Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Taxpayer-Funded IP Police
Sydney Weidman writes "RIAA has given testimony before the House Appropriations Committee asking for more federal money for Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property investigation teams. You can find RIAA's side of the story here and a Cnet story is available as well. Apparently, RIAA is not satisfied with the current deployment of CHIP teams since they have been more involved in anti-hacking activities than in anti-piracy. My favourite Hilary Rosen quote: "Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music." I guess Rosen won't be happy until each and every pirate is charged with crimes against humanity and convicted by the International Court of Justice"
Soon, all restaurants will be Taco Bell, and all corporations will be MPRIAA.
But we still won't have figured out the seashell thing.
i am a soviet space shuttle
RIAA is not satisfied with the current deployment of CHIP teams
Of course not. Erik Estrada retired years ago, and it just hasn't been the same since.
--saint
Hi all,
I'm in living in Europe, and I must say, allthough I don't care much about US politics it is allways fun to see what those congressmen of yours get away with! It's nearly amusing! Better than most soaps we have here in Europe!
Keep up the fight! the season's not over yet!
how does one change his
RIAA, DMCA (you better believe it). Most lobbyists sicken me.
It just seems that there is an awful lot of momentum right now against this kind of "Big Brother" activity from RIAA. Why not keep it up?
It just seems absurd to me that in this day and age where terrorism is such a focal point, that we would divert funds to fight music piracy. I'm quite certian that Al Qaeda is going after the latest Dave song instead of looking for a way to hack financial companies.
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
RIAA, do you see this?
I am a taxpayer, I don't want this. Tough.
Well... AFAIK, CHiPS spends most of their time chasing stolen cars. I had no idea they were stolen by hackers. But I'm glad they're still around. Erik Estrada is so cool!
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
My questions after reading the article on Cnet is: "Are the congressmen/women actually considering this?" Well, if the RIAA/MPAA has any real clout on the hill, then we will see just how far this will go. IIRC, the CHiPs were formed primarily becasue of the threat from cyberterrorism. Given today's political atmoshpere, I don't see anything anti terrorism getting changed soon.
Hey, Mr. Taco, Sir, how about putting a permanent link on the main page that would allow anybody to quickly find their senator/congressman's contact information. Like maybe start being just a little proactive with some of these issues. If even 3% of /. readers actually DID something (call/write) I think it could make a *significant* difference. Weenies, kwhores, and goaters notwhithstanding, I have never seen a forum with a greater number of informed, intelligent, and articulate participants. Some of us probably just need a little kick in the ass to actually DO something other than bitch.
(yeah, I'm a hypocrite and karma whore. That doesn't mean I'm WRONG.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music.
When will she realize that there's more to creating music than money? Artists create because they enjoy doing so. It's one of the profession, IMHO that have a lot of job satisfaction.
Sometimes she'd further her cause by staying quiet.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
Harmful to Minors: Such laws seek to change Supreme Court standards for materials that are denied to children by lumping certain sound recordings into the "harmful to minors" category. This step makes it easier to ban sales to minors of certain objectionable material.
The RIAA is currently, or has recently, engaged in fighting these "harmful to minors" proposals in Washington, Florida, New York, Michigan, Georgia, Tennessee, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, and on the federal level in the House and Senate.
ellimate fair use & promote free speech = more $$$
gotta love it..
Here's a great novel related to intellectual property and depicting a grim future where associations like the RIAA basically control everything: Autonomy
Shame it's not completed yet.
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
Well, if he managed to persuade the US government to support that Court, something good would have come out of the RIAA lobbying power at last. Until then, keep swapping :-).
what you don't seem to understand is that the only people making money off music are the members of the RIAA. I have no interest in putting food on the tables of lawyers, corporate swine and people pushing legislation that removes my rights to back up cd's, send mp3's to myself over my own network, or "media switch" the music I OWN that I move from CD to my MP3 player. Sure, illegal swapping should be stopped..but not by sniffing packets coming my system which could very easily be me transfering a few songs FROM MYSELF to MYSELF at work.
that's jsut the legal aspect. I have bought at LEAST 150 cd's based on hearing a song or 2 someone tossed my way via mp3's. for every pirate out there, there's a legitimate "mix tape" listener. If I like the cd an mp3 I stumble upon came from, I buy it. if I don't, I delete it.
until artists are making at least 25% of the profit from their cd's....screw the distributors.
Rosen, Eisner, and Valenti should be the ones taken to the Hague in chains. It's a pity the International Court of Justice doesn't have the death penalty available in its repertoire. But that's OK--a life sentence of forced listening to heavily amplified boy bands should be sufficient.
"If you can't protect what you own, you don't own anything," Valenti said in a statement.
Gee, thanks, I was really confused before you cleared that up.
The sad thing is, as long as congress keeps passing ridiculous laws like the DMCA, the RIAA will have an argument for the formation of these ridiculous law enforcement groups. The problem here is not that the RIAA wants it's own secret police, but that the laws exist that give those police a job to do.
However, when when the IP spooks start knocking on the doors of well meaning people everywhere demanding that they uninstall Kazaa or have their computer seized, maybe we can get the grass-roots support to get these laws repealed.
Of course, this is wrong headed.
What is involved in Piracy is a lack of respect for the property rights of others, which is something that the Music industry has failed to provide the proper example for.
Far from arguing from the moral high ground, the only high ground they occupy is a pile of excrement at the bottom of the latrine they have fallen into, and in fact dug for themselves.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Why the hell should taxpayers pay so private corporations can arrest them? It's their legal battle,
if they want to fight this they should do it with their own damn money.
Its great, as a government worker a fraction of every cent i make pays me, now another fraction of another cent i make could go towards arresting me!
Of course, ethically it would be better not to collect the blank media taxes at all ... after all I don't pirate software or music why am I paying fines (I even paid for zip on my windows box :-)
...but did there happen to be anyone testifying in the interests of The People to provide a counterpoint to Rosen? Was Shawn Fanning asked to speak? Felton? I would like to know why is it that they always get to address Congress, but not anyone from the other side.
I particularly like the comment near the end from Valenti. "If you can't protect what you own, you don't own anything." Sounds like he's taking a hit on US Government with their "failure" to protect us from terrorists. Little statements like that will no doubt be massively effective to a particularly sensitive legislature.
Why bother.
This may be a attempt to fund this sort of abuse by instituting a Zero Tolerance confiscation rule like they do with drugs. Got a MP3 Player in your car? Your busted and they sell it at auction.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Although the RIAA applauded the creation of CHIP, it said it is concerned that CHIP's main focus will be on computer hacking and not on intellectual property. The RIAA requested in its testimony that these CHIP units make intellectual property a top priority.
Not only do they demand (and get!) laws strictly in their benefit, but now they want to reprioritize and increase the funding for a law enforcement agency for their sole benefit.
The only solution is to penalize congresspeople who swallow this. Fat election funds won't do congresspeople anygood when nobody will vote for them.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
I can think of no greater disincentive to the creation of music than the prospect of having to do business with these jackals.
Wahhhh... can we have late night specials showing the Recording Executives starving in the streets and that fat chick asking "wont you please help?"
I'll adopt a Recording Industry Middle manager for 79 cents a day...
Please.... these people need to be attacked by angry mobs.
This Hillary Rosen is one reasone I believe we need to bring back burning at the stake or public impalement.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes, the RIAA and the whole notion of intellectual property go against common sense, not to mention the Constitution (Article 2, IIRC).
And yes, the majority (note that word: majority) of IP is indefensible, and a waste of time to deal with (Britney Spears using Windows...wouldn't be surprised if she worked at Micro$oft!).
But we have built this great nation (and, to the extent that other countries have prospered, they have done so emulating the USA in this respect) on the rule of law, and the enforcement of said law by the appropriate Authorities.
Yes, they are funded by taxes, and we all find taxes a "necessary evil." But the right of taxation is firmly granted in the Constitution (Article 4) for the "protection of the Law of the Land."
To suggest that, given the current laws protecting intellectual property, we should then turn around and ignore them when it comes to enforcement, is going about it all wrong.
The result will be not only mass piracy (leading to more stringent laws!), but a complete collapse of all that we hold dear, the Order of Society.
No, until we reach that day when IP laws are stricken down from the books forever (I propose a new Amendment!), we must do our utmost to defend these laws, for they are the very things which make this country good.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I would be too. So he can watch Arafat's sentencing.
...that Valenti has said in a long while.
What a shame that he doesn't understand his own statement.
Perhaps if it were re-worded:
"If you cannot protect a thing, then you cannot own it"
might make it clearer to him.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The problem with this argument is that if I as an unsigned artist puts out multiple music tracks, music vidios, documentaries, or movies that I personally produce, you are branding me or the people who decide to review my work a thief.
You are taking the opportunity for artists who are aspiring to become great, away from them. You should be thrown in gael.
-Rusty
You never know...
Fighting so very hard, in fact, that musicians get around $1.37 per CD? Fighting so hard that one musician goes so far as to say that he would rather have his music be given out free than through his label?
The RIAA and MPAA aren't fighting to protect anyone except themselves.
Time to get out your keyboards/pen&paper and write to your Congresscritter on the Appropriations Committee.
Remember to be polite when explaining why you disagree with this.
I read this story this morning with disbelief. It's just getting so surreal. The longer the recording industry treats its customers with the distain they currently have, the more people are going to look at alternatives.
