Musicians Welcome File-Swapping Ruling

Post by **phjim** » June 28, 2005 6:05 am

A Supreme Court ruling Monday cleared the way for record labels to sue file-sharing software firms, saying the decision is a victory for artists' rights.

Henley and 53 other artists including Crow, the Dixie Chicks, Jimmy Buffett, Bonnie Raitt and Tom Jones signed on to a legal brief filed with the high court by artists rights groups and organizations in support of the Hollywood studios and recording companies.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/entert ... 999170.htm

ToplessRideFL · Post by **ToplessRideFL** » June 28, 2005 8:02 am

How does this effect those who download shows from some of the free sites mentioned on BN?

Lastplaneout · Post by **Lastplaneout** » June 28, 2005 11:50 am

Don't worry about it. They try to shut stuff down everyday. The government needs to keep it's nose out of certain places

captainpea · Post by **captainpea** » June 28, 2005 12:42 pm

ToplessRideFL wrote:How does this effect those who download shows from some of the free sites mentioned on BN?

That's the same shirt Jimmy wore last Wednesday in Mansield, MA. Is it the same show

Eudyptes55 · Post by **Eudyptes55** » June 28, 2005 12:48 pm

He wore the same shirt in Pitt too

landshark04 · Post by **landshark04** » June 28, 2005 1:15 pm

Eudyptes55 wrote:He wore the same shirt in Pitt too

im pretty sure he wore it at mohegan also

Did Jimmy forget to pack extra shirts for the road?

springparrot · Post by **springparrot** » June 28, 2005 1:21 pm

Could he have more that one??
Nawww---probably not

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » June 28, 2005 6:43 pm

ToplessRideFL wrote:How does this effect those who download shows from some of the free sites mentioned on BN?

It doesn't... that's always been technically illegal.

This is about whether a software company can be held liable for the crimes committed by the end user, specifically in a case where the software company ENCOURAGED the illegal use of the product, in fact built a business model on the assumption of illegal use.

12vmanRick · Post by **12vmanRick** » June 28, 2005 6:56 pm

I'd bet you anything that these people do not lose much money on downloads. I can tell you whenever I have downloaded (oh the horror ) I have done it to get a better sampling of the artists music and have either deleted or bought the full album. The RARE exception is with older stuff that you can't find just ONE song.

Anyway it's all about MONEY these people are not worried about THEIR rights or copyrights as the case may be. GREED!!!

ToplessRideFL · Post by **ToplessRideFL** » June 28, 2005 7:00 pm

captainpea wrote:That's the same shirt Jimmy wore last Wednesday in Mansield, MA. Is it the same show

Don't know...borrowed the pic from the Pitt show posting...... RM doesnt have video...... YET!!!

I liked it 'cause it reminds me that I will be in jamaica soon!

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » June 28, 2005 7:01 pm

I disagree Rick...

Napster made a ton of money through advertising by encouraging folks to trade songs, including many of mine. None of that money was shared with me but, more importantly, I was never asked my permission to share my music across the network.

For a lot of people its the principle of the matter - my recordings are legally mine to control as I see fit. I alone have the legal right to decide how my music is distributed and whether I should be paid or not.

What bothered me in both Napster and Grokster is the idea that my music is being used illegally to build a business without either my permission or financial compensation.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » June 28, 2005 7:01 pm

I disagree Rick...

Napster made a ton of money through advertising by encouraging folks to trade songs, including many of mine. None of that money was shared with me but, more importantly, I was never asked my permission to share my music across their network.

For a lot of people its the principle of the matter - my recordings are legally mine to control as I see fit. I alone have the legal right to decide how my music is distributed and whether I should be paid or not.

What bothered me in both Napster and Grokster is the idea that my music is being used illegally to build a business without either my permission or financial compensation.

Tropically Challenged · Post by **Tropically Challenged** » June 28, 2005 7:35 pm

I agree. The artists are the ones who should ultimately decide on the distribution network for their products. If an artist wants you to SAMPLE his work, the artist can make it available a number of ways, including the artist's own web-site, live performances and of course radio play and music stores. Doing what is takes to stop people from STEALING is not GREED.

AlbatrossFlyer · Post by **AlbatrossFlyer** » June 28, 2005 8:08 pm

what it may do is put Phjim/BN and the software firm that supplies the discussion board software in jeparody of being sued because they do not prevent file sharing.

personally if i was jim i would add to the rules no posts associated with file sharing and delete any thread promoting file sharing. concerts are copyrighted material.

12vmanRick · Post by **12vmanRick** » June 28, 2005 8:14 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:I disagree Rick...

Napster made a ton of money through advertising by encouraging folks to trade songs, including many of mine. None of that money was shared with me but, more importantly, I was never asked my permission to share my music across their network.

For a lot of people its the principle of the matter - my recordings are legally mine to control as I see fit. I alone have the legal right to decide how my music is distributed and whether I should be paid or not.

What bothered me in both Napster and Grokster is the idea that my music is being used illegally to build a business without either my permission or financial compensation.

