STORM2K

The following is an interesting article from Ralph Bristow, a radio talk show host in SC. After thinking about this..I deleted all my music files and got rid of any downloaded software. I have had 3 teenagers in my house, and I am sure that they have piled up a gazillion music files.

I'm curious if any of the legally connected members out there (linda....), know where this whole suit is going, and if the average tom dick and harry (or John) out there, that has downloaded music, has anything to worry about?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are the parent of a teenager who's been using his or her (or your) computer to download music over the Internet, brace yourself. The Recording Industry Association of America may be coming after you in a lawsuit, claiming damages of up to $150,000 for each song downloaded.

So far, 261 suits have been filed in federal courthouses in New York City, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and elsewhere. The first round of suits targeted what the record industry described as "major offenders" illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each, but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.

One of the first people sued was a 71-year-old grandfather who rarely uses his computer, but his grandchildren are prolific shoplifters of music on the Internet. He doesn't think he should be held accountable for his grandchildren's theft, but the record industry isn't interest in explanations. It sues the person who pays for the household Internet account.

U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, so Gramps could be looking at a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Even if he doesn't have to pay that much, he's going to pay plenty for his lawyer's time to fight the suit.

While I sympathize with the recording industry, which has been the victim of a the largest organized crime ring in the world, the action to stop the estimated 60 million thieves is the wrong way to go. The industry has equated the crime to shoplifting. The thieves should be charged with shoplifting, not sued in federal court.

Let's say Jimmy stole 200 songs over the Internet, and each song had a fair market value of $2. He should be charged with stealing $400 worth of music. If he's found guilty, he should be forced to make restitution and pay a reasonable fine - say $1,000. He won't even need a lawyer if he decides to plead guilty.

The way this is being handled, Jimmy (or his dad or grandpa) could face a lawsuit up to $30 million. That seems a bit excessive for stealing $400 worth of music. Even if the offenders get off easy, they will have to pay a defense lawyer several thousand dollars to get them out of their jam.

The industry is offering amnesty for people who admit they illegally share music and pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply to people who have already been sued.

As you might suspect, some defense lawyers are objecting to the record industry's amnesty program.

It's probably too late to stop the record industry's runaway "lawsuit express," but it's not too late to lobby Congress for a change in the copyright law that fuels it. The law should be immediately amended so that future violations of music copyright law are handled as misdemeanor crimes, not as civil suits.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does seem excessive. I agree with the writer that a better way of handling this is to charge several dollars per song and a fine of $1,000. Although I would blame those that allow the songs to be downloaded vs. those that actually download the songs.

I used to download from Napster. The only reason I did that was so I could have music files to listen to while online or even offline. I have alot of songs downloaded from the 80's and even from the 70's that you can't find anymore or never liked the whole cassette but liked one song. All the new stuff I have did not make a difference to me, I still bought the CD's. Afterall, you can't take your computer in the car so you can listen to your music.

This new ploy by the greedy music industry is a bit extreme and an invasion of privacy on what you do in your own home. I hope it gets dismissed and a lesson be taught to the ISP's and those greedy execs.

Lin...you are the exception I'd have to say. The majority of music downloaders turn right around and burn themselves a CD, myself included.

I'm not overly concerned about what I have done, like you I go after the older music, but what does concern me is the amount of music my kids have downloaded.

Invasion of privacy is the key here, and I would like think that there has to be some shifty money hungry Lawyers out there that will turn the table on the Music Industry and sue them for IOP.

I don't see the difference between sharing music over the internet and someone sharing their tapes and cd's so that person can copies of the music. What about recording off of a radio? Are they going to go after people doing that too?

I think that those fines are a bit excessive myself. What if the record companies put their music out on the internet and charged a nominal fee for each download per person?

That is being done already Steph, or in the works (I do believe). Not so sure its by the Music Industry or a 2nd party so to speak that contracts the rights.

The difference is that the poor Music Industry is losing money (so they say) at an exponential rate due to the power of the Internet.

The prices are too high for me. I for one, will not spend over $10 for a CD. Most of my CD purchases have been made through the Record clubs with the price averaging out at about $7.50 - $8.00.

Having been in the Disc Jockey business, I feel like I have more than paid my dues to the Record Industry. A little freebie here and there....so what!

In theory, the principal the Music Industry is baseing the lawsuits on is a hard one to argue. Piracy is Piracy, but...at the same time....invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy!

Stephanie wrote:I don't see the difference between sharing music over the internet and someone sharing their tapes and cd's so that person can copies of the music. What about recording off of a radio? Are they going to go after people doing that too?

I think that those fines are a bit excessive myself. What if the record companies put their music out on the internet and charged a nominal fee for each download per person?