You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Instead of clinging desperately to their outdated business model and assuming all customers want to rip them off, they should embrace digital technology fully. But as long as they want to charge $5.00 for a limited use file download, they're never gonna go anywhere.
because of their use of the Linux operating system
ummm....I think most people that get MP3s are using windows.
what is she paid by MS now?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
There's a future in music, at least we hope so, and much of that future will be online. If we are able to construct a new global marketplace dominated by legitimate businesses rather than pirates, we will be able to reach niche markets with unprecedented efficacy.
Well, why doesn't the RIAA focus its' efforts and resources on bringing about this marketplace instead of trying to prosecute the pirates!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
and has to the three shells any good UNIX hacker will tell you it's not seashells it's C, Korn and Bash.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
REDMOND - Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) filed suit against the RIAA this morning, claiming antitrust violations.
"We're all for a corporation attaining world domination," Microsoft's Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying, "but we feel Rosen's actions are a bit heavy-handed and self-serving."
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
No, you are very mistaken. They might see 10 cents on a cd. Unless you are a Metallica or Madonna or have your own recording studio set up (ala Nine Inch Nails).
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Out of a $16 cd, the artist is lucky to get $1. I say lucky, because until the artist pays for the studio time, and the expenses of actually building the master, and paying for the press run on the CD, the artist's $1 per cd goes to the production run.
The remaining $15 is used to pay for advertizing, copyright management, lawyers, and profit for the publishers.
-Rusty
You never know...
This is utter hogwash. If the record companies had any idea beforehand which CDs would be profitable, they would only publish the profitable ones. But they don't know ahead of time. That's why they publish a broad catalog, so that they have a better chance of publishing a hit and making a profit. To insinuate that the record companies publish unprofitable albums out of the goodness of their hearts is the height of deception.
Let's look at this from the point of view of a fictional touring music act that we'll call "Zit Remedy". If "Megadisc Records", member of the RIAA decides to publish a CD of Zit Remedy's music, it has only a slim chance of being profitable. If Zit Remedy's CD isn't profitable, then Zit Remedy receives no royalty payments. However, the CD still stands as a tool for publicity, possibly increasing concert revenues and sales of merchandise. Except Zit Remedy's self-titled debut release is priced at $20 a copy, so it reaches a very small audience... unless college students start ripping and file sharing. Then the profit potential for Zit Remedy climbs. More buzz = more concert attendees = more revenues. The only loser here is Megadisc.
It's pretty clear that the record companies represented by the RIAA have a flawed business model. I don't think it's up to taxpayers to subsidize bad business models. If it were, I could start a buggy whip factory and retire wealthy. Let Megadisc figure it out for itself.
"Fortunately, we can use the information gathered from the 'hacking' intelligence to track down potential violators - because of their use of the Linux operating system." Did anyone else spot that part of the quote? Sounds like they will want to outlaw Linux next, as a deterrent to crime!
Note that after the 2nd paragraph, the real version and the one trolled above wildly diverge.
I encourage everyone to put the troller on their "enemies" list, and to modify moderation for such people down by two or more points, so you don't have to see this crap in the future.
You're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs). If anyone is losing money, it's the RIAA and ONLY the RIAA consortium. You do not hurt the artists. In fact, you can *really* help the artists out with online donation. Every time you download an MP3, give the arist 100% of the profits instead of the 0.01% that the RIAA gives them.
What the RIAA is pissed off about is that this technique which you call "stealing" gives power back to the artists. Several artists have attempted to distribute music via MP3, but the RIAA has smacked them down for doing so. The RIAA is pissed because they hate these so-called "theives", they're pissed because their business model is becoming outdated. To combat that, they want to make the government freeze-frame innovation.
Wake up. This greedy group of companies are the real theives. They seize ownership of the work of artists, and then pay them shit for it. Let's fight those bastards by downloading MP3's like crazy, and then giving the artists the money directly. Simple! It's cheaper for you, and more profitable for the musicians! What more do you want?
Why bother.
ok, this is too friggin' much. One has to wonder if they actually believe the bile that spews forth from their own lips.
.01% of the power holders in the country count for more than everyone else's put together (i.e., the financial interests of people like Hilary Rosen, the Enron chairmen, etc). We should end this now by banning corporate campaign contributions, period. No soft money, individual contribution limits, and government subsidies to ALL political candidates, not just republicans and democrats.
They want their own IP police? More like federally-funded thugs. What ever happened to citizen equality under the law? Why can't we all have our own police forces? Because its a stupid idea and unconstitutional, that's why.
I think its high time we actually started living by the "one man, one vote" credo in US politics. the current situation is this: each citizen has one vote, ostensibly; but with money and power, you get immeasurably more votes and influence through corporations. So the "votes" of the top
And above all, we have to be active as citizens. One reason the PACS and corporate interests have congress in their pocket is because individuals like us don't take the time to call their congressman's offices and write HAND_WRITTEN (or at least, non-form) letters, so they know that there ARE people voting who aren't members of a union or special interest.
or gal as Hilary is in this case. She's not a guy, that's for sure.
What is of bigger concern, and I agree, is to take your downloaded mp3's and make a business of it selling CD's. Downloading should be well under most people's moral radar, but selling those for a profit is another story.
I'm almost helping the RIAA, this will be a popular post here on Slashdot!!
I am CEO of a fairly successful web development company. We provide web hosting services, as well as software as a service on our servers for which our clients pay a substantial monthly fee.
Sometimes a client is late paying, despite the fact that in our contract with the client we clearly specify they should pay their dues at the beginning of each calendar month.
I want a red telephone on my desk so I can call some tax-payer funded corporate police to go smash the fuckers door down if they're late paying. That would be great! Yea!
Only joking. Almost the weekend!
Just so all you people who don't bother to read the articles know (and before you start losing your minds over the anti-linux stuff) the original article doesn't mention linux at all. So mod the previous post up as funny or troll or something, not informative, you crazy mods.
J
RIAA Propoganda: The Cost Of A CD
Lifted:
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
That's why it costs $18 for a CD instead of $1.50? Right.....
That is so lame.
Software Wars
I'm starting to host small community wikis on my home box ( http://wage.packet.org ) for writers, poets, musicians and others who stand about as much of a chance to land a contract with a media outlet as they have of contracting diseases of the rich.
Its a place for them to put their stuff so it gets out there and, being a wiki, they can collaborate on editing and enhancing the content.
Content that the xxAAs doesn't control and squeeze every possible dime out of. Content that's not constantly churned in an effort to wipe out the creative source by limiting their exposure while fostering a feeding frenzy for whatever's NEW NEW NEW while its really the same old whine in the same old bottle with a new label that really doesn't really look any different.
And who knows? I may have the next Stephen King, Emily Post or Nirvana putting their stuff on my box just to have a back-up and to register a copyright date.
Or I may be starting an entirely new form of collaborative writing.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Would'nt it be funny if Jack Velenti was caught with...say... child porn!
haha
I have seen a few posts where people continue to insist that downloading a MP3 is stealing. Let's look at this from the proper perspective, shall we?
First of all, you're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs). If anyone is losing money, it's the RIAA and ONLY the RIAA consortium. You do not hurt the artists. In fact, you can *really* help the artists out with online donation. Every time you download an MP3, give the arist 100% of the profits instead of the 0.01% that the RIAA gives them. This is the best way to weaken the RIAA because it shows artists they they do not need a big record label to get their music sold. All they need is a cheap computer and an Internet connection.
What the RIAA is pissed off about is that this technique which some call "stealing" gives power back to the artists. Several artists have attempted to distribute music via MP3, but the RIAA has smacked them down for doing so. The RIAA is pissed because they hate these so-called "theives" because their business model is becoming outdated. To combat that, they want to make the government freeze-frame innovation.
Wake up. This greedy group of companies are the real theives. They seize ownership of the work of artists, and then pay them shit for it. Let's fight those bastards by downloading MP3's like crazy, and then giving the artists the money directly. Simple! It's cheaper for you, and more profitable for the musicians! What more do you want?
Why bother.
It's called Congress
yep, those dangerous 10 years old Palestinian stones are really a threat. That's probably why Isreal kill them.
This tirade from the record industry is to be expected. Fair use is now dead with the current state of laws in this country.
_ __
Right now, even the use of DVDs you own out right are in jeopardy from laws regarding circumvention devices. This is all so insane and this comes from someone that does take these issues seriously and votes accordingly.
Corporate America makes the heart of the country beat because our culture based on the bottom line. Unless you want to go Socialist and I don't then you accept this.
However, I do not think that gives the corporate powers that be the right to trample on the personal rights of the citizens to actually use the products they spend good many for, including copying that material to a different format and using it in that medium (from CD to mp3 of course for example).
We also know the insane diregard for prior-use in copyright and trademark law as well.
Laws simply have no clue about technology and see all use of technology beyond a corporate money-making function as suspect.
That is the scary part that know one really talks about.
_______________________________________________
ACK
"Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music."
Actually, this primarily hurts the pirate. Other people aren't particularly benefitted by someone else encouraging investment in his own taste in music. If Britney Spears fans don't pay for her music, non-fans won't be hurt by her going into another business, and people who actively dislike her won't have to hear her on the radio or at parties any more.
Encouragement or non-encouragement of further production is very much a private, individual issue.
