RIAA at it again

[chiwawa626]

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Quick question... Isn't I2 a private network? Who gave them access and authorization to use it for the purposes of hunting people down to file suits against?

I do not know enough about I2 to answer your question, but I'm assuming with the proper equipment, anything is possible.

I2 is a private network, and if the RIAA would want to access it, they would have to do it legally. From what I've heard Time Warner is somehow related to the I2 board, so i suppose it wouldn't be too hard for the RIAA to get on. None the less, if they expect to get anything out of this whole i2hub thing they better have done it legally.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Mathlete
Wow Sampson. You call illegally uploading and allowing others to steal music, "a distribution solution" .

Wow, just Wow.

you should look up the definition of euphemism

Is that all you can do, is try to nit pick my post? You're not even taking it for what it's worth. Arn't you a teacher or something? If so, I find it sad you are educating our youth.

Yes, they are creating a solution to distribution by normal means on a physical medium. I was not getting into the specifics of legality. No where was that mentioned, you just assumed it.

These kids put together software and vast networks that millions of people flock to. The recording industry, or any number of other companies are barely making an effort to create such technology. They could take what these people are creating and adapt them to a legal means of distribution. They are not even attempting to do that.
The companies have a lot to learn from the public.

Personally think $.99 a song to download music is great. i get to pick the songs i want $18 for a cd full of songs I want is worth it. I agree that the quality is crap. They just doing that to save on download rates. i wish they would increase the quality myself.

Save on download rates? That sounds like a crock of crap to me. Since they are losing money on the whole itunes deal just to get people to buy ipods, bandwidth cost is the least of their worries. Itunes product is crap.

Bandwidth is cheap.

meh, cds and music in general is a rip.on a gold album(500K sales), as reported by AP, most rock groups get 40K in royalties to split amongst all of them. $0.08 per cd is crap. the other $14.91 gpes straight to Warner Bros or Sony which did nothing to deserve it besides publish it

the "buy the cd for the starving artist crap" is total bs. 99% of an artist's money comes from endorsements and concert sales.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: arcenite
I know employees that value their right to privacy. They shouldn't give a sh!t where she got the movie. Is she selling the stuff or distributing to other employees? Highly doubtful. People need to learn to mind their own business.

Right to privacy? Employees need to exercise their right to not being a dumbass. She wasn't in the privacy of her own home, she was in public. At work. Busy sluffing her job off and watching a pirated movie.

Oh, yeah, people should mind their own business. It's not like the law says that you're guilty of a CRIME or anything if you don't COME FORWARD with information when you see a crime committed or anything. :roll:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: arcenite
I know employees that value their right to privacy. They shouldn't give a sh!t where she got the movie. Is she selling the stuff or distributing to other employees? Highly doubtful. People need to learn to mind their own business.

I do not care what my employees do on there time off. If they want to download movies/games/music off the internet that is there business. BUT as soon as they start watching/playing them during work time then it is my business.

I am not paying you to watch a movie. You are there to work. If i find out a employee is a thief (yes downloading music is thieft) i would have worry about them steeling other stuff.

I doubt very much the lady got fired for having a movie. More like she got fired for watching a movie when she is sopposed to be working.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Sunbird
Piracy on the web = copyright infringement (yawn)

It's easy to yawn about copyright infringement when you don't create intellectual property.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: arcenite
I know employees that value their right to privacy. They shouldn't give a sh!t where she got the movie. Is she selling the stuff or distributing to other employees? Highly doubtful. People need to learn to mind their own business.

I do not care what my employees do on there time off. If they want to download movies/games/music off the internet that is there business. BUT as soon as they start watching/playing them during work time then it is my business.

I am not paying you to watch a movie. You are there to work. If i find out a employee is a thief (yes downloading music is thieft) i would have worry about them steeling other stuff.

I doubt very much the lady got fired for having a movie. More like she got fired for watching a movie when she is sopposed to be working.

Lab Assistants have the most boring job in the universe, especially on weekends. The labs are mostly empty, nobody is asking them for help, and you can only do so much web surfing in a day before you get sick of it. She was probably watching that movie just so she wouldn't fall asleep from boredom.

Now, I'm not going to say that tfinch2 wasn't in the right by reporting her... that's his business to decide whether or not it was the right thing to do. Of course, if this girl's boyfriend finds out that he got her fired and beats the living daylights out of him... well... I'm not going to feel sorry for him, either.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: arcenite
I know employees that value their right to privacy. They shouldn't give a sh!t where she got the movie. Is she selling the stuff or distributing to other employees? Highly doubtful. People need to learn to mind their own business.

Right to privacy? Employees need to exercise their right to not being a dumbass. She wasn't in the privacy of her own home, she was in public. At work. Busy sluffing her job off and watching a pirated movie.

Oh, yeah, people should mind their own business. It's not like the law says that you're guilty of a CRIME or anything if you don't COME FORWARD with information when you see a crime committed or anything. :roll:

Was she actually on the clock? While I agree she should be working, getting her fired was not the way to handle the situation. Like I said, what goes around comes around. I hope the OP is as perfect as he expects everyone else to be.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: chiwawa626

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Quick question... Isn't I2 a private network? Who gave them access and authorization to use it for the purposes of hunting people down to file suits against?

I do not know enough about I2 to answer your question, but I'm assuming with the proper equipment, anything is possible.

I2 is a private network, and if the RIAA would want to access it, they would have to do it legally. From what I've heard Time Warner is somehow related to the I2 board, so i suppose it wouldn't be too hard for the RIAA to get on. None the less, if they expect to get anything out of this whole i2hub thing they better have done it legally.

Yeah, Time Warner is a sponsor. It still smells very not-right, because why would a sponsoring organization have access to a network that has NOTHING to do with them? That's like allowing the owner of the local grocery store to sleep with the girl's basketball team because their logo is on the jersey.

 

[silverpig]

They had a Leonardo da Vinci exhibit come by the local museum 5 or 6 years ago. They had the replica of the Mona Lisa that they hung in place of the real one when it was stolen all those years ago. I went and took a picture of it. Am I in trouble?

 

[allisolm]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: AmusedIt's OK to share, but not to distribute on a large scale. Making a copyrighted song available for DL to everyone on the web is illegal distribution.

Shades of gray. How many people can I share with until it's "large scale"?

1, 10, 100, 1,000,000?

From the article: "...the average number of songs offered illegally by the students was 2,300 each."

Is it just me, or does sharing 2,300 songs each with ANY amount of people sound pretty "large scale"? I know that average number is a lot more music than I own.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Amused
Stop distributing other people's property, and you have nothing to worry about.

The sense of entitlement STILL never ceases to amaze me.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: arcenite
Was she actually on the clock? While I agree she should be working, getting her fired was not the way to handle the situation. Like I said, what goes around comes around. I hope the OP is as perfect as he expects everyone else to be.

While I don't believe in karma, if what you say is right, it DID come around. It bit her in the ass for being a pirate! When you have the responsibility of being an employer, you can make that decision for yourself on whether it's worth firing someone over. Until then, well, be glad that it wasn't you getting fired?

 

[konakona]

I recently made a $80 purchase of CDs, just for three of them. yes, they are expensive as they are, but i dont regret it a bit. to me it means supporting the artists and giving them more respect, and i dont really mind helping the record companies to bring more quality records like these. what should be noted is i only bought the CDs because I already have those songs and I know it is worth my money to buy those. I would be plain stupid if i just bought the CDs without hearing a song, and therefore this serves as a classic example where it actually helped their sales. If I had no access to the songs previously, I would have not bought the CD, expensive or not.

at this point in time, online musics stores are completely irrelevant to me as I dont listen to any American music; what is relevant, however, is that when I buy CDs, i see it as an collectible item. as such, i pay great attention to album art, extras that come along with it (e.g. posters). More often than not I could get equivalent CDs from Hongkongnese SM Records, but I refuse since they are not authentic. online music distribution obviously does not give you as much joy of this ownership. besides, as others have mentioned, 128kbps lossy MP3 is something I would avoid even as a preview sample. long story short, to make this online music distribution work, they should distribute lossless formats at significantly lower price than the CD equivalents. what can i possibly gain by downloading the tracks instead of buying CDs from online stores if they are priced at the same level?

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: arcenite
Was she actually on the clock? While I agree she should be working, getting her fired was not the way to handle the situation. Like I said, what goes around comes around. I hope the OP is as perfect as he expects everyone else to be.

While I don't believe in karma, if what you say is right, it DID come around. It bit her in the ass for being a pirate! When you have the responsibility of being an employer, you can make that decision for yourself on whether it's worth firing someone over. Until then, well, be glad that it wasn't you getting fired?

um yeah.. hope you dont turn your dad in for jaywalking :disgust:

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Amused
Stop distributing other people's property, and you have nothing to worry about.

The sense of entitlement STILL never ceases to amaze me.

Me too. If you do it, understand that you can get caught.

I agree that music is expensive, but this is not a necessity like food or drink. The RIAA can charge whatever they want. You don't have piraters decide what price to set your product at. The RIAA/MPAA both are legally defending their business. I agree that their current approach _is not working well_, but taking the moral high ground for one's theft of another's intellectual property is ridiculous. If you are hit by the RIAA/MPAA you deserve it.

yup.

 

[neonerd]

gah! Can't you just be careful and not get caught?

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: VanillaH
I recently made a $80 purchase of CDs, just for three of them. yes, they are expensive as they are, but i dont regret it a bit. to me it means supporting the artists and giving them more respect, and i dont really mind helping the record companies to bring more quality records like these. what should be noted is i only bought the CDs because I already have those songs and I know it is worth my money to buy those. I would be plain stupid if i just bought the CDs without hearing a song, and therefore this serves as a classic example where it actually helped their sales. If I had no access to the songs previously, I would have not bought the CD, expensive or not.

at this point in time, online musics stores are completely irrelevant to me as I dont listen to any American music; what is relevant, however, is that when I buy CDs, i see it as an collectible item. as such, i pay great attention to album art, extras that come along with it (e.g. posters). More often than not I could get equivalent CDs from Hongkongnese SM Records, but I refuse since they are not authentic. online music distribution obviously does not give you as much joy of this ownership. besides, as others have mentioned, 128kbps lossy MP3 is something I would avoid even as a preview sample. long story short, to make this online music distribution work, they should distribute lossless formats at significantly lower price than the CD equivalents. what can i possibly gain by downloading the tracks instead of buying CDs from online stores if they are priced at the same level?

average loyalty fee per cd to a group is $.08 per cd or about 40k for a gold album. if yuo really support them, go to theri concerts.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: VanillaH
I recently made a $80 purchase of CDs, just for three of them. yes, they are expensive as they are, but i dont regret it a bit. to me it means supporting the artists and giving them more respect, and i dont really mind helping the record companies to bring more quality records like these. what should be noted is i only bought the CDs because I already have those songs and I know it is worth my money to buy those. I would be plain stupid if i just bought the CDs without hearing a song, and therefore this serves as a classic example where it actually helped their sales. If I had no access to the songs previously, I would have not bought the CD, expensive or not.

at this point in time, online musics stores are completely irrelevant to me as I dont listen to any American music; what is relevant, however, is that when I buy CDs, i see it as an collectible item. as such, i pay great attention to album art, extras that come along with it (e.g. posters). More often than not I could get equivalent CDs from Hongkongnese SM Records, but I refuse since they are not authentic. online music distribution obviously does not give you as much joy of this ownership. besides, as others have mentioned, 128kbps lossy MP3 is something I would avoid even as a preview sample. long story short, to make this online music distribution work, they should distribute lossless formats at significantly lower price than the CD equivalents. what can i possibly gain by downloading the tracks instead of buying CDs from online stores if they are priced at the same level?

average loyalty fee per cd to a group is $.08 per cd or about 40k for a gold album. if yuo really support them, go to theri concerts.

