Slashdot Mirror
Rosen Floats ISP Fee Idea -- Charge Everybody!
iconian writes "Hillary Rosen of RIAA wants to impose a type of fee to ISPs which in turn will be passed to all their customers indiscriminately to recoup supposed damages done by file-sharing. The RIAA considers downloading music illegally over the Internet to be the moral equivalence of stealing. I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?"
I don't understand why the RIAA thinks they can get away with this kind of thing and NOT have more consumer-backlash! All of these different things the RIAA is doing (flooding networks with bad files, installing "worms" into servers, etc) is just making me less likely to purchase anything from the RIAA.
Ah yes, the "Tax everybody for the crimes of the minority" scheme. you just have to love the busted logic. Where's the love, indeed? Joe over there was speeding so you get a ticket too! I see...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Hey - I'm all for it! If I'm charged a fee for downloading music, by golly, I'm going to download music!
Once I pay $0.01 in loss 'fees' to the RIAA, I consider myself licensed to download whatever is available. If I'm prevented, they should be prepared to be sued for failure to deliver a service for which fees were imposed.
... I want representation.
Did you know that in many countries taxes are levied on CD writers and CDR discs because of piracy?
But, put that aside, one can argue this Piracy Tax with logic.
If the RIAA wants to impose a levy on ISPs because of possible file sharing, then shouldn't software companies be allowed to impose a similar levy? And if the RIAA can impose it, what about indie labels? Their music gets stolen too. What about artists who put their graphics online? What about font designers whose fonts get ripped off on alt.binaries.fonts? Surely they should all get a cut?
Logic shows this whole idea is stupid. But will logic be enough to stop the courts? I doubt it. Aristotle said 'The law is reason from my passion'. Not in 2002 it ain't.
mogorific carpentry experiments
I seem to recall that this was the sort of thing that sparked what we call the "Revolutionary War." Taxation without representation, anyone? This would be like the state mailing speeding tickets to everyone with a driver's license because a lot of people speed and get away with it.
Does anyone have Hilary Rosen's home address or phone number or something? I think it's about time she got the same treatment (or worse) as that king spammer guy. Stupid whore.
...chaining Rosen to a post and charging everyone a dollar each to whip the Nazi? The music industry would be rich.
I would like to claim damages from the RIAA for CDs that I've bought which had only one good song. $20 for 'Hit A' and 55 minutes of 'filler'?
Maybe the weather reporters from the news should charge the internet for giving it out for free too.... just a though.
What aobut all that free pr0n? I think Playboy has a case too.
And don't forget about the Postal Service!
Then it certainly means swapping music will become legal, right?
Tell you what. I'll give the RIAA and MPAA each five dollars a year if they'll simply stop trying to sue and get file sharing banned or whatever they're doing. Anyone else find it funny that a corporation is trying desperately to tax us? Corporations can't tax! Interest groups can't tak! Only the government can tax.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Well, I will tell you this, I will completely stop feeling guilty about any mp3 or ogg files that I download if I start getting forced to pay a file-sharing tax. Translation: I will download and NOT buy the album.
This is as absurd as taxing every blank digital medium that gets sold in America, in case they're used to pirate music!!
oh.
Wait a sec.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
Why work when you can get laws to do it for you? Sit on your ass and collect welfare. Get a lawyer a sue, sue, sue. Put out a halfassed product and get the government to force people to deal with you... it'll happen more and more as people's ethics and actions look more like the Clinton's.
This is about as bright as the already in-effect tax on writeable media. It goes to the RIAA et al to reimburse them for piracy. So we pay for piracy and still can't do it.
Just when you thought that the corporate-owned government couldn't screw us in a more blatant, shameless and imaginative way, along comes Hillary...
My
Limekiller
You call us criminals, and you impose a tax on me for buying CD-Rs (that I use to backup my home directory on), and you flood our p2p networks with garbage and dDoS attacks to make it difficult to use them for even legitimate purposes, and then you throw all kinds of legislation to congress and all kinds of pressure to tech companies to make fair, legal things I do with my computer illegal, because "I might" do something "bad" (i.e., not in the interest of keeping your pocketbooks full) at some point in the future. And now, you want to charge me even more?
Hilary Rosen, congratulations. You will no doubt be the first against the wall. I sincerely and wholeheartedly extend this "Fuck you" into your general direction.
Then I'll start downloading pirated music, which I don't do currently. I don't have a single file-sharing app on my PC (unless you count MSN, FTP, et alius) and don't use those for much other than moving around source code..
But if they make me pay an ISP fee to download pirated music, and they reap profits from that, isn't that the same as selling me the right to download said music? As far as I'm concerned, it is.
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
Extorting money from everybody then means the music is paid for--right? So everybody, since they already paid for the downloaded music, can then download it legally. ;)
Or is this like Industrial Gas Companies charging for the oxygen they weren't able to bottle?
... and in return I'll actually start downloading music. Up until now, I've never really bothered with music downloads frm p2p systems.
But if they did this, I'd leech and share songs until the proverbial bovines return to their domiciles. After all, I'd be paying to do it, wouldn't I?
I wonder which universe these idiots live in...
For some reason I was typing while scratching my ass. Shoot me :-)
Let's just create a media tax on all Americans. I'm sure they can find some nice people in Congress to go along with it for the appropriate cut of the eventual tax.
I propose 5% of your income go to media artists, with RIAA being given full control of distribution.
So in the analogy world, is that kinda like...
The RIAA charges NJ Transit because apparently, some people from NJ are going to Tower Records in NY to steal CDs... but the thing is... They're using NJ Transit to do it!!! Bastards!
Heh... so... is that the appropriate analogy here? Any other fun analogies out there?
Guess they REALLY need that 6% back huh? heh.
Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
Let me see if I get this right: 1. Complain about piracy 2. Lets charge per tape because we have our music pirated. 3. ?? 4. Profit!! 5. Complain about piracy 6. Lets collect tax from ISP because we have our music pirated. 7. ?? 8. Profit!! 9. Complain about piracy 10. ?? 11. ?? 12. Profit!!
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
3) Profit!!
But then again, my opinions are as much wanted as the music of the RIAA!
"I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?" That would be rape... or maybe just beating them up... but I'd still go with rape - seems more in style with RIAA and the likes ;)
If this goes through it sounds like dictators are running the show. Yes, it is that bad. What will be next? A special fee for everyone because Ashcroft doesn't think the Americans give enough at church? Or a computer fee for Microsoft because everybody pirates their software? How about a fee for every computer to pay off the software companies?
The RIAA needs to be killed off, it is bad for the people. It is no longer about music, not even in the least. Those of you who are allowed to vote in the states, make sure you vote for people who don't support the RIAA...
I think that it would be real easy for ISPs to determine which of their customers are file-sharing, and which aren't. I mean, the people who have over 50GB of transfers per month aren't exactly downloading pr0n... are they? /me examines his 50GB pr0n collection
Okay /. its time to be proactive..
How? If Hilary Rosen thinks its okay to tax us lets tax her out of buiness!!!
HOw? Civli disobedience..fill her snail mail address with everything from p2p sites fill her real email with teh same stuff.. make it so hard for her to be online and the rest of RIAA employees that they give up the freakign fight!
If you are ready start posting the whois and other info here on this thread..
Time to kick on RIAA's own door!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
So I buy a CD and I get punished because other people 'steal' music. Way to go!
-- Cheers!
They're planning on charging the ISPs and telecom companies for giving us access to file sharing networks. So instead of money changing hands (since internet access prices are already pretty bloated and they won't want to pass on additional costs to the customer at risk of losing business), the ISPs will probably just start port blocking and not pay the RIAA. The RIAA can't charge them retroactively. What never makes sense to me is that whenever these charges come up, shouldn't it give us a guilt-free pass to pirate music since we're now officially paying for it?
They're going to milk this whole "sales going to be down 6%" junk for all it's worth. I bet we'll see it in every related article until 2004.
Charge me $10 a month for pirating, and I'm licensed to download what I want. Let's see if *anybody* buys music once it's legal to download it. I can't see how this is going to make them extra money. In fact, I think they'll lose money. Why would -- hey...
Let's let them do it! Would you pay $10 a month for a year if it made the RIAA drown in their own stupidity?
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
I am getting so tired of hearing about the RIAA's attempts to squeeze everyone for more money. If this works, what's to say they stop there? Next thing, it's let's get the people who but Dell computers, they ahve a statistically higher average of downloading music from Kazaa than Gateway users! New computer tax for Dell previous/current/future owners! All musicians rejoice, your payday has arrived!
quod me nutrit me destruit
I'd kill a geek to be in the room when she gets told where to go.
And thanks /. , this made my weekend. Im laughing my fat ass off hear over it.
Let me see if I get this right:
1. Complain about piracy
2. Lets charge per tape because we have our music pirated.
3. ??
4. Profit!!
5. Complain about piracy
6. Lets collect tax from ISP because we have our music pirated.
7. ??
8. Profit!!
9. Complain about piracy
10. ??
11. ??
12. Profit!!
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
I'm not sure if this post will end up funny, insightful, informative, or interesting, but here goes anyway.
1) The name Hillary has serious connotations to it. I immediately think of annoying, overzealous, stuck-up bitches like Ms. Clinton and Ms. Rosen.
2) Every CD-R disc that you buy is taxed and portions of the money you pay are given to the RIAA and similar organizations. So don't tax my Internet bill as well, and don't take my portable MP3 player either. Some of us actually use our own bought music to listen to.
3) With every new inane law or result of a lawsuit that I hear, I get one step closer to leaving the United States. It's becoming a bloody corporate rape scene here in the States and I for one am just about at the end of my rope.
4) Corporations should not control the government. We need to run the country, it's supposed to be our government. Let's let the citizens reign free and make America the best country it's ever been but without excessive taxation for wanting to listen to music or chat on the Intranet.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
Pretty little packages...
I've had it with this type of thing. I'm going to sign up to be on the next mars probe. Question, is Mars far enough away? Seriously though guys, this will continue to get out of hand until more people, yes even the /. group, start to take actions against them. These include, but are not limited to, writing your congressman, spreading the word to the other lemmings of the world, and first and foremost don't buy OR download music. Maybe if we could get enough of the new yet unknown groups to agree to NOT sign a "RIAA owns your soul", we might be able to make those on-line per song basis sites really work. Because after all, it's about the music and the artist. The RIAA is just along for a free ride at BOTH our expense.
In Canada, everyone pays tax on CD-Rs and other media, no matter what they're used for, unless you're a church or blind. Soon this tax will be applied to any and all media.
I'm tired of being guilty until proven innocent.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
...all the potential money lost by people simply not liking the endless repetitive music that's churned out by the record companies? Are they going to start imposing fees on everyone who doesn't buy their music?
downloading music illegally over the Internet to be the moral equivalence of stealing
Well, it is
However, this attempt by the RIAA is ridiculous.
John Kerry is a Joke!
Here's a better article.
:P
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-981281.html
In it, HR's more sane suggestion is to urge
"major music labels, which include Sony Music, Warner Music, EMI, Universal Music and Bertelsmann's BMG, to ease licensing restrictions, develop digital copyright protections for music and invest more in promoting subscription download services."
Sounds like a good plan to me.
The only thing she forgot was the "oh and offer music at a fair price"
Sometimes it seems paraphrasing is the main source of news on Slashdot.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Is it any different than those who have been buying retail via the 'net and NOT paying local taxes all the while the federal and local governments overlooked it for their own reasons and benefit (mainly letting the net and online retailing mature and grow until big enough to take to *slaughter* tax-wise and building out of infrastructure). Now, the late adopters will pay dearly.
- Gentlemen, start your hybrids!
I mean, does someone actually think is some sort of smart idea? How many americans actually support the RIAA? Is it just the money-makers that have a say to the laws?
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
If i am paying (directly or indirectly) the RIAA becuase i am using their music, then they have charged me useage fees and it should therefore be legal for me to use the music on the file sharing networks!
The recording industry already has a tax on most computer media in Canada.
It's already 21 cents per CD, and is going up to 59 cents soon. There's also a fee of 21 cents/megabyte for digital camera memory and tiny HDs because they can also be used in mp3 players.
Taxing ISPs is probably just the next logical step up here
Jason
ProfQuotes
If it is stealing to download music,
Then it is stealing for record stores to not take back crappy music.
I stole this comment from another story, but it was a while ago and it stuck with me.
Isn't much of the digital media like DAT Tapes and CD-R's taxes already for such a purpose? And isn't the RIAA copy-protecting CD's in a way that essentially mitigates the supposed harm that they were going to get from the sales of the recording media?
But you know, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd pay $10-20/month for unlimited acccess to a large library of music. If I paid this through a tax and it protected me from the RIAA trying to mess with on-line trading, I'd almost be okay with it except for two big problems:
1) People who didn't use P2P would get no choice in the matter
2) The money wouldn't be going to non-RIAA artists whose songs could be traded just as easily
So, good theory RIAA, but go back to the drawing board.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Ya, there is some damage done by P2P, but can they really prove that a person would actually buy the product if there was no pirated version available?
They already have gotten away with that (them and the MPAA). They got a price markup on audio cassettes and video cassettes, to pay for the pirating, and no one complained about it.
Imho, this sort of thing just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want. If I'm going to be paying a markup for it, might as well take advantage of it.
Oh, and I haven't bought a single music CD in the last 3 years. And I'm proud of it. Once a system is in place to pay money to artists directly, I'll put some money in towards the artists I like. Until then, I ain't paying squat.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
They do this, then artists not associated with the RIAA sue them for their fair share. Anybodny know the formula they decide for the payoffs for the CD-RW and R media?
here's an idea RIAA,.... EAT a DICK!
Why stop here? The RIAA could lobby for a law that everybody has to pay a fixed percentage of their income to the RIAA member companies. Once this is done, they could even stop producing music at all, which has the additional "benefit" that they don't need to worry about copyright infringement any more.
The RIAA is, without a doubt, the worst PR group in history. The only thing they haven't done yet is to alienate most of the buying public. That step is coming if people who know about the issues keep spreading the word.
I wonder if there is anyone left who can claim that file sharing/music stealing is a bad thing and keep a straight face. Me, I copy discs from the library, from my friends, and from gnutella. The only music I've bought in the last two years are discs by artists who market their work under their own small labels such as Karen Savoca (go buy her stuff if you like cool folk).
The RIAA represents labels who turn out 95% crap anyway. I won't be buying anything from them and I'll keep up to date on the things they are doing to steal money from me. I'll also make discs for my family and friends whenever they ask.
Come put me in jail, Mr. RIAA spokesman. Until you do, let me know if there's a disc you need copied.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
As per the article:
A top music executive said on Saturday that telecommunications companies and Internet service providers (ISPs) will be asked to pay up for giving their customers access to free song-swapping sites.
Sounds to me like the 'bouncers-union' has identified some sites which are successfull enough that they ought to start 'offering their services'. Anyhow, sounds to me like they're asking you to pay a cover charge to go into a night club. I'm not sure that's entirely unethical or unreasonable.
The RIAA considers downloading music illegally over the Internet to be the moral equivalence of stealing. I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?
Paying a cover charge, perhaps? You don't have to drink alcohol at a night club; but many of them will charge cover whether you get drunk or are the designated driver.
wrt Kazaa and the like:
"It's clear to me these companies are profiting to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. They must be held accountable," Rosen said.
When did I give Kazaa money again...?
This is why, when you go to Fry's, there are both the cheap computer CDRs and the more expensive "Digital audio" CDRs. As a result, I get to pay the RIAA for the privledge of copything my music to CDR, since my CD burner is one that only accepts HRRA media. 1
The RIAA needs to realize that we are no longer in the early 1990s. They can not get congress to pass something like this without the general public knowing what they are doing and suitably protesting.
- Sam
Well, OK, I don't, since there is a firmware bug that allows me to use normal CDRs.
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
And consumer backlash about bad files, worms, etc? P2P is mainstream. Knowledge of what the **AAs are doing is not mainstream. I got some no-RIAA and no-MPAA stickers from ThinkGeek awhile back. Every single one of my friends (who all use P2P programs) had to ask what those 2 organizations stood for. Very few people who use P2P know about the **AAs and what they're doing, so how can they be pissed about it?
live(free) || die;
Registrant:
RIAA (RIAA-DOM)
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW #300
Washington
DC,20036
US
Domain Name: RIAA.COM
Administrative Contact:
McCaffrey, Howard (HM66) hmccaffrey@RIAA.COM
Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
202-857-9618 (FAX) 202-775-7253
Technical Contact:
Global Network Management Center (VXGTRUVDOO) rm-hostmaster@EMS.ATT.COM
AT&T DNS Service
3324 Hollenberg
Bridgeton, MO 63044
US
314-264-9672
Fax- 314-264-9647
Record expires on 26-Oct-2005.
Record created on 27-Oct-1994.
Database last updated on 18-Jan-2003 16:42:22 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.128.106
DMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 12.127.16.70
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
If we all donate a little money I'm sure we can find a very skilled professional that can make her drowning look like an accident. Donate via PayPal!
"just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want"
and ths makes me triply motivated to rip and put up my CDs for download. until now I used to allow only 1 user at a time to download from me, but now I will make it 10. look for kazaa user oggfan.
a world with TCPA, DRM, paladium, etc etc...
This is simple abuse on theyre part. They want to hijack the internet, ISPs , CPUs, Players and BIOses. These people are the reason why nobody trusts anything nowdays.
Sure scream I WONT USE THE ITNERNET THEN. erm , i dont think so. you couldnt Live WITHOUTH it.The reason they get away with this is beacause YOU SUPPORT THEM, you buy CDs , DVDs, Dont say you dont,. the rest of youre family does I bet. Nerds around the world dont have that large an impact. Its mom n pop n teenage sisters they want money from.
