Another good one for the Lawyers

[XPSP2]

Story here.

http://p2pnet.net/story/11515

 

"February 28, 2007

Re: Notification of Copyright Infringement Claims

 

CASE ID#

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

We have asked your Internet Service Provider to forward this letter to you in advance of our filing a lawsuit against you in federal court for copyright infringement. We represent a number of large record companies, including EMI Recorded Music, SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, as well as all of their subsidiaries and affiliates ('Record Companies'), in pursuing claims of copyright infringement against individuals who have illegally uploaded and downloaded sound recordings on peer-to-peer networks.

 

We have gathered evidence that you have been infringing copyrights owned by the Record Companies. We are attaching to this letter a sample of the sound recordings you were found distributing via the AresWarezUS (Ares) peer-topeer [sic] network. In total, you were found distributing 321 audio files, a substantial number of which are sound recordings controlled by the Record Companies.

 

The reason we are sending this letter to you in advance of filing suit is to give you the opportunity to settle these claims as early as possible. If you contact us within the next twenty (20) calendar days, we will offer to settle the claims for a significantly reduced amount compared to what we will offer to settle them for after we file suit or compared to the judgment amount a court may enter against you. If you are interested in resolving this matter now, please contact our Settlement Information Line at 913-234-8181 or, alternatively, you may settle this matter immediately online at www.p2plawsuits.com, using the CASE ID# that appears at the top of this letter.

 

In deciding whether you wish to settle this matter, here are some things you should consider:

 

* The Copyright Act imposes a range of statutory damages for copyright infringement. The minimum damages under the law is $750 for each Page 2 copyrighted recording that has been infringed ('shared'). The maximum damage award can be substantially more. In addition to damages, you may also be responsible for paying the legal fees we incur in order to pursue these claims, and are subject to having an injunction entered against you prohibiting you from further infringing activity.

 

* preserve evidence that relates to the claims against you. In this case, that means, at a minimum, the entire library of recordings that you have made available for distribution as well as any recordings you have downloaded, need to be maintained as evidence. Further, you should not attempt to delete the peer-to-peer programs from your system - though you must stop them from operating. For information on how to do this, you may visit www.musicunited.org.

 

This is a serious matter and to the extent you have any questions, we strongly encourage you to contact us to ask those questions. Finally, if you would like more information regarding music downloading/file sharing and peer-to-peer networks, please visit www.p2plawsuits.com.

 

IF WE DO NOT HEAR FROM YOU WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, THEN WE WILL FILE SUIT AGAINST YOU IN FEDERAL COURT.

 

We are not your lawyers, nor are we giving you legal advice. We urge you to consult with an attorney immediately to advise you on your rights and responsibilities.

 

Sincerely,

Donald J. Kelso"

[Andavari]

If they really looked into it I suppose they could sue many people in the college environment. The only thing though I sort of take the Magnatune.com vision on things, although "regular" recording companies probably never will.

 

I remember not to long ago when a cousin of mine stated the college she was going to would expel any student found sharing copyrighted material such as music, software, etc., over their network.

[XPSP2]

If they really looked into it I suppose they could sue many people in the college environment. The only thing though I sort of take the Magnatune.com vision on things, although "regular" recording companies probably never will.

 

I remember not to long ago when a cousin of mine stated the college she was going to would expel any student found sharing copyrighted material such as music, software, etc., over their network.

I really like that link. I despise the way the RIAA rip off the original artist. Sure, make some money, but the artist is more deserving than the label.

 

What I don't like about the original article is that they are targeting kids. They can not drink or vote as they are not responsible enough. But, we can threaten them in this way because they should have known better?

When I was a kid, we all borrowed tapes and dubbed them. Does not mean that we did not grow up into responsible adults. I have bought hundreds of albums. Many multiple times. I'd say over $500 on Pink Floyds' "The Wall" alone. I do not have that album today. How many times must I pay for it before it is mine to keep?

[Andavari]

When I was a kid, we all borrowed tapes and dubbed them.

That's just it, friends lending friends music or hearing music playing in someone else's house, car, etc., is the easiest way to learn of new music that we probably would've never listened to or never heard of.

 

The LPs, tapes, CDs, etc., have always stated that any public performance of a recording is illegal which brings up questions in of itself for instance if someone is having a party at their house is it illegal for them to play copyrighted music during that party.

 

When I was younger in the 1980's I dubbed enough LPs, and tapes for them to arrest me and throw me into a deep dark cave where they'd have to bazooka in my daily rations, but back then to my knowledge they were mostly going after big bootleggers and leaving the general listening public untouched. Those early music deviations of borrowing music from friends did make me into a very addicted musicholic, and I've bought well over 2000+ audio CDs to prove it and I'm rather proud to be addicted to music which is going on some 26+ years now.

 

However I do understand that our old school way of getting music doesn't even compare to the ability for songs and albums to be on thousands of computers within an hour just from one measly source. I do however think the record companies will continue to sue people blind until one day their will need to be a sort of consortium placement on all music, sort of what already exists in the Creative Commons but I don't necessarily think that will happen for several decades long after we're buried to enjoy it.

[XPSP2]

If it weren't for Lawyers, we wouldn't need Lawyers.

 

Charlotte, North Carolina. USA.

 

A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, fire.

 

Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company.

 

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires."

 

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

 

The lawyer sued.. and WON!

 

(Stay with me.)

 

Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous.

 

The judge stated, nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable "fire", and was obligated to pay the claim!

 

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".

 

NOW, FOR THE BEST PART..

 

After the lawyer cashed the cheque, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!

 

With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

 

This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest!

 

ONLY IN AMERICA

[Andavari]

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires."

ROFLMAO

 

Hmm, I should insure my car for gas lossage, and should it run out I could get a new car.

[Sputnik]

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires."

 

After the lawyer cashed the cheque, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!

 

Brilliant!

[DennisD]

If it weren't for Lawyers, we wouldn't need Lawyers.

That story is so ridiculous it could only be true. Nice find.

[fireryone]

Not True

 

but funny anyway

 

"He's the kind of accountant you've got to admire.

Last year he deducted eighty cartons of cigarettes from my income tax.

Called it loss by fire!"

[XPSP2]

That's just it, friends lending friends music or hearing music playing in someone else's house, car, etc., is the easiest way to learn of new music that we probably would've never listened to or never heard of.

 

The LPs, tapes, CDs, etc., have always stated that any public performance of a recording is illegal which brings up questions in of itself for instance if someone is having a party at their house is it illegal for them to play copyrighted music during that party.

 

When I was younger in the 1980's I dubbed enough LPs, and tapes for them to arrest me and throw me into a deep dark cave where they'd have to bazooka in my daily rations, but back then to my knowledge they were mostly going after big bootleggers and leaving the general listening public untouched. Those early music deviations of borrowing music from friends did make me into a very addicted musicholic, and I've bought well over 2000+ audio CDs to prove it and I'm rather proud to be addicted to music which is going on some 26+ years now.

 

However I do understand that our old school way of getting music doesn't even compare to the ability for songs and albums to be on thousands of computers within an hour just from one measly source. I do however think the record companies will continue to sue people blind until one day their will need to be a sort of consortium placement on all music, sort of what already exists in the Creative Commons but I don't necessarily think that will happen for several decades long after we're buried to enjoy it.

In 1982, an upstart band called Metallica provided a few tape-trading friends with a demo tape of seven songs, called "No Life 'Til Leather." Dubbed and re-dubbed and re-re-dubbed, the tape made its way from California to Chicago, to New York, to England, to Holland, to Germany. Within months, the band had fans worldwide -- without the benefit of a publicist, an A&R person or a marketing budget. It's anybody's guess how many people were actually involved in this tape-trading network, but a good number of these charter Metallica fans were budding rock journalists who wrote for the various underground metal zines and magazines of the time (added shout-outs go to Metal Mania, Whiplash, Aardschok, and Metal Forces); their enthusiasm for this unknown California band was very soon transmitted to thousands of their readers.

 

Napster is a program that lets people swap music files (relatively) quickly and easily. The company says, in effect, that its software helps new bands distribute their music and that it's not the company's fault that users are abusing the technology to distribute copyrighted songs. Metallica argues that the program steals their intellectual property. They also contend that the universities are a partner in this because college students using the schools' networks seem to be the biggest users of Napster's software. And now the band has begun tracking down individual users who are allowing Metallica songs be downloaded by others.

 

I guess Metallica got brainwashed by the RIAA. Seems to me it didn't hurt them at all having piracy happening.

Musicians today must be afraid you'll find out they have only one good song before you buy a complete album full of s**t.

 

Full article here.

http://archive.salon.com/ent/log/2000/05/0..._fan/index.html

 

The real Pirates.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000...love/print.html

[rridgely]

Was it in that crap movie metallica put out where lars said he regreted going after napster?

He realized he basically pissed off the fans who were going to his concerts.