Slashdot Mirror

Your not getting this trailer park. Chances of you understanding the whole picture is slim. Despite hundreds of posts on slash dot of charges made by the RIAA and cases that were thrown out because the charges where false or inflated. You still don't understand the concept of Innocent until proven guilty. Its sad for all those people you will pass judgment on during your lifetime. Y'all pass me some more chewing tobacco and hang that man.

The RIAA tried to sue Gertrude Walton for file sharing 2005. Problem Gertrude had been dead for over a year. I know trailer you can come up with a good scenario of how Gertrude was file sharing from the grave. After all we both know how infallible the US judiciary process is and if the RIAA says Gertrude is guilty then guilty she is.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_ the_dead/

A family in Rome, GA, (one of the 235 defendants) was very surprised when the local newspaper contacted them to ask about the file sharing lawsuit in which they were implicated. Problem they didn't own an Internet connection. I know trailer, guilty for living a building that had file sharing going on. Hey would someone play the banjo and dress my sister up real nice.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060424-6662 .html

The RIAA was offering false amnesty program for a while but discontinued it when they got sued for fraudulent business practices. Wait a second these guys are just a trade association why would they be luring confessions from folks falsly. This must be another lie by yours truly, the person you never met but cast judgment on after his first post. The banjos play in the back ground.

http://blogs.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001435.php
or
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,112428-page,1/ar ticle.html

RIAA threatens to sue a 12 year old unless the parents pay $2000 dollars. I know trailer park $2000 bucks is a small price to pay to keep your children safe. Those RIAA folks are just misunderstood, they are just trying to give that little girls a lesson she'll keep with her for the rest of her life. Man don't y'all just love those RIAA guys they are just swell. Golly trailer I hope you don't have a inquisitive 12 year old. But hey your a smart guy who can afford a computer and Internet connection I am sure you can afford a measly 2 grand.

http://news.com.com/RIAA+settles+with+12-year-old+ girl/2100-1027_3-5073717.html

Hey did ya notice trailer how the RIAA doesn't use the word stealing in any of its written public documents. It uses a word called copyright infringement. Thats odd don't y'all think that we'd be using the word stealing that means legally something else. I wonder where we got that stealing word from. Thats a lot of thinking us regualr folk shouldn't be to concerned with don't ya'll think.

http://www.riaa.com/issues%5CcleanSlate.asp

Trailer you and the RIAA are just swell folks. I don't know what I was thinking.

Go to the RIAA website and read his bio:

http://www.riaa.com/about/leadership/default.asp

Kill him, kill anyone who replaces him. Keep killing until this copyright insanity stops.

You know what? That 404 page being a complete IIS/Windows/Microsoft advertisement in name of "help" is really insightful for me and some others.

I mean the fact that RIAA/MPAA somehow loves using Microsoft software.

RIAA hides their OS for some reason but it can be easily found in IIS 404 page like http://www.riaa.com/test.html

A true open or documented independent codec (e.g. h264) based web market which everyone can sell their art without those leeches are bad for Microsoft too, where would be "Sorry, Windows needed to purchase our music/movie" messages? Where would be Microsoft?

BTW congratulations to MPAA for porting IIS/6.0 to Linux! http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/ /www.mpaa.org

The "Board of Directors" is a matter of public record.

http://www.riaa.com/about/leadership/board.asp

Hell, they post it on their web site

I imagine that the prices are very carefully calculated to yield the maximum amount of profit (feel free to correct me if anyone has statistics to prove otherwise).

I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course, this ignores the concept of a "fair" price. But since the word fair is such a difficult word to pin down, I'll have to give it my best shot.
There is the model of competitive pricing, which is more or less built on the cost of selling. When you go the grocery store to buy your dozen eggs, you can see they're not very expensive; a dollar at most in most areas. I would say that is relatively in line with how much it costs to get the eggs there, with just enough left over to make the grocer 'feel like' putting them there, and the farmer to sell them.
Now there's the darker side. I feel like I first became aware of this concept at my local amusement park, with the obviously jacked up food prices. It's $2.50 for the cup of french fries, which after cost of goods and wages, probably set them back 45 cents at most. I use this example not only because it's the perfect example of monopoly pricing, but also because there's a (relatively) fair market price waiting outside at your local fast food joint. 99 cents for more or less the same product.

I think consumers subtly realize when they're getting screwed. Wendy's doesn't have access to a pricing model of "do you get your food or don't you", they're stuck with "get it here or get it elsewhere". The amusement park definitely realizes you can't get it elsewhere, and the prices show it. People buy, of course, because it's usually a pain to leave and come back, and a day with hungry->whiney kids is hardly 'amusing'.
Ok, so maybe I should be thankful that my local amusement park is offering me the choice to not go hungry, but I know I'm getting screwed. They're making their extra buck off of my back, and I'm well aware of it. The same goes with the record labels. They keep the copyrights for the works that 'their' artists produce, so they don't have to fight against someone else selling the same music. Thanks to their convenient cartels, they don't even have to compete with each other over similar genres. The result? You guessed it. Overinflated prices. Again, this concept of a "fair" price is a difficult one to pin down, but I would certainly say it's less than the $12.75 we're stuck with now. Even 99 cents per song for the ones I like is a tough sell. I've been on a farm before (well, at least visited one), and I have a small idea of what a pain in the ass it is to raise chickens. I feel like a dollar is a pretty modest price to pay for 12 of them, actually.

Now there's the RIAA. Of course, their model is based on a certain amount of uncertainty of whether or not an artist will succeed, so it's a bit harder to gett a spot price (as opposed to measuring the effort it takes to raise chickens for eggs). Well, they claim that it's a lot, but in my experience, whenever a company is being secretive about their pricing, I've found that something fishy is usually going on. Music consumers (and artists... the monopoly works both ways) have been getting screwed for a long time, and it's no secret. Now, somebody comes along with a way to screw them back, and they cry foul? Please. I don't want to hear it.

What the Napster era really produced wasn't a country full of pirates. It was a new fair price. Now, the music industry actually has to compete with something. And it sucks for them. Bye-bye amusement park profits. Hello market price. But back to this

Intellectual property theft is an enormously damaging economic and cultural crime and linked with terrorism.

Counterfeit goods [like this fake sea smell] is a crime that is seen as victimless by many but it is in fact a destructive and potentially deadly criminal activity.

The solution to this situation is to cut the connection between large movie house sales and independent sales. The conscientious downloader should know who is likely to get the money if they were to otherwise make the purchase.

A good friend of mine was the first to clue me in about this sort of thing. Now, if I were to ever download music illegally (though I support the iTunes Music Store), I'd be sure to double-check that the record label was deserving of my scorn before I made my decision.

Robin Hood didn't rob from the random.

Not here?

Feel free to exercise your critical thinking skills. Look, I work in the music business and I know some of those people and you need to think about what you read before you parrot it. If you look at the board members, you'll notice that the independents have representation and the RIAA is not the music majors promoting some secret agenda to kill the music industry. And they are certainly not about creating scarcity. Maybe you should have looked at the list of labels that belong to the RIAA instead: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

Come on, wake up and smell the coffee; this is about protecting copyright and anyone who tries to sell you some conspiracy theory is full of it. What will be interesting is the reaction from the artist community. If we don't hear anything from them, then we can guess how they feel.

I recommend that you print out a copy of the members of the RIAA and put it in your wallet. Before you buy a CD, check to see if the label is a member. If it is, just put the CD back and go find an independent artist on CD Baby or GarageBand.com I quit buying stuff from Sony after their malware fiasco, but have since expanded my boycott to all RIAA members.

I read somewhere that the **AA are not about money, or even copyright infringement; they are trying to create scarcity where there is none. That artificial scarcity will then create a demand for content that ONLY the *AAs will be able to satiate. This is typically termed manipulating the market in most circles, but they have paid the lawmakers to make it look legal.

The only people who will continue to lose out in big ways are the content creators who sell their copyrights to big business like the **AAs of the world. Right now, we are seeing the beginning of content creators starting to distribute their products without the help of the **AAs of the world, and its working. The more that happens, and the more that we, the people with a clue, name the companies responsible for bad laws, jacked up prices, market manipulation... the more chance there is of John Q Public understanding what is happening and voting appropriately.

