Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 259

Thread: Join RIAA Boycott

  1. #151
    Super Moderator Super Moderator Big Booger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    JAPAN
    Posts
    10,201
    Quote Originally Posted by efc
    The Village Voice is carrying a piece describing what it is like being on the receiving end of an RIAA John Doe lawsuit.

    LINK
    Inciteful. I think they are wasting tax payer money, court time, and so on.. these type suits time up the court system that is already overburdened... rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers, pimps, and their like should take priority over this piddle paddle crap.

    I say you should fight the RIAA.. sure you could settle, but that is exactly what they want you to do... Imagine if all 1800 that have settled so far chose to fight it in court... that is 1800 court cases.. could take months if not years to clear...

    I mean especially if you are below the poverity line.. you might as well fight it all the way. then if you lose, file bankruptcy.. (chapter 7) there goes their settlement

  2. #152
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tanzania
    Posts
    2
    Way to go egghead, if the music industry is to thrive the work of the Artists must be paid for, Are the overpaid??? well perhaps a music site will take that thread...

  3. #153
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,103
    Published: 24th March 2005 17:47 BST+1

    First Swede prosecuted for sharing files on net

    A man in Västerås has become the first Swede to be charged with illegally sharing files via the Internet. But prosecutors say that unless the case results in a prison sentence, other cases of web piracy might never get to court.

    The 27-year old at the centre of the case is accused of having the film Hipp Hipp Hora on his computer, which he allowed others to download. If convicted, he could face up to two years imprisonment.

    The case was brought after a tip off from Antipiratbyrån (APB), a lobby organization set up by the media industry to combat illegal downloading in Sweden. Since the man was reported APB has found itself in hot water, with an Internet company accusing the organization itself of illegally downloading films and games.

    Uppsala prosecutor Katrin Rudström says that this is a vital test case, and that the result will have big implications for future prosecutions. She told Aftonbladet that if the case resulted only in a fine, it was unlikely that other file sharers would be prosecuted in the future. This was partly due, she said, to the fact that police would not have the right to demand information about which computers were sharing their files if the crime was only punishable by financial penalties.

    “As these cases do not involve criminals, but instead quite ordinary people who share their files, any prison sentence would certainly be suspended,” Rudström said.

    The case comes as Sweden’s legislators prepare to debate a new copyright law that would make it clearer that unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material is illegal. Yet Justice Minister Thomas Bodström has made it clear that enforcing the new law will not be a priority area for the police.

    Meanwhile, the opposition Center Party has said that downloading should be allowed, and the law should focus on those who spread material rather than those who download it.

    “It is, for example, a breach of copyright laws to copy a music book, but it is not illegal to receive or use the copied book,” said the party’s legal affairs spokesman, Johan Linander. “It should be no more complicated than that in the digital arena,” he added.

    The Center Party will not be able to block the law on its own, although Linander said that he would argue his case when the centre-right alliance to which the party belongs meets in April.


    Sources: Dagens Nyheter, Aftonbladet, SVT
    and Slashdot
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  4. #154
    She who must be obeyed Super Moderator piaqt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,628
    Millions swap music files, skirt legal issues: survey
    Fri Mar 25,11:17 AM ET Technology - AFP
    WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some 36 million Americans have downloaded digital music or video files, with many finding alternatives to the legally questionable peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, a survey showed this week.

    The Pew Internet and American Life Project survey said downloaders are now more likely to say they use online music services like Apple's iTunes than P2P services like Kazaa and Grokster.
    The percentage of music downloaders who have tried paid services has grown from 24 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in the most recent survey, Pew said, but added that people "may now be less likely to report peer-to-peer usage due to the stigma associated with the networks."

    With legal challenges intensifying against P2P networks and people who use them, Pew said people have been turning to paid services like iTunes, but other methods as well -- such as trading from a friend's iPod or through e-mail and instant messaging.

    "Some 19 percent of current music and video downloaders, about seven million adults, say they have downloaded files from someone else's iPod or MP3 player," the Pew report found.
    "About 28 percent, or 10 million people, say they get music and video files via e-mail and instant messages. However, there is some overlap between these two groups; nine percent of downloaders say they have used both of these sources."

    The survey, released the week before the US Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments one the legality of file-sharing networks, found 49 percent of all those surveyed and 53 percent of Internet users believe that the firms that own and operate file-sharing networks should be deemed responsible for piracy.