RANT_MODE=ON
I can't believe what I'm reading. Where do people (and organizations) get off coming up with ideas like this in the first place. I'll be damned if I'm going to let some organization tax my use of the internet just because their "shown to be corrupt" business model can't handle a slow down in the economy, and because the organization can't figure out why nobody wants to buy it's crap!
It galled me when "they" got away with the audio cassette taxation! Why should I pay an extra fee that supposedly goes to music artists when I don't use the audio cassette to record music. There are other conceivable uses you know!
It will gall me when they finally succeed in taxing blank CDR's. I have them know, I don't put any music on CDR! I do have other, more legitimate uses and I shouldn't have to pay a tax to back up my digital photos, or my income tax records, or my home movies! Give me a break!
This one is for you Hillary! Wake up and join reality. Your sales are down because the global economy is in the crapper. Food is more important than new music CD's. Rent is more important than new music CD's. And frankly, people don't like what you have to offer! I suggest you quit trying to find alternative, highly questionable, possibly immoral, streams of revenue!
As for buying music. Yup, I buy music! Local artists do exist you know! Their music tends to be better (i.e. more original than the latest teeny-bopper) and the CD is cheaper! What a concept! A $10 CD with decent music! Not a single artist I buy is affiliated with the RIAA. It's called a boycott! Get used to it! We are not your sheep! Time for you to return to the concept of "The customer is always right!" Maybe then, you will see some customers return, but don't count on it!
The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination.
This bitch needs to be stopped. Any idea's on how we do it?
I guess I can now download 40GB of MP3s, this is getting really annoying. I can't even rip any of the new albums I've bought, it's made me less motivated to buy albums and just download them from the internet.
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
Soo if they're doing this to offset the costs of people downloading the music illegally, it would in turn make sense that you're paying for the music. And so any music you get from there out would be legal. Make sense to anyone else? Sure...that's probably why it'd never be the case.
This is just hilarious. To demand taxes on pirating is by in view to make it legit. I mean, if you pay then you should have the benefit of the payment too right? Fines i can understand but a broad tax that applies to everybody is just plain stupid. The tax you have paid gives you the right to pirate, or doesnt it? Else its a punishment on people who havent done anything, not everyone copies their music you know. Maybe the hospitals should start taxing the NRA and the police?
I cant even begin to understand how theese people think. They are like a ten headed hydra pulling in all different directions.
HTTP/1.1 400
No taxation without representation, bitch.
Go ahead. Tax us.
When you're tarred, feathered, and tossed in a harbor to meet Davey Jones, don't complain.
Arr.
I said ARRRR.
I think that the RIAA is wasting all of their time battling P2P networks because the concept was originally theirs. The concepts behind Napster were actually leaked into the 'wrong hands' and spread too fast for the RIAA to control. They were planning on changing their business model, but too many free alternatives to their pay version of the RIAA P2P Network popped up. They're just not willing to give up on it instead of innovating again, and THAT'S why they keep coming up with these zany solutions.
You, sir, are either a troll or a moron. When you pay taxes to the government, it's because you use their services. I buy maybe 3 CDs per year. Not because I am a pirate, but because I don't like anything that I can buy. Now why should I, a broadband customer and legal owner of my entire playlist, be forced to pay for a service just because I happen to have an internet connection?
Fuck that.
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
Meanwhile, Kazaa and Morpheus claim tens of millions of registered users who download a wide variety of tracks for free.
[snippage]
"It's clear to me these companies are profiting to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. They must be held accountable," Rosen said."
I'd like to see her supporting materials that back up this position. Or is she just spouting off yet again sans substantiation?
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
I don't even download mp3's . Am i supposed to pay the fines for someone that downloads music when all i download is software .What RIAA is trying to do is make others pay a fine so they become angry at the ones that do download mp3's so that they'll side against them when the laws and punishments are proposed .
Bullshit. A thief today, a thief tomorrow. I'm sure you'll find another convenient rationalization for why you won't pay into that system if and when it does materialize. Face it, you're a thief.
Imho, this sort of thing just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want. If I'm going to be paying a markup for it, might as well take advantage of it.
Rationalizing theft. I probably won't win anyone over by arguing about that, so I won't bother.
Once a system is in place to pay money to artists directly, I'll put some money in towards the artists I like
How, exactly, do you expect that to happen? People learn about artists because the members of the RIAA PAY A SHITLOAD OF MONEY to get their names and faces in front of you. You don't know about artists unless they're supported by the RIAA. Aritsts usually aren't known unless they're advertised by the RIAA. The RIAA needs money for advertising, and that money has to come from proceeds made off of the artists.
It's called economics. It's not that difficult.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Canadians already pay a levy on blank cassettes and CDs. Fine, people who dispicably pirate have to use these media formats.
But most ISP account holders do not dispicably pirate. Why should they pay anything? Because the pirates use the Internet?
There's a few laws concerning "taxation without representation" that this would break in any country.
P.S. Hillary - You rock. No, really. You're my ongoing source of comedy in a dark world. You're the one that got away (from Darwin).
WhatEVA
You the customer gets fucked both ways.
FRA: STFU GTFO
They're dead...and they know it. This is one more in a long line of desperate attempts to keep thier antiquated business model on life support. When they go bankrupt, I'm sure they'll just start suing anyone and everyone, and ask the federal government for a bailout, just so they can drive their beemers for another month before the well runs dry.
We should be charging them for wasting our bandwidth on a zillion crappy songs. "I waited 5 minutes for that!?"
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
I wonder how long before riaa.org goes down again? That website seems to have quite a few people hacking it... wonder how the RIAA made so many enemies?
This guy is way out there
I'm going to setup & advertise an FTP server with my entiere collection of CDs ripped as OGGs.
I can't fucking believe these people!
and what about people that don't download music?
and then what? a movie tax? a software tax? a porn tax?we need a bullshit tax to begin with.
Write your senator before these clowns take over!
there's no place like ~
It's not about money, but pressuring ISPs to disconnect users or block sites. It's a logical extension of their letter writing campaigns to schools, which were mostly successful at scaring universities into blocking/punishing. Schools are ISPs of a sort, after all.
The IT slump of the past few years has led me more into more time of a consultant than a full time admin. I have several clients who pay me a small monthly retainer in case anything goes wrong. I make a little less cash, but then again I can work on other projects.
//s, and we all use linux, so whats the problem? Don't give me the argument about you ain't got the time to rip it? You had the time to poke around the net and download the song ten times till you got a good rip?
When I go in to a company and check a network out, top to bottom, server to workstation. I 99.9 percent of the time gigs of mp3's, pirated applications, and everyone has Kazaa. And for the next week everyone hates me cause I disable downloads, remove kazaa, block ports, and lock down the network. Not to mention find that some savvy employee is running an ftp server, or using company bandwidth to sell his wifes beanie babies.
I also am an on call tech for Dell. Usually this is installing new systems, doing data transfers. In short making the new system mirror the old one in software and data.
I have yet to hear someone say" Yeah all those mp3 are from CD's I own" "Here is my original copy of office xp" I get handed burned CD's and hear things like "dude you can get all the music and software you want off the internet." And this is not teenies nor young adults. But people into their 50's. I will not install anyting from a burned copy and a scribbled down serial number. They get burned, they are gonna point the finger at me.
I love my work. But if I had a dollar for everyime some client calls me to fix something, install something and then teach them how to download(steal) music and software. I would be a rich man.
I download music. I can remember the last time I bought a CD.2 years ago. I can always claim that all the Cure, Bill Idol, 80's hits, on my hard drives that I did once on the LP(probably in moms attic) so I am entitled. I gess if I wear out my copy of Nueromance, I can just go take a new one, free.
Recently I did a an 8 station wireless network in a wealthy mans house. Plus two laptops. The house is a Kazaa nightmare. Guy can afford CD's but he doesnt buy them.
I think the government shouldn't regulate or charge for info, but I think we on the internet have proven that we pirate and steal like crazy. I am a 33 year old admin, old fart in the business. I have many colleagues, and we pass warez around like crazy, and giggle about it. But we admit it. We do not try and take the moral high ground.
I am tired of hearing about all this bitching about our rights are being impugned. Why dont we all petition our ISPS to block all file sharing services? Doesn't take much CPU to rip a CD. We were doing it on P
Jeez, maybe I am getting old. But Kazaa is a pirates playground, edonkey, gnutella, and others.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Next the RIAA will be charging everyone for use of air, since that's the medium we use to hear pirated mp3s.
Bzzt!
"alienate most of the buying public."
False!
"Most" of the buying public doesn't know who the hell the RIAA are, nor do they care. They just want their cee dees, dang nabbit.
He's not a thief. He's already paid the RIAA their fees for blank CD-Rs. So if he doesn't download some music, he'll be paying that money for nothing.
time to hack it again :D sighs , they never learn :D
What annoys me the most about the RIAA is their sense of entitlement. They are buddy buddy with record labels that mass produce mediocre, uninspired music (for the most part), subjugating quality for the promise of profit. And so they spend little time developing crap and then spend tons of money to promote the crap in order to secure that people know about it and like it enough to ensure that their advertising costs are covered. Then when profit comes in they channel it into making more crap that they will be over advertised and thus cost them a lot. It seems like a pyramid scheme. Then they get outraged because people want to hear something before they pony upfor 14 bucks or so. It's like, "Ok this hit single is kind of catchy but do I really want to buy the entire album? I'll check it out online...Oh, wow, this shit really fucking sucks and I am tired of that mediocre hit single now too. It really is kind of boring and formulaic when you hear it more than 10 times." Or something like all that. Then the RIAA freak out like the American public is collectively having a bukakke party all over the RIAA's grandmother.
I fucking hate the RIAA. I am sure there are two sides to this coin or what have you but I always ask myself, "who do you think you are?" Clearly economists and not "artists". There is, of course, far more to address on this subject but my girlfriend is playing Sim City 4 and I'd like to look voer her shoulder and cup her breasts. She ripped the game from Kazaa!!! Ok, not really. None of it. Everything is a lie. The RIAA exasperates me.
This isn't a new law.
This isn't a bill that's on the president's desk.
This isn't a bill that has passed the House.
This isn't a bill that has passed the Senate.
This isn't waiting in committee.
This hasn't even been proposed in either branch.
Hillary cannot propose it in either branch, she hasn't been elected.
Hillary isn't even running for office.
This is so far away from being a law, it isn't even funny. Nobody with the power to make this a law has come forward supporting it. If Fritz Hollings picks it up, then we can be a bit concerned, yet he still needs to convnice a lot of other people this is a good idea before it goes anywhere.
Let's not get too worked up on this one. Keep it on the radar, sure... but there are a lot of other bad ideas that have gotten further in the assembly line than this one, and those are the ones that need our attention.
Not able to get music?? Did music not exist before the RIAA? Did it not exist before Tin Pan Alley, and Casey Casum's top 40 lists?
Brother, I think the question is, where has the music GONE?
There was a time when an artist expected to get paid for his performances of music, and there were many artists, and most of them played regionally. Some of them made a living, most of them didn't. The ones that didn't just enjoyed playing.
Well, these days, some artists make a living, and most of them don't. They tour internationally and expect to get paid for their performances. The only difference now is that the industry (not the artists) take such a large cut, that for an artist to hope for a profit, he must sell in the millions or be worthless.
Where has the music gone? It has gone from being of the people and by the people to being cut up and served from a few mega-stars to the masses who will never have any personal connection to the music they listen to.
In my opinion, therefore, they death of the RIAA *would* be the end of the music world as we know it, and I feel fine. Bring on the new and creative talent!
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
My mother, a standard consumer with nearly no knowledge of how to go about pirating music or burning CDs, pointed out something very simple to me. She said that the price of CDs was the big problem, not the economy so much, and not piracy.
She pointed out how when Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Target have sales on CDs where the price drops quite low, say $10/CD, they sell out of the popular CDs. She also pointed out that in order for everyone to get paid reasonably, the cost to produce a CD would be about $5.
So, when you spend that incredible $20/CD, what are you spending that money on? Padding the pockets of shareholders and paying lawyers chasing "piracy".
My suggestion? When the CDs go on sale, buy 'em. Buy when they're low to show that you WOULD buy them if the were reasonably priced. Of course, getting the CDs you want may be tough then. Additionally, buy used CDs. Buy whenever the music hits a price you consider reasonable. Continue to support your favourite artists by buying t-shirts and going to concerts.
They should really teaching these marketing people some real economics courses. Supply and demand aren't just a simple cross on a chart when you add in alternative methods of obtaining materials. Sometimes crime does pay. Maybe we should have politicians look at it too.
"People are inherently selfish, but still they like to look morally upstanding in others' eyes. No one wants to be the bad guy." -me
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
...So what percentage of this money would actually go to the artists?
And why don't they tax hard drives? What about microphones? How about the RCA cables used to connect recording equipment? How about taxing the air through which we propgate, because, we just MAY be hearing some pirated music running errands around town!? How about copying ones and zeroes??? I think if they're going to do their thing, they ought to do their thing! (sarcasm...)
Ha! It's not theft if I pay 10 bucks a month to my ISP to pay for it.
I always learn about artists from friends, fan websites, and recommendations on Amazon.com, none of which are funded by the RIAA. Sure, if you only buy the latest pop crap, you might be influenced by RIAA advertising, but a lot of us on here listen to music that the RIAA doesn't bother advertising. I feel no moral compunction to pay extra for the RIAA to advertise Britney Spears crap that I don't listen to.
As for the markup, what would you argue? That people should pay the RIAA markup on CD-Rs and then pay again for the CDs at full cost, a price which is illegally fixed at an artificially high level as has been proven in a recent court case? You really think there's something wrong with downloading music for free when you already paid for it by purchasing blank CD-Rs which you need to backup your software?
If getting the "cooperation" of tech companies to implement DRM for them wasn't enough, they now are stretching their already thin luck by trying to get even more ridicules stuff to happen in their favor.
The tax isps idea isn't anything new, they have been whining and hinting at charging isps for p2p for quite some time. I think they are doing this yet again due to the recent publicity and are using it to their advantage.
It could also be that they needed some more free PR. Reading the story just reviles that they are just issuing this threat/demand to help their own agenda, pushing their DRMed pay for services. Not surprising that she is urging her big business label partners to start jumping into pay for services.
I sure as hell don't download their crap, why should I pay their fee? I guess it would look something like "you must be a thief and have stolen our IP, pay us *insert some absurd number*."
I guess we would still be taxed even if we used their pay for services. I would not be surprised that they are trying to get as much cash out of us as possible.
I'll start to charge a $1 tax from anyone who enter my room. This is to pay for possible losses, since they may steal something.
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
And the money still doesn't go to the artists....
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
What did Hillary the bitch really expect? When you've been gouging the public for years with inflated CD prices didn't you think the public would revolt to your tactics?
It's our turn now and we're simply being compensated for the many years of abuse. Hopefully, we can return Hillary, the fat Manitou, back to the Florida everglades where she belongs.
Mod parent down: -1 Rosen Family Member
Taking this to the next level -- I seem to recall that most bank robberies use getaway cars to leave the scene of the crime. Therefore it only makes sense that we should all pay a special road tax which would partly go to the insurance companies (that cover the money stolen, making up for their losses) and the rest to the bank tellers for the emotional distress caused by society having provided the means to escape.
Most of the artists I listen to have nothing to do with the RIAA, and most of the music I listen from them doesn't even come out in CD form. For instance, I listen to a lot of swiss trance and progressive trance, and most of what I listen to in that genre is live sets recorded from the radio. The RIAA has done fuck all to put that in front of me (thank god, maybe it would sound more commercial if they had).
As for the so-called artists à la Britney Spears that the RIAA does expend a lot of effort on, to get them in my face whether I want to hear about them or not, those can go rot in hell. If they all go bankrupt I'll be happy. Finally the airwaves will be free for the types of artists which don't need multi-million dollar marketting campaigns to be listened to. And there's plenty of those, believe you me.
Anyway, in answer to you and the AC before, you, on the theft thing: Theft would be for my benefit - I'm doing this to do my bit to help the RIAA go bankrupt. I'm not making any financial gains by letting other people download my music, so if I'm stealing, where's it going? Huh?
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
... and you're charged every time you buy a blank CD, audio cassette or mini-disc.
21 cents per blank cd, 29 cents per audio cassette, and 77 cents per minidisc.
And the Recording industry wants it increased (a 181% increase for CDs), and wants it added to additional media (flash memory cards and DVDs) as well as to MP3 players.
Ironically, none of the money has been paid out to any artists.
1) It's legal to have an mp3 if you've paid for the music
2) CDs are used for things other than music
3) Flash memory cards are used in dozens of things; I have a digital camera that uses them.
The last time the levy was raised (Jan, 2001 I believe) I wrote letters to various Members of Parliment hoping to get it shut down.
This time, even the retailers are getting involved.
The music industry is a dinosaur. I believe artists should be paid for their work, but the cost of a CD is ridiculous; that money is disappearing into music executives pockets; the artist gets next to nothing. I would pay 30 cents per MP3 to download. No shipping, no retail costs, no packaging. That should be fair.
Wouldn't it be nice if Red Hat or Mandrake or Suse sued the governments (in those countries such as Canada and the U.S.) where funds are given to "musicians" for every cd purchased. I don't file share yet must pay a fee for each cd I purchase ... 59 cents each. At 3 cds each for my Mandrake and RedHat distributions (which I can download for free but must pay a "musician" to burn) that would muliply quite rapidly when you consider the number of North American open source user.
It is quite ironic that an Operating System is offered to me free of use but I must pay a "Musician" for the right to copy it. Mandrake goes bankrupt. These may not be large number of dollars but the fact is that they are being "pirated" by the music industry from the Open Source community.
What a complete and utter pile of crap.
Comparing taxation to the RIAA's attempt to bolster their profits through extortion is completely missing the point.
Although I also have problems with taxation, and it is, in fact, it's own form of state extortion, there is at least the slightest patina of democratic action involved, and it can arguably be considered a benefit to society as a whole.
The above is not only not true for the RIAA, the argument for the RIAA doesn't even brush up against the truth.
To argue for forcing an ISP to charge everyone to meet the whims of the music industry is absurd. Treating an entire class of people as criminals (which is what this suggestion does), to compensate for the actions of a few is far more criminal than the act it claims to be trying to prevent.
Taxation, as bad as it is, is imposed by a government of elected officials, bad as they may be. There is no similar justification for the RIAA. You can argue the merits of the programs and benefits provided by taxation, but there is no valid argument for supporting a business with mandated fees. If they can't support (and police) themselves, they deserve to fail and go under.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
Uhmmm... what about (as posted above a number of times) no taxation without representation?
Would this plan include ISP representatives gathering together in a congress to vote Britney Spears and NSYNC off the island?
Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
Do you get the impression that this bitch has never been laid?
Anyone want to chip in and get her a 12 inch dildo?
So where's our say when these fees are levied? When quasi-governmental agencies lobby for (buy) special laws favorable to them? Is there a price sheet somewhere? They won't be happy until this is officially the US of *AA, and everyone has to bow humbly to their Imperial majesties in Hollywood.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
the RIAA charges YOU!
Uh, wait a minute.
Pajonet.com - #1 website in the universe
I bought it about 4 years ago because I liked "Walking on the Sun". I figured the whole CD would be in that same musical style. Anybody else feel burned when the listened to the other stuff on that CD?
It never has. It's not about the artists, it's about Hilary Rosen's personal bank account.
This is only true if you are only interested in mainstream acts (and even then, it doesn't need to be true). None of the music I listen to has anything to do with the RIAA. In fact, I don't think I've listened to an act on an RIAA-backed label in years. I don't need the RIAA to tell me what to listen to; especially considering that they and their lackey labels are complete morons and wouldn't know interesting and artistic music if it came up and bit them on the ass.
Ultimately, that's what the RIAA cares about much more than people copying CDs. They've enjoyed decades of dictating what people get to listen to. Now, their uselessness is becoming clear. There are plenty of ways to find music that you like (All Music, Ptichfork, mp3.com, etc.) and you don't need the RIAA for any of them. In fact, you just might find that your musical interests are invigorated by getting away from all that mind-numbing, mainstream crack.
The internet, and particularly p2p, has irrevocably changed the way I listened to music and exponentially expanded my musical options. If the establishment wants to brand me a criminal for that, so be it. Just look out, cuz once I'm already a criminal, who knows what I might do. ;o)
RIAA: Hello ISP.
ISP: How can I help you?
RIAA: We would like you to pay us $200,000,000.
ISP: What? Why?
RIAA: Because people use your networks. And seeing people are criminals and steal the lovely and original music we make.
ISP: Why $200,000,000?
RIAA: Well as seeing you wont give us access to your networks logs, user lists, and other information we decided to guessimate with some dice and a random number generator.
So when can we expect payment?
ISP: FUCK OFF! *click*
RIAA: Wow, third time today.
Somehow Hillary seems to believe that Kazza and other Free P2P sites are profiting in the millions of dollars:
Meanwhile, Kazaa and Morpheus claim tens of millions of registered users who download a wide variety of tracks for free.
Rosen hailed a recent U.S. court decision which ruled that Kazaa, operated by Australian-based technology firm Sharman Networks, could be sued in the United States, as an important legal step to halting the activities of file-sharing services.
"It's clear to me these companies are profiting to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. They must be held accountable," Rosen said.
Excuse me Mrs. Rosen, how is a company that does not charge it's customer base to use it's services profiting in the millions of dollars?
Perhaps I am missing something here.
-Rusty
You never know...
Well, we already have something like that in Canada. Whenever you buy blanks CDs, you pay more in tax than the actual cost of the CD. One of the taxes is supposed to be compensate artists for revenue lost to people who copy their CDs. For those of us who have never illegally copied a music CD in their lives (they do exist, I'm one of them), this is hardly fair.
On the other hand, one could argue that you have paid the tax for it already, so now you can copy as much as you want! (as you may have guessed, I'm not a lawyer)
1.) The right of taxation is reserved to governments only. Private organizations (like RIAA) do not have the right to tax. So, your "taxation analogy" is out the window.
2.) A large portion of the money you pay when buying a CD goes directly to RIAA. Now RIAA is proposing that ISPs force their users to pay a fee, however indirectly, to RIAA. So, you the user are being forced to pay twice for products you've already bought. To follow your "taxation analogy," this would be called "double-taxation," which is illegal. Again, your "taxation analogy" fails.
3.) RIAA is not accountable to the tax-paying public, because they are a private company. You and I have no voice in how RIAA performs its functions, yet they are demanding the right to "tax" us for merely using the Internet, which -- I might add -- they had no hand in creating or maintaining. Once more, following your "taxation analogy," this would be called "taxation without representation." Your analogy falls flat on its face, mortally wounded.
4.) You state in your argument that, for your taxes paid, you get a set of services in return provided by the government. True. This is the balance of taxation. However, you get nothing from RIAA in return for the fee they propose to force upon you. That is not taxation; that's theft. So, once more, your "taxation analogy" is bogus.
"The dead do not shoo-bop-aloo-bah." -- Kai, 'Lexx'
One solution we never hear from Government or the RIAA et al. is dissolution of these corporate bodies.
Business are not meant to last an eternity. If your business model is going the way of the dodo because of technological change, etc. then you should act like all other businesses and disolve. The RIAA et al. keep on putting on a charade to Congress about the death of industry but that is not what is happening. The game is up for the RIAA et al. and instead of walking out they decide to tax us for their own personal benefit while those monies could go to something more useful for us or the U.S.A.
I think Congress should say to the RIAA like they said to United Airlines: deal with it and don't expect a bailout from us.
I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?"
Well, it looks pretty close to extortion. "Nice internet service provider you have here - pity if something should happen to it, like... a lawsuit, for instance."
I wonder when the DEA is going to have all RIAA artists and managers arrested for drug offenses. I mean, everyone knows some artists abuse drugs and by RIAA's brand of logic, all artists should be punished, with the record company execs as accomplices since they obviously condone the practice.
"With every new inane law or result of a lawsuit that I hear, I get one step closer to leaving the United States. It's becoming a bloody corporate rape scene here in the States and I for one am just about at the end of my rope."
I agree with most of your points but I'm really getting tired of the "Hollywood Solution" to this country's problems. England has Madonna now, and they can have her for all I care. But you know, it figures. Artists like her and the Alec Baldwin's of the world made their money from the very system they want so desparately to escape (by the way Alec, your man lost - you can leave anytime now). Does Hollywood really provide the best moral basis to compare by?
This is the same kind of escapism that bubbled up to the top in the 60's. Maybe part of the problem is that there are fewer and fewer people actually willing to tackle these sorts of issues.
Ever meet anyone who didn't vote in an election because they felt that their vote didn't count? More escapism. The real truth is, they don't vote because the don't want to be blamed if it all goes to hell. Well, GROW UP! Take responsibility and DO something for once. People are people everywhere. If you really want to live somewhere better, why not start in your own backyard?
This country still has much to offer her people. Don't be so quick give up on her when things get rough.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
That's ludicrous. Services such as road maintainence and national defense are necessary to the functioning of any society. I'd like to see you pacifists and peaceniks survive for even one month without someone like North Korea coming in and walking all over you. To claim that funding things like the military is theft is not only irrational but also dangerously unpatriotic.
If they can't support (and police) themselves, they deserve to fail and go under.
Police themselves? That is the last thing anybody needs. You are advocating senseless anarchy and bandwidth waste through the RIAA DDoSing countless netizens. If the RIAA were to police itself, you'd have jackbooted thugs literally breaking down your door and taking your computer because someone at the RIAA got the notion that you had some pirated music. I think you oughta take your crazy RIAA advocacy somewhere else, bub, because it doesn't belong here.
--sdem
Why doesn't the RIAA charge the artists a dollar a record and then pay us for our time listening to and evaluating and word-of-mouth marketing and filesharing them?
It seems only fair.
To allow the RIAA to apply a "tax" to all ISPs is an idea that is totally anethema to the capitalist system upon which the RIAA is based.
It would require Congress to pass a law, and that would be state-sponsored support of a particular industry that would collapse otherwise. Most citizens of the US, if made aware of this, would blow a gasket. Very few are even aware of the money paid for blank media. This would be something passed quietly and as a rider to a bill that would support Social Security or something that no Congressman could possibly vote against.
Music would not stop. However, its distribution would suddenly be much different than it is now. Likewise if Congress actually does something about the modern equivalent of Payola and suddenly Clear Channel loses up to a third of their revenue, which comes from music "promoters".
What?
i agree with you... it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
however, i don't think that'll work in this case. if, say, 25% of American music lovers stopped buying CDs published by companies in bed with the RIAA and everyone stopped pirating music... it is my guess the RIAA would still blame bad sales on piracy. it's an easy excuse that execs can use instead of sticking their necks out and going "maybe things need to change."
file swapping will continue to be the RIAA's excuse because it's easier than the truth.
Wish I had some mod points for this one. +5 Insightful
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
and see what happens. I am sure the Music will
find another way to make the scene.
It is worth a shot.
i don't know how much media exposure she gets in america, but for me, living outside the u.s. (and also not having a tv) i was curious to see what hillary rosen looks like
here's a quick-clickable link to the google-image search page for hillary rosen
none of the images are particularly large (perhaps fortunately)
i was thinking of titling this post 'the face of evil' but then reconsidered as i feel it's never correct to label someone after some absolute quality
however i do find it interesting to look at the face of a person who is engaging in ethically suspect behaviour - it is remarkable how much the face 'mirrors the soul'
To "tax" everyone who uses broadband?
Someone else said it right: Why not just raise income tax and have a portion go straight to Hollywood, for crissakes...
Please, give me a break!
In exchange, will music swapping be legalized? Or will they agree not to try to stop it? It seems blatantly unfair to charge me for something you still can sue me over if you decide you want to. Oh, wait, this is the RIAA, of *course* it's blatantly unfair!
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Personally, I'd like to see artists paid out of some sort of slush fund for data tranfers.
You'd have something like the nielsens, which would figure out what people were downloading (by sniffing random packets or whatever - I'm sure the slashdot crowd can come up with a method that would work) and then reimburse whoever owned the copyright to a particular work preportionally out of the general fund.
The PROBLEM is that groups like the RIAA would see to it that the rules were stacked in their favor, so that they got all this money.
Does anyone know how much of the casette surcharge goes to artists? To artists who are not actually affiliated with the RIAA? I can't find an exact figure, but it's not frigging much!
I'd like to see a direct compensation scheme of the good sort in place, since it would allow people to make a living providing culture (which is good) and maximise the VALUE of that culture to society (since anyone could have as much culture as they wanted for a flat rate.)
Unfortunately, the blood suckers at the RIAA have both the power and position to suck such a scheme dry of blood.
While I was looking for a specific breakdown of how the 2%/$2 surcharge on blank CDs/CD burners is disbursed (I can't find it) I did find this interesting article which is worth a read.
The author has very much my take on the economics of the affair, although I disagree that piracy is "basically wrong."
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
isn't this what happens with sale of any other product? I mean when you own a store and lose a certain percentage of revenue to shoplifting, etc. typically you raise your prices to compensate the additional overhead to your business. In that way, the other consumers pay for stuff they didn't steal.
I don't want to see this happen either, but ther is precedent for it.
"It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
I must admit it's not insane to try to distribute a burden across a wide group of people, even if they object to the ultimate purpose. It's called taxation, and makes a lot of sense for a public good. Say, for example, a fuel tax to pay for the roads. Not perfect, but not insane.
:)
Maybe we're not taking socialism seriously enough. Here's a proposal: If the various labels want to impose a tax and distribute it amongst themselves (an entirely inappropriate and possibly unconstitutional thing for the gov't to be doing, redistributing for a private "good"), why not go whole hog and socialize the music industry. Then they'll get their tax, and we, through Congress, can decide how much of the take they get. No profits, of course.
Symmetry? Everyone happy? No one happy? Well, that's the point.
That's a pretty lame excuse. I understand your hatred of the RIAA, but record labels do pay for the packaging and distribution costs to get them into record stores. If you don't want to support the RIAA, you would be better off buying records from artists on independent labels who treat their artists fairly. You'll get the added bonus of finding artists you think are worth paying for, too. Labels such as Matador, Up, Drag City, K, and many more. You can find a lot of indie label music reviewed at Pitchfork Media. You can listen to a fair amount of indie label stuff at KCRW's online streams.
Of course, if you really just have to support the artist directly, go get out of the house and see them perform live and buy their cd from them personally. Don't just complain, be proactive.
it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
Brilliant example. If grocery prices were being artificially jacked up by a marketing cartel, farmers were being paid shit wages, and there was a 'tax' on gardening tools and fertiliser that went to the same cartel to cover loss of profits due to home gardening. even if you were only using the tools and fertiliser to grow roses and not vegetables. That's about where we're at.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
...the RIAA PAY A SHITLOAD OF MONEY to get their names and faces in front of you.
Shit! Why didn't you tell me earlier?! I would have stopped buying CD's a decade ago if I had known that the RIAA might not have been able to afford advertising for more Britney Spears CD's!
Rationalizing theft? If this happens, people will be forced to pay their ISPs to pay the RIAA for music they may or may not download. You're paying for the "crime" anyway, you might as well get to commit it. It's not rationalizing, it's getting your money's worth for your ISP bill.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
I keep hearing people whine about media taxation in Canada, but I for one (as one involved with the purchasing process of CD's for a large volume corporate computer franchise) have yet to see hide nor hair of it. The costs of blank media continues to drop, and there's no post-purchase or reseller levied taxation that I've seen.
So where does this information come from?
Especially since we know this money will all go to innovative musicians creating great music. And not corporations that produce nothing.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?"
Well, if they can get the government to collect it for them, it's called "taxation".
Kind of reminds me of elementary school, when one kids stole a candy bar from another, and they just arbitrarily decide to punish the entire class until one fesses up... which he never does!
dochood
Except he was justifying copyright infringement, not shoplifting and/or robbery.
Copying music is legally wrong. It is probably morally and ethically wrong. It is, however, not the same sort of wrong as theft. The problem is complex enough already: nobody needs your loaded analogies muddying the waters.
That would be great, except the bands I like have never toured this country, one plays in clubs in Berlin. Unfortunately, they're RIAA signed, so I can't even order the CD across the ocean without knowing my money is supporting a cartel. That makes it rather hard to do anything that feels right. I can't just go see a similar local band, no one remotely close sings in German accompanied by bagpipes.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
I just want to say "thanks a lot" to all of you assholes who have been stealing music, because thanks to you, I may now have to pay more money for my ISP, even though I've been buying my music legitimately all along.
Thanks a lot.
evil adrian
I'm going 50/50 between "extortion" and "graft".
This now concludes our broadcast day.
Apparently the RIAA thinks it is a match for the Telecoms lawyers and lobbyists.
/. ever.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Good luck. LOL. Funniest
Once a system is in place to pay money to artists directly, I'll put some money in towards the artists I like. Until then, I ain't paying squat
Time to put your money where your mouth is?
This is an interesting thing for them to suggest; the obvious implication is that if you pay this fee then you get to download music? But they would have it that you can't download music and you pay the fee in case you do... I love the Riaa
Oh, you don't have a tax like that? Maybe we should make one - makes a lot more sense to me than this one!
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Seriously, when she comes out with crap like this, it really weakens their position. People might agree with the general anti-piracy position, but when you start suggesting that this position will cost them money, watch their allegiences change.
The best thing the RIAA could do is gag her.
People learn about artists because the members of the RIAA PAY A SHITLOAD OF MONEY to get their names and faces in front of you. You don't know about artists unless they're supported by the RIAA. Aritsts usually aren't known unless they're advertised by the RIAA. The RIAA needs money for advertising, and that money has to come from proceeds made off of the artists.
None of my favorite bands are supported by, or support the RIAA. I managed to hear about them just fine without the RIAA telling me what I should like.
The mafia enjoyed decades and decades of geting protection money from different stores. Then one day one of the stores started using a security outfit such as Burns.
Of course the mafia didn't like this. So they sued the store owner, the security company, the car maker where the security company gets their trucks used for security, the gas companies where the security company gets their gas to go to the stores, the clothes company where the security company gets their work clothes, the textile company that made the fabric used in the clothes made for the security guards, the fast food stores and grocery stores and donut shops that the security guards use, and ever single house within a 10 mile radius of the store where the security guards now work.
Now replace the word Mafia with RIAA. Replace the store with listeners of music. Replace the other stuff with makers of media, ISPs, computer manufacturers (I forsee the RIAA suing them for making the equipment to listen to music on), etc...
RIAA=Mafia!
It's better to burn out than to fade away
Okay I'll say it, I've been trying out PressPlay for a while now ... Which is pretty decent in many respects (nice interface, convenience, unlimited listening to new songs, unlimited downloads etc) and not so decent in some respects like - downloads are DRM protected and they don't have all the titles etc. But hey for $10 a month it seemed worth while enough to try it compared say XM radio. And this is how they reward me? I personally have a problem with piracy at a moral level when I can afford to buy music, so when I get a half decent legal way to download and listen to music, I have to pay a tax for the piracy that I don't do?! What kind of nut cases are these guys? What kind of message are these twisted sickos sending by doing these things? Do they want to really increase the already intense hatred that people have for RIAA. Why can't these guys do something constructive like having a real nice alternative by enhancing PressPlay to better levels? Even if they manage to get a quarter of the supposed pirate folks to try it out, their revenues would increase many fold. A lot of people probably don't feel very nice about doing the occasional piracy, but where is the godamn alternative? The RIAA should quit whining and cutting a sorry figure and work on having a real alternative to Kazaa and Napster. And no you RIAA idiots you need to put work more into PressPlay in terms of content and rights.
Let's show the industry how it is done. I'm finishing a CD this month, it will be available mid February for $10. I suggest every slashdot user buys a copy, then I'll call the RIAA and tell them how well $10 CDs work. :-)
Incidentally, the $5 production cost is probably high. Even in the small volumes I work with I can get full color inserts and disc, all assembled in the jewel case, shrink wrapped, billed to a individual sale, and shipped for $4. (None of my labor! No more grueling nights assembling CDs and getting paper cuts!)
Still, I do think that slashdot users buying 50,000 copies of my disc would be a nice idea. They make nice gifts.
It looks to me that it's freaking last second for US people to do something to save themselves and everybody else from corporate fascism.
What if the stores listed the RIAA markup on the recipt seperatly, as they do with sales tax. Do you think people would notice then?
And whose fault is that? Why does the RIAA collect money from blank CD-R sales to make up for piracy, but not give that money to the artists?
Does anyone know of any large movements to (or is anyone interested in starting a movement to) boycott RIAA-associated music? Or maybe large RIAA-associated artist music download-a-thons?
------
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" --George W. Bush, in Jan. 2000
I published this commentary less than a week ago which puts the case for a "music media" (as opposed to a data media), the price of which includes a recording industry levy.
This would allow all those people with "stolen" music to legitimize their collections at a relatively low cost.
At the very least, it would test the claims that people don't want to steal music but aren't buying CDs simply because they're too expensive.
Well, it does install all SORTS of spyware and adware on your machine - they must get some reward for that.
Again, we need a public debate on the issue. Too many laws are being passed by lobbyists and their paid congressional monkeys. Problem is, the average American has been trained to ignore government and politics, except when incited by left or right-wing demagogues over emotional issues (which result in bad policy, but good political publicity.)
Unfortunately, until people are educated (will this ever happen?) and are willing to vote, serve on juries, and voluntarily contribute to military/civil service, we're going to see an ever fewer, and ever more influential bunch of people controling more and more of our lives. And the most ironic part: we as the American people are letting them get away with it.
What can we on Slashdot do? We need to field a geek candidate who "gets it" and put him (or her) in Congress, with a shitload of money and a big whopping stick (geek lobby) to back them. Next step, control the media with press releases, protests, and of course, preemptive lawsuits. Last step, kill the RIAA/MPAA business models by replacing them with honest contracts that work and benefit the artist and the promoter.
It can be done, but it will have to be a hard fought war against entrenched interests, both corporate and political.
Isn't there a tax on blank CD's that is used to re-coup the cost of music pirating? It may not be true in the US, but we have that tax in Canada.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, whining about the RIAA on Slashdot isn't going to help the cause of free music (as in free beer or free speech) on the internet. You're preaching the quoir around here, as anyone that even casually reads this site already knows that the greedy bastards that run the recording industry are evil.
No, if you want to REALLY make a difference, start complaining about RIAA in public forums that the "Average Joe" listens to! Write an editorial in your local newspaper. Contact your local congressman. Phone in on a local talk radio show. Organize a protest in front of your local mega-record chain, and hand out leaflets explaining the evils of the RIAA.
Whatever you do, don't think that bitching about Hilary Rosen to a forum that ALREADY hates her is going to solve anything. The time to take action is now.
The only reason they havn't put a tax on internet sales is because that's one of the few things that would translate to an instant loss of votes come reelection time. People who use the internet are more likely to vote than those who don't, and you don't want to tick them off by being the senator who tried to tax their tax-free online purchases.
Now, add a tax to ISPs that gets passed onto the consumer which the consumer never sees - that's entirely different. You won't lose any votes for a tax nobody knows anything about.
paintball
RIAA steals from YOU!!!
Oh, wait...
I have broadband. Is that the equivalent of 30 dial-up connections? Is my tax going to be 30x higher than some AOL user?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. ha. ha ha. ha. (actually I'm not really capable of a rational response, but I think that I fit just nicely for this article)
A reward, yes. "millions and millions of dollars" I doubt that.
-Rusty
You never know...
Attend concerts and/or buy merchandise.
the traditional model of theft is something like stealing a candybar from a convenience store. you take something that belongs to someone else and in doing so deprive them of value and the incentive to continue producing/selling candybars. what if, however, instead of walking into the store and outright grabbing the candybar off the shelf, you made a perfect atom-by-atom copy of the candbar, leaving the original unharmed? what if you could make a trillion copies for next to nothing? under such a manufacture/distribution scheme, shouldn't anybody who wants a candybar get a candybar? wouldn't this new system make the old system obsolete? who but the original recipe-holder could be said to "own" the candybar?
"Imho, this sort of thing just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want. If I'm going to be paying a markup for it, might as well take advantage of it."
The way I see it, if they charge me like that, then I'm paying for a service. They're basically saying "It's all okay". So yes, I agree with you, I'd take advantage with it.
What really irks me is that they've provided 0 way of legitimizing any MP3s we all have. They don't acknowledge that if you have a CD of a song that you're a legitimate user. They don't give you a way of purchasing a certificate or license for a digital copy of a song or CD. And if you delete your collection, they don't do anything to subtract that from their 'piracy' reports.
So yeah I'd love to pay a small fee for this, they'd have little room to bitch afterwards.
Too bad they won't try to make money by giving people an opportunity to legitimize what they have.
And, you know what? it's **PERFECTLY LEGAL TO BORROW ANYTHING AND MAKE A COPY FOR YOUR OWN USE**. Up to now, I have more than 10 gigabytes of MP3, all ripped from borrowed CDs from public libraries, and I'm not about to stop.
I'll admit that I haven't checked any of the links there, but is there a place I can search for an artist name and get the label they're signed under, and (even better) if they support/are supported by/whatever you want to call it any groups we might be opposed to?
:) I don't think anything I've 'pirated' in the past year is RIAA material (and, oh my god, I'll probably buy it once I return to the states.. it's just not available conveniently here)
Though phrased somewhat sarcastically, it is a serious question
ahh, also.. copy protection? I don't want to have to feel like a criminal downloading someone else's poor quality rips so i can burn stuff to cd for my mp3/cd player. I spend 3-4 hours a day on trains getting to and from home, and if I have to constantly swap cds it's damned annoying.
People learn about artists because the members of the RIAA PAY A SHITLOAD OF MONEY to get their names and faces in front of you
/. to find out about and discuss new artists. A perfect example is the local radio station (KROQ) having a segment called catch of the day where they play unsigned, or new artists. Programs like this are very common now. And what about MTV? I know a lot of people think MTV sucks, but the reality is that they pay for artist promotion with advertizing and cable subscriptions.
You're describing the old way of doing things. Thanks to the web, I don't need the RIAA to advertize to me. I can connect with other like-minded people on sites like
Web sites, radio and cable stations provide a SERVICE unlike the RIAA who charges me 5$ extra for every CD so they shove BAD music down our throats. If services provide bad service, I don't have to use them. Some one else will eventually come along that suits my tastes. The RIAA gives me no choice how to spend the 5$ needed to promote artists. That is what the real power of the Internet and free markets...CHOICE
I hear you brother! But... "No shipping, no retail costs, no packaging." Retail Costs: website design, webspace rental Packaging: encoding each file, choosing name, and presentation on website, and rediculous DRM Shipping: Bandwidth/Transfer to download (think like microsoft, apple - use a third party)
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
"It's simple," said founder Bill Gates, "All we do is have every American adult male do 6 months of mandatory hard time in Federal 'pound-me-in-the-ass' prison, and then give us $500 upon release. It's really the only way we can continue to produce high quality software products for our customers with all this dispeakable, rampant piracy!"
"We're all about social responsibility. Our senators in Washington are very excited," Gates noted appreciatively.
-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
IF you will research the situation, the canadian courts have ruled that since the government charges a levy on blank media to cover piracy, citizens are justified in making copies. I'm sure google can return the relevant links for you.
If I had the money to burn, I'd hire lawyers and try to take a similar argument up to the supreme court regarding the current levies here in the United States on cassettes, music CDRs, etc.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
> And the money still doesn't go to the artists....
Sure it does.
That money is going directly to the people the artists are allowing to represent them.
Its the artists fault for choosing thieving scum to represent them in the first place. If the artists would stop doing this, the whole situation would get better.
I just love it when people think that laying down a tax, subsidizing an industry, or making something manditory will help improve the quality or price of the service or product:
Federal security guard sleeps on job.
Bailing out the US automotive and airline industry. WTO opposes overseas subsidy of industries.
Medicaid Abused by state government.
US prescription drug costs too high for many to afford. They go shopping in Canada instead.
Yup. Taxing your ISP is going to create guaranteed income for the recording industry. Some people have mentioned that [gasp] software has been pirated as well. If this passes will it not pave the way to have the federal government subsidize a company found guilty of monopolistic practices?
While it would be ironic as hell, it wouldn't suprise me.
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
RIAA : Really Idiotic Annoying Assholes
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
In Canada since they don't have any authority they can't charge their tax over here but for the U.S.A folk's sake I say screw the RIAA!
It's a shame that the RIAA are completely oblivous of the fact that me downloading a file costs them no money whatsoever. I buy as many CD's as I can, but there's so many songs I just can't buy. Those songs I download. If I hadn't d/l'ed them, they wouldn't have any money *and* I wouldn't have any song. At least this way one of us gets something.
It's also worth noticing that the main reason I can't buy all the music I'd like is the ridiculously high prices - I saw an 45-minute album retailing for £20 the other week. Of course, there's also the fact that the nearest record store is 20 miles away and the fact that music in America gets released months before we even hear about it in England.
but if they were successful in levying this fee, I would probably start. Whereas I don't have a need to buy blank tapes (which apparently have fees on them for such a purpose), I do have a need to be on the internet, and it's not related to swapping the latest non-hits with random people from the internet.
I still spend a few hundred dollars a year on CDs, mostly from non-RIAA artists. If they were successful in levying this fee, I would probably use it to get whatever music I wanted from RIAA bands, and never buy an RIAA disc again.
this is a sig.
...sign them up for snail mail junk mail again?
Unfortunately, for this to work, we would need some way for the public to find cool music so they could try it out for free, and then see which artists they'd like to support.
Damn... any ideas?
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Should also charge:
.01 cents per foot.
Phone/Cable company for suppling the wire/cable.
And wires/cable manufacturers say
ok.. so does this mean with the tarrifs I pay on blank media and this "fee" I am allowed to legaly pirate ?
... now this .. great stuff.
I dont burn music to CDR's and yet I still have to pay, even if I can prove that I am not using them for that purpose
The RIAA is not a government or a government agency? Therefore they cannot impose fines/tariffs/taxes. They cannot force ISP's or anyone else to give them money without a contract/purchase agreement/court settlement. Even if they get the court settlement, it will most likely be overturned on appeal. They need to make downloading music unattractive by lowering the cost of the $.50 CD's they sell from 21.00 to something more reasonable. They are getting nothing less than they deserve for gouging the listening public for years.
~corporate tool, but employed~
"It's clear to me these companies are profiting to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. They must be held accountable," Rosen said.
So, let me get this straight....
They want ISPs to pay money to (in effect) legalize online music piracy, which will in turn raise ISP costs, nudge even more users into P2P, further stressing networks and raising bills even higher for ISPs?
Right....Somehow, I don't see Time Warner/AOL/Earthlink/Any other ISP. exactly jumping for joy at the prospect.
Nice try, Hillary, but back to the drawing board.
Let me comment on how I see this (if you don't like my view don't take offense to mine..share your own).
One thing that I find to be a common truth. Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
1. Let every see that they are paying $xx for sharing music and they will react as if it is a license to download, not as paying retrabution.
(Result: more downloading, not less)
2. "Tell you what. I'll give the RIAA and MPAA each five dollars a year if they'll simply stop trying to sue and get file sharing banned or whatever they're doing." by Renraku (518261)
- Any before you know it they will say $5 is not enough, it must be $10. There is another word for this...extortion. Don't give the RIAA/MPAA any ideas...they will become the "Jesse Jackson" of the music industry.
(Result: The attitude "Fuck the industry, I'll just download it.")
3. "My mother, a standard consumer with nearly no knowledge of how to go about pirating music or burning CDs, pointed out something very simple to me. She said that the price of CDs was the big problem, not the economy so much, and not piracy.
She pointed out how when Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Target have sales on CDs where the price drops quite low, say $10/CD, they sell out of the popular CDs. She also pointed out that in order for everyone to get paid reasonably, the cost to produce a CD would be about $5." by bildstorm (129924)
Your mother has just pointed out a basic fundimental of economics(and marketing). If it costs $5 to make a cd...I sell for $10 and you sell for $15 not only do I sell out, but many people will buy two because the cost only ends up being $20. (To prove this theory just go to Best Buy on Sunday.)
Result: Selling more cds
Food for thought: Do stores make more or less during sales?
Spelling and grammer errors should be ignored..unfortunately my secretary won't type my Slashdot posts for me.
they have economics in iraq, china & russia.
so simply using the word economics in your post COMPLETELY fails to explain why the RIAA can violate my rights in a country like the United States of America.
THE INTERNET IS NOT THEIRS TO TAX.
Do you really think that putting "sir" into an insult makes it wittier? It doesn't. It makes you look like a wanker. Stop doing it.
And the false dichotomy is equally stupid. Stop doing that too.
To kill all Jews! All of them, Rosen is just the tip of the iceburg. Germans had it right! Kill the jews! Kill the Jews! Do it now and do not delay! Kill a Jew today!
Or could it be that all Jews do not feel as Hillary does...naw, that is impossible! Otherwise the Jewish community would kill her for us to protect themselves...
Yup, the ONLY cd's I've bought in the past few years have been directly from teh artist.
I refuse to support this crap.
The fact that most people who use P2P do not know who the RIAA or the MPAA sheds light on something interesting. The reason they don't know about them is that nothing they do is prohibitting them from finding their music online. Nothing. It's quite funny really. A large portion of the people who know about the RIAA are the ones saying "HEY, I don't download music illegally, so don't illegally tax me!" All my downloaded music comes legally from etree.org and is a lot better than most of the crap that the RIAA pushes.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
I support my favorite artists by going to their concerts and buying their non-mainstream CDs out of the trunks of their cars. They mark it up from the 20 cents or so they pay for CDRs to $10, and this way I know for a fact they are getting that well deserved $9.80. The absolute SHIT that the RIAA is pushing is not going to get a dime out of me, and tracks I do download are usually 20 years old from artists I at one time bought the CDs from (not personally, but from the store back when the music industry was less evil). Thing is, a lot of those artists that are putting out shit are only doing it because the record companies are forcing them to become pop dreck. When is the last time a Fleetwood Mac or a Pink Floyd quality gig came on the scene? Somehow I doubt that musical talent has diminished that much, I think the re-packaging is the real downfall of the industry.
- The word is a virus.
I guess I'm just screwing everybody since I use Kazza lite.
Right now I still buy a good bit of music(I use Kazza for evaluation), but if they start charging me for music through my ISP, I won't buy another CD.
BTW, a lot of people say that they buy non-RIAA sponcered music. SO what are some of the more popular artists and labels in this category.
actually i thought i learned about artists by reading people's reviews/recomendations on amazon.com and then downloading stuff from limewire.
but then again i shouldnt matter since 95% of the stuff i listen too is indy, and 100% of the stuff i pay for is indy.
and its funny how the mpaa can bay julia roberts 20mil per flick regardless of weather its a hit or not but some how alot of the highest selling musicians of all time are broke because they done get paid jack sh!t.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
IBM owns the songs "2" through "9" and "A" through "F" and "SmileyFace", Bell Labs owns "-128" through "-1", "*", "#", and "13" through "127", the CCITT owns "128" through "255", Control Data owns "Negative 0". Digital Equipment owns "-32768"-"-129" and "256"-"32767", except that John Draper seems to have aquired performance rights for "2600" and somebody scribbled on the documentation on "31337", IBM owns "32768-65535", and by now that's covered all the songs you can play on CD. If they're thinking about using other standards, remember that the IEEE currently has all the floating point numbers, plus and minus infinity, and "Not A Number", so there's no place for the RIAA to hide except back in Analog Land.
And, surely if the music industry can tax us for possible downloads, we should be able to tax them for showing computers in their movies and using "computer hackers" in their plots, because they MIGhT NOT HAVE paid the Cyberspace Society of Computer Programmers, Hackers, and Stereotyped Nerdy Teenagers for using them. The tax obviously ought to be paid in movie downloads.
Besides, as a spokesperson for the Cable TV industry (I own about a 3-millionth of Comcast) it's important to remind the RIAA that most of the Cable Modem companies have strict policies against copyright violation, so our users would never do anything like that and she therefore can't tax us for it, and most of them also have strict policies running anything server-like, including file sharing software, which is bizarrely and suicidally clueless (Duhh, why do you think people buy broadband?) but also means that none of *our* users are doing this. However, we do know that the record labels and their "agents" often use the telephone to talk to their artists, so the telephone companies are as much a part of the music production process as the RIAA is, and we'd like our cut now, please.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
- i don't go brick and mortar shopping very often, but the wife unit dragged me out to the local Target today...
- as i was side-swiping a spawner with two demons from hell with my shopping cart, i peeked at prices of DVD movies and audio CDs...
THE DVDs WERE CHEAPER THAN THE AUDIO CDs!!!
- looks like the movie industry is headed in the right direction, but i thought it was more expensive/harder to rip DVDs than audio?
- btw, Jack 'Bone a Bimbo' Valenti and Hilary 'Miss Piggy' Rosen can kiss my ass regarding their whining about market downturns... those two turds are still sucking up Surf and Turf at high-end restaurants, while my version of Surf and Turf is fish sticks and hot dogs...
- i buy my music CDs (jazz, such as the Rippingtons) and DVDs (such as the entire series of The Prisoner) because i'll listen and watch over and over again...
I posted a similar response to another subthread on this news post, but I want to ask again here.
Where does everyone get this information that CD media is being taxed in Canada (other than LondonDrugs and other big-box retailers trying to pull the wool over your eyes and milk you for a few cents more).
I am a manager with CompuSmart in Canada, and thusly heavily involved with the purchasing process for our franchised store. I see no taxes levied on the media we purchase (infact prices keep dropping) nor do we levy a retail level or post sale tax on any cd media.
So why does everyone seem to think that they are being taxed?
The RIAA Membership List lists the record labels that are members. You can use CD Now (part of Amazon now) to look up labels that an artist appears on. Or use Google.
My brother has 0% hearing in his left ear, and 10% hearing capablity in his right ear. I've already spoken to him about this, and he thinks it's amusing.
:)
It made me think though... whats stopping some deaf consumer who uses the internet from suing to prevent an increased charge to him; or better yet, a deaf consumer suing the RIAA for the extra charges he/she has to pay when buying a blank CD in certain countries where the RIAA has lobbied and gotten increased charges to 'repay' the cost of piracy?
As far as my brother can see, there is not much stopping it from happening. Who knows, soon in the future, deaf people might be buying blank CDs and gaining internet access for a cheaper price than the rest of us.
______
jaylen
...what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?
I dunno, but so what? Feelings of moral superiority, by themselves, seldom carry the day.
Seems to me this is just an attempt to scare big ISP's into doing the RIAA's dirty work for them. At that, there'd certainly be a few challenges in court that would gum up the works for at least a while.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The RIAA is THE PUSHER.
You know I've smoked a lot of grass
O' Lord, I've popped a lot of pills
But I never touched nothin'
That my spirit could kill
You know, I've seen a lot of people walkin' 'round
With tombstones in their eyes
But the pusher don't care
Ah, if you live or if you die
God damn, The Pusher
God damn, I say The Pusher
I said God damn, God damn The Pusher man
You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With the love grass in his hand
Oh but the pusher is a monster
Good God, he's not a natural man
The dealer for a nickel
Lord, will sell you lots of sweet dreams
Ah, but the pusher ruin your body
Lord, he'll leave your, he'll leave your mind to scream
God damn, The Pusher
God damn, God damn the Pusher
I said God damn, God, God damn The Pusher man
Well, now if I were the president of this land
You know, I'd declare total war on The Pusher man
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun
God damn The Pusher
Gad damn The Pusher
I said God damn, God damn The Pusher man
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
I agree with you -- but just one question. Is the blank CD tax a law? When did it pass? How? I would be concerned that this one can follow the same path.
If you were never going to buy anything from RIAA, downloading their crap won't solve anything. It doesn't cost them a cent and you take up a download slot that otherwise could be used by someone who is looking to download instead of buying.
If you were wiling to host what you download, then you would be costing them money.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
The assumption is that if you are online, then you are pirate..
RIAA is a monopoly, and they are using that power to manipluate the consumers, why isnt this being looked into by somone?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Creating a sort of system where you pay piracy taxes is like admitting piracy to be legal... so they should either apply that tax and give us the right to freely download the music we want or stop trying to squeeze our money out of our pockets.
Decameron
diegoT
at the rate cities are banning smoking in public places.
It's well known in the industry, and heavily commented on by some musicians that *some* record labels have been known to rip off their musicians' music and other record labels have failed to adequately promote their artists' music. To make sure that that doesn't happen and that artists are properly compensated and promoted, Congress needs to pass a law requiring record labels to pay bands up front and not rip them off later and record labels to pay the internet industry to distribute anything that isn't in the Top 40. This is heavily documented statistically - the decline in Billboard ratings of almost every song that was in the Top 40 five years ago clearly demonstrates that the lack of adequate promotion by the record industry is interfering wtih artists' earnings and recognition. Furthermore, almost everything that *is* in the Top 40 is there because of record industry promotion, except for a smaller number of artists that achieve that popularity because of their artistic abilities in spite of the rampant failure to adequately promote them, and a much smaller number of songs like the Macarena which are clearly statistical outliers or badly collected data.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
What I would want with the $XX tax the ISP pays is the implied license to download as much as I want, and whatever I want. The same way when I pay a tax on blank tapes and music CD-R's. The piracy tax is already applied, so my "illicit" downloads have been paid for as long as I affix them to that medium.
If I give them compensation then I obviously expect something in return.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Best take a look at the CRTC website. Or if your feeling lazy I suggst this website showing the atypical pillageing by a private company chargeing taxes.
http://www.sycorp.com/levy/index.htm
Om, nomnomnom...
A perfect example is the local radio station (KROQ) having a segment called catch of the day where they play unsigned, or new artists. Programs like this are very common now
I live in LA. I listen to KROQ. "Catch of the day" is "Jed the Fish"'s personal choice, and it's not always an independant artist: quite frequently the music he plays in that slot is RIAA backed.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
...honestly expect the entertainment industry to do nothing when, in their eyes, people are stealing their product?
/. poster sure smells like someone who just wants free music. So much for the moral high ground.
Every time the RIAA or MPAA issues a press release, someone at Slashdot HQ throws the morsel out to the unwashed masses like raw meat to starving cats. And they respond by posting the usual chest-beating paeans of moral indignation, pumping up OSDN's ad revenue in the process.
The RIAA and the MPAA may be pulling a King Canute act (look it up) but the typical
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
and when I loaded the page:
/. don't like "inflammatory, inappropriate, illegal or offensive postings". Maybe that'll end the RIAA/MPIA/M$ stories.
(story continues after advertisment)
"select a radio station to listen to"
I see
Tape, CDs, minidiscs and DVDs all are, or were, standards related to one main task (music, music, music and movies, respectively). No doubt you could make some half-way reasonable assumptions about what they would be used for (e.g. tape = record music).
But Internet has no specific shape or format. How can you claim to make any assumptions about a bunch of 0s and 1s flowing down a line?
It could be the latest Metallica CD (audio)
It could be the divx of LotR:TTT (video)
It could be Stephen Kings latest book (text)
It could be a warez version of Windows XP (software)
It could be an illegal scan of Playboy (photos)
...or it could be something completely legal. I think if RIAA tried anything like this, they could face a class action lawsuit from *every* online retailer on the 'net because RIAA tax their customers. Where there's companies with some sense of self-survival, that just doesn't happen.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The music industry is in a tailspin with global sales of CDs expected to fall six percent in 2003, its fourth consecutive annual decline. A major culprit, industry watchers say, is online piracy.
And all this time, I thought it was because that most of the music that is pumped into the market these days sucked. What was I thinking? I mean, when you think about it, it couldn't be the product that's the problem! That's simply not possible!
Doing a WHOIS lookup is pertenant to the discusion exactly how?
T .NET internet address = 199.191.128.106
While we're throwing realitively useless information why not throw in an NSlookup too?
riaa.com nameserver = DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET
riaa.com nameserver = DMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET
riaa.com internet address = 12.150.191.35
riaa.com internet address = 208.225.90.120
riaa.com MX preference = 50, mail exchanger = mail3.riaa.com
riaa.com MX preference = 25, mail exchanger = mail2.riaa.com
riaa.com MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = mail.riaa.com
riaa.com nameserver = DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET
riaa.com nameserver = DMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET
DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.AT
DMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET internet address = 12.127.16.70
mail3.riaa.com internet address = 204.71.171.35
mail2.riaa.com internet address = 12.150.191.36
mail.riaa.com internet address = 12.150.191.35
Seriously people... the parent post might have been funny (as I hope it was intended) but "informative" is a bit overboard.
If you want to call the RIAA to speak your mind, then *don't* use their ISP Administrative contact when they allready provide a contact for you on their homepage:
RIAA
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 775-0101 phone
(202) 775-7253 fax
http://www.riaa.com/About-Who.cfm
Seriously people, just because you don't like their tatics or what they do doesn't mean it's an intelligent move to start "fucking with them." Your time is better spent calling your congressman/woman and telling them what you think:
http://clerk.house.gov/members/mcapdir.php
Their products suck. Who wants to buy the crap? I was listening to some Led Zeppelin yesterday thinking that they don't make 'em like they used to.
Perhaps I am missing something here.
:O) Yessiree Bob, 'ol Hillary is a real math whiz...
Oh, it's that "pull numbers outta yer ass" math that the RIAA is soooo famous for
THe RIAA have no teeth in a great many countries. I can't wait until they try to throw their weight around in the E.U. As for Sharman Networks, I hope they tell the RIAA where to go. AFAIK Sharman Networks can avoid ending up in court as long as they don't enter the U.S. I'd love to see the RIAA trying to get people into court from such countries as China, Taiwan, Korea, Iran etc....
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
You're nothing but a common thief looking to justify himself.
Coach airfare from LA to France: $600 Bottle of Graillot: $20 Crying poor from a conference being held in the French Riviera: Priceless
Rationalizing theft. I probably won't win anyone over by arguing about that, so I won't bother.
A fail to see why it's theft to do what I've paid to do. If I pay admission to a theme park, it's not theft when I get on the rides. If I pay for cable, it's not theft if I watch it. So, if I pay for downloading mp3s...
By the same token, it IS theft if the theme park charges me admission and then won't let me ride, and it IS theft if the cable company charges me for cable and then won't give me a signal. So if the RIAA charges me to download mp3s and then tries to stop me...
Then is there a black market for cds?
What would happen if the major record labels ended up going bankrupt? You certainly wouldn't be able to get music anymore.
You're a fucking moron.
Just wait, the next thing they'll want to do is charge $0.50 per CDR you buy (and even more for other types of storage), even if you are using it for non-musical purposes (or your OWN music!).
Oh wait, in SOVIET Canada, they already do that...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
I wish i had a nickel,for every 8-track tape that was eaten within a week of purchase,when i can finally download and listen to those old songs,they cry,but can i get a refund on my old 8-tracks?I dont think so.
I disagree. Suppose a normal user downloads a fake song from a RIAA server. Chances are they'll just redownload the song, without knowing who caused the fake to spread. If someone told them that the RIAA is responsible for all the fakes, they *might* be inclined to take action, but I doubt it.
live(free) || die;
I do not think it is such a bad idea, but if you look at Canada where they are already charging for CD-Rs they are constantly asking for more money. If they would just stick with the real cost, which for this many people would be about .01, it would not be such a big deal but they are already pushing for a 40 cent charge on a single CD-R in Canada, what is to stop them from doing that here? These people are greedy not matter what the system. Also what if they produce only crap, where is the supply demand control so that good artist get rewarded for their efforts? There has to be system to say who we like and a way to funnel these profits to those people. Finally if we go with this model, why do we need the RIAA to be a middle man? Why not work with an real association of artist?
If 20 million people install it and they get a quarter for each person, that's $5 million bucks.
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml
Some things to note:
Odds are you purchase from wholesalers or importers, and therefore, have never seen this levy - it's already built into the price.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Is all this the beginning death throes of a dying monster market? Now the absurdity of paying for something that is totally immaterial, infinitely recreatable, and redistributable to anyone in the world (with net access) is catching up with the 'content industry'. David Bowie said that he is totally convinced that copyright will be non-existant in 20 years, and I think he's right. If we can share these things with the click of a few buttons, we will. I don't think it's a question of ethics, it's simple market laws or laws of nature, or whatever you might call it. I think the only things we will pay for in the future is services and physical objects. And musicians will have to do live performances to make the big money. I think they will make a good buck out of that too, if they are popular. And who knows, maybe that will deter a few of the business artists, who only seem to do it for the money, from pursuing careers in the arts, and maybe go sell shoes or be stock brokers or something.
Ka-ching. 2cents delivered.
Meep.
Per chance, does anyone know of any movements out there to have the major record lables indicted under federal RICO statutes?
Their current business model pretty much rests on bribery, extortion, fraud, theft, computer network tampering, price gouging, and price fixing.
If there is no such movement, perhaps we need someone to organize a website where we can weigh in on this. Instead of debating the theoretical and philosophical aspects of the issues, let's start going on the offensive. Let's begin exposing the RIAA for what it is. Letter and email writing to congresscritters and media types would be a good beginning. If a single major media outlet were to give coverage to the necessary topics, it would be a great boost to the cause. For once in the 20 years of corrupt business practices within the major media companies, let's put them on the defensive and make them justify their own theft.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
A tax on something to pay for copying is a good idea if it includes a license for that copying. That is, we pay our small tax on ISP access, or sound cards, or speakers, or something, and in exchange, we get unlimited copying rights.
Just a small point:
/anywhere/ are begging for free content... if, at least, they weren't contractually bound not to play it. Which, sadly, I suspect they are.
I might be atypical, as I appreciate my TV consumption is well below the average, but the following comment holds as true before and after I made that particular change in my life; I never learnt about artists because 'the members of the RIAA paid a shitload of money'. Generally, I almost always find new artists I like - in order - by word-of-mouth from friends, by chance (eg. turning up at a random gig or other and discovering I like it), by poking around the record store, or, recently, by internet.
Occasionally, I do find new artists I like off the radio or television - very occasionally - but really, if the RIAA are PAYING significant $ to get their acts on advertising-sponsored radio then I think they're doing something wrong (or, more likely, are victims of the payola they almost certainly imposed on themselves).
One thing that I know for sure is that at least in Europe, the idea that a musical act has to pay radio stations - especially small, local advertising sponsored stations of the few-hundred-thousand-listener variety - should by all logic be laughable. Like local newspapers, most local institutions
The point of all this being that, frankly, your RIAA - advertising - economics theory is part wishful thinking and partly true, but much of what makes it true is fall-out from the bad behaviour of the RIAA and its European cousins.
That's not a good example. Because grocery stores don't levy a tax on all citizins because "100% of shoplifing is done by human beings"
If you are already PAYING a FINE for downloading music, regardless of whether you ACTUALLY DO, why not DO IT?
Than I say that your are a CompuSmart manager with his head up his butt or one who willingly does not follow the laws of Canda. See http://cb-cda.gc.ca/news/interimcopy-e.html . Quotes such as " The Private Copying Tariff, 2001-2002 expired on December 31, 2002. On December 19, 2002, the Copyright Board set an interim tariff, which took effect on January 1, 2003. For a copy of the Interim Private Copying Tariff, 2003, please click here. The types of media currently subject to private copying royalties and associated rates are: Audio cassettes of 40 minutes or more in length 29 CD-R and CD-RW 21 CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc 77 This site features a separate section that outlines manufacturers' and importers' obligations. Please note, the information on this site is provided for general information purposes only. For specific information, please refer to the text of the actual decisions and the approved tariffs." Make me wonder how reputable CompuSmart is. I suppose you could go to http://www.cpcc.ca/ - the website for the Canadain Private Copying Collective to see exactly which laws you claim to be breaking.
Depends what style of music you like. Some good places to check out are sites like epitonic & insound. They carry or have reviews of lots of good indie stuff, and a wide range of styles.
If you like punk/indie rock/hardcore, check out Dischord, Reptillian, Ebullition, Level Plane, Magic Bullet, Kill Rock Stars, K Records, Drag City, Happy Couples Never Last, Three One G, Load Records, Robotic Empire, Sound Virus, Exotic Fever, Lovitt... There are hundreds more. Most of these labels have MP3s of their bands, so check em out and see if you like em.
If you like metal, check out Relapse or Hydrahead.
Some of my favorite bands (which you should be able to find in the above sites) include Tragedy, Orchid, the Oath, Saetia, Page 99, Usurp Synapse, Q and Not U, Fugazi, Lightning Bolt, Books Lie, Killsadie, Pig Destroyer, Mastodon... and the list goes on. (Note : I didn't check all the links, just typed what I was pretty sure they were. Use google if one you want is broken.)
That's about where we're at.
That's right, and it's also why this is such an incredibly stupid idea. The biggest reason it's so stupid is that it a) penalizes people that have nothing to do with piracy, and b) creates a revenue stream that is based on nothing but speculation- it completely distorts important issues like market demand. If this is going to be the new game in town, then why don't banks ask for an special tax on cars, since they're often used as a means to escape after a robbery. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Slashdot is so full of people analyzing the *IAA, they probably would save half a million a year in P.R. consultants by just reading these comments.
If we're forced to pay for it by one means or another, how is it still illegal to download music? If I'm going to pay the RIAA for something, I better get something out of it from the RIAA.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
So, if they charge us doesn't that make it legal for us to download music, after all, it's no longer free.
AFAIK British Telecom are considering high-port throttling on their BTOpenworld ADSL service because they regard P2P users as "bandwidth-hogs" (on 50-1 contended 512/128kbps connections). It makes me glad I'm no longer with them (they kicked me off for "overuse" of a supposedly unmetered account (AnyTime))
The levy is included in the price when the CDs are sold by the importers manufacturers. You'll never see a tax on your bill because it's a levy included in the price of every single CD.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
This would be a good quote:
and its funny how the mpaa can bay julia roberts 20mil per flick regardless of weather its a hit or not but some how alot of the highest selling musicians of all time are broke because they done get paid jack sh!t.
IF you had picked someone other than Julia Roberts. In case you hadn't noticed she hasn't had a bad movie (box office wise) in a long time.
Normal people worry me!
Don't worry, my friend Bill and I are going to get the Yakuza after the RIAA. With broken legs they won't be so tough.
You know, Theft is exactly what we should be doing. We all need to go down to the RIAA headquarters in Washington DC and Steal something. Dismantle it one piece at a time. They have stolen our money, stolen our heritage, and stolen our freedom. We paid for their servers, their files, their Lawyers' Bentleys... Can you imagine a crowd of 10,000 people walking down the street with coffee makers, filing cabinets, desks, chairs, executive zen gardens, lamps, and palm pilots?
We would have to strike many of their offices simultaneously to have the desired effect, but it could be done. We have the popular support.
Dibs on an Aeron!
The ______ Agenda
Yes, if the RIAA was providing services I wouldn't mind this.
But I'm being charged for something i'm not supposed to be doing. Hell, it'd be great if i got this fee then allowed to download whatever the hell i wanted with out the RIAA on my ass. I'm going to let my congressional folks know what's so wrong about this first thing tuesday with a real phone call.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I'd contact a good friend of mine and start up a class action against the RIAA.
I wouldn't mind getting a few free CD's for them trying to impose fees on me.
I don't know, I would be more impressed by a 25% sales decrease had they not decreased their R&D by 20% for the past two years.
The RIAA is dead, the world just doesn't know it yet.
I think paying the RIAA for internet use is wrong in principle, but if my isp were to charge no more than say, $5 a month to RIAA, and that kept the RIAA pacified so they didn't sue or shutdown any p2p or other services they have declared war upon, I probably wouldn't complain. But I doubt that's how their proposal will work.
if i steal an album from a record store, is it the same thing as downloading it?
the obvious answer is NO.
Some argue that copyright infringment is the same as stealing. They say that it hurts the artists, and people are just as guilty if they steal something from a store.
When was the last time you robbed a store, and the store didn't directly see a loss? Did you make an exact (or near exact, you mp3 nazis) copy of the carrot you stole at the grocery store?
yes, it is rationalizing copyright infringement, but it is not rationalizing theft.
please, if i hear one more person say copyright infringement == theft, i'm going to shoot someone.
*bang*
thanks for the rant.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
The standard fee signed artists receive from a label is 10 CENTS per song with MAXIMUM cap of 50 CENTS PER ALBUM (USD = 1 half of one dollar)!
So, if said artist writes/performs an album that goes platinum (1 million sold), and accounting that on average a compact disc is sold for $15 USD these days (actually averages higher overall) it would mean the artist and the label makes this amount of money (production and distribution costs not withstanding):
Artist: $500,000 USD
Label: $14,500,000 USD
That does not even take into account any future royalties lost to artists by poor deals dealt upon signing contracts (waving rights to ownership etc).
Being an artist/musician/producer myself, and a good bet is any self-respecting decent-minded individual would also do, I have to pose this question:
WHO IS THE THIEF NOW ?!
If you are already paying a fee, which you have no choice to pay, that is earmarked as your fee for what you inevitably will pirate with your internet connection, where's the theft? I would say on the RIAA's side of things unless you pirate. If you choose to obtain all your movies / music legally, then you have been ripped off. You pay anyway. SO PIRATE AWAY!
Absolutely agree.
If I go into a place like Circuit City or Best Buy, wander over to the CD section, and buy the soundtrack for a movie such as The Fellowship of the Ring, I can expect to pay about $17.99 USD. Yet I can now wander over to the DVD section and pick up the DVD for that same movie for $19.99 USD -- and there I get the whole movie plus commentary tracks, deleted scenes, documentaries, etc. The soundtrack is only a couple of bucks less and all I get is the soundtrack.
And yet Hillary Rosen and her goose-stepping Gestapo at the RIAA complain about falling CD sales figures and they have the nerve to act surprised. What's that you say, Hillary? CD sales are off? No shit, Sherlock.
The fact of that matter is that 90% of what the RIAA puts out is complete garbage and 100% of it is overpriced. They're well aware of this fact, but really don't care; they're more concerned about preserving their ancient sales model and revenue stream than they are about putting out a high-quality product for a good value. Perhaps that's why DVD sales are skyrocketing and CD sales are flat. DVD movies are cheap, high quality, and offer a lot of bang for the buck.
The fact that DVDs are outselling $20 CDs that only have one or two decent tracks on them should come as a surprise to nobody.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Quality. The recording industry pushes artists to release only a couple of their great tracks per CD and the rest is filler. Well that's a problem for most people as you feel like you are paying $20 for the 2 or 3 songs you actually like. That's rather high per song.
Obviously the artists. If they are foolish enough to tolerate this kind of business, year after year, with no end in sight, then I pity them.
Form a label, sell your own CD's, MP3's or whatever. Or just tolerate this treatment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this happens, isn't that the same as a licensing fee. So then I would be able to download any music I wanted.
My Weblog
If 25% of music lovers(American or from other countries) stopped buying CDs they'd go bonkers. :P
"Then is there a black market for cds?"
It's called Asia.
Brother, I think the question is, where has the music GONE?
I heard that it died, but what... excuse me; I've got a train to catch.
And furthermore, I'll be pissed if I have to pay the music industry a "cover charge" to get into their "internet night club" when all I want broadband for is to download the latest redhat or slackware or the latest tarballs.
Do nightclubs offer timely news from Slashdot, online newspapers, journals, tech sites, eh? No.
If I'm visiting the bookstore next to your night club, are you going to have your punk @ss bouncers demand money of me? Does your night club own the whole damn block? Even if pirated music is like alcohol in a club, who says the whole internet belongs to the RIAA's "night club?" That's a pretty narrow point of view, as if the only worth of the internet is to distribute Hollywood and RIAA "content."
Hilary Rosen and the RIAA have proposed a birth tax on every child born in the United States, since all citizens are obviously pirates. In addition they are proposing an immigration tax on all people coming into the United States as they obviously are coming here where file sharing is unregulated as in China where file sharing is controlled by a simple 9mm solution. The tax would apply retroactively to all citizens of the US, raising approx. 42 billion dollars.
-Typhon
Write congress critter check
Donate to EFF check
Call congress critter check
boycott movies check
boycott RIAA music check
write paper check
tell friends check
write polite letter to RIAA & MPAA telling them they are full of it.
post sticker on bumper "RIAA STINKS
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
She said that? Bitch! Those are the lyrics of my new song.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
file swapping will continue to be the RIAA's excuse because it's easier than the truth.
Quite right. It's easier to blame pirates and terrorists than it is to figure out a way of doing things that's viable in the long term.
In Canada, we recently had a significant increase in the levy on recordable media. This is allowed under part 8 of the Copyright Act. Most people that know about it see it as granting them the moral justification as well as the legal right (also allowed under certain conditions in part 8 of the Copyright Act) to copy as much music as want. I would never go on record admitting to do that myself, but I am aware of many people that see it that way.
I think that exactly the same thing would happen if ISP's had to increase fees in the US, but to a greater extent because a great many more people need/want Internet access. People might even have to stop buying CD's to balance the books...
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
"Let's face it. They know there's a lot of demand for broadband simply because of the availability (of file-sharing)," Rosen said.
Actually, my reason for getting broadband over 3 years ago was because Team Fortress 2 and Duke Nukem Forever were supposed to come out. That sure didn't work out too well...
I find it hard to give artists the benefit of the doubt. Most of the ones who sell through the RIAA have agents who give them checks every week and tell them when they're supposed to be someplace.
I mean, how many time have I watched "Behind the music" and learned about band X that had no idea about how much money they did/didn't have?
-Typhon
really ? .... taken from imdb.com :
..... but they did.
americas sweetharts
full frontal
flop
flop
oh and i dont want to point ouot that the highest selling girl band of all time TLC actually went bankrupt or anything
as much as i hate pop music if someone sells 5 million records they made the industry what 60 million ? minimum ?
they see what out of that ?
advertising and shit should be dictated by simple economics if you advertise it and it sells keep doing it, if not change your marketing technique. but does the riaa do this ? NOPE ! they keep on trying to "market" style and all this BS instead of the actual product because their product friggin blows and they know it.
oh and did they take 5 mil away from Ms roberts for advertising and stage time ? dont think so.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?
Because my working parents loved me so very much (I just like being bitter, don't read much into this), they left me in a day care for most of the day instead of locking me in a room for nine or ten hours. At the day care, we all got in trouble "together". Everybody's childhood might have parts like this, but it only ever happened to me at the day care...
If somebody stole something, or said something they shouldn't say while we were all being noisy enought that the staff couldn't single out who needed to wash their mouth out with muriatic acid, they would group us all together at the tables, give us a brief moment for either the perpetrator to admit his crime or some jerk to snitch on him. After they get NOTHING, we all had to rest our heads on the table and say nothing.
Or, if we were snotched on, we had to hold buckets of water in each hand, with our arms out as far as we can for some obnoxious length of time.
The RIAA's thing is kinda' like that...
You're barking up the wrong tree. For your edification, you may want to look up the definition of the word libertarian.
I do not oppose taxes for national defense, public infrastructure or other things in that vein. I oppose taxation that exists for no other purpose than the redistribution of wealth or the propping up of businesses or organizations that would fail without that taxation (and therefore need to fail).
And what I mean by the industry needing to police itself is that they should use the existing laws and make the effort ON THEIR OWN PART to identify the actual transgressors and pursue them, instead of whining to the government to babysit them and penalize the entire public for their lack of imagination and business sense.
Music is NOT a public utility or a social necessity. I purchase ALL of my music and software (or use free software), and it is CRIMINAL to ask me to pay for the transgressions of others.
BTW, I'm ex military. I think I can stand up just fine in any of the arenas you choose to mention.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
It'll be really easy to get something like this rammed through congress (or parliament in Canada,), because the opposition, while very vocal, will be minor. Like, umpteen million users, and 3000 people bitching. The RIAA will equate this to "support" for it.
The reason I can see this happening is, here in Canada the government is about to impose a serious tax on removable storage like blank cdr's. The tax will cause a 100 spindle of media to jump from 34 bucks to 134 bucks. The agency collecting and administering the tax is none other than the group representing Canadian recording artists (so they say).
So you can bet this, or something like this, will happen sooner rather than later. After all, its pretty tough to figure out where the RIAA stops and congress starts, considering their heads are in such close proximity to the other's ass.
Mike
Ok ok I'll be good. Gimme back my karma.
-- Karma whore? You betcha. --
MAJOR THOUGHT!!... All this downloading and 'burning' of music that's being labeled "Pirating" wasn't even thought of or possible until the Big Computer Makers made it a HOT new concept and actively promoted this feature. Heck, look at all the MP3 players and mobile gadgets that are so popular now that are solely made for downloaded digital music. I firmly believe that these manufacturers should be held accountable or responsible for making and providing the means to "Pirate". As it stands now, they designed, manufactured, and promoted the means and only have profits to count for it. We bought it and will still be buying it....the little guy always provides I guess!
The RIAA (or, more precisely, the companies that make up the RIAA) are having their stuff stolen. Because of this, they are mad. To try and keep their stuff from being stolen, they are trying to recoup their losses from those who facilitate this theft.
That sound about right?
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
I don't think anyone thinks Ann Coulter isn't a bitch.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This sort of thing has been done before.
i agree with you... it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
Let me just say here BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Yes, if the price of food is too high, just don't eat! That will show them. Brilliant analogy, no wonder this got a 5 rating.
well then, i guess if you can't go to asia, then you can go to chinatown.
Why couldn't a DSL provider find a way to agree to this, then offer an enhansed napster-like service to its customers? The ISP could charge a premium to its users for this service, including its own repository or catch, or simply use it as a major marketing advantage over other DSL/cable providers. The ISP and its users would be suit proof - they are paying for for it directly after all.
You are violating copyright law. Sounds like plain old stealing to me, what's this "moral equivalent" non-sense about? You are copying files which you don't have permission to copy. You are a thief. It doesn't get any simpler
I buy my music now, I like to buy my music. Its leagal, I payed for the CD, I help the artist.
If they get cash from fees on my internetconnection, I would resort to this as my only music source.. WHY would I pay twise for the same music? Or for music I DONT want?
Indeed. But the RIAA's big mistake is that what they are doing (this stupid idea, as well as their worms, etc) is also morally and ethically wrong, and some of it is potentially illegal. Ergo, they lose their "moral high ground". They don't deserve our money, they deserve our contempt.
To coin a cliche: "two wrongs do not make a right".
Once you are paying the RIAA in order to use a service which can download their MP3s, it is then legal to use those MP3s whether or not you have the CDs. I really dont think they can possibly argue otherwise, since they are claiming that the reason for this is because they expect you to download MP3s. Read it: You're paying them for the ability to download MP3s.
I hope no one buys another CD.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
You should get around more. I'm betting you could "hear" a couple dozen sillier things just on Slashdot today.
I pay taxes to a government that represents me and my fellow citizens, and that we control through free elections. I will not pay taxes to a private enterprise in which I have no representation. Seems to me that was well settled in the 18th century.
If all the major record labels went bankrupt today, we would certainly not lack for music. I'm a halfway decent piano player myself, and I can sing well enough to entertain myself and annoy my neighbors (not unlike playing an Eminem CD). Frankly, if they did all go bankrupt, I'd say "good riddance". Maybe the new companies that would inevitably spring up to replace them would actually put out some halfway decent product at a reasonable price.
...The RIAA considers downloading music illegally over the Internet to be the moral equivalence of stealing...
So downloading music illegally is not stealing?
Umm, excuse me but it IS stealing. If someone buys a CD, rips it to MP3s, and posts it on a website for mass download and royalties are not paid to the artist/record company then they are breaking the law.
There are copyright laws in place for things like this, and they ARE being broken.
The RIAA is only persuing what OUR laws have granted them the right to do. What was that about by the people, for the people, etc?
If you don't like this, change the laws. That's our right and responsibility, as citizens. But don't be mad at the RIAA for doing what we as voters gave them the right to do.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
Exactly. Many of us don't like that commercialized crap that the RIAA spends loads advertising on. Personally, I listen to apocolyptic folk, al la Current 93, and Death In June. The RIAA has no hand in either of those bands AFAIK, or any of the other music that I listen to. I shouldn't have to pay good money to my ISP for the RIAA to advertize Britney Spears, or the Backstreet Boys when both sicken me. And BTW, I do buy albums for bands that I support.
Checked the site, I was intending to give some $, but I'm not sure I trust it.
I think its a great idea, and I would love to send money to a few obscure bands that I like, but there isn't much info on that site.
Say for example I type in coolbandname, it comes back with
"Send money to coolbandname"
How do I know that I am sending to coolbandname the NYC jazz group, as opposed to coolbandname the texan mariachi band ?
That site needs to give some more info before I will feel comfortable giving them money.
... to make reasonable efforts to stop P2P networks.
That's really what the RIAA wants. They'd be elated to get Congress to authorize such a ridiculous charge, but they know in reality that there's little likelihood of that happening.
So, they're overshooting their goal by 5,000% in hopes of attaining what they've really wanted all along, and that is for ISPs to block P2P networks.
It'll probably work too. Until they start running them on port 80, and then the RIAA will need to come up with another plan of attack. Oddly enough, since the whole tax everyone had already been mentioned, they'll revisit that.
Imagine being a deaf Internet user.
I wonder.. I mean they keep doing whatever they can to fuck up my user right.. they sell the cd's and they sell MD players and DAT players and MP3 players but they want it to be impossible to transfer music to anything but the ear. Not only do they FUCK WITH MY USER RIGHTS! They skyrocket the prices and the quality of the music drops trough the fucking basement floor! Dont they get that they PISS PEOPLE OFF? How hard can this be to understand.. When I buy a CD I want the right to COPY IT i want to USE IT AS A FUCKING FRISBEE if I want.. I wanna USE IT AS MY DINNER PLATE.. I wanna FRY IT IN THE MICROWAVE... I wanna WIPE MY ASS WITH IT..etc.. AND I WANT TO LISTEN TO IT IN WHATEVER MEDIUM OR FORM OF MY CHOICE because I PAID FOR THE DAMNED THING! UNTIL YOU GET THIS I AM NOT PAYING A BLOODY CENT!
This makes me want to get a Broadband connection just to pump out more of my 7000 MP3s.
These people are just ridiculous.
Jay
I generally don't like artists after the RIAA gets a hold of them. Look at the track record of almost any band. The longer they have been produced, the more they start to suck.
The RIAA is bad business and it's bad for music.
Jay
see subject :)
They have the power to tax, the power to make (buy) laws, police power (I believe RIAA members were part of the team in the recent raid), influence on our armed forces... yet somehow the general public doesn't seem all too concerned. Looks like in a few more years at this pace we'll have 2 governments.
You're an idiot. Not the least of the reasons is this: it is not cheap to execute someone. In fact due to court costs it costs more than to keep someone in jail for life.
Troll on you shining diamond.
Bill
Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.
...you work for the RIAA, don't you?
Taxation is hardly the same thing. We ALL benefit from taxation - namely in the form of the mutual defense (the military), among other things. This just goes to get Hillary another ivory backscratcher.
I believe that the markup is only applicable on blank Music CD-R disks, not data disks so if you don't buy music CD-Rs you don't have to worry about giving the RIAA any of your money.
Okay, I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes....
From the article:
She urged the major music labels, which include Sony Music, Warner Music, EMI, Universal Music and Bertelsmann's BMG, to ease licensing restrictions, develop digital copyright protections for music, and invest more in promoting subscription download services.
With the exception of digital copyright protections, isn't this just what the slashdot crowd has been calling for?
Also note that the article said that they would propose charging fees to those who visit song swapping sites - a far cry from the "tax every user" scheme used on CD-Rs (which we've been reminded of too many times...). Ironic, isn't it, that the RIAA is finally trying to focus its enforcement mechanisms on those who actually pirate music rather than blanket punishment for internet users....
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
s/music/my webpage/g
s/music/a book/g
Copying music is not wrong: it is your intent of what you do with that copy that is the issue. In the US, it has been deemed a person can make an archival copy of items (music, software).. but if you then distribute that copy you have suddenly crossed the line into illegality.
(and for what its worth, I think the RIAA proposal is bullshit.. but if some people keep trying to justify p2p transferring of copyrighted works then you only give them more ammo.)
-'fester
This just show how greedy pathetic people try to float a business model who's death has come
1) so if we have to pay this pirating tax, does that mean that we then, are allowed to download music legally(since we payed via our isp)?
2) doesn't this assume guilt when in the good ol' US of A we are innocent until proven guilty? It assumes _everyone_ is pirating software and punishes us(via this isp tax) for that crime. This is America damnit! You cannot fine an ISP for the actions of it's users, nor can you tax the generally internet public for the actions of the minority!
Pirated CDs travel on roads too. Oh, and by boat. Trains too. Maybe we should impose a gas tax while we're at it. They should set up toll boths on the interstates!
I daresay that my ISP will tell them the same, and if it does not, I will move my business to one that does. I have never downloaded pirated music or video (don't like most of the popular stuff anyway), and do not intend to pay for those who do.
If that despicable thieving slimeball Rosen wants fight in court and on the Internet, he's certainly acting in a way that guarantees he will get it.
Catherine
If the DC sniper could of done us any favor at all he should of sniped off this bitch. I am totally fed up with the RIAA, it is totaly obvious that they have totaly bought off congress. All the software companys combined couldn't have the balls to try to pull this off.
While they are at it, why dont they tax Microsoft since most of the p2p software is written for their OS.
The "Unathorized [sic]" part.
The court case that "decided" this was in fact far more restrictive than you're trying to suggest.
Brighter minds than both of ours combined have debated this problem - without resolution - so I'd claim that it's not solved by your trite single-sentence "solution".
when a gonvernment taxes people for services, they make the services available to EVERY ONE in the country. This is what the tax is for.
If RIAA is going to tax the internet, then they better make Music available to everyone on the internet. Some people may not be able to afford the time to download music with their 28.8k modems. Also they should use that tax to make sure everyone has access to the internet.
Just like a government does with Health Care Tax.
But, whom am i kidding, they are not going to do anything like that. They are just lookin for the big cash cow like they usually are.
Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
Yeah I already got tuned into that one. It's pretty good, but not great. Major problem is that it's all back catalog music. It takes a long time for the latest music from my favorite bands to end up there. But still I send them my money every month.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"The sales are slumping, and no-one will say why... :: "MTV Get off the Air"
Could it be they put out one to many lousy records..."
---
Dead Kennedys
... I'll just download music since I'll be, in effect, paying for it anyway. Never had an interest in doing so but would become quite interested under such a circumstance.
Rationalizing theft. I probably won't win anyone over by arguing about that, so I won't bother.
It isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. It doesn't make it right, but the distinction is very important. It also invalidates all the arguments that will no doubt litter the discussion (1/4 of content by weight, I'd wager) about stealing physical goods due to dislike of pricing.
The members of the RIAA also charge their artists for all production costs, as well as a loan (I think it's interest-free and not actually called a loan, but don't quote me on that) for living expenses during the production and release of albums. They insulate themselves from losses quite well this way, and need only put signifigant resources into promoting artists that seem to be attracting interest.
I'd say the RIAA members have a very good grasp of economics. PR however, they seem to be terrible at lately and it's hurting them.
Hillary Rosen is a woman...
And tommorrow, power companies will need to pay royalty fees to media conglomerates because people watch stolen satellite signals powered by electricity...
With all the "could be used to pirate music" tax being applied to just about all media I buy, I say the RIAA needs a seirous wake up call. Taxing ISP is just as stupid as taxing floppies, CD-R/DVD-R, video/audio tape, flash cards, hard drives, DIMMS and now your ISP all because they "could" be used to pirate music. Why not go one step futher and tax the phone company so they can add it to the mile long list of taxes that appear on my phone bill each month.
I haven't bought a music CD in about four years now. The only exception was a CD I bought off the Headpins fan site. Hillary, I have only two words for you... FUCK OFF!
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Short answer... hey Hillary, fu*k YOU!
Poof!
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
A consumer has undeniable right to the product that he paid for. That means, that I have the right to any files that I download from P2P network.
Mind you, I have never done that before. But once I would pay for it, I would make sure that grab as much as I can for my money.
Petrus
Dear Mrs Rosen,
I was planning on purchasing two CD's tonight from TranceTrax.com The latest Orion and Leviathan releases however, after reading the tales of your latest bullshit I decided to donate $25.00 to the EFF. As a result I no longer have the extra cash to spend on those two CD's.
I purchase two CD's each month from TranceTrax.com which helps pay for the audio feed provided by philosomatika Since I an not doing this I will simply donate $10.00 to philosomatika instead.
Have you ever thought that maybe it's you who might be directly responsible for the 6% drop in sales?
PS: Check out www.dontbuycds.org
Putting a tax on blank media isn't anything new. An example would be the 1765 Stamp Act that Great Britain put on the American colonies. Legally and morally the colonists were obligated to pay the tax but because it was wrong they chose to protest it and, after they were ignored, rebelled. Okay, so this isn't colonial America and the RIAA isn't King George but it may still be a useful model.
Why bother giving the money to RIAA/(whoever) as they are private companies. Of course, they hold most copyrights, but with an independent distribution system future artists would not sign their rights away so soon.
Pure wuzzy anti-free-market, big government thinking of couse. But then as organisations grow beyond control and start using their own international police forces to enforce their regulations (laywers, lobyists in employ) shouldn't we treat them as governments? When was the last time a national government gave any other competing country a break, or a share of its profits?
Of course, once the government gains directly from the proceeds, expect copyright duration to last forever.
**AA has paid too much to Congress to have it any other way. They'll be collecting your ISP fee, hacking your computer, and sueing you blind for "copyright violations." (This, in addition to the "tax" on all blank recordable media of any kind.) Five years from now, their goons will be kicking your door down at 3am, just for a spot check!
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Rome, the highlight of civilization back in the day, even fell once corruption got it's grip on the once proud and functional government. That same government which the founders of Americas government chose to base it. Could it be perhaps that it is coming full circle again? Will America eventually fall as a modern Rome?
This is a fantastic idea so long as all musical creators get their fair share of money collected fromt the ISPs. Let everyone who has downloaded an MP3 cast the first stone: what's your alternative solution to compensating creators?
This idea, like no-fault insurance, puts us all in the same boat. P2P filesharing of music becomes legal, The People get access to the world's library of music and creators can pay their bills and make more music. Is that so wrong? WHY?
Copy-making Industry: "Mine! That's MINE! [stomp] Gimme more money!"
Public: "Shut the fuck up."
Congressman Lapdog duJour: "Let's step into my office..."
Slashdot: "Senate/House Extends Copyrights 5000 Years, Creates RIAA Tax, Mandatory Death Penalty for DMCA Violations"
Public: "Dammit. Whoa -- Look at Britney's tits!"
It has been known for a long time that the best, most profitable music and movies are made by people on drugs. And while most artists bear the financial burden of drugs through direct charges, insurance increases, legal fees, and shortened careers, the largest reward is reaped by RIAA executives who enjoy the fruits of artists labors without the associated early Cocane burnout. This is not a fair arrangement.
Therefore, it is proposed that middle-level management and above in all music-related fields be taxed at 4% of income, for the express purpose of using said money to fund such worthy prehab programs as Raves, House Parties, Bashes, Shindigs, Galas, Grateful Dead tribute concerts, and the city of Berkeley, California. In such a fashion, artists and music would be supported by those who have so far stolen their work without returning their fair share.
This levy would, of course, be void for any executive that could prove solidarity with the plight of the musicians through nosebleeds, swollen arteries, ADHD, or the propensity to use the word "Dude" as if it were insightful.
The ______ Agenda
Most, if not all, libraries carry CDs,
which they loan out for free.
labels do pay for the packaging and distribution costs to get them into record stores
>>>>>>
Costs which, btw, don't exist in an internet-centric model... Is it any wonder the RIAA hates the internet? The internet is simply a better, faster, more efficient replacement for the RIAA!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
You reap what you sow, and as long as those bastards resort to petty acts of cyber terrorism to keep their customers in line, they'll continue to be boycotted by me and hundreds of other like-minded individuals, and through association, any ISP adopting this "RIAA Tax" will be boycotted as well.
It's a sorry reflection on the legal system today that such criminals can hide behind the laws whenever they're being hurt. D:
It's been a long time.
To impose a fee, penalty, fine, whatever, on a company like this, it has to be shown that the service or product used was designed for illegal use, or rather, by doing something illegal, you used said product or service in the way it was intended to be used.
This is why gun manufacturers can't be charged with murder, why pharmacutical companies can't be charged if someone Overdoses, why phone companies can't be sued for prank callers or telemarketers, and why car companies can't be sued for driver-error accidents or drunk drivers, and people have tried suing all those companies for those reasons. If a product is not used the way it was intended, it is not the manufacturers fault. As such, the only way an ISP could be sued or taxed in this manner is:
1.) They included a P2P service in their setup package.
2.) They advertised the service as being specifically good for file sharing, and no, advertising fast speed and downloads does not count.
Now, the RIAA may try and dance around this, but they'd have to be very careful about it, because several labels, Warner Records (AOL Time Warner) and Universal (Vivendi) are owned by companies who run ISPs, and as such could accidentally shove their own feet even further up their own asses.
I think this is just the RIAA blowing smoke out their ass, instead of bad music.
Just support indie labels, like Phsycopathic Records. Juggalos of the world, unite!
And, if I'm wrong or misguided in anyway, please explain, don't flame.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
Rosen, albeit despicable, is doing her job. It's Feinstein who is supposed to do the good of the nation and who introduced the CD-R tax. I am not sure it is a good reason to vote republican, but certainly to vote green! How difficult it is to set up a server and get all the IPs of people downloading illegally and be done with it? We can live without RIAA-sponsored music anyway. It's only hype and no substance. I am thinking about boicotting CD-R's now. But how do I back up my data then? Perplexed,
anonymous coward = privacy believer
I wonder if anyone could explain this to me: what exactly makes record industry so special that they don't have to care about laws of commerce? I have understood that in any other industry, if sales go down you have to
a) Lower prices (by cutting costs etc.)
b) Produce higher quality ("better music" or more other value to the customer)
Now it seems that record industry is doing neither. Instead they try to get money even from those who don't consume their products (to which there are great comments in this thread).
Sure there are people who think "why should I pay when I get it for free?", but we are talking about the whole world of music consumers here. If a CD (yes, a CD, I am not going to buy a single copy protected audio record: they are crippled and don't work) would cost 10 euros (today new records cost around 20 euros here) I'd have a much less harder time to buy them (financially and psychologically). And I sincerely believe that I would buy more music than now and spend MORE MONEY. I can't see why others wouldn't too.
I dont think you all know how much it cost to PRODUCE a CD. First you have to make the music. studio time production time re-recording time. Then you have to have the art work for the CD. If its a photograph thats anywhere from $5000 to $15000 (and up) to have just the image created. Then you have to design the CD Jewel case and CD. I would guess before manufacturing the average Label marketed CD cost close to $100,000 to produce. So How much should a cd cost? The band deservers Money. The label for sure deservers the money for marketing it. The highest paid bands may make $2 per CD sold. (not talking mega bands like Pearl Jam and the likes they may be $4) So the average labeled band gets $1 for every cd sold and the average band sells about 40,000 cds. 4 guys just made $40,000 for at least 6months of work if not YEARS to produce ONE CD. Not that I agree with the RIAA but P2P is mostly pirating (YES IT IS SHUT UP) So everyone who is dling MP3 on kazza is JUST AS BAD AS THE RIAA when it comes to ripping off musicians.
Just wait til they think to tax air, because after all it's ultimately the transmission medium via which people listen to music.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This would be the RIAA versus all of corporate America. Every major business has a website. Do you think Google wants to pay the RIAA for every search done on their site?
Even when restricting to home users it'll be a tough fight. People buying audio tapes were doing it to copy audio (or ZX81 games). Most people on the internet don't know what P2P is. All it'll take is one email saying "the government wants to tax the internet to give aide to Hollywood producers please forward this to your friends" email, and in a month you've got a "Not quite" entry on snopes and a million people writing their congressman saying they don't want a tax on their email to go to Hollywood.
-no broken link
This isn't going to happen. Why are we all so worried and upset. I mean, who really thinks this will come about? Come on, there is no story here.
Its just an organization we dislike proposing a really bad idea. Nothing new. But it won't happen. Geeze.
I wonder if that could give end users some sort of consumer rights in the long run. If the RIAA instituded some deal with ISP's making them pay, and then refused to back off of the file-sharing, wouldn't that seem like blackmail? It sure does to me! If I went to a street vendor selling bootlegged CDs and demanded money for not taking legal action, I'm positive I would go to jail just as fast as the bootlegger.
Thanks for pointing out the London Drugs website.. Living in Canada I have an opportunity to support companies like them, and now after reading that - I most certainly will. ;)
The French music industry allready had the government adopt a tax on blank media such as CDRs and is now looking at hard drives, tax that is entirely given to the music industry "artists" on the account that those blank medias are used to copy music. So no matter what you burn on your CDs you have to pay the artists for the music you could/might have burn on them. Anyway plain old stealing like this allready happens so start worrying.
Actually, it doesn't even go to the recording industry yet, it goes to the CPCC, which has yet to redistribute the funds.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Because I'm 100% sure there ain't no Texas mariachi band called "The Brooklyn Funk Experience".
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Personally I think the RIAA needs to sit back and take what's coming to them. For to lomg they have been stealing money form artists, record lables, and comsumers. Radio stations actually have to pay to play music by members of the RIAA. This is the main medium on how they get their music to the public and they basically make the stations pay them to advertise their music. The RIAA is a middle man. What do they really do? take everyone's money. If a popular record label were to revoke it's membership and not charge a radio station "roalyties". You would hear that label's music more, and they would sell more records. As for the sad story about the artists not getting money from their hard work and effort. The bands that are the most avid anti-filesharing are the ones who are least affected. As for the whole "stealing" part, well, earlier post said you could justify anything. what about the price-fixing for so many years? huh? Even the article shows that the RIAA is using this as an excuse to icrease their power and revenue. File-sharers aren't theifs, It's the RIAA who is.
~Common sense is the most evenly distubuted of all things, everyone thinks they have enough, and wants no more
Come we go burn down Babylon one more time / Come we go chant down Babylon one more time / For them soft, yes them soft / Them soft, yes them soft / So come we go chant down Babylon one more time
Men see their dreams and aspirations / Crumble in front of their face / And all their wicked intentions to destroy the / Human race
And how I know, and that's how I know / A Reggae Music, mek we chant down Babylon / With music, mek we chant down Babylon / This music, mek we chant down Babylon / This music, come we chant down Babylon
Come we go chant down Babylon one more time / Come we go chant down Babylon one more time / For them soft, yes them soft / Them soft, mi say them soft / So come we go chant down Babylon one more time
Music you're, music you're the key / Talk to who, please talk to me / Bring the voice of Rastaman / Communicating to everyone
How I, how I know, how I, how I know / And that's how I know / A Reggae Music, chant down, chant down Babylon / Chant down Babylon, chant down Babylon / Chant down Babylon
Reggae Music, chant down Babylon / Reggae Music, chant down Babylon / Reggae Music, chant down Babylon / Reggae Music
Probably not air just yet, but we're only one step away from a levy on 3.5mm plugs, RCA connectors and shielded copper wire.
Damn. I posted this to be funny and it's not, because it's just far too close to reality.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
If your business can't change with the times (ie, they start selling music on-line for a sensible price) then you should go out of business. Period.
Idiots.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
"Perhaps you are familiar with another system that works like this; we usually refer to it here as taxation. You, the user, turn over a certain portion of your earnings to the government and, in return, recieve services from them proportional to your need. There is nothing morally wrong with this - you are helping out the poor and disadvantaged by doing so."
the RIAA is *NOT* the government!!!!!
This is so far away from being a law, it isn't even funny. Nobody with the power to make this a law has come forward supporting it. If Fritz Hollings picks it up, then we can be a bit concerned,
This is a very naive comment. By the time an influential Senator picks it up, it is too late to be "a bit concerned". The only chance of stopping this steamroller is to start attacking it now.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
This is the moral equivalent of people getting a money forcefully for a supposed "protection/service" which is not asked nor used.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>3) With every new inane law or result of a lawsuit that I hear, I get one step closer to leaving the United States. It's becoming a bloody corporate rape scene here in the States and I for one am just about at the end of my rope.
Do it.
Do it now; before it's too late.
There is a whole world out there. Some of it is quite good.
BTW: did you know that "corporation" is a fascist legal fiction? And I mean fascist in the true, original sense. As Mussolini said himself: fascism should better be called "corporatism".
Nah, that would be wrong, wouldn't it? Just like increasing the prices of CD's because they are not seeing enough profit, or keeping the price of CD's where they are, rather than lowing them once the cost of manufacturing went down (remember those promises when CD's were first introduced?)..
