Slashdot Mirror

Next some pushy recording industry group will decide that singing in the shower obviously violates precious Intellectual Property rights. I just wonder how they'll enforce it.

Isn't it ironic that the RIAA and other groups are raining on everybody's parade, yet they artists are getting screwed just as badly as the fans? Methinks they are exercising their fictitious yet inalienable right to profit without limit.

check this bs out

Statement by Matthew Oppenheim on 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. We sent the letter because we felt an obligation to the watermark licensees who had voluntarily submitted their valuable inventions to SDMI for testing.

For the record, the Recording Industry Association of America, one of the founding members of SDMI, strongly believes in academic freedom and Freedom of Speech. This issue, however, is about the competing interests of scientists - those of the watermark technology companies that have invented new technologies and those of Professor Felton who seeks to describe how to circumvent those technologies. To that end, we have encouraged Professor Felten and the technology companies to resolve this matter. We leave it in their hands to do so.

Further questions should be directed to Verance at 858-677-6522

The irony here is that the RIAA claims to support freedom of speech. What hypocrites.

From the RIAA's site: RIAA's Freedom of Speech Page

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution guarantees four freedoms: freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. Since that time, those freedoms have been discussed, debated, fought and died for. Since that time, millions of immigrants have come to America to secure those freedoms. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. They believed in the power of ideas and debate, not censorship.

The freedom of speech concept came from England. During the Glorious Revolution of 1688, King James II was overthrown, then William and Mary were installed as joint monarchs. The following year, the English Parliament secured a Bill of Rights from William and Mary that granted "freedom of speech in Parliament." One hundred years later our founding fathers were wise enough to expand that principle to everyone, not just members of Parliament.

In his 1801 inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed the principle of free speech saying, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Reason is the tool to use to change opinions--not censorship.

During World War II, addressing Congress, FDR expressed the hope that the four freedoms would be embraced the world over. He said, "We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world." Clearly we are not there yet. Freedom of speech is not a right in every country in the world. Yet, just as clearly, it is a freedom desired in every corner of the world.

Most students recognize Voltaire's defense of free speech...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The underlying premise is, if the government censors you today, I could be next tomorrow, perhaps for an entirely different reason. That's why it is so important to uphold the principle, even when in practice it is difficult to do so. There's no challenge involved in defending someone you agree with; the stretch is standing up for your opponent--so that everyone's rights are preserved.

For as long as the First Amendment has protected our right to free speech and expression, elements have tried to undermine that right. Censorship often raises its ugly head during trying times when our nation faces difficult, seemingly insoluble problems. That is why Justice Louis Brandeis opined in Whitney v. California in 1927, "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." Brandeis knew what Jefferson knew--reason and free speech, not fear and censorship, should prevail.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this position in its 1997 decision on the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that sought to limit material placed on the Internet. RIAA was active in a broad coalition of industry and civil liberties groups that opposed the CDA. The high court struck down the law. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court decided, "Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

RIAA. (Nice site BTW.)


Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"

Contact the RIAA
I sent them:
"
I read your petition to the Copyright office requesting that streaming music not require royalty payments to the artists.

I find this unfathomably hypocritical, after your lawsuits against MP3.com and Napster, Inc.

I will never buy another CD from an RIAA-associated artist or label for myself or as a gift until such time as the RIAA mends its ways, supports its artists and embraces the advantages of digital distribution with proceeds from tours.

Learn from history. Read Jack Valenti's arguments against Betamax, and notice the Blockbuster video rental store(s) on your commute home. I don't think the video industry was ruined.
"

For an industry reporting revenues of $15b a year in the U.S. alone and deathly fearful of the internet it seems that $1b over 5 years is small potatos compared to the perceived loss of control.
Somehow, I don't think the Luddites will accept...

Although the Authors Guild is signatory to this letter, I suspect that the whole scenario is similar to the current conflict between musicians and the RIAA on one side and consumers, MP3.com and Napster on the other. In that case, a few, very high profile, musicians have sided with the RIAA to try to eliminate fair use (e.g. My MP3.com) as well as unfair distribution (e.g., Napster) in one fell swoop. The less-well-known authors, or those who are not beholden to a single publishing company (e.g., Stephen King and Orson Scott Card) may very well have no objections to Amazon.com's completely legal and ethical desire to facilitate the transfer of physical copies of copyrighted works from person to person.

From the www.riaa.org website: "What is your stand on MP3?

This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. 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. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. To learn more about digital music, visit the Music and the Internet section."

see it for yourself here

psxndc

When digital recording devices such as the DAT and Minidisc became available to the public, consumers had for the first time the means to make very high quality recordings of the music in their collections, and to make copies of those copies with virtually no decrease in sound quality. To compensate for the fact that some level of piracy would result, and to provide the manufacturers and consumers immunity from a contributory copyright infringement liability suit, the AHRA required manufacturers of digital recording devices and media (such as DAT tapes) to: (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty (to the copyright holder or artist) on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement serial copy management technology which prevents the copying of copies. To learn more about the royalty system of the AHRA, see the section on AARC.

---

Warner Brothers is a member of the RIAA as well as the MPAA.

You forget, my friend, that Sony is a major player in the MPAA. And they're in the RIAA, too, for that matter. Stick that in your smarmy pipe and smoke it, eh?

Let the conspiracy theories commence!

"And since the record industry sold more CDs then ever last year, that of course proves what all these lawsuits are about *cough*."


How long will that last?? Once affordable technology catches up, CD sales are going to be huuuurting.

Even if Napster is helping CD sales (which I think it is) by people using it to sample music that they will then purchase, that'll only last so long.

The only reason I've seen this is that I personally have bought a total of 2 CDs this year because of the fact that I have a Personal Jukebox.

I think that the RIAA is being very smart in being afraid of Napster (and clones).

Napster may not be a bullet to the brain, but it's definately an infectuous disease of some sort.

And, the RIAA have a market report on their site which covers US Recorded Music Shipments for the first half of this year, which roughly covers the period mentioned by the Media Metrix survey.

In the RIAA's own words 'The number of full-length CDs manufacturers shipped to the U.S. market is at an all-time high, growing 6.0% from this time last year'

Go to riaa.org and read their side. Yes, it's mostly propaganda, but in a way so are the stories we get here.

Once again, for good measure: gratuitous link.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

Go to riaa.org and read their side. Yes, it's mostly propaganda, but in a way so are the stories we get here.

Once again, for good measure: gratuitous link.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

The number of full-length CDs manufacturers shipped to the U.S. market is at an all-time high, growing 6.0% from this time last year, totaling an impressive 420 million units in just the first six months of 2000. ...Moreover, market momentum continues to climb as the dollar value of CD product grew 9.9% from this time last year to nearly $5.7 billion which suggests once again, that consumer demand for music in the form of a CD remains the mainstay.

Shipments of singles in all formats dropped sharply in the first half of 2000 as speculation over competing music sources continues to swirl. Singles shipments dropped 45.2% from 41.5 million units in midyear 1999 to 22.7 million in '00. Dollar value of singles shipments went from $165.5 million in midyear 1999 to $93.3 million this year.

mp3board hopes to spread some of the blame and defer some of the costs of the case to others.

Basically, they (mp3board) let users perform gnutella searches. The catch here is that gnutella was created by AOL. mp3board is basically trying to shift blame to AOL ("Yeah, we use gnutella, but THEY made it!").

According to C|Net this won't work. In a copyright case, defendants are picked by those who originated the case, in this case the RIAA. mp3board can't just say "why aren't you suing them (AOL)?!" b/c they (RIAA) get to decide who they sue.

If you ask me, it's a shrewd move. It will force the discussion of file sharing technologies and hopefully show that the RIAA won't go after it's members (Time Warner) only those it deems as evil (mp3board).

Perhaps I should inform RIAA of this copyright infringement. ;)

Perhaps I should inform RIAA of this copyright infringement. ;)

I believe this new copyright legislation is great for artists, especially the more native ones that can be suckered in by the RIAA.
The problem is that these sharks can easily recognize fresh talent and use it with huge pecenages of profit going to them, as they did initially to Celine Dion and Elvis.
Therefore, I view this as a victory for startup-artists as a mean for them to retain ownership of their music, instead of it going to the bottom-less pit known as the Recording Company.

--
Kiro

I wonder what changed their minds.

Could it be, could it possibly be, that they are cringing from the public exposure they are getting by alienating their own artists? Maybe when Courtney Love got up in front of God and Everybody and told people that the recording industry was nothing but a bunch of bloodsucking scumbags and decided to dump their promotional and distribution machine in favor of her own website that they actually went shopping for some very expensive guy with a ponytail who actually had a f***ing clue?

Honestly, I don't understand it. If I were the RIAA and I'd gotten away with getting such a completely disgusting abuse of copyright law passed, I'd wave it in everyone's face and scream: "look, the American People don't care anymore! they let me do whatever I want! I can steal and plunder and pretty soon I'm gonna move on to raping and pillaging!".

But some of their big time acts must have (somehow) gotten their message across. Some mentioned in the written statement are Don Henley and Sheryl Crow. Sounds like some really big cash cows were threatening to go the way of Ms. Love and defect. I'd like more information on the "Artists' Coalition" mentioned in the article. It's yet more proof that the RIAA is not to be confused with the interests of recording artists, nor their profits.

The best part is Hillary won't even admit she lost:

RIAA insisted that nothing had changed and, in a written statement, RIAA President Hilary Rosen reiterated that position.

Uhm. No. The RIAA is the RI ASSOCIATION of A. They are *NOT* a union, they are an industry organization of the record companies. They do not represent the artists in any direct way.

To quote from their website "Eligibility for corporate membership in the Recording Industry Association of America ... is open to legitimate record companies ... that are engaged in the production and sale, under their own brand label, of recordings of performances for home use. The RIAA does not offer individual or associate memberships."

This is my very first chain letter. Please send it to every one you know, who uses Napster.

The music industry organization, RIAA, is suing Napster.

RIAA has been awarded a preliminary injunction forcing the Napster network to be shut down, friday, July 28th, at midnight - for the duration of the trial, if not permanently.

Many accounts have indicated music purchasing has increased because of Napster, possibly because it has generally spurred interest in music.

If you want to show RIAA your disapproval of their heavy handed legal tactics...

Do not purchase any of their members' products for the duration of the trial. The dominant members of RIAA areSony Music, EMI Recorded Music, Bertelsmann's BMG Entertainment, Time Warner's Warner Music and Seagram's Universal Music Group - which pretty much includes all music CDs, except those from obscure independent labels.

Don't accept RIAA's (or Metallica's) labeling you as a 'criminal' for sharing or downloading MP3s. Napster's attorney cited a recent federal court case that decided some noncommercial copying of music is protected by law. That extends even to making a song available for thousands of random Net users to download.

You're not doing anything wrong.

Nothing gets a large corporation's attention faster than a sharp drop in sales.

Oh, sorry, looks like someone's done it...

:)

I'm certainly not going to buy any new CD's until they cease and decist. I hope others join in, and maybe, just maybe the mainstream media will stop looking at the RIAA so symathetically, so the average consumer will start to realize that there is something really wrong here.

The RIAA has a contact page right here where you can write to them.

Has anyone heard if anyone is going to be doing a virtual sit in?

On the other hand, there should be laws against the RIAA giants charging $18 for a damn CD......

hmmmm.... seen this link lately? seems the RIAA agrees with you somewhat in that respect, they believe they should be allowed to charge, using the average retail price of $12.75 in 1996 as a basis (what the hell? I never paid that little for a new CD ever... damn, where they getting their numbers from... anyways... to get back on point...)

THe RIAA believes that they should be allowed to charge $33.86 for a CD (and this is in funds from 4 years ago, so allow for inflation, and just generally wanting to f*ck over the customer when coming up with a new price)

Hmmmm.... can anyone say "Out of touch"? How about "Clueless", "Greedy", or "Getting what they deserve"? Good.... I knew that you could

-GreenHell

- just another cosmic ray -

In their legal action, the RIAA are using (amongst other things) this study by Soundscan, which claims CD sales have dropped around colleges with fast internet connections, whereas they have risen nationwide. So, the reasoning goes, this drop in sales is due to Napster. But if you look at the numbers on the 8th page of the report you see that CD sales have fallen around colleges where Napster use is banned just as much as they have around well connected colleges. Even if CD sales fell only around well-connected colleges this could hardly be blamed on Napster. Maybe the students who would previously have been buying CDs from shops have been getting them from CD-Universe or Amazon instead. Maybe they find playing Quake or watching corn grow in Iowa more interesting than spending time in record shops. The RIAA also has another report, which is based on interviews with students, but it's so difficult to read (looks like a third generation fax that's been badly scanned) I've not bothered with it. In any case, they seem a little preoccupied with students using Napster, as if nobody in the rest of the world uses it (I don't personally).

In their legal action, the RIAA are using (amongst other things) this study by Soundscan, which claims CD sales have dropped around colleges with fast internet connections, whereas they have risen nationwide. So, the reasoning goes, this drop in sales is due to Napster. But if you look at the numbers on the 8th page of the report you see that CD sales have fallen around colleges where Napster use is banned just as much as they have around well connected colleges. Even if CD sales fell only around well-connected colleges this could hardly be blamed on Napster. Maybe the students who would previously have been buying CDs from shops have been getting them from CD-Universe or Amazon instead. Maybe they find playing Quake or watching corn grow in Iowa more interesting than spending time in record shops. The RIAA also has another report, which is based on interviews with students, but it's so difficult to read (looks like a third generation fax that's been badly scanned) I've not bothered with it. In any case, they seem a little preoccupied with students using Napster, as if nobody in the rest of the world uses it (I don't personally).

In their legal action, the RIAA are using (amongst other things) this study by Soundscan, which claims CD sales have dropped around colleges with fast internet connections, whereas they have risen nationwide. So, the reasoning goes, this drop in sales is due to Napster. But if you look at the numbers on the 8th page of the report you see that CD sales have fallen around colleges where Napster use is banned just as much as they have around well connected colleges. Even if CD sales fell only around well-connected colleges this could hardly be blamed on Napster. Maybe the students who would previously have been buying CDs from shops have been getting them from CD-Universe or Amazon instead. Maybe they find playing Quake or watching corn grow in Iowa more interesting than spending time in record shops. The RIAA also has another report, which is based on interviews with students, but it's so difficult to read (looks like a third generation fax that's been badly scanned) I've not bothered with it. In any case, they seem a little preoccupied with students using Napster, as if nobody in the rest of the world uses it (I don't personally).

Interestingly, there was an article on the RIAA site about digital music on the Internet. While they went through the usual things about "no one will pay for music they can get online instead", it talked about how online music can be a great help to an artist, especially since it helps him/her produce music without *gasp* a label. They actually sounded admiring.

Interestingly, there was an article on the RIAA site about digital music on the Internet. While they went through the usual things about "no one will pay for music they can get online instead", it talked about how online music can be a great help to an artist, especially since it helps him/her produce music without *gasp* a label. They actually sounded admiring.

Are you sure about that?

RIAA reports units shipped:
1997 753.1 Million
1998 847.0 Million
1999 938.9 Million

True, these are number of units shipped (not bought), but still, demand doesn't seem to be dropping off... I don't think they'd increase shipments by 12% if the demand wasn't there... Even more funny... there's a reported "cash value" of these CD's there too...
1997 $9,915.1 Million
1998 $11,416.0 Million
1999 $12,816.3 Million

And even funnier still, taking the "cash value" per unit...
1997 $13.17
1998 $13.48
1999 $13.65
Not a pretty trend, huh?

And in other news, following their glowing success in their suits against MP3 dot Com and Napstar dot Com RIAA has decided to "let it ride!", filling suits against Washington University, Necmer Soft, Inc.,The Apache Group, Netscape, and Microsoft. Only Microsoft was available for comment saying, "... this is no different than STAC...", making reference to the buyout and dissolution of STAC by Microsoft a number of years ago.

Gez. Fuck it! Let's sue the whole damned country. (*whisper*) Oh, Metallica is already doing that...

[And people say Communism and Socialism are Evil (tm).]

• To whom it may concern:
  
  I was recently made aware of the text of your website at the address:
  
  http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm
  
  In it, you make some statements and recommendations to consumers about the legality of copying analog and digital music, telling us what we can and can't copy, in reference to the Audio Home Recording Act:
  
  Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. While MP3s may be popular, if the artist and record company have not specifically authorized the music to be freely traded on the Net, then posting MP3s to an Internet site or downloading them to your computer hard drive is copyright infringement.
  
  The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.

  This information is misleading at best, and seems to me to be blatantly fallacious and intentional untruthful. Text from the actual act indicates that any personal or non-commercial use of digital or analog recording technologies are explicitly exempted from the act:

  Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

  No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
  
  Also, the general interpretation of US law indicates that only those things specifically placed under the jurisdiction of law are subject to its consequences, and those not (for example, computers/hard drives/MP3s in the Audio Home Recording Act) are not affected. The old "implied powers" argument has been defeated for centuries in court, and your attempt to resurrect it in an "informational" web page for the public seems to me an intentionally underhanded method to deter the proliferation of digital copies of music that individuals own without paying royalties to record companies. US courts have echoed the consumer's right to make digital copies in recent court cases, including the one the RIAA brought against Diamond Multimedia. The resulting decision stated that consumers have a right to space-shift and time-shift their content--consumers can make copiesof music thy own to hard drives/MP3s/etc all they like.

  Pleaseeither remove the fallacious information from this website or clarify that it reflects the wishes of the RIAA, and not US law. Also, I would appreciate a response indicating the plan of action regarding the website.
  

I'm selling CDs containing hundreds of tracks from audio CDs in mp3 format. I'm only chargin $5 per CD to cover the cost of the CD and my time. Please email me at mp3@riaa.org to request a list of tracks I currently have available.

Before one can know if SDMI does the right thing, one must have a clear picture of what the right thing is. One thing the recorded music publishers have neglected for years is that they were only incidentally selling atoms. Really, they were always selling licenses.

I have here a brand-new shrink wrapped CD. Copyright mark and one warning on the outside - "unauthorized duplication is violation of applicable laws". Pop the wrap. Disc itself has the same print. Liner notes have copyright statements, same warning.

So here's an odd thing - I've bought some atoms and a license, but I haven't got a clear picture of that license.

I took a quick pass at smdi.org and wasn't too informed by it. So I buzzed over to riaa.org where this item is a pointer on The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 I should run over and read the acts, but I haven't yet. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse..."

Music licensing is fiercely complex anyway - many organizations can "own" an aspect of the same performance. Making rights visible would go a long way towards making SDMI restrictions comprehensible - and maybe getting rid of some restrictions.

Henry Troup

hwt@igs.net

"XMMS runs on Linux." + "Hackers use Linux." = "Hackers use XMMS"

"Hackers use XMMS" + "XMMS plays MP3 files" = "Hey, it's the DeCSS of the music industry!"

I called Vegas and the odds are 2:1 in favor of a DeCSS'ish string of arrests before the day is out. Buckle up everybody! Mirror sites, I pray for you! :)

Haddock, Salmon, Pike, Bass, Cod, Tuna

I knew this kid named Jimmy when I was growing up. Jimmy was, how shold I put it... "Special". Jimmy loved to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. That's why I think pb & j is the appropriate smell for these guys

Nervous sweat is the smell for these guys and these guys too

For these guys it's obvious, rocket fuel.

And in the same spirit, that vomitey, greasy, sugarey, metallic smell you find near big rollercoasters for them

And the muddy, porcine smell you'd find around that prize-winning heiffer that just keeps eating and getting bigger for these freaks. Of course you know that animal is the main ingredient for the spiced ham smell that you'd find here

(So? I got a little link happy. Sue me!!)

And you are sitting ... here?

You're wrong in thinking that musicians are getting screwed. They're not. Musicians make almost no money from selling CDs anyways; they tend to get contractually raped by the same recording industry fatcats who are bitching about audio CD piracy (conincidence?). Have you heard any artists publicly complain in genuine about MP3 proliferation? I haven't. I have seen some posters where RIAA payed artists money to sign their name on an anti-piracy statement. But by and large, most artists couldn't care less.

It's a well known and time-honored fact that music artists make far more from concerts than CD sales - anecdotally, look at who the rich rock stars are: guys who are really good live (David Bowie, the Stones, Aerosmith, arguable Ricky Martin, Madonna, etc.) A lot of well known artists seem to prefer MP3 to convential distribution, simply because they're tired of being whored by the recording industry. It's cheaper and more effective to have your singles put out electronically, especially when that means more fans paying $60 for a concert ticket that the record company doesn't get a single cent of. It seems like every day some label forces another of their artists to take down MP3s off their site (see Tom Petty, Pete Townshend, many others) in spite of that artist's protests to the contrary. What does this tell you?

--

Napster is currently named in a law suit filed by the RIAA in regards to illegal MP3 distribution. Perhaps this case can be overturned with the help of this new ruling? Of course, Napster isn't a common carrier, but it isn't providing the information, either. It is only providing a means for people to exchange information ... just like ISPs.