I mean, it's a statement of the obvious isn't it? We can argue until the cows come home about alternative methods of funding music, but on a straightforward level, surely the above is right? Surely if people copy rather than buy, less money goes to the artists, which means fewer artists able to support themselves?
And what's the deal with this...
Aside from being over the top, it doesn't follow on from the previous statement at all. It doesn't even follow from Rosen's desire for taxpayer funded enforcement of copyright law.
Current copyright law (the DMCA) is absurdly over the top. The RIAA is doing some pretty absurd things to enforce it. But I don't see why Rosen's quote was singled out, it actually makes her look quite reasonable. And suggesting that anyone's proposing treating copyright breakers as war criminals makes you look silly and ensures the real arguments you might have against the current copyright regime, arguments which are legitimate and need to be heard, will be ignored.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
This is exactly what we should all be afraid of.
If things keep moving in the direction they are we are looking at the new Witch Hunt of the century.
It is very frightening.
10 cents? 0.10$? So if the CD is 20$ and artists ony gets 0.10$ it is 1/200? 0.5%? This is near nothing! So when I would be artist and I make CD and 10000 persons buy it and pay 200000$ (the full fortune!) and I only get 1000$? Do you think it is honest to pay so small? Why artists are accepting this? They are making the music so they should can just say no and go to this companys who would get them 90% of profit. Why its not hapening? It would be ilegal?
- Vlad.
Why is this score 0?
Oh, because we all support Israel's war crimes. They're doing the good fight "against terrorism"
To quote a debate in the house of commons: "This house knows state terrorism when we see it"
I'm starting to host small community wikis on my home box ( http://wage.packet.org ) for writers, poets, musicians and others who stand about as much of a chance to land a contract with a media outlet as they have of contracting diseases of the rich.
I've been wondering why some of the bigger names in the industry (those with a conscience, that is), like the folks in the Recording Artists Coalition, or people with huge clout like Stephen King, etc., don't get together and start their own media business. (I hesitate to call it a "label," 'cause there's really no reason to restrict this to music only).
A company that treats its artists well, with reasonable contracts, easy outs, maybe even "a la carte" marketing costs (not "hey, we'll do everything we can, and tell you how much you get after it's all sorted out", but "hey, you want us to buy an ad on MTV? Here's what it'll cost you. You wanna do all your own promotion on the internet? Here's what it'll *add* to your monthly checks.")
A company that isn't afraid to act as an advocate or promoter for the artists, rather than for their stockholders.
Am I crazy? Does such a beast already exist? Or would they be beaten into submission by the RIAA and the other big players?
If a company like this had real backing, and were to sign some big names (king, dave matthews, billy joel, whatever), then I'd think they'd have a chance of actually succeeding.
Maybe (and now I'm getting REALLY crazy), set themselves up as a non-profit company? Hmm....
Actually, that seems very high. For example Michael Jackson got $30 million for Thriller, which sold 40 million copies. That is $0.75 per copy.
He is one of the biggest names under the RIAA banner. Lesser names would get even less.
Since she brought it up, lets discuss crimes "against each of us":
Just my $0.02
It's interesting to hear Mr. Valenti of the RIAA admitting this, because it basically implies that they don't own anything. I'm sure he did not intend to make that point, but he did.
Sure, the RIAA keeps trying to impose copy protection on their content, but as Schneier eloquently explains, their efforts are futile:
When asked about the accessories that were sold with the jackboots, the store owner had this to say: "Well, they bought a lot of DoorBusters and ski masks. Though I thought they would be interested in bulletproof vests, they said that where they're going, they don't need to worry about that."
Along with the sales spike in jackboots, MP3 players, also known as "The Devil", have started to slump.
"Yeah, well, we heard about the sales spike of jackboots, and decided it just wasn't worth it anymore." said Timmy Malone, admitted pirate. "They're taking all of the fun out of it now, with rummaging through our stuff." Right after the interview, Timmy was kicked in the groin and arrested.
Local police chief was quoted as saying "I wish we had this much power."
When asked about the tactics that this new intellectual police, or "iPolice", they said that there was nothing to see here, and to move along.
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
Just a thought. Weren't we talking about that fortnight ago?
I'm all for the copyright police -- as long as their #1 enforcement priority is in ensuring fair use. Write that into their charter, and give us strongly codified fair use laws, and it'll have my seal of approval.
Not that there's a chance in hell...
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
My emphasis added. Holy living fuck. Looks like I'm gonna have to go buy me a permit.
GMFTatsujin
Ms. Rosen really needs to get a clue. Steal one, buy one, do something Hilary! At this point your presence HURTS your cause! Hilary, you personally represent everything EVIL about the music industry. I now re-post an open letter I wrote the other day: Hilary: I live in Los Angeles, having been transplanted from Boston. Radio here purely SUCKS...there's the usual Britney Spears stuff on five stations, a couple of old rock stations and most of the rest is spanish. To keep my sanity, I frequent the websites of stations I used to listen to in Boston (to be specific: wbos.com and wxrv.com). I look over their playlists, download many of the songs and listen. If I hear an artist I like, I buy their CD. I've probably bought a dozen or more CD's so far this year due to the ability to preview the songs off the 'net. These tunes are ones I'd NEVER HEAR on the radio here in LA!Hilary, I buy CD's BECAUSE I can hear them on the net! Are you listening Hilary? Let me repeat in case you missed: I buy music because I have the ability to download songs and listen to them from off the 'net. If I didn't have that ability I would have bought quite a few LESS CD's then I have! Why? because I wouldn't have KNOWN about the artists! I CAN'T LISTEN to them on LA radio because they don't PLAY them on LA radio! Now, I know that you claim that sales are down because of downloading. I have another reason why sales might be down: Your product sucks! I'm in the 25-54 prime money earning/spending demographic you ache to serve. Why then aren't you serving ME? I HATE whiney girls like Mary J. Blige. I HATE guy groups like n'sync! Yet, this and classic rock are all I hear on the radio in the second biggest city in the country! If I were you, I'd be kneeling down and THANKING GOD that people like me have the ability to preview music from an alternative source like the Internet. Instead, you bitch and whine about it while trying to sue every site out of existance. It doesn't make sense, Hilary. I'll admit that some that download music from the Internet don't buy the CD. Let me say to you that a good percentage of these people might not have bought the CD anyway. So, what do you lose by exposing the music to them? You lose nothing....In fact, you might well GAIN by this. How? Some of them might play the songs to their friends and THEY might buy the CD! Hilary, I'm in the radio business. There's a saying in this business that goes: The only bad press is no press at all. It seems to me, Hilary that this applies to the music business as well. In other words, the more a song gets out there (ie: is heard, by whatever means), the better off the music business is. I only wish you and your industry would get a clue, Hilary. I've worked in business for over 30 years Hilary. When I was 15, I worked in an ice cream parlor. On the back of the bathroom door there was a poster of a lion with a caption that read: "In our business, the customer is king". It's too bad that the music business considers it's customers to be criminals, Hilary.
What? You want a pirate copy of RedHat? Go ahead.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
>I am also a taxpayer and do not want this.
|Sarcasm on>>
But you are not a PAC, cannot bribe congressmen,
so what you want doesn't mean shit..
|Sarcasm off>>
That is what is wrong with the USA..
Maybe it is time for the 1 million geek march on
capital hill...
This court is a very bad idea. Brought to you by the same sort of global government types that under Kurt Valdheim made some very antisemitic rulings.
In a different thread, your statement would be labeled FUD.
Strictly speaking, of course, we are all wrong. The International Court of Justice handles cases between States, the new International Criminal Court is where the copyright violators will be tried, along with war criminals, etc.
It is meant to take action where a country is unable or unwilling to punish major criminals. It is in the tradition of the Nurnberg Tribunal and the more recent ad hoc tribunal about the atrocities commited in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
It is not difficult to understand why the US prefer to create their own tribunal on a case by case basis (Vietnam is one of quite a few potential "issues").
And yet, what is happening to Milosevic et al. serves as a warning to governments all over the world. The advantages outweigh the problems by far.
> I guess Rosen won't be happy until each and every
> pirate is charged with crimes against humanity and
> convicted by the International Court of Justice"
The US has to accept the court's authority first... until then US citizens can't be sued.
It seems to me that many powerful political figures first start out their careers with a genuine interest in the position or idea that they feel strongly about, with the urge to pursue it and convince others.
Along the way, however, if success has come to them in small amounts, the bigger a figure they become and the more influence they have, the actual fight and not the original cause is what spurs them onwards. It's almost as if once they get going, they're afraid to stop lest they lose prestige, power, or the cause they have been fighting for rolls backwards down the slope of success.
I believe that Hilary Rosen has gone beyond the line of "genuine, meaningful cause-fighting" and into this "don't let go or you'll never get back on the horse" syndrome. All of a sudden, the fight has become her personal fight; the rewards and setbacks are her own, reflect directly on her current power and reputation.
The problem for all of us, in this, is that she won't back down. She'll never back down until she retires, has health problems, or just falls over dead.
Case in Point: Bill Gates. Is it just me, or has that man become the most weanie person on the stand? He has gone from large, powerful, can't-touch-me-attitude, pre-litigation CEO to a stuttering, shocked, I-can't-believe-they're-actually-suing-me ex-CEO, to a psuedo-confidant clear-as-spring-water wuss. M$ is clearly (to me at any rate) his personal fight, and he's being whacked and whacked and whacked until he's a climber on a sheer wall that refuses to let go.
