Slashdot Mirror

Disney is in the RIAA.

Well, the site is going really really slow right now, but I believe this list has all the labels who not to buy music from.

Alot of people have idea's that they should 'boycott' the RIAA buy not buying CD's or buying them and returning them, or even buying from indie artists, but they all ask the same question: Who are RIAA members? Well I'd like to point you you this page which gives you a nice list of all the labels.

Of course the reason why the RIAA is being out front and public and is making itself hated is to take the heat off the major labels.

A record industry music boycott sticks the heat right where it belongs.

To destroy them, just do all your music spending on independent artists and tell everyone else you know to do the same.

Most people don't appreciate just how fragile the position of the major labels is. They're all losing money, and so far, the music label CEOs have not only gotten away with using PIRACY!!! as an excuse with Congress, but with the multinationals that own them..

Simply refusing to buy music plays into their hands, they'll say "People refuse to buy our products because THEY'RE ALL STEALING THEM VIA P2P AND WE NEED NEW LAWS TO PROTECT US!!!"

Buying from independents will send exactly the right message both to Congress and to the companies that own the major labels.

Enough of us do this and the companies that own the major labels will be forced to dump them... lest their own stock prices follow their record companies value straight into the toilet.

Just a few percentage points of major record company sales transferred into the profit margins of independent artists and the war will be over, settled over the smoking corpses of the Big 5.

This should only take getting 1M people on board.

And the person who observes the RIAA boycott as I advise will get chances to find a lot of good new music of whatever kind you like that hasn't been dumbed down for the faceless masses RIAA product is aimed at.

This doesn't just mean not buying from the RIAA member labels.

That just gives them an excuse to buy even worse laws than the DMCA and "legalized corporate hacking."

Spend every dollar you've been spending on RIAA label music on independent musicians.

You can find some independent musicians, including some with downloadable tracks at CDBaby.

I work with an independent musician with both CDs for sale and downloadable tracks, check out http://www.eliangedeon.com.

Lots of other non-RIAA music on the Web. Google is your friend. No matter what you like, there's probably somebody who makes it who hasn't sold his or her ass to the RIAA.

Every dollar you spend on the good guys is another nail in the RIAA coffin. When music sales go up except for the RIAA labels, the multimationals that own major labels and the artists who work for them will look for a way to bail out.

When this is true, it's over for the major labels. They won't even exist in name, investor groups will be buying artist contracts and catalogues. But not the management who turned multibillion dollar companies into hundred million dollar companies, and not the "tainted" brand names. And make no mistake, a brand name that makes people less likely to want to buy is of negative value.

These useless bloodsuckers must be sent to /dev/null ASAP. Boycott the RIAA.

If you are on the list do everyone a favor including yourself and let us know here. Keep us up to date on what's occuring and how you intend to fight it. Maybe the community here can help or atleast offer solid advice on how to proceed.

If I were to end up on the list I'd damn sure let everyone know and I'd fight it with everything I have.

Remember don't fund an entity that will only sue you into financial ruin. We can hurt them where it hurts them most...in the wallet. This is the only way to make a statement. Once these lawsuits start then the shit is really going to hit the fan and the backlash will be severe.

Think of it this way...what's more important violent crime or copyright violations? Well the RIAA is sending out so many subpoenas without judicial oversight I might add that court systems are having to redistribute their workers to cover the overwhelming workload. That means less work on violent, horrible crimes and more work on copyright infractions? This is beyond ridiculous!

Join the boycott starting August 1-30th and do not buy any music in this period.

Here's a list of who to boycott Boycott List

Here's the products to boycott Products to Boycott

I'm not sure of the exact logistics of any lawsuit outcome...I would imagine it either gets divided amongst the affiliated labels or it gets stored in the RIAA coffers for political bribe money.

Either way, it's terribly unethical and corrupt. Don't buy CDs anymore if you can help it..at least not from RIAA affiliated labels. Here is a list of all labels and partners associated with the RIAA. It includes not only the big guys but the myriad of little ones that pay homage to their evil masters.

