Company Must Help ID Suspects Accused of Pirating Music

[jumar]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1442301

July 6th, 2007 @ 7:24am
(KSL News) A federal judge has ordered a Utah County Internet company to help identify four people accused of music piracy.

A group of music companies filed suit against the four, who are only known by their Web addresses. A Provo company will now help track down the suspects' personal information.

The Deseret Morning News reports the four allegedly downloaded hundreds of pirated music files from a peer-to-peer file-sharing network.

The music industry has as many as 18,000 similar suits against people across the country. This is the first suit of its kind in Utah.

[ericchile]

Comcast and Qwest have been giving Personal Contact info to RIAA for a long time.....

[Sombeech]

The freaking music business still believes they need to be rich.

Actors, Musicians, and Artists can make a great living, but they don't always need to be billionaires. They can make their money through sponsorships & concerts as well.

[CarpeyBiggs]

The freaking music business still believes they need to be rich.

Actors, Musicians, and Artists can make a great living, but they don't always need to be billionaires. They can make their money through sponsorships & concerts as well.

Hmm.... Stealing is still stealing... And I'm sure there are alot of musicians out there who can't make a good living then there are who do.

[Sombeech]

Hmm.... Stealing is still stealing... And I'm sure there are alot of musicians out there who can't make a good living then there are who do.

There are always arguments made for the struggling musicians that are false.

1. Recording musicians get paid by the record company.
2. Struggling musicians' songs are rarely, rarely shared, or "stolen". Nobody knows them. It is always the big names, the multi millionaires.
3. Selling records is just one way to make money. Free publicity is actually very good for a poor musician. This is why they often hand out their albums on the corner or at events.

We have this concept that not paying for a song is stealing. It's false. This would mean we are stealing every day, just by logging on to the internet and reading the news.

People used to buy a lot more newspapers before the internet. But if KSL.com supplies the news for free, is that stealing?

It's the end of a certain era, and music companies won't accept that.

[derstuka]

Hmm.... Stealing is still stealing... And I'm sure there are alot of musicians out there who can't make a good living then there are who do.

There are always arguments made for the struggling musicians that are false.

1. Recording musicians get paid by the record company.
2. Struggling musicians' songs are rarely, rarely shared, or "stolen". Nobody knows them. It is always the big names, the multi millionaires.
3. Selling records is just one way to make money. Free publicity is actually very good for a poor musician. This is why they often hand out their albums on the corner or at events.

We have this concept that not paying for a song is stealing. It's false. This would mean we are stealing every day, just by logging on to the internet and reading the news.

People used to buy a lot more newspapers before the internet. But if KSL.com supplies the news for free, is that stealing?

It's the end of a certain era, and music companies won't accept that.

Ya know, I am all for burning the CD's I have, and sharing them, however, I know that this is stealing in a way, even though I do not care if they sell on less CD. I do not think that your analogy of comparing it to KSL news holds water. I mean, they make money from advertisers, and want put their news on the web for free for a reason. Newspapers make very little money from their circulation charges, most is from advertisers and whatnot.

I think you are trying to jusfity it because it is not physical really (well, on a CD it is). They cannot be like Toyota and sell you a truck, and not worry about you having a way to copy that truck and give it to every friend that you know for free, otherwise, Toyota would have a big problem with you. You would have hurting their sales, and costing them big money.

What if only one person in a town of 5000 bought a CD of yours for $10 bucks? He burned it, and gave a copy to everybody free of charge. Would this make you unhappy? Losing $49,990 dollars?

I think that the "free publicity" that you mention might be good for a no-name band to get noticed, but not for big name bands. Lots of $$ being lost by the execs and the musicans.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Sombeech, my guess is you haven't produced much intellectual property you actually care about maintaining rights to. Your perspective is interesting from a money perspective, but under US law, the original holder (Author) to the intellectual property is the ONLY person who has the rights to distribute that piece of property. Unless he sells or assigns that right to someone else.

While I understand your argument on the money, the law isn't concerned so much about the "money" aspect. It's about "rights management." No matter how you slice it, it is stealing. Justify it how you may.

[stefan]

We have this concept that not paying for a song is stealing. It's false. This would mean we are stealing every day, just by logging on to the internet and reading the news.

People used to buy a lot more newspapers before the internet. But if KSL.com supplies the news for free, is that stealing?

i'm not following ...

well in many cases the news is not free ... it's subsidized by advertisements. your ksl example is compared with broadcasting music over the radio. we're talking more about books or chapters of books or something. are books free beech?

It's the end of a certain era, and music companies won't accept that.

there is some truth to this. music does need to be supported but it shouldn't be absurdly expensive to have access to a lot of it. there is a large difference between the quality of FM broadcast, mp3/compressed, and lossless music too, though the general population might not care too much.

i think it's neat to witness such transitional times. records, 8tracks tapes, cds, digital files, ... someday the celestial jukebox with access to more than one could ever imagine at the touch of a button. pretty wild time. though i must admit, we certainly do take music for granted in this day and age. how special must music have been to people of the past ... something we likely will never comprehend.

[Sombeech]

What if only one person in a town of 5000 bought a CD of yours for $10 bucks? He burned it, and gave a copy to everybody free of charge. Would this make you unhappy? Losing $49,990 dollars?

This is the problem. If somebody downloads a song for free, the industry assumes they would've paid for it. This is rarely the case. Most people are just "checking out" the music, and sometimes even decide to buy the album after sampling it.

Let's take the news again, including all of television. They pay their reporters, producers, sometimes interns, and the rest of their bills. How many news stations & employees are there across the nation? How many of these services are free to the public?