    Up to now, the courts have held that the networks -- as suppliers of technology that can be used for both legal and illegal purpose -- cannot be sued for copyright violation by users of the services. But that is being appealed to the Supreme Court.
    Source

    Last night, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know.
    love, piaqt

  5. #155
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,103
    ZDNET Blog and Slashdot.org
    Posted by Joe Brockmeier @ 11:35 pm
    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in MGM v. Grokster. The Grokster case, for those who haven’t been following it, concerns the liability of distributors of P2P software. As we all know, there are legitimate uses for P2P software (think BitTorrent and distributing Linux ISOs, which are legally free and clear for distribution) and infringing uses (distributing MP3s of Dark Side of the Moon on a P2P network). The question is, whether a distributor should be held liable for infringing uses when there are substantial non-infringing uses as well.

    The case is a test of the famous (or infamous, if you happen to be on the recording industry’s side of the fence) Betamax standard. (See the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Betamax Case page for an excellent summary of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios.)

    The ramifications of this case are huge: A loss for the Grokster could mean disaster for P2P filesharing systems across the board, as well as other technologies. If Grokster is liable for infringing uses, would the ProFTPD Team be liable when someone grabs a copy of Star Wars from a server running ProFTPD? Would Microsoft be liable when someone uses IE to download MP3s from websites? Since almost any file transfer software could be abused to infringe on copyrights, where would the line be drawn? A loss for Grokster could have a serious chilling effect for all sorts of software.

    However, there’s been another interesting development in the case that no one was expecting. Timothy K. Armstrong was at the MGM v. Grokster hearing and caught MGM making a surprise concession in response to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia: (Emphasis added)

    At least some of the Justices, Scalia in particular, seemed troubled by how an inventor would know, at the time of inventing, how its invention might be marketed in the future. How, some of the Justices asked MGM, could the inventors of the iPod (or the VCR, or the photocopier, or even the printing press) know whether they could go ahead with developing their invention? It surely would not be difficult for them to imagine that somebody might hit upon the idea of marketing their device as a tool for infringement.

    MGM s answer to this was pretty unsatisfying. They said that at the time the iPod was invented, it was clear that there were many perfectly lawful uses for it, such as ripping one s own CD and storing it in the iPod. This was a very interesting point for them to make, not least because I would wager that there are a substantial number of people on MGM s side of the case who don t think that example is one bit legal. But they ve now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they ll be barred from challenging ripping in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. In any event, though, MGM s iPod example did exactly what their proposed standard expressly doesn t do: it evaluated the legality of the invention based on the knowledge available to the inventor at the time, not from a post hoc perspective that asks how the invention is subsequently marketed or what business models later grow up around it.
    Hat tip to Ernest Miller for pointing out Armstrong’s post. Miller also points out that, if it’s OK to rip MP3s to your iPod, shouldn’t it be legal to rip DVDs to another medium for personal use?

    What about using DeCSS to watch DVDs on Linux or other platforms? It should be interesting to see MGM try to wriggle out of this, since I doubt that the company is going to champion any expansion of fair use.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  6. #156
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,103
    Letters to the business editor: 5/3/05

    Tuesday, May 03, 2005

    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


    Music stealing all around


    Cary Sherman's opinion piece on Sunday, "Mellifluous Discord: Universities' High-Speed Internet2 Used by Students to Pilfer Music," was as one-sided and illogical as the whole Recording Industry Association of America he represents, as president.

    Sherman suggests that universities should remind users of "the necessity of responsible use of network resources." In my computer science class at Carnegie Mellon, "Introduction to Computer Music," I spend a little time doing just that. I teach students how, historically, the major recording labels have dominated the recording industry, refusing to record some of America's greatest artists, including Louis Armstrong. (His first recordings were manufactured by a former piano company in Indiana, which was sued by the major labels of the day for patent infringement.) Mr. Sherman, is this an example of "a climate where creativity is valued" that you are seeking?

    My students also learn how the broadcasting industry, dominated by NBC and CBS, ignored recording technology until the NBC monopoly was broken up by the FCC. The innovations in magnetic recording for broadcast introduced by the struggling ABC were a major step forward, enabling the modern recording industry and even modern computer technology. Mr. Sherman, was the monopolistic suppression of innovation the "responsible use of network resources" you are seeking?

    Mr. Sherman, you say that stealing "is not OK," and yet I have musician friends who cannot get RIAA members to pay them the royalties they are due. While you are asking universities to address your problems, please don't forget that you too can be a "powerful leader in curbing theft of copyright materials on campus." If you'll stop your members from stealing from my friends, and then study some history, maybe I can help you.



