Copyright question

ClancyTom
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:53 am

Re: Copyright question

Postby ClancyTom » Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:26 am

In other words... thousands of people are "warned" everyday by their ISPs. If I was going to be screwed, there would be a subpoena in my mailbox already, right?

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Copyright question

Postby ResolutePear » Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:44 am

ClancyTom wrote:In other words... thousands of people are "warned" everyday by their ISPs. If I was going to be screwed, there would be a subpoena in my mailbox already, right?


Firms "carpet bomb" settlement offers. Most people settle for ~5,000USD, IIRC.

ClancyTom
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:53 am

Re: Copyright question

Postby ClancyTom » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:00 am

so... still fucked till I wipe my hard drives...

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Copyright question

Postby Bildungsroman » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:08 am

TLS isn't really the place to come for legal advice.

ATR
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:18 pm

Re: Copyright question

Postby ATR » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:26 am

Bildungsroman wrote:TLS isn't really the place to come for legal advice.

I beg to differ.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13624
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Copyright question

Postby Flips88 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:39 am

ClancyTom wrote:That's good advice.

Unfortunately... one of the two computers which said files were on is a computer back at home, that is, at my parents house. I can't do that without 1. giving them an explanation (which might be tricky) or 2. deleting potentially important business files.

So, I'm hoping it will all kind of be fine. Is that completely stupid? I think the RIAA would have come after me by now if they were going to.


As someone who has written a research paper on illegal file sharing and how the music industry has responded to it, they initially sued the shit out of people but received horrible PR for it. They were suing grandmothers, single mothers, poor children for millions of dollars for downloading and sharing like 7 songs. So after this, they mostly abandoned these lawsuits. They then changed to the ISP and tried to use them as sort of a gate keeper. They can threaten to shut off your service if you don't stop. The music industry is fighting a losing battle and it's costing them an arm and a leg. Last year (2010, weird to type that), it was announced that the RIAA's legal costs were $64 million while they recovered only $1.36 million in damages.

And just to broach the subject of the rise of file sharing and the ethics of it and such: the music industry is dying at its own hand. They are the ones resisting new technologies and the internet. They are the ones that shut down Napster, which at the time had the largest music library in human history available and then for nearly a year, didn't have any alternative until iTunes was launched. The result was people dispersing to many smaller p2p networks (Limewire, Bear Share, Kazaa). The rise of e-music stores are still not much of a step forward. The quality of music you can purchase is much lower than what you can get torrenting. Also, the major record labels give the artists the shaft in terms of the distribution of income. See: http://crudbump.com/record-label-vs-indie-release.png
If they can create a model where I am given high quality music and the artists gets a fair and equitable pay, then I would buy more music. However, I will continue to torrent, go to tons of live shows and buy merchandise, both of which help give money to the artist.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Copyright question

Postby Bildungsroman » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:42 am

Flips88 wrote:
ClancyTom wrote:That's good advice.

Unfortunately... one of the two computers which said files were on is a computer back at home, that is, at my parents house. I can't do that without 1. giving them an explanation (which might be tricky) or 2. deleting potentially important business files.

So, I'm hoping it will all kind of be fine. Is that completely stupid? I think the RIAA would have come after me by now if they were going to.


As someone who has written a research paper on illegal file sharing and how the music industry has responded to it, they initially sued the shit out of people but received horrible PR for it. They were suing grandmothers, single mothers, poor children for millions of dollars for downloading and sharing like 7 songs. So after this, they mostly abandoned these lawsuits. They then changed to the ISP and tried to use them as sort of a gate keeper. They can threaten to shut off your service if you don't stop. The music industry is fighting a losing battle and it's costing them an arm and a leg. Last year (2010, weird to type that), it was announced that the RIAA's legal costs were $64 million while they recovered only $1.36 million in damages.

And just to broach the subject of the rise of file sharing and the ethics of it and such: the music industry is dying at its own hand. They are the ones resisting new technologies and the internet. They are the ones that shut down Napster, which at the time had the largest music library in human history available and then for nearly a year, didn't have any alternative until iTunes was launched. The result was people dispersing to many smaller p2p networks (Limewire, Bear Share, Kazaa). The rise of e-music stores are still not much of a step forward. The quality of music you can purchase is much lower than what you can get torrenting. Also, the major record labels give the artists the shaft in terms of the distribution of income. See: http://crudbump.com/record-label-vs-indie-release.png
If they can create a model where I am given high quality music and the artists gets a fair and equitable pay, then I would buy more music. However, I will continue to torrent, go to tons of live shows and buy merchandise, both of which help give money to the artist.


Yeah brah I can totally see that you care about the artists' welfare in this whole thing since your alternative to a system that underpays them is a system where they don't get paid for it at all.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Copyright question

Postby ResolutePear » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:49 am

Bildungsroman wrote:
Flips88 wrote:
ClancyTom wrote:That's good advice.