So, who is responsible? Sony? No, there are way more than a few. Here is the RIAA's board of directors:

Polly Anthony Geffen Records
Mitch Bainwol RIAA
Glen Barros Concord Records
Steve Bartels Island Records
Victoria Bassetti EMI Recorded Music
Jose Behar Universal Music Group
Tim Bowen SONY BMG
Bob Cavallo Buena Vista Music
Mike Curb Curb Records
Joe Galante SONY BMG
Ivan Gavin EMI Recorded Music
Charles Goldstuck RCA Music Group
Zach Horowitz Universal Music Group
Dave Johnson Warner Music Group
Craig Kallman The Atlantic Group
Lawrence Kenswil Universal Music Group
Michael Koch Koch Entertainment
Mel Lewinter Universal Music Group
Kevin Liles Warner Music Group
Alan Meltzer Wind-up Records
Deirdre McDonald SONY BMG
David Munns EMI Recorded Music
Jason Flom Virgin Records America
Tom Silverman Tommy Boy Records
Andy Slater Capitol Records
Rob Stringer SONY BMG
Tom Whalley Warner Bros. Records

http://www.riaa.com/about/leadership/board.asp [riaa.com] Board of directors

If you want to know if someone's music is safe from **AA, try http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com]

I am certain that there are plenty of other resource on the Internet as well. So, lets all join together and try to make sure that content creators understand what the **AAs are doing to their business... namely killing it and any chance of real revenue.

The copyright holders are losing, not because TPB or ISOHunt will always pop back up, but because they are trusting the business and revenue to a group of people who are whole heartedly working overtime to ruin their business. The **AA are subhumans (more or less) who are trying to create a supply and demand situation where the demand is greater than the supply by choking off all supplies but their own. This is typically termed manipulating the market in most circles, but they have paid the lawmakers to make it look legal.

The only people who will continue to lose out in big ways are the content creators who sell their copyrights to big business like the **AAs of the world. Right now, we are seeing the beginning of content creators starting to distribute their products without the help of the **AAs of the world, and its working. The more that happens, and the more that we, the people with a clue, name the companies responsible for bad laws, jacked up prices, market manipulation... the more chance there is of John Q Public understanding what is happening and voting appropriately.

So, who is responsible? Sony? No, there are way more than a few. Here is the RIAAs board of directors:

Polly Anthony Geffen Records
Mitch Bainwol RIAA
Glen Barros Concord Records
Steve Bartels Island Records
Victoria Bassetti EMI Recorded Music
Jose Behar Universal Music Group
Tim Bowen SONY BMG
Bob Cavallo Buena Vista Music
Mike Curb Curb Records
Joe Galante SONY BMG
Ivan Gavin EMI Recorded Music
Charles Goldstuck RCA Music Group
Zach Horowitz Universal Music Group
Dave Johnson Warner Music Group
Craig Kallman The Atlantic Group
Lawrence Kenswil Universal Music Group
Michael Koch Koch Entertainment
Mel Lewinter Universal Music Group
Kevin Liles Warner Music Group
Alan Meltzer Wind-up Records
Deirdre McDonald SONY BMG
David Munns EMI Recorded Music
Jason Flom Virgin Records America
Tom Silverman Tommy Boy Records
Andy Slater Capitol Records
Rob Stringer SONY BMG
Tom Whalley Warner Bros. Records

http://www.riaa.com/about/leadership/board.asp Board of directors

If you want to know if someone's music is safe from **AA, try http://www.riaaradar.com/

I am certain that there are plenty of other resource on the Internet as well. So, lets all join together and try to make sure that content creators understand what the **AAs are doing to their business... namely killing it and any chance of real revenue.

Indeed. According to the RIAA's stats: http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndS tats.pdf (warning: PDF), the total industry is something on the order of 12 billion $US per year. How can they claim with a straight face that the *damages* are about 100 times greater than the size of the industry being damaged?

As you said, I hope this gets publicized because it really demonstrates how ridiculous the dollar value associated with infringement really is.

It's nice to see community achievements getting some positive recognition; especially when contrasted with the spectacle of the forces of evil, who oppose freedom, being panned in the press and in court ;-) It's a good end to the year!

Who would have thought it; we're not just a bunch of commie anti-capitalists and foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists...

Untrue, artists figure highly when the RIAA is trying to screw them over:

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/052500.asp

Contrast with:

http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/issues_wo rkforhire.php

The Recording Industry Association of America represents the recording industry, like record labels and distributors, not artists.

Yes, but they like to use the artists for sympathy in their anti-piracy propaganda. But don't take my word for it, check out this page on their website where we have the following (emphasis added):

Though it would appear that record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich, these impressions are mere fallacies. Each sale by a pirate represents a lost legitimate sale, thereby depriving not only the record company of profits, but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, ... and the list goes on.

...

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the creative artists lose. Musicians, singers, songwriters and producers don't get the royalties and fees they've earned. Virtually all artists (95%) depend on these fees to make a living. The artists also depend on their reputations, which are damaged by the inferior quality of pirated copies sold to the public.

So yes, they DO claim they're doing this for the sake of the artists, you and the grandparent are both correct. The RIAA are claiming to be fighting piracy at least partially for the artists' benefit (although note it says "perhaps most importantly" about the artists) while at the same time trying to stab the artists in the back (again) by lowering their royalties even though they say that 95% of artists depend on those royalties to make a living. That last bit about artists' reputations suffering from sales of inferior quality pirated copies is kinda questionable in this day and age. A pirated CD should sound the same as the real thing, sometimes better since they'll remove any DRM crap from it.

Personally I don't see how they do it, having a soul-ectomy must be a job requirement.

So, we officially need to find a replacement word for the first A in RIAA, because it doesn't standa for Artists anymore. I suggest something like this:

It never stood for "Artists" in the first place... It for "association"... as in "Record Industry Association of America"

Follow the link and be amazed... the Artists DO NOT feature in the RIAA's thoughts at all, they're only concern is for the publishing rights holders as in the publishers, not the artists.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

The "Clean Slate Program" is no longer in effect.
http://www.riaa.com/issues/cleanSlate.asp

Maybe you forgot about the RIAA clean slate program?

http://www.riaa.com/pdf/cleanSlateAffidavit.pdf

http://www.riaa.com/News/newsletter/pdf/sampleAgre ement.pdf

We've got it down here in the States too, only it seems people have forgotten about it. http://www.riaa.com/issues%5Clicensing%5Caarc.asp

In October 1992, the U.S. Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act. Under the AHRA, manufacturers and importers of digital audio recorders (including, for example, DAT, DCC, and MiniDisc recorders) and blank media are required to make royalty payments. The AARC was the first organization to distribute AHRA monies in 1995. The royalty rate was established through arbitration, and is currently at 2% of manufacturers' revenue.

So, pirate all the music you want, but keep it on CDs boys and girls. Every bit of non pirated music or data that goes on those CDs is wasted "royality". I wonder if DVDs are covered too, how about just throwing a hardrive in there too, I'd pay 2% extra to be exempt from a lawsuit.

Hopefully this will get their spirits up for battles against bigger Dino saurs.

Uh, Floyd has the 4th most successful album and I'm pretty sure some classical music acts have the longevity beat by a few year but that really doesn't matter since you so totally didn't get the reference in the first place.

http://www.riaa.com/tricks/freeboat/warrantapplica tion.html

(Crap, my Alt tag of "Look mom! Free Boat! Yay!" isn't displayed by slashcode :( )

I think the music industry hurts itself. When CD's were release they promised that they would cost around $5 in a few years as the costs of R&D were covered and mass production set in. The only CD's that sell for $5 are either crappy or used. They want to maintain their monopoly status and are unwilling to change. Those are the reasons I no longer buy CD's.

I can just hear Microsoft gloating over this "Wow! Now we can add all the DRM our real customers want without any apparent performance penalty."
"Quick, run out and buy stock in every power and cooling company you can!".
Of course the malware will be able to fly faster on the new Microsft DRM 2010 Media Center release (due in 2012)

from the original complaint (source: , pg. 11, #41):

Most Internet piracy of sound recordings is accomplished using a technology known as MP3, which stands for Motion Picture Expert Group 1, Audio Layer 3. MP3 simply is an algorithm that compresses a digital music file by a ratio of approximately 12:1, thereby reducing the size of the file so that it more easily and quickly can be copied, transmitted, and downloaded over the Internet. There are several other compression technologies used for this purpose, and many of them produce a high fidelity sound quality. MP3, however, has become the standard for piracy because it is available for free on the Internet and because it does not incorporate any security to limit copying and distribution of the sound recording. Thus, once a sound recording has been converted into the MP3 format, it can be copied and distributed an unlimited number of times, without meaningful degradation in the sound quality. Once downloaded (i.e. copied and saved to a computer hard drive), a music file can be played from the computer, or further copied onto home or car stereo equipment, or portable players, designed for use with MP3 music.

Again, my argument is that it is not a HIGH fidelity duplication, and that although once ripped there is no degridation in quality, the degredation comes from the ripping itself...

So, seems to me like they made it an issue... is it really a non-issue, legally? They can just make unchallenged claims, and if unchallenged, becomes legally true?

(thanks for answering, btw... it all makes me so angry I may get tired of shaking my tiny fists in the air and just go get that law degree)

The RIAA isn't American. 3 of the 4 members of the cartel are "offshore corporations"

I was under the impression that RIAA stood for Recording Industry Association of America. That kinda implies that they might in some way be American. The RIAA have no pull in the UK. Sure, we have a similar organisation (BPI), but the RIAA do not operate here.

He then goes on to say 3 of the 4 members of the cartel "offshore corporations"

For starters, looking at the RIAA membership list there are a lot more than 4 members of the cartel.

I am deeply concerned by the lack of accurate detail in this answer!

The US government cares about maintaining the competitive position of American firms in foreign markets. This is hardly new. Intellectual property is one of the areas where the US maintains a positive balance-of-trade with the rest of the world. US policymakers have worked for years to develop international systems that protect American rightsholders around the world.

"Foreign sales account for fifty percent of the revenues of the US record industry," according to this statement by an RIAA spokesperson before Congress. The figures for movies aren't very different; nearly half of all movie revenues come from countries outside the US and Canada.

I don't think there's any conspiracy here to impose US DRM solutions on foreigners. There is a concern to ensure that US firms receive compensation for the use of their copyrighted works overseas. If DRM helps American rightsholders preserve their revenue streams, then US policymakers are going to support it.

1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.

The listening right his question refers to is the right to "space shift". In other words, the right to "listen" to a recording at work on my iPod, or in my car on a burned CD-R, all while the original CD itself sits on a shelf at my home. This is a frequent topic of discussion amongst Slashdot regulars so I'm not so surprised you didn't know what he meant. According to Wikipedia we have this right based on the judgement in the case, "Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)". It gave us the right to make an electronic backup copy for personal use.

The current RIAA website says "If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. "

Once the original is detroyed do we still have the right to keep our backups? Of course this question itself is a paradox because once we destroy the original we need the backup. However do we then have the right to even possess the backup if we can't prove we ever had the original? We don't know the answer to this, and that's what he was asking. However I don't believe this has been tested in a court yet.

Regardless of any of this, his question is actually off topic because (to my knowledge) the RIAA is only "going after" people who are
sharing files, not people who are possessing personal backups. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

The article is silly with its anti-Microsoft, anti-DRM rhetoric without even considering that there wouldn't even be online music sales without some kind of promise of secure DRM.

Keeping out of the politics of DRM and MS-- (IMHO) the only reason why there are 'online music sales' is because the RIAA is/was threatened by 'illegal' file trading. Illegal music trading (ala Napster, gnutella, etc.) is what I see as this shift to people accepting digitally delivered music in place of a physical cd-- a choice that is now SAVING the record labels millions. Reading their press releases, http://www.riaa.com/news/guestcolumns/milescopelan d.asp, they say CD's are not overpriced because it costs 'so much to make'. How much does it cost them when all THEY need to do is release it into public via Apple's Musicstore, (The New) Napster, Musicmatch, etc.

On a side-point, whats the difference if DRM works or doesn't when everyone is using Apple's iPod http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2006-09 -06-ipod-rivals_x.htm, which uses AAC.

As far as AAC vs OGG vs. MP3, See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/29/115420 4&mode=thread.

Gene Kimmelman of Consumers Union had another explanation: "They got caught red-handed in a blatant consumer rip-off. Only under the pressure of regulators cracking down on them did they back off from this unwarranted charge."

The FCC last week sent Verizon a "letter of inquiry," the first step in a formal investigation.

[snip]

Verizon said the new surcharge was necessary to cover rising "supplier" costs associated with providing DSL for customers who do not also buy its phone service. Verizon is its own DSL supplier, however, so the new fees would have been going from one company pocket to another.

BellSouth had argued, initially, that it needed its $2.97-per-month fee to cover regulatory costs associated with DSL. The problem with that argument? DSL is an unregulated service.

It's nice for RMS to quantify his position by saying "By Free I mean Freedom" but the end result is the same. Perhaps someone can post a time when Richard said, "Yeah, the price on this software is just right" and there is actually a dollar amount specified. The truth is, there's a need for paid software. Paid for software produces some good stuff. It's not the endall but it has a right to exist. It feeds a fundemental human need, to be compensated. Glory alone is not a system of compensation and never will be.

Actually it's probably better to e-mail one of the RIAA member companies. The RIAA itself is likely to just toss out your e-mail, while a company that makes its money from selling music, as opposed to filing lawsuits, might actually read it.

Is money, of course.

Support musicians like http://terranaomi.com/ that exist outside the riaa.

Here's a list of the members in the association. http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

Don't buy music from them. Make sure they know why you are not buying music from them.

Do yourself a favor and go give Terra a listen, even if you must continue to support the likes of sony and others.

She's worth the time spent listening to her.

Everyone, we don't have to stand for this outrage anymore. Jump up on your blog-platforms and scream to the heavens! The people must know the deep-dicking the RIAA is out to give... even to the dead!

The regular media might not cover this, but we sure can! Get to your blogs/myspaces/whatevers and rant! Here's what I posted; excuse my colorful language, it's early and I haven't had time to put on my happy-face: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006 /08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html From the article: "In Michigan, in Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant had passed away, the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children:" The RIAA was suing this guy and now he's dead. Instead of dropping it, the RIAA is going after his children. Yeah, the RIAA is pretty fucking sick. Think twice when you buy your next CD -- do you want to support the RIAA? http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp there is a list of all record labels associated with the RIAA. Please, send the bastards at the RIAA a message by avoiding those labels whenever possible (or better yet, pirate the music -- that really grinds the RIAA's gears).

According to this site [gamerevolution.com], violent crime rates for children is at an all-time low.

You do realize that the RIAA is a member-based organization, and they (technically) can't stop an individual artist, or an artist not signed to one of their member lables from taking up the action you suggest?
For that matter, they also have a member list so if you really wanted, you could keep track of all those and organize a boycott of just those lables. Not to say it would be effective, or for that matter, an easy list to recall each time you pop off to the record store, but still technically possible.

It's not Fedora (or Red Hat's) fault that the licensing of those products and the US Laws on those subjects are so anal. Welcome to the age of DRM, patents and vendor lock-in due to the 2 previous reasons.

If you didn't know in the USA you are not allowed to reverse-engineer or even include software that is reverse engineered. You are not allowed to import it, export it or use it. Thus MP3, WMV, AAC support or the DRM-versions of it can not be included in a distro for/created in the USA. If you do, you get massive lawsuits or treated as a terrorist. You can of course go and ask permissions and pay big bucks to Fraunhofer/Thomson, MS or Apple.

Welcome to the Nazi world of the 21st century where the Fuhrers are big companies and the Gestapo respectively SS is represented by lawyers and government. Oh, you can of course always rat out at your favorite kamerat.

Until the RIAA and MPAA are disbanded, I won't be trusting either industry - and I'll be doing my level best to avoid buying their products, even if that means my not having any movies or music at all.

But, even though you are one of the most popular persons here on slashdot and the internet and world as a whole (Anonymous Coward), even you cannot completely avoid paying the *AA products, and most people are just too lazy and have the cash to just buy movies and music at Wal-mart or wherever.

Also, not all movies and music are not RIAA/MPAA ones, but we always want more, and the *AAs have the most. I don't know how these data are arrived (like most), but even the RIAA only states that they represent 90% of the world's "legitimate" music distribution. Source, http://www.riaa.com/about/default.asp

In 2006, the RIAA claimed that ripping CDs and backing them up does not constitute fair use, because tracks from ripped CDs do not maintain the controversial DRM to protect the music file from copyright infringement. They argue that, there is no evidence that any of the relevant media are "unusually subject to damage" and that "even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."

If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect the value of music. Of course, music isn't the only part of our lives that deserves more appreciation than it sometimes gets. The people of music do, too. Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans.

