Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Now Targeting Retailers
merodach writes "According to this story on Headlinenews.com the RIAA is now targeting retailers in it's 'war on piracy.' I think everyone will agree this is something that should be done if the retailer is deliberately pirating. The thing I wonder about in hearing this news is how many of the retailers include used copy stores. With the way the RIAA and some artists *cough*Garth Brooks*cough* have labeled these stores as pirates and theives in the past it seems likely they would be the biggest targets. Have any in the /. crowd actually seen one of the letters sent or know how many of the targeted businesses are used stores? Further - how would the RIAA know how much to demand in 'settlement fees' and is it possible these are being used to shut down the mom-and-pop outfits that trade in used CDs?"
Anyone have details about this? I can't find anything on google. Who is the "they?" Is this Illinois law, or Chicago or Cook County? Is this even true that I would have to have my photo and SSN taken when I buy a used DVD? Are the RIAA and MPAA behind this? What the hell is going on?
This is old hat. Many stores (like the unnamed retail chain I work for) explicitly disallow returns of CDs/DVDs because once the plastic on the outside of the box is broken they cannot return them to the manufacturer. If retailers do accept returns of open CDs/DVDs, then they take the hit...which goes to show that the **AA are jacking more than consumers.
of course their declining record sales have nothing to do with the public is now fed up of mass marketed pop music where record contracts are won not by original musical talent and song writing , but by nieve and desperate individuals in f***ing competitions while real talent falls into the gutter, leaving a trail of destruction in its path while the instigators get rich.
The only thing killing music is not kids downloading mp3's or pirating dvds at market stalls
why is it that so many companies have so much contempt for their customers and choose to be greedy instead of actually concentrating on superior products ?
I've been with EMusic for a while now too, and for the most part I like 'em.
However, be aware that it's not totally unlimited now. There are a number of posts on CNET from customers who have had their accounts terminated after downloading too much in too short a time, and when I asked (quite politely) their customer service department about this, I got a response back that started:
"Although EMusic is an 'unlimited' service, there have to be some restrictions on this policy. EMusic is similar to a buffet advertised as 'all you can eat.' For the restaurant to be successful, it has to have reasonable limitations that apply to people that stay too long, eat more than their fair share -- or waste food."
So their definition of unlimited means unlimited up until a limit. They claim in their e-mail that it's "more than 2,000 tracks in a 30-day period", I haven't personally tested this myself.
At least in the time since I got their e-mail (November 23rd), they've changed the "Unlimited" on their webpage to say "Unlimited*".
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. If you buy a product and are not happy with it then stores should allow you to return it for a refund. It's that way with any other item, it should also be that way with software and music.
There is a lot of hype that gets thrown our way to purchase particular music and software titles. The marketing drones try everything to convince us that something is great and that we must buy it. I say then that they should stand behind their product and offer a refund if it truly doesn't live up to your expectation. Would this get abused by some? Sure. Do I care? Not really. If they want my money then they can earn it.
Nope, it's what the press release was designed to do.
CNN reported that there were 421 burners involved. CNN was wrong. There were 156.
The RIAA's press release used "new accounting math" to turn the 156 actual units into the equal of 421 units of "normal speed" drives, whatever speed the RIAA felt like was normal. CNN took the funny number and reported it with standard units, therefore making the public thinking the operation was close to triple the size it really was.
You watch bud, the first thing they will go after will be used cd shops that carry (soon to be mysteriously) "Illegal" Import CD's.
and to answer you question, I've been in used cd shops in every major city in Florida & have never seen non-legit CD for sale.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
There's an "anime" shop near here that sells a bunch of Japanese imported CDs. Pretty cool but you have to wonder why they can import and sell them for only $12 a piece. The booklet printing never seems that good and I'm inclined to believe they are bootlegs. Not CDRs but bootlegs anyway.
To add to this advice: remember that the ASCAP and BMI licenses are in principle for the songwriters, not the performers. You'll have to be very careful not to play anything that's even remotely close to a cover of a copyrighted song.
I spent six years in the U.S. Navy and I was very proud to do so. The one thing I treasured the most while being out to sea was my music. I didn't have very many CD's because well as many of you might know the Navy like all branches of the military do not pay that well.
./ readers wanted to make a statement maybe we could do so by collecting CD's which we no longer have an interest in and send those CD's and DVD's to the men and women of the armed forces. These people are protecting our freedom, let's give them back theirs.
It really bothered me when I read how the RIAA went after people in the Navy for sharing music. When your half way around the world or just a few mile from the good ole USA you don't pick up radio stations too well if at all as in most cases.
I think if
Every ship has a mailing address and they do accept care packages.
The only reason the RIAA went after the military is because it was an easy target which they could control.
Actually, if it was done in the way you described, this would fail. A book publisher tried doing this about 100 years ago, and the case established the doctrine of "first sale". The publisher tried to control resale of the book (using something very much like a shrinkwrap license).
The courts ruled, to simplify, that the normal terms of copyright were more powerful than the attempted contract. The purchase of a book (or in your example, a CD) is a copyright transactions, and is subject to the rules of copyright.
So does this mean we have nothing to fear? No, here is what they can do instead. They create a CD with some type of limit against reproduction and/or resale (I don't quite know how they would do the last, perhaps burn a computer system ID onto the disc). The protection does not have to be foolproof, just good enough to meet the legal definition of "effective".
Once they have done that, it would be illegal (thanks to the DMCA) for you to circumvent the protection. That is precisely why the companies want to push "copy protected" CDs, because it allows them to use the full force of the DMCA to limit your actions and presumably make them more money (by giving them more power).