RIAA Sets Gunsights on Binary Newsgroups

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
DailyTech is reporting that the Usenet is now the next technology on RIAA’s list of growing lawsuits.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is taking aim at Usenet newsgroup providers, though has only targeted one particular company so far. The RIAA filed a lawsuit against Usenet.com on Oct. 12, claiming the newsgroups harbors "millions of copyrighted sound recordings."
Click to expand...
 
So I guess everything is considered illegal to them now.

I hope they like hot temperatures, because they are going to have a lot of heat when burning in hell.
 
The RIAA is a dinosaur, they openly admit to not having a functioning business model. And with more and more artists opting to ditch their corrupt record labels the RIAA is scrambling to secure future profits in the only way it knows how - litigation.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." Life-Line (1939)
 
These "people" are pathetic.

[RantAtRIAA] You know why people don't want to pay for your songs? THE SHIT'S NOT WORTH BUYING. I would never in my life pay for anything by Britany Spears, or Justin Timberlake, or Kanye West, or any of the "artists" or "bands" popular today. Their "music" is created for the sole purpose of profit, and that frankly, as a musician, disgusts me. I'm not against paying for music when it's worth it, but the vast majority of new stuff, forgetaboudit! [/RantAtRIAA]
 
If ever there were an application with "substantial, non-infringing uses," this is it.
 
We need to go back to the original system. Musicians/Singers/Actors/Entertainers were paid only for their performances. If that way was good enough for Mozart, Chopin, etc., it is certainly good enough for the drunken crybabies that try to pass themselves off as "artists" these days. Just off ticket sales for performances your typical Brittany would still be quite rich.

The copyright system is in dire need of a make over, or even abolition when it comes to "performance art". And the RIAA is in dire need of prosecution under the RICO act. I want the performers to get paid, but I think the lawsuits got a bit ridiculous quite some time ago. Whatever happened to Fair Use"?

Note, I, in no way condone piracy.
 
Didn't RAMBUS and SCO try to maintain their business models by suing everything they could think of? That worked out really well for them. I would think this was a joke if it weren't the RIAA.
 
markt435 said:
why don't they just sue the entire internet:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

lol, it's getting close to that now. The thing is, if you say listen to say Iron Maiden, they've already publicly said (at their concerts) to go ahead and download their music. All they want is for people to listen to their songs. Bands mostly make money from their performances (ie concerts) on cd sales, most of the money goes to the recording labels with the bands seeing a small percentage (in comparison). Look at Linkin Park too, their last album got leaked onto the net a week or so earlier than it was due to hit stores and they didn't care, they just asked the fans for feed back and hoped we enjoyed their music.

This is just getting ridiculous, they'll sue each and everything til basically everything you do on the net is tracked in such detail that one little thing you do that goes against their "copyright" will end up with you getting your ass sued for some unreal sum.

Anyways, that's just my opinion on the matter.

-DarkEclipseGSX
 
Good luck RIAA, I think they'll lose in their fight against Usenet. Its been around for decades...
 
I'm actually surprised they haven't done this earlier. After all the newsgroups have always been about the free and open exchange of information, the very thing the RIAA most wants to eliminate.
 
It's bad enough when the government is constantly prying into our lives,now we have to worry about a private organization abusing the legal system to do the same thing.The whole process of litigation needs a major overhaul to reign in these people.
 
One more thing: I always love how they constantly claim "unspecified monitary damages". Maybe because they can't actually prove how much this "theft" is "hurting" them?

How's this: they can sue me when they can tell me EXACTLY how much I caused them to loose due to my "theft". Then I'll pay them that amount.

(The previous paragraph was hypothetical. The only junk I don't have a problem pirating I don't even find going through the effort of downloading worth it. I pay GOOD artists for GOOD music.)
 
Notice something here? (on this thread) - There are usually more people on this forum who are in support of the copyright holder and against "infringement" - I guess this has just gone too far, over the line - WAY over the line...

I used to buy CDs, I used to listen to the radio, I used to love music, now, simply hearing music is almost enough to make my stomach turn, thanks to the absurd, assinine RIAA.

Down with the RIAA!, free the music (on the Internet), sure, I'll pay to go to a concert! Heck, I'd be GLAD to pay 50 cents a song DIRECTLY TO THE BAND that made the song, for any song on my computer that I listen to more than once.

I'd like this: a program on my computer keeps track of how many times a song has been played, then a $ amount is suggested for me to make a donation to the band that made the song.

I'd happily pay $1 (no more than that, however) for a high quality (high bit rate) DRM free song download, or, $5 for an album with approx. 10 songs on it.
 
gibber said:
Notice something here? (on this thread) - There are usually more people on this forum who are in support of the copyright holder and against "infringement" - I guess this has just gone too far, over the line - WAY over the line...

