Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Now Targets Pirates' Parents
cecil36 writes "In a follow-up to the subpoena silliness by the RIAA, the Associated Press is now reporting that the RIAA is now issuing subpoenas to family members of suspected online music swappers."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
As a law-abiding citizen and one who not only supports IP, but who makes a living off of it, I think this is a great idea. It's fairly well documented that most adolescents have little regard for the law and perhaps if enough of them are forced to move into the YMCA, homeless and hungry, where they will be at high risk of forced sodomy and other vile disgusting acts, all because their parents are imprisoned, well, this might be just the ticket to wake all these kids up.
I've gone as far as to build back doors into some of my networking products that gather and track information straight from the level II socket upstream layer and although I've yet to use this information in any way, it would be real easy for me to bring some lawsuits against some of the largest Fortune 500 companies in the US. You guys would be shocked by the amount of IP theft that goes on by large multi billion dollar companies.
It's a shame that most of these kids can't see that if they were out there busting their hump and trying to make a living on their own and millions of people were stealing their IP they would be as angry as Metallica or any of the other people who back the RIAA.
Warmest regards,
--Jack
Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
Heh just for a moment I thought I was reading the Onion.
"Derp de derp."
IN JAIL.
What an excellent way for a rotten, rebellious brat to get his parents in trouble for spanking him!
What happens when the RIAA sues Laura Bush and its on national TV? Or will they try to cover it up and keep it quite while applogizing and begging for forgiveness?
I'm just waiting for them to sue that wrong person, or that wrong kid and find out they sued Bill Gates daughter or something.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I don't live at home anymore... will my parents still get the bill?
Life in Orange County
Let's all have a subpoena party! Everybodys gonna get one right?
I used the following terms in a post today and felt they needed to be added to my list of terms.... :
CD-Socialism/Stalinism/McCarthyism
CD-Socialism:add CD to the following definition and it's a definite possibility of what's coming..socialism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
CD-Stalinism:Ok add CD to the following definition but remove the stuff relating to Stalin?Marxist shit at the end..Stalinism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stäl-nzm)
n.
The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application (ignore)of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin.(/ignore)
CD-McCartyism:Add CD in front of the following.. McCarthyism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-kärth-zm)
n.
The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
Wow doesn't this sound like the RIAA's tactics?
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
Elderly Are Targets in Internet Subpoenas
By TED BRIDIS
AP Technology Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Move over, college kids. Grandparents and roommates may be the first ones to pay in time and money for downloading songs on the Internet.
The music industry's earliest subpoenas are aimed at a surprisingly eclectic group, including a grandfather, an unsuspecting dad and an apartment roommate.
"Within five minutes, if I can get hold of her, this will come to an end," said Gordon Pate of Dana Point, Calif., when told by The Associated Press that a federal subpoena had been issued over his daughter's music downloads.
The legal papers required an Internet provider, Comcast Cable Communications Inc., to hand over Pate's name and address. They were among nearly 1,000 subpoenas issued as part of the recording industry's high-stakes campaign to cripple online piracy by suing some of music's biggest fans.
Pate, 67, confirmed that his 23-year-old daughter, Leah Pate, had installed file-sharing software using an account cited on the subpoena. But he said his daughter would stop immediately and the family did not know using such software could result in a stern warning, expensive lawsuit or even criminal prosecution.
"There's no way either us or our daughter would do anything we knew to be illegal," Pate said, promising to remove the software quickly. "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."
The president of the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the largest music labels, said lawyers will pursue downloaders regardless of personal circumstances because it would deter other Internet users.
"The idea really is not to be selective, to let people know that if they're offering a substantial number of files for others to copy, they are at risk," Cary Sherman said. "It doesn't matter who they are."
Over the coming months this may be the Internet's equivalent of shock and awe, the stunning discovery by music fans across America that copyright lawyers can pierce the presumed anonymity of file-sharing, even for computer users hiding behind nicknames such as "hottdude0587" or "bluemonkey13."
In Charleston, W.Va., college student Amy Boggs said she quickly deleted more than 1,400 music files on her computer after the AP told her she was the target of a subpoena. Boggs said she sometimes downloaded dozens of songs on any given day, including ones by Fleetwood Mac, Blondie, Incubus and Busta Rhymes.
Since Boggs used her roommates' Internet account, the roommates' name and address were being turned over to music industry lawyers.
"This scares me so bad I never want to download anything again," said Boggs, who turned 22 on Thursday. "I never thought this would happen. There are millions of people out there doing this."
In homes where parents or grandparents may not closely monitor the family's Internet use, the news could be especially surprising. A defendant's liability can depend on their age and whether anyone else knew about the music downloads.
Bob Barnes, a 50-year-old grandfather in Fresno, Calif., and the target of a subpoena, acknowledged sharing "several hundred" music files. He said he used the Internet to download hard-to-find recordings of European artists because he was unsatisfied with modern American artists and grew tired of buying CDs without the chance to listen to them first.
"If you don't like it, you can't take it back," said Barnes, who runs a small video production company with his wife from their three-bedroom home. "You have all your little blonde, blue-eyed clones. There's no originality."
Citing the numeric Internet addresses of music downloaders, the RIAA has said it can only track users by comparing those addresses against subscriber records held by Internet providers. But the AP used those addresses and other details culled from subpoenas and was able to locate some Internet users who are among the music industry's earliest
Dear RIAA,
Kindly go after the school the kids are in, the district and the State they live in, oh hell even sue a few Congressmen and Senators and the U.S. Government while your at it.. !!
Kind Regards
A Clueless bum
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
We can throw our CDs into the habor!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The RIAA is only going after parents because the accounts being used for the activity is in their name. The example given in the article is about a 23 yr old girl who uses her parents' account. Whether it's her parents' responsibility for her actions with their service or not, I am not one to say, but if she was under 18, they would sure as hell be responsible (see, in the real world, you're responsible for the actions of your children until they are 18, whether you like it or not).
At what point does this become harassment/malicious prosecution/etc.?
the scurvy dogs. Make the RIAA walk the plank.
Please turn over the doubloons previously designated as the "college fund."
This just goes to show you that this has nothing to do with "intellectual property" and everything to do with money. Of course they can't go after kids, so they're going to go after their parents, who, in most cases, have no idea what their kids are doing on the Internet.
I'll offer up my family as an example. My parents are fairly clueless when it comes to anything remotely technological. My youngest sister, on the other hand, can find damned near any song she wants online. (Note: I'm not implying that this equals any level of computer competency, but not bad for a nine-year-old).
Last time I went home, my lil' sis had about 500 songs shared on Kazaa til I un-sharified them. I can guaran-damn-tee you that my parents have absolutely no idea about this, and now the R*AA is going to be suing folks like my parents?
Let the backlash begin. We'll be the whip.
Regardless of the relative arguments about filesharing, having the grandparents or other family members getting served with subpoenas is guaranteed to put an end to any teenager silliness on the home pc. Saying how bad the RIAA is isn't going to cut it with anyone who's been inconvenienced by these things.
Of course, the flip side (?) is that the RIAA is now possibly making the number of people who hate them potentially much larger, if that was possible. Time will tell how this plays out...
"Within five minutes, if I can get hold of her, this will come to an end," said Gordon Pate of Dana Point, Calif., when told by The Associated Press that a federal subpoena had been issued over his daughter's music downloads.
In other words....she's not answering the phone because the wrath of Dad is coming....heh.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Although this is fictional, the events of this story is already happening now.
Please direct all bug reports to
I think that you've forgotten an option... (e)I know it's wrong, but I don't really care so I'll download everything anyway.
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
You forgot:
(e) Copyright is meaningless to me at this point.
Nothing created during my lifetime will ever be in the public domain. That public domain is MINE and YOURS! The media companies have stolen it from us with their hired guns (congress) and society as a whole is lessened because of it.
Due to that, I have no respect for copyright law anymore.
The RIAA claims that downloading music will drive them out of business. Anybody else smell a massive boycott brewing?
"Derp de derp."
Well, considering you just got a federal subpeona...
On the other hand, he has the idea straight:
Barnes expressed some concern about a possible lawsuit but was confident that "more likely they will probably come out with a cease and desist order" to stop him sharing music files on the Internet.
My question is this: With 911 subpeonas issued so far, what if every person takes the RIAA to court? Do you know how much 911 seperate cases will cost the RIAA?
I'm also wondering if there's anything in the DMCA that protects file sharers...
I like how the article mentions specific artists' music "found" on the individuals' PCs but fails to mention where the music came from instead leading the reader to believe they were downloaded illegally.
RIAA: You're my father's Brother's Uncle's Sister's Roommate's Cousin.
Dude: What's that make me?
RIAA: Nothing, but we're suing you anyway.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
My car also belongs to me, but I doubt that if I borrowed it to a (adult, licensed to drive) friend, I would be liable for him hitting someone or using my car as a getaway car in a robbery without my knowledge (naturally, if I knew it in advance I would be accessory or something like that).
First of all, Pate is fully within his rights to videotape movies off cable! It's called Fair Use!
The fact that he 'zealously respects copyrights' only means that he is misinformed, and most likely has been taken in by **IA propaganda that would lead you to believe that there is no Fair Use.
Secondly, I am looking forward to several things: The death of CD sales and painful realization of the RIAA that they are going down. The explosion of indi artists and methods of distribution, and no more focus-group artists!
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, let the 80's die a noble quick death, not a lingering bedridden death like the 70's. Ironic that I would say that, as I played in a 80's cover band, friends don't let friends share Def Leppard.
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a law that states that you dont have to testify against your own family? how can they subpoena that?
Game Overdrive - Gaming News
We take all our CDs, grind the edges down to a razor's edge, and throw them at RIAA employees. The death of a thousand cuts - by CDs (where CD = Cutting Disc). Yay, all the lovely blood...
you insensitive clod!
sulli
RTFJ.
(e) Because a consumer should have the right to do whatever they want with their property, including sharing it with others.
Joe
http://www.joegrossberg.com
...on the computer in the prison library.
My Dad downloads music, sometimes more than I do. Does that mean the RIAA will go after my grandpa? What'll they settle for, half of his pension check each month?
The same thing will happen if you lend someone your car and they kill someone with it. Your insurance rates go up, not theirs. Nothing new here, move along.
Oh, and how oblivous can this guy be? He's the father of a girl who was sharing files on her/his PC:
"There's no way either us or our daughter would do anything we knew to be illegal. I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."
Riiiiiiiiiiight. They figured out how to get on the net, install the software, and download the files, but didn't notice the front page news stories over the past year or so about how the RIAA and others are going after people who do this? Jesus, if ignorance is bliss, this guy must be one of the blissest on record.
Let them sue 60 million people, and when people decide to stop buying CDs and start buying indie music, the RIAA can then attempt to pass new laws forcing us to buy CDs each month else we go to jail.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
die... now
please... just stop breathing
you sound so much like this total dolt
getting desperate there RIAA?
Oh well...sue away...eventually you won't have enough money to continue this insane amount of suing you seem to be so intent on doing.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
Of course, the analogy falls apart, because in the TV show they were calling the parents to come over and actually do some parenting, whereas this sad story has the RIAA coming after the parents to hold them accountable... Anyway.
Do not read this sig.
Next up, the RIAA starts targetting computer makers. Then they'll go after OS writers (look out, microsoft! You should have known better than to allow people to develop software for your OS! Software that could BREAK THE LAW!), and after that they'll start hitting media-player programs. Finally, they'll take legal action against music artists themselves - the TRUE source of all this piracy!
I am a filthy pirate.
The RIAA is demonstrating it's power, right? I think the consumers should demonstrate back. Here's what you do:
- Pick a day.
- On that day, everybody buys a CD. Doesn't matter which, though a newly released highly publiscized CD would be preferable. (Like the newest Spears album or something.)
- DO NOT OPEN THE CD.
- On the following day, return the CDs for a refund. Assuming the store will take back unopened CDs.
If a significant number of money is passed and then refunded, it'd be hard for the retailers not to take notice. I'd be surprised if that info didn't bubble up to the RIAA. If enough money moves, the RIAA will have a pretty good idea that this type of action will cause them to endure losses.
I personally have $100 I'd be willing to pump into this right now this second if I knew other people would be participating too.
"Derp de derp."
"There's no way either us or our daughter would do anything we knew to be illegal," Pate said, promising to remove the software quickly. "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."
This is sad on so many levels. First, of course it is illegal to download music and I am sure at least his daughter knew that. Second, the guy makes it sound like p2p software is the problem and that uninstalling it stops the illegal activity. Just stop downloading and sharing music, the p2p software is perfectly legal. In the grand schmeme of things though, this is just disgusting. The RIAA is going too far, and I will never buy a cd that they profit from again.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists.
Christ, I'd consider suing her for bad musical taste, probably have an easier time making that one stick too.
Over the coming months this may be the Internet's equivalent of shock and awe, the stunning discovery by music fans across America that copyright lawyers can pierce the presumed anonymity of file-sharing, even for computer users hiding behind nicknames such as "hottdude0587" or "bluemonkey13."
Does this mean there will be heavy civilian casualties, lots of property damage an eventually guerilla warfare with nothing much gained?
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
why does sound so much like the infamous (not for positive reasons) "war on drugs".
i feel like this will never end, and there will never be any resolution with the current approach at stopping file sharing.
what's the classic line? "the tighter you grip the more that slips through your fingers"
R.I.P.
i'd love to see what happens when an unsecured wifi network owner gets a letter.
"Well gee, I just got this set up. Whats kazaa?"
e) I download, but I also pay for CDs when an artist is worth it; in fact, I'll often download a few songs, and then pay up for the CD. That is, until the RIAA started to wage warfare on P2P.
What will be interesting is to see who is the first person(s) to actually get sued. I mean think about it..the RIAA has to play its cards just right because if they pull grandmothers and little kids into court and sued then for the anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per song the backlash would probably be enough to hurt them even more then they are already hurting themselves.
From the end of the article:
"I think they're trying to scare people," Barnes said.
No... You think?!?
Do not read this sig.
800 223 2328
Nice try, but just because I don't have any respect for you still doesn't make it right to shoot you in the head with my 9.
From the article :
Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.
It's a wonder his daughter only downloaded a bit of music. Her father's obviously some kind of loony and you'd think her reaction to that would push her the other way.
Nothing original, I concede, but the obvious should be restated. often:
Sharing is the best way to stimulate a market, if I like a piece of music, I want to tell others about it. It enriches them and raises my social status (or at least sense of worth). This is what "tape trading" used to be all about and it is exactly what file trading is now about. Sucky music doesn't stay in my shared directory for very long.
The truth is that the RIAA is fighting against the very essence of civilized culture, they are doing their best to defend their short term interests while ignoring the fact that without an enthusiastic audience they will be the first to loose. When no one is willing to pay money for the next one hit wonder's overproduced album, and the record companies slowly starve there will still be a million independent artists working hard for our attention, they do know how to use the current technology and they will be the ones benefiting the most from all this.
If you ask me, this issue has already been won. All they can to is try to intimidate anyone they can. This attempt to get parents to "police" their children will only reinforce the idea that "sharing is cool." It makes sharing, and resisting the media conglomerate's influence immediately anti-authority and anti-establishment, forbidden fruit, therefore immensely cool. It's over.
Elderly Are Targets in Internet Subpoenas
I bet if these RIAA guys were on the Titanic they would build rafts made of women and children.
What would happen if everyone just started filing lawsuits against the management of the RIAA as private citizens? There are more of us than there are of them. Since they have established that you can file a lawsuit for BS reasons, why don't we return the favor. Would they be able to defend against thousands upon thousands of individuals filing seperate lawsuits against them?
The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists
She shouldn't be fined for pirating music. She should be fined for her taste in music.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
You might want to reconsider any data you get from this. Learn something from /.
Join Tor today!
I would suggest listening to other music. Indie lables and the like.
I'll be honest, it's gotten to the point where the alternative labels are putting out better music anyway.
I remember when music was fun. When music was an entertainment "entity". We made cassette tapes for each other profusely, and we loved it. We went to concerts, bought tapes by the trunk load, watched MTV, etc... it was pure entertainment... fun. It was as if the record companies knew that this was just "how it is". I bought more music during my Napster days that I had in the previous 7 years. It was like a re-introduction to the music "thang", the music "culture" if you will that seemed to become far less fun over the years
And then... *sigh*. The DMCA, the RIAA, attacking customers, bringing them to court, etc... I don't know about you, but to think this helps business you would have to be one of two things:
1. Completely disconnected with your customer base and what makes your business flourish, and will never entertain that the problems are due to their own shortcomings (bad music, horrible radio payoffs for even worse music, realizing that attacking your own customers is bad (sheesh, do I even have to say that?) etc...) or
2. A minion that is just giving us another example of greed run amok, plain to see by it's customers.
In either case, I think they are literally only going to make it worse for themselves.