1. Hit them where it hurts. Don't buy anymore of their precious copyrighted material. boycott-riaa.com has a RIAA membership list. Don't let them see a penny of your money.

2. Get educated and vote. Vote politicians out of office that support these morons. These ignorant assholes are going to ruin our country. Standing up and voting will send a message that we are sick of these friggin lobbyists.

Better bring that list of labels to boycott to the store with you... Perhaps the Guiness Book of World Records will start carrying the record of "most RIAA labels memorized". Of course... you will be *hard pressed* to find any CD's in a store that isn't on one of these labels.

• RIAA member
• GPL violator
• DMCA wielder
• Freedom hater
• DRM purveyor

Some groups like that have been around for a long time, since the first "copy protected" CDs that won't play in a computer came out, such as Don't Buy CDs. and Boycott RIAA. An industry that presupposes that its customers are freeloaders and thieves doesn't deserve to have any customers.

I believe they already collect a tax on CD burners.

They collect quite a lot of funds in fact, they even collect money for radio play of unsigned acts and these artists receive nothing.

Above info collected from:

Here

Three years ago, right after I started boycott-riaa.com. The RIAA called and wanted to "talk." I had a 2 hour conversation with the then Internet Evangelist, Karen Allen about this very thing...

That the technology was there and it had non infringing uses as well as infringing uses. The Professional Photographers Assn. doesn't sue Nikon for making a product that could be used to copy copyrighted photos, but instead goes directly after the infringers.

The RIAA has wasted 3 years, in actually getting artists paid for their work, while pumping hot air up congresscrittwers rears to get more and more control over the internet. They aready have approx. 85% of the physical distrbution, and now they are trying to grab the same thing with the internet..

On a side note the RIAA actually took the time to fill out my contact script on boycott-riaa.com. They called and wanted to "talk." with the press release apprx 1/2 before they released it, which I have to admit surprised he daylights out of me..being as both Hilary Rosen and Amy Weiss (their PR flak) have my email address.

Three years ago, right after I started boycott-riaa.com. The RIAA called and wanted to "talk." I had a 2 hour conversation with the then Internet Evangelist, Karen Allen about this very thing...

That the technology was there and it had non infringing uses as well as infringing uses. The Professional Photographers Assn. doesn't sue Nikon for making a product that could be used to copy copyrighted photos, but instead goes directly after the infringers.

The RIAA has wasted 3 years, in actually getting artists paid for their work, while pumping hot air up congresscrittwers rears to get more and more control over the internet. They aready have approx. 85% of the physical distrbution, and now they are trying to grab the same thing with the internet..

On a side note the RIAA actually took the time to fill out my contact script on boycott-riaa.com. They called and wanted to "talk." with the press release apprx 1/2 before they released it, which I have to admit surprised he daylights out of me..being as both Hilary Rosen and Amy Weiss (their PR flak) have my email address.

Boycott-riaa.com has a satire piece about the possible industry support for Senator Hatch's idea. The Intel Pentium C4 and the AMD Amatol.

Boycott-riaa.com has a satire piece about the possible industry support for Senator Hatch's idea. The Intel Pentium C4 and the AMD Amatol.

OK, there are 2 identified CD's that won't play on certain systems, big deal. Nothing's perfect.

More than two: look at the Boycott RIAA website. There was also a site at http://www.fatchucks.com/ but that site has been suspended for some reason.

• RIAA member
• GPL violator
• DMCA wielder
• Freedom hater
• DRM purveyor

Yeah yeah... 13$ is about the price of a CD... so whatever you don't feed it right back into the machine that is the RIAA... instead go donate it to a good cause like the couple below (no affiliation)

boycott-riaa.com

digital-consumer.org

do something useful and fight this idiotic RIAA crap!

Actually, a quick look at the subscription numbers of those services shows quite well how that is simply not true. Consumers have not demanded a crippled product that disallows most of the abilities they want.

While I might agree with you in concept, what the hell numbers are you quickly looking at? You got a great reference: sight it. Otherwise as far as I can tell you pulled that out of your ass.

"The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make."

Yet it seems they have not discovered the magic way of discerning between those two, so will happily prevent both.

Bingo, this is the business world. They aren't there to protect your rights, just their interests. See the well know industry attempts at more percise crippling attempts: Palladium, Digital Rights Management

"The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.
During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone."

Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related. The economy as a whole has been hit very hard in the last few years. In fact, studies have suggested this effect can explain nearly all of the riaa members' decreased sales. It is handy to have a scape-goat, but as usual, the scape-goat is likely not the problem at all.

Finally, a reference. Here I'm just curious: does anyone really believe that as P2P becomes more common it wouldn't disrupt sales? The paradigm has shifted, thats the issue here. Does the Recording Industry have the right to limit our rights in order to protect an out moded business model?

"In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?"

Hm, I wond

Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "Sharing" in the P2P context has become a euphemism for "copying." That copying is neither legal nor ethical
and then From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music...

Yet using the same logic, reading a book checked out from the library would be just as unethical since you are "taking money out of the pockets..."

Those companies (including Pressplay, Rhapsody, Listen, etc.) are delivering to consumers high quality music online in a format and form that consumers have demanded.

Actually, a quick look at the subscription numbers of those services shows quite well how that is simply not true. Consumers have not demanded a crippled product that disallows most of the abilities they want.

The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make.

Yet it seems they have not discovered the magic way of discerning between those two, so will happily prevent both.

The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.
During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone.

Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related. The economy as a whole has been hit very hard in the last few years. In fact, studies have suggested this effect can explain nearly all of the riaa members' decreased sales. It is handy to have a scape-goat, but as usual, the scape-goat is likely not the problem at all.

In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?

Hm, I wonder, is it ok to steal from a thief. You could just as easily frame it as 'how dare you steal my stolen goods!'

Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers

Increased cost? That seems to be backwards, progress has decreased the barrier not increased it. As for the second clause, bullshit. Congress has bowed to corporate lobbying. You can't honestly say with a straight face that any person needs life+70years' worth of fiduciary recovery as incentive.

Just as you would not go into a video store and steal a DVD copy of Star Wars and claim that you should be permitted to do that because you own the VHS version, you cannot download somebody else's copy of a recording

Again, apples and oranges. Stealing a DVD is depriving ownership of an object, Copying a song is depriving no one of ownership.

-Ted

www.boycott-riaa.com
www.boycottriaa.com

MPAA should be US-only problem.

When the easy group last did something the content industry disliked, they got slapped down - not by RIAA, but by The BPI (The British Phonographic Industry). Presumably at RIAA's behest.

I'm sure there's an MPAA equivilant in the UK, and I'm sure Chemical Valenti will just give them a call.

[because they're US only] MPAA should not have ANY say in the matter

I agree. But I suspect they think they've already got the right to go into Europe.

Look at the US content industry's attacks on Australians and lets not forget DVD Jon

News from a totally unbiased source

Digital Cutup Lounge vs Madonna -- What The F$#% Remix [3.7mb mp3].

The Madonna Remix Project

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

It's very unlikely that defending against a student caught copying music would have any chance of winning. That's what this whole story is about - avoiding insane laws. Here the request is to herd students into not breaking insane laws. The students know it's wrong but they do it anyway. They need some kind of reminder, and it doesn't need to be harsh. They have the information, and they're doing it anyway. They're not being reasonable, and they're hoping they don't get caught. It may not be feral, but it's childish. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, because they're not defending their rights, they're trying to gain ground into what people were able to do. But these people need a good scare.

Time to expand my musical tastes.

independent-artists.com

boycott-riaa.com

Why RIAA Keeps Getting Hacked

RIAA Affiliated Labels

Hmmm. Can't seem to get to the RIAA site right now...

Rounder: also a member of the RIAA. Just saying.

I seem to recall reading an article a while back that Epitaph is actually an RIAA member. I'm not sure why they're not on the list on riaa.org. FWIW, both Epitaph and Fat Wreck Chords are on the RIAA membership list at boycott-riaa.com. Anybody have more details? Maybe they're owned by a parent company on the riaa.org list?

BOYCOTT RIAA

I swear to god, every time I read something like this I have a flashback of being a kid and watching a cartoon character trying to plug up a leaking dam with his finger, then the other, then a toe, then the other toe...

Valenti does look a lot like Droopy, you have to admit.

Valenti
Droopy

Or if we're going for apropos over strict resemblance...

Write congress critter check

Donate to EFF check

Call congress critter check

boycott movies check

boycott RIAA music check

write paper check

tell friends check

write polite letter to RIAA & MPAA telling them they are full of it.

post sticker on bumper "RIAA STINKS

RANT_MODE=ON

I can't believe what I'm reading. Where do people (and organizations) get off coming up with ideas like this in the first place. I'll be damned if I'm going to let some organization tax my use of the internet just because their "shown to be corrupt" business model can't handle a slow down in the economy, and because the organization can't figure out why nobody wants to buy it's crap!

It galled me when "they" got away with the audio cassette taxation! Why should I pay an extra fee that supposedly goes to music artists when I don't use the audio cassette to record music. There are other conceivable uses you know!

It will gall me when they finally succeed in taxing blank CDR's. I have them know, I don't put any music on CDR! I do have other, more legitimate uses and I shouldn't have to pay a tax to back up my digital photos, or my income tax records, or my home movies! Give me a break!

This one is for you Hillary! Wake up and join reality. Your sales are down because the global economy is in the crapper. Food is more important than new music CD's. Rent is more important than new music CD's. And frankly, people don't like what you have to offer! I suggest you quit trying to find alternative, highly questionable, possibly immoral, streams of revenue!

As for buying music. Yup, I buy music! Local artists do exist you know! Their music tends to be better (i.e. more original than the latest teeny-bopper) and the CD is cheaper! What a concept! A $10 CD with decent music! Not a single artist I buy is affiliated with the RIAA. It's called a boycott! Get used to it! We are not your sheep! Time for you to return to the concept of "The customer is always right!" Maybe then, you will see some customers return, but don't count on it!

To the leader of the Internet Villian of the Year, H i l l a r y!

It's good to see that people are actually talking about this again. As the founder of boycott-riaa.com on July 13, 2002, I've been at this for quite sometime. When the original threat of Napster being shutdown loomed, people got incensed and it made difference. That lasted right up until other file sharing programs became available.

We still get a large number of visitors who drop by the site on a daily basis, to check to see what the news is. Some of the most recent articles include: "RIAA's Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy" (article) and The RIAA's response to "How many CD Burners were there actually in the Queens Bust?"(article) seems there were a heck of a lot less than the equivalent the stated. Straight from the horse's mouth

My personal boycotting lead me to start buying independent music and I've actually been buying more music than I ever did from RIAA artists and labels. Partially because its often cheaper, around $8.00 -$10.00, and partially because the music is often much better, than what the majors are putting out.

In 2001 RIAA sales were down 5% and they RIAA laid off 16 people in Jan 2002. This year the sales are down 7% to 9% (depending on whose numbers you read) hopefully we can look forward to more layoffs. Less staff less impact. The RIAA membership dues are a portion of the labels sales, lower sales=smaller budget=less impact.

Those that say there is no affect on the RIAA and MPAA are misguided. In the past 2 1/2 years I've bought over 150 CDs from independent musicians, money that went to them, not to RIAA labels. But the largest affect that has taken place is that people are begining to discover independent music, are buying it, ignoring the majors offerings, and as a result the RIAA is becoming the Maginot Line of the music industry. We make them irrelvant by bypassing them. What else is happening is that artists are beginning to wake up speaking out as well, Joni Mitchell, Janis Ian, Elton John, The RAC headed by Don Henley, just to name a few. The RIAA's positions coupled with a loss of sales, has come to the attention of Congress, The DOJ to name but a few and many former backers in congress are finding that the RIAA isn't always right or even telling them the truth. Unethical business practices are coming to light that have been the industry standard for years, that are forcing changes in the way the industry works, in their actions toward artists and consumers.

This is not an if/then type of thing, there are a lot of varibles involved, that each action has an effect somewhere, maybe very subtle, but the overall result is that while the RIAA is winning the battles, they are losing the war. And their desperation is showing.

It's good to see that people are actually talking about this again. As the founder of boycott-riaa.com on July 13, 2002, I've been at this for quite sometime. When the original threat of Napster being shutdown loomed, people got incensed and it made difference. That lasted right up until other file sharing programs became available.

We still get a large number of visitors who drop by the site on a daily basis, to check to see what the news is. Some of the most recent articles include: "RIAA's Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy" (article) and The RIAA's response to "How many CD Burners were there actually in the Queens Bust?"(article) seems there were a heck of a lot less than the equivalent the stated. Straight from the horse's mouth

My personal boycotting lead me to start buying independent music and I've actually been buying more music than I ever did from RIAA artists and labels. Partially because its often cheaper, around $8.00 -$10.00, and partially because the music is often much better, than what the majors are putting out.

In 2001 RIAA sales were down 5% and they RIAA laid off 16 people in Jan 2002. This year the sales are down 7% to 9% (depending on whose numbers you read) hopefully we can look forward to more layoffs. Less staff less impact. The RIAA membership dues are a portion of the labels sales, lower sales=smaller budget=less impact.

Those that say there is no affect on the RIAA and MPAA are misguided. In the past 2 1/2 years I've bought over 150 CDs from independent musicians, money that went to them, not to RIAA labels. But the largest affect that has taken place is that people are begining to discover independent music, are buying it, ignoring the majors offerings, and as a result the RIAA is becoming the Maginot Line of the music industry. We make them irrelvant by bypassing them. What else is happening is that artists are beginning to wake up speaking out as well, Joni Mitchell, Janis Ian, Elton John, The RAC headed by Don Henley, just to name a few. The RIAA's positions coupled with a loss of sales, has come to the attention of Congress, The DOJ to name but a few and many former backers in congress are finding that the RIAA isn't always right or even telling them the truth. Unethical business practices are coming to light that have been the industry standard for years, that are forcing changes in the way the industry works, in their actions toward artists and consumers.

This is not an if/then type of thing, there are a lot of varibles involved, that each action has an effect somewhere, maybe very subtle, but the overall result is that while the RIAA is winning the battles, they are losing the war. And their desperation is showing.

It's good to see that people are actually talking about this again. As the founder of boycott-riaa.com on July 13, 2002, I've been at this for quite sometime. When the original threat of Napster being shutdown loomed, people got incensed and it made difference. That lasted right up until other file sharing programs became available.

We still get a large number of visitors who drop by the site on a daily basis, to check to see what the news is. Some of the most recent articles include: "RIAA's Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy" (article) and The RIAA's response to "How many CD Burners were there actually in the Queens Bust?"(article) seems there were a heck of a lot less than the equivalent the stated. Straight from the horse's mouth

My personal boycotting lead me to start buying independent music and I've actually been buying more music than I ever did from RIAA artists and labels. Partially because its often cheaper, around $8.00 -$10.00, and partially because the music is often much better, than what the majors are putting out.

In 2001 RIAA sales were down 5% and they RIAA laid off 16 people in Jan 2002. This year the sales are down 7% to 9% (depending on whose numbers you read) hopefully we can look forward to more layoffs. Less staff less impact. The RIAA membership dues are a portion of the labels sales, lower sales=smaller budget=less impact.

Those that say there is no affect on the RIAA and MPAA are misguided. In the past 2 1/2 years I've bought over 150 CDs from independent musicians, money that went to them, not to RIAA labels. But the largest affect that has taken place is that people are begining to discover independent music, are buying it, ignoring the majors offerings, and as a result the RIAA is becoming the Maginot Line of the music industry. We make them irrelvant by bypassing them. What else is happening is that artists are beginning to wake up speaking out as well, Joni Mitchell, Janis Ian, Elton John, The RAC headed by Don Henley, just to name a few. The RIAA's positions coupled with a loss of sales, has come to the attention of Congress, The DOJ to name but a few and many former backers in congress are finding that the RIAA isn't always right or even telling them the truth. Unethical business practices are coming to light that have been the industry standard for years, that are forcing changes in the way the industry works, in their actions toward artists and consumers.

