The RIAA and the LOONY lawsuits it files.....AY-YI-YI (1 Viewer)

[Corbin Stirn]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...34.htm&sc=1120

You want to know something, This kind of stuff just steams me. Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but I have NEVER downloaded a song in my life. I buy CDs when I can, and I understand(at least I thought I understood) what the Recording Industry Association of America was dealing with on downloads and swaps. But whenever they pull this kind of UTTER CRAP, they lose whatever intellectual high ground they could possibly claim. It just astounds me that they can be so FREAKIN' stupid.:frowning: I'm sure that people younger than I, that have grown up knowing nothing but sharing and swapping, just laugh whenever they hear about this stuff. And it happens a LOT where they target people that download 1 song, no songs, or whatever insanity the RIAA says SOMEONE did. It just is sad that they claim how bad everything is, yet charge $13 for a CD that costs.....what?$1.10 to make?$1.20? They should really get their sh*t together.....this kind of stuff only hurts their arguements. End of rant.comments anyone?

 

[DaveNel]

>>>------> Someone shot an arrow and killed your link,





Its not working...

 

[Corbin Stirn]

Thanks Dave...link corrected.

 

[DaveNel]

OK Can I have my arrow back now, I need it for when I seen broken links (LOL)

 

[DaveNel]

Theyre going to dismiss the case, How gracious of them for not going through with it.. That case shouldnt have even been started at all..

 

[DaveNel]

If they dont want music being sent over the net, They need to put there heads out of each others rumps and find a way to block illegal trading instead of making a few people news topics all over the U.S. Most people that do grab a few tunes on the net is ones that cant really afford a whole entire CD.

Al ot of people dont realize this... When you are on a web site that allows you to listen to music online, Well that song you listened to most of the time saves into a temp folder on your PC. If you after you listen to something online like launch.com and after you heard the song play, Do a search in your temp files.. 75% of the time that song is there in its entire form..

Now who is in trouble, You or them for illegally putting a hard copy of copywritten software or music on your PC

(LOL) Got them there now dont we

 

[Kyle McKnight]

I wouldn't go that far...maybe to say most people that download songs would rather spend their money on other entertainment or things they don't need, than to buy music they can illegally download for free.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Its one thing to argue about the validity of the RIAA lawsuits...but you'd think at least they would check out the identity of a person (against their screen name) before bringing a lawsuit against that person.

Talk about irresponsible!

Call them irresponsible..
call then unreliable...
throw in undependable, too.

Oooh! I feel a song coming on! Don't turn me in to the RIAA!

 

[DaveNel]

Yeah I cant argue that point either (LOL)

But what ya think bout the temp files when you listen to something, That it stores the whole copywritten song on your PC..

 

[DaveNel]

Are you in trouble or are they for putting an illegal merchandise on your PC

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

I hear these retarded stories all the time, and have to wonder. While I'm not a fan of the RIAA in general, I would say, with 99% certainty, that they didn't pull this IP out of their asshole. I would bet dollars to donuts (and what none of these articles mentioned) that Grandma had an internet account, of some sort, set up in her name.

Now granted, she might not have been a user and might not have known dick about computers: but I can think of a million situations where a child or grandchild who (for whatever reason) spent some time living under G-ma's roof and had broadband or even dialup added to the house under G-ma's billing info. Heck, for a while there, my cable account (with broadband) was set up in the name of the people who used to live in the apartment before I moved in.

Anyway- I find it impossible to believe the RIAA just made this up-- granted they might have the wrong actual person, but I'd bet it was certainly someone using an IP which was leased under this woman's name.

-V

 

[Jed M]

This is an industry that chooses to throw its money away on lawsuits that don't work so stupid behavior on their part shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. I don't download music (for quality reasons) but from everything I have read file sharing has not declined at all. Who would have thought that a monstrously large corporation (recently found guilty of stealing from their consumers by massive price fixing) that sues little kids and the elderly wouldn't win over the public?

 

[Glenn Overholt]

...Vince, along with identity theft.

Glenn

 

[Eric_L]

Why not sue the dead? Afterall, we do tax them.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

The RIAA has been sticking it to the public and the artists for decades... and now they're sticking it to dead people.

I understand they're trying to protect their income.. I can't blame them for that. But, tossing out "scare-tactic" lawsuits at random isn't going to accomplish anything. For example: The RIAA Sues 531 people. Has the RIAA seen the numbers on Kazaa?! Millions of people are sharing files. Suing 531 of them is like trying to empty a swimming pool with a spoon!

I download music... I'll admit it... but, I also buy music of artists I really like, which are becoming fewer and farther between. Too many artists are putting out "filler" albums just to make a buck... probably because the RIAA is taking most of it anyway.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Why do you download music you don't like?

I was thinking -- can this lawsuit be used as a defense by other people sued by the RIAA? "They swear it's me -- but they also swore it was this dead lady who hated the internet. Is their intel all that great?"

 

[MikeH1]

I just ordered a CD that without downloading the music first I would have never heard of them. I have hundreds of casettes, hundreds of CD's and now collecting DVD A. Some titles are on each format.

If they sue me, a consumer that has spent thousands and thousands on music, something is seriously wrong with their thinking.

I was thinking about something else the other day, imagine if the old DivX scandel for DVD was the way we did view DVD's today, if the MPAA (the latest to sue customers) think file sharing is a problem today it would be a drop in the bucket compared if DivX would have taken off.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

To be absolutely sure I don't like it.

 

[DaveNel]

Makes sence to me

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The RIAA isn't the only one not to have their facts straight. Replicating a CD and producing a CD are two very different things, with two VERY different price tags.

Yes, suing a dead person is stupid, there is no argument there, but the RIAA aren't the only entity that has taken inappropriate actions due to inaccurate data - at least in this case no one has been killed as a result. As for downloading, it is not the downloading itself that is the problem, it is the illegal distribution of material for downloading that is the issue. Artists and labels are quite capable of producing legal samples of the work they are selling, it is those that decide to infringe on their rights by distributing material without authorisation that are the big problem (along with the hundreds of millions of folks who feel they are entitled to free entertainment, regardless of the consequences). The public is well within its rights to refuse to buy albums they don't have legally obtainable access to prior to purchase.