This is going to be a tiring fight, folks, if you choose to fight it (and I do). Ever cornered a badger? Ever tried to play catch with a grizzly's cub? If you enjoy being disembowled, I encourage you. Noone ever said the fight was going to be glorious, but in the end, perhaps we'll have won something we truly care about.
Blog,Twitter
Apparently, the post disappeared, as do many toplevel posts, for unknown reasons. Maybe it's a bug?
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
I guess my age is showing here (I'm 29), but in some ways I see the RIAA's point. No I don't support federal "shock troops" breaking down your dorm door to take your pirated CDs. But, it appears that we have a whole generation of college-age people who have become used to paying $0.00 for their music. My brother-in-law is 19, and he hasn't purchased a CD in three years. Sure when you look at the micro level, what difference is it to Sony Music if a college sophomore is burning CDs at 3:00 am in South Bend or wherever. But at the macro level, this all adds up, and IMO not just for the huge labels but for the individual artists as well. I'm an amateur musician but if I had an album on the market, I think I would be interested in making enough money to continue a recording career. If you folks who pirate music are so interested in these artists and their work, why can't you support them? Where, exactly, do you think their royalty payments come from? I purchase my CDs willingly because I know I'm helping these people continue their careers. The bottom line for me is, would I be willing to shoplift from Tower rather than pay? No, and in my mind, copying pirated music is the same thing. Sure its accessible and easy to do, but that doesn't make it right. Or maybe I'm just old, after all I was buying vinyl until the last store in town stopped carrying it.
8 bit computing - It may be 2007 out there, but it's 1983 in here!!
Maybe old, but I found this yesterday. Though it was funny.
Recording Artists Safety Guide to the Beach
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I guess Rosen won't be happy until each and every pirate is charged with crimes against humanity and convicted by the International Court of Justice
No, she won't be happy even then, and you know why?
The ICJ's maximum penalty is life in prison. Yep, no death penalty for those pirates. Unacceptable!
Try setting your comments threshold lower. It's still there.
J
Actually royalties paid for playing performances on radio, in stores, etc. are paid to the song writer, not the performer. Part of the DMCA was designed to allow the performer to get a royalty as well, off internet performances, CARP (in my opinion) mistakenly set the royalty payments too high.
I will accept that the label rather than the publisher is getting money from the sale.
-Rusty
You never know...
We need IP to be a priority within these [CHIP] units.
Considering that the CIA just warned of a Chinese cyber attack on the US , I really doubt that CHIP units are going to start devoting more time to a few 15-year olds trading MP3s.
Every single citizen does NOT have their own personal body guard looking out for them at all times. Why the hell should a coporation or group of corporations have that type of protection, paid for by the people? This is insane. If they want their IP protected, they should pay for it themselves. This is the RIAA we're talking about, they got multi-billion dollar companies behind them. But they want the people who keep them in business to pay to protect them... What's next!? wait, don't answer that I don't want to know.
Ever notice how the "free" market is "buyer beware" and "seller be protected by a raft of legislation"?
gokubi
Read The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
Forget that. It's time for a 1 million geek march onto Hilary Rosen's lawn! Make it REAL clear what we're angry about. Besides, that's likely to get better press coverage. Everybody these days feels the need to do a march in DC.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Rosen is talking about people making unauthorized copies of recordings on DVD's and CD's and selling them in large numbers. Can we at least agree that this particular activity is piracy, even if sharing MP3's over the Internet isn't? With regards to this piracy, I think the recording industry is well within their rights to demand relief. This activity is, in fact, directly diminishing their revenue. In this case, they are not talking about siccing the CHIPs on FastTrack users. So don't fly off the handle.
If they had a device, that could enhance your brain to have perfect memory.
Would listening to friends CD, and then remembering a perfect duplication be a crime?
Because I choose to store my memories on a magnet, why should I have to pay to access it?
Excellent idea. This artical ranks right up there with the "We want to fund NASA by taxing SciFi media" I want to see a massive grass roots revolt against this sort of idiocy. How many people downloaded Napster? if even half those people were to organize and hit the suggested links Rot26 suggests, the RIAA would be so ass out of luck and maybe, just maybe the labels would realize just how deep of shit their digging themselves into...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
"If you can't protect what you own, you don't own anything," Valenti said in a statement
Lets turn this around a bit.
"If you can't freely use what you own, you don't own anything." - Me
Weird. I could've sworn that just a few minutes ago, the Parent-link had cid=0 in its destination, meaning the Re: Slashdotted already child comment was effectively a root comment.
(This has been happening a lot lately, which is why it didn't surprise me much, and I didn't investigate it much further.)
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Sure, an MP3 download is nothing more than "transfering electrons from one source to another". But get real for a minute. The source of that MP3 can be nothing else but a COPY of a CD. What is your alternative to downloading that MP3? Paying for the CD (or tape or vinyl). And that purchase equals a royalty payment of some sort for the artist does it not? So by not purchasing a copy legally, you are depriving the artist of money, period. Sure the labels are greedy. But the vast majority of folks aren't voluntarily donating to the artists whose work they download, so why can't you pony up the bucks for these musicians you claim to appreciate?
8 bit computing - It may be 2007 out there, but it's 1983 in here!!
I'm apparently in the minority. A college student who doesn't listen to music, doesn't buy Cd's and doesn't download MP3's. I believe my position gives me a different perspective on this issue.
The fact is, music is too expensive for my tastes. I'm a cheap bastard but an honorable one and I just cannot justify spending 20 bucks on a CD unless I like every song on it. Most Cd's just aren't that good.
As for the RIAA, I think they are greedy corporate types, but the world is filled with them and America wouldn't be what it is without them. I do oppose taxpayer funded control of their IP rights because, because I believe that the MP3 trade actually helps CD sales and I don't want my tax dollars going to something I care nothing about.
I also dislike the "big brother" side of having more people watching my online activities (not that I do anything illegal).
Finally, if the RIAA did manage to destroy all music sharing, I think things the industry would split. On one side would be all the corporate backed monsters who rely on the tours to rake in most of the money. On the other side would be so called independents (who'd probably get together in some fashion) to start their own model of business.
Not that I care much about what happens, but I think it will work itself out in the end either way.
Hillary is spreading disinformation by confusing the subjects. Apparently he considers it all the same: private copies someone makes of his own CDs, people giving private copies away to friends, filesharing over the internet, and large pirate-outfits which press commercial grade CDs by the millions and sell those large scale to consumers who can't tell them from the original.
In this way he tries to make criminals of all those people who (often well within their rights) burn their own music on their own CDs, and puts them in the same league as professional criminals. I really have no sentiments for an Industry which thinks that lowly of their own customers, and i think many people who see the RIAAs raging against their own customers, while at the same time exploiting the artists, feel the same.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
HAHA. Am I the only person who found this post to be sarcastic?? The fact that it so perfectly mimics the standard piracy-speak of those large corps, it surely was meant to get a rise out of everyone. Like those fake reviews Something Awful puts out, just to get loads of flame mail so they can mock the morons who sent em in. This message could just as easly be modded Funny.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
What label is that? "Troll Records"?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Go ahead Uncle Sam, enact this.
I will then simply cease filing a tax return. I might even write a letter explaining my reason for doing so. Go ahead, try and collect, and watch it turn into a media circus as I scream about it on Slashdot (thereby transmitting it across the globe). Come on, I DARE you.
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
I've been wondering why some of the bigger names in the industry (those with a conscience, that is), like the folks in the Recording Artists Coalition, or people with huge clout like Stephen King, etc., don't get together and start their own media business.
It happens in the publishing business every so often, usually by editors. Baen Books was founded/is still run by science-fiction editor Jim Baen. Del Rey Books is now an imprint of a much bigger publishing house, but it was originally the baby of science-fiction author and editor Lester del Rey.
I don't know what the status of Del Rey Books is these days, but from the outside, Baen Books looks like a pretty cool outfit. They are pioneering unencrypted e-books at reasonable prices (Baen Free Library, Webscriptions) and they are one of the very, very few publishers who still read and buy manuscripts "over the transom" (not submitted through an agent). Certain big name sci-fi authors have moved to them from other publishers, so they must be doing something that makes the authors happy, too.
There are also a lot of minor record labels founded by musicians and minor people in the industry, but I have no idea if they are any fairer to their clients than the big labels.
---dragoness
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInqu iry.asp?userid=0DZTYC0CAN&mscssid=NL38K8FKPLVT8HJ8 75NGN49A4A9N2W9D&isbn=0399144463
She could learn a thing or two from this book. When the cheese moves, Mrs. Rosen, you move TO IT. Not the other way around!
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
It's not piracy at all ... it's "distributed buying"!
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I see no problem with having tougher enforcement of intellectual property rights - so long as those property rights are themselves justifiable. If you think that there should be at least some IP rights, you ought to accept that the government has some obligation to take care of the enforcement of those rights. The real problem here is not that the RIAA wants IP rights enforced, but that they are demanding rights which are unjustifiable.
Of course there is a matter of priority. If your car gets stolen then chances are the police will do very little about it. I see no reason for the police to go to greater lengths to protect the IP rights of corportations than they do to protect the real property rights of individual citizens.
BTW, the stuff about piracy being a crime against us all is true enough, but applies equally to any other kind of theft. Shop lifting raises prices. Burglary raises insurance rates. Any kind of theft will increase the demand for, and expenditure on, law enforecement and private security. So the claim that there is something especially bad about piracy is BS.
...stop buying music, robbing the RIAA of the capital they need to buy politicians? I buy only used CDs and music I can get online from people that are in no way associated with the RIAA. It's all legit, I get what I want, and the labels don't get a penny. Win-win.
Not a few artists have done just that after getting famous and finally having some pull. However, rememeber that the labels also own the distribution houses, have handshake agreements with the major radio stations, etc, etc. Just because you start your own label doesn't mean you can break in.
"Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music."
And the MPAA's abusive contracts, anticompetitive activities (Such as lobbying to limit media to approved formats only.) and attempts to drive music sales with music videos and standard, radio friendly songs doesn't? If "diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music." is a crime, than Hillary Rosen and her industry cohorts should all be in jail for life.
Oh great, now all the musicians who are only in it for the money will go get a real job, and all that will be left are musicians who LOVE MUSIC.
Artists will always invest in the creation of music to achieve the artistic goals of personal expression as well as the entertainment of others. Distributing the music only becomes the crime of piracy when folks like Rosen don't get their cut of the profits. Boo hoo.
All Success in this kind of activity can acomplish is to popularize arts under open licences.
I see efforts by the RIAA like this like I see the BSA, it is the symptom of a problem raising peoples awareness of the negitive impact of itself. The problem being lenghty(infinate) copyright stay and binding contracts you don't have to physically see or sign prior to purchase.
Officially free to watch and copy Internet TV here we come. Sure it won't be the same content, but it will be targeted to an audience that marketers know is smarter anyway. I'm sure a couple of reality shows, a few documentations, and a variation on junkyard wars would be a good cheap start. TV will now have competition, thank you TV police.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
http://cosmo7.com/riaa.jpg
So the RIAA wants a taxpayer-funded IP Police?
Fair enough; how about we repeal the "piracy tax" on blank audio tapes, VHS tapes, CDRs, etc since that doesn't seem to be doing the job.
Would that make them happy?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
It's great that we will pay for the effort to invade our privacy.
Thank you brother, may I have another?
Wrong. An MP3 is encoded audio. Audio can come from many sources. I listen to many artists whose music I obtained directly, via MP3. No CD was involved. And it doesn't have to be MP3 either, of course.
Digital audio formats are not an added step after purchasing a CD, they are direct competitors to CDs, for doing the work of music distribution.
First of all: Most of the money from sales of music goes to marketing of music. This is because the music listening public are too stupid and sheepish to be immune from being convinced to buy whatever crap BMG wants to sell. This marketing machine payed for by record companies does more to stifle the creation of music than CD pirates ever could. Since local bands could never spend so much to convince the public to buy their stuff, it takes a back seat to the stuff on MTV. Most of the value of the music IP that the RIIA is worried about is not in the music itself but in the marketing investment that the record company has made in pushing the music. For example: Britanny Spears mad diddly off her first album, but could command huge $$ for another one since the record company had already invested mega $$ in marketing her.
Is this maketing a service? Should we thank the record companies for bringing us music we might not otherwise know about? I think not. I think that especially with the internet, bands can show the world what they've got easily, and people can find it on their own. In this wired age record companies who once were the only way to distribute music find that they no longer serve a useful purpose and are nothing more than leaches on society. They control what is on the radio, so that's what I hear, and that's all I know to buy. Without them the radio would play other stuff by artists who have placed their stuff on the internet for free, and who would be happy if I listened so I would want to go to one of their concerts. Music would continue to be created even if there were no such thing as record companies. Maybe artists would not get rich by leveraging the record company's marketing investment, but maybe lesser known artists would make a better living if they could get a little airplay.
Second of all: Do we want an IP police to tell us what we are allowed to think without paying a fee?
Do you think the cops can shut down p2p file trading of copyrighted material without snooping on everything that is traded on p2p? If the FBI can't stop illegal IP traffic on it's budget and using it's existing powers, then it still has use in stopping kidnappers and terrorists, in fact that 'failure' doesn't tarnish the public's image of the FBI because most people who want music and would rather wait for it to download than pay the money for it at the store download it guiltlessly, and don't want the FBI to stop them.
But if there is a special agency who's only purpose is to stop illegal IP trading, they will called before congress if their agency is innefectual, and they will explain that the task is impossible, and that to enforce the law they need an SSSCA type law, and that Freenet should be banned, and that so should most p2p, and gpl software too.
I would be willing to give up the notion of copyright and the patent systems altogether. What moral right does someone who creates an artifact that represents an idea to the very eternal notion itself? They should own only the artifact itself. Why should we subsidise the creation of such artifacts by granting copyright? I don't think the value of what is created in that way warrants the subsidy since the material created is mostly created with the express purpose of making $$ and not with enriching my life. Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind? If patents are granted to compete with other countries then maybe we should stop the war and sign a peace treaty outlawing patents.
Eat at Joe's.
127.0.0.1 slashdot.org
Last time I checked my history books, plenty of folks were making music and taking money for live performances before the RIAA and friends figured out how to charge just as much for a version of it on a piece of vinyl or plastic & aluminum.
Free music stifles creativity? Bah. It stifles their way of making money from exploitation. If anything, they're choking off less-popular genres of music by deluding us into thinking that the only way to hear it is their way.
-Scott Hutton
In the hearing. Rosen says
"I know that it's not the subject of this hearing, Mr. Chairman, but I
hope that you will allow me the opportunity to thank you personally for your
long record and commitment on the issue of human rights. Your leadership on
behalf of basic human rights for so many people around the world--religious
minorities and refugees in particular--is important to so many of us, and I
didn't want to let this opportunity pass without publicly thanking you for your
commitment to these issues."
So it's not just money that makes things go round. But rather the latitude of your ability to KISS UP
My age will really show here--I'm 40, and I haven't bought a CD in years. Even other members of my family have only bought a handful of CDs in the last 5-8 years, and those were all CDs of classic rock that we've known and liked for years, and used to have on tape before we had a CD player (plus the occasional blues compilation).
Why? Not because we're downloading infringing music; the only MP3s I have are ripped from my legally purchased CDs or downloaded from small bands that are choosing to distribute their music on the 'net. No, I've stopped buying CDs because there is very little new music that I care diddly about. There is, however, a great deal of old music that I like a lot and will continue to pick up now and then, but since I already have large enough collection to play a different song every hour and not have to hear repeats for a great many days, there isn't much motivation to buy more.... unless it is really, really good.
Oh, and the practice of putting out albums with one mediocre track and the rest not worth listening to also causes me to loose interest in buying new CD albums. When I do like a modern artist, I'll wait for the "Best of..." album to come out, because I prefer to have every track on an album be worth listening to. (If Godsmack is around long enough to have a "Best of..." album, I may pick it up). I'll also buy good movie soundtrack albums, because almost all of the tracks are worth listening to. Classic rock actually had groups that produced entire albums worth listening to!
If a significant fraction of people with disposable income have attitudes similar to mine,
(Don't buy new albums, they're crap; if new group has good hits on the radio, wait for them to have enough albums to put together a "Best of..." album; occasionally buy a movie soundtrack or a back catalog item), that just might explain the slump in music sales a hell of a lot more than some imaginary losses to people downloading MP3s.
---dragoness
You're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs).
<SARCASM>I currently have a job opening at my company for a programmer. I would love to hire you since you obviously will be the cheapest employee in the company. Following your logic would give me the ability to pay you exactly $0 since anything you produce would either exist in your brain (pseudo-bits) or on my hard drive (bits again). I can then just make a copy of your work and *poof* its mine. I'm mean they're just bits after all.</SARCASM>
The erosion of people's ethics to limit the concept of theft to apply only to physical items is absurd. Its only a way for people to justify the theft of music, movies, software, satellite TV, etc. to themselves. The further concept that just because the RIAA of a bunch of greedy corporate bastards is just another way to salve people's souls into believing they aren't criminals.
Neither of these arguments changes the fact that it's theft. If you believe that it's anything else you're just deluding yourself. The answer to the greed of the RIAA is simple. Stop buying their product until they smarten up. Within 3 months things will change. Its called a free market system and its works pretty good if you let it. Moving your morals down the evolutionary chain isn't the answer.
-- If it isn't broken, you haven't let my users have a crack at it yet --
RIAA funded RIAA police, who work under the supervision of the EFF. Time to bribe a Congressman.
Their next step will be to pass a law for guaranteed tax payer funded profits.
Oh, wait, they already have that. Never mind.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I listen to many artists whose music I obtained directly, via MP3. No CD was involved.
Of course you can obtain someone's music directly via MP3. I was referring to downloading MP3's of copyright works (aka pirating). Which is why I presented the either/or choice that is valid in that case - either you purchase the music in CD format (or tape or vinyl) legally or you download an illegal copy.
8 bit computing - It may be 2007 out there, but it's 1983 in here!!
before RIAA existed and racked in millions and millions of dollars.
It's nice to see a huge corporations are protecting people's rights to make music. Without them we would have no Brittney or nsync or milli vanilli or vanilla ice.
For real music visit these badasses.
