Slashdot Mirror

Or indie bands. Here's a goood place to start and unlike local unsigned bands, chances are they will come near you on their next tour, the music is just as good if not better, and its a form of commercialization of music you can endorse without feeling unethical.

A lot of the RIAA bullshit doesn't fly with most indie labels. That's not to say they are all saints, but there's enough disdain for the RIAA way of doing things to keep most of them pretty clean. If not, artists are free to leave and move to labels which offer them more freedom or better deals.

Indie labels have been dealing with proper ways to handle ownership and copyright issue for decades. What's new to the net-based "the music industry sucks" crowd is old hat to the indie labels.

Also, don't confuse indie with vanity or lesser known RIAA labels.

Oh, and epitonic.com streams tracks too.

Ok, here's the list: RIAA Membership

I'm surprised I haven't seen someone comment on this (or I'm too lazy to search the entire thread for this comment) is that the original US PATRIOT act included provisions that made it possible for copyright holders to hack your computers and even possibly due damages if they felt you were infringing on their copyrights. The "Deterrence and Prevention of Cyberterrorism" portion of the act would criminalize any act of hacking that caused damages or losses of over $5000 would be considered an acto fo terroism. The RIAA lobbied for a bypass so they could hack/destroy without any worries of criminal charges.

With this ammendment, they can hack into peoples computers, search for infringing materials, and add them to their "TO SUE" list. Not only that, they were wanting to be able to be proactive, in a sense find people that are supposedly using P2P software and hack their systems so that they are unable to trade copyrighted material, or delete any offending materials.

This ammendment did get knocked down, but then the MPAA tried a similar amendment. i believe this didn't make it either, but both these organizations have kept bringing up new forms of these bills in one way or another.

Sound familiar?

Here's more details...

It takes more work these days for me to find an artist that I like but, when I do, it's a great discovery.

And how has the fact that good music has been ubiquitous and now a scarcity wrt to you hearing about it affected your CD buying frequency? I'll tell you how it affected mine: It dropped to zero.

In fact, being forced to "hunt" for music has allowed me to discover a ton of artists and genres that I would not otherwise be exposed to.

I guess we fundamentally differ here. I don't like being forced into anything, especially not by an incestuous oligopoly of corporations that:

• Suppress independent music and oppress their own artists
• Repeatedly lobbies for self-serving legislation at the expense of both public and artists.
• Repeatedly abuse their oligopoly for price-fixing, i.e. ripping the customer off.
• etc. ad nauseam

save me the lecture on how it's not stealing

Exactly. It's not. Only simple minds who can't deal with the complexities of copyright would call it thus, so they can understand. Well that, and people who want to deceive.

You're stealing.

I'm certainly not. I'm not even P2Ping music any more.

You're taking something for nothing that would otherwise be sold. If you could not steal it, you would buy it.

Wrong, very wrong. That's true in some cases. In other cases, music downloading causes people to buy more music due to P2P sampling. At the time that I was a heavy P2P user, I bought almost twice as many CDs per month than before, and that even though my previous No. 1 source for finding out about my kind of music (the German alternative music TV station "Viva 2") had been shut down for the sake of a more RIAA-friendly third mainstream channel. In last year's fall, the RIAA and others successfully lobbied to make file sharing of (most) music illegal in Germany (can't point out one time too often that it was legal before!). I stopped downloading music and haven't bought a single CD since then. A coincidence?

My hypothesis: There are at least three groups of P2P users:

• The casual user: Makes up the majority of P2P users. Downloads some songs, buys some CDs, doesn't buy others. The net effect of P2P on this user's CD consumption is negligible.
• The cadger: Uses P2P because it's free-as-in-beer and has 1000 excuses for not paying. P2P lets his CD consumption drop to zero. But then, most of these probably have always found a way to get free music. If it wasn't for P2P, they would just record songs from the radio, copy/lend it from friends and whatnot. They have never paid much for music and never will.
• The fan (I would say I belong to this group): P2P and other non-RIAA-controlled distribution channels have been a boon for them. They could conveniently find out about gazillions of non-mainstream bands and sample their music in (cf.) high quality. If they found bands whose music they really like, they would go out and buy their CDs because fans show devotion for their idols. You can't call yourself a fan if all you have are burnt CDs. The net CD consumption of this group would increase (sometimes even greatly) because of P2P.

Now what does this boil down to? Blaming the casual user is ridiculous. They have been average customers wrt sales, and they stay average customers. What about the cadgers? Aren't they stealing? Yes, it's definitely not right what they do.

Why choose iTunes/Sony/Rhapsody/Walmart over AllOfMp3?

Though AllOfMP3.com is a legally questionable operation, so are the tactics of the RIAA's, whom iTMS users are supporting with every cent they give to the store. You're screwing artists either way, whether it's through P2P or funding the RIAA through iTMS/Apple. If you really want to send your money to an artist, go to one of their shows, buy their merchandise, have one of your friends give'em a listen.

By choosing AllOfMP3.com over Apple's store, you can do the following:

-NOT support the RIAA or their questionable methods of operation
-NOT support a company that works with the RIAA to further their influence and funnel your money into the RIAA's coffers (for a list of other companies and people not to buy music from, please visit here)
-NOT support the use of the iTMS' proprietary DRM which not only limits what media player you want to play your music on (Most people prefer listening to their music on Winamp intead of being forced to use iTunes to listen to music they paid for), but what digital audio portable you want to use to listen to your music as well. AllofMP3.com and several other services (Audiolunchbox, Bleep, Magnatune) do not treat you like a criminal for buying their music, nor impose limits on how you wish to listen to it.
-CHOOSE what format you want your music encoded in, instead of being stuck with vanilla 128 AACs, with Apple's proprietary and limiting DRM tacked on.

They're as evil as Clear Channel (who, imho, are just as bad) This site is totally anti RIAA. I highly recommend ;) bb

I saw a post in which reference is made to a legal situation in which a judge ruled in favour of MS to be able to use a graphical interface for an OS (in a ruling against Apple), because of the competition aspect; similar in some ways to this scenario. Let's hope that there are people in positions of power who are wise enough to counter this of trend.
In another vein: MS is stockpiling IP - why? Are they planning to stop innovating software and just make money from lawsuits like other industry dinosaurs?

For those of us in the United States, I strongly urge you to look at things like the Free State Project. (http://www.freestateproject.org)This isn't a bunch of wackos looking to move to Montana for another Waco holdout, it's made of people like you who will stand up, be active, and work within New Hampshire (already the best representative State with only 3000 people per Rep, as well as strongly libertarian minded) to reduce the size of government. It's our only hope, because the more they pass nonsense like this, the more you and your neighbors had better stand together...

If p2p becomes a crime, you want your neighbors to defend you when the thoughtcrime police show up. And don't kid yourselves, we are rapidly coming to that.... The day when you click on the wrong download button and the police knock on your door is already here.
Don't own a computer? Get sued by the RIAA
12 years old? Get sued by the RIAA
66 Years old and never used a computer? Yes, Get sued by the RIAA
Now just imagine the force of the WIPO, and 'the law' bolstering this nonsense...

If the spammers are linking text like " " or "." to hide their activities, google will easily be able to identify those and block those sites but then spammers will start linking words.

How about we relink any spam we find from http://www.spamsite.com/ To: http://www.searchenginespammers.net/bb-spammer.cgi /http://wwww.spamsite.com/ After linking, 1) click the link (or better have a program visit it with the correct referrrer string or report the link via a web form on the cgi) and 2) move the link to your search engine accessible spam page. Actually, reporting via a web form is better than clicking the link if you are doing it manually because you don't increment the sites hit counters and you don't expose your computer to malware.

Of course, someone would need to register searchenginespammers.net and install a cgi there that would basically display a page describing the criminal practice of bulletin board/wiki spamming, and then lists all the referrer strings that have brought it to this particular page.

This will help search engines like google identify the wiki spammers and purge their sites from their search results. In the short term, searches for the keywords they tried to drive to their site would now take them to searchenginespammers.net and once the folks at google take action they can use it to activiate a filter mechanism. Other sites besides google can use the information. Someone could start a PICS or DNS based blacklist based on listings at searchenginespammers.net that people could use to prevent patronizing such sites. Email filters could use the list to help identify spam.

Like any site that lists spam URLs, there is the possibility that people will spam other peoples URLs to discredit them, so that needs to be taken into account.

Also, this thread is a reminder that when mentioning a company we dislike ( SCO, MPAA, RIAA , Macrovision , Microsoft, George W Bush, etc. should either not link their name or link their name to a site that describes their misconduct; we don't want to help them get better search engine rankings.

If you people hate the RIAA that much, why not do something about it, such as boycott them, and make a point of buying only non-RIAA music?

Seriously, it really is incredible how many people there are here who blindly endorse P2P sharing, regardless of whether what they are sharing is legal or not, and then suddenly complain when the RIAA starts suing people. It is especially incredible when you consider that there was once a time when people here were saying, "Let the RIAA go ONLY after those folks who are pirating, rather than try to shut down a P2P network that has other uses besides piracy." Well, the RIAA is now doing EXACTLY that, and yet people are now continuing to complain.

For crying out loud: by now, nobody in their right mind can say that the RIAA has not given fair warning before suing people. I say, put up, or shut up. If you don't like the RIAA's policy, don't buy their stuff. It's that simple.

I realize this may be slightly off-topic, but the fact of the matter is this: I believe the RIAA has a legitimate case for going after piracy. However, the flip side to this is that piracy might not be such a huge problem from them if it were not for the fact that the RIAA and its members are basically overcharging for their mediocre products, and treating the artists unfairly.

If they were to treat the artists more fairly, lower their prices CONSIDERABLY, and give us better products than Britney Spears, they might have a better chance with me... But unfortunately, they have now shown that they are all shady crooks, and I for one am now making it a point NOT to use any RIAA-approved services like Napster, and I am also making a special point not to buy any RIAA CDs.

I love music, and used to spend a lot on buying new CDs before this RIAA shakedown started. Stories like this, however, have made me change my ways, and now I buy exactly $0's worth from any label that supports the RIAA.

It's appalling to think that this is all done defending artists from file sharers when their watchdog is either this clueless or dishonest...with the RIAA, it's hard to tell which.

Artists might fare better if they could see an alternative to this corporate mire. Perhaps if they understood that consumers would be more supportive of the music if there was some reasonable guarantee that money would actually get to the artist rather than a conglomerate?

Granted I have no guarantee of that with my current label selections, but I feel better knowing that my cash isn't feeding the anti-piracy machine.

This website has a plethora of information regarding the RIAA's current fights, things you can do to fight them, and some anti-RIAA propaganda. Interesting stuff..

The Recording Industry Association of America and Service Corporation International have announced a joint lawsuit against Anonymous Coward over a post recently made to the Internet discussion site slashdot.org. The RIAA is suing over the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted song lyrics, while SCI is suing over misuse of the NetBSD® trademark.

RIAA also announced that it has subpoenaed OSDN, which runs the website, for the IP addresses and user names of the moderators who moderated the infringing post up.

I don't buy anything from the major labels any more either. The first time I got a "copy protected" CD that wouldn't play in my computer, I stopped buying any. I hope the 7.6% decline is because of the boycott called for by sites like dontbuycds, Downhillbattle, and boycott-riaa. It would serve the major labels right if they all went bankrupt.

• Downhill Battle
• Stop RIAA Lawsuits Coalition
• Boycott-RIAA
• Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons
• Pirates Or Heroes

Screw 'em. You aren't really hurting any artists by downloading the music from the net. Only the mega-super-duper-stars actually end up in the black from a record deal with one of the music cartels, and they're the ones that don't need more money. Support the artists you like by going to their concerts and buying merchandise there. Or get music from artists that didn't sign away their souls. Indie records generally assume that the common consumer is an honest person, and trust you enough to allow you to listen to the music the way you want to.

My favorite sitelist (not sure about international relevance, but whatever):
www.downhillbattle.org | www.eff.org | www.boycott-riaa.com

Boycotting MPAA companies does not have the momentum that RIAA boycotting has, yet. One thing is clear though. As we come up wth "voting with dollars" solutions, we need to make this clear to those who the MPAA, like the RIAA, will try to lie to. Congress, the media and the public at large need to be aware that a boycott is in effect to the point where "cries over piracy" cannot be heard wtihout invoking thoughts of boycott.

I personally can't remember how long it's been since I bought an RIAA sanctioned CD. And, unlike the RIAA's accusations, I did it without downloading music that the artists didn't post! Between the countless musicians I found that provide incredible music freely on the internet, the radio and CD's I already own from before the boycott, or the occassional gift, I'm content.

As for DVDs, I don't buy them, but I do rent. I know that they are whining about how rentals is making it hard for them to pay for all those $100+ million dollar blockbusters, so it appears for the time being that it is at least a compromise solution to a "voting with dollars" boycott; at least until a full-fledged organized and focussed boycott points the way.

What concerns me though is they indicated plans to do something about what rentals has done to their poor blockbuster profits. Unlike the RIAA, the MPAA's concern today is the impact of rentals.

Be very alert on decisions they make that could impact the rental industry, perhaps through DRM control that permits them to at least increase rental margins and wrest control from independents that could choose to not support their new regime.

Erik
OpenStandards.net

It has to do that RIAA worked out royalty system for CD-Rs "designated" for music.

Don't flaim unless you know your facts. ass.

Basically, our friends at the RIAA are more than happy if you'll keep buying your CD's at fifteen dollars a pop, then every few years they'll try to make what you already purchased obsolete by offering a new release with better packaging.

Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately incompetent in issuing their first release. I remember back in 1991, I picked up Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed -- so the CD I owned had a song that was therefore in the wrong key and at the wrong tempo. And for this incompetence, on their part, I was supposed to shell out another fifteen bucks to get the fixed version.

Understandably, people are tired of this crap, so they've resorted to downloading music. That's where the RIAA's new revenue generating tactic comes in: they're using their legal department to send letters, coercing downloaders to pay up at about seven grand a pop. That's a lot of shiny CD's.

So buy CD's or download illegally -- either way the RIAA wins. Unless you decide to get out of the game.

If you follow the RIAA's tactics at all, you might have decided it's appropriate to not give these bloodsuckers another dime of your money. So here are a couple tips. Don't buy from labels that are affiliated with the RIAA -- and don't buy legally downloaded music from these labels just because they happen to be on the iTunes record store.

Second, check out sites like Magnatune. Read everything you can about their business practices. These people are cool, their artists' music is awesome, and they deserve our support.

I can't imagine why anyone would support Walmart. They are taking a loss just to cut down the competition because they can. Apple takes a loss to sell iPods, WTF is Walmart trying to sell (besides the soul of every American consumer)?

Hopefully more record labels will join the fight against the RIAA like New York's GoKart Records.

This article shows it's already been done. I think there was a pointer to it or something similar from /. not too long ago.

Hmmm, according to this article it has not affected the sales in the US either.

But this article at ABCNews seems to indicate that its not piracy thats really affecting the sales, but services like iTunes -

"CD sales are down 15 percent from last year, while legal online services like the new Napster and Apple's iTunes have taken off, especially for the holidays. Apple's iTunes sold more than $1 million in download gift certificates since October."

I think that more than CD-Rs or mp3 piracy, its services like these which would affect the records sales.

"Dear pedantic Slashbots: If cable theft is stealing, why is MP3 downloading "infringement?""

Because (at least for USians) that's what the law says.

Theft of 'telecommunications services', such as cable, are defined and punished under USC Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter V-A, Part IV, Sec. 553. That section can be found here.

USC Title 17, Chapter 5 covers copyright infringement, which is an entirely different animal. You may view this section of the USC here.

If reading legalize hurts your head (as it does mine), then try reading here instead. That link leads to a far easier-to-digest version of the laws in play.

If you live in a foreign country where copyright infringement equals theft, then please let us all know where this enlightened utopia is. If you live in the US, then your sig is nothing more than the butt-end of a joke played upon the American public by a group of criminals running a group of corrupt organizations (as defined under Federal RICO statues) which should have been shut down years ago, with their board members imprisoned for their crimes.

I find it amusing that so many voice their support for the rule of law by defending a group of companies and individuals (whose collective criminal activities over the past 50 some-odd years could result in massive (as in Trillions) government-imposed fines and a slew of life sentences (for execs)) from small children and teenagers who, at worst, are commiting a civil offense.

Please change your sig.

They arn't DRMing things that you should be able to copy and do what you want with. They are DRMing things that are ment for people to buy or have limited use of.

Now there for sure will be examples to counter this, but thats not the rule. With all things comes some bad apples.

I _know_ what copyright infringement is.

Apparently you don't, since you keep confusing it with theft. It's not.

See, I WORK for a living (writing software) and I understand economics. The fact that what I create isn't a physical artifact doesn't change my lost business when it is stolen.

First, copying is not stealing, it's copyright violation. Second, technology is changing the way business models need to work - a pay-per-copy scheme simply isn't viable any more. When conditions change, you can't depend on the government to prop up outdated business models - that's basic economics.

And BTW, I also work for a living creating software. I also create music, poetry, and stories, though I've yet to be paid a significant amount - and like most musicians and authors, probably never will - for those things.

A few weeks back I pointed a friend to the creative commons website, so that he could look up information on copyright and see how it was moving forward. He was quite surprised and glad to see that things aren't the way he knew them to be in that area.

The same happens with musicians. They don't tend to know about this. Especially young, talented people who don't necessarily get much chance to get on the internet. I remember as a teenager I would read in all the music magazines about the dream of one day being signed to a major. Nowadays to me that means mostly negative things - problems. Like a big bank loan and surviving on gigs, giving away your rights etc. But to others the dream goes on.

Is there a good URL to point people to so that they can get clear concise guidance on why *not* to sign for one of the RIAA companies? Or even that showed what the options are, and examples of people like Ani DiFranco or companies like magnatunes and how to achieve their musical dreams and still avoid bad business decisions.

The URLs I find are always centred on how bad the RIAA is, or on the consumer side but there isn't to my knowledge a good musician centred site...

Ale

Apparently you can patent something that is naturally occurring. I was just reading this article about how a farmer is getting sued because he was saving soy seeds from a harvest. The company who sold him the seeds say he can't do that because they spent millions of dollars in research making these genetically engineered seeds. I think it's dumb, but apparently the company is expected to win.

Since I listen to a fair bit of music that is never heard on the radio (the genre is, the artists aren't), I wanted to make sure none of their labels belonged to the RIAA so I would feel comfortable buying their music. Only one artist didn't. Even your "independent" artists and labels still belong to the RIAA--until the artists stand up and refuse to work for the labels, and the labels withdraw from the RIAA, this will continue. And I will not buy any more music.

I boycott MLB and everything related to them because of the crap from players and owners; now I watch school and local leagues. You'll never change the major players like Britney Spears or Eminem or Madonna, but if you write a smaller artist and tell them you won't buy their music (or download it, jackass) until they remove themselves from the RIAA, they'll jump. They have to be more responsive because they need the few customers they have.

Do something! The RIAA is getting fed by kids who have all this money and horrible taste in music--I know plenty of you have kids, don't let them buy RIAA music and don't let them download it. Introduce them to something worthwhile. And if you find a worthwhile artist who belongs to the RIAA, talk to them about it.

Isn't it completelly obvious to (practiclly) everyone that the extended olive branch was just a publicity gimmick? I say practiclly only because RIAA ends up shooting themselves in the foot again with more negative publicity. How many more times can one firm screw up before the snowball becomes an avalanche? Boycott RIAA is gonna go mainstream within months.

The real news in all this should be that things are going to get a lot worse before it gets better for RIAA.
RIAA Sues wrong person
P2P Music Sharing Remains Popular Despite RIAA
RIAA Sued For Amnesty Offer

Sorry, hate to burst your bubble but Drive Thru and Victory are both members, but at least they're not the big 5.

Shouldn't customers' private information have at least as much rights as some stupid Brittany Spears song?

Who are the member companies of RIAA and how do I stop supporting them?

The page was down, but this is Google's cache of the RIAA members page. I was surprised there were so many. I was further surprised that Sanctuary was one of them. Now I wish I hadn't have bought the new Anthrax CD. Gonna have to stop buying Anthrax, now. :(

Boycott RIAA is a website that talks about boycotting them. I haven't read through the website myself, I've just been doing my own independent thing.

RIAA Radar is a searchable database to see if an artist is on an RIAA label. They also have a javascript bookmarklet that will tell you when an artist is RIAA while you're on Amazon.

Why don't you go get an anti-RIAA bumper sticker instead?

And for the RIAA droids, no, I'm not affiliated with the site, just making a suggestion >:)

Boycott the fsckers. Kick the bully in the balls.

Like the caption says: Check those URLs!

You left out a t in your link. Try this

We've downloaded the amnesty documents from the RIAA owned Music United and made them available on boycott-riaa.com for those of you who don't want your ip grabbed by the borg.
2 page PDF describing the program
2 page PDFof the affidavit.

Remember the RIAA only represents the interests of labels and performers and can only give amnesty for those rights. The RIAA doe NOT represent the copyrights of the publishers and songwriters who could still sue. And they could subpoena the RIAA for that information. This is a publicity stunt. If you accept the program, bend over and spread'em you're about to get screwed.

We've downloaded the amnesty documents from the RIAA owned Music United and made them available on boycott-riaa.com for those of you who don't want your ip grabbed by the borg.
2 page PDF describing the program
2 page PDFof the affidavit.

Remember the RIAA only represents the interests of labels and performers and can only give amnesty for those rights. The RIAA doe NOT represent the copyrights of the publishers and songwriters who could still sue. And they could subpoena the RIAA for that information. This is a publicity stunt. If you accept the program, bend over and spread'em you're about to get screwed.

We've downloaded the amnesty documents from the RIAA owned Music United and made them available on boycott-riaa.com for those of you who don't want your ip grabbed by the borg.
2 page PDF describing the program
2 page PDFof the affidavit.

Remember the RIAA only represents the interests of labels and performers and can only give amnesty for those rights. The RIAA doe NOT represent the copyrights of the publishers and songwriters who could still sue. And they could subpoena the RIAA for that information. This is a publicity stunt. If you accept the program, bend over and spread'em you're about to get screwed.

Sorry, i hate to burst your bubble, but vagrant is a memeber. Sorry, i know it sucks. The RIAA and the big 5 suck, but unfortuntly some great bands on lesser known labels are also members.

Please, someone who can, mod parent up! I was about to ask this very question, because I really enjoy independent hiphop and there are artists who I not only wish to support, but who I cannot wait to see their releases appear!

However, I _do_ want to see the RIAA burn in hell. My biggest question is, why don't we ever hear anything from the artists? Wasn't there some coalition formed that included Willie Nelson and Sherly Crow or something? (I remember they put on a concert a while ago, probably circa 2001). But why haven't we heard anything yet? I want to see artists standing up for themselves, as they sure as hell get just as shafted by the RIAA as the consumers do! And then maybe those artists could form another organization, perhaps even a non-profit, to perform similar functions to that of the RIAA, and then those albums get released with a little "Not Associated with the RIAA" sticker on 'em. Now that would be cool!

Oh yeah, be sure to chec here for the full-list of affiliated labels!

We are fighting back. People are boycotting, people are buying used CDs, people are setting up sites like

http://www.downhillbattle.org/
And http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

The fight is just beginning! Its not even close to being over. This should prove that fighting back works more than begging politicians with emails and letters.

Magna Carta, Delirium are not on the list! Woohoo! I'm happy!

I was just looking at the 'who to boycott' list to see if i was helping or not. =) Thanks for the link, very useful indeed. If anyone else know some good progressive rock labels not on that list, please let me know. I'm pretty ashamed to see Elektra in there, specially since Dream Theater signed with those bastards!

Actually, AOL has received ONE subpeona. Big fucking deal, right?

Though, the same article shows that that AOL's 'sister company' Time Warner, who offers cable Internet access has recieved 135 subpeona's. Interesting, no?

They've declared war on the entire high tech community, whether we share files or not. Fuck 'em... or more to the point, let's fuck them up.

If you must have your Britney fix, buy from used record stores.

However, to make the point that the RIAA label declining sales is due to their own behavior and the crap they are putting out, better buy from independent artists. That's one place to find some, check my sig for another.

If it isn't played on FM and not available in record stores, it's probably from non-RIAA label sources, to make sure, check any artist you're thinking of buying at RIAA Radar.

If RIAA label sales drop by 5% and indie label and musician sales double, it's all over for the labels... the excuses about PIRACY!!! will no longer play with. . . the people in the multinationals major label CEOs report to.

If being on a RIAA label is shown to be a negative as far as making money goes... the rush for the exits will start and the RIAA won't be able to afford lobbyist teams anymore.

Leaving the MPAA out there all by itself, given that the RIAA won't be around to play bad cop anymore. That's the next war.

Now is the time to boycott the RIAA. It's not that difficult, really! If you're going to buy a new cd, check against this list. You'd be surprised how much good music doesn't belong to those labels. If you MUST get that Avril Lavigne CD, buy it used. Sites like SecondSpin have a fairly large collection, or you can get it off ebay, or at your local record store. If you can't manage to find a used copy, pat yourself on the back. You found a CD published by an RIAA company that is actually good. That surely has to be a sign of the end times. What do you do then? I guess you'll have to exhibit self-restraint. Or if you have a peg-leg, resort to less-legal means.

The point is, don't let the RIAA get a dime of your money.

/me waits for obligatory comments about boycotts on /.

Maybe, just maybe, claiming persecution by the evil RIAA, will get you refugee status.

You only have to prove RIAA's connection with scientology

Anyone else see this whole lawsuit as step in the right direction. To me it seems that "the soldiers are fighting among themselves in the trenches". EMI and Universal suing Bertellsman, maybe the RIAA affiliates can sue each other into oblivian.

The RIAA's Days are numbered. They're desperate, and it's beginning to show. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if they lose one of the 911 lawsuits they've filed against uploaders, it'll be the death of them (it sets a legal precedent for a viable defense and/or dismissal). This fighting between member organizations is great. Hopefully virgin can sue columbia next, and then sony can go after time warner. How much in lawyer fees is this costing each company?

Yay for the eventual rule of the people, and Keep up the good fight

Basically, what's really needed is a change of culture.

The kids need to be convinced that buying from a record store is no longer cool and they should spend their money instead on indie artists.

The problem is that the RIAA used the Von Lohmann quote before the technical measures were put in place, so your argument is only good if they decide to grab another quote. Even then, some RIAA lawyer working from home or a separate office could easily view the site.

The bigger picture is the fallout.

boycott-riaa.com has covered Techfocus' efforts, as has several other web sites. There seems to be quite an underground movement supporting Techfocus. I am a moderator for the Techfocus forum on this subject. Check it out and help if you can.