Music Industry Sues Online Song Swappers

[Blaine]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45525-2003Sep8.html

By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page A01

The music industry yesterday filed the first 261 of what it promised would be thousands of lawsuits aimed at Internet song sharers, designed to stop what it says is copyright infringement responsible for the ongoing depression of compact disc sales.

The lawsuits were filed in courts across the country by several music companies and record labels, under the umbrella of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the industry's trade group.

The legal offensive aims to stem the tide of online song sharing launched by Napster in the late 1990s, and it is likely to strike fear into the hearts of parents who have not closely monitored their teenagers' computer habits. That's because the lawsuits were filed against the holders of Internet service accounts, regardless of who in the household was responsible for swapping the songs.

The lawsuits are part of a multi-pronged anti-piracy effort being waged by both the music and movie industries. In addition to the vigorous legal action, the music industry has launched advertising and education campaigns to explain that freely passing around digital song and movie files effectively deprives musicians, producers, actors, directors and all peripheral industry personnel of billions of dollars per year.

Yesterday's lawsuits target major offenders, or those who the industry says have put an average of more than 1,000 digital song files on the Internet for others to download using "peer-to-peer" services such as Grokster and Morpheus. The music industry claims such free song sharing violates the 1976 federal copyright law.

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but there comes a time when you have to stand up and take appropriate action," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "Our goal is not to be punitive or vindictive."

The RIAA suits seek an injunction to stop the defendants' file sharing, as well as damages and court costs. Copyright law allows for damages of up to $150,000 per infringement -- in other words, per swapped song.

The RIAA has spent thousands of hours in recent months diving through file-sharing services and seeking the names of users who have swapped large numbers of digital songs. These services typically allow users to look at lists of songs available on people's computers to share, and the industry group included those lists in its legal filings.

The RIAA said it would not set a "magic number" of available songs required to trigger a lawsuit. But since early summer, the industry group has issued more than 1,500 subpoenas to Internet service providers, compelling them to hand over people's names and addresses. The RIAA even claimed it was able to identify people who used peer-to-peer services such as Blubster that promise anonymity.

The RIAA has already settled with fewer than 10 song sharers who have received subpoenas, Sherman said, with most settlements in the $3,000 range. In May, the industry sued four college students for hosting song-swapping services, each of whom settled by taking down their Web sites and paying the industry damages of up to $17,500.

"I can understand why the RIAA has to take this tactic," said Sonia Katyal, a Fordham University professor of intellectual-property law. "But the monitoring techniques used by the RIAA are relatively shrouded in secrecy. What kinds of activities are being monitored raises privacy implications."

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has said he will schedule hearings on the RIAA's subpoenas and lawsuits.

The music industry claims much of its current sales swoon is due to illegal song swapping. Sales of compact discs have dropped about 10 percent each year since the rise of file sharing, and many consumers say $18 CD prices have pushed them toward file sharing.

Last week, Universal Music Group -- the world's largest conglomerate of record labels, with about 30 percent of the market -- said it would slash CD prices, urging retailers to sell most for $12.98 and prodding other music companies to follow.

-------------------------------------

Okay... this... sucks

[ReaperFett]

Well what did you expect? They've let it go too far, and now they've realised they've got to do something. Heavy handed is their plan, to attempt to scare people away. Kazaa saw a huge decrease in users when this was announced. Even if not one lawsuit suceeds, haven't they gained a victory?

[Blaine]

It's still a bit unfair, IMO. Just randomly sue anybody probably without warning.

[ReaperFett]

If you don't want to be caught speeding, don't speed.

[Blaine]

Well what if you don't happen to know there's a speed limit or what the speed limit is in that area?

Nevermind, that didn't make sense

[ReaperFett]

...I can't think of a reply in that vein right now :)


When Napster got shut, what actually happened was the Napster peeps went underground, to the other servers. They may have scared the rats away, but the rats are still there. Eventually, the music industry would hire rat catchers to kill the rats, and rule the rest by fear. The rats should really have seen this coming, IMO it was more a case of when over if.


Ha, Rats instead of roads! :)

[Blaine]

Bah. Guess this means it's the day I stop listening to music... except the radio. The only thing that's remained... free.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Don't forget the 12 yr old girl who is getting sued as well. :mad Its ridiculous.

[imported_Marcus]

Republished in unchanged form

Michael Bliss
English 1105
December 9, 2002
Michael Malone
There is No Honor Among Thieves
According to St. Augustine, an unjust law is no law at all. It is our moral obligation to break a law if we feel it is not right. I have morally justified downloading MP3s by looking at the facts objectively and determining for myself the possible effects these actions will have on artists, the music industry, and the economy as a whole. I have thought long and hard about this particular issue and have come to the conclusion that I have no problem with stealing from thieves.
According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, “the Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” The current laws regarding copyrighted materials in the United States are certainly outside any reasonable persons definition of a “limited time” and actually secure exclusive rights of ownership for works “made for hire” for 95 years after the death of an author.
The copyright system was meant to be a means to strike a balance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of authors. It seems that in recent years this balance has been shifted dramatically in favor of big business. An excerpt from Siva Vaidhyanthan’s book “Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity” concisely and poetically sums up this point.

Copyright, when well balanced, encourages the production and distribution of the raw material of democracy. But after more than 200 years of legal evolution and technological revolution, American copyright no longer offers strong democratic safeguards. It is out of balance. And our founders – especially Thomas Jefferson – would not be pleased.

Copyright was created as a policy that balanced the interests of authors, publishers, and readers. It was not intended to be a restrictive property right.

The Record Industry Association of American has for the past few years been attempting to cloud the American people’s judgment on this issue. They use buzz words like “intellectual property theft” in an attempt to associate music downloads with actual real world crimes. Theft, however, is legally defined as taking some item thereby depriving the original owner of possession of said item. Therefore downloading MP3s may be a copyright violation, but it is certainly not theft. It seems our founding fathers had a similar view on the issue, Thomas Jefferson stated the following about intellectual property copyrights: “It’s peculiar character, too, is that no one posses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
According to US Code Title 17, Section 107 entitled “Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use” one major factor in considering whether a particular action is in violation of copyright is the effect of use upon the potential market for, or value of the copyrighted work. The simple fact is that there is no correlation between reduced record sales and MP3 downloads. Try as they might, the RIAA has not produced conclusive evidence on this issue.
According to the RIAA’s own data record sales have dropped 4.1 percent between 1999 and 2001, they claim the sales decreases were entirely due to piracy. The fact of the matter is, between 1999 and 2001 there was a 25 percent reduction in the number of new releases produced by the industry, taking this into account the industry saw an astounding 41 percent increase in profits per release between 1999 and 2000, during the peak of internet piracy.
A closer looks at the data reveals yet another clue as to the reasons for the current depression in record sales. According to RIAA marketing data the number of records sold between 1999 and 2000 decreased by 10.3 percent, but the profits decreased a mere 4.1 percent. This means that the average unit price of a compact disk must have increased substantially during this time period. This information is not available on the RIAA website, but after a short web search I discovered several reports including this data. It seems that the unit price rose from $13.65 to $14.02 in a one year time period. Considering these facts, and the current state of the US economy it is miraculous that the record industry’s sales have only decreased 4.1 percent.
The RIAA has claimed a net loss of four billion dollars due to internet piracy since 1999, but these claims have gone unsubstantiated. Nowhere in their reports is a loss of that magnitude shown. In fact, the current downward trend in record sales would have to continue for 10 years for a loss of 4 billion dollars to occur.
Despite the facts the RIAA has used its political power to convince many lawmakers that internet piracy is a severe threat to the future profitability of the music industry. In response to the record industries pleas the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was adopted in 1998. This act is clearly unconstitutional due to the strict regulations adopted against circumventing copyright protection systems, even if the material is in the public domain. This has essentially given the music industry the ability to restrict fair use and retain copyrights long after their “limited time” has expired. The DMCA is clearly unconstitutional as it provides the copyright holders a method of securing an unlimited copyright.
In light of all of these issues I have come to the conclusion that the United States copyright laws are unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral. At the risk of being overly dramatic I would like to recount the words of Mr. Martin Luther King Jr:

There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.

Although the regulations surrounding copyright laws are not as significant as those Martin Luther King fought to change, I believe the RIAA is infringing on our rights as American citizens and we should not allow big business to oppress us.
The hardest part for me, however, is not the fact that the recording industry might be losing a few million dollars a year, but that some of my favorite artists might be losing a few hundred. I found this hard to handle, so I did some more investigation to determine just how the system works.
It turns out that the recording companies act more like a loan agency than an employer or distributor. Monies received by the band for creating a new album is entirely recouped by record sales, as is the majority of money spent on advertising, marketing, distribution, and creation of music videos. This leaves the band with very little money to split amongst the members, even if the record sells millions of copies. In fact, a generous record contract leaves the band with a mere 20 percent of profits from their album before recouping all costs.
Not only are the musicians being paid much less than they deserve, but a recent change in the copyright laws has redefined work done for record companies as “works for hire,” meaning the record companies retain ownership of the works for the duration of the copyright. Prior to this amendment the musicians or their heirs would regain ownership after 35 years at which point they could renew contracts for a better deal or sell the copyright outright to the label for a generous profit, this is no longer possible.
It turns out that a much more profitable source of revenue for musicians is live concerts. So, in order to support bands that I enjoy I regularly attend live performances.
Virginia Coalition, a band I discovered by receiving an MP3 from a friend, recently played at Top of The Stairs in downtown Blacksburg. Tickets for the event were $12, and a total of 1100 tickets were sold. Virginia Coalition being the headliner received $9000 to play for the evening. This is 68 percent of the revenues received at the doors. The opening band, Carbon Leaf, received a generous $2500. By attending this concert I contributed much more financially to the band members then I could have by purchasing their albums.
I believe the current model for distributing music is outdated and unfair for consumers and musicians alike. The people who truly need to question the morality of their acts are the producers, managers, and executives at the major record labels. Until then I will continue downloading music, and I will do so without feeling ashamed, or morally corrupt.





Bibliography
1. RIAA / Federal Laws (http://www.riaa.com/Copyright-Laws-2.cfm, 2003)
2. USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)]
3. Courtney Love's rant on the Major Label Cartel
(http://www.aandronline.com/readingroom/courtney1.html, 2000)
4. RIAA Statistics Don’t Add Up to Piracy (http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html, 2003)
5. Anti-DMCA FAQ (http://anti-dmca.org/faq_local.html, 2001)
6. RIAA / Tracking Music Trends in America (http://www.riaa.com/MD-Tracking.cfm, 2003)
7. Mad As Hell About the DMCA
(http://www.netspace.net.au/~mheath/beale-screamer/Philosophy)
8. US Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html)

[Ryan Pode]

If I get sued (which I wont as I don't download music anymore), I'd go to New York and sue the music industries for endorsing such crap like 50cent and whatnot. Prolly win too.

[Figrin D'an]

They're not randomly suing anyone. They're going after people who were foolish enough to leave enough evidence of their activities for the RIAA to find.

As Fett said, it's primarily a scare tactic. File suit against a few people, and you scare a whole slew of others. To file suit against everyone would cost the RIAA a ridiculous amount of money, and would be completely impractical.

And, depending upon how the RIAA aquired the information necessary to bring charges against these users (which they will have to reveal in any court case), there is a distinct possibility that privacy concerns will be a factor, and some may be tossed out or drag on for much longer than expected.

Needless to say, it's hardly a cut-and-dried matter.

[Figrin D'an]

To add to what Marcus posted, the DMCA is the single worst piece of legislation to pass Congress in the last 25 years. It is, as the article claims, in direct contradiction to Constitutional and other Federal laws.

Don't believe it? Try reading about what it restricts sometime. You'll be shocked. I know I was.

[imported_Marcus]

Try searching for Kazaa lite in Google. Kazaa set up a DMCA cease and desist against Google to stop them from showing Kazaalite links.

That was just completely absurd. The whole RIAA / DMCA mess is scary becuase you are now seeing the direct result of corporations buying political favors to get what they want.

If you really want to be shocked, find out how the recording industry treats their artists they claim to protect. Except for the truly sucessful ones, it's almost akin to slavery. Lets see if I can find the link again....

Got it

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

After reading that and a whole lot more stuff, I for one just will not buy a CD again. It's wrong such a system can exist. Dont be fooled by this nonsense the RIAA says about defending artists, it is solely about lining their own and the recording industries biggest companies pockets to pay for hookers and blow.

[Morgan Evanar]

This is why I get my music through other means.

[Darth Viscera]

Price fixing is illegal.

I honestly can't tell you how shocked I've been (for a while now) that any company would be so stupid and cruel as to try and put its customer base in prison. The music industry should have been think tanking ideas like buymusic.com starting in 1987, when the MPEG-1 Layer 3 format (MP3) was first invented, those retards.

[Figrin D'an]

Well, no one claimed music companies had intelligent executives.

I mean, why be on the cutting edge of technology and innovation when you can just sue the people who beat you to the punch?

:rolleyes

[Darth Viscera]

ROFL

truth

And that's exactly what our law is designed to protect against. It goes against the nature of the law to fight innovation with lawsuits and price fixing. The law is there to promote competition, right? What sort of competition do we have when we're only NOW, after 20 years, getting a price decrease in CDs?

Sorry for the micro-rant, I just hate price fixing.

[Zasz Grimm]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
This is why I get my music through other means.

I do that.

And it's simple.

Use Kazaa Lite. Not Kazaa. And turn off file sharing, if your that paranoid. They only really go after those who share lots of files.

Though, if you just use Kazaa Lite, you should be fine. Their system is safeguarded against the RIAA's searching system, they can't find who your are, your IP, etc. etc.

[Silus Xilarian]

I dont trust that a bit, honestly.

[imported_Marcus]

Though, if you just use Kazaa Lite, you should be fine. Their system is safeguarded against the RIAA's searching system, they can't find who your are, your IP, etc. etc.

Load of crap. If your on the Internet, you can be tracked and found. There has never been any system, security setup or program that can assure 100% safety and anyone claiming otherwise that is a tosser or works for Oracle.

Which is the same thing, really.

[Alpha]

I'm just curious on two things:

1) The DMCA basically destroys the argument of the Fair Use Policy when it comes to this, huh?

2)What if you had something set up to randomly cvhange your IP address? Would that make you harder to track?

[ReaperFett]

2)What if you had something set up to randomly cvhange your IP address? Would that make you harder to track?
Possibly, but nothing is fool proof.

Don't belive ANYONES great ideas on how to avoid being sued. If you want the foolproof way to not be sued, don't download songs. Simple as that.

[Charley]

Are their any clauses in the DMCA pertaining to Due Dilligence? If not, I wonder how that applies. P2P's have been around for a while, and the RIAA is just now starting to take action.

[Master Yoghurt]

I agree with Marcus, at present there is no such thing as 100% anonymity, there are however lots of ways one could reduce the risks.

Using a Fastrack client (Kazaa, Kazaa Lite, Imesh etc) is not one of them. You'll then be on the network RIAA monitor <a href=http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3484600,00.html>most frequently</a>. Hiding the IP adress from the GUI makes no difference in terms of P2P security. In order for a packet of data to be transferred, there needs to be a source and destination IP, thats how the Internet works. On kaza lite, your IP is easy bait for tracker bots like Overpeer, BayTSP and MediaDefender (unless you block them on firewall level) to name a few. Several of the people subpoenaed by the RIAA have allready been identified as kaza lite users. You're better off on smaller networks, which despite common belief may provide better results and speed than Kazaa (I personally much prefer Shareaza with Gnutella 2 enabled).

Yes, you can turn off filesharing, but if everyone did that, the network would be worthless (having said that, I personally believe Kazaa and all its clones is, was and allways will be worthless, but thats another discussion..). A better way is looking at what you share, and filter out the stuff <a href=http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=215>most likely</a> to trigger the bots. Share stuff like linux distros, shareware and public domain.

The brute force tactics provided by RIAA will eventually backfire. Its a PR disaster, and it only accelerates the development and interest in more secure P2P clients, based on proxied distribution (example; ES5) and <a href=http://freenet.sourceforge.net/>freenet</a> style technology (example; "frost"). With the exponential growth in harddisk space, bandwidth, # of P2P users, a growing public dislike for corporate bully tactics, and an increased demand for user privacy, there is no doubt in my mind they are fighting a losing battle.

[Dasquian Belargic]

From the latest version of K++/KLite:


Features:


* (New!) Block RIAA and other organizations from connecting, downloading
and uploading to you.
* (New!) K++ default options have been changed to protect your privacy. By default:
[list]

* Bad IP ranges, eg. the ones from the RIAA and others, are now blocked
automatically by K++ thanks to the PeerGuardian IP range file. K++
blocks all these IP ranges from ever connecting to you (both TCP and UDP), and
the connections are closed immediately without them getting a single bit
from you.

* No-one can get a listing of ALL your files through a "Find all files from
this user" command (you're still able to share, though).

* Port 1214 (aka Kazaa's port) is disabled so no-one can scan your computer
to see if you're using Kazaa K++.

* Your search history isn't saved in the registry.


Not that this seems to apply to me anway. From what I'm reading this is a US thing.

[Master Yoghurt]

The only real protection K++ got is the PeerGuardian IP range blocking. And may I add, its a rather leaky one. The IP blocks are generally to wide, and it relies on being updated all the time. If you do use IP blockers, recognise their <a href=http://www.overclockers.com/articles780/>limitations</a>. Adjust them appropriately, and consider them security aids - not impenetrable armour.

[Ryla Relvinian]

Ok, so, if we run Kazaa lite, for example, and have no friggin' clue how to protect ourselves, what should we do?

[Sejah Haversh]

Perhaps not download music and buy it on CD instead? Hey, I'm poorer than most folks here, but that's what I've been doing for years. The only song I have actually downloaded was Weezer's "Buddy Holly."

If you want the music, just buy it, seriously. Or get a copy from your friends.

[imported_Marcus]

Why would I buy a CD? They are overpriced and filled with one or two good songs, with the rest a steaming crap pile. IF the RIAA members came up with a cheap and easy way to buy music online, with the ease of P2P, then I say they might survive.

Apple has it's iTunes store which I understand is going allright. That might be worth a look.


Originally posted by Ryla Relvinian
Ok, so, if we run Kazaa lite, for example, and have no friggin' clue how to protect ourselves, what should we do?

Yeech, can o worms is the question of security. Basic first base is check what Yog posted a few posts earlier

[Sejah Haversh]

Boo frikkin hoo, Mark. So CDS are overpriced, that's why I sample before I buy on the in-store sample things. I only buy CDs that are good all the way through, and I never feel ripped off.

And, if you just want some hits, buy singles or compilations. Or buy compilations you make online. Stealing isn't good. And file-sharing often equals stealing. If I wera a recording artist, I'd be pissed if people were jackin' my stuff.

[imported_Marcus]

Copyright Infringement != stealing.

Your falling for the crap the RIAA sprouts if you do. Copyright infringement and Theft are two completely different issues under law with completely different penalties.

And didnt you know some artists with a clue rather liek their stuff being on the P2P networks? Becuase it builds their name. Some artists have grasped why P2P can be so good and are actively encouraging it.

Of note, not the ones bonded so tight to a major act that they cant take a crap without permission. Ones signed to independants or no contract tend to go for P2P and encourage it. For an example, The Living end post good quality MP3's on their site, knowing quite damn well they will be traded. But that to them is the point - trade and get known, rake em in at concerts and T-shirts!

Artists do not make money by record sales. They make it by concerts and merchandise. Metallica many years ago realised that. They encouraged bootlegging. It seems rather amusing they are now a0 bonded to a RIAA member and b) now no longer support the mechanism that grew them from a pub into stadiums.

There is a link that I posted that shows this clearly and how much the RIAA members steal off artists.

The fact is, that i have already supported, it is the RIAA memebers ripping off artists, not P2P ripping off artists. Boo frikking hoo if the big recording companies sink into a slimey hole. We'll alos have less dribble like spears without them

[ReaperFett]

We'll alos have less dribble like spears without them
Who is loved by people in the demographic she is aimed at.

[Sejah Haversh]

And we'd also have less Rollign stones, Beatles, Maroon 5, Dave Mathews, Weezer, Stone Temple Pilots, Jars of Clay, Jason Mraz, Rancid, and many other good bands and artists.

Listen, when you take a song, and use it for its intended purpose (listening to) without paying for it, that is stealing. I don't care what the law states in its infintie loopholes, it is stealing.

Whatsay I don't care for the quality of octane of my favorite car gas, and think the prices are too high. If I go and take a tanker truck and share it with ym friends without paying for it, that is theft. Stealing music and sharing it with your friends is no different. Same for software, and anything else digital that has a copyright.

For that instance, let's all boycott movie theatres and their high ticket prices so that we may download them and suffer degraded quality, crummy sound, and a small picture. I'm sure Hollywood and other companies won't mind not making any money off the things that cost them millions to make. I mean, I think Peter Jackson is a nice guy and wouldn't mind if nobody actually paid to see RotK and downloaded it instead.

Oh, but you say they'd go for the big screen and theatre sound? Perhaps, but I buy CDs for the HIGHER QUALITY OF RECORDING. MP3 does not sound as good as WAV. I have never experienced a time where they have sounded the same.

Some bands do like having their stuff out there for 2P transfer. Some bands also use Public Access TV. Some also use Pirate Radio stations. Some distribute flyers, some do their own advertising. There are plenty of ways to get a name out, but the best is to actually be a good band and have a sound people want to hear.

Kid Rock had some of the best live shows, and he was able to rake in massive crowds while he was an unknown. He worked his butt off, and got himself where he is without having to dump his stuff on the net. Word of mouth is often a powerful method as well.

That's my speil. Disagree if you want, but that's what I think.

[imported_Marcus]

Your speil is dismissed as soon as you equated theft with copyright infringement. That is untrue in law and greatly so.


Listen, when you take a song, and use it for its intended purpose (listening to) without paying for it, that is stealing. I don't care what the law states in its infintie loopholes, it is stealing.


Whatsay I don't care for the quality of octane of my favorite car gas, and think the prices are too high. If I go and take a tanker truck and share it with ym friends without paying for it, that is theft. Stealing music and sharing it with your friends is no different. Same for software, and anything else digital that has a copyright.

You should know the difference so you avoid making absurd strawman arguments that are wrong. Theft is the act of denying someone of their rightful property, as in the case of the fuel steal. Copyright Infrigement is the act of COPYING a work against the wishes of someone. You are not denying them the actual object. There is a difference and in the eyes of the law it is a big one, desipte your protestations to the contrary.

I will now subject this post to a copyright notice. As this post is an original work, you are not allowed, by trade, or other purposes, allowed to print, quote or reproduce any part of my post for any reason without my express written and verified permission.

I have now made a legally binding copyright notice. Any person who defies this notice will be subject to a demand of $500 AUD.

This I may add is a legally enforceable notice. (*)

Now if you break my copyright, you have not stolen from me. You have just copied my words against my wishes. We are not arguing that copyright violation is right and you are allowed to do it.

I have not in this thread advocated copyright violation, nor have I even really discussed it - I have however pouinted out legat trading is good. I have however pointed out serious problems with the present methids and business structures the RIAA members used. If you copyright infringe, that is up to you.

However I utterly and completely reject the supposition Copyright Infrigement is theft, becuase clearly it is not. It is a broken argument and anyone using it must reexamine what copyright really is.

[imported_Marcus]

(*) I hereby relinquish my copyright on the pervious post and allow duplication :p

But is that a clear enough example what copyright really is? While there are fair use clauses that will absolve my notice, it serves as a point what copyright really is about.

[Sejah Haversh]

One problem, Marky-Mark. You never registered yout copyright with the copyright office. Therefore, even though it bears the copyright symbol, it is not copyrighted.\

Dangnabbit! You stinker and your quick second-posting! =P

[imported_Marcus]

/Nelson : HA HA!


Seriously For other's info -

Copyright is an impled right that is granted and does not need registration OR a notice. The copyright laws between Aust and the USA are fairly similar in this regard, that is not the case in some EU countires. For me to have a claim on copyright, all I need to do is that prove my writing is original and I did it first and that there is value or representation in that claim.

