<h3>4 Students Sued Over Music Sites</h3>
The embattled music industry -- struggling to halt declining compact-disc sales that it blames on Internet song piracy -- fired another strong counterattack yesterday, suing four college students at three universities who run Napster-like file-sharing sites.
The suits -- filed by the Recording Industry Association of America, the music industry lobby -- ask three U.S. district courts for permanent injunctions to shut down the file-sharing systems that live inside the computer networks at Princeton University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., and Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Mich.
The suits also ask for the highest damages allowable by law, which range up to $150,000 per copyright infringement or, in other words, per pirated song. If awarded, the judgments could run in the millions of dollars.
"We want this infringement stopped for good," said Matthew J. Oppenheim, the RIAA's senior vice president for business and legal affairs. He added that the lawsuits would not be dropped if the file-sharing services were shut down. "Frankly, we are hopeful this round of lawsuits will send a message to others that they should immediately cease and desist."
The four defendants were chosen because the RIAA found their sites to be among the most active, enabling thousands of songs to be freely shared, the RIAA's complaints say. The music industry says such file sharing is in violation of copyright and fair-use laws and takes money away from artists and record companies.
The RIAA has sued Web sites and individuals in the past -- some of whom were students -- but this is the first time the organization has leveled such legal firepower at students using college networks.
Of the four defendants, only Aaron Sherman of Rensselaer would confirm he is being sued, and he declined further comment. The others declined comment or could not be reached.
The RIAA suits allege that the four defendants offered between 27,000 and 1 million songs each for free trading.
As of yesterday afternoon, Oppenheim said, three of the four sites had shut down.
"This is a particularly flagrant way to illegally distribute millions of copyrighted works over the Internet," said RIAA President Cary H. Sherman. "The people who run these Napster networks know full well what they are doing -- operating a sophisticated network designed to enable widespread music thievery."
The RIAA employs software that scours the Internet looking for what it believes are illegally traded songs. But the networks named in the lawsuits are internal college networks, known as local area networks, or LANs, and are not seen by the RIAA software.
Instead, the RIAA discovered them by reading college newspapers, in which the LANs are discussed. Several Princeton sites were listed in a November article in the Daily Princetonian, which also included a statement from the school's information technology department saying that it is against university regulations to use the Internet to violate copyright laws.
After that, Oppenheim said, it was easy to identify whom to sue.
"These people are not shy," he said. "I believe their names were on their Web sites."
At Princeton, the Web site being targeted is Wake.Princeton.edu, a file-sharing system that connects one student's public files with those of other students on the system.
For instance, if a student wanted to download the new Linkin Park single, the student would type the song's title into Wake, which acts like a search engine, and it would display other students' computers where that song file resided. The student could then download the song by clicking on a link.
The RIAA could have gone through Princeton's administrative process and filed a complaint against the student running the Wake site, said Lauren Robinson-Brown, director of communications at Princeton.
"They are well aware of that procedure," she said. "They regularly file with us."
The music industry has blamed free peer-to-peer music file sharing for its current depression, as sales of compact discs have dropped dramatically over the past few years. Advocates of file sharing say that the music industry caused the creation of systems such as Napster -- which was shut down by court order in 2001, an effort led by the RIAA -- by pricing CDs near $20.
Further, say analysts, the music industry has been slow to adapt to the changing patterns of music consumers, many of whom want their music on a song-by-song basis as opposed to buying an entire CD.
Among the record companies represented by the RIAA are Universal Music Group, the industry's largest, owned by Vivendi Universal; AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group; and Sony Music Entertainment.
The music industry has fought back against file sharing through the courts and by creating its own online music services, such as MusicNet and Pressplay, through which consumers can use their computers to buy or rent music, some of which they can download and burn onto CDs.

<h6>Source: Washington Post</h6>

Bet their sales would be higher if the quality of the product were higher.

Which brings me to another point. Why is intellectual material protected for ever but a really good invention only protected for 17 years? Something is wrong here.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/u/catsmiley.gif

*sigh* not this debate again....
*YAWN* How come some reports say that actually CD sales have gone up in the last few years and this one says there has been a slump? Everywhere else the report was why are they complaining about file-sharing when there have never been so high CD sales?

I worked as an accountant in the music idustry. And still work my own practice with a number of indies.

RIAA is technically right, because it is copyright infringement. This isn't makin a copy of your album to play in your car. This is to cut the label out of the loop.

But, I don't feel sorry for music labels. CDs at $20? Sorry, but a CD costs less to produce than a tape now a days. Even when the arguement was made that CDs were more expensive to produce, the difference was something like $1.17 to $0.98. Fact is, labels have cheated way too many people with their pricing strategy.

So they expect the students to pay that huge sum of money to them huh? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Where I live CD's have begun a sharp increase in cost.

I think the price on CD's have increased with what amounts to threee $ in less than 2 years.

For all my life I can't understand why music have suddenly become so expensive to produce that such a sharp increase is necessary.

I mean, why do CD's suddenly have to increase with 25% in price?

Do like I do, and don't buy any. ;)

Awesome. About bloody time.

And if any other product is not up to your (subjective) standards, does that give you a license to steal it?

As for your whingeing about intellectual property being owned by the person who made it, your view sickens me. Totally. You, the person who takes others material from the net, posts it under your own name without quotes or links, then has the GALL to say something is wrong with a writer/composer owning their work for life?? Unbelievable Arvon. Try creating your own stuff and let's see how you feel.

If you don't like the music being made, make your own.

[ 04-05-2003, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Music videos.

you can be very blunt when you try yorick [img]smile.gif[/img]

i don't really see how this is anything special though, and i can't see that it will achieve anything at all. Whooptifarkingdoo... the RIAA is busting 4 whole pirater, like that is going to make any difference at all to overall piracy numbers....

they should go after the cause of the problem (which is happening in some cases) rather than fighting the symptoms... in some cases them fighting the symptoms (ie. copy protection cd's that don't work in pc's) actually makes things worse for them.....

And if any other product is not up to your (subjective) standards, does that give you a license to steal it?

As for your whingeing about intellectual property being owned by the person who made it, your view sickens me. Totally. You, the person who takes others material from the net, posts it under your own name without quotes or links, then has the GALL to say something is wrong with a writer/composer owning their work for life?? Unbelievable Arvon. Try creating your own stuff and let's see how you feel.

If you don't like the music being made, make your own.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure he meant that 17 years was not enough...

But seriously, jokes are not copyrighted. They have all been going around for years. When I am at a bar having fun with some friends, and one tell a joke, he never say "This joke was invented by John smith in 1954...".

No one know who first started a particullar joke. And out of all the jokes website I have visited, none ever claimed copyright to any jokes.

And if any other product is not up to your (subjective) standards, does that give you a license to steal it?

As for your whingeing about intellectual property being owned by the person who made it, your view sickens me. Totally. You, the person who takes others material from the net, posts it under your own name without quotes or links, then has the GALL to say something is wrong with a writer/composer owning their work for life?? Unbelievable Arvon. Try creating your own stuff and let's see how you feel.

If you don't like the music being made, make your own.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure he meant that 17 years was not enough...

But seriously, jokes are not copyrighted. They have all been going around for years. When I am at a bar having fun with some friends, and one tell a joke, he never say "This joke was invented by John smith in 1954...".

No one know who first started a particullar joke. And out of all the jokes website I have visited, none ever claimed copyright to any jokes.</font>[/QUOTE]But if you saw a gag on Seinfeld would you mention it or pass it off as your own?

Anyhow, comedy writers get paid to create humor. Comedic writing is an artform like any other. Whether it's another art getting ripped by the internet "sharing" is another issue.

[ 04-05-2003, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Most jokes are VERY old. Sure, if you take an original joke from a comedy show and use it without reference, it's bad, but most of the time, even them use old jokes.

There are probably millions of jokes, some are probably hundreds of years old. Do you look for copyright information before telling a blonde joke to one of your friend?

By accusing Arvon of "stealing" jokes, you just called about everyone on the planet a thief, including yourself probably. Or have you never told a joke to someone?

Have your parents ever told a joke without saying some copyright information after it? You better call them and tell them you think they are thieves...

[ 04-05-2003, 04:05 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

While copyright theft is certainly a bad thing, the music industry dosent sell me what I want to buy. An album might be decent value if it had loads of decent tracks on it, but none of them do. So to get a CD worth listening to, I have to buy a few albums and copy them over.

Selling single MP3s over the net would fix that. If it was done in conjunction with those who designed the fasttrack and gnutella networks, it could be made secure. If it was done in opposition to those networks, it would fail miserably.

Besides, suing a couple of students who were using internal networks, not internet sharing, isnt going to affect the big picture.

Oh and, why in the hells should I pay extra because of the music video. Its not on the CD I buy, and if it is I have better things to look at. Only time I ever see the damn things is when Im in burger king and they have MTV on. And even then I read the paper instead.

Oh, and another thing. Remember that copy-protection that was designed to disable PC CDROMs, or in fact anything more sophisticated than a plain audio player? Yes, prevent piracy by making it impossible to play the music in large proportion of CD players. In fact, I dont own another kind. This is a brilliant way to make money isnt it.

Good points anrewas. Personally I think the solution is micropayments. Those with mobile phones should be able to pay with their phone account so the money goes on your phone bill (Vodafone are already doing this with many small products, soon it will be available just like a credit card service except it's a phone bill pay service from your phone company). Then you could buy say, 1 track for £1 and that's fair. Also, it should cost less than 1 track does on an album because MP3s are inherantly lower quality than CD music, except perhaps when encoded at very high bit rates.
It is true that most albums will contain a few good "leading" tracks and the rest are just space fillers. Then you say, buy a single? Yeah right: £3 for a single track.

I don't reckon anyone's ever claimed copyright per se for a joke. Jokes happen and are often made up ad lib....added to.

Music is a different thing in some ways. Someone has individually taken thoughts and notes from their mind and put them to paper. As far as I'm concerned they are still the owner and have the right to say how that material is used.

Jokes, although sometimes made up for a particular instance, ie a film or whatever, are still a different thing, totally different.

I point I'd like to make:
In the past I have downloaded music from the Internet. If the music was good quality, or if there was a certain song I've heard before and wanted to listen to, I would then buy the album. If I've heard a band was good but had never heard any of their songs, I would download them. Needless to say, if I didn't like the song, I would delete it. If I liked it, I would buy the CD. I have bought four CDs from bands I have downloaded from the Internet: System of a Down's Toxicity, Tool's Lateralus, and Slipknot's self titled album and Slipknot's Iowa. I currently do not have any songs from the Internet on my computer. So, in this case, certain bands have profited from my downloading 'pirated' versions of their songs.

Therefore, audio piracy is not ALL bad.

I've posted about this before, if I get up the energy (sniffle) I might post a reference to the thread where I posted several URLs about mp3 sharing and piracy issues. (None of them have much good to say about the RIAA - including professional musicians of 35 years or more)

Basically, the music industry is a big ripoff and instead of being the heavy, the RIAA should be making the industry competitive!

Having said that, I just purchased the Linkin Park - Meteora SE cd/dvd set for cdn$23 and I thought it was worth it (the standard cd was cdn$18). Great album - and I don't usually listen to stuff that heavy, very interesting mix of styles.

Good! People who download music movies or games off the internet are THIEVES, they are STEALING this music, it's about bloody time (to quote Yorick) that they were stopped!

To PCgiant: ever heard of something called the Radio?

[ 04-06-2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Kaltia ]

<font color=steelblue>Well, were to start...
First, Thats a good question Kaltia. What about the radio? Is recording music that is broadcast, for your own entertainment, theft? I myself download music just to look for new music to buy.

Second, Yorick, I do write and play my own music and think its ridiculous and
and petty to harbor ones art for money. Thats not even art to me. Thats sellout music and even if I was making a living with my art, I would take advantage of the outlet that PtoP music sharing is.

I would like to see some stats on the ratio of people who download to avoid buying, and people who download to buy. </font>

In my opinion, the people who download gigs of mp3 are usually teens and preteens who probably could not afford much anyway.

Kaltia:

I don't know about England's radio, but since it has a population roughly thirty times my country's, I assume they have decent radio stations. Here in New Zealand, we have roughly four radio stations. They constantly play the same songs over and over so that people will buy certain albums, read: Linkin Park's 'somewhere I belong'. Often, bands which radio is reluctant to back are the kinds of bands I like, read: Slipknot. I do NOT download music to copy to disc or anything like that. It is a simple try before you buy. That said, I still disagree with many aspects of downloading copywriting material from the Internet.

I do not download music any more, nor do I have any MP3s on my computer. I'd rather spend the money to buy the proper CD, because that way I am not only supporting the artist, I have the cover slip, and all the other features.

LordKathen and Luvian both make valid points, too. Simply put, if I lived in a nation with adequate radio services, I would not have any reason to download music. Regardless, I don't do it anymore, anyway.

the trick is to get a job with the government so they can't come after you for downloading tons of music, I wonder how much music these 4 teenagers downloaded to get these charges slapped on them... Let's face it, I've got Mp3s from like 80,000 differint bands, albums, etc... and None of them even have CDs for Sale in the United States, So I don't see anything wrong with it [img]tongue.gif[/img] Now I'm not about to go and download "popular" music either, but that's just because it's absolute junk and lacks expressionalism anyway, but I'm not about to argue... If you like Eminem... go ahead, jump on in with that Slim-shady-8-mile-DVD-buying-look-a-like crowd... That's your own opinion, personally I like to express myself by being differint [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=steelblue>Well said DK. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] </font>

Eagerly awaiting your reply, Kaltia.

You're a thief. 80,000 bands?? You are a shameless thief D.K. Ever heard of IMPORTS?. How are the bands going to get releases in America if every American steals their music because they can't get an American release? You've been kicking those without a break. The ones that NEED your dollars much more than those fortunate enough to get an American release.

[ 04-07-2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Do you or do you not have windows media player? It has the ability to locate radio stations on the internet. Whilst I cannot garuntee that they are of the greatest legality (I listen to Xfm, for you Londoners), it's still better than downloading music.

That's part of the artist's wages, man, you might as well take your coworker's wages for yourself.

[ 04-07-2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Kaltia ]

Internet radio over a 56K modem? I can barely listen to IW radio without a minute's loading time for 10 seconds of audio.

IW radio is the best!!! :D *sigh* I remember the first time I listened to it... Memnoch, Growing Lich AKA Bob and I (among others who weren't posting) listening to Ziroc's tired ramblings :D They were so funny [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

(in redneck voice) This is a land. There are lots of lakes here. I shall call it LAKELAND! [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Aaaah, memories.

Anyway, my point is, I don't download music anymore. My rebellious wild days are over. I might try to look into some Internet radio later tonight.

There are soooooooo many problems trying to apply old rules to new technology. I bought many cassette tapes when I was a young teen. Even though I have long lost the originals, do I still have license to the music? Can I copy it off the internet and claim it is now a backup copy? Can I allow people on the internet to listen to music files on my computer as long as the file isn't transferred and is plyed from my storage location? If I can't do that then why am I allowed to play music for everyone at a party or a club? Why am I allowed to use a VCR to record my favorite TV show or movie playing on TV or music playing over the radio and yet not allowed to record music transmitted over the internet? It's a tough mess! There is a lot of serious work needed in this area! The recording industry is also going to have to realize that selling CD's is on it's way out the door and that buying single tracks that are going to be digitally stored is where it's going. Look at the new MP3 players. It will be rough for profits as they will no longer be able to prepackage unpopular music with the popular to force it's sale. Pricing per song will also not allow the quandry of a twenty song CD costing the same as a ten song CD. Like I said, it's going to require a lot of work and change to straighten this mess out.

And what of an album, or any piece of music over three minutes? Are they out the door too? Is Jazz and classical music, and any thematic work now obsolete because of the limitations of an MP3?? It's art. Art is not going to be constrained by user demand. Did Jazz shrivel itself up to three minutes crammed with hooks because that's what FM radio dictated?

OK. Lets look at the New MP3 players. Music sounds inferior on them compared to a CD which at 16 bit sounds inferior to the original master.

What you are proclaiming is the death of the album, which is not going to happen. If I want my songs heard ONLY in the context of an album, then I won't make track IDs if I have to. A single song is in NO WAY the truest expression of an artists work.

Well all i can say they got what they deserved (i mean the teans)

What you are suggesting Kennyth, is like saying that films shouldn't contain all those annoying scenes you personally hate, only the good ones, and that the future is the "single scene" trade. Screw the artist and what they're trying to do. It's all about the consumer isn't it??

Music is more than just "product" or a commodity.

Dude! They certainly did. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorik what you're saying is more akin to taking bits of a single song out that you don't like, many of the prepackaged artists (britney, N'Sync, etc) have no greater meaning in their songs and no deep message to impart in their album, I know the vast majority of people with cds, unless the cd's are custom cuts with only tracks they want, tand to skip the songs that they don't like, in favor of hearing only the ones they do.

I know there are some artists who arrange their songs to deliver a certain effect, but most top 40's albums don't.

I for one can't tell the difference unless the bitrate is below 128, and most users can't either, the loss in quality is very small, hell when cd's first came out they sounded worse than tapes due to the sampling procedures. as far as music I download, I only download music I physically have a copy of, or stuff that's so old that it's nearly impossible to find, even many "golden oldies" albums don't have much of what I want to find

To support morgeruat, albums by top 40 "packaged" bands are sold such that a few songs are hyped and popular, and other songs are filler. Why should I be forced to buy songs I DON'T WANT. That is what they are doing. Also, the imbalance of a 10 song CD being priced almost the same as a 20 song is not at all fair. (assuming the songs are fairly equal in length and popularity). How about "collections" where the only way to get only a couple new songs, is to by a set of 40 songs for 50 bucks, where you already own all the other songs on other albums, how is that fair? Oooh, how about that a DVD movie that includes stuff you don't get at the theater (2 hours plus, deleted scenes, behind the scenes stuff, etc) vs a CD that has 40 minutes of music, and NOTHING I can't get off the radio, where the prices are often only a few bucks different. How is taping the radio (legal, right?) vs internet downloading different (except for some quality ?)

Yes, Yorick, it IS all about the consumer. If CD producing companies and RIAA practiced fair market policies, then consumers would buy more. What do they do? They PRICE FIX, they shove stupid (there are some) laws down our throats, they sue everyone and anyone, and they take (IMO) more then their share from CD sales. THAT is why I don't wish to buy CDs, I can't/won't/don't get what I want, and it would support currupt, despotic companies, such as those represented by RIAA. Until RIAA members play fair, I certainly will not.

These kids DO NOT deserve to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, but more like $1000 to $1500 in fines, IF THAT. Like if RIAA wins the suits, then musicians will get a penny. They will keep it ALL, and the poor musicians who this put on the streets and starved (really now) STAY poor.

I stand by what I say. Lifting songs from a CD is like lifting scenes from a film.

Of the records made on the planet, how many are in the top 40? If the top 40 is your only measure, then classical and Jazz no longer exist. Neither does world music, new age/relaxation, celtic, most hardcore funk, dance and a plethora of heavier music styles.

The album, is the artists primary expressive vehical at the moment, alongside the instantaneous expression of live performance. A 'single' has historically been lifted to promote an album. Like a few scenes of a film made into a trailer.

Bands like Led Zepplin never released singles, they only released albums. The aforementioned independent Jazz genre rarley release singles.

You are quite mistaken if you believe denying artists the full album as an artform is the way of the future.

As I said, if listeners persist in lifting single songs off albums, I guarantee you'll find artists doing longer and longer songs that merge 'movements'.

I love it how you write off the Britney/NSync albums too. Do you even know the name Max Martin? DO you understand what he even does? The guy is a genius. Working within the constraints of pop music is a very challenging art, and he time and again does wonders within those constraints.

[ 04-11-2003, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Fillers?

How many albums have you recorded realbinky?

So just because you don't like a song, it's called a filler? And what if the songs you don't like, don't correspond with the songs others don't like. Would that make the whole album one of fillers? Why release an album at all?

Secondly, have you ever heard of songs "growing on you"? Songs "taking some effort" to understand and enjoy?

Singles are generally the most ACCESSIBLE, not the best from an album. Often the most expressive work on a record is the one least likely to be a single, and the one that takes more to eventually like. It widens your pallette.

Put it another way.

If you went to a show, to see an artist, do they give you the option of them skipping the songs you don't want to hear, and only playing your personal favorites? No. Their audience is bigger than just you, and they also release things for THEMSELVES. If you don't like a few songs tough cheddar.

[ 04-11-2003, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

The laws are made in a way so that it's the circumstances that decide whether or not you're breaking rules, and not what you're actually doing... I can for free listen to an album over and over if I borrow it from a friend, not even considering. But I can't download one song from an album that I consider buying, even if I delete it after listening to it once. It doesn't make sense.

...and btw
Led Zeppelin did release singles...