You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
US House Passes Bill Targeting Net Song Swappers
Tue Sep 28, 2004 05:34 PM ET
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Users of Internet "peer to peer" networks, already dodging lawsuits from the recording industry, could face up to three years in prison under a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.
The House voted to enlist the government to a greater degree in the entertainment industry's fight against those who copy its products over the Internet.
Federal agents would be directed to educate the public about copyright rules and go after those who allow others to copy their music collections through "peer to peer" networks like Kazaa and Morpheus.
Those who secretly videotape movies when they are shown in theaters would also face prison sentences of up to three years under the bill, which passed by voice vote.
"The Internet has revolutionized how Americans locate information, shop and communicate," said Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, a sponsor of the bill. "We must not let new Internet technologies become a haven for criminals."
The Senate approved a similar bill in June, but differences must be reconciled before President Bush signs it into law.
The Motion Picture Association of America applauded the bill's passage, while consumer groups, conservative groups and libraries said it would radically broaden copyright law and drag the government into a battle that should be handled by the entertainment industry.
Movie studios and recording companies have pressed Congress to help them in their fight against file-trading networks and their millions of users.
The recording industry says file-trading is partly to blame for a slump in CD sales, and movie studios have reacted with alarm as blockbuster films appear online before they're even released in theaters.
The recording industry has sued more than 3,000 individuals over the past year for copyright violations, but the Justice Department so far has brought only a handful of cases against the heaviest traffickers.
The bill would train agents to investigate intellectual-property crimes and allow them to send warnings to users they suspect of copying songs illegally. Those found to be sharing more than 1,000 copyrighted files would face jail time.
One provision of the bill is likely to anger Hollywood, as it shields companies that edit out sex and violence from movies to make them more "family friendly." Movie directors have sought to shut down such companies in court.
Copyright bills are likely to loom large in the waning weeks of Congress. The Senate this week is expected to consider a measure that would make it easier to sue peer-to-peer networks, which has drawn spirited opposition from the technology industry.
This ad is not displayed to registered and logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on RX8Club.com!
Too bad...in Cnada the record companies pushed for a law like that and it was struck down. They wanted to go after the records of IP providors and for once the government did the right thing and said no.
The RIAA/MPAA won't stop until they get the money back they lost from record sales. I believe nowadays, artists get their fill from shameless promos, and touring. Who in the hell bought Britney Spears' last record?
It's interesting, I bought about 50x more CDs during my Napster stint, than before or after. I can't even remember the last time I bought a CD. When I was checking out artists on Napster I was buying up their CDs left and right. Here's a good example:
I downloaded all of the songs from Massive Attack's Mezzanine and listened for a few weeks. Within 3 months I had bought all of their CDs, plus the Mad Prf. No Protection CD. Oh, and their DVD. Now I just don't get hear any good, new music, so I just listen to what I've already got.
Heh too funny was the same with me, especially regarding the Massive Attack albums, I d/l first cause this girl at work was telling me about them, liked it and bought it. I think there was even a study done that backed it up, that CD sales around college campuses that allowed Napster actually went up. Of course you won't hear too much of that, otherwise how else could the recording monopoly scare the gubernment into passing laws that favor eternal control over their 'copyrights'.
You know, now that I think about it, I was buying a lot more cd's when I was downloading music. There is so much crap out there I am not willing to take risk and buy something on a whim anymore or explore much of new artists without hearing them first and standing around in Virgin listening to the top 10 does not constitute hearing them first, especially when they want $15+ for something put on a $.10 piece of media.
This week, Green Day's CD sold extremely well.. around the world. Why? Because it's a good CD. If the record companies produce good CDs at a resonable price ($9.99 or lower), people will just fork over the money instead of having to download the 1 or 2 songs for a $15 CD.
Apperently over 2+ million bought Britney's last CD. It's not the people that have d/l songs that is causing the decrease in profits for the record industries... it's the fact that a ton of crap has been produced, at $15+.
