Sued For Downloading? - Comments Page 1

Excellent article. I was reading the other day where they were suing someone and pulling in their employer, asking for every hard drive the person owned, asking to talk to anyone who had used the computer going back years. Scary stuff. :( And now they're even going after states (if I reads it on the internets, it must be true): RIAA To Sue Minnesota - http://www.crystalair.com/content.php?id=91200708004

A lot of the time independent record labels, independent musicians, and unsigned musicians (without a record contract with any record label) will allow sharing of their music on p2p as they see p2p as a good tool for promotion of their music (according to downhillbattle.org). This is probably the case with most of these labels and artists. There may be some indie labels that will sue you but I've never heard of it since TVT withdrew their suit. I'm not 100% sure about all of the artists. Like you said don't get a false sense of security, but according to EFF.org you have about as much of a chance of being sued as you have of being struck by lightning. If you want to be safe and still share files on p2p only share files with an Open Source license, a creative commons license, or public domain material. For creative commons files check out the list of free distributors of them at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Curators I hope this info helps/doesn't hurt anyone. Best Intentions.

Question...can and does the RIAA monitor downloads from Usenet? If so, how do they do this? Also, if someone has downloaded a song but the person owns the vinyl, cassette, or CD with the song, can RIAA still sue since we have aleady bought the music?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Some people suspect that the RIAA uses "honeypot" sites which they own. If you connect and download, they have your IP address. Most ISPs will roll over and give you up. And yes, downloading a digital copy of a song that you already own on physical media is "technically" illegal. Personally I have no qualms about downloading a replacement copy of a song on a damaged CD, but the record company would argue that you have to buy a new one.

I am a professional musician, independent songwriter and producer. I wonder how many people who defend the practice of "internet file sharing" would be willing to freely "share" their means of earning a living. Should accountants "share" their spreadsheets? Journalists their source files? Manufacturers their design specifications? Of course not, those products have implied and real value. But for products in my industry, that intrinsic value is undermined by a culture that devalues music to such an extent that people now argue, in effect, that it has no value at all. Remember folks, what you pay for something reflects what you think it’s worth. It’s a dismal truth that those of us who actually make music are grappling with, how can we expect music to be produced by professionals when the product has zero value to the consumer? The answer is, many of us have and continue to find other means to make a living outside the music industry. Arguing the finer points like you do here misses the big picture, the decline of our industry to amateur status. If you’re OK with that, fine, but the best and the brightest will continue to make their living elsewhere. Remember, you get what you pay for...

Well, as for me, I'm really mad at these goon squads. These goons are going after only the little guy, not the CD bootleggers that SELL forged CDs. Now I really don't do downloads like this, but these tactics are real overkill. In protest, I refuse to buy any new CDs--I just listen on the radio. Between the overpriced CDs and their twisted "copyright" interpretations, they won't get a dime of my money.

I recently downloaded a few torrent files. I would say about 5 max. After researching torrent files, I realize I am making a huge mistake. I dont want to be a pirate, and have removed all such software form my computer. In your experience have companies gone after small time users, or do they mostly gun for larger game?

EDITOR'S NOTE: In most cases, the first salvo is a warning from the media company to the ISP, whic is forwarded to the user. If you delete the offending materials, I'd say you should be fine.

To Jon E. I'm also a musician and I think internet file sharing is one of the best ideas to have been initiated. Think about the historical and cultural changes in music. Some of the greatest new genres (eg. Jazz, Hip-hop) have been created through a fusion of sounds only available because the influencing music was ACCESSIBLE. Music is now more accessible than ever before, and from a creativity point of view that is hugely useful.

It depends what your priority is as a musician: are you a musician because you want to make money, or are you a musician because you want to make music? If you want the money maybe you are better off working in some other industry? The best music is that which musicians have written from their heart with no incentive or motivation other than expression of emotion.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Says who? All of the great classical masters had patrons...

I had heard somewhere that artists make deals with record companies to distribute their music, but the artists themselves make the most money by doing tours and such. I can understand that most fans of (favorite artist) would much rather see a live performance than listen to the studio songs, and it is reflected in the balance of the free market.

{{ what you pay for something reflects what you think it’s worth }}

Nonsense. That is a false value of a pathetically materialistic dogma. The absurd monthly fee I pay to keep a slummy roof over my head, does NOT reflect what I think it's worth. What it DOES reflect is a greedy society that punishes you for not being uber-rich. More people than ever are losing their jobs and going homeless...do you really believe it's because they're too stingy to pay what they think keeping a roof over their head is worth?

Zeke - If you don't think your slummy dwelling is worth what you're paying for it, why not move out?

Isaac - Most big artists do indeed make most of their money from touring, this is because they now charge silly seat prices to make up for what they're losing in media sales. People further down the ladder of success don't have this option.

If you allow for inflation records are cheaper than they've ever been, and let's be honest, CDs sound much better than 78s (Unless you have a laser vinyl player, and if you do then you're probably stinking rich...). On the other hand live music prices are now considerably more expensive than they've ever been.

It's a rich man's world....

Ted - History says differently. In the 50s rock'n'roll took the world by storm, in the 60s it was The British Invasion, in the 70s along came punk, in the 80s along came cheap keyboards with preprogrammed sounds and rhythms on them, and that was the end of it. The rise of the internet has been mirrored by a total lack of any kind of innovation in the field of music. Not that I'm blaming the 'net, but it sure hasn't helped...