    ROGER DANNENBERG
    Squirrel Hill



    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  7. #157
    Super Moderator Super Moderator Big Booger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    JAPAN
    Posts
    10,201

    Red face RIAA’s Grand Total: 10,037 - What are Your Odds?

    The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) began their lawsuit campaign against alleged music pirates in June of 2003. When the first RIAA lawsuits began rolling off the assembly line, an enormous media frenzy accompanied this event. Since that time the lawsuits have become second-rate news, as the chances of becoming another RIAA statistic is relatively low – very low.

    So what exactly are your chances of being sued by the RIAA? In our news story last Wednesday, Slyck reported the number of online file-sharers was approximately 9 million users. Among other networks, this number did not account for the BitTorrent, WinMX, Manolito, Warez/Ares, Gnutella2 or SoulSeek populations. If we did include those users, we would be looking at a much larger population – perhaps as many as 15 million users. For the purposes of this article, we will split the difference and approximate there are 12 million P2P users online at any given moment.

    With this number in mind, there have been 10,037 people sued by the RIAA since June of 2003. According to the web log “ RIAA Watch”, 6,523 people were sued by the RIAA in 2004. What exactly does this mean?

    If we divide the total population of the P2P community (~12 million individuals), by the total number of lawsuits in 2004 (6,523), we get 1,840. In other words, your chances of being sued are 1 in 1,840 for all users (regardless of network) per year. How does that stack against all other odds of dying from an intentional or non-intentional injury? According to the National Safety Council, one’s yearly chances of dying from all external causes were 1 in 1,755 in 2002.

    Basically, your chances of dying from all causes of external injuries, whether from a car accident, motorcycle accident, plane crash, murder, etc was 1 in 1,755 – fairly remote odds. Although the odds were remote, they still were not as remote as specific causes of death – such as lightening strikes, suicide, “fall on and from stairs and steps” or being electrocuted. In some cases, your chances of dying from contact with a sharp object were 1 in 2.8 million.

    So let us examine the chances of being sued by the RIAA a bit further. The main focus of the RIAA lawsuits have been against the FastTrack network. The effects of this campaign has crippled FastTrack, dropping its population from ~4.5 million to ~2.5 million users. From the last capture of the proportion of networks under the RIAA’s gun in November of 2003, 150 users of FastTrack were sued, compared to 5 Blubster users. Since the RIAA cannot subpoena individuals anymore, we unfortunately cannot provide a more current proportion. However, common knowledge dictates that FastTrack remains a priority, and on November 13 of 2003 it represented ~96% of those being sued.

    If we were to eliminate 96% (proportion of FastTrack users) of the 6,523 sued in 2004, the odds of being sued changes dramatically. If we consider only those using a non-FastTrack P2P network, the total number of lawsuits drops to only ~261. In other words, you then have a 1 in 45,977 chance of being sued if you do not use FastTrack. Comparatively, according to the National Safety Council, you have a better chance of being killed in a transportation or non-transportational accident, death from suicide, death from assault or death by legal intervention (such as execution or being shot by a police officer.)

    However this assumes the RIAA has remained consistent in which network users are being sued from. Let's say the RIAA was more diverse in which networks they pursue. If we assume half of those sued in 2004 were using FastTrack, that leaves us with 3,261 non-FastTrack related lawsuits. You would then have a 1 in 3,679 chance of being sued. That still places you above all external cases of mortality (1 in 1,755), but below all transportational accidents (1 in 5,953.) However, you would still have a better chance of being killed in an unintentional accident (1 in 2,698), then being sued by the RIAA.

    Although these numbers are hardly an exact science, they do reflect the odds of being sued are little different than the risks one takes by simply living day-to-day life. But if we were to get real specific, the odds of being sued by the RIAA for non-FastTrack users (1 in 3,679) is still much greater than death by contact with a venomous snake or lizard (1 in 95 million.) So just watch yourself.

    SOURCE:
    http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=769

  8. #158
    Super Moderator Super Moderator Big Booger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    JAPAN
    Posts
    10,201

    Internet piracy fails to sink film profits

    Despite fears that internet piracy would dent its profits, Hollywood has had a buoyant year.

    Worldwide revenues from cinema tickets, videos and DVD sales, as well as television rights, reached a whopping $44.8bn (£24bn) last year, up 9% from 2003.

    Record DVD sales fuelled the increase, up 14% in the US and 46% worldwide, but most other sectors did better than last year. The only exception was cinema ticket sales outside America. These did fall, but by a relatively modest 1%.

    The figures are from a report by the Motion Picture Association, part of the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents Hollywood studios.

    For the past year, the MPAA has mounted an aggressive anti-piracy campaign in the US, claiming that studios lose around $3.5bn (£1.8bn) in potential earnings each year.

    In February, it launched its third wave of lawsuits in four months against anyone illegally up- or downloading movies through internet file-sharing programs. The MPAA has also taken to sending guards sporting night-vision goggles into cinemas, in a bid to catch the pirates red-handed.

    SOURCE:
    http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...475482,00.html

  9. #159
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,103
    I have begun to mix music news and movie news in this thread due to the similarity of the issues.



    May 6, 2005

    Court Blocks TV Anti-Piracy Technology Rules

    By STEPHEN LABATON

    ASHINGTON, May 6 - A federal appeals court handed a major setback to Hollywood and the television networks today when it struck down an anti-piracy regulation that required computer and television makers to use new technology that would make it difficult for consumers to copy and distribute digital programs.

    The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel, in an important case at the intersection of intellectual property and technology, was a stinging rebuke for the Federal Communications Commission. The court said the commission had exceeded its authority when it approved the rules in 2003.

    It was an important victory for libraries, consumer groups and civil liberties organizations. They had maintained that the regulation, known as the "broadcast flag" rule, would stifle innovation in technology and make it more difficult for consumers and users of library services to circulate material legitimately.

    Although an appeal is possible, lawyers involved in the case said the fight would shift in the near term to Congress, which is already weighing legislation. Hollywood executives and their lobbyists warned that if the rule was not resurrected by Congress, studios and broadcasters would sharply limit the digital programming available over the airwaves, focusing instead on channels limited to cable and satellite services, where they have other means to control what can be copied.

    For years, the movie studios and television networks had urged the commission to adopt the rule, citing the recording industry's experience with companies like Napster and saying restrictions on copying and distributing programs by consumers were essential to the transition from analog to digital television. They maintained that without the imposition of the broadcast flag, shows would be copied and then transmitted limitlessly through the Internet, much the way music is.

    But the critics said that the studios and networks were unduly alarmist and that the new rule, which was to have taken effect July 1, would prevent consumers from copying and using programs for legitimate reasons.

    Research librarians submitted affidavits in the case, contending that the broadcast flag rule would make it impossible to distribute broadcast clips and other research material over the Internet to researchers and students.

    Critics also maintained that the commission had overreached and had moved to regulate the Internet more tightly, ridiculing the agency in the aftermath of the rulemaking as the "Federal Computer Commission."

    Under the rule, manufacturers would have been required to install special technology beginning later this year in new computers and televisions that would enable them to recognize specially embedded computer bits in the programs created by the studios and the networks. The new equipment would then restrict redistribution and reuse of the programs.

    The rule was challenged from the moment it was issued in November 2003. The case was filed last year in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the usual venue for challenging commission rules.

    The outcome of the case was signaled during oral arguments in February, when the judges aggressively questioned F.C.C. lawyers about whether the agency had exceeded its authority by setting technical standards having nothing directly to do with broadcasting transmissions.

    "You've gone too far," said Judge Harry T. Edwards during the oral arguments, as he pressed a government lawyer to justify how the agency could possibly set standards governing computers and the Internet. "Are washing machines next?"

    But the breadth of Judge Edwards's opinion was more than many lawyers had expected.

    "In this case, all relevant materials concerning the F.C.C.'s jurisdiction - including the words of the Communications Act of 1934, its legislative history, subsequent legislation, relevant case law and commission practice - confirm that the F.C.C. has no authority to regulate consumer electronic devices that can be used for receipt of wire or radio communication when those devices are not engaged in the process of radio or wire transmission," Judge Edwards wrote.

    "And the agency's strained and implausible interpretations of the definitional provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 do not lend credence to its position. As the Supreme Court has reminded us, Congress 'does not ... hide elephants in mouse holes.' "His opinion, in American Library Association v. Federal Communications Commission, was joined by Judges David B. Sentelle and Judith W. Rogers.

    The commission's top spokesman, David Fiske, said that the agency did not have a comment about the decision and that the government had not decided whether it would seek an appeal either to the full court of appeals or to the Supreme Court. Some lawyers said they did not expect the Supreme Court would consider the case, as it did not satisfy the criteria for such review.

