RIAA suing for copying legally purchased CDs to PC

[mousepod]

Worth reading.

And donate to EFF.org, if you can!

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Worth reading.

I will admit to only having skimmed the article, it appears to be the see the same story of wanting to allow file sharing - effectively saying that it is okay for individuals to steal music. And I don't agree with it.

An artist has the right to give away their music if they want. But other artists who want to get paid for their work should get paid for it.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I will admit to only having skimmed the article, it appears to be the see the same story of wanting to allow file sharing - effectively saying that it is okay for individuals to steal music. And I don't agree with it.

An artist has the right to give away their music if they want. But other artists who want to get paid for their work should get paid for it.

What concerns me is the blanket that can be cast to see what comes up without a judge or any proof of wrongdoing. I can't think of any other situation (besides homeland security) where this is allowed. Show a good reason to go fishing, then cast your small net.

It also concerns me that there doesn't seem to be a statue of limitations on this (see the college student charged for downloads done by roommates on a computer that is no longer in existance).

Finally, the people who are downloading music that they already own. They already bought the CD and for whatever reason they didn't burn the CD and instead downloaded it through alternative methods. Should they still be charged even though they already own the music?

This is a very slippery slope. It's no secret that I don't have an issue with file sharing/music swapping. I've also never used Kazza, Napster or Limewire to share my music. I do have an issue with the large, vague net that is being cast in a fishing expedition to see what comes up.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I will admit to only having skimmed the article, it appears to be the see the same story of wanting to allow file sharing - effectively saying that it is okay for individuals to steal music. And I don't agree with it.

An artist has the right to give away their music if they want. But other artists who want to get paid for their work should get paid for it.

It doesn't say that at all. It points out, in great detail, why the RIAA's tactics are a failure, and then proposes a system that would allow for filesharing on a subscription basis.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I will admit to only having skimmed the article, it appears to be the see the same story of wanting to allow file sharing - effectively saying that it is okay for individuals to steal music. And I don't agree with it.

An artist has the right to give away their music if they want. But other artists who want to get paid for their work should get paid for it.

Well, much of the article dealt with the methods the RIAA is using in its suits. While I agree that the RIAA should be allowed to prosecute people who are breaking the law, their use of illegal subpoenas and questionable definitions of who is responsible for the availability of illegal shared files. They've also been prosecuting people who have downloaded copies of music they have legally purchased (e.g., someone who was downloading songs they own CDs for because it was easier than the effort of ripping the CD themselves.

While I have no sympathy for someone who is illegally sharing music that gets caught, the article does raise some troubling questions about the way the RIAA is going about catching people and isn't just a "it's not a big deal to steal music, so they should just leave people alone."