Just heard this

[2quiktocare]

I heard this morning on the way to work that SBC/Yahoo has told the recording industry they will not turn over ip use info on its customers so the industry can not tract down and punish those who are downloading music files to their computers. I don't like people downloading music files myself, it is simple theft, but I don't like a private industry having the free range to come into my private property to see if I have downloaded anything. It is a complete invasion of privacy and is unconstitutional. It is essentially the same as the cops coming to your door without a search warrant looking for something to bust you on. Sound like a Nazi action? Does to me. The industry will find a way to do this under the constitution, so beware. If you are downloading you are breaking the law. No two ways about it. The source of all this concern is the web sites permitting this sharing, not those that take advantage of it. Stop the source, not the end use. Next they will be asking for receipts for all the music you have on your PC to see if you copied your friends CD’s. I applaud SBC for maintaining their stance. If this isn't stopped now, who next will be coming into your private property and seizing info that isn't theirs to view in the first place? This is not a National security issue, so there is no precedence to back their actions. You will only have those freedoms you fight for, so fight this if you feel strongly about it. ,,,,,,,,,, Mark

 

[Kevin Turch]

A simple bouncer will hide ur IP anyways, so there is really nothing to worry about.

And im all for DL music, screw those greedy idiots.

 

[equalizer442]

it is simple theft

its a electronic signal, id be stealing more if i licked a battery

 

[1badTTA]

Funny, nobody has said a thing about Newsgroups EVER and they probably never will. There is more downloading of copyrighted files in the newsgroups than in any P2P filesharing program out there. Gotta love the First Ammendment, any speach including text is protected

 

[2quiktocare]

You can minimize it by calling it a simple electronic signal, just as you can call someones literary work , just letters, it is. Thing is though, it is someones protected intellectual property. Says so right on every recording you buy. It is illegal to copy or reproduce. It is the artists talents and they deserve to be compensated. If it wasn't worth it, why do you want to have it anyway? There is no way you can forward a winning arguement in any court in support of d/l a copyrighted file. And more importantly, you can't morally justify doing it either. Just because you can, doesn't make it right. I can go out and buy pot on most streets too, but it's still illegal. After all, that is just a plant isn't it? What I found interesting is SBC had the guts to say no while every other ips are giving your info to them. There is no block electronic or otherwise that can keep an ip provider from knowing where you go either. They log every address you visit.

 

[irockwithdirt]

Well I for one have to say since my begining of downloading music I have bought MORE cd's . I'll hear part of a song or an artist I have never heard of, download a song or two, and if I like buy it.

 

[turbojimmy]

Originally posted by 2quiktocare
I heard this morning on the way to work that SBC/Yahoo has told the recording industry they will not turn over ip use info on its customers so the industry can not tract down and punish those who are downloading music files to their computers.

Verizon took the same stance and lost. It was a long, drawn out legal battle but ultimately the greedy music industry won. They had to turn over a bunch of names. While the downloaders lost that battle, they haven't lost the war. The implications are huge.

The music industry needs to embrace this new delivery mechanism rather than punish those who use it. Because they haven't figured out an efficient way to make money using it doesn't mean they should punish the people who are doing it. The days of forcing people to pay $16 for 2 good songs on a CD are over. Downloaders of music will continue to circumvent their efforts to stop it.

Jim

 

[2quiktocare]

I agree Jimmy to a point. I can't remember the group, but one of the alternative groups has offered several albums available for purchase on the internet months prior to releasing in stores. The vehicle for it is here, it's just being fought by the same people fighting to bust everyone out here. A lot of people will lose very cush jobs if it comes to the point of music being released electronically, rather than on disc. I have seen the advent of 8 track, cassette, disc, mp3, and who knows what else. For the times, they are a changin. lol

 

[Buick From Hell]

a little food for thought...

many moons ago, before there were CD's or PC's, we had cassette decks, and we also had FM radio stations that played music all day & all night, and many of these stations routinely played entire albums without commercial interruption. Who needed to buy music when all we had to do was hit the "record" button on the deck at midnight?

I just wanna know why "stealing" music from the radio is any different than "stealing" it from the internet?? And please don't EVEN get into the 'digital quality' arguement...copyrighted recorded music is copyrighted recorded music, regardless of the "medium".

Another point: if the yokels from the music industry find music files on my computer, are they going to go to the effort to prove that I actually downloaded it? Maybe I UPloaded it??

And, what if I upload to MY computer a bunch of music I recorded from the local rock station? Is it illegal for other people to download it? c'mon, it's "airwave" music!

The whole problem is simply this: the music companies are hurting, and they're looking for money. Why are they hurting? There's two reasons I can think of:

1) Musicians are figuring out that "hey, these music companies take 90% of our money, lets just start our OWN company!" (duh!)

2) Most music today SUCKS, and ain't hardly worth stealing, let alone spending good money on...

 

[2quiktocare]

I remember those days of a full album play with no interuption. Late night underground F.M. The taping of those is why record companies twisted the arms of the radio stations and got them to not do that. Plus you notice how everything now is talked over during intro and outro? It's to make the music less desirable to copy. Oh well, their battle continues. By the way, every file you have on your computer has an imprint from what I understand that identifies its source of origin.

 

[GN One Day...]

If they were smart, they'd open up site where you can buy individual songs for .25-.50 ea. Screw paying for cover art and merchandising. I rarely pay for a cd since I don't want to pay $14-20 for 2 songs. If they weren't overpriced, there wouldn't be demand for file sharing on the internet.
IMO, downloading to sell the cd's or copying cd's to sell is wrong. People sharing music for no profit is no problem, to me. If they were reasonably priced it wouldn't happen.

Just my .02. Way to go Yahoo, it'll keep them from getting a class action suit for sharing private information.