"Check here to see if your username or IP address is on one of the subpoenas filed with the D.C. District Court."

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/

Also:
How Not To Get Sued By The RIAA For File-Sharing
http://eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

so i am confused on why the EFF needed to post a list that basically says, 'DON'T TRADE COPYRIGHTED MUSIC!' am i missing something?

i have heard a ton of interviews with people on radioshows such as NPR, mostly kids in college who say they download various amounts of songs per hour/day/week - and all of these kids say things like:

1) 'i don't think what i do is illegal'
2) 'i don't download enough to matter'
3) 'i don't care

and i am confused. do they not get it that downloading copyrighted music with file sharing programs is theft?

and no, i do not use any file sharing software...haven't in prolly 2 years. and it is not the theft part that made me stop, but let me assure you - i would quit now if i risked a $12,000somethingodd fine for having a bunch of Led Zepplin shared out.

ah, but, mr.sellthekids, you DO benefit from file sharing

ah - but i am not doing it!

and there is the rub. the RIAA is going to have a pretty hard time sending me a subpoena b/c someone mailed me some MP3s. as far as i see the future, this is the way to go: more grassroots "InMyEar" lists will pop up and use the good ol' USPS for their file sharing network.

lastly - at least i am old enough to know that when someone asks me if 'file sharing is theft' not to say something stupid like, "duh, no, i think it should be legal." and that was my whole point: these kids they are interviewing sound completely clueless. i mean, when you get pulled over for going 55 in a 30, do you tell the cop that you don't think what you did was illegal? gimme a break....

so much more useful than the EFF article...

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175

enjoy!

Thanks sell -- that article is great. Are you sure you won't reconsider taking a guest-spot on Signal-to-Noise from time to time?

Let's make sure we're all clear on something, though: the EFF is your friend, and you should give them money to support their cause.

i agree (as a geek) that the EFF is sometimes useful, but their article on how not to get subpeona'd was pretty boilerplate.

btw - if you don't want to get speeding tickets, i recommend not exceeding the maximum posted speed.

wow - see how that easy is! thanks EFF!




if i only had the time....

I'll agree that file-sharing is theft, but I also think charging kids who only work part-time $18.99 for a $2 CD is theft.

i FULLY agree.

i also think it is theft to charge 30-somethings like myself $50K for a Cadillac Escalade that only cost them $12K to build.

i plan to sue my GM as soon as i can get them subpeona'd.

Well, an automobile and a CD are different.

Maybe the $50K is a deterrent so that you WON'T buy an SUV.

Anyway --

As for the EFF's simplification. I mean, the title of the article is HOW NOT TO GET SUED, and sad as it is, some of these kids might not know better. I can understand why they want to keep it simple.

we should start a happy hour for the four of us posting in this thread

i still do not understand (ok, in truth it is not 'understanding' but rather 'disbelief') that any kids in the U.S. could think that downloading is not wrong....that's wrong as in theft, wrong as in illegal, wrong as in what your parents/society teaches you.

even if some of these misguided youth try to use excuses like, 'well, $18.99 for a $2 CD is theft' - they still G O T T A know that downloading something for free, that most people pay, for is not kosher.

i fully believe that most (over 85% if you want my unsubstantiated number) people in the U.S. know right from wrong. this isn't my right hand from my left foot or my right wing from my green party...i am talking fundamental right and wrong.

i guess my biggest nut on this issue is the usual one i have with most humans - why can't people just admit the truth? if NPR comes up to me today and says, "Mr. Davenport, have you or do you ever download MP3s from file sharing services?" i am not going to say something like, "yeah, but i think it's ok b/c i just do it a little and i think the industry charges to much for the new Mogwai CD and i think that i should be able to download it without being sued." what would i say? "Yeah, I have. Yeah, it was cool, but ultimately it is a pain in the ass and I would gladly pay to use a system that addressed the technological issues with the economic issues and gave me as a consumer the product and experience that i crave."

but hey - that's me.

/me puts the dead horse back in the closet and hopes the smell doesn't alert my neighbors

to weigh in, somewhat less briefly than i originally intended, i download a fair amount of music.

lots of it is actually stuff i have on vinyl, so that's not even an issue.
some of it is stuff i don't own. a LOT of it is stuff i plan to buy when my finances are not so shifty (and, for the record, i do purchase stuff after downloading it), and some of it is stuff that i download, listen to, decide i don't like, then delete it. still more of it is stuff that i used to own, no longer do, and can't find anymore (eg big drill car, exhorder, nihilist).

i don't claim that downloading stuff i don't own is legal. whether or not it's ETHICAL is completely a different question, and i think the two are getting confused in this thread. personally, i think trying stuff out is completely legitamate and i don't have any problem doing it. the main objection that i see to this practice typically goes something like this: "well, um, you just can't DO THAT. you can't go steal an orange and throw it away and then claim you never had it and you didn't steal it."

