"Only fear and Dan Peng's ordeal keep me in line."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/27/music.sharing.column/index.html

the cops got this guy because he was a "dealer" as opposed to just a "user"
has any "user" ever been fined for sharing files? I think not

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/14/filesharing.drop.reut/index.html
"Visits fall as recording industry threatens suits"


Brothermark wrote:
the cops got this guy because he was a "dealer" as opposed to just a "user"
has any "user" ever been fined for sharing files? I think not

It's a start.

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/interne...reut/index.htm
l
"Visits fall as recording industry threatens suits"


Brothermark wrote:
the cops got this guy because he was a "dealer" as opposed to just a
"user"
has any "user" ever been fined for sharing files? I think not

It's a start.

I am kind of glad they are hitting the college kids though. This "I have no
money so it's alright" is BS. If college is supposed to prepare you for the
real world (yeah, right) get used to it. Just because you can't afford it
doesn't mean it's OK to steal it. Do they teach ethics anymore?

Rob Adelman wrote:
"Only fear and Dan Peng's ordeal keep me in line."

Well, certainly not ethics or integrity.

Rob Adelman wrote in message ...
"Only fear and Dan Peng's ordeal keep me in line."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/27/music.sharing.column/index.html

What a bull**** article. A paid advertisement from the RIAA..

In article writes:

I know that for working professionals this all seems like bull but there
are a good many college kids who claim that a) they downloaded and then
bought the album if they like and/or b) they downloaded free music
because they wanted to see the music industry collapse.

If (a), I say "Show me the CD you bought." If the answer is "Oh, it's
back at home with my parents" or "I loaned it to a friend, but he's
gone to Spain for the summer." then I'd be suspicious.

Few people will actually admit to (b) though it may run through their
mind. If the industry collapses, then only free music will be
available for download, and you know what that means.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"Brothermark" wrote in message ...
the cops got this guy because he was a "dealer" as opposed to just a "user"
has any "user" ever been fined for sharing files? I think not

Well the problem is everyone on a file SHARING service is both a user and a dealer.

In article , John Payne
wrote:

there
are a good many college kids who claim that a) they downloaded and then
bought the album if they like

By that theory, CD sales ought to be exploding!

At this point enough time has passed to prove that only a very tiny
percentage of people buy CDs as a result of downloading.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

I agree with you but the operative part of their argument is that they
will buy the album only if they "like it" There is a lot of music out
there that sucks.
Of course this might mean that college kids love to listen to tons of
music that they hate but still keep on their computers for free.

In article writes:

Well the problem is everyone on a file SHARING service is both a user and a
dealer.

Not necessarily. Someone could set up a server with a load of music
files on it and not listen to any of them. But that's not very likely.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In rec.audio.pro, Rob Adelman wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/14/filesharing.drop.reut/index.html
"Visits fall as recording industry threatens suits"


Brothermark wrote:
the cops got this guy because he was a "dealer" as opposed to just a "user"
has any "user" ever been fined for sharing files? I think not

It's a start.

On a related topic:
Almost every radio ad I hear for DSL says something about
downloading music. The most recent one (I forget who it's for) used
the words "mp3" and "top 40." It's reasonable to assume they mean
"file sharing" rather than buying songs from Itunes.
Has the RIAA said anything about such ads? It would seem that a
large percentage of suburban housholds with DSL connecting to
filesharing systems would be a larger threat to the music industry
than college students. I'd think they'd at least want a disclaimer
added, something like "unauthorized copying/downloading is a violation
of applicable laws." Car TV commercials showing a driver raising hell
in the vehicle being sold usually say "Professional driver on a closed
cource. Obey all speed and traffic laws." It seems the DSL ads
(understandably telling you all the things you can do with DSL) lend
[undeserved] legitimacy to "file sharing."

"Brothermark" wrote in message ...
the cops got this guy because he was a "dealer" as opposed to just a "user"
has any "user" ever been fined for sharing files? I think not

No. That lawsuit was kind of dodgy. He was neither a "dealer" nor
"user" to use your terminology.

His program merely crawled the pre-existing windows network shares,
and returned a list of all shared mp3s. All those mp3s were already
shared using the peer-to-peer file and print sharing built right into
Microsoft Windows.

An analogy might be this: Let's say there are lots of HTTP pages
which have direct links to downloadable music. Already freely
accessible to anyone who wants them. Daniel Peng's software was a
search engine, like "Google" that went through and found the music you
wanted.

And, even this analogy makes the program more devious than it really
was. HTTP does not have a top-down hierarchical structure; it isn't
really possible to recursively and exhaustively search the entire
network. IE, you have to know the exact URL of the shared music.
Microsoft Windows shares are set up such that all shares are recursed
inside multiple subfolder(s), inside a single share, inside a single
machine, inside the cute little "My Network Places" icon. In other
words, all of the mp3's discovered by Daniel Peng's software were
already only 4 or 5 double clicks away from anyone's desktop.

In some ways, it would be more sensible for the RIAA to sue Microsoft
instead, for including file and print sharing capabilities with
Windows.

Truly,

Nicholas

(Ben Bradley) wrote in message ...
[snip]

On a related topic:
Almost every radio ad I hear for DSL says something about
downloading music. The most recent one (I forget who it's for) used
the words "mp3" and "top 40." It's reasonable to assume they mean
"file sharing" rather than buying songs from Itunes.

In fact AOL Time-Warner's RoadRunner and AOL Broadband ads do this and
Warner is part of the RIAA!


Do companies like Sony and AOL-TW which have record divisions raise
more revenue from selling recordings or MP3-related businesses:
software, portable player, broadband service, DVD players w/MP3
playback, harddrives, etc.?

Chris Johnson wrote in message news:jinx6568-

Unfortunately, the music industry is a fine bunch to be teaching
anybody about ethics. They're being treated just the way they prefer to
treat others. It's a pity, but there it is. Being adversarial is not a
way to establish a business relationship, but the labels may be already
so wounded that they can't afford to do anything else.



Bingo! And none of what the mighty RIAA has in mind for the
file-swappers will help the artists. They'll (RIAA) just set up their
own swap, with a lower royalty rate or something, like "record clubs".