SolidWorks

That's what it sounds like but then again he's not in the US and so isn't bound by Clause 8 of the US Constitution, so I guess it's ok :^).

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

WASHINGTON (June 25) - The embattled music industry disclosed aggressive plans Wednesday for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.

The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify users who offer ''substantial'' collections of mp3 music files for downloading.

It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.

Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer will qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.

The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to ''the real risk of having to face the music.''

''It's stealing. It's both wrong and illegal,'' Sherman said. Alluding to the court decisions, Sherman said Internet users who believe they can hide behind an alias online were mistaken. ''You are not anonymous,'' Sherman said. ''We're going to begin taking names.''

Country songwriter Hugh Prestwood, who has worked with Randy Travis, Tricia Yearwood and Jimmy Buffett, likened the effort to a roadside police officer on a busy highway.

''It doesn't take too many tickets to get everybody to obey the speed limit,'' Prestwood said.

Critics accused the RIAA of resorting to heavy-handed tactics likely to alienate millions of Internet file-sharers.

''This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has lost touch with reality completely,'' said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. ''Does anyone think more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared war on the American consumer.''

Sherman disputed that consumers, who are gradually turning to legitimate Web sites to buy music legally, will object to the industry's latest efforts against pirates.

''You have to look at exactly who are your customers,'' he said. ''You could say the same thing about shoplifters - are you worried about alienating them? All sorts of industries and retailers have come to the conclusion that they need to be able to protect their rights. We have come to the same conclusion.''

Mike Godwin of Public Knowledge, a consumer group that has challenged broad crackdowns on file-sharing networks, said Wednesday's announcement was appropriate because it targeted users illegally sharing copyrighted files.

''I'm sure it's going to freak them out,'' Godwin said. ''The free ride is over.'' He added: ''I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people engaged in file-trading decide to resist and try to find ways to thwart the litigation strategy.''

The entertainment industry has gradually escalated its fight against piracy. The RIAA has previously sued four college students it accused of making thousands of songs available for illegal downloading on campus networks. But Wednesday's announcement was the first effort to target users who offer music on broadly accessible, public networks.

The Motion Picture Association of America said it supported the efforts, but notably did not indicate it plans to file large numbers of civil lawsuits against Internet users who trade movies online.

MPAA Chief Jack Valenti said in a statement it was ''our most sincere desire'' to find technology solutions to protect digital copies of movies.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who has proposed giving the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. ''It's about time,'' Berman said in a statement. ''For too long ... file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity.''

The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.

''We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen,'' Sherman said. ''We will go after the worst offenders first.''

The RIAA declined to estimate how much it expects to spend on the lawsuits.

AP-NY-06-25-03 1451EDT

Good grief, what an idiot. They're not declaring war on me, I *pay* for the music I have. And if these theives paid for the music, and software, that they have I might not have to pay as much. Same is true about tax cheats.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

consumer.''

Begin rant.

And if the music industry (read the major labels - not the artists) gave a damn about the consumer they wouldn't produce the overpriced crap now available and they would give us more choices about how we buy music. I have a real problem with being told I must pay big money for an album which *may* contain one or two good cuts. Also, once I have bought an album I feel that I have paid for the right to have this music. If something happens to render whatever media (CD, tape or other) unusable I feel I should have the right to recover this material with

*any* available system. This is *not* a hypothetical situation. I had well over a thousand dollars worth of CD's (paid for - full retail price) rendered useless after driving through a sandstorm in Arizona (heading back to Canada from Costa Rica) and I have countless tapes that are too old to play. Addressing problems like this and changing the way music is merchandised would go a long way toward recovering consumer good will and the illegal trade in copyrighted material would become a minor annoyance that could easily be addressed. The music industry paved the way for P2P sharing technology with their uncaring approach to the consumer's needs and their inability to adjust to and embrace new technology. End rant.

regards. Ken.

They might also pay the recording artists the royalties due on record sales. Some of the top '50s recording groups are only now getting their money, after decades of litigation, and after inflation has eaten up most of what they'd earned.

It's no accident that one of the top references on the music industry is entitled "Hit Men."

Al Moore

Right on dude. Can I ask pretty please, can we quit the criss cross posting.

It is important to follow forum, we have the privaledge to post afterall.

And if the auto industry gave a damn about the consumer, they wouldn't produce the overpriced crap now available. So that makes stealing cars Ok by your logic, right?

The point is, if you don't like the music companies' business practices (I don't either), you don't have to buy and use their products. That way you punish them legitimately by withholding your business and letting their products gather dust on the shelf.

But you can't use their business practices as an excuse to justify stealing their property instead. Stealing is still morally, ethically, and legally wrong no matter how you try to dress it up.

Gary

Even if that's the case, the music industry's lack of concern for the consumer doesn't provide moral grounds for taking their product without paying for it (i.e., stealing), as many people using Napster and its successors have done. If an artist chooses to place his/her work in the public domain, that's one thing. But unless he has explicitly done so, downloading his work or otherwise copying it without permission is theft, morally and legally. This is equally applicable to other creative works, including photographs, software, and books.

A few possible legitimate solutions to your problem:

- Find an enlightened record store that will let you listen before you buy.

- Ask your local radio station to play additional tunes from the album.

- Read reviews from reviewers whose opinions you trust.

If none of those are viable and you can't come up with another legal solution, then either take your chances and buy it or do without. The possibility that you may end up not liking a particular CD doesn't entitle you to take it (or download it) without paying for it, if that's what you're suggesting.

Feeling that way doesn't make it true. I may *feel* that buying a car gives me the right to use it in perpetuity, but I can't just go take another car off the lot if mine stops working.

Contrary to what you feel, when you buy a CD, you're not buying a perpetual right to the music; you're buying the right to use that particular copy of the music (within the constraints of copyright law). If you lose that copy or do something to destroy it, that's your tough luck -- you have no legal right to "recover" the material that was on your copy.

Bummer, dude! (Were they just lying out in the open? I'm having trouble imagining how they could be permanently damaged if they were enclosed in any kind of container. Just curious.)

Changing the way music is merchandised would undoubtedly help with consumer good will and may ultimately result in larger profits for the record companies (and hopefully the artists), but I doubt that it would, by itself, have a big impact on music theft. There are obviously a lot of people out there who weigh the cost of buying the music against the potential cost of stealing it. Lowering the cost of buying it may tip the balance toward legal acquisition for some of those people, but I imagine that most (especially the most active pirates) would remain unswayed unless either the cost of buying goes to zero or the cost of stealing (or more to the point, the chance of actually having to pay that cost) goes up substantially. The record companies have obviously chosen to raise the cost of stealing. (We can hope that at some point in the future they'll also reduce the cost of buying.)

As for the music industry paving the way for "P2P sharing technology," they may own a share of the responsibility, but I think it's a small share compared to the share owned by the people who want to have their favorite songs available at their fingertips without having to pay for them. This attitude of entitlement has been around since long before Napster, even long before CD's. The desire not to pay for music (or software, movies, etc.) is, I think, the biggest driver in the development of "sharing" technology. The current technology makes it easier and cheaper to steal than back when vinyl was copied to cassette (or even reel-to-reel), and it enables "sharing" on a much larger scale, but it's nothing fundamentally new.

The thing is, there is no natural, god-given, or law-given right to own the creative work (music, art, etc.) of another person. If you don't like the terms under which the author (or their agent) offers their work for sale, then do without it! Not liking the terms of sale is not moral justification for stealing.

Bert

Do you have any particular basis for saying this? Most software companies explicitly grant you this right in the license, but I've never seen any indication of such a right for a music CD. I doubt that the fair use exemption would cover this, since you would be copying the entire work, but there may be some other provision in the copyright laws that covers archival copies. Do you know for sure?

This is one of the trickier cases, to my thinking. If you are granted the legal right to make an archival copy, either by license or law, then you would also have a moral right to do so. In the absence of a legal right, it is arguable whether or not you would have a moral right to do so. But in any case, in practical terms I seriously doubt that a record company would come after you if you copied a CD for purely archival purposes and never used the copy unless the original was destroyed.

