If the author distributes his own work onto P2P, then he’s giving copyright consent. Duh. This never happens though, and if it always did then these lawsuits wouldn’t be happening, because artists would be OK with kids downloading their work for free. Surprise, they aren’t, and they don’t like it when you do it. The RIAA is in fact being a huge faggot about enforcing copyright laws, but they’re a business and they’re trying to stop losing money to the internet (and failing). In a free market society this is what you should come to expect from any corporation: Assholery.

Still, P2P users (myself included) who download music are doing something wrong, so get off your high horse about getting free music and warez off the internet. Regardless of the corruption of the RIAA, we still shouldn’t be doing this shit you self-righteous assholes.

Anyone who actually read the article closely can detect the implicit disapproval for the RIAA, but everyone jumps on the dick anyway saying it’s RIAA propaganda because it tells the truth about copyright law. Fags. I love how you all claim misinformation about this crap but have no evidence to state the contrary.

What do you call it when someone works for no pay? Either volunteerism or slavery.

Many of the people making music, writing software, etc. to sell haven’t volunteered to give away their work way, thus they must be slaves if they’re not being paid for their work.

President Lincoln banned this practice more than a century ago.

Those taking copyrighted music, software, etc. off the Internet without paying for it are promoting slavery.

Stop defending illegal thievery!

(I hope you have the integrity to print this comment, as — according to your guidelines — it’s not obscene, denigrating gender or religion, or a “lame attempt to get free advertising.”)

and iMesh….. last I knew it was still a free program allowing you do download files

I don’t know about some of you, but I’m SAVING every informative/interesting thing I encounter on the Internet and burn it on CD.

Then, when the times comes (and it WILL come) I will have evidence to back up my arguments. You should consider doing the same. The internet is a wonderful wealth of USEFUL information (unlike LAMESTREAM media!)….

This claim is simply, absolutely false. It’s bogus legal advice, and in my opinion, someone could/should get in more than a little bit of trouble for making it.

What about music that the artist chooses to make available via p2p, for people to disseminate as they wish?

Copyrighted? check.
You don’t own it? check.
Via p2p? check.
Burning a CD from them? check.

I have real doubts that this is a case of polemic sloppiness on the part of the RIAA. Rather, I think it’s a continuation of the RIAA’s campaign to shut down an efficent, alternative means for artists to distribute their music to a mass audience. It’s about a group of mega-corporations filing frivolous lawsuits against those who aren’t in a position to defend themselves in order to maintain their market. In other words, what the RIAA is doing is itself illegal, and certain people employed by them should pay bigtime for it.

Their minor caveat under “what is completely legal” regarding “downloading royalty-free music” simply doesn’t make up for this kind of misinformation. They’re trying to shut down p2p, period.

No wonder the RIAA’s using “student journalists” as a front to disseminate such false propaganda.

WHAT IS COMPLETELY LEGAL
Purchasing MP3s from licensed online stores such as iTunes or subscribing to a legal service such as Napster or Rhapsody.

Excuse me. Can anyone explain the exact difference between these two? Elsewhere the BPI says things like “Most consumers can tell the difference between a legal download and a non-legal download. Really?

Perhaps I’m splitting hairs, but what’s the difference between a paid for download site in Russia, iTMS, buying what looks like an official CD in the local market and downloading a bunch of bits from a P2P program?

What I’m really fascinated with right now is whther it’s possible to separate trade in the rights to digital content from the digital content itself. But that’s for another day.

To other readers, if you are an admin or have some influence, make sure this gets posted around.

Morg

Don’t be fooled into thinking they have good intentions. Their only objective is making money on a mass scale and anyone who gets in their way is dogmeat.

There should be a ban on civil lawsuits like this against large groups individuals. It clogs up court time and wastes tax payers money. If they continue doing this, the courts should start charging them.

I really can’t see how anyone could possibily defend these fat cats.

Most of these cases are very well … hidden .. by the RIAA.
Do you have information on any specific cases ?
Where are YOUR facts ?

Who has been sued for .. “uploading thousands of songs to kazza. ” and NOT settled out of court ?

Up until now no one has been brave enough ( or sick enough of it ) to fight.
Notice .. the ones that are fighting are winning.

Now , if you are talking about the Gonzalez case ( the only one I know of that involved about a thousand songs ) then you should do a bit more research .

You see,
When the RIAA discovered that Gonzalez OWNED ALL BUT 30 of those songs, they backpedaled, and adjusted their suit to include ONLY the 30 songs she didn’t own. She lost the case for ONLY THOSE 30 SONGS. not thousands.
This SUPPORTS the cntention that it may be PERFECTLY LEGAL ( fair use even ) to download copies of what you own.

As far as sued for uploading goes ….
The RIAA has been asked to provide PROOF that an actual
uploading infringement took place.
They haven’t been able to.

If you know of a different case, please, present your facts.
I really DO want to see it.

Dreddsnik
Boycott-RIAA.

I know RIAA are faking lots of facts etc.. but oh my god, they wouldn’t be running if they had no leads to go on. I mean come on they aren’t the best organisation but to be honest all I ever see about the RIAA on here is lies and sue’em all campaign protests, it seems like you just cant take the fact that they are sueing people, and you single out childrens cases but what about all the normal p2p network downloaders/uploaders who have been caught for e.g. uploading thousands of songs to kazza. They have been sued yet you do not draw attention to that?