response 1 of 72:

Apr 11 12:36 UTC 2004

Yes, its illigal. But, coping music off the internet isnt REALLY as bad as
the music industry makes it sound. They are all just power and money hogs that
wouldnt give a shit if a person at a lower position then them died, as long
as they didin't make any money. They've got plenty of cash, and i don't really
think it would affect the music writers or producers much if they lost just
a bit of it to those in a lesser position.

Pardon me if I'm wrong but thats just my opinion.

response 3 of 72:

Apr 11 17:54 UTC 2004

uhh yah... all those people that have been sued cause the d/l'd music off the
internet kinda should tell u its illigal

response 5 of 72:

Apr 11 19:29 UTC 2004

There's been a bunch of stuff for this topic, and I just don't feel 
like digging up the links right now.  
 
The third round of RIAA "John Doe" lawsuits targets universities for 
the first time, including 9 IP addresses at the University of Michigan,
presumably students.
 
The IFPI (international version of the RIAA) is trumpeting new legal 
action against file sharing users in Germany, Denmark, Italy, the UK,
if I remember the countries correctly.
 
In a Canadian case, a judge threw out the claims of the Canadian 
record industry association, who were seeking to have ISPs turn over
the identities of users alleged to be sharing files, and the judge
seemed to come darn close to legalizing file sharing in Canada.

USA CD sales for first-quarter 2004 are up something like 9%.
International sales for 2003 were generally down, with Germany 
reporting an eye-popping plunge of 19%.

Congress continues to cry, "Why won't they stop?" and there are 
new proposals for harsher penalties and lowering the standard of 
proof required to punish file-sharers.

And finally, the World Intellectual Property Organization is 
proposing that consumer recording of broadcasts be stopped,
proposing to grant broadcasters a "right of fixation".  This would
overrule the US Supreme Court "Betamax" decision which legalized
VCRs.  

Press reports are starting to mount about the new regulations
for digital TV equipment; under the new regime, the broadcasters and 
movie companies will tell your video recorder what can be recorded, 
how many times it can be viewed, and when the recording will be 
destroyed.  It's not certain yet, but it seems probable that computers
will be prohibited from accessing video content, because they can't
be made secure enough.

response 7 of 72:

Apr 12 03:54 UTC 2004

Depends on the country. Most countries are described as accepting the
jurisdiction of the world court "with reservations"; iirc the US is one of
those renegade countries (in company with places like Tajikistan?) that don't
accept World Court jurisdiction *at all*.

response 9 of 72:

Apr 12 14:29 UTC 2004

Here's a link for a Cnet story about the copyright industry pushing 
for sweeping regulations of how electronic devices can handle video:
 
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5186881.html?tag=nefd.lede

response 11 of 72:

Apr 12 17:02 UTC 2004

And if someone is really desperate, they can use an analog to the "print
screen" solution for PCs:  They could train their camcorder on the TV screen
and record the movie *that* way.  Crude, but...

response 13 of 72:

Apr 12 21:05 UTC 2004

Making a copy by going to analog isn't really the issue here, it's
digital media, and copies of them.

response 15 of 72:

Apr 13 19:31 UTC 2004

Right, the WIPO is NOT the world court. The post previous to *my* last
confused me.

response 17 of 72:

Apr 23 23:45 UTC 2004

DVD purchases of just the hottest titles have been more than all CDs.
That's not surprising, when you consider that you can buy an entire
movie on DVD for less money than the cost of the soundtrack on CD.

response 19 of 72:

Apr 24 00:28 UTC 2004

Or at least overpriced.