Bert

:>And if the music industry (read the major labels - not the artists) gave a :>damn about the consumer they wouldn't produce the overpriced crap now :>available : :And if the auto industry gave a damn about the consumer, they wouldn't :produce the overpriced crap now available. So that makes stealing cars :Ok by your logic, right? : :The point is, if you don't like the music companies' business practices :(I don't either), you don't have to buy and use their products. That way :you punish them legitimately by withholding your business and letting :their products gather dust on the shelf. : :But you can't use their business practices as an excuse to justify stealing :their property instead. Stealing is still morally, ethically, and legally wrong :no matter how you try to dress it up.

The music industry is the only legally sanctioned form of slavery allowed in the US today. Look at LeAnn Rimes. Her father sold her to Mike Curb when she was 14, she didn't sign a contract. It holds her until she's 34. Until then, EVERY albumb she makes COSTS her money no matter how many copies it sells - and she has to make one a year. She has to pay for that with touring. Music contracts are the only personal services contracts that can run more than 7 years.

Go to Janice Ian's site.

Almost no artist alive today, other than the top dozen acts, makes a dime from records. They get locked into contracts when they're unknown that they can never get out of. You're doing them a favor by stealing their recordings - you might get hooked on them and buy a ticket to see them live. It's the only way they'll make any money off you.

If Ford or GM held blacks as slaves to make cars, what would be the ethical thing to do? I submit it would be to steal the cars, then take them to black mechanics for repair.

Please, do you really believe this?

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

Oh come on guys believe me, I like to buy then listen to BB.King, Elvis, Andres Sogovia, Aurthur Fiedler, Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass and other classic composers?

When you play a song over the air or perform it in public, the royalty you pay goes to the composer and -maybe- the publisher, not to the performers. So Lennon and McCartney, for example, are lots richer than George and Ringo.

OTOH, the recording companies screw the artists out of every penny they can before finally giving them money. The artists have to pay back the cost of the studio time required to make the record, and - I think - a percentage of the promotional expenses before they see any money from the royalties.

Lots of creative bookkeeping there, just like in Hollywood where a film that brings in $100 million will somehow not show a profit.

Bah. And humbug. Tove

That's true if *you* perform the song. But if you play a recording, then the artists performing the song on the recording get a performance royalty in addition to the royalties due the composer and the music publisher. I had to deal with this with ASCAP and BMI for years.

The usual performer contracts do split the costs of recording and promotion between the record company and the artists. The artists aren't salaried employees of the record company. They are business partners. It is normal business practice for business partners to share in both expenses and profits, if any, from their partnership ventures.

Now that's true. A lot of that creative bookkeeping is to dodge Uncle Sam's taxman. That often does cheat the artist, unless he has his own bookkeepers and lawyers watching the till, and/or is shrewd enough to negotiate a cut of the gross instead of the net. Few artists are good businessmen. Few studio heads aren't.

Gary

Actually, its not true. She was 12 when her parents signed the contract.

Pretty sad case, even in Nashville.

Bing

In your context the car analogy may work but in my context it is equating two different things; lacking a replicator (a la Star Treck) .

Now we get to another of my points. If I have bought music I have, as you stated, bought the rights to it for my personal use. Thus, if my copy becomes unusable nothing should stop me from going to a friend or online to obtain another copy of it.

Your experience in this matter differs somewhat from mine. I have purchased many albums from independent labels and I find that the overall quality of the contents is much better than the 'big label' offerings. I agree with your assessment of The Band.

My exposure, and by extention, the general public's to new music come from radio, television, movies and word of mouth. Except for the latter most of what I hear is already 'contrived formula drivel'. Most of the music I have bought in the last few years was purchased more or less directly from the artists at music festivals and street performances. Many aspiring musicians are now using P2P services to expose their music to the public. Kazaa, for example offers an assortment of these files for download. They are protected and require a licence purchase of they will 'time out'. This system is a very inexpensive method of promotion and results in a fair return for the artist.

Regards. Ken.

CA Law? Is there such a thing?

But they don't have redistribution rights to the material, so they can't legally let you do that. What you can legally do is make an archival copy before your original media is damaged.

Gary

Posted today on Yahoo news feed

Sort of tells a story eh?

Regards. Ken.