"..incentive to invest in the creation of music." what nonsense, the RIAA doesn't even do that anyway. 'Incentive to manufacture pop' might be an accurate description of what it does, but I can take no pity on the folks who brought us the Backstreet Boys, NSync, 98 Degrees, Britney Spears, and a boat load of other talentless phonies. Hey, I wonder why album sales are down?
Wouldn't it be interesting if we the listeners started a movement to boycott CDs in favor of those artists who choose to distribute their music electronically, free of charge?
If the movement were publicizen enough, the RIAA would no longer be able to credibly say that CD revenues fell because of mp3 piracy, because it could be countered that CD sales are slowing because people are listening to smaller, free artists instead.
Kevin Fox
OK, so who is on the committee where Hillary testified? Let's flood the chairman with emails and faxes stating that we oppose the use of taxpayer money to support this special interest. Just like with the flood against Senator Disney's bill.
/. congress!!!
We'll
First of all, you are absolutely correct about the RIAA only looking out for their OWN protection. They don't give a dåm about the artists. But it's sickening that you think that their greed is a justifiable cause to steal profits from them.
I Like your idea about paying the artists directly - but you don't realize that most record labels OWN the rights to the profit on that music, and (even if people did pay the artists directly) they would have complete legal rights to the money you send them. In fact, the artist could be sued for everything they own if it was ever found out. Most record labels are pure evil, and have already (through the use of lawyers) though out every way that an artist can beat the system.
Independent artists are the way to go such as found at: http://www.audiokingdom.com The only reason they are not popular is because they don't have a billion-dollar marketing machine behind them to brain-wash everyone into wanting their music. If you REALLY want to help the music industry, turn off your radios and your tv's and start supporting your local artists instead of the ones that record labels brainwash you into supporting!
ALSO: you are completely full of shït if you actually believe that downloading an MP3 (one that isn't 'released' by the artist) is not stealing. It certainly IS stealing - there is no way to get over that fact.
Your pathetic rhetoric about 'electrons and such' is revolting! How can you justify your actions when you already know how little artists make from labels, and how they are trapped into contracts? I can understand downloading songs that are not available on the shelves, or live recordings, and stuff that you can't order from a catalog, but we all know that the majority of the piracy that occurs is music that is available on the shelves!
C'mon people: get a job a buy the friggin CD! Do you think that artists actually spend hours upon hours working hard to make an album just so that some little punk can download their music on the web? If they didn't think they could make a living producing music, most of them would be flipping burgers at Denny's or driving busses for a living. When you download an MP3 (or copy a friends CD) rather than buy the CD, you are completely undermining the careers of these musicians.
If an artist wants to support the MP3 movement by releasing their songs that's fine. Download to your hearts content. Many respectable artists such as Chuck-D have a fantastic vision for music - but it's not a reality yet. Just because one artist says it's ok, it does not mean that they are giving you permission to download everyone elses music.
If you even had an ounce of creativity in your blood, you'd soon realize that copying ANYTHING that is copyrited is determental to the dream that people can make a living doing what they love.
PS: This exact same concept applies to programmers and 'big-bad software companies'
Only Batman can save us now!
Yes, it hurts the labels, and yes it hurts the artists, and yes that is wrong, but that doesn't make it theft. From Merriam-Webster, theft is
Clearly, copying information of any kind (be it a song, movie, book, etc) is not theft, as I am not depriving the rightful owner of their property.
The people who create the information that I desire a copy of deserve to be paid for their time and effort in creating it. The people who facillitate my obtaining it deserve paying for their time and effort in getting it to me. That is the system we have currently - the artist makes the music, and the label distributes it, hence, they both deserve a share of what I pay for it. If a system could be put in place whereby I could obtain the music I want directly from the artist, the need for the middlemen would go away, and so should they. They would no longer deserve any of my money.
To answer your sarcastic analogy, if I as a programmer work for you, you pay me to produce code. You do not pay me to be able to copy the code that I produce for you - once I have produced it, and have been paid, it is yours to do with as you wish. You can keep it to yourself, sell it to people, or distribute it for free via your favourite p2p app. This is possible precisely because intellectual property is not the same as physical property. I only have to create it once, and you can produce as many copies as you like, without my help, and for little or no cost. To my mind, it therefore makes little sense to pay me more than once for it.
Copyright is an artificial concept, created so that companies such as yours can make money selling things that are easily reproduced, and so can give people like me, who create things that are easily reproduced, a job. I support copyright (but not the ways in which it can be and is abused), as it helps keep me in a job, and keeps others producing stuf I like, but to suggest that intellectual and physical property are the same is just plain wrong.
"...it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music"
I would think that the RIAA is doing this without the help of 'piracy'. As long as the RIAA says "Pay a premium for albums instead of individual songs...", and "You cannot copy your music even though you can copy your music...", and "We're going to create a contract with you, Mr. Music Creator, so that you can get little to no royalties."
Personally, if I were a music maker, I'd find a better job. I'd want a different, more reasonable, organization to publish my music.
"Derp de derp."
You do not pay me to be able to copy the code that I produce for you - once I have produced it, and have been paid, it is yours to do with as you wish.
That's covered by the usual intellectual property clauses in a contract, so yes, technically you've been compensated for transferring that right -- it's all part of the deal. After all, you COULD have written code on your own, and then struck a licensing deal that required a per-copy fee. You may not have any takers, but that's always an option.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I oppose the idea of CHIPs units, but if we're going to focus on either piracy or hacking, doesn't hacking seem to be the one that would cause the most damage? What are the effects of piracy offeneses, like copying cds or downloading songs? Now compare that to the effects of a person who commits a DoS attack or breaks into secure records and steals people's credit card numbers, etc. Which one should we be tracking down here?? I can see how it might be different for people who are mass producing and selling copyrighted works - like the person distributing 4500 tapes. They are causing monetary loss on a large scale, but for home users downloading one copy of a song, with nobody profiting from the download, where's the huge harm to society?? Rosen needs to understand that some things take priority over others.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
1) Hilary Rosen gets Zero Tolerance law.
2) Cops seize your iPod with 5G of tunes.
3) Cops sell it at auction or dump contents to the precinct's MP3 server.
4) Either way, Hilary Rosen sues local police for $100B.
5) Not just "Profit!", but world domination, one small town at a time!
(On the other hand, if there's an immunity for cops in posession of MP3s and MP3 playback devices, our cyber-security problem is solved, because every geek in the country will have to work for law enforcement :)
Vladimir Pizdenko wrote:
> Do you think it is honest to pay so small?
There is nothing honest about it. Once upon a time pirates roamed the seas, stealing everything they could get and enslaving anybody they didn't kill. The RIAA don't do murder (that I know of), and they've traded in their swords for lawyers and ropes for contracts, but there is little difference otherwise. Now that they have the work for hire law that they wanted, they don't even have to pretend that an artist's creation is the artist's property anymore.
> Why artists are accepting this? They are making the music so they
> should can just say no and go to this companys who would get them
> 90% of profit. Why its not hapening?
Some of them are protesting, but you have to understand. The RIAA is a cartel, all of their members abide by the same practices. For many years there was no other place to go.
Today, that has changed. Today any ordinary person can march into a CompUSA store and get CD mastering software for their Macintosh for a couple hundred dollars. They can pick up sound proofing from a hardware store, go online to get everything else they need, and set up a recording studio in their basement. With the internet, distribution is not a problem. We don't need the RIAA anymore. A cottage recording industry would serve the artists far better (and not enslave them).
> It would be ilegal?
The RIAA's practices should be illegal, but the government turning a blind eye keeps the campaign contributions coming in.
That these sharks would then insist on American taxpayer money being used to hunt down what they call "pirates" is unbelievable arrogance.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infant Girl" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).
Let's give the RIAA support as free Americans. After all, we wouldn't want to be communists would we?
"Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music."
:-)
That cracked me up! I guess everyone feels there is a humanitarian need for paying for music in this world. That's like coal miners saying oil and natural gas are bad for everone because there isn't enough coal mines opening up anymore. The afflicted parties and everyone are usually quite at odds with each other.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Among my inalienable rights is the right to see and hear this world, and the right to communicate what I have seen and heard. These are at the heart of an open mind and free speech, which are rights that any just government depends on, and not the other way around. What has been before my senses I have a right to be cognizant of, to remember, and to portray. I can describe it, I can paint it, I can photograph it, I can record it. And I can transmit my experiences to others. This is "fair use" which comes before the law. No law, whether enforced by a dictator or by a majority, can legitimately encroach on these rights, which in no way remove real property from anyone. The right to be aware and communicate in the world is arguably more fundamental than the right to own real property, since it has to do with the right to own oneself and ones experiences; but in this case there is no conflict with the right to own real property. If you put a high wall around your real property, then I cannot view it. But if you leave your property on view, it is fair use for me to share that view with whomever, and however, I like. Anything less would be theft from me of what is inalienably mine as an individual, and owe to no government, let alone industrial monopoly.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Does this mean I can have a personel security expert stay at my place, watch my network, and get uncle sam to foot the bill?
It is time to fight against the elite who would tax us for our basic goods. We must fight back - it is time for the Seattle Tea Party - tossing copy-protected CDs back in the faces of the stores that sell them, and demanding credit reversals on our credit cards for their purchase.
If one person does this, nothing will change.
If ten people do this, it is just a side note.
If ten thousand people do this, they get worried.
If ten hundred thousand people do this, they will lose.
You must Fight - For your Right - To Party!!!
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Please excuse the following silly question but I have always wondered:
If the recording industry truly wants to prevent exact digital copying, why not simply create their own music format and disallow the use of that format in PCs?
http://www.grammy.com/news/industry/0425riaa.html
First the record companies are going to look for public support for their anti-piracy crusade: legislation, taxes, anything they can touch. I think that from the general reaction to the SSSCA/CBDTPA, it is a pretty reasonable guess that support for these measures will not be forthcoming. If companies like the RIAA want to wage war, the public says, they can pay for it from their own coffers. And they will.
The next step will be for the media companies to take matters into their own hands, spending lots of money on anti-piracy advertising and plenty of lawsuits. They'll lose a serious chunk of change doing this, of course, but in their eyes it will be justified as protection of future revenue.
By this time, consumer opinion will be sufficiently turned against these companies as to foster even broader piracy networks and easier methods of digital reproduction. It's already incredibly easy to turn CDs into MP3s; think of how easy it will be in another two or three years, even with all these new copy-protection schemes. As piracy grows, the record companies will push back even harder; as they push back, piracy will continue to grow.
Meanwhile, as more artists get screwed over by recording companies (like in this Salon article), more artists will see the Web as a cheap and easy vehicle for publicity. Eventually, I predict, some BIG act (and I mean huge) will come up that distributes its music completely free on the web, actually boosts its record and concert sales, and then the wave will come crashing down. Once a huge name is willing to fully endorse digital sharing, to use it as their publicity agent (instead of the record companies), they'll start an unstoppable trend.
After that, it'll only be a matter of sitting back and watching the RIAA slowly fade into obsolescence.
I know this may sound strange to some, but this recent move by the RIAA and their fat slug Hilary Rosen is great news! It clearly is an act of desperation. Why would the RIAA want taxpayers to fund this perverse form of law enforcement? For the same reason that the airlines wanted bailout money from the feds and got it, for the same reason that Amtrak wants bail out money from the government now; analogically, because the cyber fight is draining the RIAA, and they want to pass the bill.
It's good to see that cyber citizens everywhere are winning the battle and aren't allowing the RIAA to dictate the terms of this engagement. You see that is what all of this hoopla is about. It's not about the artists (who are suing the RIAA as we speak), it's not about what's best for consumers (who the RIAA considers criminals), and it's only peripherally about copyright (which the RIAA has leveraged to push its real agenda).
This entire sordid affair is partly about greed, but mostly about control; control of the property (which they essentially stole from artists because these idiots bought into a false fantasy of fame and signed their life away) and control of its distribution. The RIAA is a dinosaur; an RIAA/ClearChannel-o-saurus in one turn and an RIAA/recordchain-rex in another.
This monster refuses to accept that times are changing, and it refuses to change with them. There is no legitimate study anywhere that claims net song-swapping hurts RIAA profits. In fact, the only study I've heard of claims the opposite. The RIAA just wants to control how you hear the music they stole, where you play it, and in what format you own it (fair use? haha) so they can greedily suck you dry by any means available to them and their marketing machine.
The RIAA refuses to accept that their customers' needs have changed. That customers need a product and format that can be shared and played on multiple devices. Instead of addressing their customers' needs, like any good service would do (visit a good hotel or restaurant), they choose to alienate them and brand them as criminals.
Also, the RIAA refuses to accept that the product they presently distribute is actually absolute crap that nobody wants to pay for; that label generated bands like Limp Bizkit and fads like the Backstreet Boys really suck eggs and that consumers are recognizing this crap for what it is - pitiful label contrived shill.
In my not so humble opinion, there were only a few new cds released last year worth buying; Tool - Lateralus, Radiohead - Amnesiac, PJ Harvey - Stories From The City, Stories From The Sea, and the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. The rest was crap, plain and simple.
So it's good to see that in this present, the RIAA is resorting to passing the buck; their stubborness and refusal to change with the times will be their demise, and thankfully, that this dinosaur will be extinct before long.
Keep sharing those songs, those files, those movies; and beat that dinosaur until it's dead.
If Ms. Rosen wants to punish those that dimisish the valuse of IP, she should start at home. ;P
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Piracy does hurt everyone. When someone forcibly boards a ship on the high seas, rapes all women on baord, murders the crew, steals their cargo and burns their ship into the sea (possibly with people still alive on board), its a horrible thing.
On the other hand, I thought Rosen was trying to promote some sort of copyright violation police. I have no idea why she's talking about piracy though, which has nothing to do with copyright violation.
The RIAA and MPAA aren't fighting to protect anyone except themselves.
Just like the people who want to "free the music".
The RIAA has been doing things like this for over 20 years, if it wasn't all about you getting music for free, why have people only started to bitch since the demise of napster?
Fighting so very hard, in fact, that musicians get around $1.37 per CD
They don't have do release their music with a record company, but it's a hell of a lot harder to sell any music without their promotion machine.
Fighting so hard that one musician goes so far as to say that he would rather have his music be given out free than through his label?
Im gonna guess that he was rejected by one of the major labels, and is now bitter.
Not a few artists have done just that after getting famous and finally having some pull. However, rememeber that the labels also own the distribution houses, have handshake agreements with the major radio stations, etc, etc. Just because you start your own label doesn't mean you can break in.
:) ) agree with the goals of this conversation). Add George Lucas to the mix (he's already demonstrated a dislike for the system by quitting the director's guild over not wanting his name before the opening crawl), and you've got serious dollars. Hm. Starting to sound like SKG, isn't it? Except for the agenda, of course...
Exactly. That's why a bunch of little indie labels doesn't really cut the bill. What would be needed is a conglomeration of fair labels under a single entity with some kind of collective clout. They'd have to negotiate decent manufacturing (CD, DVD, books) deals to compete with the big labels/houses. They'd need to work their own distribution system. They'd need their own promoters to work the radio stations and record stores. It would not be an easy thing. But, if they've got a lot of people to do it for, they'd have a chance.
It's really less about being your own label than it is being a competitor to the big machines, and, coincidentally, not bothering to join RIAA or MPAA in the process.
Hell, I mentioned King and Dave Matthews (as very successful artists who might (I've never asked them myself
Hilary Rosen currled up into a little ball in the office giggling on how much she is screwing us over.
At at night when she's home she lies naked on large piles of money rolling aroung going, I'm filthy stinking rich! And I even have the goverment under my fingers!
As you can tell I have a stong dislike for the RIAA and their associated cronies, mostly due to their strong-arm tatic's and cookie-cutter bands.
Om, nomnomnom...
The House just voted to split the INS in two, so what's a few more government agencies while we're at it?
[o]_O
You're buying habits are similar to mine. I buy new releases from 3 or 4 artists when they come out, and other than that I might buy classic jazz compilations and albums. My collection is getting to the point where I don't get bored with what I have. I have no problem with music distributed (legally) via MP3, I was only commenting on the attitude associated with downloading copyright music that otherwise would have to be paid for. I guess its an integrity issue for me, why not support someone you really dig?
8 bit computing - It may be 2007 out there, but it's 1983 in here!!
Hilary Rosen was convicted by the IP police Special Tribunal court for wearing jackboots without a license.
The jackboots in question were made in Guatamala under special contract from the RIAA, and bore a striking reselmblance to apparal donned by German armed forces in the late 1930's. Keeping with recently-adopted copyright extension law, the original design on the boots had not yet expired, and Rosen was convicted of breaking the IP protection mandates that she, herself, had instituted.
"Ve vill not schtand for zis outrageous theft uf our orrrrriginal und trademarked designs," the recently-raised ghost of Hitler announced today, as the verdict was delivered. "It ist only right und proper zat zis heinous theft is punished to ze full extent of recognized law."
Rosen had no comment as she was escorted into a nearby sanitizing facility for hygenic processing prior to her interrment.
GMFTatsujin
"Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music."
As long as the parasites of the recording industry take 95% of the profits from the works the ARTISTS create, they have absolutely NO room to talk about piracy of ANY KIND. It is the height of hypocrisy, not to mention astoundingly arrogant, to actually sit before a congressional panel and whine about how some kid in his bedroom burning an MP3 is ripping the artists off, when the record companies themselves are ripping off artists on a daily basis for FAR more money.
I also found it highly interesting that within the testimony itself, Ms. Rosen is quoted as repeatedly crediting, "US Copyright Industries" as accounting for 535.2 billion in revenue (and various other figures). This is a bit of Orwellian linguistics, I must say. In essence, it makes it seem as if the COPYRIGHT is what is producing the revenue, when in fact it is the artist's TALENT that is.
But beyond that, she goes on to say that the industry grew at "3 times the rate of the national economy", which begs the question, "Then what are you bitching about?" The fact that you're making obscene profits off of the artists who then have to declare bankruptcy after the lawyers, record companies, managers, and accountant parasites have taken their cut?
I honestly don't see how a congressman can sit in front of such laughable testimony and not crack up. [sarcasm]I guess the campaign donations help.[/sarcasm]
This isn't really about piracy at all. It should be (you'd think anyways) fairly obvious that the only reason organizations like the RIAA or MPAA seek to restrain the use of the internet as a means of distribution for works of art is that it presents a real threat to their MONOPOLY over the current means of distributing art to the masses. Control the means of distribution, and you control everything.
