Downloaders: Beware

[Jason Tate]

File sharing ruling (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050627104409990012 ) came out today.

[JIMMYateEARTH]

Dosen't effect me Never Shared a file
I have internet less up to about 3 yrs ago
Ahhh what I was missing

[Cottage Cheese]

meh... nothing's gonna change

[shermanology]

Just means the companies are going to get sued right along with the users. People will still download. Its like drugs, no matter how hard you try, people will still do it.

[Trainsaw]

this sort of thing happens all the time, some new P2P will pop up

[Nick Lopez]

...so what exactly does this change?

[Make Out Kid]

Just means the companies are going to get sued right along with the users. People will still download. Its like drugs, no matter how hard you try, people will still do it.

exactly right, scene points for you.

[Bosnia]

Just means the companies are going to get sued right along with the users. People will still download. Its like drugs, no matter how hard you try, people will still do it.
100% correct

[idolistic_dream]

"It's unclear how much the decision will actually deter the widespread problem of piracy since software programs created abroad won't be subject to the tougher U.S. copyright laws."

I love Canada.

[tambo41187]

i still think dowloading can help bands, if you dont have the money to buy a cd then you are not gonna buy it. if u download that same cd, you can find a band you truely love and buy their cd later/buy merch/go to a show.

i eventually buy whatever i d/l anyways so this should be no big deal.

[Ryan Mills]

I'd really like to do research on this...somehow take a random sample of a few thousand or so users on various P2P networks and have them fill out a survey anonymously about their behavior with respect to buying things that they download now if they weren't available. I bet it would reveal quite a bit.

[Booyah Achieved]

I have a question that popped into my mind earlier

if these artists and record companies are so up in arms about people obtaining music, and them not seeing any profit, how do they feel about record stores and online sites selling copies of used cds? they're not getting a dime from this purchase, but people are obtaining the records...what's the difference? if someone wants to buy metallica's black album, who's honestly going to go out and shell out 18 bucks for a brand new copy? i don't know, maybe it's a stupid thought...just popped into my head

Oh, and fuck the RIAA

[shermanology]

If I like a cd I download, I either buy it or send the band a letter with a check in it for 10 bucks. They end up getting a better bargin anyways.

[LPMagic]

if you dont have the money to buy a cd then you are not gonna buy it. if u download that same cd, you can find a band you truely love and buy their cd later/buy merch/go to a show.

Well said.

- Jeff

[Luckie St]

i still think dowloading can help bands, if you dont have the money to buy a cd then you are not gonna buy it. if u download that same cd, you can find a band you truely love and buy their cd later/buy merch/go to a show.

i eventually buy whatever i d/l anyways so this should be no big deal.

yeah, but not every kid is like you, they wont ALL go and buy what they download, in fact most of everyone i know doesnt. i think that with things like purevolume kids should have a good enough idea of what they want to buy or not. if you really love music, you wont download or download and then not buy. opening a brand new CD is such an awesome feeling, and just being able to see the cover art, having the new disc in your case. etc. it's such a good thing.

too many bands are giving up their lives to work at making music they love. most of them dont even care if they become rich, touring and playing music for us just completes them. its the least we can do to buy their CD, and a t shirt if we're super nice.

[thewebguy]

File sharing ruling (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050627104409990012 ) came out today.

this ruling has nothing to do with downloaders.

why don't you all take the time to read the article next time (everyone who has replied so far, not just jason).

this ruling simply states this: if a company makes a product that has possible illegal uses, and promotes the illegal use of the product, they can be held liable for the illegal uses of it.

this is not a blow for the riaa, the mpaa, or grokster. it essentially says that solicitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation) of a crime is illegal, which had already been established. the only difference is that the solicitation of crimes using your product makes you responsible for those crimes.

this means that if grokster has a warning that says not to use it for illegal purposes, they are probably clear. if they advertise that you can find any song or movie to download for free, they are probably going to be in more trouble than enron.

[Luckie St]

I have a question that popped into my mind earlier

if these artists and record companies are so up in arms about people obtaining music, and them not seeing any profit, how do they feel about record stores and online sites selling copies of used cds? they're not getting a dime from this purchase, but people are obtaining the records...what's the difference? if someone wants to buy metallica's black album, who's honestly going to go out and shell out 18 bucks for a brand new copy? i don't know, maybe it's a stupid thought...just popped into my head

Oh, and fuck the RIAA

yeah. i thought about that today actually. i think the record companies and artists are fine becuase the CD has already been payed for. the label and artists got whats coming to them. the original buyer just lost some cash and whoever buys it next is a lucky guy.

[Jason Tate]

this ruling has nothing to do with downloaders.

why don't you all take the time to read the article next time (everyone who has replied so far, not just jason).

this ruling simply states this: if a company makes a product that has possible illegal uses, and promotes the illegal use of the product, they can be held liable for the illegal uses of it.

this is not a blow for the riaa, the mpaa, or grokster. it essentially says that solicitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation) of a crime is illegal, which had already been established. the only difference is that the solicitation of crimes using your product makes you responsible for those crimes.

this means that if grokster has a warning that says not to use it for illegal purposes, they are probably clear. if they advertise that you can find any song or movie to download for free, they are probably going to be in more trouble than enron.
It's unclear how much the decision will actually deter the widespread problem of piracy since software programs created abroad won't be subject to the tougher U.S. copyright laws. Still, analysts say the court's stern rebuke should provide a boost to many file-sharing services that offer legal downloading for a fee.

Industry observers have said a ruling against Grokster could also prompt stiffer enforcement from European regulators, who were watching the case for guidance on tackling copyright questions in their countries.

Recording companies in the United States have already sued thousands of individual users; at least 600 of the cases were eventually settled for roughly $3,000 each.

[mulletsrfunny]

I feel like owning a physical CD is less and less important these days. If I buy a CD, it's from a local opening band who I've never heard of. What do I do with it when I get home? Rip it. I don't listen to physical CDs anymore. I put everything on my iPod or harddrive and listen to it that way. This is why I don't buy CDs. Yes, I go to about 4 shows a week, which I pay to get into and then I usually buy a shirt. T-shirts cost about $3 each to print, so they make $7 + off of it when I buy it. If I buy a CD from Best Buy, how much does the band really get from it? A dollar? Two dollars?

Yes, I read this article earlier at work today, but I just wanted to make my point about my downloading persepective. I also disagree with the ruling because it's going to cause more grief for programmers in general. They are going to have to keep extensive logs to prove that the intent of their software isn't illegal.

[Emoknight]

i still think dowloading can help bands, if you dont have the money to buy a cd then you are not gonna buy it. if u download that same cd, you can find a band you truely love and buy their cd later/buy merch/go to a show.

i eventually buy whatever i d/l anyways so this should be no big deal.

agreed, a lot of bands i see now and days, most of them approve of downloading their music, they say go download the songs and buy a shirt or something..

I also agree with shermanology, that no matter what people do about sharing files people are still going to do it...

[blindtragedy]

Tate,

You can bold that statement from the article, but the truth is that that sentence is there to frighten people. This article, as the web guy stated, has NOTHING to do with downloaders. It is there to hold people like Sean Fanning (Napster creator) responsible for what they are creating. That's it. That number is there to strike fear in the casual p2p user that doesn't truly realize what is being ruled upon.

[weworemasks]

I'd really like to do research on this...somehow take a random sample of a few thousand or so users on various P2P networks and have them fill out a survey anonymously about their behavior with respect to buying things that they download now if they weren't available. I bet it would reveal quite a bit.

do it....it seems cool.

[Darren McLeod]

Remember fans: its not always the money that the bands want from selling albums, it's also the number of albums that sell. If a band doesn't make it's quota of albums sold, it won't get signed to a major or it'll lose its current deal (or lose certain bonuses for the next one... money/promotion), and that's one reason to purchase CDs.

[Luckie St]

Remember fans: its not always the money that the bands want from selling albums, it's also the number of albums that sell. If a band doesn't make it's quota of albums sold, it won't get signed to a major or it'll lose its current deal (or lose certain bonuses for the next one... money/promotion), and that's one reason to purchase CDs.

damn good point.

[ColourandShape]

If I like a cd I download, I either buy it or send the band a letter with a check in it for 10 bucks. They end up getting a better bargin anyways.

Liar

[two_days_slow]

The interesting thing is cd sales increase every year but major lables complain it hurts sales...

[wastedspacejm]

Like a lot of people have said, concert ticket sales and merch at those shows are what get bands money. I say, download the music, then if you like the band enough, go to a show and buy the album there, where the band gets 70-80% (if not 100%) of the profit, not from Best Buy or wherever where they may see 5-10%. There's just something about handing that $10 bill to a band's merch guy that feels so much better than handing that same money (or more) to a kid at a music store.

[two_days_slow]

Like a lot of people have said, concert ticket sales and merch at those shows are what get bands money. I say, download the music, then if you like the band enough, go to a show and buy the album there, where the band gets 70-80% (if not 100%) of the profit, not from Best Buy or wherever where they may see 5-10%. There's just something about handing that $10 bill to a band's merch guy that feels so much better than handing that same money (or more) to a kid at a music store.
That is what I do. I get my cds at the shows, not from stores. And people, don't forget to tip the merch guy. I know its only a $1, but when he gets 50 $1 tips. He makes $50. Tip them!!!

[MidniteVulture]

Ehhh I am not a fan of downloading music but I would rather it be up to the label or artist as to whether people can download their music or not, the government doesn't need to get into it.

Not that what a label or artist says will necessarily mean that people will follow it, but I think that if they play it right, people will be pretty respectful toward them.

[nerogtr]

Just means the companies are going to get sued right along with the users. People will still download. Its like drugs, no matter how hard you try, people will still do it.

although some do, most people dont steal their drugs. the creation of drugs in the US is illegal too. Making music is not illegal. stealing it is though. stealing anything is illegal. u can dress it up and call it sharing, but its stealing. =\.

[paperw1ngs]

lame.

[nerogtr]

Liar


agreed. if he does send a check over, i doubt the band sees. it.

[thewk]

if you download music off of the internet, it's a risk you must be willing to take--along with the consequences that may follow.
in my personal opinion, downloading can be helpful to bands seeking to be heard and is definitely an excellent tool in the marketing of up-and-coming artists.

[youcomebeforeyo]

The best solution to stop copying occouring is to focus on quality.

I go out and buy CD's I like, I go out and buy DVD's I like.

I won't spend $20 to buy a DVD of a Hillary Duff movie because it's crap.

Obviously this doesn't solve the entire problem but there should be more emphasis on it.

[ForeverInADay]

Just means the companies are going to get sued right along with the users. People will still download. Its like drugs, no matter how hard you try, people will still do it.
same with sex.

well..when they get the opportunity. OKAY its like masturbating for guys then.

[shermanology]

although some do, most people dont steal their drugs. the creation of drugs in the US is illegal too. Making music is not illegal. stealing it is though. stealing anything is illegal. u can dress it up and call it sharing, but its stealing. =\.
dude, you took the metaphore waaaay too far. And the line between downloading and stealing is becoming more blurred with each leaked cd out there.

[fm8418]

who uses p2p anyways, shitty quality

[DeadVictoryRose]

I have a question that popped into my mind earlier

if these artists and record companies are so up in arms about people obtaining music, and them not seeing any profit, how do they feel about record stores and online sites selling copies of used cds? they're not getting a dime from this purchase, but people are obtaining the records...what's the difference? if someone wants to buy metallica's black album, who's honestly going to go out and shell out 18 bucks for a brand new copy? i don't know, maybe it's a stupid thought...just popped into my head

Oh, and fuck the RIAA

Consider it this way, if I buy a painting from an artist, and then sell it later the artist doesn't see anymore monies from the second purchase, however as commonly known they would be outraged at someone selling a fake. Downloading music is essentially a fake. The artist never recieved payment for it, and its not how they intended it to be. A used cd is sold by someone who has the right to sell it, although selling advances/promos, in my opinion should be illegal.

you have raised a good point though. I wonder if the music industry who claims was hurt so bad from downloading bothered to think that used stores had a rise around the same time.

this ruling has nothing to do with downloaders.

why don't you all take the time to read the article next time (everyone who has replied so far, not just jason).

this ruling simply states this: if a company makes a product that has possible illegal uses, and promotes the illegal use of the product, they can be held liable for the illegal uses of it.

this is not a blow for the riaa, the mpaa, or grokster. it essentially says that solicitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation) of a crime is illegal, which had already been established. the only difference is that the solicitation of crimes using your product makes you responsible for those crimes.

this means that if grokster has a warning that says not to use it for illegal purposes, they are probably clear. if they advertise that you can find any song or movie to download for free, they are probably going to be in more trouble than enron.

It actually does effect downloaders quite a bit. Companies making this service are going to have to do more than a warning, they will have to police it themselves, and/or the RIAA will send them bills for policing their networks to make sure they are being in compliance. You will see less P2P's coming out, and more networks blocking them/closing ports as well as ISP's not allowing it.

[SilverApples]

observant. boring. monotonous. probably overanalyzed by now in this thread. i don't know. i'm not bothering to look. i'm just here to make an offhand quip about the faux-political shortcomings of this thread to enrage somebody. i may be drunk.

[YellowNovember]

money talks :headshake :headshake :headshake :headshake

[thewebguy]

Recording companies in the United States have already sued thousands of individual users; at least 600 of the cases were eventually settled for roughly $3,000 each.

yes, the riaa has sued thousands of individuals -- in the past. this rule has nothing to do with those suits. they will sue more individuals, of course, but this ruling has to do with developers.

It actually does effect downloaders quite a bit. Companies making this service are going to have to do more than a warning, they will have to police it themselves, and/or the RIAA will send them bills for policing their networks to make sure they are being in compliance. You will see less P2P's coming out, and more networks blocking them/closing ports as well as ISP's not allowing it.

not quite. what you're talking about is the other end of the spectrum here. all this ruling says is that if they actually promote the illegal uses they can be liable. it doesn't say that they have to do their part to make it impossible to use it illegally. this ruling doesn't even say that grokster is promoting illegal use of their software, it just says that if they are found to be doing so they can be held liable.

the courts cannot ever rule that companies must make their product free of possible illegal uses. here are some products that can be used illegally:
-automobiles
-vcr's
-cameras
-firearms
-scissors
-knives
-toothpicks
-glass bottles
-pianos
-socks
-drivers licenses
-tennis balls

[nerogtr]

dude, you took the metaphore waaaay too far. And the line between downloading and stealing is becoming more blurred with each leaked cd out there.

my reply was nothing personal or against, you, i just wanted to make the general point that dowloading music from P2P softward is illegal and wrong. if the artist has stuff on purevolume or their site up for grabs, then sweet shit but otherwise its just wrong. sry if i came off a lil strong in my reply. ur right, no matter what we do people will still steal and pirate stuff. in my opinion the best thing to do is make sure people realize how important it is for some artists that their music is purchased and establish some respect for the product they and countless others put lots of work into creating. peace.

[DeadVictoryRose]

observant. boring. monotonous. probably overanalyzed by now in this thread. i don't know. i'm not bothering to look. i'm just here to make an offhand quip about the faux-political shortcomings of this thread to enrage somebody. i may be drunk.

drunk posts are the best. most of mine are, who am i kidding, most of my life is.

[TitoThePoolBoy]

*downloads the new spill canvas*

[schumach5]

"...I know a lot of you are already on my side. And for you nay sayers I have two strong words for you...Come ooonnnn. Come oooooonnnnn!"
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a337/wingofseraphim/cap012.bmp

[oddhowweshake]

If I like a cd I download, I either buy it or send the band a letter with a check in it for 10 bucks. They end up getting a better bargin anyways.


wow...your weird

[sweethypocrisy]

well youre all forgetting one thing:
anyone who doesnt support filesharing, is gay

[colourofstef]

"...I know a lot of you are already on my side. And for you nay sayers I have two strong words for you...Come ooonnnn. Come oooooonnnnn!"
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a337/wingofseraphim/cap012.bmp
man's got a good point

[Lueda Alia]

*downloads the new spill canvas*
hahahahaha

best post on this thread.

[GAD_guy]

so are companies making CD and DVD players going to be sued becuase their product can be used to play illegally obtained movies and albums? i know the answer is no but where do you draw the line? fuck this law.

[Alex Djaferis]

and i find it odd how the majority of bands that hate the whole downloading music thing are already the ones that have made it and have a ton of cash in their pockets.

bastards.

[punkpixie]

and i find it odd how the majority of bands that hate the whole downloading music thing are already the ones that have made it and have a ton of cash in their pockets.

bastards.

*Cough*U2*Cough*

*Cough*Metallica*Cough*

[trustno1]

People forget that the record label have tactics too when it comes to putting music on purevolume, and other sites like that. The label picks the 2 best songs on the album to upload onto the site (one of these songs is usually the 1st single). People need to realize this.
More and more albums are leaking in advance and I wouldn't have it any other way. I"m not spending MY money on any cd until I've heard the ENTIRE album in advance. Ignore the hype about an album from reviewers and labels, until you can listen for yourself and make a decision.
Downloading music has become justified. It is NOT wrong. Downloading is the best thing to have ever happened to our society. I can buy only what I like and I save money on albums that I've previewed that are not worth buying (e.g. the new CKY and Thousand Foot Krutch records). Notice I said "downloading" and NOT filesharing.

[Nigel]

I'd really like to do research on this...somehow take a random sample of a few thousand or so users on various P2P networks and have them fill out a survey anonymously about their behavior with respect to buying things that they download now if they weren't available. I bet it would reveal quite a bit.

you do that

[tbs152]

Good to know the supreme court justices don't have more pressing issues at hand, nice list webguy of legal products with possible illegal uses.

[duffe]

and i find it odd how the majority of bands that hate the whole downloading music thing are already the ones that have made it and have a ton of cash in their pockets.

bastards.
yes, that sucks.

[DroppedUrPocket]

Fuck the po-lice.

[Nigel]

Fuck the po-lice.

stay cool now 2pac, no need to get all excited

[DroppedUrPocket]

stay cool now 2pac, no need to get all excited

Surely you jest!

[EvilButters]

I don't share the music I download either. I usually just download an album through bittorrent if I download at all anymore. I also buy the albums I download that I know I'll listen to on a regular basis. File sharing is lame anyway.

[Sureshot182]

Just means the companies are going to get sued right along with the users. People will still download. Its like drugs, no matter how hard you try, people will still do it.
exactly right.

[DroppedUrPocket]

I don't share the music I download either. I usually just download an album through bittorrent if I download at all anymore. I also buy the albums I download that I know I'll listen to on a regular basis. File sharing is lame anyway.

Well, torrents are technically sharing as well, considering once you get the item you're leeching, you start seeding, which is helping other people get the item quicker because they're not leeching it from you.

[nerogtr]

so are companies making CD and DVD players going to be sued becuase their product can be used to play illegally obtained movies and albums? i know the answer is no but where do you draw the line? fuck this law.

no. cd and dvd players dont help illegally distrubute pirated albums and dvds. you are looking way too far into this haha.

[funeralofhearts]

People forget that the record label have tactics too when it comes to putting music on purevolume, and other sites like that. The label picks the 2 best songs on the album to upload onto the site (one of these songs is usually the 1st single). People need to realize this.
More and more albums are leaking in advance and I wouldn't have it any other way. I"m not spending MY money on any cd until I've heard the ENTIRE album in advance. Ignore the hype about an album from reviewers and labels, until you can listen for yourself and make a decision.
Downloading music has become justified. It is NOT wrong. Downloading is the best thing to have ever happened to our society. I can buy only what I like and I save money on albums that I've previewed that are not worth buying (e.g. the new CKY and Thousand Foot Krutch records). Notice I said "downloading" and NOT filesharing.

i agree with this guy. i can't begin to tell how much money i have wasted in recent years on shitty cds. now dont get me wrong, im all about supporting bands, and i do by buying cds at shows from the bands themselves.. i dont have a bunch of money, i work full time and go for broke trying to pay my bills just to survive.. and im not about to give up all my extra money on cds that i will find that i dislike. i'd much rather preview the enitre cd in advance and base my decision on that.. every cd that i have heard, that i liked i did buy.

i really dont understand all the bitching from the record labels anyways though.. they bring all this on themselves anyways.. how do you think we get so many cds in advance because they start the initial leak by sending out hundreds of advance copies to media, and other music related people. if they want advance leaks to end, they need to stop starting them by sending out advance cds.. (not like i want that to happen, lol) but they have no room to bitch if they are starting the leak themselves.

there is nothing wrong with downloading. you download a cd, if you like it buy it.. if you dont like it, then dont buy it.. its that simple. dont let reviewers impact your decision, alot of time its just simple bullshit that comes from their reviews, and 9 times out of 10 they dont share the same opinion as you.

[Gleebo]

I knew I never should have invented the internet.

Also

If all the porn were removed from the internet, there would be one site left and it would be called 'bringbacktheporn.com'. - Dr. Cox from "Scrubs"

[protagonist]

I knew I never should have invented the internet.

Also

If all the porn were removed from the internet, there would be one site left and it would be called 'bringbacktheporn.com'. - Dr. Cox from "Scrubs"

Damn you, Al Gore.



Pee Ess: Scrubs > Anything else on TV.