Slashdot Mirror

No I like their tactics and we should all help MyCleanPC, since MyCleanPC needs better rankings so that MyCleanPC users can find more information about MyCleanPC and interact with others that want to use MyCleanPC. "MyCleanPC", they will say, "is so kool I want more stuff just like MyCleanPC!". Three cheers for MyCleanPC, MyCleanPC, MyCleanPC!!!

I for one welcome our new search engine robot overlords!

True, you make a lot of good points so I decided to look into it further. I decided to look into a high end brand of clothing (i.e. non-commodity) and the first company that popped into my head was Gucci.

2010 fiscal year reported revenues:

• Gucci: € 4,010.7 million / $ 5,800.42 million (source)
• Apple: $ 65.22 billion (source)
• RIAA (US market): $ 6,850.1 million (source)
• MPAA: US $ 10.6 / Worldwide $ 31.8 billion (source)

Even then, a single high end clothing brand can almost match RIAA's earnings.

Perhaps, but you'll probably find that they don't count with anywhere near the same power since they're not owned by large corporations

No large corporations? With websites I can link? Really?

Great, see what you made me do? That's probably 15 years in prison for me, minimum.

• The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
• The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying

Hmm. Only place I know of to find them is: http://riaa.org/

Isn't it interesting that Tivo has such a loyal crowd! I own three Tivos and I pay for service for two of them (the third is not connected). I wouldn't consider hacking my Tivo to avoid paying. Tivo has developed such a loyal following by being user friendly to it's users and trying to give them what they want that you are you can get kicked off and banned from forums for discussing it.
Sounds like the RIAA should hire Tivo to do it's PR work. :)

Way to go Tivo. I love my Tivos. Can't wait until next year. I'm getting a HD Tivo! :)

Rolling over and playing dead? I think this move would equate more closely with the ISP execs flying down to RIAA HQ in their private jets (paid for with your outrageously high subscription fees, mind you) to fellate Mitch Bainwol and his friends.

No, you're telling them that they don't have the right to make everyone listen to what they want to say... which they don't, as far as I'm concerned.

You're the one running a server and listening to any traffic that comes in. Your protocol is broken and you're asking for *legislators* to fix it? I know of one other group that tried to legislate a new reality... it hasn't gone so well for them. Perhaps you should put your money and mental effort into finding a better technical solution instead of dreaming of a legislative one.

If you want to see it in advance then pay like everybody else

I have honestly refused to buy a cd since all this shit started.

I hope you mean that you've refused to buy any CD published by a label represented by the RIAA. Otherwise it'd just be stupid.

I said "normally", as in "generally". Criminal convictions for copyright infringement are exceptionally rare, while civil suits are common. In fact, if you believe the RIAA, there has been only a single criminal conviction for online copyright infringement of music. Your assertion that "Most copyright infringement on the Internet is falls under Criminal Infringement" needs a citation.

They are constantly beathing that drum, claiming to be looking out for the "artists, songwriters, [and] musicians" but that's just propaganda. If they admitted they were just looking out for record company executives, it wouldn't go over as well. Here they have shown their true colors.

I am really worried that http://riaa.org/ is still up - so I load it in my browser and then I keep hitting refresh every second to make sure its still there ;)

No, the OP should NOT have posted a link to RIAA.org, that could cause it to be Slashdotted. :]

See their website: http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members (list of RIAA members).

Wait. Are you saying that the federal government are a bunch of PIRATES? Time to fight fire with fire.

To stop referring to RIAA and start using the names of it's members. RIAA is nothing, and when they fade into the shadows it's members who drive it's current tyranny will walk around as if they were pristine.
It's not RIAA, the real culprits include: 20TH CENTURY FOX
A&M Records
Arista
Capitol
SonyBMG
Universal Music Group
Virgin Records America
and a slew of others you can find at http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=a boutus_members
Of particular note is their board of directors http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=w ho_we_are_board.

Honestly, are their lawyers telling a judge that Sony, Universal, Virgin and the rest are low on cash?

Pathetic to the n-th degree.

To stop referring to RIAA and start using the names of it's members. RIAA is nothing, and when they fade into the shadows it's members who drive it's current tyranny will walk around as if they were pristine.
It's not RIAA, the real culprits include: 20TH CENTURY FOX
A&M Records
Arista
Capitol
SonyBMG
Universal Music Group
Virgin Records America
and a slew of others you can find at http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=a boutus_members
Of particular note is their board of directors http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=w ho_we_are_board.

Honestly, are their lawyers telling a judge that Sony, Universal, Virgin and the rest are low on cash?

Pathetic to the n-th degree.

In the same year, DVD sales numbered 1.3247 billion (page 28) in the U.S. alone, at an average price of $22.40 each (page 33). That works out to $29.7 billion in DVD revenue in the U.S. U.S. theatrical sales by comparison were $9.49 billion (page 4). DVD sales in the U.S. alone exceed worlwide theatrical sales.

Per film released (yeah I know they're not the same films, but we're doing an annual tally here) that works out to $48.9 million per film, for the U.S. alone. If the sale ratio of theatrical vs. DVD sales in the U.S. holds for the rest of the world (unlikely, but let's just say), then global DVD sales would be $80.8 billion, or $133 million per flim.

So to recap for 2006:
# of releases: 607
US theatrical sales: $9.49 billion
Global theatrical sales: $25.82 billion
US DVD sales: $29.7 billion
Global DVD sales (hypothetical): $80.8 billion
Average cost to make each film: $65.8 million
Average theatrical sales per film released: $42.5 million
Average DVD sales per film released (hypothetical): $133 million

I think it's safe to say that DVD sales are the lion's share of their revenue. The theater side of the industry could disappear entirely and there's probably still plenty of room for profit. Draw what conclusions you will from this about the RIAA's pricing. (Also note that the $10 DVD is a myth - yes some are sold for $10, but the average price is about the same as a music CD.)

One final footnote. The MPAA only claims $6.1 billion in losses to piracy (PDF warning) in 2005. So they're claiming piracy only accounts for 6%-11% of their total sales (depending on what figure you use for DVD sales). The RIAA claims $4.5 billion in piracy losses in 2005 versus $12.3 billion in total retail music sales. A whopping 37%

In the same year, DVD sales numbered 1.3247 billion (page 28) in the U.S. alone, at an average price of $22.40 each (page 33). That works out to $29.7 billion in DVD revenue in the U.S. U.S. theatrical sales by comparison were $9.49 billion (page 4). DVD sales in the U.S. alone exceed worlwide theatrical sales.

Per film released (yeah I know they're not the same films, but we're doing an annual tally here) that works out to $48.9 million per film, for the U.S. alone. If the sale ratio of theatrical vs. DVD sales in the U.S. holds for the rest of the world (unlikely, but let's just say), then global DVD sales would be $80.8 billion, or $133 million per flim.

So to recap for 2006:
# of releases: 607
US theatrical sales: $9.49 billion
Global theatrical sales: $25.82 billion
US DVD sales: $29.7 billion
Global DVD sales (hypothetical): $80.8 billion
Average cost to make each film: $65.8 million
Average theatrical sales per film released: $42.5 million
Average DVD sales per film released (hypothetical): $133 million

I think it's safe to say that DVD sales are the lion's share of their revenue. The theater side of the industry could disappear entirely and there's probably still plenty of room for profit. Draw what conclusions you will from this about the RIAA's pricing. (Also note that the $10 DVD is a myth - yes some are sold for $10, but the average price is about the same as a music CD.)

One final footnote. The MPAA only claims $6.1 billion in losses to piracy (PDF warning) in 2005. So they're claiming piracy only accounts for 6%-11% of their total sales (depending on what figure you use for DVD sales). The RIAA claims $4.5 billion in piracy losses in 2005 versus $12.3 billion in total retail music sales. A whopping 37%

Darn them riaa's!!! Slashdot their friggin web site!! Now!!

riaa.com

Oh, and who are they to declare themselves owner of all video recording...? Ooh, lets flood their inbox, (e-mail webmaster@riaa.org!!)

Is it stealing to listen to someone else's copyrighted music? Not that I know of.

The RIAA says it is. Spokesman Martin G. Reyes has said several times recently that the RIAA believes that hearing another person's CD is an act that requires record company compensation, and that there are plans to begin suing violators before the end of the year.

Meanwhile, the Overheard Compensation page is at http://www.riaa.org/overheard.

Music, unlike diamonds, does not rely on a natural resource. I've yet to figure out why the hell people just don't switch to independent music. You'd be amazed at how good this type of music really is. You can go to a show for $0.00 to $10.00, RECORD it if you want, TRADE it at will usually, and the MAJORITY of the money goes to the artists!

The key here is that the MUSIC INDUSTRY is SUING the people IN COLLEGE who should simply REVOLUTIONIZE the industry! Go to your local jam band concerts, frequent the college shows, screw the big labels, use your own mind and broaden it. If the money goes independent, then so will the artists. And the artists who want to keep making sixty cents for every ten bucks their parent company makes can go right ahead. They're done getting my money.