From http://www.riaa.com/issues/default.asp

So they basically admit it. The RIAA keeps working to ensure the price of music is inflated. They pretty much admit people don't think their product is worth as much as they say it is, hence the need to "proctect its value". What's funny is their website has nothing to do with music. None, whatsoever. There are no links on it to ways to get legit music, it is all propoganda about why we need to reinforce their tired and non-functional business model. I also noticed their only feedback link is to their webmaster (poor guy). Are they afraid of the feedback people would give them? If anyone has an email address I could use to let them know how retarded they are, I'd appreciate it.

According to the RIAA website, the deceased Johnny Cash is still fighting for Copyrights to this day:

http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/history.asp

The Windows Trojan/Erazer-A Trojan looks at default folders for downloading MP3, AVI, MPEG, WMV, Gif, Zip graphic and video files, and wipes anything it finds with these extensions in the target locations.

The assumption is that because the Trojan is only deleting certain file types in specific download directories used by P2P programs -- one of the main sources of inadvertent malware infection -- it is attempting to protect those it manages to infect. [emph mine]

You obviously want to work for these guys, some other productless organization, or these morally bankrupt fellows?. Maybe if you have good enough connections, you can get access to the diploma mill/SCOTUS anointment service for the well-heeled.

It doesn't make sense to try to sue your customer

Oh really?

People, posting in hurry just in case as if any fanboy shouts "Who the hell is Apple music?" or "They are nothing"

http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp

See, that 168.5 million selling Beatles just in USA? They own their rights.

So they have a job.

You can read the actual press releaseon the RIAA's website. It is written in a style that spreads fear among the accused and placates shareholders. Get a load of this - "The perceived security and privacy of these campus LANs give many students incentive to engage in activity they have otherwise learned is illegal and unacceptable."
Perceived security? No one is safe from the all pervasive RIAA!

And in closing, for the shareholders - We know from past experience that bringing this problem to light can effect real change. We are hopeful that this new systematic program will yield even more positive results.
Of course they don't site sources or mention specific schools.

This is FUD. Obviously they don't see the real privacy obtained with a private network. If I set up vsftpd on a debian server full of high quality .ogg files and allow others to connect via my personal router - who is gonna know? I wouldn't doubt that the .ogg format slip right under their proverbial 'noses' since they show no knowledge of that open source format. (Scanning the alleged PC for .mp3 and .wma)

Of course it would be foolish to assume ignorance on their part with their teams of lawyers.
Alternatives?
Boycotting CD's doesn't seem to be an option with all their moaning. The only option I see is to listen music NOT peddled by the RIAA. A good start might be magnatune. They may notice competition.
Especially the disapointment of discovering they don't hold any copyright to any file on your computer.

Anyone technically inclined enough to rip mp3 streams is perfectly capable of doing the same with Real Media or Windows Media. Neither streams are truly encrypted and requiring a key to listen to streaming audio would effectively kill it anyway.

This is stupidity on the highest order. I run an internet radio station and I have and active interest in protecting my artists assets. There's a balance and if no-one's read everybodies favorite groups webcasting policies read up. I think they've pretty much got it covered.

I'm sure Real Media and Microsoft would love the extra royalties, but as a solution to a problem this does, how do we say? Fuck-all.

Most musicians always earned their money by giving concerts and selling merchandise. The money from records usually directly went into the pockets of the music label managers to cover the production of records, the marketing, the investments, the ... you name it. Most musicians got nothing from sales of their record. (See Lesk's article for some figures.)

But the record labels usually did not get a share of the revenue from concerts.

Or, as the RIAA writes:

"When artists are successful, record companies typically renegotiate their contracts to provide significantly higher compensation. These renegotiations are allowed under Section 2855. Record companies want to retain their most popular artists. As a result, successful artists frequently renegotiate terms mid-contract for larger advances and better royalties. Their recordings also serve as springboards for other revenue sources that they do not share with the record companies, such as concert revenues and publishing and merchandising royalties."

The sky isn't falling.

But it has started...

What's new is that record labels offer contracts to newcomer musicians with clauses that guarantee them a large of revenues from concerts and merchandising. See, e.g., "EMI Takes a Stake in Band" (http://davidkusek.typepad.com/future_of_music/KOR NEMI.pdf).

"Sources close to the band said that under the terms of the deal, EMI would pay the four- member band an estimated $15 million upfront -- more than twice what the band might expect from a traditional recording contract. In return, EMI would get more than 25% of the band's publishing, merchandising and touring revenue as well as profit from the group's albums."

Expect rising prices for merchandising articles as well.