Metanet Forums

LINK

So instead of piling up thousands of lawsuits against people illegally sharing music over the internet, the RIAA is now getting in contact with your ISP. That way, if you are caught illegally sharing content, your connection may be slowed, or even stop. Another possible path is that if you continue to download music over P2P, it could add the charges to your cable bill for each song you downloaded, as if you purchased them from iTunes.

Discuss.

*uninstalls limewire*

JK.

Oh God, are you guys still downloading without PeerGuardian? Is you out you heads?! Ya bes' protec' ya neck! LifeHacker has a pretty decent article, too. You wouldn't have sex with someone you don't know without protection; why would you download from them?

Outdated business model, fear of change, blah, blah... it's really getting old.
In other news, GNUnet aims to offer high-latency anonymous filesharing.

Limewire All the Way!!

does this include movies?

*cough* not that i would know



*cough*

eganic wrote:does this include movies?

*cough* not that i would know



*cough*

Of course not. Everyone knows that movies are exempt from copyright law.

Here is what you guys do. You don't download off the internet, you take music from people you know via flash drive or something like that. No worries there.

Or just use Pandora or Last.fm

Or playlist.com

Or you can just get .rar files from rapidshare or megaupload.

maybe you guys should just fall off the face of the internets

Techno wrote:maybe you guys should just fall off the face of the internets

YEAH, YOU INTERNET-RUINERS. >:( >:(

epigone wrote:Or just use Pandora

Using it right now :)

I use Slacker - www.slacker.com.

Or, or.. this may sound crazy, you could like buy the music/movies/etc. Sounds weird but hey, it does no harm.

Pembie wrote:Or, or.. this may sound crazy, you could like buy the music/movies/etc. Sounds weird but hey, it does no harm.

I support this movement.

Pembie wrote:Or, or.. this may sound crazy, you could like buy the music/movies/etc. Sounds weird but hey, it does no harm.

If I download something and I love it, I'll buy it. If I don't I delete it when I'm done. The imprints are just ghost frequencies floating about in digital ether, I'm doing no harm 'borrowing' something that doesn't actually exist.

Oh shit, did I just go there....

Well... let's see. There's no question that the RIAA has the law on their side. But I think the music industry's business model is outdated.

The RIAA is a private company and can contact any ISPs it wants. The real question is how will this make money for those involved. It will not, so it won't last long.

When records were first invented, artists were in a furor over this new ability to record and "pirate" their performances. The courts ruled against them.

When radio began sending out its signal, recording artists were outraged that there were no royalties honoured. The courts ruled against them.

When cable TV started piping out its content, broadcasters filed lawsuit after lawsuit in an attempt to stop it. The courts ruled against them.

When the VCR premiered, film and television creators were beside themselves that such a device could be considered legal. The courts ruled against them.

When Jesse Jordan built a search engine for his university's intranet, the RIAA brought a lawsuit against him. He was forced to settle and give up his life savings.

Something ain't right here.

atob wrote:

Pembie wrote:Or, or.. this may sound crazy, you could like buy the music/movies/etc. Sounds weird but hey, it does no harm.

If I download something and I love it, I'll buy it. If I don't I delete it when I'm done. The imprints are just ghost frequencies floating about in digital ether, I'm doing no harm 'borrowing' something that doesn't actually exist.

Oh shit, did I just go there....

Hi, I'm the RIAA, and I'm about to contact your ISP since you /clearly/ stated that you have indeed downloaded something from the internet. Whether or not it's illegal is not to my understanding but I will have your ISP block your internet service. Mkay?

AH GOD WE CAN'T STEAL THINGS ANYMORE GOD WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ;_;_;_;_;_;

Kablizzy wrote:AH GOD WE CAN'T STEAL THINGS ANYMORE GOD WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ;_;_;_;_;_;

What exactly is being stolen?

P.S. I don't download music illegally. I use itunes, pandora, and playlist.com to listen to music.

So I think we've all pretty much come to the conclusion that piracy is bad and a problem, but so is the RIAA. That about right?

Blizz, I'm a little confused by your reply... I don't ever really hear you voicing your opinion on this matter. You've never really given any indication of what your stance on internet piracy could be -- do you support pirates? If so, why? You just gotta speak up, man. Stop being such a Wally Wallflower.

rennaT wrote:When records were first invented, artists were in a furor over this new ability to record and "pirate" their performances. The courts ruled against them.

When radio began sending out its signal, recording artists were outraged that there were no royalties honoured. The courts ruled against them.

When cable TV started piping out its content, broadcasters filed lawsuit after lawsuit in an attempt to stop it. The courts ruled against them.

When the VCR premiered, film and television creators were beside themselves that such a device could be considered legal. The courts ruled against them.

When Jesse Jordan built a search engine for his university's intranet, the RIAA brought a lawsuit against him. He was forced to settle and give up his life savings.

Something ain't right here.

This is a Tanner post I can get behind.

I mean, if you're about tradition and precedence, than look no further than the evolution of media to see what tends to become of the Distributor Freedom V Copyright Protection conflicts. Positive liberty is about 56:0 on negative liberty.