Slashdot Mirror
RIAA nominated for "Internet Villain of the Year"
Joey Patterson writes "Slyck reports that the UK's Internet Industry Awards organization has nominated the RIAA for its Internet Villain of the Year award because they support "'right to hack' proposals and other unworkable solutions to curb copyright abuse"." Congratulations to them on being nominated for this prestigious and appropriate award ;)
It's sad to realize, that when you step back, all that this will amount to is a good chuckle for the geek community and a *shrug* so what? from the record industry. What needes to happen is for publications on what the RIAA is doing to reach farther than the tech community and get on mainstream news. Of course, for reasons you can already probably figure out, it won't.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Does everyone really think the RIAA is evil for not letting people get away with piracy, or is this just the usual wanky groupthink?
Ok, I'll bite and reply to the troll...
Piracy is wrong. I agree with them on that. But trying to get legislation passed that would allow you to hack, cripple, and even disable networks and computers that you just think might have copyrighted material on them is worse than piracy in my opinion.
By your (And the RIAA's) logic, since I own the copyright on this post, and I'm pretty sure it is on your computer since you are probably reading it, I should now be legally allowed to hack your computer and bring it down because you have my copyrighted material on your computer. See why we don't like the RIAA now?
They won the award for hacking into peoples computers, which may or may not be a pirates. Who really knows with IP Spoofing, etc .. For all we know, they could hack into some CIA machine and wipe it out because someone spoofed the address .. Joy of joys. Read a little, would ya? The RIAA is evil, no doubt. But not because of piracy, but because their sales model is failing and they can't see it's obvious that $15 CDs cant compete with feature loaded $15 DVD movies with the soundtracks included as "extras" as an afterthought. They dont want to come to the conclusion that the only way to make money is to sell their music CDs for 5 bux a pop, cuz thats all that they're worth today compared to music based feature rich $15 DVDs.
ts.com, who "is Europe's leading online ticketing service, enabling venues and promoters throughout the sporting, entertainment and travel industries to sell, market and distribute their tickets directly from their own websites.".
Anyone want to take bets who won't be getting a lot of contracts with RIAA member-backed acts if the RIAA wins this one?
Pardon me for speaking for many on /. but:
We don't think they're evil, we think they are greedy. Most of the RIAA's actions toward computer and consumer electronics technology have been driven by a desire to control their customers. Many of the industry's business plans were built around locking in customers to pay-per-use media distribution schemes or straight CD sales.
Recently, they've tumbled to the fact that campaign contributions can cause legislation to skew in their favor. They've "requested" laws that make fair use illegal, and require that disabling technologies be embedded in any consumer device. Essentially, they've asked the U.S. government to create a "safe" market for them.
There's a precendent for this: RCA attacking, then coopting the whole television thing out from under Farnsworth (television's inventor).
The RIAA's actions do little to prevent piracy. For example, the measures asked for only apply to the U.S. electronics market, and the most serious piracy happens overseas, in China. China's suppliers will not manufacture devices for that market that include crippled features when it is cheaper to manufacture and sell devices with all the features enabled. The manufacturers would be forced to add the technology to sell in the U.S., but they'd simply raise the price a notch or two to compensate.
The RIAA's moves are bad for consumers, and especially bad for computer-literate folks like those at /. Evil? Perhaps not, but very, very greedy.
This isn;t about stopping software piracy, this is about authority. The RIAA as a private company has no authority to do that, and it should stay that way. Any enforcement of copyright violations should be delt with by the goverment, and ONLY the goverment, which has been elected by the people and for the people. The RIAA is not a goverment agency and therefor has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO law enforcement.
Even if it was the secret service, they still need a warrant from a judge. The new law would give the RIAA Jurisdiction to be cop, judge, and jurry over the internet.
A lot of people on Slashdot seemed to think that Alan Ralsky (the spammer) needed more things. A nomination might be nice too. Another conviction, better!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
However, ultimately, the success of a business depends on it's customers. If we buy RIAA CDs, even as used products, we support their methods. If we go out, find other music, and purchase those non-RIAA CDs, we support an alternate model that depends on quality and personal customer service, not mass appeal and copy protection. There is no way to legislate the RIAA from destroying the right of fair use anymore than there was a way to legislate Wal-Mart from destroying main street. In both cases, the presence of customers determines success.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
". If we buy RIAA CDs, even as used products, we support their methods. "
It has been my experience that many independant/small artists get there first "distribution"(usually self made) from small 'used' music stores. If we didn't buy Used stuff from them, they wouldn't be able to support themselves as a Business, and then there would be even fewer outlets for independent/small artists to become 'known'.
OTOH it has also been my experience that artist who complain about the riaa's methods would happily accept a contract with them. If the people creating the content won't bite the bullet and use alternative means so they don't get screwed, how can the consumers be expected to boycott?
the only way to fix this is to create a music production/distibution company that doesn't enforce the draconian methods on the artists the current music companies do, and to entice signings by giving a higher percentage of sales, and not lovking them into more then 2 or 3 records per contract.
Of course that means:
a)low to no signing bonus
b)musicians will have to actual have a track record of sales before they become rich.
c)Huge start up capital.
I consider both a and b to be good for music and consumers, but not to enticing to the big name musicians.
*Bold added by me
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Maybe if we're lucky congress would win and this will get some press. Maybe then congress will realize they're destroying one of the largest industries in the country so they can pander to the puny entertainment industry. Along with that whole taking away freedom thing. A wake up call like that award could maybe help a bit.
Then again, maybe not...
It's gonna suck in a decade or two when the entire computer industry has moved to a a free country and talking about moving out of the US to get a job will get me thrown in jail as a terrorist.