Insensitive clods.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
PORN!!!
Does this mean parents are going to start actually looking at what the kids are downloading from kazaa???
I can see it now...
Porn vs. RIAA
place your bets folks
Any thoughts? I mean, it sounds extreme. Clearly they won't go THAT far overboard... *shudder*
Enron, anyone?
This sounds suspiciously like a press release from the RIAA. Or at least a bit of cheesy testimonial that you would normally see in an infomercial.
Joe Cotellese
www.clearstatic.org
Music News - Consumer Bias
(b) I'm not really 'stealing' it because it's still 'there' after I have taken it;
:(
Exactly! Copyright infringement IS NOT 'THEFT' under most legal systems. Copying a piece of digital media does not deprive the original owner of it. Unfortunately, the penalties for this 'virtual theft' seem worse than those for real and often violent robbery, burglary etc...
(d) Everyone else is doing it, normal people who don't shoplift or anything, so it must be okay.
When vast numbers of people break the law, maybe the law needs changing. See 'prohibition'. Also 'speeding'...
e) I'm mostly previewing it. Either that, or I'm watching a movie that i've seen twice in theaters (matrix, t3) that won't come out on DVD anytime soon. I never bought cd's, video games or movies before p2p. I always copied my friends. Now that p2p allows me to sample what I want, I've purchased many things that I otherwise wouldn't have glanced twice at: 3 anime titles, Neverwinter Nights (and the expansion), about 20 cd's (ok, so i still dl most of my music), and about 4 movies. The music problem will be fixed once I solve the whole spending 20k on tuition and only making 7k in wages.
IMHO, If hundreds or thousands of parents are jailed, even for a short period of time, families could be thrown into upheaval. And what about single-parent families? They might even have to be taken as temporary wards of the state, if relatives can't take them in.
One of the few good things that would come of this line of thinking, would be responsibility. Parents would be MUCH MUCH stricter with their children if they knew it was their ass on the line and that they could be jailed because little Johnny decided he/she did not want to pay for the music he/she listens to.
I am sorry to be so gloomy, but I can only see a massive backlash (of some form) coming with the way this is being handled. It is one thing for millions of Americans to be irresponsible with their online accounts; it is quite another for the government (by the people and for the people) to be even more irresponsible the the taxpayer's money in how they respond to this problem.
There really should be an objective oversight committee on this issue so that the GOVERNMENT's concerns, and the people's concerns are dealt with and so that the government and the people do not have to foot the bill of the the mass media's jihad against filesharers (who just may be future potential consumers, considering there are 50 MILLION of them) This is a problem, just not in the proportions they are blowing it into.
(to all english majors cringing out there, I apologize for all the preposition-ended sentences) ;)
With as litigious as our society is becoming today, your odds of getting sued increase by the minute. Whether it be the RIAA, the MPAA, SCO, or just Joe Blow from next door, you're sure to get BOARed (tm)(Bent over and rammed) any day now.
We have just what you need.
Lawsuit insurance. Yes. That's right, for only $100 a day, we will CYA from any civil suit that may be brought against you. And isn't a mere hundred dollars worth your piece of mind?
Any takers?
From: "Teh R1AA"
To: Owners of Computer
Dear Sir or Madam,
It has come to our attention that someone using your computer has been offering our copyrighted works to public access. Please send all information (Social Sec. #, Credit Card #, Height, Weight, Name, Age, Genome Map, Address) of L337s3xxi3hk1tten48@Kazaa to Us.
In the United Corporations of America We Hope. "Teh R1AAz0rz".
You'd think the average parents should care more about their son/daughter calling themselves a leet sexxieh kitten more than Civil Lawsuit Barratry (I can't spel good. I am so Smart, S-M-R-T)
- Jones
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
correct me if I'm wrong here, but if ISPs turned off system auditing procedures that logged what usernames are logged in with what ips, wouldn't there be no information to hand over.
I'd imagine a lot of ISPs would do this since it would require that they take time out of their busy day to help the RIAA on their crusade.
How many people downloading does it take before it becomes common law. That is if common law still exists. If people downloading music is the majority, how can a minority dictate the laws of a whole country, and getting the families involved more directly seems like abuse of power... or at least from my perspective.
Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
Copyright infringement is a civil tort (I guess it's a tort, anyway IANAL)
While I realize its an invalid comparison, this totally reminds me of the soviet-era tactics during WWII. If you didn't fight for the Red Army, the Red Army jailed your family.
The real reason for this, is of course, that parents will be scared shitless of having to pay $10,000 to $100,000 for their kids music transgressions. and since most older adults have less of a grasp on this, they'll get scared and prevent kids from going online.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
What does Dave Littlefield have to say about this?
RIAA is issuing subpoenas to neighbors and friends of people who know or once knew anybody who shares files of any kind...Story at 11.
No trees were harmed in posting this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced
The ISP was the target of the subpoena. The RIAA gets the user's contact info from the ISP, then sends a cease-and-desist to the user. Ms. Boggs is one step ahead of them, by complying to the C&D before it's sent.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Thank god I'm an orphan!
I've got just over 25 gigs of music on my computer. The music comes from various sources (library, my own, outsourced, etc...).
Anyhow, I've got room to spare. What's to stop me from duplicating my collection, but instead fill each file with garbage data so they are the same sizes and have the same names.
Is it illegal for me to share files with specific names? Would I get a subpoena?
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
According to the RIAA, you are only 'licensed' to hear the music when you buy the CD. The disc itself is your property but not the tracks. They say the music is not your property to begin with.
Of course this is a double standard because of your CD gets damaged or something, they want you to pay for another one in order to hear the music again, even though you already bought a 'license.' They have a mighty tasty cake and they are eating it too.
... nothing is more powerful than "I'm gonna tell your dad!" - Chris Rock
Some joker expects this to blow over with a cease and desist order. They're just trying to scare people.
I think he's in for a big surprise. This is the law and the law wins. Please disabuse yourselves of the notion that the great Amerikan Sheople are going to rise up and do dick about this. They will quietly and fearfully conclude this free music business was just a big fad, like free love in the sixties.
Which leaves the rest of us in the underground, where we belong.
illegitimii non ingravare
The association has issued at least 911 subpoenas so far
9-11? I knew it. The RIAA is in league with terrorists! It's bombin' time, baby!
What, like a Mannlicher-Carcano? :P
It's amazing to me that any industry group would be so shallow. I don't espouse grabbing hundreds of mp3's without purchase, but I am not one to spend $15 or $20 on a cd without hearing more than just the first single that gets released early to radio and MTV. If I wanted to grab songs by some indie act or group that releases songs for free on their web sites (much thanks to those who do!), I'd likely go searching P2P. The fact that Metallica and Eminem are on these servers is technically not *my* fault. It's my fault for downloading them, but let me turn this scenario.
If I went into a library and photocopied a hundred sets of chapter 1 of the new Stephen King novel, collated and stapled, then left them in stacks on the sidewalk, who would be guilty of breaking the law: me or the people who pick them up and take them home? This is not "illegal file sharing" by people who download music; this is "copyright violation" by people who make copyrighted songs available freely for download. Whether I share a gig of mp3's is a lot more important than whether I have a gig of mp3's. I don't agree with this misstatement of the law in self-righteous tones on behalf of a special interest group any more than searching shoes in airports because we had a "shoe bomber" or racial profiling or relabelling acts that used to be misdemeanors as terrorism because the term's popular. We have laws that aren't being properly defined and fairly enforced; that's not justification for making new laws. It's a freaking felony to share software, but it's a misdemeanor to beat someone up in a bar. That can't be right.
-j
I'm not much of a music pirate but I do enjoy following the game of cat and mouse between **AA and the pirates. One idea that crossed my mind would be to setup a proxy for kazaa in a 'free' country like afaganistan or maybe russia (no, not soviet russia) or just about anywhere that RIAA-like gangs haven't gathered much strength.
If the traffic appears to be coming from out of the US that should effectively hide pirates at least for a little while.
-Posted as AC just incase.
At least a few organizations have chosen to fight back, i.e. MIT. But others such as Comcast seem all too willing to hand over data which can get their subscribers sued! Sooner or later the RIAA is going to bankrupt/scare all the people paying their ISP's so their private information can be given away. Surely that has to affect the ISP's business at some point, isn't that the logical conclusion?I think companies should take a more proactive stance towards the RIAA, because these lawsuits are going to affect them eventually also!
E) all of the above. The RIAA is ruining music by turning it into a machine. They found a formula they think works, plug in a new artist use the same shit as before and bam they got a new hit. The only people who are getting hurt are the musicians who are just starting out. they don't have any record sales and don't have many gigs, these artists need support, but the Pop crap out there, who cares about it. Must musicians get their money from the tours they go on, not record sales.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire
I cant wait to see what the lawyers will do to this idiot for installing spyware into their business apps :-)
:-)
This could be a warm-up fight for the main event IBM vs SCO
And why am I told to "Slow Down, Cowboy"????
This is an attempt to force parents to get a clue and uninstall Kazaa from their home computers.
I'm not against file sharing, my band has benefitted from it, but would I want a little kid on Kazaa anyway? Here's a clue - do a global search for Britney Spears and figure out how many of those results will be: A)Music Files and B)Legit Music Files. It's all porn. Good for me (!), not for little kids.
A couple of choice quotes:
A father of a file-sharer said "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."
They missed the rest of the quote "...without paying anyone for it, just, you know, for free, like when I go shopping at Target without paying. That's not illegal, right?"
"In Charleston, W.Va., college student Amy Boggs said she quickly deleted more than 1,400 music files on her computer after the AP told her she was the target of a subpoena. Boggs said she sometimes downloaded dozens of songs on any given day, including ones by Fleetwood Mac, Blondie, Incubus and Busta Rhymes."
missing the bit where she said "...But you won't tell anyone about that, right? Or that I was born on July 24th, 1981, OK?"
Cheers, Paul
"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash," said Christopher Caldwell, a lawyer in Los Angeles who works with major studios and the Motion Picture Association of America
Too fucking late Chris...
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
under Mussolini that police would carry out roadside executions, instead of writing tickets. I bet they had very polite drivers, but would you want to live there?
My rights don't need management.
F) When I want a song, I look up the label of the artist. I then compair that label to the members of the RIAA obtained off their website. If there is a match, I download off a P2P service because I will not support the RIAA. If there is not a match, I will attempt to buy it online. If it is imposible to download or purchace online, I will download it.
My family has Comcast Cable Internet, and every one of us use P2P apps.
I use Poisened on my iBook, the rest use Blubster/Kazaa on their PCs.
We're a whole families worth of subpeonas!
Kazaa lite is currently showing 4,251,066 uses online sharing 864,211,508 files. When I first swapped to it after the great morpheus fiasco the figures were regularly around 1,500,000 users.
Me young whelps be trollin'
Wow, the effects have been brutal ... I snapped a pic of one of those affected at lunch today:
Click Here
(Score:-1, Wrong)
They are certainly ripping off the artists but it does not make getting unpaid or bootleg copies legal. "(b) I'm not really 'stealing' it because it's still 'there' after I have taken it;"
You're not really stealing because copyright infringement != theft regardless of what the thought police try to coerce you into believing.
"(c) Music and movies suck nowadays anyway so I should be able to get them free;"
Even if it sucks, it is intellectual property and you've gotta pay the owner for it. The RIAA owns the music if its signed artists. If it sucks, why do you want to get it in the first place?!?
"(d) Everyone else is doing it, normal people who don't shoplift or anything, so it must be okay."
If the United States was a democratic country where the majority's word is law as opposed to a 'communist' state ruled by cartels and monopolies where people all play the same games under their rules, this would be true. Too bad it is not true. Whomever you vote for come January '05, the cartels that control what you see, hear, think and believe will not be thrown 'out of office.'
is a special proxy set up for kazaa that just relays transfers, include it in the next kazaa lite, everyone sends thru everyone else.
A very good defence to this would be that you were using a 802.11b connection and that someone else hacked into your network....and using utilities that format your hard-drive using the government recommended method (3 passes or more)...you could save yourself...
Maybe people will finally wake up, realize that they actually run this country and exercise their (not copy but constitutional) right to elect politicians who can rectify this situation.
I have been following this story with some interest, and I am still wondering how much of this story is real, and how much is so much legal FUD.
Consider: Even assuming that the RIAA proves some kid (or even his parents) has made one of their copyrighted songs available for download, how do they prove that anyone other than the copyright holder actually downloaded it?
Even assuming that they did, how do they then go show that the person who downloaded it actually turned the song into a sailable format? (MP3s are not the same quality as WAVs - how would this substandard quality be factored in?)
Even if someone did, presumably at most they'd be liable for the proportional cost of the song off the CD. Would the Judge give them credit for anyone who downloaded the song and then decided to buy the CD?
Understand that I am perfectly aware that the present U.S. political system has a strongly plutocratic component (e.g. the rich get to buy the laws they want), but I still think there are a lot more hurdles the RIAA most cross before they can start collecting that absurd "$15,000 per song" that's being bandied about in the articles about this.
either wagnerconsulting closed long ago or it never existed. the only google hits for wagnerconsulting are for /. posts. wagnerconsulting.com may have existed long ago, but not anymore. one way or the other he's a tard
then you have the right to subpoena any of the artists that you are accused of sharing. Put them on the stand and ask them if they support the RIAA's suing of their customers. Ask them how much money they have lost because of file sharing. Ask them every question under the sun. Take up as much time as possible for each artist. If each Metallica member has to spend 2 days in court for every person they sue, then maybe they'll just shut their pie holes and be grateful for what their fans have given them.
OK, how many times will I have to say it: people who make music and movies feel you are stealing their work if you download their songs without your permission.
There is this illusion that "information wants to be free". Bollucks. Nor is it true that artists will continue to produce music if everyone downloads and no one buys their CDs; they will simply do something else to pay the bills.
Concerts do not make enough money for an artist to support themselves; they need CD royalties also.
There is a reason why people who download music or "share" music need to be punished: Otherwise, we will no longer have decent musicians making CDs.
Or, should I say, we will have less people making CDs.
Yeah, people didn't share music prior to peer to peer networks.... not online (FTP and binaries newsgroups) and definately not back in the old days (cassette tape).
It's all about who is going to control the distribution of music. The RIAA doesn't want artists to be able cut the middlemen (recording labels) from the process.
In order to presever the status quo, the RIAA labals are suing their own customers. This will only hasten the inevitable. I do feel sorry for the people that are being harrassed. It's sad and wrong and does nothing for those that actually create the music.
Am experimenting with a proxy system that can mask the IP addresses of the downloaders so the RIAA cannot possibly track them down.
Getting encouraging resuts, developing same tools the spammers use, but going one level deeper.
I intend to publish it of course, so everyone can completely stay anonymous while they visit their favorite music sharing site.
Of course I have to find a friendly country to setup the proxy server. China comes to mind.
I have lots of contacts there, and it wouldnt be hard to set one up there.
Could you show up for the subpoena, say, "Anyone who wants to can use my IP address. I don't keep track of who and when. I do not pirate music, and I do not know who was using my IP address at the time the music was pirated. I will be happy to remove any offending files and software I can find on my computer (if indeed the IP address was being used by my computer at the time), and I will continue to let anyone use my IP address. This time I'm going to be nice and not sue you for this blatantly false allegation. Next time I won't be so friendly, so please be sure to identify the human, not the IP address that is breaking the law, and have credible witnesses."
Are you allowed to withhold evidence that would implicate another person in a civil trial? If the RIAA asked you, while you were on the stand, for a list of all the people who have been in your house in the past month, could you say, "blow me."? It would seem that these facts do not directly relate to the charge that you did or did not pirate the songs. Can you be forced to testify in a civil trial or only in criminal trials?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If RIAA/Skynet sent a terminator to the past (which, being the future's past, would be our past, present, or more impending future), then we should be seeing a terminator either already, or in the near future. Keep an eye on the papers for "Killer robot from files subpoenas with ISPs for file trader identities".
If you really want to trick it up, assume that the future RIAA/Skynet sent the Terminator to our present or our past. Which means that if RIAA/Skynet wanted to send a robot into the past from the future, they would have done it already.
OMG! *head explodes*
17-year-old-son: Some movies of barely legal teens doing everything with barnyard animals that I downloaded off the Internet.
Father: Thank God it's not MP3s. For a moment I'd thought you'd really gotten us in trouble there.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Alot of people have idea's that they should 'boycott' the RIAA buy not buying CD's or buying them and returning them, or even buying from indie artists, but they all ask the same question: Who are RIAA members? Well I'd like to point you you this page which gives you a nice list of all the labels.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
This just goes to show you that this has nothing to do with "intellectual property" and everything to do with money.
Well of course, and the RAII has not really said any different. Sure, they say they are protecting their IP, but why? Because they say (and this is without question true) it affects their profits. According to the RAII, if you steal their member's music, their members are deprived of the profit that they would otherwise make when you bought the CD.
I honestly don't think this can be disputed. What can is if you would have bought to CD to begin with.
The idea that you should be able to download music you own is really a silly subterfuge. If you own it, burn it to a CD and play it on your computer. It is highly suspect for someone with 300 or 400 titles on their box to insist they own all the tunes on CD anyway...
Barnes expressed some concern about a possible lawsuit but was confident that "more likely they will probably come out with a cease and desist order" to stop him sharing music files on the Internet.
"I think they're trying to scare people," Barnes said.
And it IS going to be pretty scary when they bankrupt you and all the other users.
The first politician to run on a more enlightened IP platform (more fair use, stricter patent rules, etc), will get my vote and my dollars. Let's hope someone steps up. I guess in the mean time, I'll just have to set my donations to Boucher.
The RIAA can sue all it wants, and I'm sure it will get cooperation from a majority of the parents.
But, they are gonna bump into some guy whose kid is sharing songs and this guys got the money to defend himself and he will force the issue to a jury.
And guess what, the jury will be hard pressed to confict the parent. Why, because most of the people on the jury have had some sort of parental responsiblity at some point in time and they will understand that it's difficult to police your kids 100 percent of the time.
Plus, most will consider the offense trivial at best.
That's how our legal system works. The jury has the ultimate responsibility to decide whether a law is just or not and whether to convict.
It doesn't even matter if the prosecutor has shown guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's still the jury's decision to convict or not. And that descision can be based upon whether a law is just or not.
I'm not trying to justify swapping songs, but just pointing out that just because the RIAA sticks it to some unwitting parent doesn't mean everything is cut and dried over with....
Caution: Contents under pressure
If the RIAA starts going after the parents' of file sharing children, people are going to get really pissed and some crack will find out where members of the RIAA live and do a few "Malvo's" on them. While I agree that this is highly illegal, the RIAA will take this subtle hint and back-off this bullshit that their industry is dying because of file sharers. The RIAA needs to wake up, the entire fricking economy is REALLY BAD OFF now. Everyone's profits are down except Exxon Mobile! Another reason their profits are down is because their business model is antiquated and FAILING miserably. This is nolonger about intellectual propery rights, it's about money and protecting and keeping the cash hord large enough to fight unethical legal battles on every front.
All your music are belong to constructive and destructive interefering multiphasic sines waves.
Try your best to do this with a copy protected CD and maybe kill two birds with one stone in the process.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I disagree with the statement "I should be able to tsake muse and movies off the internet for free." It's simply unnecessary to say that I should be able to, as I already can.
In the same way it's your computer--your property that is distributing the forbidden files. The only way to recognize the computer is by ISP records---that means YOU if you pay the bill! You would be responsible for your computer to follow the TOS even if your not personally on it. There's no way to prove it ISN'T you.
Quote:
"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash," said Christopher Caldwell, a lawyer in Los Angeles who previously worked with major studios and the Motion Picture Association of America."
--------
This is getting silly and stupid. The only people making money here are the lawyers. People should stop buying music entirely until they start offering the content in the high quality formats that people want and be able to use it as they see fit. The Apple iTunes store was a start, but it can still be far better.
As for backlash, I'm not talking about a small drop. I'm talking about turning a $4+ billion dollar industry into a >$2 billion dollar industry. If they want to continue to play hardball, people should continue to stay away. The industry is not going to change unless consumers force it too. Increasing file sharing is not the answer either.
If a music store will take them back unopened for a full refund (no BS restocking fees or anything), I'd happily buy a few thousand worth of CDs to take back the next day.
Uh... My girlfriend doesn't have a CD player. Yeah. That's it.
First of all the RIAA did not target people's parents. The RIAA is targetting the ISP's account holders, which is perfectly logical.
Second of all, the parent who was notified that their child was subpoened was NOT notified by the RIAA. They were notified by the Associated Press.
It says right there in the article that the RIAA didn't even know that people like the AP could get hold of that type of information.
So yeah, the RIAA is bad and evil, and so is Microsoft, and SCO and the other flavors of the month, but at least read the article before you comment, so you can get your facts right.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
IS when the RIAA hands a subpoena to one of our fine upstanding loony citizens. One of those people who puts all faith in teh intarweb and downloading free music, pr0n and moovies. Is the RIAA ready for Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kazinski? I hope so. They're really playing with fire now.
Not to mention the millions of armed Americans who also take their 'Civil Liberties' very personally. I wonder if the RIAA is ready for armed conflict. It should be interesting to watch, because they're not suing the dorks that sit in the dark with the 50TB raid anymore. They're suing everyone.
Get ready for some fireworks....
But those giant bastards have infringed so many of our individual rights that I don't care. They may be able to scare some people away from sharing on the Net at large, but it ain't gonna solve their problems. They're gonna have to find a way to surcharge photons and electrons if they expect to get what they see as their fair profit. DVD burners and VPNs will keep copying alive.
We need copyright reform. Copyright have a direct effect on everyone, but benefit only a few. The scumbags have proved that those laws can be changed, so let's change 'em again. Let's change 'em big.
All that great music from the 20's thru the 60's...OURS! Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind...OURS! It's all a part of our culture now, it belongs to US.
It all nothing more than what amounts to last ditch efforts to continue the existance of an industry model that has lived it's time and now it's time to die..... change...
That's really all there is to it. The struggle of a dying industry.
Of course, the flip side (?) is that the RIAA is now possibly making the number of people who hate them potentially much larger, if that was possible.
And along with this outcome, they will be pissing off a bunch of people that potentially have deeper pockets to challenge the RAII.
If I was holding shares in one or more RIAA companies, I'd be livid right now!
How does it make business sense to sue music downloaders (let alone their parents or roomates). One would assume that they are downloading music because they would like to hear the songs. Do you suppose they still would be so eager to hear the music once it has cost them $15,000 in fines?
The internet is a possible gold mine for the RIAA and the MPAA. iTunes has proven that, unlike the lies currently spread by RIAA, there are thousands of people eagerly awaiting a chance to legally download digital songs over the internet, and to pay for them to boot! Of course these people are going to turn to illegal methods to get what they want if there's no other way TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
Here's a little business tip for the RIAA member companies:
-- millions of people are downloading songs you hold the copyright to
-- most of them realize this is illegal
-- they want these songs bad enough that they are willing to overlook the illegality of what they are doing
-- they have shown that, when offered with reasonable alternatives (i.e. terms of use offered through iTunes), they are willing to shell out money to get what they are currently getting for free
GIVE THE CUSTOMERS WHAT THEY WANT!!
Instead, what do they do? Sue the users. Bravo.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
For example, a paragraph from his article:
Which is followed immediately by this:
Cary Sherman states they targeting those offering files for others to copy, not targeting those that DO copy.
Is my understanding of the RIAA's actions incorrect, or is Ted Bridis using the incorrect terminology in his linked article?
This is why it's a really bad idea to let individuals (or corporations) take legal actions without an intervening legal authority. Giving the RIAA the authority to issue subpoenas directly, instead of requiring a judge to verify that they're warranted, leads to exactly this kind of abuse.
I SO hope that some of the parents who get subpoenas are well-connected, or in congress themselves, so they can see firsthand the results of this horrible legislation.
Extortion.
I bet if I could make money off of lobby for an unconstitutional law and be able to pull off legal extortion, I'd have no problem scaring people like the RIAA.
I will download whatever I want and feel that no one person or group can stop me from it.
They might sign away 49% of their custody and send you to a Behavioral Modification Center offshore in Jamaica staffed by uneducated/uncertified people who will "restrain" you into submission.
They'll guaranteed you're kids will come back saying, "I love you mama" while giving you a pretty flower, just like the kids on Maury!
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I heard that the RIAA is going to put bars on the windows, a barbed wire fence and a guard tower with an armed officer outside your house. Free of cost for every family convicted of file sharing!
"From you, dad, I learned it from watching you!"
The relation: Strategy. The RIAA has realized that most individuals over the age of 50 are ignorant of the filesharing ideology; we can relate that to a nice bunch of peasants. Now, how does one scare peasants? With a firestorm/blizzard combination. The Blizzard consists of subpoenas of, say, 600 people (probably college kids). Everyone saw this one coming, its an old strat. The parents' thought process went something along these lines, they are only targeting the big distributors, and my college student cannot be downloading that much music. Suddenly the RIAA comes out with the expansion pack and a firestorm insues. Now the parents can be sued, and they will be forced to check into their children's downloading habbits. The entire strategy is to exploit the peasants. All the peasants have to do is to realize that there are only 2 heros in this game, against alot more peasants. The peasants wont mine gold for either side if the combo is used. Because in real life, the peasants realize that they are the only ones who really get screwed. "I used to think" -I could be wrong --Radiohead--
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
We can throw our CDs into the habor!
Sure, just make sure you rip and burn them first...
The "I didn't know it was illegal" defence always works. :P While I have no love for the RIAA, when this guy said he and his daughter never do anything illegal, I would have loved to see his driving record for speeding tickets, etc.
I do think that the RIAA is going about this the wrong way. After all, they are pissing off the very people they want to buy their CDs. Music services like iTunes prove that an online distribution network can succeed. I'd love for labels to vanish and just have all the profits go to the bands.
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
I figure that the majority of /. users aren't buying many CDs, but shouldn't someone organize some sort of a protest against the RIAAs actions? Speak to the artists themselves-- Just about every news story has an almost obligatory reference to a possible "backlash" from consumers. Well consumers are cattle, they're not going to think on their own. I haven't bought a CD in probably 2 years or so, but I think a little effort would hit the RIAA pretty hard. Otherwise, we're all just targets, some just a little larger than others.
Mike
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Copyright is not a Constitutional right - the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright but does not require it to do so. Copyright could be ended tomorrow if Congress just passed a bill that repealed it.
The following are links to sections of my new article that explains the steps you can take to make file sharing legal:
- Change the Law
- Speak Out
- Vote
- Write to Your Elected Representatives
- Donate Money to Political Campaigns
- Support Campaign Finance Reform
- Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Practice Civil Disobedience
If you agree with what I have to say and feel as I do that it's important for others to hear it, please consider linking my article from your weblog or emailing the link to other people who might benefit from it.Request your free CD of my piano music.
of course it just like with cars: you are responsible for the damage done when your friend rammed your car against something/someone. its your car after all.
What about knives? How about propane tanks? (Those have been used to kill or attempt to kill people in schools.)
I think you're getting a little to far ahead of yourself and concentrating on responsiblities for only a single thing.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I would disagree with what seems to be your argument that the RIAA is looking to make money directly off this type of thing. What they are trying to do is shut down file sharing, which keeps them firmly in control of all music distribution. Now, 16 year-old Tommy is not really a good target for this sort of thing, due to 1) being a minor and making legalities more complicated, 2) only further advancing the image that the RIAA is bullying defenseless people, and 3) Tommy doesn't care.
But Tommy doesn't own the computer, nor pay for the cable/DSL service. If Tommy's mommy freaks out due to the worry over a lawsuit, she'll either pull the plug completely on the internet service or at least shut down the file sharing (or try to).
"It's not a scenario we had truthfully envisaged," Sherman said. "If somebody wants to settle before a lawsuit is filed it would be fine to call us, but it's really not clear how we're going to perceive this."
Okay, first of all, this doesn't make any sense: "If somebody wants to settle before a lawsuit is filed it would be fine to call us, but it's really not clear how we're going to perceive this." What? What are you percieving?
Second, it sounds like they're just subpoenaing people to scare them without a real plan. I mean, I know that's what they're doing, but with no plan to back it up? Some lawyer out there should start a website with what to do if you're charged, basic stuff that people can do, every single person charged, so that the RIAA has to respond to every person in every state. Basically, make them spend as much money as possible on litigation while keeping costs low for the people that are being sued so that soon it becomes financially irresponsible for them to continue with litigation.
Or something like that. This stuff really burns my biscuits!
Folks, RIAA has not issued these subpeonas, according to the article:
Stop with the knee-jerk reactions and read the article more carefully. I'm sick of reading about how RIAA is so evil for going after grandparents, when in reality they have done no such thing...yet.
In fact, I'm a little sickened by the AP; they did RIAA's homework for them by locating these not-quite-victims to get quotes for their story.
I may be alone in this, but I think that the more of these suits they bring the better. It would be great if they could get a hold of a sue every single file sharer out there.
Now, there is a method to my madness, this would be good, because it might just piss off enough people, or just enough of the right people, to actually get something done about the screwed up copyright laws we have at the moment. So, as far as I am concerned, bring it on RIAA, send more threatening letters, start more suits, go piss off all of your customers. You are only digging the foundation out from under yourselves.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
When asked for comment on this latest discovery they succinctly replied: "We'll see about this after our lawyers and lobbyists are finished with it."
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Betray Your Family And Friends!
Fabulous Prizes To Be Won!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
That's what they say, but jurors find their own balance between "guilty beyond any reasonable doubt" and "more likely than not guilty."
In reality, people have been convicted on nothing more than motive, opportunity, and a lack of evidence in favor of their innocence.
You are next -- the RIAA
Eventually, someone who works for the RIAA is going to have a breakthrough: they're permanently alienating a good majority of their potential consumers. Personally, I have zero motivation to buy a CD from anyone who's a member of the RIAA. These lawsuits are frivolous - we have more than enough cases to keep the courts occupied. We don't need more lawsuits, especially not these ones.
If the music industry stops promoting overpriced CDs with two or three good songs and another half hour of crappy filler, we'll all be motivated to buy more music. The Beatles were able to make their B-Side tracks works of genius. All I'm asking for now is a CD where the entire disc is passable. I'm not paying for something that's 85% crap.
Goo goo g'joob.
How liable are you if someone else uses your computer or your network to pirate music. Many cable modems have wireless lans attached to them, how can anyone prove that it wasn't someone else using them? It's also easy to hijack your roommates IP address, how much care does he have to put in so that you don't. Do you have to constantly sit in your room and make sure your roommates doesn't plug his computer into your plug?
I agree... this is too funny... either this guy is a serious troll, or a moron that with a single slashdot post, just put his company out of business...
It makes sense.. who has more money, a college student, or the parent/grandparent has been saving for decades probably!
If I was served with the papers I would immediately go buy the CDs of the songs I downloaded.
"Oh, yeah I remember my CDs are in the attic!"
RIAA doesn't have a chance.
1) Collect data on kid's music tastes.
2) Send letters to parents with check box mail order system, or maybe a list of local shops which sell the content.
3) Profit?
So there you sit, all smug, shaking your head at these really stupid people who would have the gall to share copyrighted stuff on the net. You don't do P2P, so it's Someone Else's Problem. They deserve what they get.
So think about this the next time you're perusing your favorite porn site, or maybe if you don't do porn, a fan club site. Hell, it doesn't really matter: Any site will do, as long as you are downloading content.
Are you sure that content isn't copyright-protected? Are you sure that the content provider isn't sharing something (lesbo pictures, glamour shots, whatever) that they themselves don't have a right to share? What a surprise it will be when the local constable shows up at your door with a subpoena in hand, listing all the times you accessed www.analdestruction.com, how long you spent on the site, and what your browser downloaded, all courtesy of Comcast or some other ISP provider who really doesn't give a shit about your privacy. How will you explain that one to your wife? Or your buddies at work? Or the judge?
This "rape and plunder" tactic that the RIAA is taking is just the tip of the iceberg. As ISPs get jaded to serving up your IP/MAC information on a routine basis, your surfing habits will become easy prey for anyone with a grudge. Thanks to the RIAA, they are spending all the money necessary to establish legal precedence in this area, and to basically pave the way for anyone to start their own little money-making venture.
If you surf the web, you are vulnerable, because I seriously doubt you check the copyright status of each and every piece of content you download. So wipe that smug smile off your face, because it's just a matter of time before your IP shows up on a federal subpoena.
This isn't an issue of whether or not some morons sharing stuff that isn't theirs deserve what they get. Nor is it Someone Else's Problem. It's your problem, my problem, and everyone's problem. The madness needs to stop.
