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
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.
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
Yeah, it's because there are no term limits on our congressmen or senators so the lobbyists have a lot of time to dig their claws into these easily corruptable individuals.
I don't think congressmen was ever meant to be a career... I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind. We need term limits so that we get a constant cycle of new ideas and new people in the legislature... and to make it harder for lobbyists to get their way.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
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..
"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!
...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.
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)
...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
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.
As opposed to fine, upstanding politicians like, oh say, Chirac and Le Pen.
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.
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
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.
I'm sorry thats a crule and unusual punisment.
:-)
You could however make them the piece envoys to the Middle East; I seam to remember somthing about the healing power of music
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
"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.
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.
Aren't all the soaps in Europe from the US and simply dubbed over? Maybe they should do this with CSpan coverage.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
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.
Most lobbyist sicken you?
They shouldn't. The FSF have lobbyiest. When your a little guy like us lobbyist are the only way to get your views heard by Senators.
Think about it. Big corporations have access to Sentors because of how big they are. You and me? Well, we don't have (for the most part) big corporations that represent our interests. So, we donate and become members of orginizations (FSF, EFF, NRA -- yeh, most of you problably won't like that last one) that DO have the money to influence to lobby for our position in government.
Getting rid of the lobbyist is the FASTEST way to guarentee(sp) that your view will NOT be heard by our Congressmen. Without lobbyiest ONLY the rich and powerful (corporations) will have access to influence (corporations don't need lobbyist to get access to congressmen).
If you want your views heard, after you write/call your congressmen join non-profit orginizations that repressent your views. THAT is the best way to get Congress to hear your voice.
Not enough of us are joining FSF or EFF.
hmmmm. I am sure some one could arange that :-p
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
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
Crule? You mean, the enemy of X-Force?
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
"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?)
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?
My emphasis added. Holy living fuck. Looks like I'm gonna have to go buy me a permit.
GMFTatsujin
>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...
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
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!
sheesh someone modded me down as offtopic?!?! silly moderators... so someone wanna explain the reason for people with mid-level karma getting to mod the most?? ya would think the high level 40+(like muh self and others) would be able to mod more for having better karma... sillyness... our the slashdot editors from NJ or sumthing??!!?
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.
"I don't think congressmen was ever meant to be a career... I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind"
begs the $10,000,000 question - why did the founding fathers fail to put what you're sure they had in mind down on paper?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
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.
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
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
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
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.
why did the founding fathers fail to put what you're sure they had in mind down on paper?
Perhaps it was just accepted that being a senator was a part time occupation.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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
"..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
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'
Markets require consent. If you don't like the RIAA's terms, you're free to withhold your money and walk away. You're even free to form your own music production company if you prefer, and if they act anticompetitively, call the FTC. But the RIAA can not forcibly take away your money unless you've seized something from them first.
However, infringing on their copyrights is a one-sided transaction, and THEY are not required to consent to that. Unilateral, involuntary transactions are more commonly known as "theft".
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"...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).
"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.
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.
Actually, I think you'll find that a lot of American shows are based on older shows from the UK.
That may be the case. France is the only country I've been to outside of North America. In the few days I was there visiting I saw several soap operas and quite a few of the current US prime time shows that were being broadcast. I do not know the % of what comes from where as I don't follow the entertainment industry at all. I just thought it was odd to see so many US shows. The only shows I've ever seen in the US that were dubbed over were old Godzilla like flicks.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
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.
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
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
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
I have 50 karma, I get mod points (just used my five for today), and I would have modded you down as off-topic, too.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
I have 50 karma, I get mod points (just used my five for today), and I would have modded you down as off-topic, too.
Well aren't you fucking special?
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//
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
The 'law' of supply and demand gets broken when the providers of the supply collude, and agree on pricing.
This is why there are anti-trust laws. The fact that CDs are as expensive as DVDs is a symptom of the record companies illegal control of the industry.
rbb
(Please insert 'alleged' above wherever needed.)
"Stop buying their product until they smarten up."
That's what we're doing.
http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/sue_5 6k.html
So the reality is: 'piracy' SHOULD hurt the artists, the ones who aren't all over the Top 40. However, that would assume fair dealing on the record label's part. Few artists (apart from fierce self-motivated acts like Metallica) can even negotiate for fair dealing, so in PRACTICE, 'piracy' doesn't hurt the artists, because they are already making zero money and have zero chance and zero hope.
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.
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.