RIAA vs. hackers WAR?

[MosesPresley]

I'm curious.

How is the downloading of music from the internet different from going to the library? At the library I have free access to all sorts of media and I am allowed to make copies. How is the downloading of music and the sharing of game copies different from recording films off of the pay channels on television? The US courts ruled that was permissible some time ago when the corporations tried to ban VCR home recording.

I have been playing games for many years. The multi-billion dollar gaming industry was built on games without copy protections. These games were distributed amongst friends and family for years with absolutely no detriment to the gaming industry as was Win95, 98, ME. In fact the gaming and computer industry thrived in spite of the lack of copy protections.

The only thing I see going on here are corporate greed and the curtailment of consumer rights.

[mrmitchell]

You know, if the record companies would just wake up to reality and realize that to stay in business they are going to take a revenue hit, they might actually survive.

P2P has nothing to do with their revenue hit. They released something like 30% less albums IIRC.

[Spiffor]

RIAA will lose because they are fighting a lost battle against the consumer. They pour huge money in this battle, with minimal impact. I disagree with Dissident on his assumption that people share less: on the contrary, from my experience, people share more and understand better that P2P only works if many people share (or the sharers may kick the leechers, which happens fairly often).
And it's only normal : the internet has made the costs for copying information near nil. The RIAA is the remnant of the copy industry, which made money thanks to the high-costs of copying info. Internet simply erases their reason to exist. EIther they'll adapt and drop the stupidity, or they'll die. All by themselves.

I don't think the hackers will do any significant assault against the RIAA. Probably some annoyances, but nothing that'll be really hampering to the Evil Organization. It will merely crumble under the weight of history.

[SlowwHand]

Going once, going twice, going 3 times.
Any d/l's ?

[Pekka]

Sloww, I haven't downloaded anything today. I've been a good boy. But I'm about to download............ *now*.

[SlowwHand]

If your machine doen't fry, let me know how it went.
When someone says I can't do something, well, you know.

[Soul Survivor]

i've significantly slowed my pace...... from about 50 a day to less than 10

but there are still millions of people out there sharing, i just hope they go after kazaa users first

[Pekka]

I'm not using p2p-things though . But if you really want, I can get something off kazaa or winmix too.

[SlowwHand]

Same, Winmx and Kazaa Lite.

[Pekka]

I'm not expecting any problems, since I don't share mp3s in p2p-things. Because my internet connection sucks, downstream slows down if upstream is used, even when it is not supposed to, according to the ISP. So, I like to keep my dl's speed in maximum, meaning no sharing.

So I'm not expecting any troubles under any circumtances.

And I don't believe in Dissidents prophecies either. History has shown, that these kinds of counter measures haven't worked. They only force people to make better software, better privacy, and without new laws about making all privacy software illegal.. I can't see anything happening. I trust in collective wisdom of internet freedom fighters . It has never let me down.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
How is the downloading of music from the internet different from going to the library?

The library has a statutory exemption from some copyright restrictions due to their non-profit academic nature (for the USA, see section 108 of the 1976 Copyright Act). See this paper for an overview of copyright law and libraries.

A person at their home PC offering music for download without the express consent of the copyright holder is engaging in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works. There's no statutory exemption whatsoever. It's a pretty blatant case of direct copyright infringement, and the copyright holder is free to bring a civil suit agains the infringer to recoup damages, or if the case is severe enough, to press criminal charges.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by gunkulator
The overt flaunting of music copying leads to successful lobbying for anonymous searches of our hard drives.

I am not aware that there's such a law.

[Pekka]

That is clearly a violation of privacy. It won't go through here at least.

[Q Classic]

i don't really download western songs these days. since it's inordinately difficult for me to obtain k-pop and j-pop, i have to settle for buying lots when i'm over there and then downloading it when i'm not.

today, however, i broke that self-imposed limitation and downloaded a version of gilbert and sullivan's "i am the very model of a modern-major general" so i could follow along to it with this sco-related parody.

[Sava]

A person at their home PC offering music for download without the express consent of the copyright holder is engaging in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works. There's no statutory exemption whatsoever. It's a pretty blatant case of direct copyright infringement, and the copyright holder is free to bring a civil suit agains the infringer to recoup damages, or if the case is severe enough, to press criminal charges.

I'd just assume wipe my &*^$#& with that "law"