i get this. however, the nature of the media being stolen / traded / downloaded is very different than most things (and it's these exact issues that organizations like the EFF help to explore), and can't really be regarded in the same way as an ordinary theft.

sellthekids, saying something is "just wrong" and referring to people who may have legitimate gripes with the talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates as "misguided youth" doesn't have any argumentative power at all -- it's flag waving. it's so much more complex than that. if you want to support art and artists, purchasing their $18.99 for $2 cost cd may not be the best way to go.

again, i'm not posting in an attempt to excuse or deride anyone's behavior or opinions, but i really don't think most of what's been said in this thread is very in depth or well-thought out.

we differ somewhat as a band, internally, as to whether it's a good idea or not. i think that (with my admittedly limited understanding of economics and the extremely vague nature of the data to be quantified in terms of one's presence or standing in any given scene), people swapping your music is most likely beneficial for artists below a certain threshold of success, and then slowly begins to decline after that point has been reached. what that point is or how the math works out, i don't know, and honestly, i don't really care enough to work it out.

everyone should go ask dan gerken. he's the ethicist in the room.

is it wrong to tape songs off the radio?

Because typically, the only songs I download are the singles played on the radio. Downloading is just neater than taping.

I've said this before in another post in another thread but I'll repeat it here.

I've been writing about music for over 10 years. BEFORE Napster (heck, before I even owned a computer), I pretty much stopped buying shrink-wrapped brand new CDs. I discovered heaven in the form of a used CD store in Columbus where, usually within a week of a release date (and, sometimes even a week or two BEFORE a release date), I could find any and every CD I wanted, for prices ranging from $3 to $9, a savings of at least $3 from the price of a new CD.

I also learned that record companies want writers to review the CDs that they are promoting so with a simple phone call (or, these days, an e-mail) I could usually get a publicist to send me a CD that I wanted to hear and, if I was lucky, put me on their mailing list to receive EVERYTHING the label was putting out (often R&B and/or country stuff that I never even listened to).

So, for the past 10 or so years I would venture to say that I've bought less than 50 brand new CDs though I've probably bought used (or got sent in the mail) over 1000 CDs. (No joke, you should see my CD shelves). When you look at those numbers, you'll see that I am not a major supporter of the record industry, yet I LOVE listening to music -- do it any and every chance I can (NP: Mrs.Children - "Basement Demos"). Getting music for free or at a discounted rate has become the norm for me. Downloading music is the next step in that. My argument, which some of you (Sellthekids) may disagree with, is that I don't pay full price for a CD anyway so to me, downloading isn't that big of a deal. I know, I know, the bands don't make a penny from me downloading but they don't make a penny from me buying a copy of their used CD or having their publicist send me one either. What I DO do is write about music a lot and try to turn people onto stuff that I really like. So, in a way, I almost feel like it's a fair trade -- I'll get a copy of your band's CD in some fashion (whether from the publicist or downloading) and write about it if I really like it. Or I'll tell all my friends to check your band out (The Damnwells) and hope that they fall in love with your music the way I do.

If all the P2P services got shut down today, I STILL wouldn't pay full price for music, I'd still look for ways to get the CD for free or find it used.

So ... wrapping up this mini-novel, I believe that the only person that I'm really hurting is the used CD place where I used to go once a week and load up on CDs by bands that I had never heard of. I'm taking money out of their pocket and that's what I feel bad about, not about taking money out of the major labels' pockets.

-Atomic Ned

What's the difference if I download the new radiohead cd from soulseek, or check it out from the library and burn myself a copy.

I buy the music I like. Often used copies or direct from the bands themselves when applicable. But to me, music is too expensive to waste money buying something i don't like. And there is no good way to sample lots of indie bands (because they are not supported by radio/mtv), so I download them. If i like them, i'll buy the cd. If not, then i'm not out $12, the band's not out of any money that they would have had if I was able to legally be an informed consumer. And to any band that wants to make money by selling cds to people who haven't heard their music and wouldn't end up liking it anyway....fuck them.

To me, the only tradeoff between the library or file sharing is convenience vs. risk. there's no risk in burning myself a copy of a cd from the library like there is in file sharing, but on the other hand, last time i checked most libraries don't carry bardo pond or songs ohia (etc) discs, and when i got on the waiting list for the new radiohead there were already 147 people on it.

Not really a point in here, just my rambling. I guess if anything my point is that i don't think the problem is we need a viable solution for paying for downloads, i think we need a way to sample new music before we purchase it. If there was a way to make high quality streaming audio that wasn't downloadable, and it had a couple songs from every band i wanted to try out, i doubt i'd do anymore downloading (aside from bootleg/live stuff, which has always been a separate issue anyway).

absolutely incorrect. you might want to read the article i linked above and get a firmer grasp on how copyright law has evolved and what it means in our modern world. here is the key point:


notice he says "under current caselaw", which is my whole point: though the current system may suck, it is the current law, like it or not. and while we may petition, beg, cry, and plead for changes, people currently using file sharing services to download copyrighted material are breaking the law. that's the end of that story - case closed. and don't give me any BS that people don't know this, either.