    Were the high court to take the case, it would not be considered until the next term, which begins in October.

    The justices are expected to issue a ruling soon in another closely watched case involving digital rights and intellectual property, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster Ltd. In that case, the court is considering whether the online services that enable copyright songs and movies to be shared freely over the Internet can be held liable themselves for copyright infringement.

    The broadcast flag rule was adopted at the urging of Michael K. Powell, the commission chairman at the time. It was supported by Kevin J. Martin, a commissioner who became chairman this year.

    In recent weeks, both sides in the lawsuit have been talking to lawmakers in anticipation of the ruling.

    "Without a 'broadcast flag,' consumers may lose access to the very best programming offered on local television," said Edward O. Fritts, chairman and chief executive of the National Association of Broadcasters. "This remedy is designed to protect against unauthorized indiscriminate redistribution of programming over the Internet."

    Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, offered similar warnings. "If the broadcast flag cannot be used, program providers will have to weigh whether the risk of theft is too great over free, off-air broadcasting and could limit such high-quality programming to only cable, satellite and other more secure delivery systems," he said. "It is important to remember that this decision is only about the F.C.C.'s jurisdiction, not the merits of the broadcast flag itself."

    But Gigi B. Sohn, president of the digital rights advocacy group Public Knowledge, which led the fight against the broadcast flag rule, warned that intervention by Congress could create a new set of problems for consumers and innovators.

    "If Congress starts to go down the road of giving the F.C.C. broad power over new applications and technologies, who knows what comes next?" Ms. Sohn said. "This case is about the future of technology."

    Government officials and industry executives report that digital television has slowly been gaining in popularity. Nearly 1,500 stations, or about 90 percent of the total, now broadcast some digital programs. Industry executives project sales this year of about 15 million television sets able to receive digital programs, about half of all sets sold. Indeed, some sets already being sold are equipped for a broadcast flag.

    Cable televisions now have the ability to sell digital programs to as many as 90 million homes, and about 300 hours of digital programming is available each day in many markets.

    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  10. #160
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,103
    WASHINGTON -- Despite Monday's Supreme Court decision allowing copyright holders to sue peer-to-peer services wholesale, the recording industry launched yet another round of litigation against individual downloaders Wednesday.

    More
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  11. #161
    Titanium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    blk helo target, WA
    Posts
    2,846

  12. #162
    Titanium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    blk helo target, WA
    Posts
    2,846
    give me an effen break:
    Executives in the music industry believe the increase in legal music downloads has to do with the 14,000 odd lawsuits the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) has initiated in 12 countries
    It's the advent of new technology and convenience - not their stupid tactics.

    News post by Michael@HWG.com

    According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) there have been over 180 million legal music downloads this year sold through services such as emusic and apples iTunes.

    The IEPI does not directly measure the amount of pirated music available but said that only 900 million tracks a rise of only 3% from the same time period last year.

    Executives in the music industry believe the increase in legal music downloads has to do with the 14,000 odd lawsuits the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) has initiated in 12 countries. The majority of the people sued by the RIAA are men aged 20 – 35. Although some elderly women and young girls have also been targeted.

    Click Here
    "We are now seeing real evidence that people are increasingly put off by illegal file sharing and turning to legal ways of enjoying music online," IFPI Chief Executive Officer John Kennedy said.

    As services such as emusic and iTunes continues to grow they expect the number of legal music downloads to increase ten-fold.
    Last edited by lynchknot; July 21st, 2005 at 21:56 PM.

  13. #163
    She who must be obeyed Super Moderator piaqt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by lynchknot
    give me an effen break: It's the advent of new technology and convenience - not their stupid tactics.

    News post by Michael@HWG.com
    Since when does being an industry hack equate with intelligence?

    Last night, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know.
    love, piaqt

  14. #164
    Super Moderator Super Moderator Big Booger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    JAPAN
    Posts
    10,201
    View: RIAA WEBSITE HACKED SCREENSHOT

    Check it out. Some hackers hacked the RIAA website and put up links to many popular file sharing applications like edonkey, Kazaa, etc.. LOL

    Quite comical. Screw the RIAA, SONY, VIRGIN, and all the other oppressive companies who want to shove your green in their pockets.

  15. #165
    The Beast Master TZ Veteran PIPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,055
    I agree Egg....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •