Limewire Officially Shut Down - the end of an era.....

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

As I said before I think copyrights have long outlived their usefulness.

No they haven't because they provide incentives for people to produce things. I'm not going to spend weeks, months or years developing a web application if I can't make any money on it.

Let me ask you this, have you ever produced any copyrighted material that has significant value and then you just gave it away?

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

No they haven't because they provide incentives for people to produce things. I'm not going to spend weeks, months or years developing a web application if I can't make any money on it.

Let me ask you this, have you ever produced any copyrighted material that has significant value and then you just gave it away?

If it is worth taking, that alone is an indicator of value.
If a competitor thinks they can profit by taking rather than duplicating the time and effort of creating, that is an indicator of commercial value.

With thousands of photos on line, and all protected by ©, I don't hesitate to contact competitors who swipe my photos to profit from them. I typically request they take them down off their sites. They can spend hundreds of hours shooting, uploading, cropping, culling, paying for services, software, and gear, if they want the images that badly. And sometimes I give permission freely. My stuff. My choice.

We aren't talking about bazillions of bucks here, like swiping music and distributing it to hundreds of thousands of other folks, but the principle applies.
If you want it, ask.
If there is a price, pay it or negotiate it until you arrive at an acceptable price, but don't steal.

(I guess people who steal my stuff, knowing it is wrong to do so, get under my skin a little.)

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

Second, anybody who has ever listened to an MP3, knows that the quality is lower then that of a CD.

That is completely not true.
I would bet most people actually think the opposite. Most people have no idea that the 128bit format that iTunes rips to is anything less then an exact copy of the source.
You give people way to much credit. I have had this discussion many times and cannto tell you how many times I have had friends tell me "there's not that much difference between 128 and 320 mp3's...."
To me, a marginal audiophile, the difference is night and day.

(but still not lossless... )

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

Second, anybody who has ever listened to an MP3, knows that the quality is lower then that of a CD. So actually the situation is exactly the same as coping a CD on to tape. It comes out lower quality. And downloading music or moves in the 2000s = recording music from the radio, or video taping a movie on TV in the 1900s. The only thing that has changed is the attitude of the courts. In the 1900s the courts ruled that it was OK for consumers to make copies for their personal use. Now in the 2000s they say you can't do that anymore. Mostly its due to societies increasing acceptance of corporate greed. Now days individuals are always wrong, and corporations, RIAA, MPAA get what ever they want. In the 1900s there was a better balance.

There is one other difference you are overlooking - if you are recording it from the radio, then the copyright owners have been paid for the air play. The radio has the right to "share" the music in this way, because an agreement has been made between the radio station and the copyright owner.

If you download it from a torrent, the copyright owner is not paid because no licensing agreement has been made between file sharers and the copyright owner.

Whether it's on the radio or a bought cd, the end consumer can make copies for personal use only, and does not have the right to give copies of the music to friends.

This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all copyright laws completely, but this is the law as I understand it.

[Trucker7]

Originally Posted by Nomadicus

Is it worth it?

Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs - Amplifier

^^^^ Now, this is why people don't have sympathy for the RIAA. Have you ever seen a $1,500,000 fine been levied for a $23.76 theft? They say that they're trying to make an example and scare people into compliance, but if that's the case, then we should be hanging drunk drivers on public squares and publicly executing drug dealers on their first arrest. The point is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Restitution + court costs + attorney's fees + fine would've been a lot more reasonable.

Also, just because someone downloads 100 songs, doesn't mean that the recording industry lost 100 sales. A lot of people would download a song for free, but wouldn't pay for it, based on the poor quality of the song. I personally have copied songs from friends (not over the internet), and they usually end up being deleted, since they reflect the musical taste of my friends, not mine. OTOH, most of the music that I regularly listen to, has been either bought on CD, or legally downloaded from Amazon.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Trucker7

Have you ever seen a $1,500,000 fine been levied for a $23.76 theft?

It's not a fine, the article title is a bit misleading. It's a civil judgment, she was sued and that's what the jury decided the damages were. It's no different than any other lawsuit, if someone infringes on your copyrighted material you need to sue them in court. If you're a "small guy" these lawsuits are usually not even worth the effort because it will cost you more in legal fees than what you might receive. They will not have registered the work before the infringement. Registration is time consuming and expensive, usually only works that have a lot of potential value will be registered like songs from very popular artists. Registration allows for much larger judgments.

Having said that it's a ridiculous amount.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

It's not a fine, the article title is a bit misleading. It's a civil judgment, she was sued and that's what the jury decided the damages were. It's no different than any other lawsuit, if someone infringes on your copyrighted material you need to sue them in court.)

