Page 2 of 29

PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:01 pm
by Rat
ProgRocker wrote:RIAA sues dead woman.
ROFL! You just gotta luv 'em. Ineptitude in the extreme.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:52 pm
by mazoonist
Wow! Some people will go to any length to avoid being sued. :lol:

PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:34 pm
by battye
Rat wrote:
ProgRocker wrote:RIAA sues dead woman.
ROFL! You just gotta luv 'em. Ineptitude in the extreme.

RIAA will do anything to get another dollar.. :roll:

Welcome, Mazoonist :)

PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:41 pm
by ProgRocker
The RIAA spin doctors at work.
The Music Cartel is busy trying to sway public opinion in its war against the people. This is particularly coming to a head as we get closer to the Supreme Court's upcoming review of the Grokster case. While both sides are busy filing amicus (friend of the court) briefs supporting their positions, the RIAA is trying to sway the public opinion.

Particularly interesting is the RIAA's little "just-say-no" anti-P2P educational program, featuring its "Garret the Ferret" mascot. How appropriate that they should choose a member of the weasel family to frighten little children out of file-sharing.

At the same time, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is representing Grokster, is not staying silent through all this. They are pointing out all the technologies that have been destroyed or threatened due to copyright paranoia the past several years. If the record industry wins at the Supreme Court, we can expect a lot more technologies to be destroyed.


Garret the Ferret

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:05 pm
by mazoonist
Everyone owes it to themselves to take a PROPER GANDER at this "Garret the Ferret" comic. I'm sure you can "ferret" out the truth for yourself:

Tune in next week when we'll hear Garret say:

"Wearing your pin is great. But, now, why don't you turn in your daddy for copying music, movies, and software, and win cash prizes? Then we can have a police state like Nazi Germany."

I have more to say on this, later. I gotta go make a living. :)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:04 pm
by ProgRocker
LokiTorrent shut down by MPAA.
The popular Torrent site was apparently shuttered by court order, and control of the site appears to be in the hands of the MPAA. Adding insult to injury, the site displays a gloating message from the MPAA, stating "you can click but you can't hide."


PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:24 am
by battye
That's a sad end for Loki

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:30 am
by StorbinC
a list of endangered and exstinct gizmo's due to the evil RIAA and there gang.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:36 am
by Rat
That page makes interestin' reading Storb. Thank you.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:10 pm
by ProgRocker
More on LokiTorrent.

The federal court order that gave the LokiTorrent site to the MPAA also handed over Loki's entire server logs. This gives the MPAA a vast list of people they could sue, with the group stating that it would provide "a roadmap to others who have used LokiTorrent to engage in illegal activities." The MPAA is also planning to pursue other BT sites. If anyone is running a BT tracker, now would be a good time to lay low.

This is similar to the sequence of events on the music side of file-sharing. The RIAA went after some of the providers first (, Napster), then the individual users. Don't rule out the possibility that the MPAA will follow the same path.

Regular file-sharing systems, like Morpheus, have now incorporated BT support. But that may not stop the threat from the MPAA and RIAA. They are already able to reach those users.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:48 pm
by moongirl
Prog thankyou.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:53 am
by ProgRocker
College student gets jail time for sharing movies online.
A student at the University of Arizona was sentenced to 3 months in prison after pleading guilty to felony "possession of unauthorized copies of intellectual property." Apparently, this is some Arizona state law, and not federal, as the case was heard in a Maricopa County court.

The defendant was charged with sharing copies of movies that were only showing in theaters. In addition to the jail time, the defendant was placed on 3 years probation, fined $5400, and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service. He also was ordered to take a copyright course at the University and refrain from using P2P programs.

Well, that ought to make him a better citizen.:wink:


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:56 pm
by ProgRocker
Australia considers fair-use provision.
The Attorney General of Australia is considering a measure that would allow consumers to make personal copies of media they have already paid for. Currently, fair-use in Australia only allows copying for academic research or for journalistic review. By giving Australians the right to make copies of their media, the nation's consumers would enjoy similar rights as those in the U.S. Under U.S. law, people are allowed to make "non-commercial" copies of musical recordings. Taping TV shows to watch later ("time-shifting") is also legal in the U.S. but currently outlawed in Australia.

I find the article's quote from the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft rather interesting: "Fair use is often misunderstood to mean free use. It's not fair use to allow a person in their home to make a perfect digital copy of a program for free that they would otherwise have bought from a store." So their argument is, "We've always been able to sell you additional copies, therefore we must be allowed to continue to do so."

The AFACT's argument is flawed. Despite their claims, making a personal copy or two is not theft. When you buy a CD or DVD, you're not really paying for a tangible thing - that silver disc. What you're really paying for is the right to operate one copy of the media embodied within the disc. Copyright is based on "use" of material, not "ownership" of it. You don't own the music or video, you've merely paid for the right to use it. Sure, you own the disc, but you have no legal "ownership" rights to the content. You should, however, be allowed full use and enjoyment of that content. Making a copy of a CD to listen to in your car or on a portable player, or making a copy of a DVD to watch at another location hasn't created any additional benefit to the consumer, nor has it created any detriment to the copyright owner. You haven't taken anything from the copyright owner. You have created another physical copy, yet you can only listen to or watch one copy at a time. Therefore, it's still a single use by a single user; the scope of the use hasn't expanded to other users. The media is just accessible to you in more places. So-called "space-shifting."

Fair-use should enable consumers to enjoy their media in any location, and on any platform. It makes no sense (aside from the pursuit of windfall profits) why The Entertainment Cartel in Australia is so adamant in selling you multiple copies just because you want to use them in more than one location. In the U.S., the RIAA even concedes that consumers have to right to make personal copies of their CDs:
If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

This should also be the case in Australia, and elsewhere. This isn't the 1920s, where we all gather around the Victrola and listen to 78s while sipping tea. Today we need our music and video to go. Around the house, in our cars, at work, etc. Copyright laws should reflect that.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:59 pm
by ProgRocker
Behind the scenes of a typical file-sharing lawsuit.
An op-ed piece in the Daily Texan sheds some light on the course of events surrounding an RIAA file-sharing lawsuit. The author, pretending to be a new "John Doe" defendant, calls up the company retained by The Music Cartel that rakes in the settlement money from all the poor, scared victims. Naturally, the representative at the boiler-room "Settlement Service Center" persuades the caller to settle and avoid costly litigation. What a slick way for the RIAA to generate some additional revenue.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:25 pm
by quicksilver
I think I can see why they need to extort 26 million dollars out of folk, because its easy.. .
I suggest that the sued look into this before paying up

I,m sure some half baked lawyer will take up there case, or they could settle of course...