Dubstepforum.com

So

I was reading the news today, and this is a story I really should have paid attention to when it first came out earlier this week but for whatever reason I never got around to reading it until today... And it was a story about a woman who was sued by a large corporation for a large amount of money. She was sued for $222,000 for 24 songs. A little over $9,000 per song. I'm sure you've all read this and I hope you're all as disgusted by it as I am. And I got a little mad.

And then I was kind of checking out the status of the TorrentSpy v. MPAA deal, and managed to find a bunch of comments by Americans. At first I figured they'd be understanding and appreciate the good TorrentSpy is trying to do for them. But they weren't. It seemed like a lot of them didn't have any understanding whatsoever of why TorrentSpy did what they did, let alone an understanding of why what TorrentSpy did was in their best interest. And this kind of made me more mad. Not mad that there was a lack of understanding of what's going on throughout the United States (and world over), but mad that people aren't fighting back. It's as if everyone is satisfied with just bending over and accepting the fact that they could potentially be sued, and that the RIAA and MPAA can do whatever the fuck they want.

The RIAA and MPAA go around bullying ISPs and other companies into giving up private information, and they've started trying to bully companies in other countries. And people are like "oh yeah, fuck the RIAA" ... but what do they do? Nothing. They write on their blogs about how the RIAA is a bunch of money-grubbing pigs, and that's it.

It's pretty obvious that copyright laws need to be rewritten from the ground up, and that these companies shouldn't be able to sue themselves out of the hole they've discovered they live in. They're systematically ruining the lives of people who have committed at worst a very, very minor offense. 24 songs are not worth $222,000.

I'm sure a lot of you, being the technical people that you probably are since you've managed to find this forum, already do your part in stealing music and movies. But I've purchased a domain (and added a forum and such) and will be starting a Facebook group to promote worldwide copyright disobedience. I think that people need to get organized and get mad that RIAA and MPAA don't give a fuck about laws, and that the United States court system is encouraging them.

I didn't really mean to write this much, but that was a pretty good rant haha.. anyway, you can find the site at http://www.worldwidedisobedience.com/

its human nature to resist change, which unfortunatly has thwarted society for generations. Now when you combine this trait with the power of a business or corporation limited liability status real trouble starts. I agree with you on revising copyright laws though that will be a struggle i want no part of. People get greedy and businesses feel this pressure. Remember the controversy recently with free online radio? Major labels were losing money. Even more absurd was the USPS email tax they tried without success to enforce!

Hopefully things will pan out SOON for this aswell. The RIAA represents some greedy people resistant to change, but then you get on to the subject of lawyers which is a conversation ender thumbs down.

The point isnt that the songs are worth 222,000.

The point is that intellectual property is not something to fuck around with.

The finding was for that much, because she willingly and knowingly allowed the distribution of copywritten material.

Now you can debate the timelyness of copyright law all you want, but that law protects your works too.

I hate the majors, but frankly, this is a win for anyone who creates things.

It reaffirms the power of copyright law, and the right to protect your property.

She should be happy shes not going to prison.

this is just another example of the ruling class flexing its muscles.

RIAA = SonyBMG, Warner, EMI & Universal

the RIAA is simply an attack dog for the major labels with a legal mandate to pursue such disgusting cases against ordinary citizens.

Be alarmed!

thesynthesist wrote:She should be happy shes not going to prison.

Sorry but I think thats a very narrowminded view. Should all the people posting mixes on dubstepforum go to prison too? I don't think so. But technically they are also breaking the holy copyright law. According to your logic: throw em all in jail???

Its not as black and white as you see things.

I'm an artist and I'm opposed to piracy. But it would be my worst nightmare for one of my fans to be fined $222,000. She'll be working the rest of her life to pay it, which is very sad.

Good on you for starting this website Gomb.

thesynthesist wrote:The point isnt that the songs are worth 222,000.

The point is that intellectual property is not something to fuck around with.

The finding was for that much, because she willingly and knowingly allowed the distribution of copywritten material.

Now you can debate the timelyness of copyright law all you want, but that law protects your works too.

I hate the majors, but frankly, this is a win for anyone who creates things.

It reaffirms the power of copyright law, and the right to protect your property.

She should be happy shes not going to prison.

I agree that intellectual property should be protected, however the current laws simply DO NOT WORK.

I'm not saying everyone disobey the law because I don't care about artists or whatever, that would be really hypocritical of me. I say disobey the law to try and encourage lawmakers to put an end to this behavior and think about the future.

Suing people like this is so shortsighted and such a terrible solution to the problem that the only thing it's going to do is eventually lead to corporations having ultimate control over sensitive data. Especially dangerous are the judges such as in the TorrentSpy case who do not even have a fundamental understanding of the technology that they are ruling for. When they set precedent to allow companies to sue for data stored in RAM, it's a bit like letting a company sue you for access to your short term memory.

Essentially this comes down to two things:
1. Copyright, as it has existed for several decades, does not work on the internet.
2. Ruining the lives of people because they had some songs on their hard drive is ridiculous.

