NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Supreme Court handed the entertainment industry a crucial victory Monday in their titanic battle to curb Internet piracy.

 

In MGM v. Grokster, the high court overturned a ruling that barred Hollywood and the music industry from suing Internet services used by consumers to swap songs and movies for free.

 

The decision was a major win for the entertainment industry and a big blow to technology companies.

 

The recording industry and Hollywood movie studios are looking for as much legal firepower as they can get to help prevent Internet users from sharing songs, movies, videos and other copyrighted material without paying. Internet piracy, entertainment industry executives have claimed, threatens their existence.

 

Technology leaders have been equally strident, claiming that holding software and hardware companies accountable for Internet piracy committed by individual users will chill innovation

 

 

So now the *AA's will strong arm the broadband companies to cater to their whims or get sued.

 

Ironically, this comes on the heels of the BSA (anti-software piracy group) getting called out for basically making up the amount they claim is lost to piracy.

Screw it... these dudes can sue me if they want. You can't take something from he who has nothing.

It's funny to think artists used to work for pittance for the opportunity to receive exposure but these days will sue your ass into the ground if you dare to enjoy their work without dropping enough dough for them to be content. The have nots are glad for the exposure 90% of the time, those already raking in millions are the ones crowing about being screwed... genius.

Its not really even the artists, its the MPAA and RIAA crying about losing "billions" and blaming it on P2P when pretty much every study done shows people are just buying fewer CDs and seeing fewer movies due to shitty products.

Its not really even the artists, its the MPAA and RIAA crying about losing "billions" and blaming it on P2P when pretty much every study done shows people are just buying fewer CDs and seeing fewer movies due to shitty products.

Both groups are also ignoring that sales were propped-up, long-term, by the conversion of old albums onto CD for the first time.

 

When you're getting huge sales on Beatles albums that have been out 30 years, it makes your numbers look good but it won't last in the long-term.

If you're looking for tools to boycott the RIAA, check out the link below:

 

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

 

You can use it to search for whether the CD you want to buy is protected by the RIAA or not.

 

"...just the highlights of the RIAA's practices involve price-fixing, blaming its poor financial state on unfounded digital piracy claims (and in turn, blaming and suing its own consumers), lobbying for changes that hinder technological innovation and change copyright laws, underpaying the artists it represents, invading personal privacy to enforce copyrights, and dismantling entire computer networks just because of their ability (of their users) to share copyrighted files."

Arguing that the corporations are overstepping their bounds merely by protecting their copyrights is ridiculous. Yes, I've been known to benefit from file sharing, and probably will again, but I'm not going to pretend to justify that what I do is okay. I just don't really care that it's wrong.

I think in all honesty they should just accept it's going to happen and try work with it or around it. Trying to fight it when artists themselves support filesharing doesn't make the record companies look good. Plus when artists are still going multi platinum it's hard to honestly say that sales are down because of downloading, sales are down because people aren't interested enough in the majority of current music, however people are interested in 50 Cent, Destiny's Child, John Legend, Kanye West, Coldplay and Green Day and that's why they sell while others don't. If they spent as much time and money promoting more than a handful of their artists rather than suing the people that enjoy their music I believe there would be less of a problem.

The thing is, people who share MP3s of unsigned or indy artists get swept up in these lawsuits too. It's more than pirates trying to justify stealing, it's about an industry pig-headedly trying to stifle technology.

I have to disagree with Loss on this one. I don't think it is wrong at all. Over a few years, I bought over 1200 cds. I would say at least 35-40% have only one or two songs that I actually enjoy. I would say over 60% are recordings I already owned. Is the artist going to refund my money because of their shitty product? Is the record company going to refund my money because I bought Bon Jovi's "Slippery When Wet" on record and it is no longer a viable medium? What about all of the Beatles cassettes and records I bought that I had to buy again during the CD re-releases? How, exactly, is it wrong to download a song that I already own, in one medium or another?

It all comes down to personal choice. You don't "have" to buy everything again; you do because you choose to do so. And while you hope that record companies will produce good music, they don't have any type of ethical or legal obligation to do so. The responsibility lies on the consumer to know what s/he's buying. With all the perfectly legal ways to sample music these days, and with most CD stores offering "try before you buy" anyway, there's no reason for anyone to get hoodwinked. I have no problem with downloading. I do it because I'm cheap and I want as much good stuff as I can get for as little money as possible. I've done it in the past and will continue to do it. I just get baffled at the lengths people go to justify stealing music. Personally, I'm a dirty thief and I really don't care.

I don't consider it stealing when you already own the music!

 

Really, what are we stealing? Sound?

 

If I made a profit off the music I downloaded then maybe I would feel just a little bit guilty in this entire ordeal.

When the only legal way to get something is to pay for it, and you get it unauthorized for free, that's theft. If you already have it and you're downloading it so you don't have to replace it on CD, that's you making a conscious choice to avoid purchasing something that is only legally available through stores. You're not stealing "sound" - you're stealing the format. Cassettes and CDs are priced differently because you're not just paying for the music, you're paying for the format.

I still disagree with you. i downloaded about half the Beatles catalogue from the net so I wouldn't have to go home, upload the songs to my computer and then burn my comp. Is that stealing? I upload 20 songs from my own personal CD collection, slap them on a CD, and give them to my friend as a gift. Is that stealing? What is the difference between the last scenario and getting a song from the net? NOthing as far as I can tell. It isn't unlike CJ allowing me to grab a few songs that he owns through AIM.

There used to be Fair Use in the copyright law where you could make a copy of media you own (tapes, CDs, casettes) in case the original got damaged, but the *AA's are working hard to eliminate any and all rights you have once you purchase something.

 

I understand where Loss is coming from, but to just dismiss the whole issue as theives trying for justification is missing the point.

If you already own a copy of an album, you can download it, just like if you own an original DVD you can make a backup copy for your own purposes.

 

Fuck the RIAA. The sort of music I like, is the sort of music that wouldn't be covered by this organisation anyway (I hope), so the simple answer is to support underground bands by going to see them in concert or buying merchandise (neither of which can be satisfactorily bootlegged) and screw album sales, because the bands make a pittance on it anyway and it's not them who are doing the suing.

 

Remember, the act of selling records to make money for an artist and a record company is a relatively recent phenomenon, like paying for a home recording of a popular movie. I'm not costing any company anything because if I couldn't pirate it I just wouldn't own it- I'm not into paying ?15 for something I'm likely to watch once or twice at the outside. You can't replicate the cinema experience any other way, which is why it's still popular, so if the multinational isn't satisfied with the millions they make that way, fuck em.

It isn't unlike CJ allowing me to grab a few songs that he owns through AIM.

You better pray to God no one at the RIAA saw that.

We know he all meant Catherine Zeta Jones. She's willy nilly with her file sharing, that hussy.

 

I personally think filesharing is apalling which is why I have 2 firewalls to prevent any outside scanning, viruses or sending files and get my computer fixed by a reliable friend of the family, so no one can plant any files on my computer, goddamnit.

 

Whatever. Like I'd ever allow myself to be exposed to the RIAA or my ISP anyway. Y'know what, I'm glad this happened. Know why? Because the more that companies (music, movies, software, etc.) try to crack down on internet piracy, the more that a number of people worldwide they can't possibly control all of will continue to find more ways to evade them and the more those companies will continue to piss away their own PR while I point and laugh. Quelched innovation my ass.