I would love to go to their concerts, now buy me airplane tickets to japan
EDIT : is that trend global? if it is only pertinent to the US, then it really is none of my business.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: tfinch2
I wish everyone that pirates music/movies/software would be punished. I reported a lab assistant here on campus a few weeks ago. She was watching a pirated movie while on duty, you could see the tag of the rippers or whatever in the letterbox. She was fired that week.

and that makes you a cock

"He who stands for nothing, falls for anything."

If it's wrong, and you're caught doing it, it's always someone else's fault, isn't it. Or they're a jerk or something. :roll:

What if you were caught red-handed in a bank vault lifting bags of cash. Would you call the cop a cock for upholding the law? Probably, but that's because your kind are douche bags.

If you get caught, don't be a douche bag. Who ever turned you in did the right thing.

Nobody likes a snitch.

So if someone committed a crime and you knew who did it you wouldn't notify the authorities? :roll:

So, tfinch2, you've never committed a crime?
You've never exceeded the speed limit by even 1 mph?
You've never jay-walked across an intersection?
Around here, recycling in your garbage is mandatory. I saw my neighbor throw out a tin can. Should I call the police and have her fined for it?? (seriously, it's a 150 dollar fine with a 100 dollar surcharge) I mean, after all, she committed a crime.

Personally, I see internet piracy of music as no different from the neighbor not recycling.
1 song isn't a big deal. And, in all seriousness, 1 million downloads of a song don't mean that the labels lost out on a million sales. Think of all the college students with a bazillion mp3's. You think they would have purchased a bazillion songs if they couldn't download them? A lot of it is just hoarding behavior.

And, I've downloaded songs and movies. I've downloaded movies as soon as they came out in theaters. A few times, I watched 5 minutes and decided "this sucks" (example: Hannibal) and deleted it. Other times, I've said "this is great," stopped watching it and went to the theater to watch it. I've downloaded dozens of movies that I've later gone out and purchased the dvd's for. I've downloaded every Simpson's episode. But, I've purchased every Simpson's DVD that has hit the market. They're a few seasons behind, and I like having the other episodes available to watch when I want to watch them. (without the inconvenience of setting a tivo to record them (legally) and winding up with the identical product.)
At this moment, I don't have a single movie on my computer that I don't own. Every movie I kept on my computer for more than a few hours, I've eventually acquired by purchasing when it was available.

 

[jpeyton]

I think it is RIAA's problem to solve because they don't seem interested in providing a serious incentive for people to buy music online. Lower prices and higher quality would be tempting for people who are on the edge, but the current standard of $.99/track is too steep for average quality DRM-protected downloads.

And no, these silly lawsuits will make no significant impact on piracy. RIAA is going to soil their pants during this decade as broadband proliferation sees some significant increases within the US. Numbers can't be argued with, and they will only hurt themselves if they think their lawsuits will protect them as more and more households get broadband connections.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: arcenite
Was she actually on the clock? While I agree she should be working, getting her fired was not the way to handle the situation. Like I said, what goes around comes around. I hope the OP is as perfect as he expects everyone else to be.

While I don't believe in karma, if what you say is right, it DID come around. It bit her in the ass for being a pirate! When you have the responsibility of being an employer, you can make that decision for yourself on whether it's worth firing someone over. Until then, well, be glad that it wasn't you getting fired?

um yeah.. hope you dont turn your dad in for jaywalking :disgust:

My dad's dead. His body gave out because he abused drugs like cocaine and speed. If he were still alive and still abusing those drugs, of course I'd go straight to the authorities, but that's obviously larger than pirating movies off the web.

When you see someone driving like freakin crazy on the highway, weaving in and out of traffic, do you think "hmm, I'd better make a phone call to the authorities so this guy doesn't kill someone" or do you think "damn, that guy's a jerk. Hope he doesn't kill someone"?

When you see someone cutting in line, do you say something or do you just hope that the next person who cuts in line just cuts in line behind you? Are you the kind of douche bag that parks across two parking spots because it's convenient? You obviously wouldn't do anything about anyone who else who does, so does that mean YOU would do things that you say you wouldn't complain about?

Why do people have such disregard for the law?

 

[konakona]

Are you the kind of douche bag that parks across two parking spots because it's convenient?

I don't drive asswipe so you can be rest assured I would never do that. you obviously lack any reasoning to read what other people have been responding in this thread. It is not that we disregard law - just that we are all human beings and there are varying degrees of crime, and for some of those we would leave it up to the individual's own conscience and morals.

your comparisons are completely ballistic and does not relate to this lab assistant just watching a movie. what part of jaywalking did you not understand? of course I would call 911 if I saw someone mowing down people with a machinegun. are you a type to report a fire for little cigarette burn on your carpet you could put out by stomping? If there is one thing I agree with amused in this thread is that people like you are the ones that give a rise to nanny states. sounds like you are a big fundamentalist figure longing for a totalitarian society.

I have followed some of your posts before you changed your name to learn you are not worth my time arguing with, but now I know for sure what kind of twisted individual you reall are.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: allisolm

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: AmusedIt's OK to share, but not to distribute on a large scale. Making a copyrighted song available for DL to everyone on the web is illegal distribution.

Shades of gray. How many people can I share with until it's "large scale"?

1, 10, 100, 1,000,000?

From the article: "...the average number of songs offered illegally by the students was 2,300 each."

Is it just me, or does sharing 2,300 songs each with ANY amount of people sound pretty "large scale"? I know that average number is a lot more music than I own.

Agreed, I'm not arguing they were kosher. What I would like to know, in plain english, is what I can share and to whom. I have quite a few friends who I would share music with via CDs, but I'm not going to do it over the internet due to the RIAA. Risk > rewards.

Fair Use needs to be better defined.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Are you the kind of douche bag that parks across two parking spots because it's convenient?

I don't drive asswipe so you can be rest assured I would never do that. you obviously lack any reasoning to read what other people have been responding in this thread. It is not that we disregard law - just that we are all human beings and there are varying degrees of crime, and for some of those we would leave it up to the individual's own conscience and morals.

your comparisons are completely ballistic and does not relate to this lab assistant just watching a movie. what part of jaywalking did you not understand? of course I would call 911 if I saw someone mowing down people with a machinegun. are you a type to report a fire for little cigarette burn on your carpet you could put out by stomping? If there is one thing I agree with amused in this thread is that people like you are the ones that give a rise to nanny states. sounds like you are a big fundamentalist figure longing for a totalitarian society.

I have followed some of your posts before you changed your name to learn you are not worth my time arguing with, but now I know for sure what kind of twisted individual you reall are.

Twisted? Because I call the authorities when my neighbor's smoking burn pile is still smoking when he leaves his house? Or when I see someone slipping a CD into their jacket at a store? Or I mension something when I see someone parking in a no-parking spot or smoking in a no-smoking area?

wow, I must be really twisted to think that upholding rules is a bad thing. :roll:

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Are you the kind of douche bag that parks across two parking spots because it's convenient?

I don't drive asswipe so you can be rest assured I would never do that. you obviously lack any reasoning to read what other people have been responding in this thread. It is not that we disregard law - just that we are all human beings and there are varying degrees of crime, and for some of those we would leave it up to the individual's own conscience and morals.

your comparisons are completely ballistic and does not relate to this lab assistant just watching a movie. what part of jaywalking did you not understand? of course I would call 911 if I saw someone mowing down people with a machinegun. are you a type to report a fire for little cigarette burn on your carpet you could put out by stomping? If there is one thing I agree with amused in this thread is that people like you are the ones that give a rise to nanny states. sounds like you are a big fundamentalist figure longing for a totalitarian society.

I have followed some of your posts before you changed your name to learn you are not worth my time arguing with, but now I know for sure what kind of twisted individual you reall are.

Twisted? Because I call the authorities when my neighbor's smoking burn pile is still smoking when he leaves his house? Or when I see someone slipping a CD into their jacket at a store? Or I mension something when I see someone parking in a no-parking spot or smoking in a no-smoking area?

wow, I must be really twisted to think that upholding rules is a bad thing. :roll:

Why do you have to be part of the "upholding of rules"? Wouldn't they let you be the hall monitor when you were a kid? :laugh: