Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Looks To Stop KaZaA, Morpheus & Grokster
John Hampton writes: "The RIAA is going to try to sue KaZaZ, Morpheus and Grokster, according to this story. Internal memos from within the RIAA outline the record label's findings and strategy going ahead. Great story. Hilary Rosen begging executives to talk about the issue and the RIAA issuing the lamest statement ever. From DotcomScoop.com."
The artical says that Grokster, one of the P2P that might be sued by the RIAA, is based in the carribien iland of Nevis (or something like this). Offhand I would say that its based there primarly to avoid law suits of this nature. Any one have any info on how Grokster could be sued if they are not under U.S law?
Oh yah, FP
Sleep is for the weak!
If find it very hard to believe that this organization was allowed to exist. It functions autonomously using other people's money, but claims to do everything "on other's behalves."
SIG: HUP
since the servers use encryption, someone must feel that the RIAA can't tell what's going on unless they break the DMCA. The funny thing is (and even the letter says so) they can get a court order to break the encryption to find out what is really going on. I am sorry to say, but the RIAA legal team has their shit together and these systems can expect to be taken down. There will always be something new that pops up, however.
I cant wait to see: :))
1. The moment when the industry realises how good they could have had it before they fscked up the server model of napster compared to a distributed self organising network
2. The moment when some dumb exec decides the only way to stop it is to take out EVERY supernode
3. The RIAA resort to hiring hundreds of consultants to try and fix the unfixable problem
4. The RIAA eventually succeed in closing down the big three and just as it happens, giFT is finished and goes mainstream, or even better fasttrak release the source (I can dream cant I
Kazaa/Morpheus/Grokster JUST broke functionality with giFT by causing the client to HAVE to contact a main server before it will participate in the network. This move makes this new network easily vulnerable to a shutdown since it relies on a few entry points. If they had left it alone the floating network would continue to float, but not now. Oh well.
"I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued.
What the RIAA and other big industry orgs fail to understand is that it's not about directing users to "legitimate offerings", it's about not being a dinosaur in a fast paced industry. They are struggling to maintain old ways of distributing music and they don't understand that they have been replaced by a new distribution model. The record industry used to exist because some band, say "Vibrating Sandbox", didn't have the resources to publish and distribute nationally. Duh. Today, ANYBODY can send their music around the world.
I find it so amusing that the RIAA claims it hopes for the success of other music related businesses, then talks about handing enforcement. Enforcement!? RIAA: You are a conduit for music, not the source! Enforcement is up to the artists. If "Vibrating Sandbox" doesn't want its music distributed on *ster, then that's their problem.
The thing with organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA is they don't know when to quit. They need to learn a new way to make money that works with the modern world, or just go away all together.
Of course, not to mention that these "illegitimate" file/music sharing services actually give listeners access to a wide variety of flavors. Try finding the same obscure, yet decent material on an RIAA services as you would find on Napster. It's a shame how something so big, greedy, and ancient can have so much control over the methods of medium they contributed absolutely nothing to.
Why bother.
As far as I know all these three services use one common engine by that makes it possible for them to interoperate with each other. Basically, a user who is using Morpheus can download files shared by KaZaA and vice versa.
Because of this, at present, these three together form the largest network (far larger than napster or even gnutella's break-brick-block kind of network).
As fasttrack says, this architecture is distributed, self-organising network. Neither search requests nor actual downloads pass through any central server. The network is multi-layered, so that more powerful computers get to become search hubs ("SuperNodes"). Any client may become a SuperNode, if it meets the criteria of processing power, bandwidth and latency. Network management is 100% automatic - SuperNodes appear and disappear according to demand.
Basically, unstoppable!....You can stop the development of the code, and the program, but not the existing network. Just like gnutella.
For sure, they are RIAA, MPAA and the software industry's largest and the hardest to destroy enemies because they also allow users to share movies and programs.
Now that's what they say, let's see what the reality is!
A wise man once said "Freenet views lawyers as damn apes and routes around them."
Do some thing useful with your Paypal account besides wandering ebay. Donate to Freenet
Let's take a quote from the giFT page:
Can you say "Ooops?"
Thus, we recommend (1) filing claims against FastTrack, MusicCity, and Grockster, (2) immediately thereafter initiating discussions with FastTrack about resolving our claims in a way that will provide us with useful information and testimony against MusicCity, and if possible obtain FastTrack's cooperation in shutting down or converting MusicCity and Grokster, and (4) continue forward with litigation against MusicCity, Grokster, and potentially Timberline Venture Partners.
Gee, these guys manage to find out so much about the structure of the FT network, and yet they don't know how to count to three?
They've proved that an automatic two tier system can work (with user-node and super-node systems automatically finding the most efficient way of aggregating data).
Now we need a piece of software that will do all of this without the need for a central company. That way the RIAAA _can't_ shut it down.
Come on guys, we're one step away from success here - the power of Napster/FastTrack with the freedom of Gnutella - let's show them it can be done.
My Journal
Filetrading will return to something like BBS only online and via TCP/IP.
I predict people will end up using BBS software over ssh and downloading using zmodem. (as some ppl are doing already)
I'd like to see the RIAA have ssh banned.
The sooner these goons realise that they cannot stop whats happening the better for them and for everyone else. Their business model is obsolete because copyright has outlived its usefulness to society in many areas.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
In a way, they're acting no different from the record companies in trying to stop an alternate method of distribution (of sorts).
It's ironic (did I use the word correctly?) that this protective action has openned them up to lawsuits from the record industry.
"Significantly, the FastTrack system encrypts all communications"
They then go on to discuss the packet communications and types.
Doesn't the DCMA prohibit them from doing playing with encrypted packages and attempting to decrypt them to see what's happening? Or don't I understand the law correctly?
ZDNet story
CNet story
Interesting story at BBC News
:wq!
Show me one.
There are currently NO brand new markets in that industry, and if the RIAA gets it's way there will not be any. They are busy protecting their old market.
My take on this is that the RIAA is going to use their weight to form this "brand new market" to their liking. So we'll end up with a brand new market that's suspiciously like the good ole market: pay through your nose for music that you can't copy without a reduction in quality.
--Bud
One thing that interests me, however, is that KaZaA is much more than audio file sharing. You can download audio, video, software, images and documents, and only one of those categories applies to the RIAA. I suppose it only takes one category, but it's interesting that no other companies or industry representives have become involved (yet, to my knowledge). I wouldn't be too amazed if the MPAA joined the fray, not to mention numerous software companies.
The thing is...how long can this go on for? Someone sets up a filesharing network. The RIAA sues them, bringing their vast financial resources to bear, which means that any other resources they require can be bought. They close-mindedly bring about the destruction or complete alteration of the network, not taking into account many technicalities like the way that Napster was demonstrated to actually boost CD sales, and that the server owners should not be held responsible for the traffic on their network, just as ISPs cannot. But in this time, another network has popped up in its place. In fact, several networks.
How long can this continue? Surely the RIAA must realise that it is a futile proposition (at present) to attempt to take down every filesharing network that may allow access to copyrighted material? I suppose that's why they are attempting to pass more and more fascist laws, and are encouraging other countries to do the same, in order to maintain their somewhat archaically-based real-world manopoly. Surely there must be an easier way for record companies etc to protect their copyrights, within reason, but to allow filesharing like this within reason as well (and I'm not specifically thinking of subscription). It seems that the RIAA, MPAA et al, rather than go with the flow and try new avenues of profit on the net, are attempting to stand firm in a present system that is rapidly becoming a part of the past. I am reminded of the SG-1 Archive, which was recently featured in Showtime's magazine (since Showtime produces Stargate SG-1), where the site was apparently hailed as a source of information on the series, and yet a couple of weeks later the webmaster received a CAD letter from the MPAA and was forced to remove the episodes available for download. This would not be a problem, legally speaking, if Showtime had objected to the site; but they hadn't. They had praised it. Apparently the MPAA is simply doing the rounds, attempting to scare everyone into submission, and sue those who are brazen enough to resist, despite the wishes of the people producing the actual material (who the Stargate SG-1 copyrights actually belong to I am not entirely certain, but I believe it is MGM/Showtime).
Having said that, I fearlessly and without disclaimer (partly because slashdot thinks my IP is a 203.97 subnet, which it's not) acknowledge that all the software and mp3s on my computer are pirated, and that I feel little remorse. Being what I hope is a morally upright person, this disturbs me somewhat, but when I see the sort of things that Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA etc do, and the tactics they resort to, I seem to feel a lot better. As a writer, I put a certain value on intellectual property, and I also accept that people will copy and distribute my work illegally. This doesn't bug me particularly, partly because I'd be a hypocrite if it did, and partly because people will still buy my work, despite those who pirate it. When I look at how bloated with money MS, RIAA etc are, I hardly feel sympathic.
disclaimer My ideas and arguments are subject to minor alteration depending on circumstances, and are probably slightly bigoted and not as balanced as those that I normally produce. Taken completely objectively, you may well be able to tear holes in them. If you feel the inclination to do this I would be appreciative, as I am still formulating my own opinions in this matter; however, I ask that you don't flame simply for the sake of flaming...it doesn't tend to be conducive to constructive conversation.
A word can paint a thousand pictures
after all you can find anything you want there as well, they may not promote it that way, but it can (and is) done
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
FastTrack, a Netherlands-based company
p in c=+next+%3E%3E&last_str=fasttrack&page=0
According to the article FastTrack is supposed to be in the Netherlands... It definitely is not. Although there is a site called FastTrack.NL it has nothing to do with the software used by Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus.
According to the whois info it is a Chattsworth CA based company.
http://www.whois.net/search.cgi2?str=fasttrack&
Look at entry #40.
The problem is the general trend. Each lawsuit that the RIAA wins strengthens their future lawsuits because they now have case history. I don't know if you read the articles, but when they pointed out the legal misdoings of KaZaA, the legal arguments they cited were all taken from the Napster case.
When KazaA is taken down, there will be even more legal precedence to take these networks down. Strictly speaking, the ability to share files is not and should not be illegal. The users who share copyrighted files are the ones breaking the law.
Rather than trying to screw us out of our fair use rights (backups, ripping, etc), the RIAA and related companies should work on hitting the individual users guilty of infringment. Once a bunch of people get fined for stealing, it won't be so prevalent.
Instead, they are trying to take out the technology that makes stealing possible. This may work in the long run, but does nothing to help the end user. If you think all of your customers are theives, then you should probably be in another business.
Captain_Frisk
From the RIAA lawyers' memo on FuckedCompany:
The FastTrack network designates (perhaps automatically) certain peers - more powerful computers with high-bandwidth connections - as "supernodes." [because of the system's encrypted communication, we are unable to determine how supernodes are designated].
I would love to see them suddenly understand how the supernodes work and the FastTrack developers sue for an incredible amount. It would be nice to see Slashdot's favorite law get used to help the little guy once.
Since filesharing networks like KaZaA are technically illegal in most respects, I hardly think this is surprising.
If I claimed that the internet was technically illegal because you could use it to distribute copyrighted music or child porn, you'd think I was an idiot.
And yet you've bought in completely to the "sending files from one computer to another is morally wrong" claim, just under a different name. And all of the implicit assumptions that could justify that claim, "A tool is evil if it can be used to do evil things", "The RIAA owns everything that can be encoded as a sound file", did they manage to convince you of those too?
So how should artists afford to prosecute multi-million dolar VC funded companies like Napster or companies that are outside the United?
:)
I can't speak for the first case, but for your second statement, it's obvious. They don't. You don't prosecute someone from another country doing things that are legal there and not legal here. Oh wait, we already do that. It's not right, is it?
If you are an artist with the choice of getting a major label deal and maybe making a profit if you sell over a million copies (or being in debt otherwise) or making no money from the spread of your music while being popular among the fans that don't pay for your music, what would you choose?
Hold it. Remember that from the sale of each record, lesser known artists get as low as 1% or less of the total profits, with the RIAA keeping the other 99%. Artists literally can get checks from the RIAA of 0.12$US for a 20$US record sale. Artists could make a LOT more money if they distributed online and took all the profits from said sales (and more power to them on doing this - I would buy music if my money was going to the artist, and not the RIAA).
Eventually, when CD burners, Minidiscs and car MP3 players become cheap and popular enough, how do you propose artists make a living in this new world order?
What are you talking about? They're already cheap and popular. I can buy a pack of 100 blank CDRs for 15$US. Mp3's are free (as in beer, and not the algorithm of course). Minidiscs are just about there. But going back on topic, remember an obscure, ancient invention called the "tape recorder"? Old dinosaurs in the music industry said the same thing and pushed the issue in court. The courts said that people making copies was fair use. I propose that we RETAIN fair use for everything we buy, including music. In a free economy, you have to figure out ways to fend for yourself. Artists will deal with it.
Last thought on the issue of artists getting big and rich, well, that just is kind of absurd, isn't it? Someone's motivation for creating art should be for the sake of art, not the money they can get from it. Sure everyone has to live, but how many painters, sculpters, poets, etc, are rolling in the big bucks? If you are really good, you'll find a way. Take a look at J.R.R. Tolkien's estate.
Why bother.
A pro bono class action by a first rate lawyer would set a lovely precedent. As for international torts, I'd say deal with them on a case by case instance. For the most part, the problem is US-centric.
It would really depend on what was important in my life. Personally, and I can say this because I'm not in the said predicament of choosing this, I would want my artistic work to be free for everyone to experience, but I wouldn't want or expect to make a living off of it. That's a personal perspective, but a rational one.
The number of artists that could be employed in the industries is phenominal, but they aren't because the markets have been saturated with megalabels and uberdraconian principles of selection that prohibit any entry. It's an arisocracy now anyway, and 99.9% of artists are dropped by the wayside and barely scrape a living. Getting rid of the megalabels would certainly create more demand for smaller bands, and maybe bring the success rate for lesser known artists up to 99.8%, which is a difference of millions of people.
To give an economical perspective, a concert band or symphony orchestra employs up to 120 people (iirc, London Symphony Orchetsra), rarely if ever releases CD's, has huge overhead in musical instruments, and still turns a profit in the majority of large cities. Surely God a band of 4 people with mass produced musical equipment can fabricate a decent profit from live concerts.
how do you propose artists make a living in this new world order?
Musicians have been making a living for thousands of years without the RIAA. Today, there are more professional musicians out there who DON'T have recording contracts with the RIAA than DO. Only a select few have the "advantage" of getting an RIAA-sponsored recording contract, and even fewer benefit from it, aside from the promotion that comes with it.
Non-american musicians make livings without the benefit of RIAA. Plus, other types of "Artists" (actors, painters, etc.) make livings without the benefit of the RIAA.
Without the RIAA, there will still be musicians. Musicians will still make money. Without RIAA, choices will increase, and quality will rise. Do not worry yourself about the plight of the "Artist" in a world without the RIAA--worry about the "Artist" in a world where their only option is the RIAA.
"... we have to get our customers back ..."
More like *drag* their customers back, kicking and screaming the whole way. Hello, maybe you should ask yourself why you've lost your customers in the first place?
I am NOT paying $17 for a copy of Eve6's CD.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
Eventually, when CD burners, Minidiscs and car MP3 players become cheap and popular enough, how do you propose artists make a living in
this new world order?
Billy Corgan (of the late Smashing Pumpkins) has had the best "big name" take on this so far: music will increasingly become like sports. Major league sportscasts are available for free on network television; how do they make their money? Gate fees and advertising. In BC's view, you could soon see "the RIAA on NBC!" on Saturday afternoons. Dave Matthews, on stage, makes his money from the thousands of screaming fans packed into whatever arena he's playing, as well as by allowing Fender and Zildijan to digitally insert ads onto the front of the stage (or even onto his conveniently dull blue guitar.) The fans at home get to enjoy DM's performance (albeit in a reduced fashion, just like going to watch an NFL game is a much better experience than watching one on TV) while having to sit through commercials at the intermission.
Then, like in sports, there could arise a "minor league", farm club sort of structure where local bands play in smaller venues (which make most of their money from corporate sponsorship and billboard ads).
Of course, there will still be "street performers" who just play for the love of it (think the streetballers in Rucker Park in NYC).
I don't know if it would shape up exactly like this, but I think the possibility is intriguing at the very least.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Please name the countries where copyright infringement is legal (as opposed to illegal but unenforced due to how widespread it is like in most parts of Asia).
Afghanistan. Hell, anything's legal there (except women feeding their families). But I am CERTAIN they don't care if you make a copy of an N*Sync CD.
That was my point about selling a million copies. Artists that go multi-platinum do fairly well while those that don't end up with a few good memories and sometimes in debt. This gamble is still preferable to making no money which is what the P2P services would eventually lead to given enough time.
Other replies to your original post already address this and do it better than I can, so read theirs.
This is very amusing. Why would anyone pay to download a song when they can get it for free on Morpheus, Gnutella, KaaZaa or Grokster?
You're not very observant are you? Look at the real world. Why would anyone buy a CD when they can get it for free on blah blah blah. People STILL buy music in a day and age where music can be got for free. It's reality. It will still be reality.
Wasn't there a recent Slashdot story about They Might Be Giants and how they were pissed at Napster because they had created an online presence only for Napster to render it all irrelvant?
It's not the consumers fault that they jumped on the bandwagon after someone else did. It's call competition. Sometimes other people get to ideas before you do.
BOTTOM LINE: For artists to make money from online music, free music services must disappear.
What a flaming crock of horse shit. You basically deny the existence of companies like RedHat that sell free software! That's right, they sell software that is given away for free everywhere else. The difference is, when you buy it, you get trimmings like actual CD's, manuals, and so forth. This model is very simple, works, seems pretty damn honest, and makes money. It could be very easily applied to the music industry.
Ugh, we need less of corporate bottom feeders like you.
Why bother.
I am a wealthy IT professional, and I assume that a lot of you here are too.
Assuming that we could get a lot of people similar to myself to contribute $100, could we buy the ability to shut down the RIIA's legal efforts for awhile?
It appears to me that we have two options: attack their lawyers or attack their revenue sources. If we don't do one of these things effectively, they will continue to oppress the public (and us specifically).
I'm tired of listening to the RIAA tell me how bad I am. Let's do something!
Every so often, something happens that changes the rules by which the world, and in particular the business world, operates.
A few personal examples. My grandfather was a professional signwriter. Not so long ago if you needed a sign above a shop, for instance, you used to have to go to a signwriter, who would labouriously paint it by hand. There are of course very few of them about nowadays because there are so many other ways to create signs. A perverse way of looking at this would be to think that the signwriter profession has been 'robbed' of its rightful earnings because bad technology has made them irrelevant.
My grandmother was a double entry book-keeper, a kind of accountant's clerk. She would labourously enter figures by hand into big books, do sums and checks to make sure everything was correct. My grandmothers profession has also been 'robbed' of its earnings because it has been made irrelevant by those bad computers.
The men and women of the record companies have made money in the past by promoting music, making copies of it and distributing it. Their profession has been made irrelevant because the Internet means that anyone can promote, copy and distribute music at virtually zero cost. They are desperately trying to stop this happening, but being a record company is becoming just as irrelevant as being a signwriter or double entry book-keeper.
In the short-term the record companies will use their financial power to get bad laws passed which will slow this natural development down. But in the longer term, sorry folks, but you're history.
Doing so may be a breach of agreement when you use the software for those purposes. It could open the RIAA and it's member organizations to countersuits, etc.
They're not entirely stupid- they want the upper hand on this situation from start to finish. If they don't go about it in a just-so manner, they don't have the upper hand.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Artists have copyright collectives.
ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN are three that I know of. These are large, well-funded organizations, that actually include more artists than the RIAA - plenty of independent artists belong to them. Also, they represent artists' interests directly.
They are set up mainly to collect licensing fees from radio.
None of them have gotten involved.
How about: Burn your own CDs, sell them at shows for $10 Canadian. Maybe spend $2 or so per CD on media and the insert. Make $8 per CD. Compare this to the RIAA system, where you make about $.12 US ($.18 Canadian) per CD. By my math, you'll make about the same amount of money by selling 22 thousand CDs this way as you would be selling a million CDs with the RIAA.
And this way, you get to record what you like, and you don't have to go in debt.
Plenty of bands do it. They Might Be Giants are an excellent example of a band that's made much more money than they could have in the RIAA world.
By burning their own CDs for fifty cents a pop. :)
Car MP3 players seem to be disappearing gradually. I'm not sure if MD really has much of a future either. CD-R, on the other hand...
CD-R is the biggest threat to the RIAA that has ever happened, because it takes the power of recording out of their hands. Now, all you need them for is distribution. Internet distribution is insufficient thus yet to replace in-store distribution (mainly due to lack of available bandwidth), but stores are opening up to selling more independent artists.
I can't wait to see what DVD-R is going to do for independent filmmaking.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Micr'Soft is our bitch
Hmmm, that sounds a little forced. How about "Congress is our bitch"? Sounds better and is just as true!
Dyolf Knip
Copyright is an 'agreement' - its a fiction. Intellectual property is not 'stuff'. IP is to property as FoolsGold is to Gold.
When the 'mass' accepts the idea that they would rather reclaim their right to copy music, when they realize that it no longer acceptable for them because the other party isnt providing them the benefits to outweigh their detriment, this *DEAL* ceases to exist.
So, instead of addressing the issue at hand: Copyright is no longer an acceptable situation to the citizens who empower the concept. They have ended their compliance to this fiction and are distributing and manufacturing (mail && cp respectively) copies of the music.
We can either
Accept that the RIAA/MPAA will whore our plutocratic government into making law that will protect their asses ($$$). The world has rendered their former function (publish, promote, manufacture, distribute) unnecessary, so they seek an artificial control on technology, personal freedom and the Capitalist Free-Market.
Reduce, Change, Rethink or Abolish copyright altogether.
I vote the latter.
People who refuse to buy DVDs, CDs and VHS and ONLY dload the works of Artists are practicing Civil Disobedience - this is justified, reasonable and unquestionably within the realm of honesty, I also ACTIVELY encourage others to do the same.
I am a citizen of a Democracy, I disagree with the law, as do most citizens, if we all disagree with the law... it should be changed... unless of course we dont live in a Democracy any longer... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm makes you wonder dosnt it. My new favorite word is:
plutocracy (pl-tkr-s) n.
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
This interpretation actually likens Hillary the Harpie's strategy to that of the US government, under the leadership of the winged monkey, in pursuing "war" against a methodology called terrorism (which is about as bright, in my book, as pursuing war against methodologies like pragmatism, or immunochemical histology, but then winged monkeys ain't made to be bright). I'd have the same advice for H the H as I have for W the Schmuck - give peace a chance, and, for the love of all that is decent and right, STEP DOWN NOW!
People like you make me sick! The U.S. always gives peace a chance. We promote it in Ireland and with Israel's problems. We offer a peace-loving country, open to all religions, including Islam. We were then ruthlessly attacked by delusional psychotics clinging to their pseudo-Islam religion to brainwash similarly disenfranchised, pissed off Middle Easterners.
In exchange, has Bush launched a carpet bombing of Afghanistan, or any other nation that sponsors or harbors terrorists? No. He has been making careful plans for weeks now, while Americans have been screaming for blood. Presumably if they were going to carpet bomb some place, it would have been done by now. They've made it clear they are going after surgical strikes and unique ways of fighting terrorism (cutting off funding, putting extreme pressure on those countries that harbor them, etc).
