Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers
Sayonara writes "The RIAA are now well and truly gathering their forces for a financial onslaught on file sharers in the US, with a "fear and awe" campaign targetting college and high school students in particular. The strategy can be reduced to 'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.' In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"
Would anyone be interested the creation of a web site/community/forum that specifically focused on non-RIAA member label artists?
Or is there such a thing and I should be contributing reviews to it already?
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
Machiavelli:
..does the RIAA?
It is good if your subjects love you.
But better if you can make them fear you.
But you do *NOT* want them to hate you..
Tested with time, over the centuries...
I can already see where this is ultimately headed...
You should check out the site http://downhillbattle.org/ and see what the RIAA is doing. They are only making the revolution more organized and more powerful. The more people they sue, the more who will join the boycott, the more hated the RIAA will become.
And for them to DARE use the "scare and awe" crap, thats like declaring we are all terrorists!
"Buy our music or else you are supporting terrorism!"
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I've neither downloaded nor bought music for years. I don't want to drain my savings on the off chance I'd win the lawsuit lottery, and I don't want to pay the RIAA members any money to fund their racket.
They live in a dream world, thinking that all business problems can be solved by legal force. Bright idea! If they won't buy our stuff, let's sue them to get the money anyway! Whatever happened to studying the consumers and trying to develop a product they will buy?
The problem is this: they don't want to study the consumers. They want to control them. They are terrified that they are losing the ability to make and break artists, and define what is popular and what is not. Their whole business model revolves not around creating a quality product, but creating a slightly different product and brainwashing the consumers to buy it.
...
Just who do these people at the RIAA think they are? Trying to extort money from 60 million people? They want to use laws they've bought to push us around, tag us as criminals, and take our freedom away?
Well, folks, I think it's time to put the fear of god, or rather us 60 million people, into the record execs and heads of the RIAA. If they think it's cute to illegally root through our files and information, then let's see what they think about some payback. Let's put our considerable skills to work and dig up all the dirt (tax evasion, fraud, marital infidelities, etc.) we can on them. Let's expose them for the criminals they really are. Shoot, we could nail them on violating payola laws alone.
On the political front, let's get our acts together and start making the politicians who do their bidding feel the heat. We've seen how the Howard Dean campaign has been able to raise money over the net and sign up armies of volunteers, so let's do likewise. Imagine how quickly the tables would turn if a thousand protesters showed up in a flash mob in front of our representatives' family homes every time the RIAA turned the screws like this.
Enough whining and doublethink on Slashdot. Let's DO something about this.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
>
> It is good if your subjects love you.
> But better if you can make them fear you.
>
> But you do *NOT* want them to hate you...
I'm a Machiavelli fan, but the Prince and I would part company on that last line about not wanting to be hated.
I believe history sides with Lucius, who was reputedly quoting Caligula when he penned the line "oderint dum metuant". Let them hate, so long as they fear.
I've always been amused by this sort of thing and a thought that goes with it:
If I already have nothing to lose, what if I just continually refuse to pay? The court can TELL you to pay up, but it can't really MAKE you do it. The worst they can do, IIRC, is ruin your credit and whatnot. Could they actually repo things to try and recover the "damages" the plaintiff was seeking? I got sued for a couple hundred bucks. Ultimately, the nasty little JP upped it to 1200, but from what I was told, it sounded like if I never paid it I could just be reported to collections if the plaintiff so desired. If 15000 RIAA victims all refuse to pay, what are they going to do, send 15000 people to collections? That's a pretty big group of people. Big groups engaged in active civil disobedience can get media attention... but then, I could be wrong about that - maybe they CAN make you pay up somehow.
I used to be one of those people who came on /. and argued that stealing songs was wrong regardless, but as the RIAA abuses got worse, so did my attitude. Frankly, I don't give a fuck anymore. Put all of them, "artists" and all out on the street. If the RIAA wants war, they can have it. And it's time people got off their high horses about 'not going down to their level' and fought it.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
I think people understand the concept of having the right to make money off what they create.
What seems to be the major issue is that the RIAA, without having any solid proof, is claiming that filesharing is the sole cause of the music industry's financial losses.
They believe that the economy's downturn, does not apply to them, that sales should be constantly rising every year. When they don't rise, they look for a scapegoat.
Rather than studying the download model, they attack it because it threatens their distribution cartel. They don't care about trying to find out how the filesharing phenomenon works. Are people truly using this to sample music and then purchase accordingly? Or are they just plain theiving?
It's wrong to go into a music store and pilfer a CD as much as it is to download an MP3 version of a song. But, is that download occuring because someone wants to sample some music? Or is it just plain theft?
Are there any studies on this?
God I hope an uprising is in the works!
Our entire "Intellectual Property" based system that we (US and much of the world) is putting in place will merely continue to entrench the "privileged" in thier positions of privilege.
Large corporations who "own" the polititions will only continue to try and (successfully) force the masses into submission.
Governing by consent of the governed is no longer the case. Instead, it is governing by consent of those who would be most suited to profit by your governing.
We need a revolution of sorts.
Alternatively, we need tech-savvy reps and lawmakers!
I, personally, will vote for anyone who guarantees a priority of drastically reducing or eliminating the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" and the sham of goverment endorsement that accompanies it.
This endorsement is used and abused in situations such as these. Ask any 20 people on the street if a corporation should have the legal rights to behave in the fashion RIAA is. Should anyone have the legal rights that led up to this situation? I say no! There is no good reason that I should repress myself from consuming or otherwise using a piece of information.
Period.
If it can be reduced to bits, then you do NOT own it! Simple as that. Or, say that you "own" it if you want, but you do not own "exclusive rights" to it to the exclusion of others. At least, not any rights that *I* will recognise or support.
I know I am not alone in this either.
Lets get someone in office who agrees with this viewpoint and begin to push back the tide of "Intellectual Enslavement and Combat" that is occuring, waiting for newcomers into the barratry game.
-dave-
Shameless plug:
Use BearShare for all your peer-to-peer needs!
The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
This is similar to a U.S. Supreme Court case, Gouled vs. U.S. Army, from the 1921. Some dude went into Gouled's office and took some papers without asking. He turned them over to law enforcement, then criminal charges were made against Gouled based on the stolen documents. They were ruled inadmissable because the man who took them at the time was not acting as a government agent, but when he handed them over he became one. Gouled (my great uncle) was found not guilty.
IANAL but I'd say that RIAA, by the terms of the DCMA, becomes an agent of the government and therefore is violating the fourth amendment.
perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees