Slashdot Mirror

Steve Miller Band? Come on! Shaggy has had way more 'hits' than them... they are basically one hit wonders.

The fucking-asshole-RIAA has this to say about your delusion: Tell me, where is 'shaggy' on this list compared to Steve Miller Band? For the record, Im not a Steve Miller fan. I just feel that 'rap and hip hop' is to the art of music as as television commercials are to the art of theatre. The sole reason for its existence is to sell a product (which the performers are in-and-of-themselves) such as Shaggy, Backside Boys, 2Pac or Brittany Spears. This is not art, its a catchy jingle for the performer-as-artist-product.

you should know that the only Rap song that didn't pay to use the beat [etc] is Ice Ice Baby.

If i recall correctly there was a lawsuit sometime-ago that made sampling legal via compulsory licensing... where ice-ice-baby fits in this is im not sure.

People get paid... this isn't a rip off, it's business.

What? How does 'business' end up being a justification for an act... as if it is self-evident and natural? Give me a break pal.

Take your racism somewhere else. && It's copyrights and since you are obviously a racist

Wow, a little defensive arent we?

It's a good song if you listen to the lyrics. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other reasons

Not to sound to harsh, im sure there must be some merit and talent somewhere in the rap/hip-hop world... just that 99% of it is blatant pap...here are always exceptions to the rule...

AudioGalaxy IMHO is the best free client out there . The others such as MusicCity's Morpheus, Bearshare, Limewire, and KaZaA all have been held accountable for copyright violations. You might remember the slashdot article entitled P2P vs. RIAA: RIAA Wins. Now aren't we glad that our government passed that wonderful law called The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)[pdf]?

Thinking of downloading a free share program, ever wonder how RIAA can attack you? The following was taken from their website outlining how the DMCA can be used against you and I.

"The DMCA law also delineates the responsibilities of Internet service providers (ISPs) in cases of infringement online. For example, the law formalizes a notice and takedown procedure between ISPs and copyright owners. It is now clear that when an ISP is aware it is posting or transmitting infringing content, the ISP must act to remove the infringing works or it may be liable for any resulting damages." snip

So what has RIAA been up to? The following is proof that they have been busy using their precious DMCA.

The RIAA Anti-Piracy Unit seized 1,257,796 illegal CD-Rs by midyear 2001, this is up 133% compared to midyear of 2000. Here is a link to a pdf with their mid year statistics for 2001; and then I will end my rant on RIAA because I don't want to get too offtopic :)

On Cnet they keep track of the most popular mp3 search utilities. Morpheus comes in first this week with slightly less than a million and a half downloads; it has an impressive 42 million total downloads. Remember back to the height of Napster's popularity, they had a supposed 200 million users. This number shouldn't be compared to the number of total downloads due to the possibility of users creating multiple accounts.

Also on Cnet, Napster 2.0 beta 10.4 the one that was reviewed in the article has a ghastly approval rating of 0.099. That means that less than one hundredth of the people that downloaded the new pay-for-play Napster actually liked it. Going through the user reviews of the products it appears that they find that Napster falls short of the free clients, it certainly is apparent that it does not yet have the user base that Free Nappyster enjoyed.

For the electronic junkies out there I would recommend a less well known file sharing client known as SoulSeek. You can download it not from Cnet, but from their own website. The latest version is 104 and it includes dedicated techno/electronica service with a great user base; "Private messaging capabilities with both online and off-line users; Folder based file-sharing, which allows for more convenient browsing and downloading; Fine-grained control over file-sharing, with the ability to restrict access to a select list of users, as well as the ability to disallow access to specific users; Fine-grained transfer queue management, with the ability to restrict the number of uploads and downloads per-user and in total; File searching with users in room or in user list; Wishlist that takes search patterns for easy automatic notification when certain files become shared; A generic personalized recommendation system." snip

Now that these Pier to Pier file sharing networks have taken over, they are looking for ways to make money. Maybe to pay their programmers and lawyers. Beware of the adervistements that come bundled along with the install for the more popular sharing clients, such as Audiogalaxy. These bundled programs are known as SpyWare.

-If I metamoderated myself I would care more about karma

AudioGalaxy IMHO is the best free client out there . The others such as MusicCity's Morpheus, Bearshare, Limewire, and KaZaA all have been held accountable for copyright violations. You might remember the slashdot article entitled P2P vs. RIAA: RIAA Wins. Now aren't we glad that our government passed that wonderful law called The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)[pdf]?

Thinking of downloading a free share program, ever wonder how RIAA can attack you? The following was taken from their website outlining how the DMCA can be used against you and I.

"The DMCA law also delineates the responsibilities of Internet service providers (ISPs) in cases of infringement online. For example, the law formalizes a notice and takedown procedure between ISPs and copyright owners. It is now clear that when an ISP is aware it is posting or transmitting infringing content, the ISP must act to remove the infringing works or it may be liable for any resulting damages." snip

So what has RIAA been up to? The following is proof that they have been busy using their precious DMCA.

The RIAA Anti-Piracy Unit seized 1,257,796 illegal CD-Rs by midyear 2001, this is up 133% compared to midyear of 2000. Here is a link to a pdf with their mid year statistics for 2001; and then I will end my rant on RIAA because I don't want to get too offtopic :)

On Cnet they keep track of the most popular mp3 search utilities. Morpheus comes in first this week with slightly less than a million and a half downloads; it has an impressive 42 million total downloads. Remember back to the height of Napster's popularity, they had a supposed 200 million users. This number shouldn't be compared to the number of total downloads due to the possibility of users creating multiple accounts.

Also on Cnet, Napster 2.0 beta 10.4 the one that was reviewed in the article has a ghastly approval rating of 0.099. That means that less than one hundredth of the people that downloaded the new pay-for-play Napster actually liked it. Going through the user reviews of the products it appears that they find that Napster falls short of the free clients, it certainly is apparent that it does not yet have the user base that Free Nappyster enjoyed.

For the electronic junkies out there I would recommend a less well known file sharing client known as SoulSeek. You can download it not from Cnet, but from their own website. The latest version is 104 and it includes dedicated techno/electronica service with a great user base; "Private messaging capabilities with both online and off-line users; Folder based file-sharing, which allows for more convenient browsing and downloading; Fine-grained control over file-sharing, with the ability to restrict access to a select list of users, as well as the ability to disallow access to specific users; Fine-grained transfer queue management, with the ability to restrict the number of uploads and downloads per-user and in total; File searching with users in room or in user list; Wishlist that takes search patterns for easy automatic notification when certain files become shared; A generic personalized recommendation system." snip

Now that these Pier to Pier file sharing networks have taken over, they are looking for ways to make money. Maybe to pay their programmers and lawyers. Beware of the adervistements that come bundled along with the install for the more popular sharing clients, such as Audiogalaxy. These bundled programs are known as SpyWare.

-If I metamoderated myself I would care more about karma

AudioGalaxy IMHO is the best free client out there . The others such as MusicCity's Morpheus, Bearshare, Limewire, and KaZaA all have been held accountable for copyright violations. You might remember the slashdot article entitled P2P vs. RIAA: RIAA Wins. Now aren't we glad that our government passed that wonderful law called The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)[pdf]?

Thinking of downloading a free share program, ever wonder how RIAA can attack you? The following was taken from their website outlining how the DMCA can be used against you and I.

"The DMCA law also delineates the responsibilities of Internet service providers (ISPs) in cases of infringement online. For example, the law formalizes a notice and takedown procedure between ISPs and copyright owners. It is now clear that when an ISP is aware it is posting or transmitting infringing content, the ISP must act to remove the infringing works or it may be liable for any resulting damages." snip

So what has RIAA been up to? The following is proof that they have been busy using their precious DMCA.

The RIAA Anti-Piracy Unit seized 1,257,796 illegal CD-Rs by midyear 2001, this is up 133% compared to midyear of 2000. Here is a link to a pdf with their mid year statistics for 2001; and then I will end my rant on RIAA because I don't want to get too offtopic :)

On Cnet they keep track of the most popular mp3 search utilities. Morpheus comes in first this week with slightly less than a million and a half downloads; it has an impressive 42 million total downloads. Remember back to the height of Napster's popularity, they had a supposed 200 million users. This number shouldn't be compared to the number of total downloads due to the possibility of users creating multiple accounts.

Also on Cnet, Napster 2.0 beta 10.4 the one that was reviewed in the article has a ghastly approval rating of 0.099. That means that less than one hundredth of the people that downloaded the new pay-for-play Napster actually liked it. Going through the user reviews of the products it appears that they find that Napster falls short of the free clients, it certainly is apparent that it does not yet have the user base that Free Nappyster enjoyed.

For the electronic junkies out there I would recommend a less well known file sharing client known as SoulSeek. You can download it not from Cnet, but from their own website. The latest version is 104 and it includes dedicated techno/electronica service with a great user base; "Private messaging capabilities with both online and off-line users; Folder based file-sharing, which allows for more convenient browsing and downloading; Fine-grained control over file-sharing, with the ability to restrict access to a select list of users, as well as the ability to disallow access to specific users; Fine-grained transfer queue management, with the ability to restrict the number of uploads and downloads per-user and in total; File searching with users in room or in user list; Wishlist that takes search patterns for easy automatic notification when certain files become shared; A generic personalized recommendation system." snip

Now that these Pier to Pier file sharing networks have taken over, they are looking for ways to make money. Maybe to pay their programmers and lawyers. Beware of the adervistements that come bundled along with the install for the more popular sharing clients, such as Audiogalaxy. These bundled programs are known as SpyWare.

-If I metamoderated myself I would care more about karma

Why can't you just buy studio time yourself? Theoretically you can

But practically, it's hard to come up with the initial capital, and most VCs won't fund upstart self-publishing recording artists.

and if you can market your music successfully, cool.

Good luck. The major labels already effectively control the so-called "independent promotion agencies" that control what the radio monopoly plays.

[heh heh... riaa.org is slashdotted]

What concientous buyer would purchase a Microsoft product while boycotting the CSS Authority?

And when will these ISPs start blocking 6bone because of all the trading that's starting to go on there (as well as other less "official" IPv6 nets)? When will RIAA and MPAA discover the real deep dark underground of the Internet?

Doesn't this new policy violate the RIAA's enhanced cd specification? I highly doubt that Universal has plans to discontinue their use of cd text and promotional software on all future new releases.

From the RIAA Specification: "All "Enhanced CD" discs (including but not limited to Single Session, Multisession, "CD Extra") should be capable of playing on all CD audio players including home players, disc changers (jukebox, cartridge, carousel types, etc.), portable players, and car players. "

You can read the full spec. sheet here

If you think of it this way, RIAA is hurting the economy.. So is ASCAP and BMI Webcasters let music be heard that may not have a venue elsewhere,be heard. In turn the listeners are interesed in the band, they go out and buy the CD(which pays BMI and ASCAP), In turn the bands have to play more shows... In turn they buy new musical equipment, to play more shows where more people are coming,In turn the clubs make more money and continue to have live bands. If webcasters are charged outrageous fees, then we can't play the music, thereby shutting us down, the bands don't sell any CD's the clubs don't make any money, the music stores don't sell equipment. Pretty vicious circle... my site www.nw-radio.com doesn't sell records, we let people hear music that they may not have any idea is out there ... So Why should I have to pay RIAA or BMI or ASCAP for helping THEM ?

Here's a link to one, but it only runs on a Beowulf cluster of Crusoe boxen.

have fun
dongoodman

I have the feeling I'm feeding a troll but,

It's clear to almost everyone that your lawsuit was nothing but an attempt to set up the RIAA. The RIAA has been nothing if not exceptionally clear about the fact that they never intended nor attempted to suppress anyone's research.

With all due respect, if someone received a "Cease and Desist" letter demanding they stop doing something, such as preset a paper at a conference, or else face litigation from an exceptionally large and well funded organization with a possible (ie. unproven in court) leg to stand on, most people (and I'll grant you may be the exception) would not present the paper. This could have (most would argue would have) a chilling effect on research. I think it is unethical to say the least to demand this sort of thing and then back-peddle once their objectives have been completed (he didn't present the paper as they demanded). To notice that it might not have been in their best interest and claim "Oh we were just kidding", is a tad insulting.

If they had wanted to be exceptionally clear that they wouldn't sue, then they should never have threatened to.

Dear Ed,
It's clear to almost everyone that your lawsuit was nothing but an attempt to set up the RIAA. The RIAA has been nothing if not exceptionally clear about the fact that they never intended nor attempted to suppress anyone's research.

My question is: Why? What was your actual motiviation? Were you just trying to cause a ruckus, or were you attempting to further some political agenda?

Archo is SCMS compliant (link), from our friend of the riaa (link)

AIBO?

Isn't that the non-hackable Sony robot toy?

Move along, nothing to see here.

Wow! You're certainly quite the Karma whore!

...they're all getting sued. By whom? Guess who.

And of course they are. Look at the profits of the major labels.

This is so true. Sadly, it's the piracy of the recording industry - which has, among other things, managed to have artists' work reclassified as work for hire (!) - that is responsible for artists living in poverty while simultaneously having millions of CD sales.

from the the-mouthpiece-pulls-a-mundie dept. Sarcasmo writes: "Hillary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA ?, spoke at length ( PDF of Speech) yesterday, during the 'O'Reilly Peer to Peer and Web Services conference'. From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money. "

...but I notice now, that the story seems to have been editorial modified (and without the usual "UPDATED" disclaimer.) I wonder why that was....

Peer-2-Peer pressure perhaps?

from the the-mouthpiece-pulls-a-mundie dept. Sarcasmo writes: "Hillary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA ?, spoke at length ( PDF of Speech) yesterday, during the 'O'Reilly Peer to Peer and Web Services conference'. From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money. "

...but I notice now, that the story seems to have been editorial modified (and without the usual "UPDATED" disclaimer.) I wonder why that was....

Peer-2-Peer pressure perhaps?

Just click on the link above as much as you can. Slashdot them all to hell. here's a copy

(From my weblog:) I would like to propose an interesting spin on this story: Should Warner Brothers win, then the following syllogism will hold:

1. All movies are expressions that in America would be protected under the First Amendment.
2. All movies are software (since all movies can be put on DVD).
3. There exists at least one movie.
4. Therefore, there exists software that in America would be protected under the First Amendment.

This story hails from Australia, not the USA, but it would still probably have some interesting ramifications, even in Australia.

Note that in particular, DeCSS, a DVD decryption program, is trying to claim software-as-expression as a defense in the USA. Warner, a member of the RIAA, has gone on record now, at least in Australia, as claiming that DVD movies are an instance of a thing that is both software and an expression protectable under the First Amendment.

Allow me to translate (I speak evil):

Contrary to what you may have seen, read or heard the recording industry never lobbied congress to give us the ability to hack into PCs, plant viruses, destroy MP3 files on people's computers, and worse. That is complete nonsense, and totally untrue.

We don't want to make laws so we can haX0rZ j00.

in fact, a number of companies have developed the technology for these technical measures. Some of them may already be in use, but at RIAA, we've been analyzing the law to make sure that using these technical measures would be completely lawful.

We just want to watch you. This may involve sending you some packets. And HaX0rzING j00! f3WL!

when we looked at it, we found that one of the provisions in this massive bill would have changed existing law in a way that would prevent us from using technical measures that would otherwise have been perfectly lawful.

Senate F3wLz wanted to outlaw our HaX0rZing.

The provision wasn't aimed at anything we were doing or thinking of doing.

Senate f00lZ didn't know who they were MESSIN WID!

this change in the law would have prevented us from using technical measures to protect copyrighted works.

Congress got all scared, goofed, and forgot which side their bread was buttered on, by passing a law that would keep us from HaX0ring evil pirate thieves who are costing us billions by not buying cds! Every song ripped to mp3 everywhere would have been obtained by a legally purchased $20 cd, because no one would just copy songs they don't listen to just to have a "big mp3 collection". That's crazy talk.

The staff confirmed that the effect on us was inadvertent, and asked us to propose a fix, a "patch" to eliminate the problem for our industry.

When we stepped up, F3Wlz realized they'd better let us HaX0r you or else!

There is nothing unusual about what happened here

We buy these people all the time. We have assurances from them that no matter what we do to consumers, we are immune to prosecution.

It's one thing to be criticized for what we do - that's fair game.

Ya, ya, we're Satan.

But to be vilified for what we don't do - that's very disheartening.

We can't imagine being more evil than we already are, and we're upset that someone has a more creative imagination than us.

Half of what is written about us is just plain wrong.

Half of what is written about us true, and the other half is true too but we're spending billions to convince you otherwise.

Sincerely, the well paid evil people.

Allow me to translate (I speak evil):

Contrary to what you may have seen, read or heard the recording industry never lobbied congress to give us the ability to hack into PCs, plant viruses, destroy MP3 files on people's computers, and worse. That is complete nonsense, and totally untrue.

We don't want to make laws so we can haX0rZ j00.

in fact, a number of companies have developed the technology for these technical measures. Some of them may already be in use, but at RIAA, we've been analyzing the law to make sure that using these technical measures would be completely lawful.

We just want to watch you. This may involve sending you some packets. And HaX0rzING j00! f3WL!

when we looked at it, we found that one of the provisions in this massive bill would have changed existing law in a way that would prevent us from using technical measures that would otherwise have been perfectly lawful.

Senate F3wLz wanted to outlaw our HaX0rZing.

The provision wasn't aimed at anything we were doing or thinking of doing.

Senate f00lZ didn't know who they were MESSIN WID!

this change in the law would have prevented us from using technical measures to protect copyrighted works.

Congress got all scared, goofed, and forgot which side their bread was buttered on, by passing a law that would keep us from HaX0ring evil pirate thieves who are costing us billions by not buying cds! Every song ripped to mp3 everywhere would have been obtained by a legally purchased $20 cd, because no one would just copy songs they don't listen to just to have a "big mp3 collection". That's crazy talk.

The staff confirmed that the effect on us was inadvertent, and asked us to propose a fix, a "patch" to eliminate the problem for our industry.

When we stepped up, F3Wlz realized they'd better let us HaX0r you or else!

There is nothing unusual about what happened here

We buy these people all the time. We have assurances from them that no matter what we do to consumers, we are immune to prosecution.

It's one thing to be criticized for what we do - that's fair game.

Ya, ya, we're Satan.

But to be vilified for what we don't do - that's very disheartening.

We can't imagine being more evil than we already are, and we're upset that someone has a more creative imagination than us.

Half of what is written about us is just plain wrong.

Half of what is written about us true, and the other half is true too but we're spending billions to convince you otherwise.

Sincerely, the well paid evil people.

Allow me to translate (I speak evil):

Contrary to what you may have seen, read or heard the recording industry never lobbied congress to give us the ability to hack into PCs, plant viruses, destroy MP3 files on people's computers, and worse. That is complete nonsense, and totally untrue.

We don't want to make laws so we can haX0rZ j00.

in fact, a number of companies have developed the technology for these technical measures. Some of them may already be in use, but at RIAA, we've been analyzing the law to make sure that using these technical measures would be completely lawful.

We just want to watch you. This may involve sending you some packets. And HaX0rzING j00! f3WL!

when we looked at it, we found that one of the provisions in this massive bill would have changed existing law in a way that would prevent us from using technical measures that would otherwise have been perfectly lawful.

Senate F3wLz wanted to outlaw our HaX0rZing.

The provision wasn't aimed at anything we were doing or thinking of doing.

Congress would never F with us, we own them.

this change in the law would have prevented us from using technical measures to protect copyrighted works.

Congress got all scared, goofed, and forgot which side their bread was buttered on, by passing a law that would keep us from HaX0ring evil pirate thieves who are costing us billions by not buying cds! Give to us your billions!

. The staff confirmed that the effect on us was inadvertent, and asked us to propose a fix, a "patch" to eliminate the problem for our industry.

When we stepped up, F3Wlz realized they'd better let us HaX0r you or else!

There is nothing unusual about what happened here

We buy these people all the time. You are powerless. Move along.

It's one thing to be criticized for what we do - that's fair game.

Ya, ya, we're Satan.

But to be vilified for what we don't do - that's very disheartening.

We weren't really going to HaX0rZ you - unless you hadn't noticed and we'd snuck it into the bill.

Half of what is written about us is just plain wrong.

Half of what is written about us true, and the other half is true too but we're spending billions to convince you otherwise.

Sincerely, the well paid evil people.

Allow me to translate (I speak evil):

Contrary to what you may have seen, read or heard the recording industry never lobbied congress to give us the ability to hack into PCs, plant viruses, destroy MP3 files on people's computers, and worse. That is complete nonsense, and totally untrue.

We don't want to make laws so we can haX0rZ j00.

in fact, a number of companies have developed the technology for these technical measures. Some of them may already be in use, but at RIAA, we've been analyzing the law to make sure that using these technical measures would be completely lawful.

We just want to watch you. This may involve sending you some packets. And HaX0rzING j00! f3WL!

when we looked at it, we found that one of the provisions in this massive bill would have changed existing law in a way that would prevent us from using technical measures that would otherwise have been perfectly lawful.

Senate F3wLz wanted to outlaw our HaX0rZing.

The provision wasn't aimed at anything we were doing or thinking of doing.

Congress would never F with us, we own them.

this change in the law would have prevented us from using technical measures to protect copyrighted works.

Congress got all scared, goofed, and forgot which side their bread was buttered on, by passing a law that would keep us from HaX0ring evil pirate thieves who are costing us billions by not buying cds! Give to us your billions!

. The staff confirmed that the effect on us was inadvertent, and asked us to propose a fix, a "patch" to eliminate the problem for our industry.

When we stepped up, F3Wlz realized they'd better let us HaX0r you or else!

There is nothing unusual about what happened here

We buy these people all the time. You are powerless. Move along.

It's one thing to be criticized for what we do - that's fair game.

Ya, ya, we're Satan.

But to be vilified for what we don't do - that's very disheartening.

We weren't really going to HaX0rZ you - unless you hadn't noticed and we'd snuck it into the bill.

Half of what is written about us is just plain wrong.

Half of what is written about us true, and the other half is true too but we're spending billions to convince you otherwise.

Sincerely, the well paid evil people.

The profit of turning thugs into programmers

Now that's a headline for ya. If the only thing valuable about a coder is their technical skill, then this makes a lot of sense. But for those of you who went to college, I'm sure you can relate when I say that the other thing required to be a responsible professional is a code of ethics. Many of us have often wondered "who is the RIAA getting to do its' dirty work?" "who would write something like "Windows Media Player" or "Digital Rights Management". The truth is that finding people with technical skills and the ruthlnessness to create socially irresponsible malicious software for profit (like, say, DVD players that only change regions 5 times) is not easy.

My guess is that these folks aren't being recruited and trained for no reason. They're being trained to work for their peers in the intimidation industry.

All I'm saying is, wait a few months, go to whatever new RIAA initiative is launched, and check the HTML source for gang signatures.

I wouldn't put it past Hollings to try to slip this through as an amendment to antiterror legislation. RIAA has already tried this.

It's rather humorous to read the RIAA's take on this. Of course considering the source, I tend to believe the "trying to add an amendement" side of things.

-S

The only problem I see is what they claim not to have done is pretty close to what they agree that they did do.

Be careful out there - it's a villifying world these days.

sPh

In a democracy, everyone is guaranteed equal rights. There are no double standards. But what the RIAA is proposing, that for some reason, they should be given the right to do legally what is illegal for everyone else. If I were to launch a DoS attack on riaa.org, I would most surely be arrested, fined, called a terrorist, or all of the above. Yet, if things go thier way, they will have special dispensation to deny me (and others) service.

This shows that, with enough money, you can essentially buy and modify our government. Last time I checked, this is called a plutocracy. Let's stand up for democracy, and contact our senators!

The bottom line is your /mp3 directory provides absolutely no direct compensation to the artist for the procurement of that music.

Some people (like me :-) ) are interested in being 'recording' artists, but not necessarily in live performances, or merchandise. Totally unrestricted digital transfer of files really undermines the possibility of that. Personally I think studio music has a place and I am not interested in destroying that market place.

As poor as the relationship is between many recording artists and the major record labels, the record label foots the bill! The record companies only recoup on 1/20 of all the cds they release. READ THE SOBERING REALITY

Research this thoroughly . . . not all artists are ready to have their revenues totally driven by live performances and merchandise.

As an independent artist I simply didn't use napster, because I didn't see a way for the artist to be compensated. Only mp3s I have are for albums which I've purchased a license to via tape, CD, etc. or I created the content ;-).

Disagree. A member list can be found here.

If you're offended by the RIAA, don't buy anything from these companies. For the music I like (jazz), there are a few alternatives, but it will suck not to buy ECM or Chesky or Blue Note. But so be it.

This also from that page:

"Fortunately for consumers, CD-Rs are easy to spot. They are typically gold on one side with a greenish tint on the non-graphic or "read-only" side."

They are also easy to spot because you paid $1.50 for the disc and you bought it at a street market in Shanghai.

It's been espoused here and everywhere else that the cat's out of the bag, and the media industry has been changed forever, blah blah blah, so...

summary of the discussion about to ensue:

1. -the times they are a changin

1. -content is no longer tied to recording medium

1. -riaa, mpaa, dmca, etc. sucks

1. -don't take away my fair use rights

1. -linux rules

1. -imagine a beowulf cluster of these things

Oh yes, especially this page where indie king of the early 80's Miles Copeland talks about how immutable the marketing costs of CDs are and that every CD that Ark21 sells is sold at a loss, even when it's priced at $14!

The thing about the RIAA is that they are throwing all of these red herring lawsuits into the mix and it confuses people. The RIAA companies are RIGHT NOW devising P2P services that will further convince their potential subjects that signing with RIAA affiliates is the only way to succeed in music. This is not so, and the more people that distract themselves with these random potshots rather than helping to set up a communitarian distribution network (take Napster into meatspace) the more successful RIAA affiliates will be in commandeering mind- and marketshare for the future. Sure, there will always be pirating and the pirates will try to self-justify by casting themselves as futuristic ex-patrons of The Man, but for any benefits to reach musicians, there needs to be an updating of the structures of success so that up-and-comers can know that there are alternatives to "getting signed".

So are cartels, but that doesn't seem to have stopped anybody.

Make that really huge American companies.
Anyone who messes with them is obviously some sort of evil, communist, hippie anarchist hacker bent on economic terrorism! And I bet they drown puppies and stomp on flowers, too! But don't worry, your friends at AOL/Time Warner/Microsoft/AT&T/Sprint/Verizon/Hewlett Packard Bell will save you!

Before I get started, let's try an exercise in copyright law. Before continuing any farther, you agree that by reading the remainder of my post here (as copyright holder), you will not reply anonymously. As copyright holder of the viewpoint expressed below, I reserve the right to have a valid e-mail address for anyone disputing, supporting, or making any other comment to the content below.
Any anonymous reply invokes my right to pursue investigation into the identity of any Anonymous Coward, through the correlation of web and ISP logging facilities.

By the by, this is a big 'Eat me' to Anonymous Cowards. I think you're ticks on the underbelly of Free Speech. While you're foaming at the mouth and cursing my name, you can at least take heart that I'd defend your right to speak anonymously. I just think it sucks that people can't stand by their rhetoric.

From the RIAA faq about the DMCA: Q. Isn't it true that there shouldn't even be a webcasting performance right for sound recordings because it was intentionally left out of the DPRA and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") was passed without any debate from Congress?

While the topic discussion isn't webcasting, note the bold letters. The DMCA passed unanimously in the Senate.

I realize some readers here aren't American. To you, I say DON'T LET YOUR LEGISLATURES PASS THIS CRAP. Personally, I think it's fully high time for some accountability initiatives. Skylarov was arrested because this bill was signed into law without floor debate and support. Where were our Congressmen to defend our rights? Who will question the responsibility of our lawmakers if the constitutional basis of the DMCA is found to be infringing?

I encourage you to take the time to read the RIAA DMCA Webcasting faq, and understand why the DMCA is so important to record companies. It's plainly visible in the FAQ: They want control of what you listen to.

Some examples: (this text is from the RIAA webcasting faq)
The webcasting statutory license applies to webcasters that:
(1) offer non-interactive programming (i.e., not on-demand or personalized programming);
(2) primarily offer audio or other entertainment programming as opposed to primarily selling or promoting particular products or services; and (3) abide by certain conditions spelled out in the statute.

Some of those conditions: 2. Sound recording performance complement. A webcaster may not play in any three-hour period (1) more than three songs from a particular album, including no more than two consecutively, or (2) four songs by a particular artist or from a boxed set, including no more than three consecutively. This limit is called the "sound recording performance complement."

The cynic in me reads this and ponders some daily tallies of the crap overplayed on local stations.

Here's an interesting twist, though: Q. Terrestrial radio stations don't pay sound recording copyright owners. Why should webcasters be treated any differently?
A. The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.

Wow. They pull off one of the worst bills in American history, and have the nerve to grouse about this? The RIAA isn't interested in what you want. They're interested in controlling how you are spoon fed media. The DMCA is designed to take away your basic right to a choice.

Consider the coolest feature of the VCR. Fast forward. When working under the Fair Use clause and taping Seinfeld, you could skip the commercials in the taped episode where Kramer thinks he's a dog. You could rent 'Honey, I shrunk my diapragm' at Blockbuster and fast forward through the previews for other movies. Sadly, friends, personal control over bought and paid for technology is a thing of the past. It's senile and dying a tottering death, with the RIAA and MPAA hanging around like ungrateful sons and daughters waiting to reap the inheritence.

I own a few DVDs I can't fast forward through the stack of promo crap at the beginning. The freedom once given to us by the remote control (that being that one where you can have full control over your home entertainment system without ever having to leave your couch) has been usurped by DVD region codes and encoded controller restrictions. The worst part? I may own the equipment, and I may have paid for that shiny disc, but it's a felony for me to learn how and implement a way to skip crap I didn't want in the first place.

So, what's next? If watermarking and content control become realities, how long until we see something as ludicrous, but possible, as not being able to skip audio tracks because you only want to hear the one song on a CD you bought because the band is a one hit wonder? How much time will be lost to having to sit through a segment of media we're not interested in seeing because we live in the US and aren't allowed to skip the spoonfeeding?

Big Media isn't interested in what you want. They're interested in what you'll buy lacking other options. And your congressmen are they're (perhaps willing) accomplices.

Demand accountability.

Send comments to the RIAA here. I did.

Why, does everyone here want to spend their money on PS2s?

When you buy a PS2, you give money to Sony, who is both a member of the MPAA and the RIAA.

MPAA:
Sony Pictures Entertainment

RIAA:
Sony Broadway
Sony Class./Sony Music Soundtrax
Sony Classical
Sony Direct
Sony Discos
Sony Masterworks
Sony Music Special Products
Sony Music US (Latin)
Sony Portrait
Sony Wonder

Aieee!

Don't forget that MAPS is free for individuals' mail servers. It only costs if your server is for a business. This sounds wholly reasonable for me.

Yeah, of course. Because we all know that businesses have lots of money.

-all dead homiez

Not really surprising, though. Quoth the copyright notice:

© 2001 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
An AOL Time Warner Company.

It has certain benefits that PCs do not have (locked hardware, unified memory, etc.)

Locked hardware is a benefit?! For whom? Certainly not for the customer. Maybe for those that love control, such as the MPAA and the RIAA, but not us, the customers.

It seems you have already been assimilated into the Borg.

Makes me long for the day when PS2 meant PS/2 and not PlayStation 2. (Maybe we shouldn't abbreviate PlayStation 2 like that, look at CSS, is it Cascading Style Sheets, Content Scrambling System or C Styled Script?).

Anyway, the PS/2 was somewhat of a closed system (IBM had been overly tight-fisted about controlling use of the MCA bus technology - it hurt them and they have learned from their mistake), but it was far more open than the PS2 game machine.

P.S. I am wondering, what benefits can game consoles have over PCs anyway? PCs have TV out for those that want connections to TVs and the frame rates are nowadays faster than human perception and the scan rate of any monitor or TV out there. Please let me know what I am missing. Granted they are cheaper than PCs sometimes, but not by all that much it seems. And anything with a hard drive is getting close to being a PC anyway... Heck, GCC can be made to run on it I heard.

IIRC, the timing of the "clarification" of the original "threat" was such that once the time slot was gone and the talk would no longer fit into the Information Hiding Workshop conference schedule, then RIAA decided to mention that they aren't really going to sue the Prof and they aren't really the enemy of scientific research.

The RIAA has been very clear in communicating to everyone that they have no intention to sue Professor Felten.

The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not - nor did it ever - intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors.


Right. They waved a big baseball bat in his face and then said "Oh this? We weren't going to hit you with it. Honest."

The RIAA realized in hindsight that the threat made them look bad and backpedaled. I'm with the smartass on this one.

If you don't think that Felten set up the RIAA, go to his web page, check out his smirking picture, and follow the link that says "Freedom of Speech". He links to the page at RIAA.com that talks about music and freedom of expression. He's a total smartass.

And this lawsuit is pretty much the kind of thing a smartass would dream up. He reminds me of the kid who grew up sitting in the front of class with his hand in the air all the time, trying to outsmart the teacher. It's not about who's right, it's all about attention.

The RIAA has been very clear in communicating to everyone that they have no intention to sue Professor Felten.

The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not - nor did it ever - intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors.

So why is this case happening? Because Felten is suing the Attorney General of the United States! He is suing the plaintiffs using a legal construct known as a "Declaratory Judgment suit", which basically allows you to sue someone first so they can't sue you. Since the RIAA has already stated in public that they have no intention of suing Felten, it's pretty obvious to everyone that he is just picking a fight. Which, considering the people who are risking their entire professional careers to decide a real DMCA issue, paints a very accurate picture of Felten: still the annoying kid trying to get attention. If he ever got in a real fight, with real risks, like Eric Corley has - he'd run.

Don't let Felten distract you from the real DMCA issue. Newspaper headlines translate directly into departmental funding at major universities. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about grant money.

This is a solution in search of a boycott. Besides, Easy CD Creator sucks anyway. Let them cripple it, it deserves to lose even more market share.

Unfortunately, no information is yet listed about their problems with Launch.com et al.