[imported_Marcus]

Oh and people were wondering about privacy issues?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/32714.html

Have a flick though this. It suggests the RIAA can be held liable for unauthorised access to your machine.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Sejah Haversh
For that instance, let's all boycott movie theatres and their high ticket prices so that we may download them and suffer degraded quality, crummy sound, and a small picture. I'm sure Hollywood and other companies won't mind not making any money off the things that cost them millions to make. I mean, I think Peter Jackson is a nice guy and wouldn't mind if nobody actually paid to see RotK and downloaded it instead.


I've never heard a person refer to the DVD format as something that suffers from degredaded quality, crummy sound, and a small picture before. If you don't like the quality, throw your 9" TV from 1976 into the landfill and buy a 150" freznel lens setup. If you don't like the sound, buy a better receiver and speakers. If you don't like the small picture, repeat step 1.



Oh, but you say they'd go for the big screen and theatre sound? Perhaps, but I buy CDs for the HIGHER QUALITY OF RECORDING. MP3 does not sound as good as WAV. I have never experienced a time where they have sounded the same.


So download the WAVs instead if you (wrongly) think they sound better.

[imported_J'ktal Anajii]

DV, I was actually trolling Mark at that point.

And, I was speaking of DivX, which does have a degradation of quality.

I happen to have a decent TV, and have no inclination of buying a grandious waste of space to watch pirated moves on. I'd rather go to the theatre and pay my six bucks.

[Silus Xilarian]

To me, if the RIAA should be sueing anyone, they shouldnt sue their own customer base. I stand by my claim that ive purchased more CDs because of filesharind than I did because of TV and Radio combined. The reason is simply this...I hear from a friend that a certain song is ossum. So I go DL it and listen to it. If I like it, I DL two random songs off the same album. Most of the time, due to sluggish DL times, I only listen to about 30 seconds and cancel each song. If I like what I hear, I go buy the CD. Im not sharing a whole library of music.....In fact, Ive never shared music.....it slows my connection too badly when other ppl are DLing from me. But the RIAA are sueing ppl LIKE ME claiming that people LIKE ME are costing them billions in revenue. The people who ARENT GETTING SUED are the people hosting thousands of MP3's on filesharing programs, and actively keep up with the RIAA, because they know if they get caught, they're in deep -stuff-

Honestly, them claiming that this is theft blatantly conflicts their claim that they arent being vindictive.

look at this monetarily. A CD single is what....about 5 bux? It usually has more than one song, even if its a remix of the other song. So we'll look at it like this. 1 song = 5 dollars. Now im just trying to figure out where they get 150,000 per song in this lawsuit in damages.

For one song to cost them THAT MUCH MONEY, it would have to have been shared a total of 30,000 times.

I honestly dont see how anyone can defend the RIAA's actions. They're tactics are going to break MANY families, Even if the case is thrown out, which so far, i dont know if any have, as Ive only heard about settlements.

Ive stopped DLing music online, simply for the fact that getting a summons to court would probably put me in the poorhouse, let alone getting sued. But on the same token, I'll never buy another CD again unless im sure that none of my 20 bux will be seen by the RIAA.

Im one lost customer. Maybe if im lucky, i wont be the only one.

[ReaperFett]

To me, if the RIAA should be sueing anyone, they shouldnt sue their own customer base. I stand by my claim that ive purchased more CDs because of filesharind than I did because of TV and Radio combined.
And some people who buy an illegal copy off the street will buy a later album. Doesn't mean the majority do.




Most of the time, due to sluggish DL times, I only listen to about 30 seconds and cancel each song.
I believe you can listen to up to a minute unrestricted legally. Like a sample or similar. Most albums on Amazon have this IIRC.



But the RIAA are sueing ppl LIKE ME claiming that people LIKE ME are costing them billions in revenue.
How many people here only download the first 30 seconds of songs? I think you'll be in the minority there.



Now im just trying to figure out where they get 150,000 per song in this lawsuit in damages.
Always go higher. Remember the story of the 12 year old girl? $2,000 total and an apology admitting what she was doing was illegal. You SAY 150k a song because what idiot will try and fight you in court? They will pay a small amount and has to admit to being bad. If they do it again, you already have their confession.


Im one lost customer. Maybe if im lucky, i wont be the only one.
They'll probably gain more customers than lose. Take me. My little rule was if I have three songs DLed from one group that aren't freely available (Some groups put their early work online), then I have to buy a CD of theirs. Doesn't matter if I like them or not, if I get to three I should actually give the group some money. Now? I'll just buy the album after hearing a couple of songs. Somehow I doubt there will be a mass of people boycotting having music, a thing they love.


And as an aside, the music Marcus called "Drivel" will then be MORE common, as kids will still buy CDs. That's why they've came into prominence. Because they sell.

[Silus Xilarian]

So yah, the RIAA is willing to take 2000 bux from a 12 year old. 2000 bux = a semester in college. So now she can grow up, not get an education, and not be able to get a decent paying job, so she wont be able to afford to buy music, so instead she'll have to download it, where she'll again be sued.

and you consider 2000 a small amount of money?



Seriously, how can you justify rich people sueing poor people?

[imported_Marcus]

And as an aside, the music Marcus called "Drivel" will then be MORE common, as kids will still buy CDs. That's why they've came into prominence. Because they sell.

Crap. The reason why - the real reason why - CD sales are fallign off is because a) Kids have a much wider choice to spend entertainment money on and b) They actually seem to be waking up to the fact that CD's are bad value and generally filled with poo.

The other point you dont mention is that..... well let's use a real life example. Hayley Toomey is a singer. She was quite a successful one, featuring in a few musical productions and also doing backup vocals for bands. she has a great voice - and admittedly not bad to look at. She got involved with Sony Entertainment and an all girl 'pop group'.

