Page 1 of 2
"Why I stopped sharing music." Article.
Posted: 2003-09-08 05:44pm
by Stravo
Why I've stopped sharing music
Suit filed against one student prompts another to change
By Powell Fraser
CNN
Monday, September 8, 2003 Posted: 2:49 PM EDT (1849 GMT)
(CNN) -- On April 3, the Recording Industry Association of America filed suit against my college hall mate.
Daniel Peng, 17, a computer wiz who skipped two grades before coming to Princeton University, ran a campus-wide search engine that could be used to locate and download songs and movies.
The music industry slapped him with a lawsuit seeking potentially billions of dollars in damages for distributing copyrighted works. His site was shut down and his life thrown into chaos.
Dan, a junior, lived right down the hall from me last semester, and his plight made me rethink the whole issue of sharing music online.
Students wipe hard drives
News of Dan's situation exploded on the New Jersey campus. Some students sprinted back to their dorm rooms to wipe their hard disks clean of any record of unauthorized downloads.
Those who ran similar sites pulled the plug on their machines and waited, fearfully, to see if they would be targeted. Others simply shrugged, opened up Kazaa and went on swapping music.
With Dan's site gone, these bolder souls simply sought another. But Dan's experience revolutionized the way I download music: I started paying for it.
Having researched various subscription services for a term paper, I made a quick transition to Roxio's Pressplay client and began to pay a monthly fee for unlimited downloads through their service.
After a while, my collection of MP3s had grown so large I could no longer tell which ones were legally mine.
Seeking donations to pay fine
After the industry settled out of court with Dan, who agreed to pay $15,000, he replaced his Wake search engine with a page seeking contributions to help pay his settlement.
I used my credit card to send him $20 and students nationwide banded together to help Dan, who told me he has raised almost $4,000. A few of us helped him out of sympathy, perhaps inspired by a guilty conscience.
Until Dan's case showed us how far the music industry would go to stop Internet downloads, a lot of students thought this was an infraction similar to speeding on the highway. The case against Dan persuaded many to slow down.
Still, when I hear a timeless Beatles classic on the radio and then go home to look for it on Pressplay or ITunes and it isn't there, I tend to longingly eye the Kazaa icon that still sits on my desktop, beckoning me to return to piracy.
Only fear and Dan Peng's ordeal keep me in line.
-- Powell Fraser, an undergraduate at Princeton University, is an intern at CNN.com
Looks like the RIAA's campiagn of terror has had some effect.
Posted: 2003-09-08 05:48pm
by Shinova
I have a question:
The Constitutional law of no search and seizure without a warrant: does that apply only to law agencies and government?
Posted: 2003-09-08 06:09pm
by Embracer Of Darkness
Propaganda. *Isn't impressed*. Besides, I'm in England, nyer nyer.
Posted: 2003-09-08 06:14pm
by Keevan_Colton
In the immortal words of so many before.
"Blow me"
I live in the UK so the RIAA mean precisely fuck all to me, thier bullshit over a fucking search engine that simpled searched to campus network was sickening. Why didnt they sue the university for providing a network?
Oh yeah, they might have been able to afford the bills....as I recall part of the settlement here was that he admitted no crime, his actions were NOT illegal, unfortunately thanks to the fucked up way of things over there people with lots of money and lawyers can fuck over those without irrespective of the real legal situation.
Posted: 2003-09-08 06:30pm
by phongn
He didn't go into trial - he's unlikely to have been able to pay the lawyer fees and that much time out of class would have seriously affected his academic career. Thus, he settled out of court - to the tune of $15000.
The incident in question was absolute extortion on the RIAA's part.
Posted: 2003-09-08 09:27pm
by Slartibartfast
Let's see if any RIAA agent risks coming here to accuse me of anything and maybe get in the way of a carbomb
(or a bus driver, just as lethal)
Posted: 2003-09-08 09:36pm
by Hotfoot
Shinova wrote:I have a question:
The Constitutional law of no search and seizure without a warrant: does that apply only to law agencies and government?
