Slashdot Mirror

Meanwhile, record labels are blaming the lack of online music services in Canada on piracy: 'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which represents major record labels."

Let's not forget that the CRIA is facing a six billion dollar lawsuit over commercial copyright infringement of over three hundred thousand songs. Regardless of your position on piracy, these guys have no leg whatsoever to stand on. If they're going to go after individuals for noncommercially sharing music, first they'd better clean up their own mess.

Do you really, really just want to listen to such music? Because you know, you can already. You can go listen to local bands and ask for their demo tapes, and stay away from all the artists that belong to some label working with RIAA.

Except, you can't. Venues have to pay "preemptive royalties" (mafia protection) so they don't get sued for local artists playing cover songs. They can collect royalties for songs they don't even own. And they have no intention of making sure even their own artists are fairly paid, either.

Stop buying movies that have anything to do with the MPAA. Stop going to movies at the theatres too...unless it's an independent film. While I'm ranting, stop buying anything musicwise associated with the RIAA. This site can help you find out who to boycott.

Furthermore, reject the purchase of any media (music, movies, games) that utilize DRM. Don't even check-out these materials from your local library--for those lucky enough to have a library that offers music, movies, and software. While you are at it, if you have cable, shut it off othewise you're still giving money to these quasi-criminals.

Don't even go to network television websites (or Hulu, etc.) to watch programs. They are getting ad revenue from advertisers everytime you go. This includes watching movie trailers anywhere that posts adverts. Yahoo! Movies comes to mind.

Stop downloading ringtones from (insert your favorite band here) as if they are associated with the RIAA, they're likely getting royalties.

Bottom line: vote with your damn wallet. I can't stress that enough. VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. Support indepedent artists. Support independent film. Support your local public radio and television stations. Let's make the dinosaurs of big media the extinct creatures they should be.

Typically when a song is remixed or sampled, the copyright holders have given permission and are getting royalties.

I don't have figures, but no, not for the notable ones at least.

The artists and marketing guys know and encourage remixing, but it's not normally a contract situation. That often leads to conflicts with the RIAA in their 'super SWAT team' form. See this for example.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
http://www.riaaradar.com/

[files]:
[pdf]: http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/sticker.pdf
[MS Publisher]: http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/sticker.pub
^^ the above are formatted for Avery 5160 labels, but I in no way suggest you to do anything specific with those stickers. For educational purposes only, view what others have done here http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/

And here I thought the following was true:

http://digg.com/tech_news/RIAA_Keeps_Settlement_Money_Artists_May_Sue

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/02/riaa_what_settlement_money.html ...and there are more on this topic. And while it's unquestionably true that these articles are talking about the settlements from fileshare software companies and not settlements from individuals, I see no cause to believe that the money collected is passed on to the labels (or the artists) at all. Do you have any indication that the RIAA actually passes the money they collect on to the labels? You are aware of the RIAA collection web site yes? (https://www.p2plawsuits.com/) People have been known to use that site when paying their settlements. A single point of transaction for all settlements ostensibly run by the RIAA.

I can't claim to have absolute knowledge of the fact, but it would appear that the RIAA does indeed pocket the money taken ostensibly to fund additional litigation and other legal activities.

We're talking about companies with hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year.

The media industry (at least the ones most concerned about TPB) are not that big. The companies overall are huge, but they do lots of other things that aren't related to media. Using their own statistics, global movie box office sales were less than $30 billion. DVD sales (which they apparently no longer release) were about twice that when I crunched the numbers a few years ago. So overall the global U.S.-based movie industry is less than $100 billion. The music industry is even smaller. About 1/3rd the size of the movie industry. Interestingly, their annual report with global sales figures is no longer available on the RIAA web site.

The industries taken as a whole don't even make it into the top-10 of Fortune 500 companies. They are small industries which wield an enormously disproportionate amount of power with our lawmakers. Their biggest claim to fame is not the content they produce, but that their products are "enablers" - driving demand for other industries like DVD players, MP3 players, TVs, etc. Those industries are many times larger, which kinda makes you think that the emphasis should be on allowing everyone to make as much content as they can, not on allowing a few companies to continue to control the content market.

The case doesn't make any sense. I live in Pittsburgh, and I can't imagine this case going anywhere. It seems they are giving her trouble over not replying in a timely fashion to the suit placed against her, but she has a legitimate excuse. Over a few songs, c'mon. It seems like a waste of time for the RIAA to even bother with such a small fish.

It is not like she is pirating and then trying to make a profit off of bootlegging copies for friends, etc.

I do agree that sickness is not a reason to not take care of your responsibilities, but in her case she is hospitalized. I am assuming her family would help with that. What a bunch of crap the RIAA is really, anal withstanding, LOL What a bizarre article. http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

Yes this is full-on. Of course new technology will always be initially more expensive, but everyone in the Blu-Ray production chain who is serious about BD replacing DVDs should realize that in the end, because DVD is such a successful format, people will not be willing to pay *more* for it than for DVDs. It should simply be seen as a technological improvement over DVD, a next step, and prices should slowly be adapted to DVD price levels.

I'd hate it to become a "second CD", introduced as a format successor with a high price and the prices never coming down over *decades* (and in fact, actually even going up).

Price fixing

That is the "settlement" that isn't worth a shit...So much for abiding by the law.

Slim to none, since RIAA artists are usually too busy making money from their music...

They really don't have a choice since the record label never pays any royalties from record sales. That's why most acts keep working until they all die. ...to chit-chat with fans via email.

So don't write to them unless you have a real question. The first time I wrote to Rick Wakeman, I had an answer in 10 minutes. The answer was "Not a chance," but at least he answered. Lots of people that seem unapproachable really aren't. In fact, when they're out making money, that means they're spending a lot of time stuck in hotel rooms. They get bored just like the rest of us.

As for Non-RIAA music...

http://www.dmusic.com/ Lots of artists. Been there since before the original mp3.com and has become an artist community as well as a showcase. Lots of interaction, idea exchange and collaborations. DMusic also owns the http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ site, so if concern about not supporting the RIAA has finally entered your music selection process, well, that's where it came from.

Now if we could just convince the techies to do what the RIAA has been asking for all along... delete their music from the Internet instead of providing them with free distribution...

http://www.dmusic.com/ tons of fun and very talented people.
also check out http://www.boycott-riaa.com/news/ for some of the best music news stories on the net today!

Could you please supply a reference for this statement? TIA

The top entry is responses to questions from Slashdot.. Nice!

Rep. Boucher:

I am in the process of drafting comprehensive legislation which will
reaffirm the fair use rights of the users of information and create a
better balance between the copyright owners, who currently dominate the
Congressional debates on intellectual property measures, and the users
of copyrighted information.

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=2001&post=2001-03-28$7

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/editorials/boucher
http://www.jambase.com/Articles/Story.aspx?StoryID=10943
http://www.house.gov/berman/newsroom/p2p_analysis.html

You ask why do we need to focus on both? Simple, for the same reason the RIAA only touts their victories and never mentions anything about their defeats. It may not be relevant for the purpose of a legal victory but it very well may mean the difference in a moral victory and/or the court of public opinion that may actually cause some actions and consequences for the actions they are taking that may be legal... Such as say a Boycott. Although I'm sure they'll try and spin it as piracy going up and go on a bigger suing spree.

If we focus on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society and their INNOCENCE in the matter. It is possible to garner more public support against the RIAA. If the rich but innocent jerk would get the job done for this purpose then I'd be all for using them but it wont. Until the people see the RIAA for the evil twisted corporation that it is using an outdated business model and an army of lawyers willing to sue anyone that even copies a single song then people will continue to ignore it. It does not help that the media (which is owned by the RIAA/MPAA or its friends) is reporting on this and propagandizing the 'evils of p2p sharing' while subsequently and completely ignoring the fact that fair use rights do exist and that piracy numbers are always artificially inflated for the benefit of the 'wronged party'... Just like Photoshop, you can say its worth $600 or something like that but the fact remains the price is artificially inflated and so every pirated copy is costing them $600 (ya right! The thing is probably worth more like $60-120). I could make a program and say its worth $1,000,000 and count the illegal copies out there and come up with a damages number in the billions once it gets widely distributed.

I for one am leaving the DNC feedback on their feedback page:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

Here is what my feedback looked like:
I think it is a serious mistake for the DNC to closely associate itself with the RIAA. The RIAA is despised in more technical literate circles, and increasingly at universities for their questionable legal maneuvers in their holy war against file sharing.

Close association with the RIAA reinforces stereotypes about the DNC being "no different" then the RNC as both are "owned by corporate interests". Please reconsider the decision to appoint Jenni Engebretsen to the Convention leadership team. I'm sure she is a great lady and did wonderful things for Kerry/Edwards, but I have serious problems with the morality of her employer. Her involvement at a leadership position casts a shadow over the entire Democratic party in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others.

Thanks for your time, a few links about the RIAA follow.

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/04/13/162 5218.shtml
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061219/121441.s html
http://www.riaaradar.com/
http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-a merica/worst-company-in-america-2007-final-deathma tch-244408.php

HR-2517, the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2003, instructs the FBI to develop a programme to deter online trafficking of copyrighted material. The bureau would also develop a warning, with the FBI seal, that copyright holders could issue to suspected violators. And the bureau would encourage sharing of information on suspected copyright violations among law enforcement, copyright owners and ISPs (Internet service providers).

Thursday, the FBI allied itself with various US entertainment companies to stop the reported billions of dollars lost to piracy. Now, all forms of digital media including DVDs, CDs, and videogames will carry the FBI piracy warning. The warning will be marked by the FBI seal and will read, "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

Yes, that certainly explains why the MPAA and RIAA give way more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Oh, wait....

Every Music CDR since the AHRA was enacted has a hidden tax built into the price! (2% of the manufacturers sales) This is supposedly to pay the artists for home recording.

...In addition every CD recorder has a $2.00 surcharge built into the price that goes directly to the RIAA http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth

There is a lot more on the site but you get the idea.

Right and they "could" do many other things to be fair to that artists, but they aren't. AS it stands right now you are saying that it's legit to say, "I am going to buy music from AllofMP3 because I am sick of the music industry "ripping" me off." So, you fuck the artist by not giving them any money and you give the music publishers even more ammo to mess with prices. And in the end, no one is ripping you off. You can easily choose not to buy music that is supported by the RIAA - http://www.dontbuycds.org/ or http://www.boycott-riaa.com/. So, if you really want to help support indie artists buy paying them and not dealing with the big labels. Don't try to use AllofMP3 as some kind of bullshit protest.

just don't sing the song here. It's copyrighted, you know.

You may be aiding in copyright infringement! (dramatic chord)

If you think you're safe because you only showed people where to find it and don't actually have it yourself, don't come crying to me when 50 cops break down your door and steal your computers!

Do I really need a /sarcasm on Slashdot?

First off, I didn't read the article; the summary was good and the comments filled in some blanks for me (I hope!).

I thought Bowie had embraced the Internet - not completely, obviously. And we all know what Madonna thinks.

As musicians (and/or their representatives) come to understand and appreciate the power of the Internet, maybe we'll see fewer dissatisfied fans. And even if they end up paying more for future gigs than they do today, I'm sure they would do so willingly if they knew what they were getting.

An artist/band could possibly put on a show (or tour) where the fans picked the playlist (at least content-wise, if not order) - possibly even on a show-by-show basis (if you're good musicians and not afraid to show it, like the Chilis ;-)

What's more, fans could even bid against each other for tickets for these "oldies" shows, so bored musicians would be monetarily compensated for having to play "that song" again...

A down-side to this idea would apply to promoters who wouldn't be able to pay themselves the same level of big bucks no matter whether the stuff they're delivering is good or not (by using one musician to compensate for another financially). And of course, musicians would know sooner if they were going out of fashion...

• 10. Mod +5 annoying
• 9. New features
• 8. Reasons to use Linux
• 7. Boycott RIAA
• 6. Slashdot dating handbook
• 5. Cowboy Neal vs Godzilla
• 4. Cringely
• 3. Dvorak
• 2. Portman and Hot Grits
• 1. Goatse.cxGoatse.cx

Excellent points. DRM was the only way the RIAA would do business with Apple, and now they regret it because Apple has been so successful it can start calling the shots. IMO, the only thing keeping Apple from becoming a bonafide label themselves, thus cutting out all traditional channels, is their eternal litigation problems with Apple Corps - still awaiting further trail in March.

At any rate, Yahoo execs see things exactly as you do. I wonder if the RIAA has enough foresight to see that removing DRM is good for business for them. It is a rich irony, though. To level the playing field so that they can call the shots again they have to allow and even encourage DRM free music. Interesting times.

Better get your bus ticket to DC now, then.

The boycott has been going on for awhile

Here's a list for all your boycotting needs.

Your friendly neighborbood RIAA boycotter. PS. You also might want to check the artists here for an alternative.

"They'll claim that in time, the price to the consumer will come down. (See also: "The history of compact disc pricing")."

For the benefit of our younger readers who might think CD prices have always been about the same: when I started buying them in 1984, I paid about $20 per CD, to play on my $250 CD player.

That's the equivalent of a $37 CD playing on a $460 CD player, kids!

By comparison, in 2003 the average price of a new CD was $13.42, and by the end of 2004, it was down to $12.95. In other words, CD prices have fallen by 2/3 in the time I've been buying them. I wish I could say the same thing about clothes, food and gas.

The point is: just be glad you were born in the 80's or 90's. You're paying 66% less for CDs than I was at your age, and if you happen to be a fan of P2P, you can get all the music you want for free. The other point is that people who try to tell you that CD prices haven't gone down are, quite simply, lying to you.

>I think the cd levy thing is true in Canada, but I've never heard about it in the US before. Can someone provide a source?

The US has it too. "Data" CDs don't have the tax. "Music" CDs do. The difference is one bit in the header, and a few bucks at checkout time.

The name of the law taxing music CDs (and DAT tapes, etc) is AHRA - Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, an amendment to the U.S. federal Copyright Act of 1976. It's often called the "DAT tax", but it applies to music CD-Rs too.

http://drmwatch.webopedia.com/TERM/A/AHRA.html

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth

http://www.eff.org/cafe/cafe_case_analysis.html

I this what you call free market?

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/why

Here you go.

May not be the info you're looking for, but unhappy musicians are starting to raise a ruckus: (http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/19157)

I personally like the ideals from the boycott-riaa site:

1) Ongoing boycott of all RIAA products, including the free samples on radio, peer-to-peer and television.

Just not buying the CDs is not enough to kill the beast ... boycott all forms of *AA.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

'nuff said.

Can't you sue for the product not technically being an audio CD in the first place?

Unfortunately, you can't sue for that. I looked at the CDs in question at the store, and they do have a warning that the disc is "copy protected". It's on the back, in small print next to the FBI warning logo, but it is there.

That being said, given that Sony/BMG feels that they need to resort to Black Hat hacker root kits to "protect" their precious Music, I have decided to no longer purchase (or allow my Daughter to purchase) any Sony/BMG products since the CD could contain malware that could damage our computers. I'm not sure if a class action suit can be brought against Sony for this root kit, but I can certainly tell everyone I know about the dangers of using Sony/BMG products in their computers. Word of mouth can hurt as much as a class action suit if enough people take the time to tell everyone they know.

Boycott RIAA is a good site to learn more about the Music Labels and the crap they are pulling these days.

nevermind I didn't google it good enough the first time here is the link http://www.boycott-riaa.com/forums/Copyprotected/1 180/ if anyone is intrested in reading about it

http://p2pnet.net/story/3773

"In its biggest cock-up yet, the Big Music cartel's RIAA has sued a dead woman who didn't even own a computer."

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/8133

And there are more.

Here are some press releases from the DOJ on some cases
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/thornton. htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/thornton. htm

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=169 520&rl=1

I agree with your second point, but common usage says otherwise. The term copyright theft has a public usage and definition which is different from the legal terms used. You can see examples of it usage in everything from media to the organization fighting for thier IP rights even to the organization fighting the previous groups.

>DO NOT PURCHASE SONGS BACKED BY THE RIAA

I could not agree with this more! These people are driven by money. Their motive is money. They want more money. Hit them where it counts. It is time for a major boycott. And why not? There are thousands and thousands of unsigned and even signed musicians on small labels and its all out there for you to listen to. Do something novel today and find a non-RIAA musician to listen to. Try 15megsoffame for starters. Listen to music in the public domain music. Check out artists making music under the creative commons. In fact, don't even STEAL RIAA music. Just drop it and them.

Take that non-RIAA music that you find and like and burn it to a CD. Give it to a friend. Tell your friend why they should think about boycotting the RIAA.

This is the only way that the RIAA will ever think about their own problems and their overpricing. It's the ONLY way because it hits them in the pocketbook.

Don't we pay a royalty to the RIAA for each CDR we purchase, whether we using it for music or not?

I thought we had a deal here..

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/

"When asked how to deal with the issue, they said that they were going to make music more affordable, so that it cost less time and money than the time and effort to pirate it."

Although you were being sarcastic, that is indeed major part of their strategy (and more here). The record labels can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time, and they've acknowledged using -- in their own words -- a "carrot and stick" approach. This certainly makes sense -- if you owned a retail store and you noticed that you were losing a lot of money to theft, you'd certainly look into lowering your prices to reduce the impulse to shoplift, but you'd install that security system and prosecute shoplifters, too.

FWIW, in 1995, a new CD cost about $18. That would be about $22.50 in today's money -- meaning that CD prices have dropped by almost half in constant dollars.

"Stop suing your customers."

The paid download market is exploding. Sales are up something like 10X this year over last. The record companies probably think that a carrot and stick method is best. As long as the online music market continues to be wildly successful, it will be tough to dissuade them from continuing to take legal action.

"Stop forcing DRM on customers."

The other side of the coin is that while DRM-laden stores like the iTMS are doing amazing business, the sites that specialize in legal, DRM-free music are just having trouble getting an audience -- or content. We can sit here and say that what the customer really wants is to buy music from Magnatunes or MP3Tunes, but the fact is that they're not doing one hundred of one percent of the iTMS' business. Consumer acceptance of DRM is probably not seen as a big deal by the record companies, given these numbers.

"Sell cheaper, and make up the difference on volume. More people would buy an album for $7.99 than they would at $21.99."

Agreed. And, so do the record companies -- they're way ahead of us. FWIW, I know that $7.99 and $21.99 are just two imaginary numbers you pulled out for the purpose of making a point, but we can't expect $7.99 prices any time soon. Despite the cries of the "I buy CD-Rs for $0.25 so a record company could make money selling CDs at $5.00" geniuses, the realities of the costs of a two-tier distribution system and the expenses of producing CDs won't let that happen.

"Those are the facts. It's a shame the RIAA (and the Canuck equivilent) won't accept them."

This is one of those pot/kettle/black situations -- and I'm not referring specifically to you, but to Slashdotters in general. As I covered above, the phenomenal success of online music resellers like iTMS/Rhapsody/Napster demonstrates that the "add DRM / sue your customers" method is working just fine. We can say that perhaps if Apple hadn't added DRM, or if the record labels hadn't litigated, the online music industry might have grown 1,500% year over year rather than merely 1,000%, but I don't buy that -- particularly in light of the relative failure of the DRM-free MP3 stores.

To that end, one should look to Boycott-RIAA.com. Also, for general use, googling the artist name and "RIAA" tends to find out the information you're looking for . . .

I for one do not buy RIAA music. Though I did buy two other CDs this year, and go to a concert.

I hope more people start doing the same.

The official transcript of the DMCRA hearing last year does not appear to be available (the government website says transcripts are supposed to be available after 60-90 days), but here is a Blog semi-transcript. Near the beginning it says:
Mr. Boucher confesses he voted for the DMCA with the thought that vendors needed the protection, but has found that it interferes with fair use.

-

Now, what about this champion of webcasters and enemy fo the RIAA who happens to be a lifelong Republican? Guess you don't read Slashdot that much...

What about this Republican? Just in case you read PCWorld....

Here's a few Republicans against the RIAA. Wow. Must not use Google much, huh whitroth?

How about this Republican taking a swing at the RIAA?

And finally.... One of the RIAA's main champions is.....DEMOCRAT!

God, I hate smug bastards. Especially ones who use cute little terms like "Reptilians" and don't even know a Rpeublican is spearheading an investigation into the RIAA. Google Search for those who can't do it themselves.

I remember seeing/hearing this speech by Michael Greene in 2002. I suspect we'll hear the same this year, should you be watching the Oscars.

If you don't like the terms, then you simply shouldn't purchase it.

We can agree on that.

But, copyright infringement is not theft according to the US Supreme Court. So please stop calling it theft.

Exactly like what is done to RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft, just boycott them and don't use their products. That's the worst punishment for them. Don't fall in love with a game like that.

Here is a short list. Some are in America, others are global. Remember the blank audio tape tax passed in the 80's? It's still in effect as well as a more modern blank CD and CD/DVD burner tax.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-891781.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/28/riaa_sues_ moreschools/
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jan/gee20030 120018251.htm

And here is some info on blank CD taxes in the US and around the world.

Please note that not all of these "taxes" are government taxes in the traditional sense. There are a couple of important questions you should ask yourself though. If every blank CD and new CD/DVD recorder has a tax that is paid to the RIAA (not the artists) as compensation for copyrigt violations, does that mean that we are now free to pirate music since the fine has been paid in advance? Do you believe in corporate welfare? Also, should the public allow tax money to be used to fund governmental investigations into civil matters, such as copyright violations, if said findings are only used to support the corporation (favoring a corporate entity over individual citizen)? Please keep in mind, unless it is bootleging on a massive scale and/or the fradulent copies are sold for profit, it is a civil matter.

Don't forget, we have allowed our rights to me limited more and more over the last couple decades. The media taxes, DMCA, copyright extensions, and many others have made the corporate job of enforcement easier at the expense of personal liberties. The DMCA in paticular only added a few new corporate rights, but was intended to make enforcement/prevention easier at the expense of, lets say, fair use or personal privacy. Not only have we given these corporations laws to make their lives easier, they have the nerve to turn around and say they need tax money because they don't have enough of their own to spend in their defense. It's the equavilent of erasing the fifth ammendment, handing over incriminating evidence, and funding the prosecution.