How about all of you that are for downloading music off of the internet stop to think for a short moment about how you'd feel if the guy you work with or your fellow student uses your idea or your paper for their gain. You'd be damned pissed off. Now think about that musician that has labored for years of schooling and hammered hours on end to finally make it in the only industry that he has trained for. And along you come, you think its your right to download and keep, much less pass on to friends his work.
And you wonder why there are laws? Laws are in place because you guys can't seem to govern yourselves.
Downloading music is stealing if it is copyrighted material, but the exorbant rates that the RIAA charges is pretty much stealing as well including from the musician. Many artists get as shitty of a deal from the RIAA as the consumer.
Oh, and years of schooling? Most musicians I know are dropouts. It is not exactly training to be a musician. It is a skill. It is their way of life. RIAA should not be ripping them off either. If they are only doing it for the money, they suck anyway. I think that about anyone who only does what they do for the money.
There should be some laws to help protect those who can be hurt from losing their copyrighted materials, but there should be just as many laws applied to privacy and not allowing the RIAA to do what they do. It is a two way street.
I've stopped stealing music off the Internet. All my music comes from WBGO, Newark.
Shelly's --- I love Jazz FM 88.3 as well.
Interesting that congress passes a law so easily protecting the music industry but they vote against protecting the integrity of the upcoming election by (not) allowing a paper printout of the new touch screen voting system.
How about all of you that are for downloading music off of the internet stop to think for a short moment about how you'd feel if the guy you work with or your fellow student uses your idea or your paper for their gain. You'd be damned pissed off. Now think about that musician that has labored for years of schooling and hammered hours on end to finally make it in the only industry that he has trained for. And along you come, you think its your right to download and keep, much less pass on to friends his work.
And you wonder why there are laws? Laws are in place because you guys can't seem to govern yourselves.
How dare you even support such a bogus company. Its not affecting the small artists that have had years of schooling,the record company is ******* them over cuz they wont bring in as much money and merchandise rather than semi talented ***** spears oh i meant brittany. your just a duesch the reason they do this is so the ceo's can have 3 helicopters instead of 2. its all money you dumby they dont care about you unless you stop buying there **** product.
I BLAME COMMUNISM ON YOU! companys have tyo learn for themselves you **** with the public and dont update things evetually the public goes **** off we have our own stuff
Downloading music is stealing if it is copyrighted material, but the exorbant rates that the RIAA charges is pretty much stealing as well including from the musician. Many artists get as shitty of a deal from the RIAA as the consumer.
No, completely wrong. You can't steal music.
What you are doing though, is copyright infringement.
As if the prisons in the United States aren't filled enough already. There are too many frivolous laws in the U.S. that needlessly throw what I consider non-violent offenders in prison, such as those convicted of possession.
My belief is it is only illegal if you sell downloaded music. Also, I pay $40/month for the Internet, so why should I spend extra to download one measly song that I'm going to dispose of within the next year?
I hate disposable music, and I think it's that genre that gets downloaded the most. Thank God for jazz music.
Last edited by shelleys_man_06; 09-29-2004 at 08:51 AM.
How about all of you that are for downloading music off of the internet stop to think for a short moment about how you'd feel if the guy you work with or your fellow student uses your idea or your paper for their gain. You'd be damned pissed off. Now think about that musician that has labored for years of schooling and hammered hours on end to finally make it in the only industry that he has trained for. And along you come, you think its your right to download and keep, much less pass on to friends his work.
And you wonder why there are laws? Laws are in place because you guys can't seem to govern yourselves.
I call you a total chode good sir... and anyone that thinks the same way you do. Musicians know damn well what they are getting into. Music isn't about the money and ANY BAND THAT PERFORMS FOR THE MONEY DOES NOT DESERVE FAME OR EVEN THE EFFORT OF THE PUBLIC TO DOWNLOAD THEIR SONGS. I'm sure its not the bands that are pissed off about people downloading their songs. Its the ******* people that signed them. And do you really think for 5 seconds that Americans will stop downloading songs if this law passes? Hell no... It will just be another reason to waste tax payers money and fill up the jails even more. People with money are not the only ones downloading songs. many of my friends are broke as **** and can't afford a lawyer if they had to. I know for sure they have well over 1000 songs. Who do you think is going to pay for their lawyer? You are. The tax payers...
