music downloading conspiracy

we all have heard of the old lady who supposedly "downloaded 10 songs and was arrested and fined by the fbi and fcc", but i have never heard of anyone else being arrested, all of my friends download all the time and are never caught. was the old lady story jsut made up by corporations to scare people from downloading illegally?

True and if it is real thers like 1 in 10000000000 of getting cought, no?

I have heard many reports of people being charged, even young children.

You are right though catalyst151, this is about scaring people from downloading mp3s. Fortunately I'm Canadian so I don't have to worry about these things

canadians dont get investigated for downloading?

It's the Recording Industry Association of America, "RIAA" that is taking action, and it's through civil action in the courts.

www.riaa.com...

WASHINGTON (June 25, 2003) -- Starting tomorrow, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) will begin gathering evidence and preparing lawsuits against individual computer users who are illegally offering to "share" substantial amounts of copyrighted music over peer-to-peer networks. In making the announcement, the music industry cited its multi-year effort to educate the public about the illegality of unauthorized downloading, and underscored the fact that major music companies have made vast catalogues of music available to dozens of services to help create legitimate, high quality and inexpensive alternatives to online piracy.

"The law is clear and the message to those who are distributing substantial quantities of music online should be equally clear --- this activity is illegal, you are not anonymous when you do it, and engaging in it can have real consequences," said RIAA president Cary Sherman. "We'd much rather spend time making music then dealing with legal issues in courtrooms. But we cannot stand by while piracy takes a devastating toll on artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers and everyone in the music industry."

The RIAA expects to use the data it collects as the basis for filing what could ultimately be thousands of lawsuits charging individual peer-to-peer music distributors with copyright infringement. The first round of suits could take place as early as mid-August.

Peer to Peer "P2P" file sharing of copyrighted material is stealing, plain and simple.

Downloading mp3s via p2p is legal in Canada.

Here is a link with some information on that.
news.zdnet.co.uk...

i know all that (except for the RIAA part), but i live in WA state, and ive never heard of anyone else being arrested for P2P sharing

Get a real ISP like verizon and you dont have to worry about this crap...

Verison is the company that put a dent in the RIAA's plans to completely hand over everyones ident for downloading music or whatever..

Verizon spent a good sum of 10 million dollars plus defending 4 people on thier ISP for downloading music.. It took like 4 or something yrs but in the end Verizon won the case.. Which is ironic that you dont hear from the RIAA much anymore ehh??

just google Verizon RIAA Court and you can get a handfull of info on that..

[edit on 1/10/2006 by ThichHeaded]

As Mirthful Me stated, the action taken is in the form of lawsuits by the RIAA. I do not believe anyone has been arrested. Just sued.

While I believe artists have the right to defend their property, I don't like the RIAA's methods of doing so.

As previously mentioned, it is not illegal to download music in Canada. I'm not sure about other forms of media, such as movies, books, games, etc. If you use the program Peer Guardian then this is supposed to prevent sufficient evidence from being gathered against you for legal purposes. It also kills spyware and other nasty things.

Downloading P2P is illegal, plain and simple, but that's just because the laws are out of date and the Music Industry is full of greedy short-sighted bastards who don't understand the technology they're villifying.

What was the single largest breakthrough for record sales in the past 100 years?

Pop music radio. People heard Elvis and they went out bought the singles. Then album sales started to grow as the music industry learned that people would buy 15 songs based on a single as long as the album was marketed as a single item. What album was "Heartbreak Hotel" on? What album was "Elanor Rigby" on? That gives you an idea of the growth from singles to albums.

That went on for a while, backed heavily by the "free" advertisement FM radio offered. To give you an idea of how important the idea of the integrity of FREE radio used to be check out this link:

Payola

Court cases were fought over whether the record companies could "buy off" DJs and control when and where they're songs recieved airplay. I think today a case like Payola would get laughed out of court.

Then the portable tape decks hit the market like gangbusters in the 80s. Suddenly not only could we get high quality recordings off radio broadcasts, but most of them had dual decks so we could copy tapes as well. The Music Industry fought this too, claiming that dual tape decks would kill the industry. They lost. Thank God. Otherwise the term "Mix Tape" would be unknown to us!

However, the Music Industry still didn't like the "bootleg" aspect of the cassette tape market and as soon as possible (Around the mid 80s) they introduced CDs and quickly proclaimed them the best and most durable format for music. By 1989 more people bought CDs than cassettes or vinyl. Cassettes are deader than vinyl now, even though 99% of us still have equipment that will play them.

Peer to Peer sharing is nothing more than the 21st century version of the Radio. Instead of listening to Casey Kasem for 5 hours to hear that favorite song, you go listen to it when you want. The vast majority of people who download mp3s are downloading songs they like and making "Mix Tapes" on their iPods or whatever. Very few people have the time/desire to recreate an entire album... especially when the official version sells for $10 at Best Buy. Is the Music Industry angry that we can actually listen to the songs before we buy them?

If the Music Industry would use the radio model, and just let the P2P be, then they'll find their album sales increasing... Unless of course the content proves to a listener that they SHOULDN'T buy the CD because all the songs but one actually suck.

In conclusion... If the RIAA would lighten up, and if the Music Industry would put out high quality material... The sales would flourish. If they keep being greedy bastards and trying to force us to buy crap, then they'll die with the dinosaurs. It's their choice.

I suggest no one buy a CD unless you've listened to it online first. Just my opinion.

Can someone explain to me whether it is illegal to make mix tapes/CD's/MP3's? Only every club DJ has at one time at least created this and distributed them to clubs in order to get employment at the club. These DJ's then play the music that is going to be bought by the public.. is this still illegal to make mix tapes? if so, is it illegal to go round bars playing music made by other singers and is busking also outlawed by the same token? if so then surely the entertainment industry and music is going to head further downhill until only bands that make there music available for all and only charge for live concerts will be successfull.

What ever happened to the stories about the RIAA and record companies uploading songs that were really virus's or just nothing with the intent of scaring people away from downloading? How come its ok for someone like the RIAA to write what's basically a trojan horse, but if some lone guy in his basement tried the same the feds would be kicking his door in?

I agree wholeheartedly with SKMDC1. Cassette decks and dual decks didn't kill the industry as much as CD burners and now P2P MP3s will ever kill the industry.

How long have we been paying for music? Humans have been playing and enjoying music for thousands of years, but has music improved since it has been commercialised? Or is it all a cynical money making racket?

As for downloading, I do tend to listen all sorts of music in download form first and if I like the album, or indeed the style of music, I do honestly go out and but the CD. I have found many new artists that I like and styles of music I would have never listened to unless I could have a free listen from a download. Therefore I go on to regulary support the bands I like by buying their CDs. I don't know how many times I bought a CD before when the entire album bar one song sucked big time. In that respect I see iTunes and similar music stores as being the future. By picking and playing the songs I like I am only encouraging the artists to pump out more quality music in a similar vein.

Originally posted by Klepto
Can someone explain to me whether it is illegal to make mix tapes/CD's/MP3's? Only every club DJ has at one time at least created this and distributed them to clubs in order to get employment at the club. These DJ's then play the music that is going to be bought by the public.. is this still illegal to make mix tapes? if so, is it illegal to go round bars playing music made by other singers and is busking also outlawed by the same token? if so then surely the entertainment industry and music is going to head further downhill until only bands that make there music available for all and only charge for live concerts will be successfull.

This is only illegal if you intend to sell these CD's under your name for personal profit.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
Downloading P2P is illegal, plain and simple, but that's just because the laws are out of date and the Music Industry is full of greedy short-sighted bastards who don't understand the technology they're villifying.

What was the single largest breakthrough for record sales in the past 100 years?

Pop music radio. People heard Elvis and they went out bought the singles. Then album sales started to grow as the music industry learned that people would buy 15 songs based on a single as long as the album was marketed as a single item. What album was "Heartbreak Hotel" on? What album was "Elanor Rigby" on? That gives you an idea of the growth from singles to albums.

That went on for a while, backed heavily by the "free" advertisement FM radio offered. To give you an idea of how important the idea of the integrity of FREE radio used to be check out this link:

Payola

Court cases were fought over whether the record companies could "buy off" DJs and control when and where they're songs recieved airplay. I think today a case like Payola would get laughed out of court.

Then the portable tape decks hit the market like gangbusters in the 80s. Suddenly not only could we get high quality recordings off radio broadcasts, but most of them had dual decks so we could copy tapes as well. The Music Industry fought this too, claiming that dual tape decks would kill the industry. They lost. Thank God. Otherwise the term "Mix Tape" would be unknown to us!

However, the Music Industry still didn't like the "bootleg" aspect of the cassette tape market and as soon as possible (Around the mid 80s) they introduced CDs and quickly proclaimed them the best and most durable format for music. By 1989 more people bought CDs than cassettes or vinyl. Cassettes are deader than vinyl now, even though 99% of us still have equipment that will play them.

Peer to Peer sharing is nothing more than the 21st century version of the Radio. Instead of listening to Casey Kasem for 5 hours to hear that favorite song, you go listen to it when you want. The vast majority of people who download mp3s are downloading songs they like and making "Mix Tapes" on their iPods or whatever. Very few people have the time/desire to recreate an entire album... especially when the official version sells for $10 at Best Buy. Is the Music Industry angry that we can actually listen to the songs before we buy them?

If the Music Industry would use the radio model, and just let the P2P be, then they'll find their album sales increasing... Unless of course the content proves to a listener that they SHOULDN'T buy the CD because all the songs but one actually suck.

In conclusion... If the RIAA would lighten up, and if the Music Industry would put out high quality material... The sales would flourish. If they keep being greedy bastards and trying to force us to buy crap, then they'll die with the dinosaurs. It's their choice.

I suggest no one buy a CD unless you've listened to it online first. Just my opinion.

************Disclaimer!************
despite several rewrites of the following, the first paragraph STILL looks like a flame to me. I assure you this is not my intention, but unfortunately, I'm having difficulty making a key point without it.
********************************


while you bring up a number of new viewpoints I haven't seen before, many of your arguments still fall into the same lines as people I have gfreat difficulty not flaming. Of course, I usually have those difficulties because they end thier rant with a comment more or less along the lines of "so it's okay that I don't pay for anything, because they're all greedy bastards anyhow." More alarming is the post I'll always find elsewhere from the same person about how they don't need to buy the album, they've already got it.

While I may not like some of the tactic employed by the RIAA, I do agree with thier core argument that more than one copy of an album needs to be sold to pay for making that album. I think the most logical approach has been that of services like Itunes which provide a clean, trustworthy copy for a nominal fee.

One last bit, I believe it was the uploading of tracks, not the downloading that caused the biggest stink. Some of those cases involved providing up to 20,000 tracks through P2P sharing. 20,000 tracks that obviously no 12 year old on the planet has payed for themselves.

Originally posted by Travellar
while you bring up a number of new viewpoints I haven't seen before, many of your arguments still fall into the same lines as people I have gfreat difficulty not flaming. Of course, I usually have those difficulties because they end thier rant with a comment more or less along the lines of "so it's okay that I don't pay for anything, because they're all greedy bastards anyhow."

That's really a pretty broad generalization of my post, don't you think? Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but my key point is that downloading will HELP the Music Industry make more money if they used it correctly, like they do the radio. It took a major court case with national attention to stop the Industry from "buying out" the radio airwaves, and now they are doing the same thing with mp3 downloads but they've managed to frame the public debate in their favor with terms like "stealing" when in fact the only difference between radio and downloading is the "on demand" aspect. What's the difference between making a tape of songs recorded off the radio and making a CD of songs downloaded off the internet?

Originally posted by Travellar
More alarming is the post I'll always find elsewhere from the same person about how they don't need to buy the album, they've already got it.

Well, I can't speak for other posters, but you won't see that from me. In fact, I don't know *anybody* who takes the time to download entire albums. 99% of downloading is for "Mix CDs" or iPod lists, not recreating the commercially available album.

Originally posted by Travellar
While I may not like some of the tactic employed by the RIAA, I do agree with thier core argument that more than one copy of an album needs to be sold to pay for making that album.

But that's a very extreme example. If the album is good, people will buy it rather than taking the time to download 12 to 15 songs, get them in the right order, burn a CD... It's still easier to just pay the $10. Downloading isn't killing the industry any more than dual tape decks did in the 80s. What's killing it is really crappy music they market and expect people to buy. I mean who honestly thinks the new Lindsay Lohan CD is worth buying?

Originally posted by Travellar
I think the most logical approach has been that of services like Itunes which provide a clean, trustworthy copy for a nominal fee.

What's the difference between that and the Payola scandal I mentioned before. If the Music Industry controls what's on iTunes, and they do right now, then it's useless as a sampling of the music out there. I agree that the iTunes model is a good one, and paying a nominal fee is cool too, but it HAS TO BE a peer to peer situation, otherwise it's not using the technology and it's just another marketing tool for the Industry.... exactly what FM radio would've become if there hadn't been legal action preventing it.

You say "trustworthy"... and this point is very ON TOPIC for a conspiracy forum... What makes you think the industry provided copies are more "trustworthy" than something an average Joe puts up? I know there are hackers out there, but software and decent monitoring can find and deal with infected files. However, if the Record Companies are the only ones providing the mp3s then how long will it take before we're inundated with "tracking cookies" and spyware all in the name of "marketing"? I think the P2P networks are much more trustworthy in the long run than an Industry controlled pay service.

Originally posted by Travellar
One last bit, I believe it was the uploading of tracks, not the downloading that caused the biggest stink. Some of those cases involved providing up to 20,000 tracks through P2P sharing. 20,000 tracks that obviously no 12 year old on the planet has payed for themselves.

Who cares if they've been payed for? How many songs can you listen to a day on FM radio? Have you paid for those?

The Music Industry has gotten used to raking in astronomical profits, at the expense of naive artists, over the years and the mp3 revolution scares them because it means they have to actually have decent content BEFORE they can sell a CD.

OFF TOPIC: By the way, is anyone else addicted to the FUSE network? Finally a music video channel that actually shows videos!

Egads, I've got to learn to quit posting after my regular bedtime...

I certainly didn't mean to attack you personally, as you made it abundantly clear that you DO tend to buy the CDs.

Basicly, I just take a different stance on whether the copyright laws are or should be applicable. I believe they are, as when something is subject to mass distribution, it's not "sharing" as many people like to charecterise it, it's "copying". Copyright laws, as in laws about who has a right to copy the media. but enough about our differences, time to get back on track.

By Trustworthy, I was actually reffering to a point I logged into this thread to make, which I'd completely forgotten about. Mostly I mean I have (ok, after this latest SONY bit, HAD) more trust of anyone who counts on making money by providing a good copy of something. At least, more trust than I have for what even a handful of people, let alone some secret cabal, who might choose to use P2P distributed software/media as a means of distributing something altogether more insidious. Especially as many of the people uploading/downloading have demonstrated somewhat dubious ethical charecteristics in thier justifications.

Originally posted by Travellar
By Trustworthy, I was actually reffering to a point I logged into this thread to make, which I'd completely forgotten about. Mostly I mean I have (ok, after this latest SONY bit, HAD) more trust of anyone who counts on making money by providing a good copy of something. At least, more trust than I have for what even a handful of people, let alone some secret cabal, who might choose to use P2P distributed software/media as a means of distributing something altogether more insidious. Especially as many of the people uploading/downloading have demonstrated somewhat dubious ethical charecteristics in thier justifications.

I tend to agree that you can TRUST a corporation to always make money. That's really one of the few things you can count on nowadays, and it's not always bad either. I'm willing to pay more for a Digital Recorder on my TV because of the amazing features it offers, so profit ain't always bad, and I trust companies to do what's most profitable.

However, I think the introduction of something insidious into the mp3 file sharing environment is much more likely to happen with the industry controlled model than the P2P model. You're right that there are people out there that introduce viruses and whatnot, but that's outside the system and can be detected and dealt with. When the "insidious" content is within the system, a part of the policy of those that control the system, that's altogether more dangerous. At least in my opinion.

Finally, you say:

Especially as many of the people uploading/downloading have demonstrated somewhat dubious ethical charecteristics in thier justifications.

As if it's a given fact that these people have demonstrated dubious ethical justifications. That's an opinion, not a fact, and it's an opinion I disagree with. If you take the law out of it and talk only about the moral implications then there is a real debate and to avoid being hypocritical you must also include anyone whose made a mix tape for someone over the years or recorded a song off the radio. Morally and ethically, those are all apples to apples, it's only the RIAAs determination to villify "sharing" now and prosecute it as a legal case that makes it unsavory.

Why did we buy all those dual tape deck "boom boxes" during the 80s? Where are all the people that bought those? Were they only sold to bootlegging criminals with "dubious ehtical justifications"? Just because computers make it easier doesn't change the moral question. Is it right or not? I think it's within the rights of the owner to copy and share music in the interest of "spreading the word" about a band and in the long run that increases the sales of that band's albums and concerts. Incidently, concert proceeds have gone up recently, speculation is due to the mp3 revolution as it's easier to sample a band now and see if you want to go see them, and concert tours are the NUMBER ONE way artists make money. So, if you want to support the artists, who routinely get screwed by the Record Company, then download their music and go to a concert.

Here's what the lead singer of Coldplay says about the fact they "routinely sell out concerts" but hurt the profit of EMI because of the delay in their latest album's release:

Coldplay frontman Chris Martin responded to his troubled record company somewhat less than favourably. "I don't really care about EMI. I'm not concerned about that. I think shareholders are the greatest evil of this modern world," he said.

EMI Says Coldplay, Gorillaz Responsible for Declining Profits

Let he who has never made a Mix Tape cast the first stone.

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
This is only illegal if you intend to sell these CD's under your name for personal profit.

Buy profitting, could this include takings on the door of the venue?