How many parents actually monitor every activity their kids engage in online? There is no real point to this RIAA legal nonsense; I thought suing college kids was the lowest the RIAA could sink to, but boy was I wrong.
Citing the numeric Internet addresses of music downloaders, the RIAA has said it can only track users by comparing those addresses against subscriber records held by Internet providers. But the AP used those addresses and other details culled from subpoenas and was able to locate some Internet users who are among the music industry's earliest targets. Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered. The RIAA's president was not sure what advice to offer because he never imagined downloaders could be identified until Internet providers turned over subscriber records, as the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires them to do. "It's not a scenario we had truthfully envisaged," Sherman said. "If somebody wants to settle before a lawsuit is filed it would be fine to call us, but it's really not clear how we're going to perceive this." --- The RIAA doesn't even know what its going to do yet...
http://chrono.posterous.com/
At first I thought it was complaining about me posting two comments too quickly. It took me a while to notice it wanted me to contemplate my comment for a while.
When the troll fighting hurts the innocent user, can it be called collateral damage too?
Most people don't understand how to use their computers, let alone comprehend laws that make legitimate usage illegal. Once confronted with draconian laws, they universally condemn them.
Bullies exist because they know most people will back down from confrontation, but when a bully is confronted by someone who is willing to fight back that bully doesn't want to fight. They want to bully--it's more efficient.
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
Just don't buy any of their crappy music and don't download it either. Then they can't do a thing to you.
Man, getting busted for filesharing is embarrasing enough but then having a letter sent to your parents and getting them dragged in as well? The horror. The horror.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith:
You are hereby subpoenaed to appear in court on August 31, 2003 at 10am to answer the charges of illegal filesharing. Our scans have verified that the KaZaA account jerkingboy69@kazaa accesses the network from your computer is sharing over 600 copyrighted mp3 works in addition to numerous pornographic video files. If you do not appear on court at the above listed day and time, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.
Sincerely,
RIAA Enforcement Division
"Uh, Jeffery? Can I talk to you for a moment?"
GMD
watch this
I'd like to take a break from the rhetoric and criticism to point out a silver lining in this. The actions of the RIAA in this instance will serve as a wakeup call to millions of Internet users that they cannot fully hide behind anonymity online by using a clever alias. Too many people feel that they are shielded by their online pseudonym and are not responsible for their actions. Whether is is simple incivility in an online discussion forum, or outright criminal action people act far differently online because their real name is not revealed. Maybe it's a small and insignificant thing, but I'd like to see some people get pulled out from behind online identities like "munkeyspanker" to demonstrate that we are all still responsible for our actions. OK, break over, flame away.
One of the Conan movies; the one with the nasty little thief and a D'Abo.
Of course let sput the pople who give an allowance to teenagers to buy our music..from the RIAA is stupdi dept
So what happens when all the music buyers are in jail to RIAA profits?
give u a hint..your in the jungle baby and you're goin' to dieeee....
Don't Tread on OpenSource
RIAA Now Targets Pirates' Parents
Hasn't the statute of limitations run out on those scurvy sailors of the seven seas by NOW?
You, sir, are not seeing the bg picture. The author/owner may still have a copy of the original bits, but the music or software is still floating around the whole web out of his control for anyone to aquire. I'd say that's depriving the author/owner of something, wouldnt you?
The *minimum* sentencing guidline for aggravated sexual assault is 70 months. The maximum for copyright infringement is 60 months. I'd call that a significant and appropriate difference.
My understanding is, if the song is downloadable, then they assume that someone downloaded it regardless of whether anyone actually did or not. The mere fact that you have offered it means you are guilty of unlawful redistribution and they've got you.
Personally I'm loving this. After they prosecute a few thousand teenagers' clueless parents, you will see a massive downturn in Internet access subscriptions as parents "just get rid of the damn things." Then the ISPs will scream about how the RIAA is hurting their business, computer manufacturers and resellers will moan about their sales dropping, and the RIAA members will have to come up with some other explanation of why their sales didn't rebound after they killed off file sharing.
-=+>txtracer<+=-
-Those who do not learn from history are doomed.
As if music sales aren't getting worse as it is, the RIAA is only hurting itself and its artists with this move.
As the article states:
"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash."
Run the risk? I'm sorry, but they just created even more backlash by mearly mentioning the POSSIBILITY of going after these individuals.
How can they possibly go after the parents of children who are downloading music illegally? Most parents have no clue what P2P applications are, what they do, and what kids are using them for. If your son or daughter steals a CD from a store, you don't get fined for it, your child takes the blame. And even then, in most cases, the child involved pays a small fine and are left up to the parent's discipline. Sometimes the penalty can be community service, or juvinial court. At this point it's less risky to steal physical media than it is to steal digital work from the comfort of your own home....
Once again the RIAA is throwing their weight around, and once again the DMCA is burning people who don't deserve the law on their backs. I'm sure this type of action scares some, but it also makes many others want to buy less and share more just to stick it to "the man."
----------
word to your moms... I came to drop bombs...
OK, this is probably a dumb question, but here goes. Suppose you get subpoenaed and you ignore it. What will happen? Can you get arrested? Is being subpoenaed the same as being sued?
This means not giving it to someone or allowing lil Jeb to take it to school and shoot up the class) registered and listed as the owner and sole user of the machine and swear on my Pa's grave never to use it on another human being (unless that human is on ma prop'ty without ma says so).
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
DUDE, I am cracking up! AHAHA
She shouldn't be fined for pirating music. She should be fined for her taste in music.
:-D )
The problem was, after looking at the list of songs they were unable to identify any actual taste or even discernment being exercised.
(Personally I think Pate's daughter is angling for an insanity defense.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Part of human nature seems to be that people overestimate the probability of unlikely events. One example discussed endlessly on Slashdot is how so many people are so scared of school shootings. It's also what keeps state lotteries in business.
How is this relevant? On 9/11, we all saw on TV what Al Qaeda is capable of, and most of us were scared that we would be next. But the total number killed were an order of magnitude less than the number of people killed in car crashes every year. People aren't scared to drive cars, but they're scared of terrorism because it's so much more visible. Al Qaeda hoped we would give in to their demands because of this.
The RIAA's tactics work under the same principle. You turn on the news, see hundreds of people losing their life savings, and worry you could likely be next. Never mind that 1,000 lawsuits out of 60 million p2p users is a 1 in 60,000 chance. Once again - the RIAA's goal is to get people to give in to their demands (stop sharing files and then, they hope, buy their CDs).
I'm not saying the RIAA is as evil as Al Qaeda (killing someone is far worse than bankrupting them), just pointing out that the two groups are both exploiting the same part of human psychology.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
written with a little poetic licence - maybe this will be a catharisis, and I will feel much better after all the emotional dump is made ....
I think this is one of the watershed moments of our generation, and these moments seem to come in cycles. A lot of forces are converging that shall give our generation a chance to have a revolution of its own - rather than just reading about the old ones in history or seeing them on TV. We must heed the bugle and assemble of our own accord, to wage a war, and the side we choose shall decide our fate, as the wheels of excess come crashing down on the unreasonable. So, be reasonable, and look at what your side is asking in sacrifice and compare it to what they provide in return.
And when you look at the other side and see the lawmakers and the Corporations lined up against you, don't be surprised. The lawmakers are in the pockets of the corporations that line their pockets. Campaign Donations Sway Lawmakers' Votes So, the adversary is definitely formidable. And there is no other choice but to uproot them completely and totally, for their nexus has corrupted the system down to its core.
Some have already sold their soul, and for them the choice no longer exists. For the millions of others the day to make the choice is approaching soon. For about a 1000 the day of making the choice has approached. Will all of them be divided and individually be chopped to pieces, or will they recognize that providence has brought them together under a single banner - and now they must stick together, serve as the nucleus of this revolution, and even as the coalesce together, pull in together the millions of others who when presented with two choices will choose to join the "1000 Nodes of Light."
If the 1000 start by contributing 10 cents for each song on their harddrive today (instead of the $750 to $150,000 that they may be liable to pay the RIAA some sunny day) I am sure enough money can be collected to buy the materials like server space, paper, printing, postage needed to run their war. Then what is needed is time from volunteers which can be solicited from some in the 1000. If this movement has sticking power, then I am sure people like slashdotters would not mind volunteering. And then if there are enough volunteers, the broader population might even choose to support with their cents and dollars.
The money should be spread out to counterattack all the 12-24 lawyers of the RIAA, and drag them into a battle over the very nature of copyright and how their compensation should be calculated. It just needs a focus of a good case, and I am sure there are some in the 1000 that would just from the odds of it - qualify to be that Test case. And with a broad support of the other 999, and of the (23 million -1) people, some sanity can be injected into this whole issue. What the RIAA is demanding for one song is 150000 times what the song actually costs. Even if I pay 1 dollar a day to listen to the song, it will be 410 years of paying a dollar EVERYDAY, before listening to the song costs me $150,000. What sane mind could deem this arrangement reasonable ? Something is out of whack, and it needs to be whacked back into place.
And I think, just like Bush might have bitten off a little too much in Iraq, RIAA might have bitten off a little too much of the "Illegal" File-Sharers universe. The war has been started based on a deliberate misinterpretation of archaic data, and RIAA's assualt was started based on a jaundiced interpretation of archaic laws. Laws are being twisted to the word, even as the spirit is raped and pillaged. But, the hands of the masses will grasp these lying Boosies and rip them from their priviledged and ivory tower havens, and plunge them in the depths of Dante's inferno. And all this will be done electronically. Communication will be electronic revolution.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
it'll be just about time to get the copyright laws repealed
Probably the same people who buys spamvertised stuff...
It is a self correcting problem. The RIAA will eventually become irrelivant.
I can only really say one thing to the course of action taken by the RIAA; disgusting.
Music is an art form; it's meant to be shared. The thought that people are going to be fined between $750 and $150,000 for posessing and sharing something they find beautiful is a reheprensible form of censorship.
I suppose the legal argument is that as a 9-year-old, she is under the supervision of her parents, cannot be sued individually, and so ultimately her legal guardians are responsible for "losses" she caused.
Parents are responsible for minors who drive cars, and thus have higher insurance premiums. I wonder if homeowner's insurance covers something like this? Or if Allstate will start selling "internet insurance"?
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
In a connected story today, the New York Times is reporting that RIAA attorneys will be issuing warrants for the arrest of anyone found to be aiding and abetting file swappers later this week at a joint press conference. As one of the recording industry attorneys put it:
...film at 11.
"...we're seeking anyone who may have given these criminals the tools, skills, or abilities to commit their crimes. This will include the teachers who taught them to read and write, any government road worker responsible for upkeep of roads that allowed these criminals transit to locations where they obtained their equipment, and any doctor involved in their pre-natal, birth, or childhood healthcare."
He replied to himself. There's no such thing as wagnerwhatever.com.
all the attention! :-)
modern music is crap I don't want any of it!
I use kazaa but for downloading TV programmes, but music.
when is someone going to start trying to stop me?
Actually I believe it is now illegal to loan a gun to someone (as in handing it over to them and then letting them out of your sight). This is seen as a transfer of a weapon, which is illegal without a background check, under the Brady bill.
If somebody RTFA then they would ahve seen that the only reason they go after parents is because the They IP addresses are registered in the Parents name. They dont care who downloads, just sue the person who owns the computer/ip
So is wife swapping illegal now?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.
The RIAA's president was not sure what advice to offer because he never imagined downloaders could be identified until Internet providers turned over subscriber records, as the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires them to do.
"It's not a scenario we had truthfully envisaged," Sherman said. "If somebody wants to settle before a lawsuit is filed it would be fine to call us, but it's really not clear how we're going to perceive this.""
They expect us to believe they haven't had this scripted for months? Come on, they know exactly what they're doing!
"I'm not, like, that smart. I, like, forget stuff all the time." -- Paris Hilton
(ducks)
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
All these ideas are dandy, but do there exist any cases where we have ever worked as a whole to get something done?
Anti-RIAA!!!
I work in a computer repair shop, and I notice(and subsequently break using ad-aware) some kind of P2P app on about 3 out of 5 computers that come into my shop. When I confront these people, mostly mature adults, about the legality of their actions; there seems to be 3 common responses.
-Play Dumb: "Really?! Thats illegal?!"
-Scapegoat: "Its my damn kids again. Ill give 'em hell for this!"
-Repentitiveness: "Well is there any legal way to download this music?"
The first 2 responses are just a reaction people give instead of showing shame and guilt. It is very rare that someone gives the third response. However when they do I am very helpful. I am very eager to tell people about the many venues (sometimes) free music can be obtained. I'll spare you guys, because you are already aware of iTMS, etc.
My $0.02
-D
Well it seems the Robert Cringely has the answer in this weeks Pulpit.
you may not realize how many people use file sharing. ...simply because a bunch of computer nerds have gotten busted.
Fairly recently, Kazaa had 17.4 million users. Napster had, by some estimates, 3 times that many. It's certainly not just a nerd thing.
In any case, the nerds are often going to be in the least danger. Nerds are often going to disable sharing and/or use software that's less traceable.
I think almost all those snared here are going to be more casual computer users.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
someone needs to firebomb the fuckers
Well, the site is going really really slow right now, but I believe this list has all the labels who not to buy music from.
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
I know I shouldn't be bothering with this but come on, seriously.
This is the little info thing from Mr Troll Jack Whatever:
Yes, Hello, I'm the CEO and CFO of J. Wagner Consulting LLC. I'm more concerned with providing the proper solution for each job as opposed to jumping on the current technology flavor of the month. I tend to speak my mind, you won't get anything except straight talk from me and I don't pull any punches. Warmest regards, --Jack
Warmest regards? GOD DAMNIT
You're the same guy aren't you? Your account only has two posts.
I'm getting really tired of these super elaborate troll scams.
I don't know if it will matter. The people likely to boycott are not currently buying music.
The people who were quoted in this article seem more like stereotypes than actual people. I mean, just take a look at this quote:
[Bob Barnes] said he used the Internet to download hard-to-find recordings of European artists because he was unsatisfied with modern American artists and grew tired of buying CDs without the chance to listen to them first.
"If you don't like it, you can't take it back," said Barnes, who runs a small video production company with his wife from their three-bedroom home. "You have all your little blonde, blue-eyed clones. There's no originality."
So there's your halo-wearing "I only wanted to preview songs or download songs I couldn't buy" downloader, which, if some people around here are to be believed, accounts for roughly 100% of the music downloaders on the internet.
On the other end of the spectrum is Gordon Pate, who seems to be reading from a script provided by Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen:
Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.
Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.
Is this guy for real? And just what does denying yourself your fair use rights have to do with respecting copyrights?
In addition to the "honest downloader" and "Valenti's bitch," we are also shown a model of the RIAA's ideal downloader:
"This scares me so bad I never want to download anything again," said Boggs, who turned 22 on Thursday. "I never thought this would happen. There are millions of people out there doing this."
The only thing missing was the disenfranchised ex-customer, which would look something like this:
"This blows. It's bad enough that most music these days is crap, but now you can get your ass sued for listening to it. That's it, I'm not just going to stop buying music, I'm not listening to it anymore either. Screw those jerks at the record companies, it's comic books for me from here on out."
Get four second-rate washed-up stand-up comics to act out the parts and you'll have a mediocre bit on Tough Crowd with Colin "I used to be funny, really!" Quinn. Add two more and you'll have next week's "What Do You Think?" in The Onion. I sincerely hope the people in that article aren't for real...
They are going to sue the libraries that loan out music CD?
Yes, you can borrow 10 cds a day from your local public libraries. Certainly beat waiting to download.
Good stuff... thanks for the link.
Fingered by the movie cops
Are you Gay?
Are you a Troll?
Are you a Gay Troll?
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, then GTAA (Gay Troll Association Of America) might be exaclty what you've been looking for!
Join GTAA (Gay Troll Association Of America) today, and enjoy all the benefits of wiping your ass with lame posts.
GTAA (Gay Troll Association Of America) is the fastest-growing GAY TROLL community with thousands of members all over the USA. You too can be a part of GTAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only thee simple steps!
- First, you have to print out that lame GNAA post and wipe your ass with it.
- Second, you need to succeed in being the first reply to any lame GNAA post.
- Third, you need to tell how stupid the lame GNAA post is to any of its posters.
If you have any mod points, mod both this and the parent down.
I changed my KazaaLite username to "FuckOffRIAA".
Isn't jurisdiction nice? Oh Canada!
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
I guess that's the part that baffles me the most, the costs per song that's being bandied about.