Has it ever occured to this ignorant cartel that perhaps people download things besides music? I'm so pissed off at the music industry anymore that I only listen to public radio stations like NPR and my local University's station.

You wouldn't believe how much better music actually sounds when it comes from an artist instead of a billfold.

1) Yet another reason to NOT use windows media
2) Yet another reason to NOT use windows
3) Yet another reason TO USE Macs
4) Yet another reason all slashdot users should attempt to visit http://www.riaa.org/ and http://www.mpaa.org/ exactly every 15 minutes.

Does Sony Electronics outsell both the music industry and the record industry along with the movie and video game industries that Sony's in as well? Does Sony own any book publishers?

It seems that the RIAA is hiring programmers to 'alter current internal software suite ('AutoSue CopyProtector') to incorporate new networks and TCP IP protocols..'

And closed licenses are better? Yeah, they never start any flamewars...

So again, laws were made so that musicians could maintain their income.

But of course, the middlemen came in and usurped the spirit of these laws.

And what's the point in giving a storyteller, songwriter, musician, or visual artist the exclusive right to profit from an original work after he's dead and buried?

They are not a law enforcement agency, can they say that the laws regarding copyright don't apply to us since we own the copyright?

I've been trying to figure out who the RIAA really is. No, they are not a law enforcement agency. And to my knowledge, they are _not_ the copyright holders either. Their members are the copyright holders. These members pay a voluntary fee (tax if you will) to the RIAA. The RIAA is an industry trade group. Other industry trade groups that you might be familiar with in the US are the National Cattlemens's Beef Association (the "Beef, it's what's for dinner" people) and the American Plastics Counccil.

Note that the latter two orginizations end in .org, while the RIAA ends in .com. In fact, the RIAA has bought the riaa.org domain, and it redirects you to the .com domain.

If you look at the pres releases by the RIAA, they have been into this suing thing for a long time, or at least back to 1996 where their archives begin.

I believe that the RIAA does quite well financially, and they actually probably like piracy and whatnot, becauase it gives them something to do. Otherwise they would just be the people making parental warnings and issuing awards for high selling albums. Think of which makes more money. Lawsuits or warnings and awards. Remember, the lawyers get paid if they win, loose, go to court or not.

If the RIAA were interested in music and getting people to buy music, then they would change their product. I mean remember the beany baby phenominon? People will buy just about anything. People obviously want music, they download it, right? Also, these people have no emotional attachment to their mp3 collection. I would be that the percentage of people do not have backups of their mp3s, nor would care to terribly much if they lost them all in a hard drive failure. I know of people that have been very upset when their CD collection was stolen or otherwise lost.

Why cant the RIAA do things like making meaningful reissues of older material? Things that come with books, extra tracks, live material, etc, etc? Kinda like SCO. They could a) sell a product or b) make money through lawsuits and press releases.

Let me save you from having to read this (and the next 15) articles on this type of subject:

Some Company You Never Heard Of Invents Magic Copy-Protection
WebMasterJoe writes "According to YoureAllPirates.com, the RIAA is planning to switch to a new format [com.com] which will be "easy to use, and impossible to circumvent" by means of scanning your brain and the brains of your fifty closest friends to determine if anybody is attempting to duplicate, distribute, or remember any of the content, and if anybody is stealing the music, the device will emit a small cloud of sarin. The device will be included on all new consumer electronics and will require Microsoft Windows XP. The RIAA hopes to begin the switch in 2007."

Nice idea, but it will never work (Score: 2, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward
As long as I can plug the stereo line out into the line in on my computer, I'll still be able to make a copy!
[Reply to This]

But What About Linux? (Score: 4, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward
Well, I only use Linux because everything about it is better than that BSOD OS, and they better make a free open-source version for Linux or else I'm going to continue to not buy any more CD's!
[Reply to This]

Wash, rinse, repeat...

Doesn't this depend on actual implementation? You may have different intentions but you are not in charge of designing and implementing the DRM system on 90% of user desktops. Imagine a DRM system where "untrusted" content is branded as unsafe and dangerous and is extremely hard for an average user to play/execute/etc. compared to the "trusted" content which is easy and effortless. When such a system is widely spread, you may even have settings that disable any "untrusted" content outright - that may even be turned on by default without user realizing anything.

No, in such a case, you won't be able to easily share music you create, or a free software program you write to the world unless you get certified by (who? BSA?) whoever for huge amounts of cash to become a "trusted" provider. Or convince your users, if they have an option, to turn off the security setting that Microsoft, anti-virus companies, mainstream press and all others say is wrong to do, will result in worms and viruses, and will no longer be supported by the OEM.

I am not saying this is what will happen. I am saying it depends on what will, and how much monopolies and cartels can get away with.

Perhaps the best example is their aquisition of patent #5,978,791, filed in 1997, which claims to cover the retrieval of a file across a network using a hash of the file's contents.

Set aside, for a moment, that this technique is completley obvious and has been around for decades (the earliest reference I can find is the Xanadu project from the early 90s - but I haven't looked very hard), and consider the fact that these guys could use this patent to effectively shut down almost anyone that comes up with a P2P app that doesn't have the funding to fight them in court (since most if not all modern P2P apps use this technique).

The bottom line is that companies such as Brilliant Digital Entertainment (the same nice people that were behind the adware that Kazaa is now famous for) are almost as much a threat to P2P as the better known people everybody loves to hate.

If anyone is interested, here is a more detailed article I wrote on the subject.

I'm a huge fan of the iTunes music store.. So huge, in fact, that I'm actually PURCHASING music through this outstanding service and bought myself a 20 gig ipod. My inclination is hardly to convince the world to pay for their music vs. downloading them ilegally; rather it's because I happen to like paying only $10 for an album. I'm a bargain hunter.

It was bad enough that the RIAA shunned legal digital downloads long enough for the pirates to take over the industry. Add to that their decision to continually fight a customer-driven demand for a more flexible (and cheaper) medium of distribution.. Now just when something out there is working, they want to jack the price up to a level that will send all of those wouldbe legal customers back to the P2P world using anonymousnetworks.

The RIAA needs to wake up and recognize their issues here.. Their customers want a more flexible delivery mechanism, they want to pay less, and need the flexibility they currently have with a CD. Apple accomplished much of this with their product, which the RIAA will subsequently destroy with their greedy price increases.

Let's face it - in business customers drive the industry. When Americans stopped buying domestics, the industry responded with better products that met customer needs. When New Coke flopped, Coca Cola wisely switched back to the old formula.

The RIAA and its member companies had an opportunity in 1997 when illegal MP3's first surfaced to nip this problem. The early adopters were trading heavily on the IRC network, which led the rise of Napster and later Kazaa. These networks suceeded because it was just so darn tough for file traders to find the songs they were looking for. Had the RIAA member companies set up a site at any point between 1997 and 2000 (even without digital rights management), they could have easily circumvented the rise of these illegal networks. CD's themselves were insecure enough to create this massive proliferation in the first place!!

Fight them. Write to them and tell them what a stupid decision this is.

the internet--once heralded as a revolutionary force in politics--has turned out to be surprisingly nonthreatening to dictators and tyrannies.

I can think of a few dictators and tyrants whose kingdoms are threatened by the power of the internet. The internet is scary to some, exciting to others, because it's people working together.

At present, the only way to change law is through a legislative body of some sort, and in a more indirect way, through ruling on existing law by a court.

In fact, the best way to change the law is to use whatever influence you have to influence your congressperson to do your bidding. This means writing, calling, faxing, e-mailing, etc. to make him or her aware of your position. Better yet, pool your influence with people who think like you do, just like the media companies are doing.

Fight fire with fire.

But anyway, I have to know, are you willing to back it up? Will you go to mat for your ideal if you ever find yourself standing tall before the Man?

I, for one, would chip in for your legal defense if you would.

Whatever the price to the customer, the retailers will still be charged 65 cents a song by the monopoly that ultimately controls the music they sell. So there is a lower limit if the sellers want to stay profitable.

The mirror also seems to smoke slowly in peace ...

You mean here: Greedy Bastards!

A mirror here

From the introduction:

You don't need to worry about getting sued by the Recording Industry Assocation of America or arrested by the FBI if you download legal music. Many independent and unsigned musicians offer downloads of their music in hopes of attracting more fans. Here's some music from my friends Oliver Brown and Rick Walker's Loop.pooL.

If everyone started downloading legal music instead of violating copyright with the file sharing programs, we would make short work of the RIAA, because people would start buying CDs directly from the artists and seeing their shows instead of enriching the major labels by buying CDs from the bands the labels have chosen for us to listen to. The RIAA would also have no cause to complain - these music downloads do not infringe copyright because the artists give you permission to download them.

No, dipshit, it stands for Recording Industry Association of America.

...it stands for ruthlessly opressing fair use and free speech.

And also the Recording Industry Association of America.