Do you have any idea what type of hell her career took right then and there? Sony are not interested in what people want to listen to, nor do they give a rip about the 'artists' they preport to represent. She attests the rest of the 'group' couldnt sing for crap and were just there to look pretty. Quite true, in more than just my opinion -_-

These days, she's back singing in clubs and working back the way she reckons she should have - the hard way, not some loser girl power group. Really nice girl, hope it works out. I think she's due to sing the anthem at a Rugby World Cup match this year if her health improves in time. But be that as it may, she knows the industry and her word means something. She knows exactly what scum the music execs are.

Sony is not about music, they are about image. If these talentless hacks like Spears had to go through the true paths to get famous and rich from music, they would stand exactly no chance. This drivel is pushed to the market place and saturated marketed with multi million dollar campains.

Were the Spice Girls based on talent?

was the Backstreet Boys?

Basically, to say that P2P will give rise to more useless poop is a Strawman argument. Kids now know there are better altenatives out there. You now have a whole age groups that knows how to get music for free. That is why the RIAA is crapping bricks about P2P - it is an effective distribtion system they have no control over that can destroy their scum bag members. It can lead to the death of drivel as the emphasis switches to quality, not image.

We know the RIAA is living on borrowed time. We know the real reasons. The MPAA members, interestingly have it worked out too. DVD's just happen to be viewed as worth the dollars and they definantly have miles more features. Why the hell are you going to copyright infringe say FOTR, when the FOTR:EE 4 disk DVD is absolute magic at a good price?

That's beside the fact that copyright infringing a movie is a factor of 4 harder than music, cause of the size difference. Hey look, the MPAA aint worried about P2P, they know DVD's are better than some Internet rip and are seen as good value! If the RIAA can buy that clue, we'll all be better off.

[Charley]

Sej, you've been soundly beaten at copyright arguments. Marcus is 100% right in every facet of that argument.

[ReaperFett]

So yah, the RIAA is willing to take 2000 bux from a 12 year old.
Well technically, it's the mother. It's just that the kid is the one DOING the DLing. She was the pawn in the mothers evil plans ;)


Seriously, how can you justify rich people sueing poor people?
By it being the law. And by the rich people then losing money so not helping more talent, keeping more poor people poor.

I bet you wont hear of ANY legal action in time. This is muscle flexing IMO. They're telling the world that they're willing to do this, want to risk it?


Crap. The reason why - the real reason why - CD sales are fallign off is because a) Kids have a much wider choice to spend entertainment money on and b) They actually seem to be waking up to the fact that CD's are bad value and generally filled with poo.
You don't HAVE to start all comments with an insult. Go to the point ;)

And you miss my point. The REASON the music industry is putting so much behind people like Spears is because they sell. Spears isn't a singer, she's a franchise. You can make Spears lunchboxes, soap, boxer shorts, computer games, elastic bands. You have a better chance of profit with Spears over some punk-rock band.


If these talentless hacks like Spears had to go through the true paths to get famous and rich from music, they would stand exactly no chance.
"true path"? She has been singing since 8 on TV, she's been in talent contests. Doesn't matter what your opinions on her talent is, she hardly got her job due to one lucky break. She did have to work for it.


Basically, to say that P2P will give rise to more useless poop is a Strawman argument.
Here's the point where I realise you didn't follow what I said :)

It will give rise due to the demographics. Kids as a rule will not be the ones on Kazaa or whatever. It'll be the 16-30 bracket as a rule of thumb. Spears is a singer who has a large fanbase under 16. Ergo, her sales would barely get affected compared to a group you would deem "proper".

The entire entertainment medium is more cut-throat than ever before. A TV series has one season to prove itself before axing, while years before some of the most succesful series started with low viewing figures. It's all about the instant success. Companies either aren't willing or don't dare wait to see if someone becomes a success. Yes, you COULD wait for years and a group might become huge, a la Oasis over here. Or, they could spend a lot of money waiting on a group that never gets any higher than mediocrity. Someone like Britteny Spears is popular and has had a successful career, whatever you think about her talent. Meanwhile, the more critically acclaimed groups are having medium success, and apparently need P2P software and concerts to get anywhere. Logically, which would you go for? The short term pop singer with a high chance of short term success, or a rock group with a medium chance of long term success?



Kids now know there are better altenatives out there.
Prove it. No offense, but how would you know what a kid thinks? If they all know there's a "better alternative" (How open minded of you btw. Ever heard of difference of opinion?), why do the "lesser alternatives" still sell?


Why the hell are you going to copyright infringe say FOTR, when the FOTR:EE 4 disk DVD is absolute magic at a good price?
Much as I love extras, I haven't watched a single one off my FOTR:EE. If I look at every extra that is available, I bet I've only watched about 25% of the extras I own, total. A lot of my DVDs I could have DLed, and wouldn't have made much difference to me. And if you weren't such a LOTR lover, would you have watched all of the FOTR documentaries?


If the RIAA can buy that clue, we'll all be better off.
How will it affect them? If they cut 33% off the price and start adding making of documentaries, people will still go for the FREE alternative. Further more, doing things such as this costs money. What if it doesn't work out? Companies lose money, jobs are lost, groups remain unsigned as noone is willing to hire up new talent due to the financial situation. They'd still start with their scare tactics. Indeed they are, as prices ARE being lowered. By 33% I hear. That's a large drop. How many people even know how much a CD costs right now? I bet a lot can only guess. So we tell them the CDs are 33% off. Wooo, now they choose either 15 songs for $10 (Or whatever), or whichever songs they want for free. I'm struggling to actually see where there is competition.


That's beside the fact that copyright infringing a movie is a factor of 4 harder than music, cause of the size difference. Hey look, the MPAA aint worried about P2P, they know DVD's are better than some Internet rip and are seen as good value!
And because finding a movie is a factor of 4 harder than music due to size difference. I know people who could tell me where to get comics for free. Comic indstry wont worry though, as someone has to scan all the pages in, make them readable and so on. People will still buy the comics, or at least wait for the trades, reguardless of price. You said it yourself, music is so much easier to find, faster to download and will less noticable quality difference.




And just to go back a page:

Copyright infringement and Theft are two completely different issues under law with completely different penalties.
So it IS illegal, no matter how you look at it.

[Charley]

It really depends, Fett. The "law" its based on is currently being decided on whether its even constitutional or not. Further that, copyrights have due dilligence clauses, and I'm not sure if the RIAA's recent actions fall under such due dilligence.