Anybody out there have legal knowledge regarding copyright issues? In any other legal case where you are asking for damages you must first prove you suffered that much damage (plus punitive damages, I guess). So how does the record company prove that by me stealing ONE SONG (which I could have bought from Apple for 99 cents) damages them tens of thousands... even if I made it available to ten other people?
I don't want to hear "BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL!!!" It's not that simple; there must be a legal basis for it somewhere.
Anybody know?
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
If I get a subponea and deny that I swapped music (perhaps it was my neighbor who stumbled onto my AP?), can they subponea my computer (ala FBI raids) for 6 months and pull out my harddrive and do forensic analysis in order to find the MP3's? If they did that, most people would rather settle with a (relatively) small fine, even if they are innocent.
If little else, the article shows the RIAA's Al Quaeda connection...they issued 911 subpeonas. We've all known the recording industry has been putting satanic messages in music for a long time. We now have them linked to international terrorism.
The real reason they are ticked isn't just the money, it is that they were using the large number of record sales to hide their other nefarious activities.
When sales fall below a critical mass, the FBI will be able to find the pattern and the RIAA's true plot will be undone.
Anyway, given the vast number of people who are alledged to be sharing music online (more than voted for Bush?). Doesn't that mean that practically every possible juror will either have committed this crime or have a close family member who has done so. Presumably this has the potential to make the jury selection process particularly long winded in these cases?
At some point, I expect that RIAA reps will make sweeps through airports, libraries, anywhere that people with laptops can be found in public, demanding to check the computers for the forbidden files. They will then take the offending laptops and whup you upside the head with it, then present you a bill for a google dollars.
Those unable to pay will be sent to RIAA "Consumer Education Camps," where you will be brainwashed into becoming a roving RIAA Rep.
I expect that USA Patriot III will legalize all this, as everyone knows terrorists get the majority of their funding by sharing songs on the Internet.
I read somewhere that the RIAA has a toll free number set up to report piracy and/or get info on the whole subpoena/suit thing. As well as info on the RIAA's stand on related issues or to voice your thoughts and opions.
I agree with the thread that the burden of proof should be on them to prove wrong doing, but knowing that people are not going to do it (en mass) they will just settle out of court rather than forcing the issue to court
here is the number
1 800 223-2328
1 800 bad-beat
greed
And then we could all shit in a bag and mail it to them!
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
...sent by the execs from the future to terminate the parents of unborn music pirates.
I am very curious to know what their "preponderance of the evidence" (burden of proof in civil law) will be. How can they ensure the quality of their evidence, namely that it can't be manufactured/altered by some "hacker." Showing some piece paper and calling it a "log file" is a joke. What is their real evidence?
If you get subpoenaed, you should go out and but a few CDs of the artists in your download directory (on top of whatever advice your lawyer gives you). Claim that you bought those CDs only because of their exposure through the P2P format.
Why?
A: You should support the good artists anyway. And you might be telling the honest truth about buying the cds from artists that would otherwise be obscured by a lack of Clear Channel airplay (about 99.998 % of all cool bands are ignored by Clear Channel. Clear Channel sucketh).
B: The prosecutor would then be placed into the embarrassing position of going after a paying customer. Remember that the jury will consist of consumers.
And for God's sake, only buy CDs from *NON* RIAA member labels (like Matador for example). If the prosecutor points out that the CDs you bought were distributed by a non RIAA client, that would further drive home the point that the RIAA does NOT represent all musicians! (And plus, you don't really want to actually give any money to those pigfaces do you?)
So if I drive my PC with Kazaa and mp3's on it across state lines is it now a federal case?
Lots of people have cars. Lots of people let friends and acquaintances borrow their car. If that person gets drunk and plows your car into a crowd of people killing 5 of them, there is no way that you should be held responsible (assuming they are a legal drive in other respects - i.e. licensed, insured, etc.). To say otherwise is complete idiocy. People need to be responsible for their own actions, not for the actions of everyone around them. Loaning a piece of property to someone else is completely lawful unless you know that the other person is going to use that property to commit a crime. We should never get to the point where a person is held criminally or civilly responsible for legal actions. There be dragons.
So does that mean they'll throw your Grandma in jail?
I just feel bad for the people who are going to have their lives ruined in the meantime.
Please tell me as I worry. I wouldn't want the RIAA to dig up dead bodies and take them to court. Come on, when will this joke ever end?
-- Leeeter than leet
Some have already sold their soul, and for them the choice no longer exists. For the millions of others the day to make the choice is approaching soon. For about a 1000 the day of making the choice has approached. Will all of them be divided and individually be chopped to pieces, or will they recognize that providence has brought them together under a single banner - and now they must stick together, serve as the nucleus of this revolution, and even as the coalesce together, pull in together the millions of others who when presented with two choices will choose to join the "1000 Nodes of Light."
Although you put this is a nice and beautifully romantic light I can tell you right now that these people will fold like a deck of cards. They will be the equivalent of a "rat" in the mob. When you have companies of this size it comes down to self-preservation and lving to fight another day.
I don't see how joining together will help their cause although some kind of class action suit might be in order as long as the proper angle is chosen.
Speaking for myself I'd fight it but if I couldn't find a great lawyer then it'd be pointless. If I could get a big name lawyer pro-bon then it'd be on and we'd put the whole system on trial.
If you are to fight this battle then it has to be more than a P2P vs RIAA. Is has to stretch into rights guaranteed by the constitution and fair use of purchased products. I'd also mention law makers having a certain industry flooding them with massive amounts of cash. There really is plenty here to debate and go to war about but it's going to take the right set of circumstances to pull it off. I'm down.
This is really a revolution of epic proportion no matter what one thinks. We're not talking P2P only. We're talking about our rights more than anything else here and that's the genesis of the argument IMHFO!
Through the war on terrorism we are giving up certain rights and now with P2P we are giving up further rights. How many rights do we have to give up for people to get it?
Search warrants with no reason?
Subpoenas by the recording association with no judicial oversight?
Email monitoring?
Wake the fuck up people and fight this shit with all you've got or the "big brother" days will be here sooner than you think and then you can forget about the freedoms you used to have.
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
I declare with my spoon septer that December 1st be the day you return CD/Tapes/etc. purchased a few days prior, specifically from the labels listed on that site. Buy all you can on your credit cards, just make sure they take refunds.
Try to plan it out so you go back the last day of the refund, don't accept store credit even if you bought $3000 of CDs on your Visa Card. This will insure that there was positive sales in Nov. and negative sales in Dec. That should screw up somebody's business projections.
If enough of us do this, and www.boycott-riaa.com advertise this. We will make a difference to them.
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
Go after the file sharers: They are doing evil. .
Go after the parents: The support the file sharers and actaully have some money.
Go after the ISP: They provided the access to the internet for sharing.
Go after the teleco: They provided the copper the files were shared on.
Go after the computer manufacturer: They made the computer used to share the files by the file sharers
Go after the OS developer: They let the apps to share run on the computers involved.
Dare I go on....?
Maybe someone should get those FBI guys from the Interview to go after the RIAA. After all the RIAA is downloading music for which they do not own the copyright. They themselves are turning into pirates.
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
for years, parents have been complaining and sueing the entertainment industry for their childs actions and/or behavior, now the entertainment industry is sueing the parents for their childs actions and/or behavior. too funny.
Stop moderating these posts up, half the damn replies to this OBVIOUS TROLL are FROM HIM.
There is no such thing as www.wagnerconsultingllc.com. There is a www.wagnerconsulting.com but there's NOTHING ON IT. IT'S ALL FAKE.
He also posts on kuroshin and he's a damn TROLL THERE TOO.
I have an idea --- let's give these greedy morons something to REALLY think about. How about a 35% surtax on royalties paid to ANYONE who did not do the recorded performance?? And while we are at it, how about limiting copyrights to a maximum of 10 years after the death of the artist??? Put THOSE out there and these guys will just GO AWAY. It would cut their parasitic revenue by 80 percent!
Or just simply don't file swap. It's really that easy.
If you want to avoid the whole mess, just don't bother swapping files with anyone you don't know.
What if other kids installed some software on your Pc to show your own kid how to share files? Who's to blame? The other parents?
What if your own kid went to the neighboor and installed those software? Who's to blame? You? Them? Both?
I think fair use/knowledge is at risk. It's like leaving a shovel in the backyard. If someone takes it and kills someone, who's to blame? You can't ignore the law but can't you defend yourself by saying that it's fair use to leave a shovel in the backyard?
What if your 16 years old kid kills someone while driving? I've never seen any parent go to jail for that. Even cold blooded murder! (well unless there is clearly wrong down from them like leaving an unlocked and loaded weapon).
Let's say I steal something and have it delivered. Will the RIAA go against the postal office because I used that medium to steal something? No.
Why would they go against parents in *that* case?
What about kidnappers, are the kidnapper's parents bothered? Not a single bit. They probably have to move out of state due to shame but that's another story.
Same with a computer. It's fair to have a computer and use it. You can't be responsible for other people's actions to a certain degree. You can setup URL filters and stuff like that but I think the judge will agree that you can't "lock down" a computer and monitor each and every actions.
-- Leeeter than leet
I wonder how this will affect the movie downloads that have just been made legally available for a fee. Remember, people are lazy. If there's any doubt they'll play it safe and RIAA ~= MPAA, and downloading files == downloading files.
Can the people being sues band together in some kind of class action defense? I've never heard of such a thing, but I wonder if it could be legally possible. First of all, it would alleviate the cost of defending such a suit ageanst the deep pockets of the RIAA. Second, it sure would be an interesting precedent: "We are all acused of violating a law that we feel sucks and we are facing this togther to show our protest and/or change the law." Can the defendants even discuss their cases with each other? Is there a lawyer or constitutional professor in the house?
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
why does sound so much like the infamous (not for positive reasons) "war on drugs"
Main Entry: infamous
Pronunciation: 'in-f&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin infamis, from in- + fama fame
Date: 14th century
1 : having a reputation of the worst kind
2 : causing or bringing infamy : DISGRACEFUL
3 : convicted of an offense bringing infamy
(Merriam Webster)
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Who the fuck do you think you are to stop people doing what they want with their own PCs, illegal or not? You don't accept that for yourself, so what makes you think this is acceptable for others?
The word for this is hypocracy.
required to keep connection records? Do they always have records of certain MACs connecting via certain dynamic ips? What if they all stopped keeping those records, or *gasp* a BOFH style drive crash?
while we're on the subject, how about a fight club style conclusion to the RIAA?
Apply the same principle to drug use. Let's say your sister gets busted, are your parents involved? As far as I know, NO...
:)
Can someone confirm? I've never had an FBI bust in my house yet
-- Leeeter than leet
At what point am I no longer liable for the actions of my computer? The RIAA seems to be implying here that even if your housemate sneaks into your room and uses your computer without your permission, you are still liable. Don't they need to prove intent? Why is it that a spammer can hack into somebody's machine and use it to send out millions of emails, and the owner of the machine has no liability? Does this open up a whole new business model for copyright holders -- create a virus that downloads your IP and the shares it, then sue everybody that falls victim to the virus for copyright infringment? Seems like we've gone way past an "reasonable" criteria at this juncture.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
This guy is being sarcastic. All the arguements listed are BS, just like most of the addendums posted.
This seems like a good opportunity for those opposed to RIAA's actions and the board legal power they've been granted to strike back. If they made it known what the RIAA is doing is overstepping some boundaries, they might be able to mobilize enough people to write to Congress. Otherwise, I'm afraid that many of these people will just accept what the RIAA tells them and believe the twisted morality RIAA is trying to sell.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Before long, the RIAA will be going after the ISPs that allow its users to upload songs. The computer makers that produce the computers. The metal industries that supply the materials needed to make those computers. The states that allow its residents to share files. Then, it'll go after the nations who don't do enough. Then, international bodies like the EU. I'm afraid to imagine what they'll go after past that.
If the RIAA were to have its own theme song, the only suitable one I could think would be the one that goes like "The world is nooooooot enough... but it is such a perfect plaaace to start..."
...that the RIAA claimed that they wanted the names of P2P users so that they could send them letters _warning_ that sharing copyrighted music was illegal?
How quickly things changed after they got the names that they wanted.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Now what if the person already owned the CD's and could prove it with saved receipts? I'm pretty sure that will slow down the RIAA a bit hehe.
Yeah, I know, arson is a poor comparison to music piracy.
The point is that the child is the responsibility of the parents, and it is as such completely up to the parents to take that responsibility. As such, I hate to say it, but RIAA is within rights to do this to the parents of kids.
This sig no verb.
Back when someone hacked and placed mp3's there?
Shouldn't they sue the admin's dad or something?
When will they start sueing network admins' parents for letting traffic flow with copyrighted material too?
-- Leeeter than leet
Lobbying to make it legal to hire men named Guido to come break your grandmother's knee caps for 'stealing' the latest Christina Aguilera song.
-
Checked the RIAA site, wouldnt even load in mozilla firebird, in ugh.. I.E I got something like
moved temporarily
http://""""""->about 300 and some etc garbage chars.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
People seem to keep getting caught up in technicalities. People that are trying to say "What if I had a virus...." or "What if someone stole my account..." are as bad as the RIAA. They are looking for loopholes and technicalities, not trying to see the spirit of the law and its protections for ALL parties.
The RIAA is trying to find and get relief from misappropriation of protected property (ie, the copyrighted songs) that people neither need (in the survival sense) nor have any intrinsic right to. They are going about it in a very poor way, granted, but, there is nothing wrong with trying to defend your property. After all, at night, if I forget to lock the door on my house, I still don't think anyone has the right to barge in and use it. Its my property, and I get to decide how it is used.
I think everyone knows the spirit of this. The RIAA does not want to sue people who have not infringed their copyrights. If they issue subenpoes for the wrong people, they want it corrected. No purpose is served for any party if the wrong people are punished. Their intention is to only go after people that have actually participated in infringed copyrights.
For that matter, they aren't really after song-swappers or P2P networks, at least in a purist sense. If I record a song (which I won't, becuse, like many very popular singers, I can't sing) and people trade it, the RIAA doesn't care. They only care about trading of songs where the copyright owner does not wish his property to be used in that manner (and, of course, said owner is a member of the RIAA... I doubt they care about non-members).
If you put your "reasonable, common-sense, business-thinking" hat on, I think it is easy to see what the RIAA is doing and why they are doing it. Disagreeing with them is one thing, but trying to pick away on technicalaities is just not a useful excersice.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
I introduced my dad to the web and hotmail. He asked if Hotmail had any games included.
Okkkkkkkayyyyyyyyyy......!
Now, Kazaa, Morpheus, Napster and Bearshare are probably constellations for him...
-- Leeeter than leet
However, can some legal mind comment on the general concept: An individual has illegal copyrighted material that he would otherwise not possess, what are the damages to the copyright holder?
Does it matter the reason the infringer "otherwise would not possess"?
I don't have that much money (e.g. really expensive software, facsimile of copyrighted art, etc.)
The material is not available (old TV show, old game ROM, etc)
Just because (that record sucks, but I kinda like that one song, sort of.)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Well, seeing as they are likely to actually win most of those cases, and those they don;t win will most likely be settled out of court, I don't see their coffers drying up anytime soon.
I'm sure they've put a lot more thought into this that you have.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I don't understand why this would be illegal and why no online companies are offering this?
;-).
Can't a company just buy 1000's of copies of audio CD's and rent them out like a online videogame or DVD rental place? You could make a list of cd's you wanted, then they would be sent to you as they became available (perhaps two at a time) and when you were done with them you could mail them back, and upon return another two would be mailed out. This online place could then charge users a flat monthly rate for this service. Then you could just "sample" the music to see if you like it. If you did you could buy it from a store, provided you were honest and didn't burn it by the time you sent it back and rented another one
There isn't anything wrong with renting is there? People rent DVD's and videogames all the time even though those can be duplicated in that transaction.
My mp3 collection is proudly offline. Never got into the Kazaa thing. However, pretty much everyone I know who has a CD collection, I've been ripping and adding to mine. So, instead of sharing stuff online, I suggest everyone start sharing with people you know off-line. Meaning, bring your HD over to their house, copy the contents, merge your collections. I don't see any way the RIAA will be able to stop THIS kind of sharing, unless they start busting down people's doors and seizing your HD because they saw you carrying a HD into someone else's home ... if they start doing that, then we've got much bigger problems to worry about ...
If our daughter was old enough to be on a computer downloading commercial music and movies (i.e., the things you know people aren't giving away), I'd certainly tell her to stop. Like it or not, it's wrong. If she wants to listen to online stations, record the stream, edit it and make a CD, I'd call that the modern-day equivalent of taping songs off the radio back in the 80's.
The arguments about cost and risk (of not getting songs you like) are dwindling. You can go to the iTunes store and preview just about anything you want, get just the songs you want and if you want the whole album, it's priced fairly. If the music has value (i.e., you want to listen to it) spend your allowance on it.
Lastly, to those who say the RIAA is 100% pure evil and I should boycott them, don't forget that the RIAA includes a lot of great labels/artists/music in my opinion. I'm not talking about BoyBand Du Jour, but rather Count Baise, John Coltraine, Thelonious Monk, Duke Ellington, Gershwin, Louis Armstrong, Nora Jones, Kurt Elling, Max Roach, Charlie Mingus, pretty much anything from Blue Note Records... You get the idea (and I'm just using Jazz artists as an example). I will continue to support the recording industry as long as they have these artists.
... then it really really really must be *wrong*, and in a bizarre kind of way!
Hey! Read the damn post before you Mod you idiots!!!
This is however funny
And I saw that 2 kids (both 17), who walked into a store, and stole $600 worth of merchandise. They were caught, and the paper was reporting their outcome in court. The fine? $600. But if I "steal" a song off Kazaa, I'm going to jail for 5 years (possibly) and paying millions to the RIAA. Tell me that's fair.
Not all dogs drink Coke.
parents supoena you!
"The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest of us shall go to the stars." Isaac Asimov
The nazis have introduced the notion of guilt by being related...
Well... maybe there are technical solutions to the RIAA problem; namely, enrcypted harddrives and/or removable hard-drives.
:P
They can subpoena and search but will find nothing. Plus you forgot the password; darn it.
No evidence no harm. They can clean my room too if they want to.
This whole posting makes very little sense, but it's certainly not an issue of who owns a computer or if you can be blamed for what the kids do on your computer. The RIAA is tracking down people by IP addresses. These simply lead to an Internet account belonging to someone who signed up for service. Households are not likley to have more than one account, so the RIAA is going after whoever's name is on the account, if they did anything wrong or not. Most often this is an adult in the household, but it could even be the family dog if his name was on the account, or some non-existant person (I know of several females who have their home phone listed under a male name, cheaper than getting an unlisted number and in their minds better than listing a female name or an innitial rather than a first name).
Forget about the kids, one interesting implication will be when there are two adults in the household. Can they convict you just because the Internet account is in your name if you claim that you downloaded or uploaded nothing and it must have been another adult in the house or bad record keeping on the part of the RIAA? What if you don't even own the computer? (I can certainly imagine a case where there are two or more roommates, pne owns the computer. but the phone is in another's name so that person gets the Internet account).
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
exist without the riaa. so we could never get the retailers to see sense...
In any case, the middle-men of the music industry (ie record shops) are not gonna be around in 20 years...it'll be the artists selling direct to the public.
---- oh no - it's the RIAA and their $100000000 fine. I'm gonna take that so seriously...
I mentioned that days ago.
Maybe the RIAA is watching me... shit.
from the way-to-go-riaa dept
Anonymous coward writes "RIAA's legal threats have prompted me to recommend that companies and individuals delay deployment of critical music outlays and entertainment, determine "whether Sony will provide functions equivalent to those of IndependantLabelsInc.", and take a "go-slow" approach to music in networked, public, or similar environments."
You know what I just did? I took word for word the previous SCO story, and made it exactly what the REAL response to this should be. Isn't it about time people took a hard look at what the RIAA member companies ask of them in exchange for the privilege of listening to the music they own? SCO's taken this tactic with Linux...
At this point, the danger of liability for doing anything the RIAA doesn't like is more than enough weight to carry. If you're anybody and value your reputation and life seriously, you aren't going to boycott the RIAA because you're gonna stick it to them and win in the end. You're going to do it because they've already won the war of raping your privacy to determine if you've done something wrong, and you may find that music from an independant label that doesn't make these sorts of accusations and write such subpoenas gives you the same thing in the end, minus the looking over your shoulder.
Think about it.
Seriously. The RIAA has gotten so outta wack that their statements are nothing more then a PR stunt. In a nut-shell, it's BS! I'm going to continue to share music. And for those that enjoy the MP3s that you download, yet do not show your respect (through a moddist payment) to those artists can go strait to hell. But as for the RIAA, all of there members can just take a long walk of a short pier.
Life is not for the lazy.
What is the responsibility of the sysadmin?
The machines I look after are all connected through broadband to the net. People could possibly download and install p2p apps and download music, but when they logout the software is uninstalled (So I wouldn't know about it). Everyone always logs on through the same common username / password, so I can't identify a certain person anyway. Does this mean the responsibility is now mine? Is it up to me to ban these (legal) peer-2-peer applications? How would I even go about doing this? Port-blocking?
I don't filter the internet sites because I believe people should access what they want, rather than everything I don't object to. It is an educational establishment anyway (student halls).
The DMCA needs to get struck down by a court.
.
Think about it folks. I could get an E-Mail list, spam 10,000 people with porn E-mail. In that E-mail I have a link to an image on my server that I have copyrighted. The image is of doing
When the user opens that E-Mail, it gets the immage from my server, I capture their IP, and use it to get your name, phone number and address. I then use the net to figure out where you bank, work, etc.
Then I could threated to tell your wife and kids, work, etc. Send me 50 bucks. This is very dangerous. No telling what other kinds of scams organized crime has come up with. I would be surprised if it's not happening today. There is a reason or forefathers came up with a thing called DUE PROCESS!
Another thing, the RIAA is simply hoping to settle with people. There is no way they can go to court on 1,000 cases. This would likely cost $5-10 Million (every 3 weeks @ 300 per week). (Remember they are all over the country which means hiring local attourneys at 200-350 an hour. Then you request everything you can in pre-trial discovery which they have to photocopy at $1 per page. Subpena the Artists named in the suit. There is free legal help available. Search for it. Fight them folks. They are hoping eveeryone gets scared and gives up.
What does my 69 year old momma have to do with anything i do online?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Uh.. yes, your honor, but they copied the alleged music from me!
...no women, no children.
I think this is just what we need for people to unite against record companies. A lot of people may have heard about the folks up at RPI who got hassled by the RIAA, but thought "You know, these are just a couple of dumb kids. And they started a new Napster and got themselves in trouble," citing what would most likely have been the Fox News version of that story if it had been broken.
But if hundreds of parents that own the broadband accounts their kids, and sometimes themselves, use, because their kids shared 8 songs on Kazaa or eDonkey2000? Well, they're probably not going to be buying any CDs for a while. And you know Mom is going to blab all about it to gossiping Aunt Gladys at the next family gathering, who will tell all of her friends at work that her sister just got sued by the RIAA for several thousand dollars. Are these people going to buy their kids CDs for Christmas? Some will, but most of them will probably look into other gift ideas instead.
Aren't GNUtella and Freenet totally anonymous? Couldn't people still use those services and not get caught. Also perhaps the RIAA could have sent letters instead of subpoena's first to scare the parents, and save everyone some money in the process.
What happens when the RIAA tries to sue a relative of some crime family? Someone wake up next to a decapitated horses head.
Better. The Feds use the DMCA to go after the capos.
Hey, they got Capone on tax evasion.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Or better yet:
(e)Copyright is meaningless, period.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Here is one idea: encrypt search results. To get the key, you must prove that you have accepted and are sharing an existing file F (by actually sharing file F for every transaction). But file F is copyright the author of the system. Every member of the network is infringing file F and can be sued by the author. Of course, the author would only sue the RIAA if they step in. Yes, this is selective enforcement, but selective enforcement is legal for copyright.
Any thoughts?
Pirates' Parents targets RIAA.
Okay... Here's a wild suggestion. Time for a boycott.
NOBODY buys a CD from any music store throughout the months of November and December... AND tell parents and friends that you do NOT want a CD for Christmas.
Get enough people to do this and you can practically put them out of business. Nov/Dec sales make up the majority of their annual sales if they follow typical retailer patterns.
How do we get that boycott going?
"I'm an orphan, you insensitive, litigious clods!"
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
but I LOVE the beatles...
If the mouse does not fit, then you must aquit
That is totally true. I gotta post this anon. I'm 35 years old and don't pirate anything, but my 60-year-old dad is a warezd00d. I'm not kidding.
Amazing! Now people can be accused of a crime where the accusers know full well that the accused did not do anything wrong. If that's not harasment I don't know what is! If I don't commit a crime, but someone else in my family did, tell me again how am I guilty of said crime? Since when was there a law on the book that says you're guilty by relation?
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
If kazaa shares by default (a dir, drive, or whatever) is the RIAA just going after *specific* IP's of "Joe/Jane Sixpack and or their kids", while avoiding IP's that resolve to names like, oh say, Kennedy, Gates, Bush, Ashcroft and such?
I also seem to recall John Stossel (20/20) interviewing an RIAA exec, asking if they'd do exactly what they are doing now.
Stossel even admitted (to the exec) his daughter (IIRC) downloads/trades/shares music...and "are they going to sue her/him".
The answer was "YES", I believe.
Now putting these two things in context, isn't this kind of profiling illegal?
(IANAL, just curious).
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
but these companies and thier investors are dead serious. The music industry has been a cash cow for studio backers (read: Mob) for so long that they really will stop at nothing to prevent the industry from changing.
What they don't want to see is people migrating to independant musicians and smaller non-RIAA studios for thier entertainment, so they want to kill the idea of freely downloadable music before it becomes considered the norm, or before people begin to realize that there is good music available that is not encumbered by copyright.
So, support independent music, promote independent artists, and flood Kazaa and other filetrading systems with music that "steals" business from the record companies. If you don't like thier business, don't give them your money, your time, or your attention.
Read, L
I just had a thought. I have the next design for p2p networks. We'll start off with Napster (the old napster code, not whatever they've been doing for the last 3 years). We'll call it eLibrary. The eLibrary connects to a central server that has all the searching and indexing like napster did, but with a new field. eLibrary has a physical presence in the real world that stores physical donated copyrighted material. This copyrighted material is "digitized" and spread into encrypted chunks on client machines (think freenet).
:)
The thing that makes eLibrary different is that eLibrary would only send what it had licenses for, and when the user was done listening/watching/reading, the file would disappear. So if eLibrary has 100 copyies of the newest 50 cent alblum, only 100 people could listen to it at one time. No copyright violations would occur, it would be the equivalent of borrowing a friends cd.
eLibrary would keep careful records of who borrowed and returned what when, in case of accusations of copyright enfringement. eLibrary would use the latest DRM/Palladium technologies to ensure everyone played fair. It could also be setup as a non-profit organization so contributions of copyrighted material would be tax deductions.
Lets use DRM to our advantage
----
Squirrel
Here's the address of a lawfirm representing the RIAA. Now I wonder, WHAT can we do with an address?
:>
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
TRIDENT CENTER
11377 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1683
Oh! Look! Here's an email address and a phone number to!
"Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 312-3297 or at dmca@msk.com."
Do YOU have any questions? Maybe you should call.
Oh Goody! Here's the lawyer's name! Yvette Molinaro! Does anybody know Yvette? Is she having a nice day? Maybe you should call and ask her...
Maybe we should keep watching for more subpoena's to harvest contact info from
I told dad he better give me the $20 to buy the new Eminem CD! I know I only like one song off it but I really wanted it and he wouldn't give me the money!
It's all Dad's fault!
Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public
Here's one company that has the RIAA a little upset--DEMO (www.d-e-m-o.com). It started certifications last year for music sales over the internet. At last, perhaps someone has beaten the RIAA at their own game! >(www.d-e-m-o.com).
... someone needs to put out a bounty on the RIAA. Not* in the sense of killing a human (or corruption thereof), but in the sense of killing an organization/business model. People should be able to donate $1, $10, whatever, to an account somewhere... and whoever (or whatever organization) eliminates the RIAA's business model gets the cash. Determining who got the payout (and when the deed counted as done) could be a little sticky, of course, but it'd be worth it.
*necessarily.
when someone uses your computer to share music, you should thank them, not send them to jail like those extortionate thugs from the RIAA who sent out all of these stupid letters would like you to. Sharing music is no more a crime than broadcasting Britiany Spears over FM radio is a crime. Well, that kind of freqency waste is almost criminal.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Heh, I guess now is the time the anti-RIAA will no longer buy new cds but instead purchased pre-used cds. This is what I plan on doing, because im surely not planning to support the RIAA. :(
I'm nor the least bit suprised. Isn't it typical of organized crime to go after the families of those that cross them?
You're using her as bait, Master!
Note: its available on Bittorent Bwa ha ha ha!
Here's one company that has the RIAA a little upset--DEMO www.d-e-m-o.com. It started certifications last year for music sales over the internet. At last, perhaps someone has beaten the RIAA at their own game!
Music from the 1970s did not linger. The vast majority of it was ruthlessly suppressed while a very tiny fraction was nausiatinly played to death. This is the way cartells make lots of money, not the way free markets work. I think this is what the previous poster noticed and was complaining about. Both your and his problem would be solved if copyright law was half reasonable because all of it would be free. Such a thing would ruin the RIAA, because they would not be able to make money selling culture anymore, culture would be free for the taking and able to grow on it's own. Artists with merrit would be in demand, not the crap you've been force fed all your life. This is the way Napster worked - all music from all eras was avaliable, not just 300,000 repackaged top 40 crap songs.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm calling from JAIL.
I'm in JAIL dad.
In JAIL.
I'm calling from JAIL.
I like it here! Throw away the key!
Tell mom I said hi..from JAIL.
Then, we need TV footage of a fairly normal 11 year old kid taking the stand for trading music, and being forced to name the artists she downloaded by some hotshot million dollar a year lawyer.
What would happen to the public opinion of the artist she downloaded?
Lastly, to those who say the RIAA is 100% pure evil and I should boycott them, don't forget that the RIAA includes a lot of great labels/artists/music in my opinion. I'm not talking about BoyBand Du Jour, but rather Count Baise, John Coltraine, Thelonious Monk, Duke Ellington, Gershwin, Louis Armstrong, Nora Jones, Kurt Elling, Max Roach, Charlie Mingus, pretty much anything from Blue Note Records... You get the idea (and I'm just using Jazz artists as an example). I will continue to support the recording industry as long as they have these artists.
Please tell me how the RIAA has these artists, because to the best of my knowledge most of them are long dead. What the record companies have is the copyrights to recordings that these artists made, in many cases over half a century ago. How many of these artists are seminal musicians, treasures of our musical heritage, most of them. Now think how many of them get any substantial amount of radio play these days, how many of todays kids have even heard the great music they created. The current system is destroying our musical heritage not preserving it nor enriching it, and that is why things must change.
Yes music has value it has a value far greater than can measured in monetary terms. As long as those that control the distribution continue to value music only for the revenue it can generate then the further music will decline
What exactly do you have against fish?
It is forbidden to share these TV episodes, you can record them for private use only. But I guess that nobody cares about TV episodes anyway, so we are safe =).
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
I prey to GOD (keep in mind I'm not religious) that RIAA - it's buildings and the people associated with this initiative get nuked and assassinated. Destroying peoples lives over this should be considered terrorism.
The owner of the equipment is not responsible for its use.
If that was the case, if I borrowed my boss's car, and criminally used it, it would be my fault. The police would show up at his door. They might even cuff him and bring him downtown. But, at the end of the day, he would not be accountable for the criminal usage of that vehicle.
Same thing applies here. What we have here is 2 things.
1. Faulty subpeonas. They are legally faulty because they fail to identify the actual responsible party. Our laws are supposed to protect us from this type of harassment and unlawful prosecution.
2. The RIAA et al, backing themselves into a PR nightmare.
CALL FOR AN IMEDIATE BOYCOTT OF ALL CDs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let people know that the recording industry is suing people - RIGHT NOW - who don't even use the damn thing in their house. LET THEM KNOW THAT THE INDUSTRY IS BUYING POLITICIANS AND HAVING THEM PROPOSE LAWS MAKING EVERYONE A FELON!
They don't want to end this with suing the world - they want us in prison.
So - if they do brand (us)* felons - I will get Valenti's address, Rosen too (Fuck her anyway - bitch) - and we can settle up the score in a personal kind of way.
RIAA: You son has been stealing Music from our artists
PIRATE DAD: YARR!!! He is such a little scallywag YARRR.... I'll have to make him walk the plank!
Well, thats what I thought when I saw the title.....
Burma?
So you are saying the people who create or make a living from music, movies, games, books, pictures, software, etc. should not have any rights with respect to their works?