I would imagine. However, in the civilian realm it's called Breaking and Entering, along with theft, IIRC.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it the problem is suing somone is a civil suit, not criminal. You can win a civil suit, even if doing something illegal is what created the situation you are suing over. For an example, there is the case of the burglar who sued his victims because he fell through the glass skylight and injured himself. He won the case, though the fact remains that he was illegally trespassing at the time, with intent to break in and rob the people he was suing.
Of course, since the RIAA has tons of cash to throw around (despite their incessant whining that they're losing money to the evil nasty pirates), they can tie down any legal proceedings (civil or criminal) for quite some time. So even if they did break the law, calling them on it (and making them pay for it) would take quite a long time and quite fruitless for most sources.
Posted: 2003-09-08 10:14pm
by Sriad
Lame.
Though I think I've seen that article before.
Posted: 2003-09-08 10:42pm
by The Cleric
Is iTunes better than Pressplay? I have 900ish songs that I'd like to convert to legal files.
Posted: 2003-09-09 01:04am
by Coaan
Just like keevan, I'll go find a lovely big hill and flip off the Riaa from here! Isn't it a shame they can't actually do anything to those outside of America? Oh yes...teeeeeeerrible shame.
Posted: 2003-09-09 02:15am
by EmperorMing
Coaan wrote:Just like keevan, I'll go find a lovely big hill and flip off the Riaa from here! Isn't it a shame they can't actually do anything to those outside of America? Oh yes...teeeeeeerrible shame.
And I hope you guys continue to flip them the bird...
Posted: 2003-09-09 03:18am
by beyond hope
Why I stopped downloading: dialup out here in the sticks is too bloody slow.
Posted: 2003-09-09 03:21am
by Darth Wong
Why I don't download: the P2P clients are lame, often spyware-ridden, the performance is often shitty, and most of the music sucks anyway.
Posted: 2003-09-09 04:22am
by beyond hope
You'd be surprised at some of the obscure things you can turn up. Alan Silvestri's score for Predator, for example, which was never released aside from a few bootleg editions. As far as modern music goes I'd agree, but then someone like me who listens to Abba has no business commenting on bad music.
Posted: 2003-09-09 07:10am
by Hethrir
I buy all my music. I download a few tracks, see if i like it, if so i buy it, otherwise delete it.
Posted: 2003-09-09 08:53am
by phongn
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Is iTunes better than Pressplay? I have 900ish songs that I'd like to convert to legal files.
iTMS is generally considered excellent, but it's Mac-only at the moment. A iWindows version is to be released Real Soon Now(tm).
Posted: 2003-09-09 01:18pm
by aronkerkhof
To the others talking about breaking, entering, and hacking, I think the way around this is that the RIAA is just browsing for people sharing music. In other words, you're advertising you have it, they aren't really hacking anything to burn you. It would be interesting if everyone moved to a freenet style system how effective that defense would be.
At any rate, I think the strong disconnect between people illegally copying music and other data and them thinking it is "wrong" is because of how twisted the copyright system has become. When it was established, it was a pact with the public; the public said we won't make unauthorized copies of your works, in return for you entering your works in the public domain after a reasonable time frame.
That reasonable time frame has come to mean however old Mickey Mouse is plus 30 years. We should have vast swaths of music and literature from the 1950's and earlier in the public domain, but we don't. Instead, we have boy and girl scouts having to license 100 year old folk songs from a song writers association. This, combined with the sheer extortion of music prices is causing both the public who is tired of being screwed and the corporations who want to keep the gravy train flowing to get ugly. Note the elegant PR term of "piracy" that says music sharing = selling bootleg cd's on the street = rape and murder on the high seas.
I believe the public outcry over this will eventually bring about some reforms in the system. Note that when that happens, it will still be illegal to copy current pop music, as it should be. But in the wake of the reforms, we'll have cheaper and easy to use software to legitimately license music. Like a more flexible, cheaper iTunes.
I personally listen to music at 3wk.com and use Kazaa Lite to download obscure MST3K's. The latter is still a copyright violation, but one I'm comfortable with until they release them on DVD's. And I'm not pirating them, I'm making unauthorized personal copies. That sounds less criminal, doesn't it?
Posted: 2003-09-09 01:25pm
by Stravo
I think I heard in the audio commentary for Equilibrium (If you have not seen it stop reading this and go see the movie. Very little romance, lots of action and gun-kata need I say more?) that the director could not use a certain piece of classical music because the licensing costs were too expensive. CLASSICAL MUSIC?! We're talking centuries old here? How in the hell does someone own rights to music that old? The artists is long dead.
Posted: 2003-09-09 02:14pm
by aronkerkhof
Stravo wrote:...director could not use a certain piece of classical music because the licensing costs were too expensive. CLASSICAL MUSIC?! We're talking centuries old here? How in the hell does someone own rights to music that old? The artists is long dead.
Yes, I remember that. Awesome movie.
IIRC, no one can "own" the rights to something that old, like a Mozart or Bach piece, but you can "own" an original recording of that music. Perhaps what he was saying is that it would be prohibitively expensive to license, say, the Londom Symphony Orchestra's recording of the classical music, or to get a composer together to record his own version. It seems odd that he couldn't pay a digital artist to synthesize something nice sounding on a MIDI board and do an end run around the system altogether, but I'm ignorant of the details of how expensive that would be. Remember, EQ was ultra low budget for a movie of its type.
Posted: 2003-09-09 02:28pm
by Death from the Sea
Stravo wrote:I think I heard in the audio commentary for Equilibrium (If you have not seen it stop reading this and go see the movie. Very little romance, lots of action and gun-kata need I say more?) that the director could not use a certain piece of classical music because the licensing costs were too expensive. CLASSICAL MUSIC?! We're talking centuries old here? How in the hell does someone own rights to music that old? The artists is long dead.
kinda like how Michael Jackson owns the copyright to the "Happy Birthday" song. Ever notice how in movies they rarely sing the real "Happy Birthday" song but instead they sing some variant of it, MJ is the reason.
Posted: 2003-09-09 02:36pm
by Stravo
Death from the Sea wrote:Stravo wrote:I think I heard in the audio commentary for Equilibrium (If you have not seen it stop reading this and go see the movie. Very little romance, lots of action and gun-kata need I say more?) that the director could not use a certain piece of classical music because the licensing costs were too expensive. CLASSICAL MUSIC?! We're talking centuries old here? How in the hell does someone own rights to music that old? The artists is long dead.
kinda like how Michael Jackson owns the copyright to the "Happy Birthday" song. Ever notice how in movies they rarely sing the real "Happy Birthday" song but instead they sing some variant of it, MJ is the reason.
That has to be an urban legend. Christ if thats true...
Posted: 2003-09-09 02:39pm
by Keevan_Colton
Posted: 2003-09-09 03:12pm
by The Yosemite Bear
Who listens to current music the last 20 or so disk I bought Didn't even come out in my life time. (Robert Johnson, Billie Holiday, Howlin Wolf, Early Stones, Early Who, Harry Belefonte, Muddy Waters, Bertle Brecht/Kurt Weill, Mozart, Wagner, Irish Folk Music, Marlene Deitrich, Blues Compelation Albums, Hank Williams, etc.) all recorded well before 1970.... ALthough I am thinking of getting Warren Zevon's Last Album.
Posted: 2003-09-09 03:20pm
by Keevan_Colton
I know what you mean colin, most of my CD's have the original copyright date before my birth....
Posted: 2003-09-09 03:33pm
by The Yosemite Bear
I find this also amusing since my burns are all perfectly legal, most of them expired copywrite decades before the RIAA had it extended to a century plus, and are in a format not condusive to modern listening (reel to reel 24 Track, and 78rpm records), and since the large collection of Greatful Dead Reel to Reel recordings were made with the band's permission *and a big FUCK YOU to the RIAA* I have no problem. I really do have to get over to my dad's and make some more burns of my dad's dead recordings......