I don't think the woman in this case, or the victims in any case such as this, was being malicious in her intent. She probably realistically couldn't afford to buy CDs and music sharing offered a convenient alternative. And now because of this company, her situation has gotten much worse.

So as a music fan, do you think music should be reserved for those who can afford it?

gomb wrote: 1. Copyright, as it has existed for several decades, does not work on the internet.

it works, and it's there for a reason. just because something doesn't serve your needs on the internet, doesn't mean that it's wrong.

thesynthesist wrote:Now you can debate the timelyness of copyright law all you want, but that law protects your works too.

Im not sure of all copyright laws, but the little I know is that it is the artist themselves that have to state your right in copyright matters.
That means that it want work for any small artist/lables because who have the budget and connections to go against the major company . . .
or start a court case at all?
So in real life this copyright laws mostly protect the bigger fish, like always!
History have showed us this time after time!

Its not long time ago we had a tread here showing how Sony and bmg ripped of Underground Resistance!

http://dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?t ... nderground

copyright laws nowadays mainly works for big companies to make even more money, that what should be changed!

spiro wrote: So in real life this copyright laws mostly protect the bigger fish, like always!

The copyright laws help many little fish become bigger ones.

Whoever made the point about copyright protecting everyone in the same way had it right. Mind you, it's been suggested that the laws were recently extended so that Mickey Mouse wouldn't enter the public domain, I reckon that's bollocks though.

Dutty Yuppie wrote:

spiro wrote: So in real life this copyright laws mostly protect the bigger fish, like always!

The copyright laws help many little fish become bigger ones.

Whoever made the point about copyright protecting everyone in the same way had it right.

So how come big companies can always pick what they want; a tune, a story for a film and soon your fucking DNA !
I´d love to here some story of one of the big ones that actually had to answer for one of their small picks out there . . .
And im not taking economic compensation, cause if you made something that they just used,
you might get some money but the idea of protecting copyright, I believe is, its your choice what to do with it . . .

but then again im just a bitter "old man", bored of the fact that cash is king!
Its fucking 2007, we should be out of the trees by now!

spiro wrote: So how come big companies can always pick what they want; a tune, a story for a film and soon your fucking DNA !

They do? Well, I'm a lawyer for a TV company who produce their own shows and I don't think that's the case (it's quite a different scenario to the music business though tbh). Even if we own copyright 100% on something, you can be sure there are still creators making a very nice back end on related exploitation, you just don't know that from the end credits.

If companies are picking what they want, I'd assume it's because they're compensating someone nicely for it.

Edit: I've just read your post properly now ( ) and see you mention economic compensation though. Sadly though, cash is king. In fact, I believe that copyright ownership isn't as important a financical consideration as you can assign your entire copyright subject to whatever condition you can agree on.

hey gripper ballz04r



































i am not wearing any pants

Thanks for the replies, guys.

I posted here first (and I haven't made any effort to spread anything else about the site yet) because I figured it would be a good way to get two perspectives on the issue, that being the producer and the consumer.. And clearly people are opinionated on it.

I would just like to clarify a few things:

- I am not a big music downloader, despite the fact that I'm calling for people to download music. I have a tendency to buy CDs that I like, I do download from time to time, but I certainly don't have anywhere near 1700 "illegal" mp3s. What I'm doing here is not about me or my wants.

- This campaign isn't just about copyright. I've played up the importance of copyright, but there's also a factor of privacy. This being the fact that these organizations have attempted to sue for private information such as IPs, names, and addresses. And in the case of American ISPs, most have just complied rather than fighting an expensive legal battle. And recently they have tried to extend their power internationally.

I don't know about most of you who are not in the United States, but it's easy for me to sit back and do whatever the hell I want because the court system here doesn't put up with their bullshit. But I still see this action and it still concerns me because they are potentially affecting the future of all of us. If you think for a minute about the fundamental ways in which our society is being transformed by the Internet, you have to consider the implications that it could mean if companies are allowed to sue other companies to release private information about you, or sue for information that exists only for fractions of a second.

On top of that, the current laws are making virtually everyone with access to the internet a criminal. While I generally agree that freely downloading music is a practice that should be ended, it's not feasible to end it at this time. There are severe problems with the way copyright laws are being enforced, along with media distribution. Amazon.com, I think, is on the right track with their DRM-Free music becoming available.

I can see I'm a little misguided in some of my opinions, but I still feel as if something needs to be done to bring these companies under control, and I'm still standing by copyright disobedience. They are criminalizing most of modern society, and suing people who do not in good conscience deserve to be sued.

Who is somebody who deserves to be sued? Perhaps sue the companies who are distributing illegal copies of movies in malls. The ones with malicious intent. Don't go around suing people who have a kazaa share folder that they may or may not know about. This legal action is not a good solution to the problem.

Bombaman wrote:hey gripper ballz04r


i am not wearing any pants

can it be baby-making time?