I'm sorry. Did you have the misperception that people, like Britney Spears, who "create" music for a living actually own the copyright?
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but corporations like the ones represented by the RIAA, are the ones that own the artists, the music, the rights and make the bucks. Let's cut the bullshit. You want realism? I could care less for artists trying to distribute their songs by the millions and want to be driven in limousines. I'd care to pitch a few dollars in return for a CD that might have sold a few hundred or thousand to a struggling artists whose right it is to receive it.
If we were to overturn every attempt the MPAA made at controlling piracy, do you think making movies would become unprofitable for the movie houses to continue? Take a look at box office figures and tell me with a straight face that you expect someone to feel guilty for pirating that movie.
This is all about greed.
The more nails RIAA or MPAA put in the coffin of piracy, the larger their profit. With piracy on the loose, they're still making a profit. Just not as much. I have no problem with RIAA or MPAA chasing profits, its what they do, its what I expect them to do. However, I do mind it when someone tells me I can't view it on my computer because the encoding is now only supported by RIAA approved DVD players (they tried to do this a few months back).
One last question: It was never a problem with cassette tapes. And EVERYONE I know copied cassette tapes. Why CDs? Maybe because people have gotten wise to the fact the cost of CDs are pennies, yet their price is $15? The cost for administration, promotions, contracts, packaging, etc., are not much different than cassettes (infact I'll guess that cassettes are more costly to manufacture), are they?
Don't take this personally, but it is people like you who give the rest of us who want looser restrictions a bad name. We need realism, not extremism.
What are you smoking? ofcourse people take this personally. Keep making those compromises and Charmin will have a buttcheek identification print everytime you wipe your ass. Corporations go for MAXIMUM PROFIT. Extreme greed is what allows these corporations to become as powerful as they are. Bill may have made his windows half-assed, but do you think he was sloppy about his business practices? He went for the throat. And look at him now. On top of the world. With all of us chained to windows (yours truly included).
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Is there a way I can find out which /. thread topics cause the highest number of posts per minute? I'm betting that anything involving firearms, digital rights, and robotics would rank pretty high. I'm not sure if the majority of slashers are all that miff-able on other "hot" social issues like freedom of religion, abortion, socialized health care, or voter registration, but it would be interesting to know fer sure...
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Looks like a last ditch effort by these idiots to keep a strangle hold on their monopoly. I would be against sharing of MP3s if the artist got a good chunk of the cash from CD sales, but the sad reality of it is the artist gets very little, as does the store who's selling it, while these greedy pieces of crap live in their fancy Bel-Air mansions drinking latte's.
just use a different p2p program that hides your identity like earth station 5. it takes a little while to understand how to hide yourself but it makes it extremely hard for the riaa to find and sue you because they have to demand information from proxy servers anywhere from iraq to our own usa. If you really want the RIAA to go away just keep switching programs till they give up or just stick to one that hides your ip address and screen name.eventually the RIAA will give up when they see everyone hasmoved to an anonymus sharing p2p program. ****www.earthstation5.com***-free p2p program no adware. no spyware. hide your identity. get music/videos/software/etc.
America your government is in control. You are free to do as we tell you, you are free to do as we tell you.
He did have goons that forced people to drink castor oil in large doses. Basically, a country run by high school bullies.
The trains didn't run on time. It was just expedient to SAY they ran on time.
If you use the Internet you will be sued! Cancel your ISP. Don't ever use email again. Never visit
a company website. Don't buy anything online! If
you use the Internet you will be sued!
I have an idea. How about, arrest everyone who lives in the same neighborhood as these world-threatening pirates. Heck, if your neighbor from two streets over is caught performing this crime against humanity, they should come and bulldoze all the houses in the neighborhood, starting with yours, even if you don't have any kind of electronics or devices in your home capable of reproducing sounds. And they should take you and your family away to slave labor camps in Siberia. Heck, they should do the same to people who have had the same IP address, if using DHCP, and to people who have the same first or last name, or a name that rhymes. As a matter of fact, this process will become the most efficient when they discover that people who don't have blonde hair and blue eyes are pirates, and line up everyone who violates this strictly defined code at the gates of death camps, where they put 10,000 people in a room, push a button, and a plasma gun goes off like in Doom-II and just pulverizes everyone. That would be the most efficient way to handle piracy. In my estimation, they would only have to kill 5,999,999,999 people, so this shouldn't be too difficult to implement. The poor, starving, dying-of-malaria-because-they-can't-afford-to-live -in-civilization artists would certainly be happy about it.
a subject that can be felt on both sides is divided into Democrat and Republican. It is not that simple. In case you haven't noticed, they have both screwed us over. They both have their price. I thought his post was good, no matter which way he leaned. And from what I read, he did stick to the topic. And please don't tell me you're crying about his references to the Iraqi occuaption. In the few references he made to it in his post, I believe he was correct. If you don't think so, then feel free to take a look at the estimate of how much it's going to cost to occupy and rebuild Iraq. Oh...that's right, you can't because the initiative to get the administration to reveal how much it would cost was voted down by the same people you appear to support in your post.
:)
Talk about off-topic...
Anyways, this is not something that can be divided into left and right. If the corporations really were here for us, they would have found a way to legitimize P2P and compensate the artists for it. But they haven't and are serving people billion-dollar lawsuits to show their gratitude for us being their customers. Something is going to happen, regardless. Maybe these corporations that are way out of control will be put on a leash, maybe people who divide things into democrat and repupblican will realize it's not that easy.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
My post will get overlooked I know, but, what about demos? I've noticed that many people and indie bands
put demos on their sites (sung by them, of course)
of famous songs. No distribution restrictions seem to be ever mentioned, they just offer them to anyone who wishes to download the file. What happens in this case? Can I mirror the demo? Every other indie band seems to have these, will the RIAA be coming down on them? Anyone know?
step 1. share files on p2p networks step 2. get sued by the RIAA step 3. subpeona the bands to ask them about lost profits due to your file sharing step 4. mission accomplished
-- dave
So just how long is this going to go on until people start targetting the RIAA specifically? I mean seriously, if you don't buy their product, they're just going to assume it's because you're pirating, and us common folk can't afford to buy our own politicians. I think the time may be coming when the only solution may be to strike directly against the RIAA directly, using any and all means available.
Not that anyone is advocating doing anything illegal here.... but there must be something we can do to end the reign of terror of these corporate bozos.
the RIAA will nab any musicians?? Remember the old TechTV show, Audiofile? Just about every musician they interviewed admitted downloading music. I heard one (can't remember his name) bragging about how many GB's of MP3s he had on his MP3 player. Yeah, sure, he bought all that music.
No it's not logical and people getting sued for their kidd's downloading of 5 songs feel like targets.
Second of all, the parent who was notified that their child was subpoened was NOT notified by the RIAA. They were notified by the Associated Press. It says right there in the article that the RIAA didn't even know that people like the AP could get hold of that type of information.
No, a suppena is delivered to the person being sued. The victims, who can't easily get information about people's criminal convictions, were surprised to learn that a reporter had their name and could publish their embarassment in the local or national paper. The RIAA has certianly notified 65 year old grandparents that they are will see them in court.
So yeah, the RIAA is bad and evil, and so is Microsoft, and SCO and the other flavors of the month, but at least read the article before you comment, so you can get your facts right.
That's good advice. You should think before you shoot your mouth off and proactively defend evil cartels. You have lept to several unwaranted conclusions and completely missed the point: that the 871 suppenas are mostly harrasment and bear little resemblence to a who's who of music trading. These jacksasses are creating all sorts of heartache for all sorts of people. None of them has done anything wrong and many of them have not even done what the RIAA thinks they did. It's yet another big waste of effort designed to teach you that sharing is bad.
I hope it backfires right in their face. People are going to realize that copyright law is out of control.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
e seen it all in the Dark Ages, the Middle ages, and even now.
Like when we isolated the Japanese during WWII, the hindering of Blacks, and even now day's Arabs.
This hunt was born out of their inadequacies, and the blunder only gets bigger.
It seems as the further technology grows the stupider the ones with money get. Has any one done a paper for this relationship?
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
What about if website owners started forbidding access to "employees of, and families of employees of the RIAA", and started checking IP addresses/email addresses used. How much of the non-corporate internet could be blocked?
Anyone know any juicy gossip on RIAA members, live near one that they can rat to the police for a minor misdemeanour?
Maybe we should add a little shock and awe to these motherfuckers lives?
It seems to me that if they can target anyone who has illegally downloaded copyrighted mp3 files from the internet then maybe some of their own employees are guilty. I don't know how many people the RIAA employs but can they be absolutely sure that all of them have never done this, either at home or otherwise? It would only take a couple of examples made public to give them a hard time explaining why even its own staff don't see any problems with obtaining music this way. Either that or they won't prosecute them thus promoting double standards and making themselves look like hypocrites. They have given the public the tool to do this, if they are really serious about using it then they should be prepared to take the consequences.
You guys missed the joke. He is referring to The Godfather movie, where that is exactly what happens.
KoalaBear33
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
+10 so fucking true.
If I play a CD in my house, and let my friends listen to it, would I be infringing on the RIAA's IP? What if my friends remember the song and play it in their heads constantly?
...almost every has good samaritan laws that universally say that you must assist as long as it can be done with minimal risk to yourself. So, what that means in this case is yes you are required by law to jump in the pool and pull the woman out unless there is a high risk to your own person. For example if you were a stroke victim and don't have the full faculties of your left side. Or for example if you can't swim. If you have no pressing medical issue that would prevent you from being able to swim or if you can't swim then yes you are required by law to assist the drowning victim. If you don't assist then you would be guilty of whichever manslaughter statute that covers negligence for your state. Moral of the story, don't be a schmuck and help out.
In this the day of PGP why the hell can't we encrypt the shit and tell the RIAA to go fuck themselves. The internet will route around the RIAA so lets do it. They want to controll what you do and think. The whole fucking problem is people are buying into thier views by using the media. What we need is a legal alternative such as linux is to windows.
Or I'm gonna tell your momma on you!!
Your pal,
RIAA
....that obviously CD prices are a result of Price Fixing, without the artist
getting anywhere near a fair share of it. So this is a PERFECT opportunity for
the artists to say F U to the record companies and keep a majority of the
money, just USE the freaking technology themselves. Yes I know, the record
companies own the back catalog, and its easier said than done, but if ever was
a time for artist to take the initiative vs record companies this is it. It
would take time and risk. They'd have to start with new stuff and not the back
catalog and start new companies..but some of the larger, consistent artists
could do it. Rap seems especially suited for such a move...and bands like
Creed, Metallica, U2 any band with a consistent track record could move units
on their own and any up and coming band with staying power...imagine if
Metallica/Van Halen/U2 had put out a majority of their own music at their peak?
10 million units x 12 bucks is 120 million each CD. at most the artist gets 10
million of that, and half of that is taxed. Unless you move other merchandise
like boy bands and britney....its a lot of money, but as a percentage they are
getting screwed.
Anyway, getting back to my point, I know several people who keep a list of RIAA members and make a point of not buying their CDs.
"Eat all your vegetables, Percy, or we'll tell the RIAA that you've been file-sharing again!"
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
If the worse comes to the worse, just swap tapes and CDs like we always used to. It's more socialable anyway.
They don't just take out you, they take out your whole family.
The United States doesn't support droits morale (moral rights) such as rights to attribution and to maintain the integrity of a work, except in very narrow cases.
Intellectual property *is* all about economic incentive. So what?
People who are engaging in uncompensated file-sharing ARE subject to liability. What, precisely, is your problem with that?
I would far rather see serious enforcement against freeloaders who adopted an attitude that there are rights to receive data merely because it can be taken, than see the other backlash, which is the neutering and crippling of important technologies because the freeloaders have given RIAA sufficient --and legitimate-- bases to argue to the Congress for things like The Stupid Hollings Bill.
Get with it -- RIAA is, at last, doing the right thing. Better they sue infringers than technologies. It took the SONY Betamax case to get MPAA to change their model to make videotapes available at reasonable prices -- and everybody won. Likewise it will be with music.
But right now, if RIAA gets to argue they made the blitz and it was a bust, count on it -- there will never be another Betamax -- technology regulation will overwhelm intellectual property law, and it won't be a good thing.
So how much more of this legal abuse can we take. Will the RIAA go after schools, business, net cafes just because people used their system to download one file. How about the grandparents who brought there grand child a computer for christmas. Then had to register the version of XP in order for the child to use. I think it's high time we fight back Legally, let's get someone into office, someone we control that will make this pathetic excuse of a legal system something better. Something better than a prison for every non-technical ya-hoo who just happened to download a file, (even if it is legit). Lets pass some laws to protect fair use before we totally lose all our rights to Corporate interest. Let's pass some laws to get rid of our current copyright and patent system. Our current system stiffles inovation, imagination and progress. Things must change.
Exhibit A (UNITED STATES corporation aka UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT)
Exhibit B (Trafficant's admittance of the UNITED STATES coproration aka U.S. GOVERNMENT)
Exhibit C (united States of America and UNITED STATES historical foundation)
Exhibit D (uSA vs US, Republic vs unlawful Democracy)
It was not difficult to google this information. Also of note, Familyguardian.tzo.com appears to be the greatest reference to this verry date, with genuine recognition to google.
Why, if it weren't for Jack's timely reminders, I might have missed my son's baseball game!
Does my bum look big in this?
it's called freenet people, learn it, use it.
my socrates note
You're trolling. There's no rational explanation for the idiocy you've spouted otherwise.
Dear antitrust-defying, price-fixing, clueless morons,
We, your customers (aka the people you depend upon for revenue), have spoken. Deal with it or pull the ripcord on your golden parachutes. We're willing to pay for songs, but only for songs that we like. Your exploitation of copyright law is over because we'll route around it until you get a clue. Welcome to the future!
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
"Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered
Yes. Don't give anybody money as a "settlement" until you have a lawyer. A lawyer will make sure that the terms of the settlement actually protect you from being sued anyway.
Police execute YOU!
oh...wait, nevermind.
I am NaN
so you are stealing music in the basement?
I wonder how many of these subpoena's have to be sent to ISP's before they simply stop recording the IP info? Already it has been reported that DePaul University in Chicago is saying that it no longer has the user info for that IP...
Are there any laws that require ISP's to keep track users & IP's? From the laws that I have looked over (without doing any real research) it looks like the law only requires them to turn over any relevant info availble.
With what has to be mounting cost I can imagine that small ISP's are dumping this info so when the request comes in they say- "Got nothing". How much longer before the cost gets to high for the larger ones?
Just a thought
Huh?
Ill dress up like a pirate instead
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I don't know what y'all are talking about, my son is Billy Jim Bob, not GoatLick69.
It's a good thing that the US passes laws that make felonious criminals out of millions of citizens.
Glad I don't live there, where the deepest pockets write the rules.
It's a fair cop. I'll be damned that I knew it didn't look right, even as I previewed it
Serves me right for being mean to the simpleton.
I was just thinking of this the other day.
I, probably like many others out there, have a router which enables NAT.
The ISP account is under my name, with my information. So if my roommate downloads something, he could get me in trouble...which isn't good.
Sure I guess I'm supposed to be responsible for that, but, it's like me making sure he doesn't electrocute himself...since that's in my name also.
Bad Analogy, but I think you get the idea.
GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
My large penis. Send me a law suit and I'll piss on it and send it back to you. This is bull shit.
They also have to avoid upper-middle class families who have "parents with attitude" as well... while the kids of major politicians and Fortune 500 CEOs are safe... they'd have to do serious research on everybody they plan to sue to avoid getting the wrong person... one who can afford to defend in court... willing to come out and fight, and who is either smart enough to research or knows someone smart enough to research the real issues involved. Those are the kind of people who'd be willing to start a boycott campaign on purpose.
While the idea that "taping and tape-swapping is legal 'fair use', recording to disk and fileswapping is PIRACY" isn't enough to win unless one is very lucky with a jury... a few people bringing this up are likely to get useful coverage whether or not the media plays along.
The American people don't play well with the idea "We're a mighty corporation and we can fuck up whomever we please"... and that is basically what the "regardless of" part of the story will tell any reader.
A win for them would be destroying 1000 people even their mothers don't like much. With 1000 people (which I doubt got researched past 'don't target politicians' kids) their luck has to run out.
I hope the Boycott RIAA people have real big pipes and heavy-dut servers. I expect them to get a shitload of traffic very, very soon.
There does seem to be a certain amount of public interest, googling boycott RIAA gets me 6300+ hits.
These guys are headed for the tarpits. We need to think of ways to speed their progress into oblivion.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Hey RIAA!