[Ryla Relvinian]

Regardless, it's not like the RIAA didn't have a chance to jump on filesharing back when Napster was first on the scene. I honestly believe that if some exec up there had seen this potential, sites that allow you to buy individual songs would have popped up much much sooner. The further it progressed, the looser morals all the users have.

Remember, back in high school, when your teacher left the room during a test? You'd all jump up and "trade" answers, and the detriment would be to the teacher, who designed this for individual use. I see filesharing as much the same thing. It's not wrong, as in murder/rape/torture wrong, but you do have to admit that it was set up to circumvent a law, and then, legally, is wrong, whatever you morally think about it. Was it the teacher's fault for opening up that opportunity? Perhaps, just as it could be partially the RIAA's fault for not seeing this coming a mile away.

Of course, I still do it. Why? Because if I want one track off of Zappa's Jazz from Hell Album and it's 3:42 am, there's no way in hell I'm finding a music store to drive to. As of yet, pay-per-song sites only have mainstream songs. So I, with my odd odd tastes, am SOL.

[Figrin D'an]

I'm still of the belief that if the music industry would innovate rather than rest on their laurels, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's like Marcus mentioned regarding DVD/film piracy. Sure, it's out there, but it captures such a small portion of the market that it's barely noticable from an economic standpoint. The MPAA, although they officially campaign against piracy just like the RIAA, doesn't feel it necessary to bring the full brunt of their power against the few consumers who partake in movie dubbing. They know they have a superior product on a solid format, and they see no reason to potentially alienate part of their customer base by getting sue-happy. The industry continues to innovate as well, with blue-laser DVD on it's way and digital filmmaking pushing it's way into major film studios.

The music industry has pinned all it's profit potential to CD's. They have for 18 years now. And what has changed in that time? A CD is still a CD. They still cost about $17.00 for a newly released album, and average about 10-12 tracks on each. No quality enhancements, no added features, no price drops. It's a stagnant product, and people have begun to realize this. It's simply not a good deal anymore, when there are other entertainment products available that the consumer sees as having a greater value for their dollar, and that continue to improve technologically.

In today's world, if you don't innovate as a company or as an industry, you fade into irrelevency. It's mearly a matter of time. If the RIAA were smart, they would focus on finding the successor to the current CD format and working with the digital music revolution on an even greater scale. Create a better product with better content and better quality, and people will start heading back to the music stores.

[TheHolo.Net]

Originally posted by Silus Xilarian
To me, if the RIAA should be sueing anyone, they shouldnt sue their own customer base.
Originally posted by Figrin D'an
I'm still of the belief that if the music industry would innovate rather than rest on their laurels, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In today's world, if you don't innovate as a company or as an industry, you fade into irrelevency. It's mearly a matter of time. If the RIAA were smart, they would focus on finding the successor to the current CD format and working with the digital music revolution on an even greater scale. Create a better product with better content and better quality, and people will start heading back to the music stores. Quoted for being great truths.

The RIAA is as we speak digging their own grave, by taking the actions they are taking. Boycotts from consumers and artists are already starting. They think sales are down due to online song swapping, just wait untill their numbers roll in for the next couple of quarters and they see what they have managed to do to themselves.

RIAA = frelled

[Seteth Morters]

thing is [and i dont know if this has been said before, but i've been skim-reading due to fatigue] P2P downloading is a great way to get to see if you like a band, before you buy their album, and has persuaded me to buy a *lot* of albums over the years. System of a down, four star mary, Stone Sour. I would never have dreamed of going out and buying their albums if I hadn't first downloaded a few tracks. So people might say "if you want one track as a sample, buy a single" but with a single costing about half as much as a full album, theres no way anyone in their right mind would do that. Five quid for four tracks and maybe a video? no way.

and theyve made a lot of enemies now - even more than they had before.


originally posted by Ogre

The RIAA is as we speak digging their own grave, by taking the actions they are taking. Boycotts from consumers and artists are already starting. They think sales are down due to online song swapping, just wait untill their numbers roll in for the next couple of quarters and they see what they have managed to do to themselves.



exactly. theyre shooting themselves in the foot, pulling their own teeth and cutting themselves to shreds with their own unwieldy claws.

[ReaperFett]

The "law" its based on is currently being decided on whether its even constitutional or not.
How do you mean? I don't follow US politics and the like, so don't really follow what you're saying.


Regardless, it's not like the RIAA didn't have a chance to jump on filesharing back when Napster was first on the scene. I honestly believe that if some exec up there had seen this potential, sites that allow you to buy individual songs would have popped up much much sooner. The further it progressed, the looser morals all the users have.
I agree.


Remember, back in high school, when your teacher left the room during a test? You'd all jump up and "trade" answers, and the detriment would be to the teacher, who designed this for individual use. I see filesharing as much the same thing. It's not wrong, as in murder/rape/torture wrong, but you do have to admit that it was set up to circumvent a law, and then, legally, is wrong, whatever you morally think about it. Was it the teacher's fault for opening up that opportunity? Perhaps, just as it could be partially the RIAA's fault for not seeing this coming a mile away.
Doubly agree. It is the RIAAs fault that it happens partially, but the blame is on the "students" for doing it.


The RIAA is as we speak digging their own grave, by taking the actions they are taking. Boycotts from consumers and artists are already starting. They think sales are down due to online song swapping, just wait untill their numbers roll in for the next couple of quarters and they see what they have managed to do to themselves.

RIAA = frelled
I struggle to see this happening. A lot of people will SAY they will boycott, but eventually they'll give in. Taking the example of Marvel, many said they would boycott all Marvel comments when Mark Waid was removed from Fantastic Four. If you go to Newsarama, and I know some here do, you will often see someone say something like "I will break my boycott to buy this" or similar. In other words, they'll boycott until they really want something :)

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by J'ktal Anajii
DV, I was actually trolling Mark at that point.

And, I was speaking of DivX, which does have a degradation of quality.

I happen to have a decent TV, and have no inclination of buying a grandious waste of space to watch pirated moves on. I'd rather go to the theatre and pay my six bucks.