I understand where Rosen and her band of idiots are coming from, and I can see where downloading music you didn't pay for can be seen as a threat to the RIAA and their profits... but apparently they don't understand how desperate they sound... or how much opposition/resistance they face..oooh, look - the new Eminem/J.Lo/P.Diddy album is out... better fire up the browser and get me a copy!
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Musical talent innovates by building on earlier music and songs. Is it possible that the extended copyright term has diminished the possibility for innovation, thereby forcing this wave of drek upon us?
They're already charging a 'tax' on CD-R's, and now they want a 'tax' on bandwidth. If they do manage to get this I'm sharing all 500Gb of the MP3s and 300Gb of movies I downloaded (Not on P2P even). They wanna play hardball I'm up for batting. Let the punters get their money worth I say ;-)
They also do that in SOVIET America...
Hmm... Where in Europe are we talking here?
In Denmark as well as many other European countries, a radio station pays royalty to a royalty fund, which then distributes it to the artists, I guess based on media exposure.
Very true. The main problem with looking for stuff over at mp3.com and what not is that one needs a broadband connection and some patience. Patience because Sturgeon's Law is definitely in force with those kinds of sites; I usually have to download five or six songs from different bands to get one that is listenable (ObShamelessPlug). Broadband, because downloading and sifting through that many mp3s is downright painful on a dialup. I've done it; never again.
The other problem is that, there is a pretty strong herd mentality with music. Many people don't just want to listen to a band; they want the feeling that they are part of a community of people who listen to the same band.
Because of a combination of these factors, I bought a CD by an RIAA supported band today. I know these guys' music; I know that even their weaker songs will be listenable. I am part of an online group of fans; I know I can share my experiences of listening to this album with them. I didn't have to wait for a download, and I don't have to worry about mp3 compression artifacts.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
The tight fisted, money grabbing bastards at the RIAA have announced today that they wish to impose a type of fee on anyone who buys music CDs indiscriminately to recoup supposed damages done by file-sharing. "We have doscovered that this is the main source of file sharing on the internet" said an RIAA spokeperson, "in fact I think that we will stop releasing music full stop, that'll get the pirates".
In a further bid to line their own pockets, there are rumours of imposing a fee on simply being a human being.
"What would happen if the major record labels ended up going bankrupt?"
We would all be in for better times.
Or should we be subsidizing wax candle companies because they're going through "hard times" due to all these electric lightbulbs around? No, we just let them die for the most part and embrace the new.
Major labels already did their job of getting music everywhere. The Internet is here now to take over and let the buyers actually decide what they like and what they don't, song by song, artist by artist.
Yeah I'm dreaming but...
emusic.com -- all the MP3s you can download, $10 a month
Nice download manager, too... (the Linux one is a pain to get working, but work it does)... I think I've downloaded over 1Gb in the past two weeks. If they have music you like, it ain't bad value for money...
What the RIAA is doing is no more than
,and without DRM
robbery, but using politicans instead of
guns and masks to pull off their heist.
These losers need to face the reality that
they are dinosaurs, people are sick of paying
$15 a pop for(now crippled) CDs, and that they
either need to sell MP3s of songs that
cost only a few dollars
or any of that crap, or die.
I am not condoning piracy at all, and I think
that artists deserve (most) of the pay, and
the suits get only their fair share of the
money for whatever help they gave the artists,
but people are just not going to buy crippled
overpriced items. The companies can super-encrypt
everything, require a constant connection to
DRM servers while the song is playing, or
put the CD in a huge block of cement, but people
will still find a way to bypass this crap.
The RIAA needs to get with the times.
Let's show the industry how it is done. I'm finishing a CD this month, it will be available mid February for $10. I suggest every slashdot user buys a copy, then I'll call the RIAA and tell them how well $10 CDs work. :-)
Well, sounds like a good idea, assuming it's all good music, not 2 or 3 tracks of good music. Even if it is only 2 or 3 tracks, it's still better than the vast majority of albums out there.
Noting the paltry number of good tracks out there, how do sales of "greatest hits" albums do in comparison? Does a good track/price ratio have something to do with sales?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
The bottom line in this whole story is that the power to change the situation rests with the "artists." I quote that word because I don't think much of anything being produced today is artistic, let alone worth money. We keep talking about how hard it is for a new band to get signed onto a label, and then further how hard it is except for the primo bands to make any money. Great. Then it sounds to me like the bands or individual artists are purposely taking it sideways from the recording industry. I guess everyone deserves what they get. If the "artists" would stop for a second, they might realize that they DON'T *HAVE* to do this. I hear a lot about "artists" saying that they'd do this no matter what. Ok... How about NOT doing it? How about doing something else, and perhaps making a decent living? I've got news for you, lots of us learned a skill or a trade and found a job, and you can do it too. THAT is the only thing that's going to change how the RIAA does business. We - the buying public - have already shown that there's little impact to our buying habits no matter how much they charge for a disc, or how much tax they levy against raw media, or how stupid the artists make themselves look on national television. So what's to stop them? Nothing, until the artists agree that their deals are so bad that they go do something else. Our buying is a given. So as long as the RIAA has a stream of one-hit-wonders to draw from, this will go on. The "artists" are the bottle-neck. The power to change the situation lies in their hands.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
That's what's really scary -- we think up absurdities meant to be jokes -- and on second thought, they're no joke :(
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This is not a moral issue. It's business, and the entire distribution model is changing. All businesses must adjust to a changing landscape. The music industry is no different. If the RIAA is "landscaped" out of existence it's not so bad. Something new will take it's place.
No, that's still not the same.
When you steal the groceries from the shop behind the corner, you take it from the owner of the shop and he loses money spent on it. When you take someone's car, you take away his posession. When you photocopy a dollar bill and circulate it, you take away a bit of value from every single dollar bill on this planet.
When you copy music you don't do any of this. You don't deprieve original of its value, you don't take the money spent on its creation. There is very questionable point of lost revenue, but thats just it: it's questionable.
Go figure...
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Who are you to judge AC? Insulting him for his grammar just makes you look like a wanker.
It can giggle all it wants. The galaxy's not gettin any of our Bourbon.
In 1765 American's response was to dump the
tea in the harbor and tell King George to shove
it.
Nowadays that would be a terrorist act.
The same was said about helping slaves escape and hiding Jews.
If you look at the events of the times when the concepts around copyright and patents were developed for incorporation into the Constitution, you will learn that the Framer's intent was that copyrights and patents be very limited. Patents were intended to provide full and open disclosure of ideas immediately (open source) instead of them being kept secret (as in trade secrets). Copyrights were intended to restrict the ability to rapidly copy written works, which at the time was on the order of weeks, down from months and years, to support the author-publishers of the times and keep them publishing.
Morally and ethically, I would claim that copyrights and patents should be limited to as short a time as possible and that the compensation should be restricted to the creators of these works and ideas.
Bascially, if anyone is should be paid for copies of Mickey Mouse cartoons, it should be Walt Disney himself, not his estate or anyone or anything else, because the Constitutional intent is to ensure that Walt Disney is able to continue to create. Until such time as Walt comes back to life and starts creating again, I see no moral and ethical problem not paying to copy his works.
That it is illegal to copy Walt's work is another matter, and I suggest that the circumstances leading to this situation are the result of questionable moral and ethical acts. Patents and copyright laws today are clearly going well beyond the Constitutional intent of promoting the free exchange of ideas balanced with the compensation of the individuals who create the ideas.
These laws are legal theft of property without benefit to the People.
Most artists that I know that have signed to a label did so when they were very young, 19-23, and had no clue about how business works. The the labels get A & R reps, who are "cool"-seeming young dudes (usually guys who were in signed bands that broke up) to hob-nob with you and convince you that the label is different than all the others.
Then these A & R reps get you to sign a "deal memo" which they will tell you you don't need your lawyers to read, it's nota contract. And it's not, but it's still legally binding. All it says is that you intend to sign a deal with the label.
Once you've signed, you're in and you can't really get out. The deal memo means that you can't sign with another label, and if you can't do that you are pretty much at the mercy of what contract they give you.
Sure, you could probably get a lawyer and get out of the deal memo, but a) these people are young and don't have lawyers or big money, b) the labels have better lawyers and bigger money, and c) the fear that other labels won't want you if you have a reputation for being litigous.
All in all, the deck is stacked towards the labels.
double taxation is not illegal. in fact it is practiced everyday in nearly every state in america.
example: you pay state taxes on your income right? well, in PA we do. then, whenever I use that money that has already been taxed to buy something that is not food or clothing, I pay sales tax. Not that I disagree with your main point, and not that I disagree with the concept of sales tax or income tax. I'm just saying that we are double taxed all the time.
Hey, NewtonsLaw, thanks for that link. That's the way things should be done. - Alph
NEWSFLASH: They are all data cdr's. They are all music cdr's
First of all, the inappropriate response is to continue stealing music (in larger quantities) in response to the fee. Like it or not, it is illegal and you're not helping yourself out any by doing that. The fee is not morally right and I doubt very much that it would stand up in court.
I do not steal music. I do not own a copy of kazaa, limewire, bearshare, etc. I pay $10 a mont h for a subscription to emusic.com and download my tunes *legally* there. If you're stealing the music then you really have no ground to stand on if you want to oppose the fee cause you're legally indebted to the RIAA for the stolen files. It is those who obtain music online legally or not at all who would be the true victims, not all you kazaa junkies who think it's morally different to allow one upload at a timerather than ten.
Brian
Well, let's see... Right now, I generally don't download music. When I do, it is to "preview" something, and that leads to either my purchase of an album or deletion of the song.
If the RIAA has the 'nads to actually implement this fee (which, if you think about it amounts to a tax, and last time I checked, only the government was authorized to do so), I would have no problem in keeping an archive of music.
The way things are NOW, it's ethically sound to buy the album(s) I listen to. If the RIAA charges people (like me) for music without Just Cause, then I will simply stop buying CDs.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Wow. I can now feel really good that I pay the money-grabbing RIAA for just plain using the internet. I wonder who will be able to charge us through the backdoor next, Microsoft?
And I don't think it will, it's time to head to Washington, DC with your torches and pitchforks.
To legislate a TAX, the proceeds of which to pass to a corporate entity that is a CONVICTED FELON (twice for price fixing) is certainly grounds for drastic action.
Fact is, we as individuals don't own our government anymore. Corps and other "groups" do.
They are tiny minorities, yet they usurp the majority. Money talks, after all.
What we need is reform of the corporation. If Hillary were PERSONALLY liable for the illegal price fixing collusion the RIAA has been convicted of, would she be more or less likely to promote it?
What do you call it when a cartel colludes to fix prices at an artificially high level?
Stealing?
Corporatism != Free Market
it would be 'pollution'.
You'd get a nasty fine and have to clean it up. There'd also probably be a civil suit from a group of local fishermen who want damages. The tea company that happens to make the brand you used will also take you to court for some sort of defamation. Last - once this hit the press, PETA would picket your house/place of business for abusing fish.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
When they imposed similar taxes on CDRs in places like Canada they didn't suddenly stop trying to prevent copyright violations using CDRs.
This terrorism thing is a misunderstanding , the sun will burn forever, and, the next version of Microsoft Office will be reasonably priced (and released for Linux).
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Everyone is out to get you. The end of the world is coming.
:)
"It's clear to me these companies are profiting to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. They must be held accountable," Rosen said.
Ya, the RIAA should be held accountable for all the idiotic, not to mention illegal, things want to do to their Customers, if any other company treated their customers this way they would be out of business...
http://monkeyserver.com --- weeeeee
I know this analogy is still slightly flawed; it's more like growing your own Monsanto roundup-ready-canola without paying Monsanto for the seeds. But it is nothing like stealing actual vegetables from a store.
Incidentally, you might want to do a web search and read up on roundup-ready-canola. Monsanto is just the kind of company that might propose a tax on farming equipment to cover their 'seed piracy'
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
> > Once a system is in place to pay money to artists
> > directly, I'll put some money in towards the
> > artists I like
I have one. Walk down to your local Post Orifice and buy a bunch of $10 money orders (total cost $10.90, plus 37 cents to mail the damn things). Fill them out to your favorite artists and send them through fanmail. If you want that remote-chance-of-a-reply, you could write a nice letter (probably a good idea in any case) and include a reasonably anonymous email address for reply. It's not a perfect system, and the commissions (10%+ to the USPS) are high, but, in my limited experience, it does work; I've had a few thank-you emails come through the ether.
I think by music cdrs, he means the ones specifically label as blank crds for audio recordings. They do exist you know...
i agree with you... it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
Except that in this cash the grocery store would be adding a gas tax because cars help you rob their stores. Everyone must pay the tax even if they are honest.
Via the tax, they get my money for doing nothing at all. I've gotten no product in return, and i'm being punished for what someone else is doing.
if you're paying all this money to them from the gas tax, you'd probably start to think that they owe you something in return. You've already paid for the food via the gas tax so you just take it from thier store w/o paying there. Its not a hard line of reasoning to follow, and i don't think its rationalization.
I Do not download music.. And I've bought more used vinyl recently than new polycarbonate/acrylic...
...
But if i HAD to pay a tax, I would make sure to excise my full value from that tax, and to me, that means digitizing and compressing all that vinyl and p2p it all over the place....
I would still have no interest in downloading MP3's as they have crappy quality, but then i'm happy with the warm glow of hollow-state electronics... and the occasional crackle of static from a real disk(LP).
I'm also one of those crazy coots that thinks that Bose is nothing compared to a good pair of real speakers like Kef 104/2's
anyhow, i'm back to real music listening.
Are you kidding? How much could bullets possibly cost? And forget court costs - we're trying to save money here, we'd cut those right outa the process. None of this faggoty liberal "due process" bullshit; they've already had their day in court! And they lost!
--sdem
Bullshit. The RIAA spends their shitload of promotional money on bullshit homogenzied gangsta/slut wannabe crap.
No RIAA-affiliated label has promoted a band, group or individual I liked in ten years.
Make no mistake, the RIAA would prefer there to be two artists (total) in each of 6-10 genres, and each selling a copy of their CD to every human being on the planet. They have no interest in diversity, creativity, niche marketing...It's called economics, it ISN'T that difficult and screw 'em. They do not give a shite about me, the artists, art in general, and they frequently run over fluffy kittens in their SUVs!!! Damn them.
Look:
Retail stores could completely end shoplifting by the simple expedient of assigning a security guard to every shopper. This is not cost efficient, so they just write off...what 3-5%?
When the RIAA gets filesharing down to where my daughter can't set it up in 5 minutes, and it takes me a half an hour, then they'll be satisfied.
Maybe.
"To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
sure they know what interesting and artistic music is. how else do you explain their consistant ability to avoid publishing any of it?
geek friendly VPS's and free API enabled DNS : zerigo.com
When is the internet comunity going to wake up and realise if they dont stop copying copyrighted works and stick to copy and making the free stuff better we are going to end up trying to turn on our 802.11b wireless connections when we know the area isnt being scanned by the law to even use something to talk to each other that isnt regulated. If you dont stop copying copyrighted works soon we will all get fucked over big time WAKE UP
meridian at tha.net
No, actually this is extremely clever, because:
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Do I get a discount for my Internet access via my pda? It can't play MP3s let alone download them.
All those cell phone users will be pissed as well.
But hay everyone uses Windows and downloads MP3s over the Internet we all know that.
I don't actually exist.
Mind you, hard disk space is now so cheap, why not just sneakernet your hd to your buddy's and copy the files directly from their hard drive; saves time, bandwidth, money.
I don't know... that might be pushing the truth a bit much. Let's just say she isn't a man :-)
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
The same thing's happening to the "consumer DVD burner in a box for your living room". It retails for the same bucks as a PC / DVD burner combo, and isn't as versatile.
And, of course, for playback, all the newer dvd palyers handle mp3 on cdrw for a hundred bucks!
It's funny how the **AAs always go after the little guys, not the ones making the big bucks off the enabling technologies. Maybe because the big boys have good lawyers...
[Place: Posh RIAA meeting. Time: Sometime after this conversation]
RIAA Exec #1: File sharing is one of the biggest threats to our industry.
RIAA Exec #2: But what do we do about it? We'll be stuck playing perpetual whack-a-mole. Every time we sue one out of existence, another one pops up.
RIAA Exec #1: Well, what if we were to set up some fee structure...
RIAA Exec #2: You mean, just charge everyone?
RIAA Exec #1: Well, ideally yes, but I was thinking maybe of just targetting ISPs.
RIAA Exec #2: Oh, I see, since ISP users are the only ones doing file sharing.
RIAA Exec #1: And we wouldn't even have to figure out who was and wasn't. That'd be the ISPs job.
RIAA Exec #2: So it's sortof like Napster -- but with a subscription fee.
[silence]
RIAA Exec #1: Hmmm. Yeah. Why didn't someone think of that earlier?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
yeah but the levy on cassestes and vhs tapes is only on people who ARE going to make copies of things, not on just everyone who owns a vcr, right? thus by surcharging everyone, you call each and every person on the internet a thief, instead of dealing with the problem. --s_JAMESSMITH
You're right on; the fee sends a very clear message to the end user by seeming like a prepayment for free downloads.
I'm a theoretical proponent of the micropayment system, run by something uncomplicated, such as PayPal.
Scott McCloud proposed micropayments for several art forms in his 2000 and 2001 graphics-based articles, specifically this and this. Clearly not the newest idea, but a sensible presentation of it.
Could you imagine the end of the world if Hilary Rosen had Bill Gates' child?
Hilary Rosen can go suck a fucking dick. Don't charge people for crap they didn't do, don't charge ISPs for being the middle-man, don't ever assume.