I used to buy CDs, I used to listen to the radio, I used to love music, now, simply hearing music is almost enough to make my stomach turn, thanks to the absurd, assinine RIAA.

Down with the RIAA!, free the music (on the Internet), sure, I'll pay to go to a concert! Heck, I'd be GLAD to pay 50 cents a song DIRECTLY TO THE BAND that made the song, for any song on my computer that I listen to more than once.

I'd like this: a program on my computer keeps track of how many times a song has been played, then a $ amount is suggested for me to make a donation to the band that made the song.

I'd happily pay $1 (no more than that, however) for a high quality (high bit rate) DRM free song download, or, $5 for an album with approx. 10 songs on it.
Click to expand...

edit: oh, and I'm still sick of ignorant people mistakenly referring to copyright infringement as "theft" DUH?!?
 
gibber said:
edit: oh, and I'm still sick of ignorant people mistakenly referring to copyright infringement as "theft" DUH?!?
Click to expand...
So, do you warez your OS and Photoshop and other apps? If so, you are stealing.

You do have the option of running open source OS/apps like Linux and GIMP. That's up to you. But if you pirate copyrighted apps, you are a thief.
 
Lethal said:
So, do you warez your OS and Photoshop and other apps? If so, you are stealing.

You do have the option of running open source OS/apps like Linux and GIMP. That's up to you. But if you pirate copyrighted apps, you are a thief.
Click to expand...

if its indeed theft like you say and not copyright infringement why arent downloaders and sharers of such material being arrested and charged with crimes?
 
Lethal said:
So, do you warez your OS and Photoshop and other apps? If so, you are stealing.

You do have the option of running open source OS/apps like Linux and GIMP. That's up to you. But if you pirate copyrighted apps, you are a thief.
Click to expand...

"In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. "

The issue becomes, how do you define "taking". I personally define it as "the removal of an object or item from a person".

The issue with piracy is that you never deprive the person of something. Making a copy of something does not constitute taking, and depriving someone of profits is not theft. Hence, logically, piracy is not theft. It is copyright infringement, but NOT theft.
 
...ok, I REALLY hate the lack of an edit button in this forum! I use it many times right after I post a message...

a definition of "take" supporting my conclusion:

to Take: To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
b. To seize with authority; confiscate.
c. To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).
 
They are suing Usenet.com not the Usenet itself, though there are about 2 steps away from it.
Unfortunately, they do have a case considering their advertisements and promises.

If they dropped that then they should be fine, otherwise...

The next thing they are going to do is what th UK branch has done, if you have a radio in your shop and your customers can hear it then you need to by a broadcast license or you will get sued for infringement.
 
uberbucket said:
The RIAA is a dinosaur, they openly admit to not having a functioning business model.
Click to expand...

Actually the RIAA has a very functioning business model, just like those same companies who buy up all the random patents that came about in the internet boom's hey-day then they turn around and sue for royalties from individuals using like 1 line of code that's similar to "their" patent, and wammo instant money.. Replace patent with song, and you get the same thing, the RIAA sues the crap out of everyone to make money.

A couple interesting points about the article and what is said. Seems to me that usenet is simply a medium to which text messages are stored openly available to any company that wants to mirror the server. So at this point how are they going to expect to sue a particular company usenet.com (next up, giganews, meganews, etc) because the open a window to let users see what's there and access it?
 
First I read this...now I read that UK law enforcement raided TV Links and shut them down. WTF is going on in this world?!?
 
I used to work at a bar where we could bring our own music in to listen to. The place also had a jukebox full of music no one liked. The guy that services the jukebox came in one day when we were listening to our own music and started cussing at us saying we were breaking the law. I don't know if that was true or not but when the contract for the worthless jukebox service was up we got rid of it and had satellite radio put in.
 
i dont know about yall but i think this world is in need of a civil war or some thing because at the rate this is going before we know it its going be like that book Fahrenheit 451 where you cant even read a book lol
 
djBon2112 said:
These "people" are pathetic.

[RantAtRIAA] You know why people don't want to pay for your songs? THE SHIT'S NOT WORTH BUYING. I [/RantAtRIAA]
Click to expand...

But worth downloading? Which one is it? It's either crap and therefor not worth your time leeching or it is worth something, in which case you're just stealing it and using a weak argument to justify it.

The hypocrisy of so many P2P users never ceases to astound.
 
'Hypocrisy' is definitely the pertinent word to use! No honour amongst thieves nowadays. The thieves can't even admit, even to themselves, that they are engaged in the greedy, self-serving thievery. What ever happened to 'integrity'? :D
 
Here's a case that seems certain they'll lose. First there is the safe harbor provision in the DMCA, the only good thing about the DMCA. Also Usenet has been around longer than MP3s. Even Microsoft uses newsgroups for support.

Here's where they made another stupid mistake. By making this news, the RIAA risks more people using newsgroups. It's a lot better than P2P and now the RIAA is basically advertising it.
 