actually what i think i said was:

there is no "just" about it. sorry that you think i am "flag waving" - i just happen to see this issue in black and white. you can argue all the want with explosive language like "talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates" - but the truth of the situation is, this is a business. these businesses are acting in a way to protect their market power and influence. don't like it? then work to change the system or work outside of their market. sorry, but some people get it.

and i do not buy that it is my job to "support art and artist." these artist signed up for the system the are in - the same system run by the "talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates". i shed no tears for bands who cry b/c they get taken advantage of in this day and age. with the boundless opportunities available b/c of the internet, if more bands would take a DIY stance, then maybe the system might change. but you know what? most bands secretly hope/pray/desire to be the next 'it' band and blow up like The White Stripes, The Strokes, The Vines, The Shins...sorry - enough "The"s. anyway - although they all tell you they don't want to 'sell out' - i guarantee you they would have no issues signing with a major label if it meant they would make $25mil in a single year. indie rock isn't as gaudy as rap, but i know humans, and humans are vile, vain, self-worshiping animals. the boomers were not the first "me" generation....




i am not talking about "feeling bad". do i feel bad every time i buy a new CD and i make 2-3 copies for Otter, Ross and my brother? ummm, no i don't. but then again, i wouldn't answer some question from a reporter by trying to defend my actions. when i make copies i am breaking the law. doesn't stop me. why? for the same reason that i don't stop from driving 70MPH in the 60MPH zone: b/c the punishment is a risk that i can assume. the punishment for using a file service? it has gone up pretty substantially lately.

but more than that - i don't use file services b/c they are an inefficient use of my time and resources. pulling 60 files to get the 12 full tracks of the latest Radiohead is moronic. people suck - they can't label their files right: shiet that is live isn't labeled as such, etc etc etc. but again, i hold no illusions - Napster was illegal. i knew that when i used it and i don't make excuses for my behavior...even if it meant i was getting over on the "talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates". (that should be on the back of my Che Guevara t-shirt!)

i just want to echo what sellthekids wrote.

i hate the way the music industry works. but that doesn't give anyone the right to break the law.

if your neighbor is a total asshole, and you hate everything about him, that sucks. it doesn't give you the right to vandalize his property or steal from him.

i just am an opponent of moral relativism. lets not try to say something is right when it isn't. not that i don't think the industry needs to change. it just needs to be done in a legal way (see itunes).

and to be honest, i still use p2p to download illegal music. i am just completely honest with myself about what i am doing. when i get pulled over for speeding, i don't try to tell the officer what i was doing was not illegal. and if i get subpoena'd (highly unlikely, i use p2p rarely), i will have to bite the bullet.

Is it still wrong to tape songs off the radio? Can I ask what the difference is between taping a single off the radio and downloading it off the 'net?

I just think that if a band's going to put a song on the radio they must know that people are going to (or at least did before the internet) tape it.

I don't know that there is a big difference between taping a song off the radio and downloading it. I think the issue arises when you share that single that you've downloaded with thousands of other people. I suppose you could make 1000 copies of a tape of songs that you taped from the radio but, obviously, sharing MP3s is much easier (and doesn't cost a dime).

Also ... most of the stuff I download is stuff that I never think I'll hear on the radio.

Ahh okay. So this is coming down to sharing, rather than downloading yourself....

I see.

I haven't been reading too much about what the RIAA has been saying but it seems as if they are going after people that are sharing rather than downloading. But, of course, to make the P2P services successful you have to share in order to get what you want. Nobody wants to let you download something from their collection if you're not offering something back.

While I can see your point, I have to disagree.

Downloading all the songs off that new N'Sync album, burning them to CD-R and SELLING it is wrong. Downloading and putting it in your mp3 is not. It's like sharing your album with a friend, or ten friends, just on a larger scale. No one is profiting from it, except perhaps the artists who are lucky enough to have these new fans attend their shows, buy merchandise, and dare I say, maybe even buy their CDs.

I, like many others, will download a song or two, and then run over to amazon.com to buy the album (used). So another topic then, I'm buying the album USED. The artist sees no money from this, nor does the RIAA. Is this wrong? I guess it must be.

To continue to derail from the topic at hand, I'm a big fan of the Apple Music Store. I've bought a lot of singles already (to my wallet's dismay). It's a great service, with one exception. I was thinking of getting the limited edition Jayhawks album w/bonus disc. At Apple it's $19.99. If you buy it in the store it's the same price, and you have a physical tangible object you can hold in your hand. PLUS, you can rip it and have the mp3s as well (that aren't encoded). While I think the sales model is fantastic, I have to ask if maybe 99¢ isn't too much to pay for each song (and certainly not for each song if you buy the entire album).

Buymusic.com recently swiped the Apple Music Store advertising campaign and began selling (unauthorized) music at 79¢ a song. Buyer beware:
http://www.scriptygoddess.com/archives/004057.php
You might not be getting what you think you're getting....