This is not an if/then type of thing, there are a lot of varibles involved, that each action has an effect somewhere, maybe very subtle, but the overall result is that while the RIAA is winning the battles, they are losing the war. And their desperation is showing.

If we are already paying for it, why more anti-piracy legislation?

Get the people who are SELLING copies!

I think the RIAA owes ME money for the CD-Rs that turned into coasters, backups, and frisbees.

Ironically, the RIAA assumes they have the copyright on everything. So if I buy CD-Rs to burn my own music on, I'm still paying them for the *privilege*.

Be sure to visit Boycott-RIAA for further coverage of this and all issues anti-RIAA (Not that there are any /.'ers against the fine institution of the RIAA, but link provided just in case ;)

The Future of Music Coalition, The Recording Artists Coalition, AFTRA, NARAS, The American Federation of Musicians, and the International Managers all jumped into the fray on Monday and the text got put back in that pays the artists directly.

The Bill Passed the House on Monday Evening.

Full Text of the Bill as Passed in the House (pdf)

The problem is that the contracts have non disclosure agreements in them as well as do the settlements between artists.

Visit this page on boycott-riaa and listen to part seven of the hearings on Labels accounting practices. It starts out with Kevin Murray CA Sernator) and then Don Engel the Dixie Chicks attorney.

There's also the RIAA Membership List, which can serve as a good starting-point for labels to avoid.

Here's a link to more information about RIAA: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

I for one am hoping this case either ends in a positive settlement for the lawfirms involved, akin to the way Charley Pride's label caved in over his CD when a California woman sued them for deceptive trade practices and other goodies.

I run FatChucks.com and get a ton of e-mail over the Corrupt CDs issue every week. It would be nice if this case makes my site obsolete because big, fat warnings would have to appear on the CDs themselves (rather than Joe Public having to know about my site).

Last, the warnings you see on corrupt CDs are so far *not adequate.* They need to warn the potential buyer of the following:
1. Will not play on your computer.
2. Will not play on your DVD player, Discman, CD-Duplicator (like the kind put out by Sony, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer, etc), high-end stereo CD player, car CD player, game console (PS, PS2, XBox, etc) or MP3-CD player.
3. Using this CD in any of the devices above may damage that equipment.

To see this in action, check out this image for the Rosa CD in Europe:
The Image
In Spanish, it translates to this:
"This disc is equipped with a device to prevent digital copying, which could impede the playback of the recording in personal computers and/or harm such devices, in videogame consoles, in automobile CD and DVD players and multi-changers, as well as other CD-ROM and DVD-ROM players."

The record labels probably have a legal right to corrupt their CDs, but they need to *fully* warn consumers about what they are buying.

Peace,
Chuck

Rumor has that they have even suggested a Logo And have offered to fund TV commercials...with Ponch and Jon..

This was lobbyed for very heavily by the IFPI and the RIAA. Jason Berman is the head of the IFPI (and the former head of the RIAA, he reccommended Hilary Rosen to replace him. He is based out out New York and has been a steady fixture at the WIPO meeting and debates. One has to ask why the head of an organization based in London, lives in New York, unless this was the plan all along. He is a former Warner Bros exec and a Senate aide. While we were watching the Hilary, Berman was expanding US copyright policy to the world. More on Berman.

Except for the RIAA, they gain and lose nothing.
Hell, even if you do this, the RIAA makes money.

The proper term is CORRUPTED, not copy protected.They do not conform to Red Book Standards.

Congressman Rick Boucher of VA has written a letter to the IFPI and the RIAA suggesting that under the AHRA this may illegal and asking for explanations of the methods used. Under the AHRA there is a 2% surcharge on every CD recorder sold in the US at the wholesale level (See section 1004), that goes to the RIAA, just as there is a 2% surcharge on "Music" designated CDR media.

In addition Philips refers to these corrupted discs as "silver disks with music on them, but which do not resemble CD's" See this article

Boycott-riaa and Fat Chucks are maintaining a list of the corrupted CDs. Also, Check out the Home Recording Rights Coalition