And you propose to Bush to 'give peace a chance.'
If anyone's a schmuck here, it's you. You should be saying the same thing to Osama bin Laden, et. al., not to anyone in the United States government.
And no, I did not, nor would not vote for W. I'm a card-carrying libertarian.
But I know a load of ignorant bullshit when I smell it.
"And like that
And each time the community adapts, it does get stronger. The RIAA attacks a weakness in the system, the next version "corrects" that weakness. The RIAA is helping create the ultimate file-trading application that will A)be perfectly legal within current laws B)robust enough to handle immense system demands and C)hide the users from simple investigation creating an anonymous file-trading system.
And who really benefits from this? The people who are using it for society damaging illegal activities. In this level of perverse logic, the RIAA is helping create a superflu that undermines society. (Yes, it is a slippery slope argument and yes, it is only done partly tongue-in-cheek).
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Musicians and record labels have had a good run, but perhaps it's time to give up. With few exceptions, I don't think any popular major-label musician is talented enough to earn what they make from their music. The money they make is a result of the recording industry's ability to promote.
Consider the hundreds of thousands of musical artists that aren't signed to a major label. What separates them from their signed counterparts? Promotion. The money the signed artists receive isn't based on their talent, but their management's ability to drive up demand for their art through many marketing techniques. Of course one entity controlling both the supply and demand of something is a dangerous situation.
I wonder some times if the RIAA is really afraid of peer-to-peer file sharing, or something deeper. It may be that they're not just losing their ability to control the supply, but losing control of demand as well. When I found songs I likes on Napster, I would always view other songs that that user was sharing, and inevitably find more songs I liked. In many cases these songs were not artists under RIAA-member managers. Could this be what RIAA is afraid of?
_______
2B1ASK1
The RIAA is intent on suing our rights out of existence, so why aren't we suing them into the ground? Is there a class action suit against them out there? If not, can one be begun? According to new sites online there are millions of users who are affected by this, and it seems to me that if even half of those people donated $10 to a legal effort we'd have a real war chest. Clearly the EFF is not going to do this, so we need to find someone/thing who will. If you know of one, please pipe up.
And the second thing I wonder about is how can we build an alternative to the record companies and their business model for the musicians? The fans and consumers are pissed off, but as long as the musicians largely stay with the record companies, then the RIAA and its ilk will still act like they control the music supply. If the musicians believe they'll starve without the record companies, then they sure won't be on our side. We need a real plan to convince the musicians that there is a better way to reach their fans.
American Flag - Fade to whitehouse, and bush sitting in his chair.
(Que background music)
Bush: God bless America - where speech is free (unless its owned by a big company) (or the government) and justice is served fairly (along as it makes money [dmca]). But now, now its being changed! changed by a small people, people who will do anything to harm the freedom. These people are called 'file sharers' They are evil hackers who roam the sea of the Internet pirating as they go. The use their ships of software to go from point2point. They steal from the poorest artists and the companies that represent them (poor artists like Jackson and struggling companies like Warner, Polydor etc.) They trade sick and pornographic images that no human should be subjected to (because no-one actually _wants_ to see Alysa Milano lesbian action) and whats more, they send plans of terrorism! Yes, thats right, Bin-Laden and the Taliban used these systems to swap images and files containing hidden plans for their terrorist attacks! These people must be stopped, they are as guilty as Bin-Laden himself! To save America you, the citizens, must vigil and report these people. Do your duty for your country and your family. If you see anyone using file sharing programs, report them to the authorities (who will have their equipment destroyed and them put in prison for a long long time) and save America. Everyone must decide: You are either against file sharing, or your with Bin Laden!! No amount of bolding and repeating, repeating! can do enough to stress the importance of this.
Thank You, and, goodnight.
Fade Out, titles
"this presidential speech is protected under federal copyright laws, reproducing it in any form without prior consent is a federal offence carrying penalties of upto (15) years imprisonment."
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.