Unfortunately... one of the two computers which said files were on is a computer back at home, that is, at my parents house. I can't do that without 1. giving them an explanation (which might be tricky) or 2. deleting potentially important business files.

So, I'm hoping it will all kind of be fine. Is that completely stupid? I think the RIAA would have come after me by now if they were going to.


As someone who has written a research paper on illegal file sharing and how the music industry has responded to it, they initially sued the shit out of people but received horrible PR for it. They were suing grandmothers, single mothers, poor children for millions of dollars for downloading and sharing like 7 songs. So after this, they mostly abandoned these lawsuits. They then changed to the ISP and tried to use them as sort of a gate keeper. They can threaten to shut off your service if you don't stop. The music industry is fighting a losing battle and it's costing them an arm and a leg. Last year (2010, weird to type that), it was announced that the RIAA's legal costs were $64 million while they recovered only $1.36 million in damages.

And just to broach the subject of the rise of file sharing and the ethics of it and such: the music industry is dying at its own hand. They are the ones resisting new technologies and the internet. They are the ones that shut down Napster, which at the time had the largest music library in human history available and then for nearly a year, didn't have any alternative until iTunes was launched. The result was people dispersing to many smaller p2p networks (Limewire, Bear Share, Kazaa). The rise of e-music stores are still not much of a step forward. The quality of music you can purchase is much lower than what you can get torrenting. Also, the major record labels give the artists the shaft in terms of the distribution of income. See: http://crudbump.com/record-label-vs-indie-release.png
If they can create a model where I am given high quality music and the artists gets a fair and equitable pay, then I would buy more music. However, I will continue to torrent, go to tons of live shows and buy merchandise, both of which help give money to the artist.


Yeah brah I can totally see that you care about the artists' welfare in this whole thing since your alternative to a system that underpays them is a system where they don't get paid for it at all.


Selling music is bad business for artists themselves. The money's in product promotion, acting deals, and concerts imo.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13624
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Copyright question

Postby Flips88 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:59 am

Bildungsroman wrote:
Flips88 wrote:
ClancyTom wrote:That's good advice.

Unfortunately... one of the two computers which said files were on is a computer back at home, that is, at my parents house. I can't do that without 1. giving them an explanation (which might be tricky) or 2. deleting potentially important business files.

So, I'm hoping it will all kind of be fine. Is that completely stupid? I think the RIAA would have come after me by now if they were going to.


As someone who has written a research paper on illegal file sharing and how the music industry has responded to it, they initially sued the shit out of people but received horrible PR for it. They were suing grandmothers, single mothers, poor children for millions of dollars for downloading and sharing like 7 songs. So after this, they mostly abandoned these lawsuits. They then changed to the ISP and tried to use them as sort of a gate keeper. They can threaten to shut off your service if you don't stop. The music industry is fighting a losing battle and it's costing them an arm and a leg. Last year (2010, weird to type that), it was announced that the RIAA's legal costs were $64 million while they recovered only $1.36 million in damages.

And just to broach the subject of the rise of file sharing and the ethics of it and such: the music industry is dying at its own hand. They are the ones resisting new technologies and the internet. They are the ones that shut down Napster, which at the time had the largest music library in human history available and then for nearly a year, didn't have any alternative until iTunes was launched. The result was people dispersing to many smaller p2p networks (Limewire, Bear Share, Kazaa). The rise of e-music stores are still not much of a step forward. The quality of music you can purchase is much lower than what you can get torrenting. Also, the major record labels give the artists the shaft in terms of the distribution of income. See: http://crudbump.com/record-label-vs-indie-release.png
If they can create a model where I am given high quality music and the artists gets a fair and equitable pay, then I would buy more music. However, I will continue to torrent, go to tons of live shows and buy merchandise, both of which help give money to the artist.


Yeah brah I can totally see that you care about the artists' welfare in this whole thing since your alternative to a system that underpays them is a system where they don't get paid for it at all.


I'm an advocate of the pay what you want model (Radiohead, Yeasayer, Girl Talk) or a cheaper per song/per album price. I also believe in a system where users play a flat monthly rate for all you can download. Like I said, I spend my money where it goes to the musicians: concerts, music festivals, merchandise like t-shirts, posters, etc. For instance, my name FLips is for the Flaming Lips, who while I haven't paid for any of their albums, I have seen in concert five times, I have bought 3 t-shirts, a poster, and a dvd. Moreover, I believe that file sharing is a good thing for rising bands because it helps build a fan base for their tours. I forget which artist I saw attributed much of their gain in popularity to piracy (maybe Passion Pit?), but I have seen many artists say that file sharing is not the devil. Also, the comparison of file sharing to outright theft like larceny and grand theft auto is a laughable analogy.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Copyright question

Postby YCrevolution » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:37 am

..




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests