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.
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.
Remind me not to hire you for anything. Building backdoors into your code to monitor what is going on? You sir, should be the one imprisoned.
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.
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.
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
(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) 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
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
Which is more than can be said for George W. Bush when he was caught drinking and driving.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
What an excellent way to punish the stupid negligent parents of an obnoxious teenage brat.
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.
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.
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
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
When will you people stop suggesting these unworkable public-action stunts on slashdot. And when will the mods stop modding them up. Its pointless. No one is going to do it, and its really easy to come up with these silly plans. Woo! Stuff like this is worthless when no one else does it (and they wont) so why even bother bringning it up (again and again and again).
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
Well, as much as I hate to admit it, the core credo behind Democracy is "To serve the will of the Majority while protecting the rights of the Minority." It is their copyright, and they have the "right" (sic) to use it as they see fit.
...
... gotta love Promise cards and multiple servers). I'd almost look forward to dragging them to court.
That being said
[RANT]
I hate the RIAA. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I haven't bought an album, CD, or tape produced by an RIAA member in over 8 years, and I have no future plans to, either. I have won a few off the radio. Bought some second hand (off of friends or used stores, that way no money of mine goes to them). I buy local bands** and indie bands directly from the band themselves so that the BAND/ARTIST gets the money and not some middle man.
At the end of 2001 I had close to 120,000 Mp3s. I used to DJ with them at Frat parties at college. When I left college, I erased them all. Was I scared of the RIAA or other FUD from file sharing? No. I deleted them cause I wasn't gonna DJ anymore and they're all crap. I kept my indie band CDs. Occasionally I'll grab an Mp3 off of P2P when I'm trying to learn a song on my guitar, but that's about it, then it get's deleted. I wish they'da done this 2 years ago when i had my entire MP3 collection shared (close to 450 Gigs
I read in another thread someone's idea to have a mass "buy and return" day to tick them off. i suggest we follow another groups tactics, equally absurd as the RIAA's. Let's mimic truth.com and take all of our old CDs/tapes/albums/8-tracks, etc. that we're disappointed in, head out to the RIAA headquarters, and start piling them up at the front door. They've put out enough crap that we could litterally blockade them in with they're own garbage. Then someone could toss a match and the world would be a better place.
[/RANT]
-Ab
** if you are interested in some of the bands I listen to, try Katsu and Axum
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
crack will find out where members of the RIAA live and do a few "Malvo's" on them.
And the penalty would be lighter than for copyright infringment.
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.
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.
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
When the police do a sting operation with an undercover agent doing a buy, they do not have to prove that any sale was made to a non-police agent. The single sale is enough.
Neither do they care about the purity of drugs. It could be 99% ground glass. The copyinng of copyrighted music is forbidden, nothing said about the quality. Imagine of this held for other crimes. Yes youre honor I stole that car, but it was a piece of shit.
I am afraid that from there on youre arguments go into fantasy land. Courts are not nice places in wich you can ask the judge to play nice. Do they care that a drug dealer uses his earnings to support his family? No. Same with this. Amy arguments about the harms of filesharing must ultimatly made in two places, the supreme courts who would check it against the constitution or with the lawmakers who can change the laws.
BTW I am not at all behind the RIAA, I would like to see them killed by some crazy guntoting yanks but I feel it is important for people to face reality as it is now.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
Uhhh...its really none of your business what people have on their PC's. Do you open their quicken installs and check their bank acounts to make sure they have money to pay you also? Or check their history for IE to see what porn sites they've visited? How about their documents directories to see what letters they've sent to grandma?
Butt out of other peoples business and just do your damn job! I'd sue your ass if you installed something on my PC without telling me about it and it broke an application that was working when my PC arrived at your shop.
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?)
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.
Its simple, they won't. They would have their lawyers do the research and find out who the people being subpoened (sp?) were and if it comes up as GW, guess what, they won't say a damned thing about it.
For this attack plan to be a big success for them, they need to either have these people settle, or take them to court and destroy them. The LAST thing they want is some politcally/legally connected child/family to be dragged into this because it complicates the matter and would make the other people they're taking action against think otherwise.
Business-wise, the RIAA are morons, but PR-wise, they are wise beyond belief and you can be DAMN SURE they are aware of this possibility and are doing everything in their power to avoid it.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
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
Can't... Simply purchase on a credit card. Return unopened product to store. Insist on refund to your credit card. When store refuses, whip out cell phone and call in fraudulent charge on your credit card against the store since you have purchased nothing from them.
In spite of what they want you to believe, there are a few consumer protection laws around. :)
RIAA: You see, members of Congress, the huge drop we had in sales during this period. Also, look at the thousands of statements made on bulletin boards online about how people just 'download their music now'. Obviously file sharing is an even bigger problem than we thought. We need criminal laws to prevent this now.
Bad move, eh?
Instead, buy CDs, but buy them from indie artists, or buy them from the Apple Music Store (which will soon have indie artists on there). Show the RIAA that there IS a market there, and that money is being spent - and they're not just getting a share. If the RIAA has a $50 million drop in sales, they can claim a $50 million drop due to piracy... unless the indies can claim a $50 million increase in sales.
-T -T
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
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
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 ...
How do you decapitate a head? Is that like a zen thing, or something?
Because most of the people who are sharing these files either/both:
a) don't know that they are sharing the files. My sister didn't know that when she downloaded a file, it is automatically shared; same with my girlfriend. I have a feeling this is the case most of the time.
b) don't know that the RIAA are taking users to court. Again, my sister and girlfriend didn't know this. If 60,000,000 Americans(or parents of them) knew that they were possible targets for litigation, they might just phone up their state/federal representatives.
eh. Just a thought.
How do you diagnose a computer that is "behaving erratically"? If their symptoms are not a bit more specific than that what makes you think that disabling spyware is going to do anything at all? A better solution would be to uninstall Windows and install Linux or, better yet, FreeBSD. Now *that* would stop the irratic behavior.
Besides you could have just replaced Kazaa with Kazaa lite, diet Kazaa or some other spyware free version. I think, in the end, they would be happier about that than you disabling an app that they were probably using more than any other.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
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
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
....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.
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!
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
I don't know if you mean to come off sounding like a spoiled brat, but... you flaunt the fact that your family are a bunch of successful lawyers, you have money (and if you have roommates, it's more likely that you don't, but your parents do), and you are willing to be sued for something you are doing that's illegal (and know damn well it is), because you can win? You're just about everything wrong with the United States all wrapped up in one post.And quite frankly I hope they do come after you.
If you're so damn important and have so much money, why not use it and your successful lawyer family to defend the people that have been issued subpoenas and CAN'T afford to fight?
Let's put things into perspective. Distributing copyrighted material is illegal. Period. They are doing precisely what should have been doing years ago: going after those who illegally distribute.
I remember arguments on Slashdot from a while back, about the DMCA, and how if the **AA would use existing laws to protect their copyrights, they wouldn't need the DMCA.
Now they do just that and people are up in arms. You people are far to confusing.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.