New Jersey woman who has been sued by RIAA sues back

Duh

The whole point was to scare you. Looks like it worked.

Seriously, a cease and decist letter is nothing more than a legal "Booga booga!!"

 

We know the point was to scare us. It's fairly obvious, otherwise they would've actually sued us. You sound disappointed that we got scared and let the studios bully us. But they have the power to take away our computers and our backup. My career depends on that stuff. I'd rather not take that chance even if the chances are slim they'll do anything.

 

I just love watching people justify themselves into doing something illegal. "The big bad record industry is holding a gun to my head forcing me to download songs." :roll:

There are alternatives to the RIAA if that's what's bothering you. The RIAA is not the only player in town. Instead of committing piracy, why don't you just boycott them instead? It seems that you people want your cake and eat it too.

Here's a website you might want to visit that lists record companies not affiliated with the RIAA

Boycott RIAA

 

The point is, IT IS NOT illegal. This a misconception they have succesfully hammered into everyone's heads. No court in the world has ruled that. In fact, in Holland and Canada( and the recent 9th circuit decision in the US) the courts have ruled it legal. The industry uses sensational words like "piracy" to describe (alleged) minor ' infringmets', hypothetically of copyright laws. Piracy is hijacking a ship on the seas with arms, a far more extreme act. A little loss is to be expected in any business and there is no need to subject common people to extreme inconvienience for the sake of one industry, a few dozen(succesful) artists who are alredy overpaid a thousand fold. I fail to see why so many people have so much sympathy for them suin (mostly) common poor folk while earning millions a year for doing nothing, forgeting that it is those common people who have made them into stars. compare the compensation of a singer or actor with those who take grave risks for the country like soldiers, firefighters an policemen or those who perform far vital functions like teachers or even the president himself/herself. If the citizens made sure their voices were heard, there is no way so may could be made to suffer for the benefit of such a small number of people.

 

Not to mention that violating copyright is only a civil offense--not a criminal one.

They like to call it stealing (criminal). but in reality (legally) its not.

 

Very true. In some of the countries that have lesser incomes( and in the West with poorer people and kids who may not have money since they are still students), some piracy is actualy benefical. It creates brand awareness and keeps people addicted to their goods. Eg, a poor person buying a used computer ( in countries they routinely attack for high piracy) is not likely to have $100-200 extra to pay for MS XP and will obvoiusly have it copied. This leads to more people getting used to and dependant on Microsoft and computers. As the standards of living and incomes keep incresing, this man may earn more money in a few years and now will be so used to MS that he will consider nothing else. Imagine how many people who may not have been familiar with computers and saw an used it at his house over the years and decided to buy their own, ofcourse with MS operating systems. If you had very strict enforcement, a lot of people will go for free alternatives like Linux or others will jump in to provide free or cheap alternatives. Similarly when people who cannot afford ( or are not interested enough to buy) download and copy a song, the artist becomes more and more popular. If you deccided to sell Briteney Spears CDs( for example) for the same $20 as in the West, very few people will get to know her in poorer countries. Now, due to copying( to some extent) she is a superstar all around the world and this hells her sell albums to those who can afford them, including the ones who got to know her but couldn't afford earlier, give concerts(trips coming up to India and China), sell merchandise, movies etc( just signed a multi million dollar movie deal for an Indian movie) and so on. Otherwise the Chinese and Indians( as examples) would happily listen to their own artists as there is more than enough variety of music available domestically. Do you expect me to shed tears if a person earning sat $50-100 a month with a family to feed makes a copy of A Spears CD decreasing her $20 million income for the year to say $ 18 million ?? Or for the richest man in the world with more money than he can ever use...( Mr Gates).

 

The Justice department seems to disagree with you.
File sharing hubs raided

 

I disagree with Canada's ruling myself. I just don't get how making copies of copyrighted material and giving it to unknown people on the net can be justifiably legal.

That said, I will admit that I've downloaded a few songs in my life too.

 

There is a difference between running a large network, the kind raided by the US Fed govt for the first time,( and only because of people like Ashcroft and Hatch) and sharing a few files for personal use. Why can't you guys see what is good for you and the public rather than fall for big corporations propaganda? Eg. We(US) have a work ethic, the common man is made to feel foolishly proud and gets 2 weeks vaccation a year ( unpaid for lower level workers like at gas stations) while in Europe ALL workers get between 6-10 weeks PAID leave. If we talk about this, we will hear about how the US has higher productivity,a better and more flexible economy and so on..but, if I am making $ 7 an hour working at Chevron, all this is unimportant for me, All I care is if I can get a better salary, Atleast 6 weeks paid vaccation, free or very cheap comprehensive health care ( Why would I care if people said that would socialise medicine??) and job security, ie more difficult for me to be dismissed. I would not worry about how thi9s might reduce Chevrin's profits from 30 billion a year to 25 . Despite all their whinning all big corps do buisiness in Europe. They just make slightly lower profits thats all. The same applies to the file sharing debate. The moment the people realise they need to understand what is good for them, many things will start changing.

 

These days, the Justice Department disagrees with me on an alarming number of things.

 

At what exact number does it become ileagal? Am I committing a crime if I steal 1 CD or 10? How about 100? Is it a crime then?

and on and on and on. I'm not sure what any of this had to do the legality of file sharing but it seems to me that you have more issues to deal with than just what we are talking about here. If you want to talk about the evils of corporations and captalism in general, you could start another thread about it.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Are you suggesting that if you don't like the Justice Dept that you are free to break any law that you see fit? I don't like Ashcroft either but I'm not about to start burgulerizing houses over it.
As a final word here, I was a downloader for a couple of days myself. I joined because the site said that it was 100% legal to do so. However, searching that site, I found some tips that explained to me what steps I could take to prevent myself form getting sued. I was questioning why it was necessary for a site to tell me this when it had already told me it was 100% legal. It seemed very contradictory to me.

 

There is a difference between someone sharing, say, a couple of albums once in a while for personal, non commercial use and someone running a large network- even though the large network is not neccesarily illegal. The current US copyright law provides that the infringment should be of more than $ 1000, that's why they picked a 1000 song threshold. Do you really believe a large corporation should waste the courts' time over someone allegedly copying 5-10 songs? The other example was given to illustrate how big business intersts have succesfully brainwashed people in the US( in particular) to the point that many ordinary poor people actually side with the corporations and do not look after their own interests. For example you could be demanding the copyright act be changed to not allow that woman to be sued instead of defending the strong armed draconian misuse of the act. The act was envisaged to stop large scale commercial infringment, not small personal fair use copying.
The post about the DOJ by another member was to illustrate how they are following misguided policies and that everything they are outlining is not necesarily true , legal or correct implementation of the law.

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/printerfriendly.jsp...d=1087855513203.

Please check this link. This is a reputable site and clearly states towards the middle of the article:
Under current law, individuals can be charged with a federal felony for downloading copyrighted material worth more than $1,000, even if it is not done for commercial gain.

This a well known fact to those involved in the legal side of things and not "imaginary".

 

Also please read this excerp from the US copyright law itself:

§ 506. Criminal offenses5
(a) Criminal Infringement. — Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either —

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

Here is the URL: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html.

This come from copyright.gov !!!

 

Evan, you are partially correct. However, you failed to read the heading" for commercial purposes or private GAIN". That is why no one has ever been sued or charged with making a copy of a movie they borrowed from a friend or rented even hough it is technically " illegal". I was responding to the post by another member that reffered to the recent action by the justice department, not the ones by RIAA. That member asked me how many would make it illegal since I had said that a small occasional " infringement" is different from a large scale network. Also, the $ 1000 dollar total has to be within a 180 day period. Also, I don't see why you are pesonally targeting me. I was only criticizing such large corporations which represent extremly wealthy artists, suing mostly poor people over trivial matters. I don't know how you made the assumption that I personally believe I have the right to" violate copyright" law and will always make excuses for it.
There are various laws that allow some leeway. A common example is speed limits. Although going above the limit by even mile is notoinally illegal, people are generally given a little room to play with. Similarly, while disributing or copying large amounts of protected material MAY be deemed illegal, one should not be charged for say, copying one CD from a friend and people are not sued for such minor " violations".