LOL.. you disagreed so strongly you had to post it twice ? LOL

Lee I understand it from YOUR perspective but honestly the ones screaming loudest are the richest! I think Napster could have done things differently. I don't agree with sharing a whole CD of an artist to just anyone. I do think that there needs to be some sort of way (and always has been) of consumers getting a better idea of what they are buying. I can't tell you how many times I had to buy a whole CD and two songs aren't worth $15 - 17. As someone who does put a little into the writing music myself I know how much work it is to get one song right but as a consumer it just sux to buy an album and like one song and the rest is crap. There must be some good way to protect the artist and enhance the consumer's buying experience. BUT THE DIXIE TWITS CAN KISS MY BUTT!!!

12vmanRick · Post by **12vmanRick** » June 28, 2005 8:16 pm

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:what it may do is put Phjim/BN and the software firm that supplies the discussion board software in jeparody of being sued because they do not prevent file sharing.

personally if i was jim i would add to the rules no posts associated with file sharing and delete any thread promoting file sharing. concerts are copyrighted material.

From that point of view and board related that is 100% on target!

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » June 28, 2005 8:55 pm

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:what it may do is put Phjim/BN and the software firm that supplies the discussion board software in jeparody of being sued because they do not prevent file sharing.

I think the ruling was far narrower than that. The justices went out of their way to stress that what put Grokster at fault was not just that the software could be used for file trading, but rather that Grokster encouraged file trading. There's a huge difference.

Grokster devised a business plan that depended on it marketing itself as a way to swap copyrighted material. They aggressively promoted that file trading as a way to build their membership, and thus allow them to command more in ad revenue. Thus they're culpable.

True peer to peer would be (and is) unstoppable because it's just an application that can be used for legal purposes as well. Grokster (like Napster before it) crossed the line when they decided to profit off of the file sharing.

Its consistent with the Betamax ruling... now had Sony attempted to build the VCR business by promoting it as a way to steal movies, I doubt they would have ever won the case.

The ruling is just broad enough to allow prosecution of those trying to play a shell game with the law, but narrow enough not to punish innovation.

PHJim and phpBB are safe.

Parrot Monkey · Post by **Parrot Monkey** » June 28, 2005 8:58 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:I disagree Rick...

Napster made a ton of money through advertising by encouraging folks to trade songs, including many of mine. None of that money was shared with me but, more importantly, I was never asked my permission to share my music across the network.

For a lot of people its the principle of the matter - my recordings are legally mine to control as I see fit. I alone have the legal right to decide how my music is distributed and whether I should be paid or not.

What bothered me in both Napster and Grokster is the idea that my music is being used illegally to build a business without either my permission or financial compensation.

Well, that’s the music industry for ya!

J/K

I also disagree about the greed thing. If you downloaded, say an Elton John song or even a huge chunk of his catalogue, it would still be illegal but he sure won’t miss the money, but of course that doesn’t matter. He made the music and you’re the listener/consumer. On the other hand, if a new artist who’s on his/her/their first album and just starting out and hasn’t seen a good sum yet, then it REALLY does matter. How would you feel if you just made your first masterpiece that you’ve been working on with your band for years and everyone was illegally downloading it and you weren’t seeing a penny? The point is you can’t make exceptions and even if the artist has been around for decades and is successful, they still deserve $ for their work.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » June 28, 2005 9:02 pm

12vmanRick wrote:Lee I understand it from YOUR perspective but honestly the ones screaming loudest are the richest!

Well two things on that:

1) They're not the only ones screaming, but they're the ones who get quoted because they're famous. The list of lesser-known artists is huge, but honestly no one is asking me to comment. (Well, okay, the San Jose Mercury News ran a quote from me but that's about it).

2) They may be the richest but they're also the ones with the most to lose. Copyrights are legal assets... you can sell them, lose them in a divorce, etc. They have the potential to generate lots of revenue. So even rich artists get defensive when people start giving away their assets.

As far as finding new music... I have no problems discovering stuff and I don't use Limelight or any of the others. I can hear previews on itunes and spend 99 cents to buy a song if I want. Just today I heard an artists I was unfamiliar with on RadioMargaritaville. I googled the lyrics, found the artist, found his website, went to itunes and listened to some samples and downloaded a few songs for $1.98.

Plus no one is trying to stop people from sharing music with their friends... that's well within fair use. It's just that when you consider your friends to be "any of the 100,000 people who will log in to the p2p network" that's no longer sharing, that's distribution.

I think sometimes its hard for folks who don't have intellectual property to understand. I have a lot of friends (mostly not famous) whose yearly income is derived from royalties, etc, so I see a real impact.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » June 28, 2005 9:04 pm

Parrot Monkey wrote:What bothered me in both Napster and Grokster is the idea that my music is being used illegally to build a business without either my permission or financial compensation.

Well, that’s the music industry for ya!

J/K

[/quote]

Nah, the industry lets you sign a contract and lets you think they're helping you before they screw you and rob you blind.

BuffettNews.com

Musicians Welcome File-Swapping Ruling

Musicians Welcome File-Swapping Ruling

Nice Shirt!

Re: Nice Shirt!