I have over 100 GB of commercial works by many of the companies you represent on my network. Two computers my roomates use run Kazaa and Winmx non-stop sharing from the network drive. LimeWire runs on the server itself. We share over a cable connection, and I recently had DSL installed. Typically during the day there are thousands of uploads, so many sometimes LimeWire crashes.
And guess what? I have the money to fight you. The fact is folks, that if the information on illegal acts was obtained illegally and unconstitutionally, the evidence cannot be admitted into court and without evidence there is no case. It is unconstitional for private companies to issue subponeas because due process is not observed and there is no legal forward.
Sorry, but I am just begging they come after me. I have the cash ready and I come from a family (yes, it's sad I know) of very sucessful lawyers.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
Though it's a fair bet that anything you hear on commercial radio or can find on the shelf at a record store is RIAA. . . but how hard is it for any of us to find indie band websites?
Tech Public Policy stuff
She's a friend of mine, this is her roommate's musis
A successful boycott means the value of that company will be depressed by owning a major record label.
Just a few percent drop in gross revenues for the labels matched by a massive increase in indie sales means a massive drop in investor confidence in the companies that own them and questions fron stock analysts like "when are you going to dump that turkey?" They're going to unload as fast as they can for the best price they can in order to avoid going down the toilet with their entertainment properties.
I think Sony's going to have something very big for sale real soon now... and they'll be selling what's in the master vaults and artist contracts only. What investor group is going to want a bunch of suits who reduced the value of their company by a factor of several?
I now know why Apple didn't buy Universal. They figured that if they wait a few months, they could buy the IP and contracts for a few hundred megabucks instead of $4,000,000.
A month ago, I figured the RIAA labels had a few years to go. Now, I'll be surprised if any of the labels are under current management by summer 2004.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Basically, what's really needed is a change of culture.
The kids need to be convinced that buying from a record store is no longer cool and they should spend their money instead on indie artists.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Maybe this is what's needed to bring sanity into this situation.
Actually, I'm surprised that the RIAA didn't do some kind of background check on the first 100 or so targets to avoid this type of article. Along with this, I can't believe that Sherman (and his "legal eagles") hadn't prepared for contingencies like somebody's parent wanting to settle up...
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Let the RIAA watch their sales fall when that starts to happen.
Read the article again.
Before reading it, I would have agreed with you, but clearly Sherman was caught flat-footed by who was identified by the ISPs and the offer to settle before going to court.
If they had done any kind of basic research they wouldn't have shot themselves in the foot like this.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
You mean the generation whose recording off the radio on analog tapes and sharing the music with friends turned the Grateful Dead and later Metallica into multiplatinum artists? For us, that was "fair usage".
That's why kids don't grow up thinking that sharing music is piracy or theft.
The only explanation they need is "remember when you used to record off the radio and trade tapes with friends? Do you know that if you do this using your computer to record and the Internet, the RIAA will sue your asses?"
And if they ask "Why, what's the difference?", just tell them the truth, that they bribed a bunch of politicians to make new laws.
Who needs to be a young l337 h4xx0r to get that?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Anonymous proxy servers.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Why? Same reason as the RIAA, control of distribution channels. The MPAA isn't just Jack Valenti, there are guys who know that if the next Steven Spielberg decides "fuck Hollywood, I'm putting a PC render farm in my closet" around next-gen technology and goes straight to selling DVDs and broadband distribution direct to people's TVs... they might be looking at the same kind of trouble the record labels are.
Apparently, they think that megapromotion budgets, control of theaters, megaproduction budgets, and even a fair product at a fair price (yes, I think DVD movies are fair value for money) isn't enough, they want to be in a position to say you make movies for us or not at all.
Even Hilary Rosen concedes that this model is dead in the record industry.
The RIAA is not only taking the heat for their member companies, they're taking it for the MPAA, too. Is there some relationship between the two other than sending contributions and lobbyists to the same people that isn't obvious?
Tech Public Policy stuff
If i am served, I fully intend and will carry out setting myself on fire infront of the RIAA head office.. Being a person who is ver upstanding in my community and known for my work overseas helping people i quite sure this will act as a shock and awe event for the entire nation. Why would i kill myself ofer a few songs. Its about the proncipal of the matter, If this is what the world is coming to, I have no intention of living in it. Peoplemay say im crazy, however those who died for our freedoms did so fully knowing what they were willing to give up, in exchange for that freedom. If i am crazy, so are all brave men and women who have died for our freedoms. I strongly encourage all brave people who are willing to die for freedom to follow suit.
Gershwin aside, how many of these guys died broke because of record label contracts deliberately constructed to screw the artist?
How many of those records are sitting in vaults with no plans by the labels ever to make them available to the public, but if you upload your copy so kids can hear great music of the past, you're going to get sued?
If you want to honor the memory of great seminal artists of the past, help break the record industry who generally rat-fucked them by buying music ONLY from non-RIAA independent artists.
If you just want to listen to their music which is by and large, out of print, buy music ONLY from non-RIAA independent artists
If you just stop buying music, the record labels CEOs can go to Congress and their bosses and say PIRATES are stealing, not buying. What kind of bad new laws can get rammed through Congress? Want to find out?
If you buy from independent musicians instead, major label profits, indie profits skyrocket, and you'll be sending the right message... the message to Congress: People will buy, but not from thugs. The message to the CEOs the record label presidents report to? They've hired retarded fuckheads who are taking the value of their companies down by the day.
Break the industry and the new buyers are going to be people with a clue about technology who know as well as you and I do that music sitting idle in a vault makes profit for nobody.
You want to hear that rare/out of print Count Basie disk? Odds on, a few months after these labels go under new management and ownership, you'll probably be able to buy it using CD-on-demand technology or download it at .99 cents at track.
There is now no reason for a record ever to go out of print.
When we say the labels are using obsolete business models, those of us with a clue are totally serious.
Why don't labels have everything they've got down to Edison Wax Cylnders digitized and ready to burn? One time cost, indefinite profit stream, and if an Great Old One ever comes back in style, don't burn one-off, crank up a CD pressing plant and make a million or 6.
Alternately, if they dont want to do this, why not take big tax writeoffs and donate them to the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian?
They're sitting on them instead because that's what their predecessors did, and they don't have a clue of their own.
It's tarpit time for these dinosaurs, and it's time to give them a shove in that direction.
Tech Public Policy stuff
By the time it hit the record stores, everybody into his music already knew it was a winner based on either downloading it or word of mouth.
Went straight to #1.
I keep wondering if he uploaded it himself for fun and profit.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"Sue All The World" was right on!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Remember that the media does not always report things accurately. What could have been a twenty minutes conversation gets condensed into a few quotes that the reporter thinks support his or her angle.As a friend of the Pate family, I can assure you that Gordon is, in fact, for real and was sincere in his confusion, as his daughter doesn't even live with him but has DSL under his name. To refer to someone you don't know as "Valenti's Bitch" is really kind of mean.
The next thing you know, these folks will wake up with a horse's head in bed with them.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I've just decided to pick up on Kazaa Lite again, stopped with it for a while cause of lack of interrest. :-)
:-)
This article triggered my enthousiasm again
Gonna watch MTV this evening, let's see what's new and nice to download.
Ps. I might even buy some after listening!
It is smart for the RIAA, as getting the parents invoved will:
1. Get at the kids involved in a big way.
2. Scare other parents into yanking their kids KAZAA and other P2P. They push the parents into policing their kids.
On the other hand, this sort of thing alienates the parents too. For example, it could remind parents of how much immoral garbage the RIAA (and MPAA) sell their kids. Maybe we parents need to revive the "Record Morality Wars" of the 1980's!!!
We're talking about handguns here now.
Let's see, there's the mandatory 14 day waiting period. Additionally most states require you to have a concealed carry permit unless it's a target pistol. In CT to get a permit you need a town permit (which requires character witnesses, completed gun safety course, and background check) and THEN you can get a state permit.
The point here isn't which is more deadly, the point is that there is already more than sufficient regulation on firearms. Why should this tool get more regulation than any other that is deadly when misused?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
now that you've all learned the hard way NOT TO REGISTER YOUR SCREENNAME WITH YOUR HOME ADDRESS AND REAL NAME, have you actually learned anything from this lesson?
Any information that YOU enter into a computer about yourself can be used at any time by any one as they see fit. I hope that all you people who are in panic about this subpoena issue realize what has happened.
It all comes back to the saying, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Cheers.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Not true. I know someone that had his newsgroup accounts closed this week because he uploaded a TV episode of Stargate recorded from the TV (not a DVD rip). The MPAA got the provider to shut down his account.
I checked back at your past comments and I have to say either one of two things is going on here:
1)This is your first attempt at trolling. That's ok, but you need to be signifigantly more subtle. Posting a comment calling me a fascist is a bit um...obvious. There's a great article in K5 about how to become an AST if you're into that sort of thing.
2)You're a tree-hugging liberal. That's cool too. Slashdot is filled with 'em. But sooner or later you're going to have to cope with the fact that not everyone in the world listens to Tori Amos and cries at the pain of the Canadian Otter. Live a little.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Say someone had used kazaa in the past, but hasn't for months, and since news of the RIAA's massive lawsuit plan emerged earlier this summer has since deleted everything wiped the hard drives etc. and vowed never to use it again. Can they still track you down for past misdeeds? (Not from a legal standpoint, I mean, does anyone know HOW they are catching people and if there is a way to prevent it?)
I don't share, I just download ;-)
:-)
apart from stuff I've downloaded and not unshared yet, my only shares are the Smashing Pumpkins Machina 2 album, which was released free on the internet... hahaha suck on my legitimate use of p2p RIAA ****s
Thanks for the link. I'm saddened.
Even Discipline Global Mobile, which used to be one of the better independent labels, dedicated to supporting artist rights over a recording industry whose practicses are "immoral" and "indefensible," is RIAA, which means King Crimson, California Guitar Trio, Trey Gunn, John Paul Jones, and Earthworks are off-limits.
Labels which I'd thought were independents, like Inside Out, Shrapnel, and Mellotronen (Mellotronen! An obscure Swedish label that gave me expensive imports of Anglagard's albums) are RIAA. The amount of music I can morally buy is much less than I thought it was.
I used to think it was pretty safe sticking with indy and artist-run labels found on artist-shop.com, but I guess that is no longer the case.
It is very sad.
Why do we allow this to occur? I think all the former employees of Napster should get a boxload of rocket propelled gernades and take out the RIAA once and for all! :)
simply provide higher quality recordings as the norm? On P2P services, movies are shared, true... but not nearly as much as songs. Why? Because a movie runs ~700MB, and after you spend two days downloading it at x.xx kb/sec, you discover you've actually downloaded "Jenny's Fun Family Fuck Farm" instead of "X-Men". So it's a pain in the ass to download movies. Next up will be HD-DVDs and the like, which will be even harder to download. If the music industry would simply convert to a higher-datarate (SACD, DVD-A, etc.) format, they could push audio recordings up into the same "hard to download" category, and all us consumers would have better-quality recordings available for purchase. File trading would go on, true, but traders would know they were swapping inferior products.
I understand why the RIAA does what they do, but it sucks. It's an embodiment of so much of what is wrong with capitalism unchecked by common sense about what will make the world a better place to live. Fuck them - I hope they choke on their own business practices and die shitting.
There are way too many comparisons of information-sharers to hardened criminals. Don't you think there may be just a slight difference in magnitude? A more appropriate analogy would be looking over someone's shoulder to get the time from their watch without their permission. This is quite a different "crime" than stealing the watch off their hand - or worse, killing them for it.
The RIAA has a history of picking real winners to host their site; the number of times it's been hacked is a testament to this. You'd think that with all that money, they could buy some real hosting.
6 53 .html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/29
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Yes, it's not very civil to call someone you don't know "Valenti's Bitch", and maybe some other time we can have another discussion about the de-personalization effect the Internet has on communication.
However, the fact that it was in quotes leads me to read it as more of a description of the article's narrow _portrayal_ of that person. In that case, it is accurate. The parent poster was, after all, suggesting that these people sounded made up.
[It's a real shame that an indie fan got caught in this mess; that's like a vegetarian getting mad cow disease.]
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
It's the RIAAs job .. more specifically the Performing Rights Society or the .. to collect royalty payments on the behalf of their
... then ...
... if you want to be able to 'freely' share copyrighted data, expect
NPMA [www.npma.org]
members who own the copyright / mechanical copyright to material.
Legally, they are in the 'right' and the people violating copyright law
are in the 'wrong', this is a fact, it is true, deal with it.
OK. IMHO, what they're doing now is a bit heavy handed, but these are early
days in our new digital age. Ways and means are going to have to be thought
out to deal, sensibly, with such disputes. Knee jerk reactions serve no one.
A more sensible way perhaps, of collecting royalties would be to charge ISPs
a license to allow file sharing of copyrighted material to take place in
their dataspace. Similar to what they do now with respect to Radio Stations
and TV Networks. Royalty's on CDs are usually collected at the point of
manufacture (CD pressing plant) based on numbers pressed. So hassling stores
by returning CDs is pointless, the royalties been paid up front.
Royalty payments from radio stations are based on 'perceived' audience size.
A large broadcaster say Radio One (in the UK) would pay ~ £20/min in royalties.
So this is the sort of moolah we're talking about.
If this is the road that is chosen
ISPs will pass these licensing costs on to their customers (TANSTAAFL dudes)
bottom line
to pay more to get online.
(IANAL)
siggy played guitar
You mean the generation whose recording off the radio on analog tapes and sharing the music with friends turned the Grateful Dead and later Metallica into multiplatinum artists?
Metallica grants royalty-free license to those who tape its live shows but does not grant such license to the general public to reproduce its studio recordings.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I believe that what he meant is this:
In your example, it costs the RIAA (say) $100,000, and the girl $3000 even if they win.
The percentage cost:
RIAA: a_very_small_number %
Girl: 100 %
In straight numbers the RIAA loses more, but the girl stands to lose her entire savings.
Regarding indie albums -- I agreee....what constitutes an "indie" album?
And secondly, and most important, where can I get reviews of indie albums/bands? I simply do not have the time to wade through piles of shit to find that one diamond in the rough. While Billboard 100 is not my fav, it does provide me an easy way to sift through the fluff and find a few nuggets here and there. Is there something similar for indies/non-RIAA labels?
this is pushing it..i dont see how the parents can be held responsible for this...i think the RIAA is just out to get as much money as they can...i do agree with going after those who do Download but not the parents...where do u stop then...
...but Here's a link to their explanations of why a CD costs more than feeding a family of four
Me, try to screw the RIAA by bringing down their servers and raising their bandwith costs? NEVER!? ; )
Just make sure you have ironclad proof you own them.
:)
Such as store video of you arriving at the store.
Store video of the purchase.
Store video of you leaving.
I said ... you can record for your very own private use but it is forbidden to share/upload, please read the post before hitting that reply button.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Actually Dell is guilty, since they provide the world with computers. If they didn't manufacture computers for people to buy then people wouldn't pirate music.
What the hell do the ISP's think they are doing keeping logs of what url's their users are visiting in the first place? How dare they do this? Can you imagine any valid reason for an ISP to record your online history and store that information in a database? This activity is a primary violation of user's privacy, and shouldn't be tolerated. There should be absolutely no records of the websites that users visit that are attached to identities of specific users in the first place (statistical records for the purpose of speed caching and traffic management are a different story, but could not be used to attack a user's privacy).
I would love to hear other slashdot readers comment on this. Do any of you think that ISP's should keep any database on the sites you visit? Would you switch ISP's based on whether they track your usage? If an ISP advertised their specific policy that they keep absolutely no records of which sites their users visit, as a privacy protection policy, would that cause you to consider moving your business to that ISP? How about in the case of schools? Should MIT even have records of which sites their students have visited? Why the hell did they even write the code to log, extract, and save this information?
Maybe someone could write a little PDA applet that lets a user search a list of RIAA members (http://www.boycott-riaa.com/membership.php) when shopping at the record store, to quickly see who not to buy from. What would be even nicer would be a text-message driven app accessable from any cell phone (tex the database with the publishers name and receive back a reply, either yes a member, or no, they're cool!~
Due to the horibble connection that i got with dial up I have not downloaded files off the net for a while. I have simply found a better way to get music. I go to the library to borrow Cd's. I can check out 12 cds at once, Rip them to my PC, and do it again the next day. Its perfect. You can get full cds in whatever quality that you want FOR FREE!!! (Eat that RIAA) I have a music collection that surpasses 7000 songs and i am not scared.