I have a question, to all your guys/gals saying that its crime this and thief that, are you telling me You've NEVER once, borrowed a friend's copy of a program to load up on your computer? Hell, even if you went to someone's house to use their Microsoft word, you were breaking the law. The license your friend bought was for his computer and his use. If he wanted it for multiple people he would have to purchase additional licenses. Anyway that last argument though a bit of a stretch is still true. Back to my point, you're going to tell me not once in your life have you dled something from a torrent? used napster or kazaa? I find that very very hard to believe. (now i'll wait for the bs argument of "i don't know about you, but i've never used it blah blah blah). Btw anyone here watch fansubbed anime? I'm sure you do, if the anime gets licensed but still fansubbed we are dling something illegal. So thus we owe companies like funimation money.

Anyway, the whole point is, yes it may be copyright infringement, however so many people have done it in some way or form, that the way they're currently trying to "stop" it is totally pointless. Like an earlier poster said, they'll get to the point where they'll just sue the creators of the internet for "knowingly" allowing the free exchange of copy righted material.

That's just my rant, take from it what you wish.

-DarkEclipse
 
ianken said:
But worth downloading? Which one is it? It's either crap and therefor not worth your time leeching or it is worth something, in which case you're just stealing it and using a weak argument to justify it.

The hypocrisy of so many P2P users never ceases to astound.
Click to expand...

I said in another post it's not worth pirating either. I don't even pay attention to it anymore. 90% of my music is from the '70's or early 80's. Except for a very few bands.
 
In a battle between the cocaine and methamphetamine fueled RIAA bozos and their equally depraved attorneys vs. USEnet admins and the hordes of uber-geeks that populate it, everyone knows what the outcome will be.

Come and get what's coming to you RIAA, come and get it...
 
djBon2112 said:
I said in another post it's not worth pirating either. I don't even pay attention to it anymore. 90% of my music is from the '70's or early 80's. Except for a very few bands.
Click to expand...

Even if its not worth buying, Some of it is worth listening too if its free. Just not worth spending your money for if you understand what I mean.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Actually the RIAA has a very functioning business model, just like those same companies who buy up all the random patents that came about in the internet boom's hey-day then they turn around and sue for royalties from individuals using like 1 line of code that's similar to "their" patent, and wammo instant money.. Replace patent with song, and you get the same thing, the RIAA sues the crap out of everyone to make money.
Click to expand...



That would be nice except their litigation campaign admittedly loses money.
 
I don't understand how binary newsgroups still exist. Many years ago after people realized the newsgroup data is hosted by an ISP, charges were filed against a Norwegian ISP for hosting child pornography, so they quickly got rid of their binary groups and just about every single ISP I've checked over here quickly followed suit.
 
MrLonghair said:
I don't understand how binary newsgroups still exist. Many years ago after people realized the newsgroup data is hosted by an ISP, charges were filed against a Norwegian ISP for hosting child pornography, so they quickly got rid of their binary groups and just about every single ISP I've checked over here quickly followed suit.
Click to expand...

They not only exist,they're alive and well here in the states.I'm surprised they aren't in your area,thought they were much more liberal towards censorship over there.
 
I'm suprised it took so long for them to get to usenet. There are lots of usenet services which advertise through warez and crack websites. There is also plenty of sites that flagrantly index the movies/music on usenet and compile them into nzb files which can be downloaded with one click as easy as a torrent. They are making big bucks of this and I am sure 98% of their customers are warez downloaders with the other 2% being pedophiles. The nzb/commercialization thing is what will kill it. I mean what legitimate purpose could alt.binaries.pirate.copy.illegal.warez.movie.dvdrs possibly have?
 
I think 98% is an inflated figure as far as warez downloaders go.The torrent sites have probably drawn a lot of them away,it's easier and more reliable.And downloaders looking for legal adult material probably make up a significant percentage.
 
BladeVenom said:
Here's a case that seems certain they'll lose. First there is the safe harbor provision in the DMCA, the only good thing about the DMCA. Also Usenet has been around longer than MP3s.
Click to expand...

Actually it's one of the stronger cases which have been put forward, because of the clear evidence which exists indicating that people organising and providing the service have advertised its use with public messages to the effect "now that p2p is under attack usenet is the best place to get your warez."

DarkEclipseGSX said:
I have a question, to all your guys/gals saying that its crime this and thief that, are you telling me You've NEVER once, borrowed a friend's copy of a program to load up on your computer?
Click to expand...
Complete and utter irrelevence. Are you siggesting that, because I may have stolen something at some stage in my life, I am forever after forbidden or unsuitable to point the finger of accusation at somebody else's thievery? That's ridiculous.

Yes, there are many, many millions of people worldwide engaging in these activities. But that doesn't make them somehow 'legitimate activities'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top