have a point there.......

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@14 May 2003 - 07:01
Brief P.S. -- BTW, don&#39;t think that only "liberals" champion our cause. The current music brouhaha is just a small part of a larger battle -- to restore rights of public domain ownership taken from us illegally. The Copyright Act of 1909 and all subsequent Copyright laws are unconstitutional because they violate Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution in two ways. First, the right was meant to be "limited" (not life plus 50 years as the current law says). Secondly, the right was meant to be "exclusive" to the artist (not the RIAA, artist estates, holding companies/corporations or licenseers).

This article in The National Review, a very conservative magazine, makes the case.

---

I love the conservatives. I usually agree with them 100%&#33;

I USUALLY disagree with them 100%.

However the article is 100% correct in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kildred11@13 May 2003 - 22:25
Love in the video link, they never seem to take responsibilty that they have ripped the public off. I realized something while watching the clip and was wondering what you all thought. You all know how poeple get together and someone might sing an artists song. Well on of my friends was singing and playing guitar to for a song last night. Wouldn&#39;t it be legal for him to sing a song that Metallica sings. I mean this is a country of free speech. So if I can play their song than why can&#39;t I share it with friends as long as I don&#39;t profit from it. If people recognize this and filesharing copyrighted material is somehow gets blocked do this method. I am sure there are plenty of good singers out there and band members. If these musicians think they have a special talent, they are in for a rude awakening becasue there are millions of people who could sing their songs just as good. Any thoughts?

---

You have a point. What the RIAA is trying to do is practically say it&#39;s illegal to listen or sing a song unless you "bought" it. I mean, come on&#33; I don&#39;t know the laws too deeply, but isn&#39;t it legal to share it if what you are doing is NON-PROFITABLE?

The RIAA is fighting back in the courts and in the legislature ... and the only way file-sharers can deal with the attack is in the Senate and Congress. However, trying to justify file-sharing will probably fall on deaf ears. So, the best way to approach Senators and Representatives is to point out that the industry&#39;s sheets are not clean (and that their crime against music consumers has not been addressed in criminal court, only in civil court -- and there, it was dealt with badly).

What follows is a letter I sent to my 2 U.S. Senators and Congressman. Feel free to "steal" it and use it yourself if you wish. If enough people pepper elected officials with these questions, it will allow them to see the industry in a different light ... and they may not be so accepting of some of their more radical ideas. And who knows, they may even pass on a few suggestions to the Justice Department ... giving the industry something new to worry about. Here&#39;s my letter:

Dear (Senator/Rep name):

I’d appreciate a response by standard mail to this query. And in this query, keep in mind that I’m not a youngster trying to justify anything. I’m a 53 year-old man who feels a miscarriage of justice may be a root cause behind a recent phenomenon.

As you’re well aware of, peer-to-peer MP3 file-sharing has been in the news recently. The Recording Industry Association of America is currently fighting what they call “music piracy” in the courts. And, they are also proposing Draconian measures in the legislative arena that would allow the industry to use electronic chicanery against suspected pirates while minimizing their liability in case of mistakes. However, in considering such legislation, I ask you to remember something.

Starting in 1995, four years before the now-defunct “Napster” was even born, the music industry embarked on a marketing policy called Minimum Advertised Pricing (MAP). According to the Federal Trade Commission, this MAP policy constituted illegal price-fixing and cost the U.S. music consumer at least &#036;400 million between 1995-2000. A multi-state class-action antitrust suit spearheaded by New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, settled last year -- but only required that the industry pay back &#036;143 million (and most of that payback was in product, not cash). This left the remaining &#036;256 million unaccounted for and, presumably, still in the pockets of the music industry.

Recently, I noticed that the Justice Department is coming down hard on Internet scam operations. One of them involves a California matchmaking service that allegedly bilked lovelorn men out of between &#036;600,000 and &#036;1,000,000. But this raises profound and yet unanswered questions I’d like to see addressed:

1) The multi-state class-action antitrust lawsuit against the music industry was just that -- a lawsuit in CIVIL court. Considering the magnitude of the &#036;400 million theft from music consumers, why didn’t the Justice Department take the industry to CRIMINAL court? Why wasn’t the industry forced to pay back the entire &#036;400 million and be assessed punitive damages on top of that? And why aren’t the architects of this illegal MAP policy sitting behind bars in Federal penitentiaries right now? And just as important ...

2) Where is that &#036;256,000,000?

Music piracy is considered theft. But stealing from a thief who has already stolen from you and “gotten away with it” invokes a certain poetic justice many file-sharers no doubt appreciate. The axiom “two wrongs don’t make a right” is all well and good. But, the axiom implies the existence of an authority that will potently deal with the first wrong so that subsequent wrongs are unnecessary.

In the case of the music industry, this “authority” failed to take action. And, this leaves some file-sharers asking, “If two wrongs don’t make a right, what will?”

Thank you for your time and I eagerly anticipate your answers to all questions in this letter.

Kindest Regards,
(constituent name)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@19 May 2003 - 01:33
In the case of the music industry, this “authority” failed to take action.&nbsp; And, this leaves some file-sharers asking, “If two wrongs don’t make a right, what will?”

---

Napster argued in court that the music industry has comitted criminal acts which FORFEIT their copyrights:
collusion/price fixing, mistreatment of artists (via &#39;royalties&#39; where THEY write the rules), and bribing politicians to get copyrights extended indefinitely.

Thus, with the copyrights being null and void... file sharing is perfectly legal because no one owns the copyrights which is the WHOLE basis for legality/illegality.

Quote:

---

Switeck wrote:

Napster argued in court that the music industry has comitted criminal acts which FORFEIT their copyrights:
collusion/price fixing, mistreatment of artists (via &#39;royalties&#39; where THEY write the rules), and bribing politicians to get copyrights extended indefinitely.

---

Exactly. This is why legislators must have their noses rubbed in the crap, to remind them that the public has not forgotten.

Quote:

---

Thus, with the copyrights being null and void... file sharing is perfectly legal because no one owns the copyrights which is the WHOLE basis for legality/illegality.

---

This battle didn&#39;t die with Napster, though. It&#39;s ongoing ... and legislators need to know the battle isn&#39;t going to be ending. Organizations like Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are keeping ridiculous copyright extensions in the public eye. But, voters must do the same thing ... writing to legislators, letters to editors of local newspapers, etc., etc. FWIW, I once heard that for every letter a politician receives on a single issue, it is assumed that at least 1,000 constituents feel likewise but didn&#39;t take the time to write. So, if a politician gets a dozen letters, all saying basically the same thing, it becomes a "personal" issue. And if they receive 100 letters, it becomes a "platform" issue ... and so on.

I believe strongly that the music industry thinks file-sharers will, for the most part, remain silent ... and their silence will be the industry&#39;s biggest ally. Frankly, I think it&#39;s time to get loud ... often ... and to send repeat letters to keep the issue on the front-burner and politicians on the hot seat. Or, as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheels get the grease.