Like I said, it makes no difference whether the artist is selling or not. They get all sorts of free stuff. I even think Usher gets free clothes for doing nothing. They're rich enough as it is, and celebrities get free swag. So, what's wrong in downloading their music? This reminds me of the South Park episode where the boys were caught downloading music. It was pretty teh funny, and the cripple fight was awesome too.
I call you a total chode good sir... and anyone that thinks the same way you do. Musicians know damn well what they are getting into. Music isn't about the money and ANY BAND THAT PERFORMS FOR THE MONEY DOES NOT DESERVE FAME OR EVEN THE EFFORT OF THE PUBLIC TO DOWNLOAD THEIR SONGS. I'm sure its not the bands that are pissed off about people downloading their songs. Its the ******* people that signed them. And do you really think for 5 seconds that Americans will stop downloading songs if this law passes? Hell no... It will just be another reason to waste tax payers money and fill up the jails even more. People with money are not the only ones downloading songs. many of my friends are broke as **** and can't afford a lawyer if they had to. I know for sure they have well over 1000 songs. Who do you think is going to pay for their lawyer? You are. The tax payers...
Umm... I think it's wrong to steal, no matter how much you despise the people you're ripping off. There are plenty of laws I disagree with because I think the government should butt out of our private lives. But, protecting rights is the one thing the government SHOULD be doing. This includes copyrights. It doesn't matter how many people are stealing or whether or not you think musicians should take a vow of poverty so they can be personal slaves to your entertainment. "Play me a song, knave"!
we just cant afford to buy CDS anymore, since we are spending all our money dishing out 2.22 a gallon for gas! I always hear them blaming the oil prices for the decline in consumer spending, don't CDs fall into the 'consumer spending' category?
Like I said, it makes no difference whether the artist is selling or not. They get all sorts of free stuff. I even think Usher gets free clothes for doing nothing. They're rich enough as it is, and celebrities get free swag. So, what's wrong in downloading their music? This reminds me of the South Park episode where the boys were caught downloading music. It was pretty teh funny, and the cripple fight was awesome too.
Government needs to stay off the Internet.
:D Yeah that was pretty damn funny. I laughed for like 5 minutes about that fight. But anyway. I don't consider downloading songs steeling and i am sure a lot if not most people feel the same way. I think most people that have the internet and believe that downloading songs is steeling are nothing but hypocrites. You mean to tell me that you have never downloaded any software or anything from the internet? You have only used it for communication? I think not. Somewhere someone lost money because you did not pay for that software. Why doesn't the government stop people from downloading everything except freeware from the internet?
:D Yeah that was pretty damn funny. I laughed for like 5 minutes about that fight. But anyway. I don't consider downloading songs steeling and i am sure a lot if not most people feel the same way. I think most people that have the internet and believe that downloading songs is steeling are nothing but hypocrites. You mean to tell me that you have never downloaded any software or anything from the internet? You have only used it for communication? I think not. Somewhere someone lost money because you did not pay for that software. Why doesn't the government stop people from downloading everything except freeware from the internet?
Just because "everyone" does it does not make it right. I'm not arguing for or against but the idiotic statement that you can't pass a law because everyone is going to do it anyway is funny. Guess we should just get rid of those speed limit signs then. I mean, heck, everyone speeds anyway, so why hand out tickets for it. I'm gonna try that logic next time I get pulled over.
In addition, what gives you the right to decide why someone is allowed to go into a profession? Should someone who can paint or draw really well be held to the same standard? How about yourself? We'll assume for the purpose of the argument that you are great at being a manager. Your awesome at it. The best in the city. Following your logic, I shouldn't pay you very much for your abilities because you are good at it. Why should I pay you more than the other manager that sucks the big one? Just an observation.
Linear Mode