Very simply speaking, the price of a good is a result of the supply of it and demand for it. The cost to produce it is a factor in the decision whether it is worth producing, but it has nothing to do with the price the market will bear.
Fight for your right to read books!
You, my friend, have watched Star Wars one too many times prepping for the sequels - haven't you? Errr, then again, maybe it was I who did that since I got the reference... :-p
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Not so... a candidate (at least in every state i've ever voted in) is distinguished by whether they complete the proper paperwork announcing their candidacy and turn it in to the voting commission; they are not "chosen" by the state. This is a purely democratic process--no one is excluded. Some states require a certain number of signatures to become a candidate--again, this isn't something that requires government approval. once the paperwork is turned it, its automatic. All government funding would do is level the playing field so that alternative political parties compete on the merits of their candidates and platforms, not party pocketbooks.
"Several artists have attempted to distribute music via MP3, but the RIAA has smacked them down for doing so."Interesting...I had not heard of this before - do you have a link ? WTF should the RIAA get involved if a band is not signed to a major record label ?
It's not unsigned ones, it's RIAA-signed artists. They wanted to distribute an MP3 of some song or other, but their label smacked 'em down for trying to do so.
Given that this is in their contract, it wouldn't particularly annoy me, except that the recording industry is an oligopoly. Want airplay? Shelf space? A decent producer? It's almost all owned by the RIAA.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Should join the BSA just like the others...
Rick B.
If you can't do what you want with your purchase, you don't own anything -- Customers
I've predicted this several times on Slashdot, only to be publicly ridiculed. It's simply this: either the intellectual property system goes tits up, or the government (or some industry-sponsored organization) has to start going after IP offenders very aggressively. This will probably eventually include fragant willful violators who are simply downloading stuff (like hundreds/thousands of illegal copies of music, ala Napster and so on).
C//
Here come's the flamebait moderation, I'm sure...but I'll say what I think anyway.
The RIAA in this one is sort of on track. Here's why. First of all, I agree with everyone else that the RIAA is a group of bloodsucking (or maybe moneysucking is a more appropriate term) pigs...but they are in essence asking for something that has needed to be done for quite some time. There are two possibilities with the current laws concerning digital media and copyrights. The first possibility is that the government is right, and that this media should be protected in much the same way as physical media should be. I like to say I disagree with them, but part of me says that when I purchase the music I'm much more concerned with the music itself than the shiny media that it's on. And the first possibility is right on. It says regardless of who these artists use to get their work out, they should be protected from being trampled by the general public. The Napster situation here at my university was much like a looting situation during a riot. People knew they could get free music, and so they did. Now, I know that all of the respectable Slashdotters here never did such a thing, but many of my classmates would download entire cd's, decode them, and then burn them in the correct track order. They in essence had the original cd (minus some quality differences). This was obviously not the listening to a song and then buying the cd that everyone speaks about so highly. And in this case the artists of this music were being very blatantly cast away in attempts by fellow classmates to find some sort of pleasure by music.
This first possibility brings with it an idea that stealing digital property is wrong. And if this is true, the government should pursue those who do steal in a more appropriate manner...and treat these people like criminals. There is, though, another possibility for what is right.
Our second possibility is that the government is very wrong. This possibility brings with it some pretty serious consequences. It brings with it the idea that musicians should only be rewarded by getting what the fans think they should get. Nothing more...nothing less. This would most probably be the end of $14 cd's...and also the end of many artists. But...I think under this situation the artists who remain have fans and are doing well. So, this technique could at the same time bring the best and most followed artists to the forefront, and remove the rest.
This second possibility also brings with it something we'd all love. The removal of the RIAA and others. So, it'd have it's positives. I guess, though, we have to decide if what it is that we like is more just general listening to music...or if it was listening to music we like. Because, I have the scary feeling that much of the music that we all like would disappear if it came down to artists not being protected. I mean...would you work full time at what you like best if you could get no pay whatsoever for it, and it involved traveling around the nation full time. And even more important, would your family and those you are responsible for benefit from such a thing?
Hilary, you want all the benefits of digital technologies and none of what you perceive to be the drawbacks.
A simple suggestion then. Go back to LPs and cassettes.
Please, put yourself out of our misery, you flat-earther.
"Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music."
My record label and the artists that write music for us (including myself) rarely make any money for the music we create, yet we are suppose to believe that this somehow prevents us from being creative. I invest large sums of money into this endevour and the only thing that I receive in return is the knowledge that I had done something.
Fuck them!
zenas(prime)
http://www.zenapolae.com
how about ala 1789.
In the old days, the aristocracy had more to lose then they do today...
;)
z(p)
I'm sick of hearing about how piracy hurts the artists. It's bullshit plain and simple. Have you seen some of these artists homes? Million dollar mansions with walk-in closets etc... I don't think piracy is exactly putting them into the poor house.
It would be a different story if you were pirating a small local bands music. They would feel the effects of it more. I doubt Britney Spears or Destiny's Child even notice it.
It's a good thing the world sucks or we'd all fall off.
"Stop buying their product until they smarten up."
That's what we're doing.
http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/sue_5 6k.html
They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive.
You know, I don't download all these smash hits because all I have to do is turn on the radio and listen to them played 4 times an hour. sheesh.
Unfortunately, by substituting purchasing their product with stealing it, all you've done is strengthen the sellers of the product. You become the bad guy, not them since you're the one breaking the law. Now the organizations who respresent the big holders of copyrights have the moral upper hand (boy that hurt to say) and can say, "See what's happening....see how we're being hurt....see all those thieves.....you've got to do something". Gives them plenty of ammo to get lawmakers to institute (although the political donations can't hurt either ;-) all kinds of oppressive laws that just hurt everybody.
-- If it isn't broken, you haven't let my users have a crack at it yet --
but what is the value of intellectual property when the property in question holds no intellectual value...
fortunately most modern music that holds any glimmer of intelligence and meaning can be bought on vinyl from independent record companies outside of the U.S. If I really want it on cd -- record, remaster, burn. Whoopee.
Can we agree on 'it'?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
I believe that Hilary Rosen is mistaken in becoming acrimonious with people who use P2P and personal webcasts. These people just want music quick, cheap, and according to their taste. The recording industry does not provide a substitute service and thus they are not satisfying their customers. Consequently, Ms Rosen should be concerned with the new and old business models adopted by the record companies. If she did she would realise that what's needed today is creativity, not security and more legislation.
The "one musician" was in fact signed on with Sony, and he has yet to receive any royalties for any of his music, even after sending numerous letters of complaint.
Actually I can think of a couple situations. For example, Smashing Pumpkins and Offspring both released thier albums on napster in protest to thier treatment by record labels. On a lesser note, many punk bands did this. I knew a guy that ran a very large, anyone that knew of it would have no problem calling it the largest ever. Bands would routinely upload thier albums.
The RIAA has made some fatal mistakes in recent times. The whole Napster bit was the beginning of the idiocy parade. Because of their greediness, CD sales have fallen and many broadband internet companies were forced to close up shop because people didn't want to pay for high speed internet if they couldn't get music at a high speed. They tried to watermark CD's so they couldn't be ripped by one of the many programs that can do it that can be found on the Web. They're threatened with a lawsuit from Philips, holder of the CD Patent, citing that it's not a real CD and is falsely identified as one. Now they want us, the music-downloading general public to pay for them to try to track us down? I think not. The only reason most of us are downloading music are 1) We'er too poor to pay 20 bucks a CD or 2) There isn't a band that's on the market that's worth paying 20 bucks to get one or two decent songs and 10 songs that are barely recognizable as songs. What the RIAA needs to do is go to the executives and tell them to start giving them something that they can actual sell to GASP! music listeners so they don't start taking sales away from their other groups. Wake up, RIAA and start thinking.
No TiVo and no caffeine make me something something...
Rumor has that they have even suggested a Logo And have offered to fund TV commercials...with Ponch and Jon..
"Rosen Asks Government To Reduce Anti-Terrorism Priority"
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Downloading illegally isn't the problem nor the responsibility of the RIAA, nor the software makers. It is the people who own the networks to make sure thier very plainly stated EUL is aggreed with and enforced. With every PTP file shareing program I've seen they have something along the lines of "Do not download copywrited works that you don't own. It is YOUR responsibility to comply with this. It is out of our hands because we have no way of monitoring what goes on, we are simply a card-catalog of IP addresses. HOWEVER if you do download illegally then this EUL agreement between the user and X company will be terminated and the program and all it's backups should be destroyed." This situation is nothing of the RIAA's buisness. It is out of thier hands and they can not do anything about it. Thus the reason WinMX or KaZa or Morpheous hasn't been slapped any lawsuits. Because they got past Napster's fatal flaw. Further more taxpayers should not be forced to pay for any private orginization's security or copywrite issues. Those creeps make over $14 billion a year, they can support thier own enforcement. Public funds should NOT be used in the private buisness sector. That is what defines the difference between public and private. Last time I checked it wasn't www.RIAA.gov, but www.RIAA.COM .
Next thing RIAA wants for their new IP police is:
more jackboots (made in China)
more insignias/badges (made in Hong Kong)
more uniforms (made in Korea)
more weapons (made in good ol' USA)
The very same countries that is undermining the RIAA's goal.
Good grief.