Slashdot Mirror
Several Boycotts Of RIAA Organizing
There are numerous grassroots efforts coming together to Boycott the RIAA. I've decided that
I won't be buying any RIAA CDs for awhile personally (I've already cancelled a couple of orders, and I buy a ton of CDs) but decide for yourself. Should peer-to-peer file sharing be legal or not on the Internet? Should companies like Google and Yahoo be held legally responsible for the content that they index? Meanwhile, the OpenNAP servers and Gnutella are proving that the genie is out of the bottle and while this lawsuit may set a huge legal precedent, it won't help the RIAA in the real world.
They should really work with napster since there already is significant market share and potential for revenue. Gnutella and its kin won't have any centralized point.
And shouldn't AOL be held accountable for the files and information it's users transfer?
--
I mean, just stopping buying CDs isn't going to do it, we need some kind of way to elt them know that we're consciously choosing not to buy CDs because of their lameness quotient.
As I've posted before, my music budget has more than tripled (according to quicken) since napster came out. So they're definitely shooting themselves on this one.
Kinda like sending in the warranty card when you buy a "linux supported" game with LINUX written all over it, we need some way to let them know when and why we're not buying the CDs.
Any suggestions?
you'll boycott the RIAA, but not the MPAA (going to see X-Men).. what's the logic behind this? Not a troll, I'm really curious.. is Napster more important to you than DeCSS?
BilldaCat
Anyone who has mp3's downloaded from Napster should now repent -- send your mp3's back to the RIAA and tell them you've deleted them from your hard disk. Send them by email, or through the post on floppy/CD-R/Zip/DAT, etc.
by post:
RIAA
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
by email: (report piracy email address) -- cdreward@riaa.com
You might also want to pick up the phone and call them... tell them you wish to send your mp3's back and ask where to send them.
Telephone: (202) 775-0101
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
Not at all. If anyone thinks Gnutella can't be stopped, you are sadly mistaken. The only question is whether "they" will choose to stop it.
The decentralized nature of Gnutella would make it trivial to launch DOS attacks. If the music industry wanted to shut it down, they would just have to have various clients return garbage to queries, send nonsense messages, etc. Yes, future Gnutella clients could have some protections built in, but it's an arms race Gnutella would lose.
"Yeah, but I could just set up private networks among my friends." Sure you could, and then the music industry wins. They don't care about you sharing with your friends, they care about mass, anonymous sharing.
My only question is whether they would choose to do it.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
How many SlashDot users/readers are there? Realistically? A few hundred?
I don't download MP3's or use Napster. My choice. I would rather bang on pots and pans than listen to most of the music out there. But then, that's my opinion.
But if you really want to boycott someone, stop preaching to the choir and involve the majority.
"I am not gonna buy my 15 CD's this year"
What a waste of time. Get a few thousand, die-hard, CD-buying fiends to quit buying CD's. Convince club DJ's to stop buying more music. Convince radio stations to quit playing anymore new music. Get sympathy, if possible, from the people who make up those million sales for Brittainy, N'Sink and whoever.
"I am write a letter to my Congressman"
That is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
Write to the advertisers on the radio station whose format you enjoy. Tell them you will no longer listen to the stations they advertise on.
Write to record labels and include copies of receipts for the last year or so.
Stop listening to the radio.
Stop listening to CD's.
Stop buying, borrowing or downloading music.
And have the millions who buy the teen-scream, underpants crowd do the same.
"I am gonna download as much music as I can"
Good. Those numbers will be seen not as a protest, but as validity for what the recording industry thinks of you: You are not rebels but thieves and vandals trying to loot a few more songs before the impending shakedown.
Do them one better. Do not listen to, record, buy, borrow or download any more of their music.
Oh, and convince the "millions of people who do not use the Internet/MP3 technology regularly, and listen to the radio for their music" crowd to do the same.
Otherwise, this is a waste of time. But hey, you will have your principals.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
There's a ton of great music on mp3.com. I've recently bought a bunch of CDs from there, and have since had a warm inner glow. The CDs I bought were all as good/better than stuff you can get in the shops, and, as the artist receives 50% of the cost of the CD, they're probably better off selling their stuff through mp3.com than going through the more traditional routes (well, that could be open for debate, I guess).
And, possibly just as importantly, mp3.com has been in RIAA's line of fire for a while now.
Might as well support something they're trying to shut down, right?
...j
(a satisfied customer of mp3.com and nothing more)
Here's how it works:
IT'S THAT EASY! And best of all IT'S FREE!
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
It's simple. Someone needs to set up a web site called paytheartists.com, or something similar. Anyone who wants to can pay any artist an amount of their choosing per song they download. All completely voluntary.
I could imagine an "about" page that reads something like this (please point out any innacuracies, either in law or in philosophy):
What is paytheartists.com?
Paytheartists.com is a site dedicated to compensating artists for their work without supporting the leeches who at this point in time are vigorously fighting what they correctly perceive to be a very serious threat to their monopoly. The premise is simple: music is available to internet users through Napster et al, and this site gives you the ability to compensate the respective artists a paltry sum per song.
The desired effect is to show musicians that the Internet can be an ideal way to distribute music while still making money off it, and without resorting to closed protocols that attempt to enforce compliance.
But what about people who won't voluntarily pay?
This is inevitable, and perhaps not all bad. First of all, there are children and others with limited incomes who don't have the money to spend in the first place, so this isn't lost revenue. Secondly, music lovers would hopefully be enthusiastic to reward music they like, and might perhaps contribute more for a song they especially like.
Aren't the activities you advocate illegal?
Yes. However, we believe them to be moral.
First of all, the operation of this site will not increase piracy. Napster and other music distribution systems make obtaining copyrighted music simple already, and anyone who wants music can get it. The effect of this site, therefore, is only positive, because we seek to take all the music "sharing" that is so widespread, and let the artists who created the work in the first place in on a little bit of the fun.
Secondly, we have absolutely no moral qualms about leaving the record companies out of this. They are so rich and powerful today only because they've had a complete stranglehold on the industry for so long, that any musician who wanted to be heard widespread had no choice but to go to a record company. Worse, these artists are now stuck because they don't own the rights to their own songs. Look on any CD, and you won't see (C) The Artist, but rather (C) The Big Record Company. Artists couldn't legally take their own music online now even if they wanted to.
The record companies are further working against the artists by refusing to budge an inch in regard to online distribution of music. The RIAA maintains to this day that it's illegal even to rip a CD you own to your own computer. A site like this would be completely unneccesary if they would simply embrace the advent of digital music instead of fighting it.
We challenge the RIAA to stand by their comments about their litigation being all in the name of the artist. If this site succeeds and begins compensating artists in significant amounts (and with the huge cut the record companies take, it should take too much money per song to get up to what the artist would make off a normal CD), the RIAA should be estatic that everything is working out so well. If they condemn it as a haven for pirates, they'll be caught in their own lie.
--
... is some sort of collective legal action against the RIAA on behalf of the independant artists who use Napster as a distribution method. I know that they are not even minutely close to being to majority of music on Napster, but shutting napster down affects a bit more than just preventing the supposed "piracy", and the courts should take that into consideration.
"We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC
The purpose of the Boycott is to take the moral high ground while making a serious statement to RIAA. It is critical that the boycotters are unpaintable as frustrated whining pirates who lost their favorite toys.
Thus, don't use the word boycott in the same breath as you discuss other alternatives to Napster. It sounds as though you are saying, "hey, I wasn't willing to steal content before --I was buing CD's just as I was sharing them-- but I'll do it now."
While that is another tack -- the guerilla "you can't touch me" approach -- it is inconsistent with, IMHO, the point of a boycott -- to expose a bad for what it is, while making your own point.
By all means boycott if you can get a signficant market force together, but while doing so, DO NOT "share" the content you are boycotting. Don't listen to it at all -- protest and picket at live performances by artists who don't come out against RIAA's position, and listen to free music from artists who do come out.
It may not be as much fun at Dance parties, but hey -- if it is a matter of principle, let's stand by our princples.
But this is more than keeping cash while listening to someone else's music -- so don't prove the RIAA's point for them. Turn away from "big music" in favor of local talent, or talent that takes a "new view." Encourage local radio stations to do so as well.
This would make a difference, and it would also make a point.
Guerilla tactics might work --and they might not work: but you are simply inviting more warfare and litigation. In case you hadn't noticed, that's fighting RIAA in a forum in which they are powerfully equipped.
Far better to fight the fights elsewhere:
(1) hit them in their pockets by not buying (and by not using) their products; make sure the local distributors of these products hear, politely but loud and clear, how you feel about these.
(2) get active -- write congressmen and senators -- do it now, and keep doing it.
(3) stay alert and educated -- there are sound, cogent arguments in support of your position, but many resort instead to pabulum and the language of "underground piracy". That will kill your position in the long run -- you need not only to mobilize those who agree with you, but also to convince those who do not hold fixed and strong positions on these matters.
I, for one, am a strong IP advocate. If anyone would have held a fixed position on these issues, it would have been me -- but I listened and heard the sound, solid arguments in support of Napster, and was "turned." Other smart people can be turned as well -- but not if all they are hearing is pabulum from both sides.
The idea is to have the activists who care active, and the people who don't pissed off at the other side.
For my part, I'm not buying RIAA CD's, but neither will I be using the alternative music sharing servers so long as the injunction is in place. I will be writing and advocating the virtues of the Napster position before the Congress and at every public opportunity, and assailing the arrogance and weaknesses of RIAA's position, while acknowledging their right to protect IP at the same time.
In the meanwhile, trust the system to get this right in the end. They did in Sony and they did in Diamond -- in time, so too will they do so with Napster. At the same time, watch out for the Congress, who can change the law with a word -- make sure it costs any Congressman or Senator in this election period to take the "big media" position -- MAKE IT AN ISSUE.
This morning, Vice-Presidential candidate Cheney was asked about Napster. He begged off, saying he didn't know much about it. This can't be permitted to happen.
Make it a grass roots political issue -- try to get someone in Congress to pass a limitation to exclusive rights expressly permitting space-shifting as a form of fair use or otherwise.
You can make it happen, if you have the right and the will to do so. Do you?
And this 'boycott' would be incredibly hard to suggest to other people, especially those who never use Napster or any other P2P system. Again, The World is Not Filled With Angry Young Men.
Bottom line: if you disagree with something like this, a boycott is not going to do a whit of good except maybe proving to RIAA demog peeps that "heavy internet users" no longer buy as many CDs. That's just grease for their fire.
Serious suggestions:
However, this isn't the solution for everyone. Not everyone has the bandwidth, time, or storage space to get their music online (we all have the means: Gnutella, IRC, FTP, Usenet, etc.). However, there is a very, VERY simple solution if you want to purchase a CD and not have money go to the RIAA.
If you buy a music CD at a used CD store, the artist (and the RIAA) get absolutely nothing for your purchase. Someone already gave the RIAA money. The damage has been done. You however, for a lower price, can not only purchase the CD, but also not pay the RIAA. And no moreal qualms since it's legal.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I agree that the RIAA should be avoided at all costs, and not just for the month of August - until they get a clue. That doesn't mean that Napster is a Good Thing, though. Napster is a neat idea, that has folks behind it who are just as greedy as the labels - they just haven't figured out how to turn their movement into dollars yet.
Sharing music is a reasonable thing, given that a lot of trading is of rarities and bootlegs that you can't buy in your local store. My own MP3 usage has been to this pattern:
I rip all my own stuff so I can play it off my PC's.
I download all kinds of TMBG rarities and boots. I've bought all their albums, too.
I download an occasional file that looks interesting, and if it's pretty good I consider buying the album.
Occasionally I exchange files with some of my meatspace friends.
I suspect a lot of Napster users are like me in that sense - it's a tool to complete collections and poke around interesting stuff, rather than just a way of getting all the free songs you can.
I see Napster as being the commercially oriented sacrificial lamb to the greater goal of opening up the distribution system. The cat's out of the bag, and soon the Gnutella's of the world will be dominant and unstoppable - and nobody will be able to stop it since there's no commercial shop behind the software.
If the RIAA had a clue, though, they'd adapt Gnutella to their own ends and provide for micropayments as part of it. The fact that they don't is just proving that the established order just doesn't Get It.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
While I personally don't side with Napster, et al., I'll agree that RIAA is taking the wrong tack. The fact is that the "genie is out of the bottle", and suing Napster won't change that fact. But it's not surprising that an industry that consistently charges $15-20 for something that costs them $0.50 (a 3000-4000% markup) will sue anyone who tries to threaten it.
Let's face it. Napster is/was not the only game in town, but it was the most prominent, and had venture capital to boot. RIAA knew they stood a good chance of winning, and is desperately looking for a precedent in their favor. And going after Napster makes for good publicity with the media (who still report Napster as a "website that allows users to share MP3s").
The bottom line is that RIAA has been gouging customers for years and it's not at all surprising that Napster would come along. Napster, for it's part, has knowingly been aiding people to trade music that they didn't pay for. Neither side deserves to win.
I honestly believe that if people are given a convenient way to purchase the music online, a large number will. If RIAA realizes this, they stand a chance of surviving. If they don't, they won't be around 10 years from now.
---
---
"Go Metallica. Die RIAA." -- Linus Torvalds
There is a big difference between the two groups and the formats they represent.
The MPAA is making a dumb move in the DeCSS case, but movies are available in several formats: tape, cable, theaters as well as DVD. DVD represents an increase in quality, but you can get any movie on tape.
What the RIAA plans to do is create a system where you will pay per use or per transfer. They want to control the use of music in a way which will abrogate your basic rights to use copyrighted materials.
There's also a major difference in who gets paid. When you see The Perfect Storm, George Clooney gets money from you directly. He gets a share of the gross. Other major stars do as well, as well as any profits from his image in other media.
Even the smaller stars get millions for their participation. The screenwriter and director make a profit as well. Movies are financed in several ways, by private investors as well as studios.
So the MPAA fight is about using formats, not screwing the artists. They get paid anyway.
Also when you see a movie like South Park, you support the fight against the MPAA's censorship. The best way to fight the MPAA is by supporting those who oppose it and the people who make the films the try to censor.
The RIAA represents the record companies and their interests. The artists are the lure they use to cover their own greed and duplicity. They get a ho like Lars Ulrich to whine about Napster when they steal his money and his right to publish songs.
You want to see a pimp in action, look at the major labels. They and their middlemen make $14-15 dollars from every $16, and that's if the artist is lucky. Roger McGuinn said he made more from Mp3.com than from a 40 year recording career worth of albums.
Ever wonder why Ice Cube and Ice T went into movies? Because they don't owe the record company a dime for that work. They do when they record songs. This is like sharecropping. Massa Sony lends you money to live while you pay him back with labor. He gets most of the money from your efforts.
What needs to happen is a way we can pay the artists for their work and not the record comapnies. When they say theft, it's their bottom line, not sweet little Lars, they're worried about.
The movie studios used to do the same thing until the 1950's, when TV gutted their market. Suddenly people ran their own careers and the studios provided financing and support.
Peer to Peer networking is going to be the record company's TV. Their long overdue wakeup call.
I've decided that I won't be buying any RIAA CDs for awhile personally (I've already cancelled a couple of orders, and I buy a ton of CDs) but decide for yourself.
Frankly I don't plan to stop buying CDs since I've always been opposed to Napster since all it is is a greedy VC funded company trying to make money of the work of others. Now on the other hand, even though Slashdot is well aware of the DeCSS fiasco, we are constantly bombarded with various articles on buying DVDs.
I'm not one to fault others for their personal decisions but if you plan to make a stand, make the right one. The more I people I see complaining about Napster the more it seems like all they care about is free music and not the issues of digital rights or the power of corporations. That seems to be the only explanation for dissing the RIAA but supporting an industry that uses Gestapo tactics to terrorize tenagers. Where are the grassroots efforts to boycott the MPAA?