It's 100% paid for by sponsorship. Maybe some donations here and there....

Now, musicians on the other hand, STILL sell albums. They perform concerts, and we all know they are sponsored by multi billion dollar companies. They are not hurting.

[CarpeyBiggs]

We have this concept that not paying for a song is stealing. It's false. This would mean we are stealing every day, just by logging on to the internet and reading the news.

People used to buy a lot more newspapers before the internet. But if KSL.com supplies the news for free, is that stealing?

It is if those people are stealing content from other sources and distributing it. Absolutely. But under your argument, they are the original AUTHORS of the content, so they can distribute it however they choose.

[asdf]

I think the problem is that POP sucks... POP rock, Hip-POP, American Idle, and Lip syncing asslcowns that no one wants to pay good money to see them preform live. So they live and die on CD sales... of course they always assume that if you download a song that were would of gone to a store and paid full price for the album.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Now, musicians on the other hand, STILL sell albums. They perform concerts, and we all know they are sponsored by multi billion dollar companies. They are not hurting.

You LDS? Do you use this same argument for why you should only pay a 2 percent tithing? I mean hey, the church ain't hurting for money is it? But I imagine you realize the law is the law.

Okay, religion is probably not a fair comparision, but you are still yet to explain how this isn't stealing. Just because a company is getting filthy rich, doesn't warrant that someone can steal from them.

[stefan]

Sombeech, my guess is you haven't produced much intellectual property you actually care about maintaining rights to. Your perspective is interesting from a money perspective, but under US law, the original holder (Author) to the intellectual property is the ONLY person who has the rights to distribute that piece of property. Unless he sells or assigns that right to someone else.

While I understand your argument on the money, the law isn't concerned so much about the "money" aspect. It's about "rights management." No matter how you slice it, it is stealing. Justify it how you may.

yup and well said.

and when it comes to purchasing a CD, the only right you have, under the law, is to burn a single disc for backup.

[stefan]

a big part of the problem is that we've had the ability to record since the recording magnetic tape emerged. recording the radio broadcasts and other records and tapes and then CDs has developed a *false* sense of entitlement to music amongst a span of generations. this is only amplified and worsened with computers and the ability to generate a near exact copy and the capability of broadbanding it.

ultimately a happy medium between those who make, sell and listen to music must be reached for this to be sustainable and fair.

[Sombeech]

Sombeech, my guess is you haven't produced much intellectual property you actually care about maintaining rights to.

yup and well said.

Hmmm, think again.

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1469

I'm making 1-2 of these a week now.

I am actually happy to distribute these for free, even with the time and energy I spend almost every day producing them. You guys have to get off of the record sales bandwagon. You'd never make it in the TV/radio business.

[Sombeech]

But under your argument, they are the original AUTHORS of the content, so they can distribute it however they choose.

In my experience, 100% of the news' content is from other people. It is all other people's content that they distribute. Of course, they get consent to air the material, but the argument is whether or not we should pay for the news.

Why is it not stealing to log onto YouTube.com? It's all media that we're not paying for. Many of those videos cost money to make too, like mine.

[asdf]

Did you know that Dave Matthews Band pre-releases their albums online to the file sharing community and they are still one of the top selling artists.
Most bands (keyword bands) support free files sharing.

[hank moon]

Comcast and Qwest have been giving Personal Contact info to RIAA for a long time.....

thet's a mighty strong claim there, pardnuh - can you dockit? I read somewhere that Qwest was one of the only telecoms to refuse to cooperate nicely with Bush's Domestic Spying Initiative (DSI) so a bit skep they're singin' to the RIAA.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I'm making 1-2 of these a week now.

I am actually happy to distribute these for free, even with the time and energy I spend almost every day producing them. You guys have to get off of the record sales bandwagon. You'd never make it in the TV/radio business.

And all the while PIRATING and illegally DISTRIBUTING the music you use to make them. Hey, I'm guilty of making videos with music as well, but I at least don't justify it by saying "it isn't stealing." I know it's illegal, but I just assume I won't get busted. At least I paid for the track I used though... (oh wait, there I go justifying)

Honestly, what is your incentive for making these videos? It certainly isn't money. I imagine it is for fun, for recognition, to help get more people to uutah.com, etc... And so your motives for protecting your stuff aren't as threatened as others. And what's more, no one else has the ability to clone your videos and distribute them for their personal gain at this point. That's the big difference. Or if they did, I bet you'd be pissed. Say someone takes all your master files, makes a DVD, calls it their own, and starts selling it online. I bet you'd change your tune. (no pun intended)

I actually worked for KUTV for some time, and currently work in the cable tv industry. This kinda stuff is exactly why digital rights management is at the forefront of every new technology.

On another side note, I do a lot of photography in my free time, with the hope of making money off of it. Unfortunately, rights management in photography has seriously affected the industry, and new photographers have a very difficult time turning a profit, mainly because of the saturation of "rights free" photography. The same thing would happen in the music industry if artists gave away their rights to their music.

[CarpeyBiggs]

But under your argument, they are the original AUTHORS of the content, so they can distribute it however they choose.

In my experience, 100% of the news' content is from other people. It is all other people's content that they distribute. Of course, they get consent to air the material, but the argument is whether or not we should pay for the news.

Why is it not stealing to log onto YouTube.com? It's all media that we're not paying for. Many of those videos cost money to make too, like mine.

The news is not all regurgitated, there are original authors somewhere. All outlets PAY for the rights to use those other authors.

Also, the news isn't designed to be paid for. CD's are. Sorry, different business models. Let's keep apples and apples in the same basket.