a question--kazaa and lawsuits

cash78mere · #1 09-21-2003, 11:04 AM

ok, so i'm starting to get a little nervous about all these lawsuits for people who download music.

i've been using kazaa for about 2 years. i've downloaded maybe 50-70 songs (possible a little more) over that time.

should i be worried that i'll be sued? if not, who is getting sued then? so many of my friends and family are flipping out and erasing everything off their computers, but i thought once you downloaded it, that's what matters.

what should i do? should i be worried? should i not even think about it and keep downloading music? should i uninstall kazaa and erase all the music (if i even know how!)

i don't know what to think....

mullet81 · #2 09-21-2003, 11:09 AM

I heard they were suing people who downloaded over 1,000 songs. Youre pretty far from that. I would delete Kazaa from my computer if i were you though!

ADPiSAI · #3 09-21-2003, 01:43 PM

one of my brother's teachers (he goes to a computer school) said that he knows a bunch of people who got sued. i'm not sure how many they had or why they were 'picked' (for lack of a better word), but it's best not to use kazaa anymore.

texas*princess · #4 09-21-2003, 01:43 PM

yea that lawsuit stuff is starting to weird me out...

what if i'm not sharing any files? could i still be sued? and how would they know how many files I have downloaded?

Rudey · #5 09-21-2003, 01:45 PM

Do you have any idea how many people download files and what small percentage got sued? Don't worry so much.

-Rudey

absolutuscchick · #6 09-21-2003, 04:21 PM

A related comment:

What does everyone use to download music. I used to use Kazaa, but I'm getting a new computer and want to use the one that will do the least damage to mycomputer in terms of junk it gives to me (Kazaa was awful)

bethany1982 · #7 09-21-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by absolutuscchick
A related comment:

What does everyone use to download music. I used to use Kazaa, but I'm getting a new computer and want to use the one that will do the least damage to mycomputer in terms of junk it gives to me (Kazaa was awful)

Kazaa Lite and WinMX

Imthachamp · #8 09-21-2003, 04:26 PM

unistall kazaa and download kazaa lite.

then, move all your mp3 files into a DIFFERENT file, rather then the one in MY SHARED FOLDER

also disable sharing files with other users and you should be ok.

Buttonz · #9 09-21-2003, 05:12 PM

I use Kaaza......it's ok. I dont share files however. One of my sisters got sued but was able to work out a deal that she is doing community service (somethign like 350 + hrs) instead...and she is working on a new anti-d/ling campaign which is awsome b/c she is going into the PR/advertising field

Shine · #10 09-21-2003, 05:13 PM

Buy the CD.

LeslieAGD · #11 09-21-2003, 07:15 PM

How do privacy laws play into these lawsuits? Obviously if you are sharing files and catch they you, that is understandable. But if you don't share and keep your files separate from your DL program, isn't it illegal for them to hack into your system to look for files?

CC1GC · #12 09-21-2003, 07:38 PM

I've heard the RIAA is mainly targeting distributors of mp3s...so if you share, maybe go through an alternate route of winmx-style trading in favor for a FTP site or equivalency....
I've got about 10 gigs of mp3s, i don't fucking care, let's see the RIAA come after me in Canada - hahahah, fuckers.

moe.ron · #13 09-22-2003, 04:52 AM

Intersting debate that say copyright infringement is not theft. Consider this:

Quote:

The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling's conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."

This decision was based on established law with a long appellate history. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, under which the RIAA gets its policing powers, is not and is largely untested in the courts. Paul Dowling was convicted of copyright infringement (a misdemeanor at the time) but was vindicated on the more serious crime of theft.

This brings us to the point of whether or not file-sharers meet the criteria of "fair use" or are indeed guilty of copyright infringement. This is less clear. Let's assume that they don't meet the confines of the fair use doctrine. Is it the RIAA's lawful right to sue them or does that right belong to someone else? File-sharers have not entered into a contract with artists and do not collect fees for the songs that are up-loaded from their computers. Therefore, they are not stealing anything. Infringing perhaps. But not stealing. But does the RIAA have the right to speak for the artist if such an offense has occurred? As Fred Wilhelms pointed out in the September 6 RIAA Watch column, there are some serious questions about the artists' contracts with their labels and whether they include digital rights. And also about how the payments are to be made to the artists. The major labels are collecting fees from for-pay download sites such as iTunes and also through lawsuit settlements against file-sharers. RIAA Watch has already pointed out how the industry may be pocketing money that isn't theirs. Now Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, has stated that none of the lawsuit money will be passed on to the artists either.

These comments beg the question, "Who is really doing the stealing here?" Artist's incomes are tangible. Copyrights are not. I'd call pocketing income that has already been collected as stealing. I wonder if current Justices O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Stevens, all who supported the 1985 Dowling decision, would agree.

AOcutiePi4ever · #14 09-22-2003, 06:52 AM

they have sued 271 people out of the 60 million american users.... that means you have a 1 in 4.516666666666666666666667e-6 chance of getting sued. personally, i would be more worried about lightning striking you in the head in the afternoon of a cloudless sunny day.

KuThetaChi · #15 09-22-2003, 08:25 AM

First off if you move your files and and all to a different folder, turn off files sharing, then you should be ok. That said the Record companies are F**king ignorant.... for how many years did the CD companies over price us on CDs? It got to the point that the government mandated the price come down, something like they had a monopoly. Did we get to sue them? So what if they loose some money right now, as for bands like Metallica "cry me a river" Bands rip us in just a many ways if not more. Metallica concert ticket around $40..... 311 concert ticket at same venue $10. A Metallica concert shirt $35.... same quality as the shirts we get made and we pay $8-$12? Think how many more get printed off of the tour shirt and think how low our price should really be? And finally it doesn't keep anyone from buying the cds if anything it helps. I after dowloading some songs from the Black Eyed Peas "Elephunk" went out and purchased it, same can be said for Outkasts new "Speakerboxx". I love Bands like OAR the guys that tour hardcore keep ticket prices low and always remember that without the fans they wouldn't be here. Sorry Metallica its not us who are priviledge to have you, its you who are priveldged to have us!!