No, you were speaking of downloading it as opposed to purchasing it legit. You can download full DVD-9s very easily. You're on VERY thin ice if it's your intention to argue that in 2003 the act of piracy carries with it a mandatory quality degradation.

And speaking of DivX, it's possible to do conversions from DVD to DivX without visible quality degradation while still reducing the original DVD's bitrate 75%. And my eyes are very trained towards detecting quality degradation. It takes about twice as long, but it's easy to do.

[Charley]

Fett, please read up on the Digital Millennia Copyright Act. That is what I am discussing now. Its controversial, to put it lightly. Was passed as some sort of political flatulence thanks to Al Gore and constituency, and has stood on shaky legal precedents at the very best. There is a case against it heading to the Supreme Court over whether it is even constitutional. If its ruled unconstitutional, its out.

[Ryla Relvinian]

Well, Al Gore did invent the internet, you know. :rolleyes

[Sorreessa Tarrineezi]

....and pants....heh, I still laugh when I think of that commercial :lol

[Lion El' Jonson]

As for Marcus' argument as to whether or not kids are aware there are better choices these days...

Well, I'm 16 right now. And I happen to agree with Marcus. Every single record store within twenty MILES of my house has gone out of business. It's not because of file sharing. Fifty Percent of my friends don't even use P2P programs. The other fifty percent happen to download a song, listen to it twice, realize it's a piece of crap and not worth the 13 dollars for the album, and delete it from their harddrive. Finito. Done. Game Over.

Look at the recent trends among teenagers. PS2, Xbox, even Gamecube have sold at explosive rates with the teenage group. Games rated PG and M are selling better than ever. E3 this year was filled with games tailored for the teenage demographic. Scooters and bike sales are on the rise.

Frankly, kids are taking a look at their parents, realizing they don't want to weigh 200 pounds, and getting out for some exercise. McDonalds is gonna be out of business within 5 years, I'm predicting.

Marcus is right, kids are becoming aware that there's better things for them to do than waste 13 dollars on a CD they'll listen to three times, then cast aside.

[Darth Viscera]

http://www.eff.org/

If you want to protect yourself from the RIAA, go there. It offers good advice, and sets you up with an easy way to send a letter to your congressman.

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030907

And if they try to make you fill out form UR-SCR00 D, don't do it!

[Morgan Evanar]

I just bought a new CD today. Its not something I do often, but if you put out good stuff, people will buy it.

[ReaperFett]

http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html

Move to Canada :)

[Darth Viscera]

Move to Canada? Mayonnaise on everything? An entirely homogenous group of people? No foreign food? Cracka please!

[Morgan Evanar]

Move to Canada? Mayonnaise on everything? An entirely homogenous group of people? No foreign food? Cracka please! What the hell are you talking about? I have a friend who lives in Canada who's of Asian descent but is originally from France.

RIDDLE ME THIS CAPTAIN AMERICAN SUPERIORITY!

[Darth Viscera]

Don't bring up American superiority please. My previous post was written with a degree of jocularity, not overt hostility. Like brotherly love or something. I'm joshin with ya Canada.

Anyways, according to the Canadian Ministry of Finance, in 2001 the percentage of "visible minorities (persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.)" was 13.4%. The U.S. has about 3x that number, at 36%. With that in mind, I think of the Canadian population as wildly homogenous in comparison to our own. Hence the mayonnaise.

[Charley]

Eh, contrast the number with a more homogeneous country...such as China. Canada is pretty diverse on the global scheme of things.

[Morgan Evanar]

Don't bring up American superiority please. My previous post was written with a degree of jocularity, not overt hostility Your sarcasm detector is broken. Please take it into the nearest examination station and have it recalibrated.

[Darth Viscera]

My bad. I'm used to being assailed with arguments at every post.

[Master Yoghurt]

There is a petition at EFF. At time of writing, it got 47,000 signatures. The first batch of signatures has been sent to US Senator Norm Coleman. Coleman has announced hearings in order to investigate the RIAA's legal tactics. If the petition reaches 100,000 signatures, it will be delivered to the Senate, House Commerce and Judiciary Commitees.

Petition can be found <a href=http://www.eff.org/share/petition/>here</a>

[Darth Viscera]

/sign

[Lilaena De'Ville]

It's got something like 48,500+ now.

[ReaperFett]

Letters are the way to go. What's an electronic file saying a number compared to visible masses?

[Master Yoghurt]

I agree letters are more effective, but the petition provides an alternative. Its a convenient way for people to voice their annoyance. 100,000 printed signatures are hard to ignore for democratic elected representatives. It sends a strong signal. One signature is a potential vote, and they know it.

[Alpha]

I'm signing. :)

[Master Yoghurt]

Did anyone read about RIAA's latest adventure?

They sued Sarah Seabury Ward, a 66 year old lady for $300 million (!). Thats $150,000 per song for sharing 2000 MP3's on Kazaa. The problem was, being a bit of a computer neophyte, she had never used Kazaa or downloaded/shared a MP3 in her entire life. In fact, the ancient macintosh she has wont even install Kazaa (windows only).

Her lawyer complained to the RIAA, demanding an apology and ''dismissal with prejudice'' of the lawsuit. Foley Hoag, the firm representing the record labels dropped the case, but without prejudice, adding: "..we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant"

Among the songs 66 year old lady were supposed to share, is the gangsterrap song "I'm a Thug of Trick Daddy. Just the kind of music cosy grannies like to listen to... :D

Full story here:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/267/business/Recording_industry_withdraws_suitP.shtml

[Lilaena De'Ville]

What a joke! Poor lady. I hope she sues them back for slander or something.

[ReaperFett]

adding: "..we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant"
Isn't that just legal cover? If they said we WONT sue her and then she bought a new comp and started, couldn't she then say that they said in black and white that she was clear?

[Master Yoghurt]

Of course it is legal cover. The point is, they made a terrible mistake. Do they humbly appologize? Nope, they add a clausul so they can sue her later in the unlikely event they find more evidence. Reading between the lines, it hints maybe she were sharing files after all? They dont like to admit being wrong, thats what its really about.

[ReaperFett]

Noone admits they're wrong if they still think they're right :)

[Master Yoghurt]

Thats true :)