Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  alternatives(), 3 Apr 2003 @ 5:43pm

  
  

  Good.

  About damn time they went after the law-breakers rather then buy laws like the DMCA.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (profile), 3 Apr 2003 @ 9:44pm

    
    

    Re: Good.

    About damn time they went after the law-breakers rather then buy laws like the DMCA.
    
    While I agree that it's better for them to go after actual law breakers, in this case it's a really bad business decision. They're basically trying to sue people who are promoting their music. For free.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Lawrey, 3 Apr 2003 @ 7:04pm

  
  

  Sigh

  With all due respect, this horse has been beaten so much, I doubt anybody really cares anymore.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Jon, 3 Apr 2003 @ 9:33pm

    
    

    Re: Sigh

    Yeah the only thing that peeves me is that the MTU net connection is under a nice sized load :(
    
    Of course on the plus site Joe's annoying bot will stop indexing my website.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Jon, 3 Apr 2003 @ 9:40pm

      
      

      Re: Sigh

      Oh and my sources say the MTU student had over 160,000 files indexed and 1,500 of his own. I'd ask him for the exact numbers but he doesn't seem to be around.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (profile), 3 Apr 2003 @ 9:45pm

    
    

    Re: Sigh

    With all due respect, this horse has been beaten so much, I doubt anybody really cares anymore.
    
    I think the fact that the RIAA is suing actual students is very different than the usual discussion on file sharing, and thus, is worth posting.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  skippy, 4 Apr 2003 @ 10:16am

  
  

  sue its own customers?

  Actually, the RIAA is sueing people who steal their products - not their paying customers.
  
  Ignoring the confusing legal and ethical MP3/P2P issue (personally, I think the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot - if P2P is bad then Radio must be truely evil), what amazes me is all the people who bitch about the RIAA, but still run with money in their sweaty little hands to buy the latest release of whatever crap MTV is hawking this week.
  
  Show a bit of resolve - A simple boycott by the teaming masses of buying ANY music CD for a few days would put the message across to the RIAA that it's the CUSTOMERS that keep them in business and that as such, they need to be treated a whole lot better then they currently are.
  
  Get Organized. Pick a week, market & promote the Boycott, then get all your teeny bopper friends to stick to it. The only agruement the RIAA will listen too is the one that hurts their bottom line.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    garnog, 11 Sep 2003 @ 3:33pm

    
    

    Re: sue its own customers?

    Yep. A boycott for even a few days might shake the money tree..but how to garner support among the teens-tweens crowd? Regardless, suing your own customers is akin to committing eventual financial suicide. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Copyright Rebel, 5 Apr 2003 @ 1:53pm

  
  

  Boycotts

  A general boycott would be a good idea, but I, for one, stopped buying major label products on my own, out of principle, some months ago. This despite the fact that I'm too lazy to hunt for and download stuff either. There must be a lot of others like me.
  My own position on this is that yes, technically these students and others are stealing intellectual property. However, I consider that a good thing because it helps weaken support for copyright laws and also weakens the companies that are trying to enforce such laws.
  I believe that there are two reasons that a law can be considered unjust or contrary to the interests of society, and therefore require extensive modification or repeal. One is when the law goes against the common understanding of what is just, right, or fair. The other is when the only way to enforce such a law is to have the government or other entities engage in practices that threaten the civil liberties ands privacy of
  the citizenry. Although copyright laws are well within the bounds of what most people consider just, right, and fair they clearly violate the second catagory now that the age of the internet has dawned. These laws can no longer be effectively enforced without resorting to unprecedented amounts of invasion of privacy and restrictions on internet operations all the way up and down the line. Other examples of laws that fall into this catagory (IMHO) are most drug laws and laws against private consentual sexual activities like sodomy.
  I believe that copyright laws need to be restricted to preventing people from making money from copyrighted materials (i.e. piracy), while allowing unfettered ability to copy and distribute such material without money exchanging hands. Some companies and artists may suffer from this sort of regime, and many may loose their jobs, but too bad. The liberty and privacy of the entire society outwieghs the needs of the few.
  As for boycotts, I would suggest selecting the weakest of the record companies and attempting to boycott their products totally until they go out of business or are forced to sell themselves to someone else. That would get a message across.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]