I agree Steph... it is like the domino affect. You let one do it they will all want to do it. When that happens it clogs up our court system for the more needy lawsuits and well deserving lawsuits.

I agree both Lindaloo and j - there has to be a median somewhere.

If the record companies got with the 21st century and started to sell the songs off of the net, they would be in the money again I'm sure. Not to mention the fact of the $$$ savings that they would incur from lower production and packaging costs.

Stephanie, to answer your question -- some music is available for download at sites such as http://www.buymusic.com ! You pay for each song you download. I have downloaded only three songs, but the quality is good.

Thanks wx247! Do they have a large selection of music?

j wrote:That is being done already Steph, or in the works (I do believe). Not so sure its by the Music Industry or a 2nd party so to speak that contracts the rights.

The difference is that the poor Music Industry is losing money (so they say) at an exponential rate due to the power of the Internet.

The prices are too high for me. I for one, will not spend over $10 for a CD. Most of my CD purchases have been made through the Record clubs with the price averaging out at about $7.50 - $8.00.

Having been in the Disc Jockey business, I feel like I have more than paid my dues to the Record Industry. A little freebie here and there....so what!

In theory, the principal the Music Industry is baseing the lawsuits on is a hard one to argue. Piracy is Piracy, but...at the same time....invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy!

LOL j..I never thought I would say this..but I agree with you..100%

The industry's lawsuits are the wrong way to solve the problem. It's like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and all the others. The enemy will always stay one step ahead. The industry needs to offer an alternative that meets the desires of the consumers.

I checked out buymusic.com
Looks like they have a decent selection. This is exactly what is needed to solve this problem. LISTEN TO THE CUSTOMERS. DUH!

LISTEN TO THE CUSTOMERS. DUH!

No THERE'S a concept!

I agree Ed.

And Stephanie... I can not speak to their variety as I have only downloaded three country songs, but all 3 were just entering the top 40 when I downloaded them so they are good on new music it seems.

Well, I am not going to lie, I do use one of those free download programs to download music. However, I don't use it excessively, and it doesn't keep me from buying cd's that have more than one good song! I have lots of bills and do not have the luxury to buy every single song I like. And I feel the punishment for this is a little high! Now, for those people who do use it excessively and burn cd after cd, they should be punished, but imo these d/l places are not only a good place to hear songs before buying a cd, they are also good for bands who are newer. If people hear their music, they'll be more likely to take in interest in the band or singer and buy their music! I know I am the exception to what you all are saying, but I just wanted to share my opinion because I don't take the time to do it enough!

j wrote:In theory, the principal the Music Industry is baseing the lawsuits on is a hard one to argue. Piracy is Piracy, but...at the same time....invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy!

This is going to draw fire from you J, but first let me say that I agree with you 100%. I just wanted to say that the way they will get around the Invasion of Privacy issue is that on these P2P downloading software, if you set your settings to share files, you are opening your PC up to seeing what is on it. Therefor eliminating the IOP issue for the music you are sharing and downloading. Anyone with the same software can see what files you have in your shared folder.

I am also a Dj and have paid my dues and then some to the record industry. Many thousands of dollars invested that they are spending. I have downloaded a few songs, but only when there is a special request ahead of time for a wedding or whatever, and I cannot find that particular song, or do not have time to go out and purchase it.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

not drawing any fire from me (you agreed with me 100%).....I agree with you also in regards to if you set your system to "share" files, then you are asking for it basically.

For the record...I've only downloaded music..never have I shared files..I'm stingy like that, plus I always felt that was like opening your door to the world to see what your up to.

which leads to this: by not allowing sharing of files, are you off the hook for potential lawsuits????

furthermore...if you are sued, then this is clearly an IOP since you didn't leave the door open with an open invitation to look at your goods.

which morphs to another point....why isn't the use of "spyware" illegal?

footnote to blizzard....I am out of the business..have been since before the days of music file sharing. I can imagine the temptation it would be today to find all the music I needed w/o ever leaving my comfy seat in front of the computer.

At the time I had quit, I had over 700 CD's and probably 200 cassettes with stuff I obtained from fellow DJ's. (They probably want to sue us for that too!!!)

Has anyone seen the commercial where the cops throw the guy in jail telling him to try down loading this, and they open the jail door & there is some elderly people ,a few younger children, some middle age people,sitting there too. It was funny, but makes you wonder how worried should the average joe be???? :o

lol....J....You are probably right about them wanting to sue over copied tapes. Which has been done for years. The record companies tried to do something about that also with copy protection features and lawsuits, which didn't work. This way it seems easier for them to gain ground, with the internet what it is and all. I also agree with your 2 most recent posts. Spyware should be illegal, that IMO is invasion of privacy.

And, I don't share any files either, it concerns me when I open up a file location to anyone on the net.