Yes it is 100% totally, unquestionable different then any other type of lawsuit. And I think you know that that is not typical of a damage award in this country. US common law permits a court to triple the amount of the actual, compensatory damages to be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff, in a lawsuit (Google: "treble damages"). In which case damages on a theft of $23.76 would be limited to $71.28, not $1.5 million.

Again this is just another example of how totally one sided copyright laws are. For the first time in this country laws are not being written by the people for the people. But rather by corporations for the corporations. They dictate the terms of the copyright, they dictate the length of the copyright, they dictate the compensation, and now they even dictate damages awards for violations of their copyright. What ever arbitrary number they pull out of the air. 1.5 million, 1.5 billion, 1.5 trillion, whatever. In the future the corporations will be the judge and jury as well.

Again copyright laws are nothing but a sham. Insane awards like this one, just prove it.

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by Narfcake

Yeah. Such kept my side job going because it was assured that there were computers that needed cleaning ...

I doubt you will lose any business.

Originally Posted by NJBest

Given that bittorrents been out for almost a decade, I can't imagine Limeware having been so popular anymore

It's simple: Limewire was easy to use. Bittorrents can be easy, too, or they can require some savvy in order to navigate.

Originally Posted by rgomez912

You can still use The Pirate bay for music and movies > There are also private torrent sites that only a member from the inside can let you in and since its so closed off its almost never found.

I do not advocate, nor denounce, the use of torrent sites, but if one was to use one, I would strongly recommend avoiding Pirate Bay at all costs.

Originally Posted by NJBest

There is no theft going on. You cannot have posession of a song or movie. You can only have permission to use it. When you download a pirated song, you are making illegal use of that song. Not stealing it.

In the 50s and 60s, bootlegs (vinyl) was a big problem. The record industry claimed it was killing business. Did it? Nope.

In the early 80s, when recordable cassette tapes came out, it was thought the record industry claimed that home recording was killing the business. Did it? Nope. The industry even went as far as to sue the likes of Sony, Memorex, etc. to put pressure on them to stop producing blank cassette tapes. There was even the whole "Home Taping is Killing the Music Industry" campaign for those of you old enough to remember.

Then CDs came along. They were considered the thing that would "save" the industry. For one, consumers would have to re buy their entire collections as they moved from vinyl to CD, and two: rCDs were not yet on the horizon and even if they were, CDs could be encoded with material to prevent duplication.

Of course, rCDs came out, and the music industry once again moaned that it was going to kill the industry. Did it? Nope. Of course the industry once again tried to sue. Obviously, it didn't work this time, either.

Now we have mp3s, mp4s, and a host of other music file formats that are completely digital (i.e., no need for a carrying case). All that is required is a device that will play them (mp3 player, computer, etc.). These files can easily be moved about; over the Internet, from mp3 player to mp3 player, burned to CD, etc.

Of course, the industry claims that this is killing the industry. Is it? Nope. But here's the catch: you leave a "paper" trail on the Internet. For the first time in history, the industry can finally point the finger at specific individuals.

The industry has 50 years worth of spite and attrition to attend to. Its no wonder why they throw the book at those who are convicted.

[NJBest]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Of course, rCDs came out, and the music industry once again moaned that it was going to kill the industry. Did it? Nope. Of course the industry once again tried to sue. Obviously, it didn't work this time, either.

Now we have mp3s, mp4s, and a host of other music file formats that are completely digital (i.e., no need for a carrying case). All that is required is a device that will play them (mp3 player, computer, etc.). These files can easily be moved about; over the Internet, from mp3 player to mp3 player, burned to CD, etc.

I don't know if you were being chronological... but mp3s were in homes before Recordable CDs. I believe CD-Rs didn't make it into homes until the late 90's, while mp3s were commonly traded online since the mid 90's.

[Trucker7]

The recording industry made a crapload of money when CD were introduced in the mid-80's. The were routinely sold at a premium price, even though they were less expensive to manufacture than cassette tapes. Consumer Reports asked them then why CDs were more expensive and the answer was that the public was willing to pay more for them. It was more than ten years before consumers could start to record their own CDs, so in all that time, if you wanted crystal clear digital sound, you had to fork $15 for a CD. At least, if I only wanted to buy one song, I could still buy a 45 for $2.

When CD burners and Internet sharing became common, the recording industry was slow to adapt. CDs were still $15, but 45s were not available anymore and CD singles were about half the price of the whole CD. Downloading music over a 28.8K modem was time consuming, but at least, if offered the opportunity of providing only the music that you wanted, nothing less, nothing more. It was several years after that, that iTunes appeared, with its 99¢ songs, and then only for Macs.

Even with all the piracy that goes on today, most artists still make enough to buy multi-million dollar mansions, snort all the coke that they want, and party everyday. And yet, they don't mind sending a working class family to financial ruin over a few pirated songs.