Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Bits
HardYakka writes "The New York Times writes that record industry executives who are adamant that file sharing is stealing are not above stealing themselves." The NYT also has two other stories on file-sharing today: one with emphasis on musicians, and an opinion piece about the internet. Also floating around: this humor piece and an EFF petition.
The news these days is filled with stories of stealing by the RIAA.
What else can you call people being forced to give money to the RIAA through the use of threats?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
We need tighter legislation NOW!
Between the RIAA and SCO, plus ongoing Microsoft FUD, I think we're starting to see the fraying edge of a maturing "Internet Economy", and some companies are clinging to really ancient buisness models that will not work in this era.
The RIAA member companies failed to get together to innovate a new buisness model when the InterNet came along, and transferred this problem to the RIAA, which became their personal pitbull. Everyone's blaming the RIAA for this latest round of should-be-RICO-prosecuted behaviour by this company, but let's not forget at the same time the recording industry labels support these chuckleheads - where's the boycott against the labels?
SCO is *really* the leading edge of "my buisness model failed" along with Microsoft - the pair of them are like the old IBM of the 90's, except instead of the hardware buisness, they're in the software buisness. Remember PS/2's, proprietary hardware, and IBM almost incredulously holding on to a market that was churning out clone PC's by the millions?
SCO & Microsoft are like this - dinosaurs in the software industry that think you can still lock a customer in with a proprietary product and control their innovation path. Take a fresh look @ Microsoft as the IBM of the new millenium and it starts to become clear - Microsoft is nothing more than a proprietary product with a lot of market share trying to protect that marketshare with intimidation and borderline legal tactics.
There's another two boycotts we should tell the Anti-Trust folks about in California & New York enforcing the decree on Microsoft anti-trust actions. Tell them the TCPA and security certificate scheme Microsoft is developing along with LongHorn represent another way Microsoft is trying to deny people access into their code - that "trusted code" argument is reeking all across it.
And could someone please expose how much the US Government spent this year on inferior Microsoft product? I'd like to know how much insecure RPC crap my Congress-critters managed to purchase this year...
"In a sense, Internet technology is a metaphor for the new morality. As long as you can get it, it doesn't matter how."
I don't get it.
via http://www.unix-girl.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_ id=1130
Comment by insin
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/thumbs_aloft/ffi/ffi1.htm
To summarize it:
- Filesharing is copyright infringement at best, which is a civil offence ("at best" meaning, if you forget about fair use and stuff like that)
- Stealing is a crime
The above link contains some rude words, but is to the point.
Breaking the law is bad. But so is working to take away our rights. The RIAA is an organization which exists to work for record labels, in order to maximize profit. It is basically an organization which works for the industry, against the customer (or "consumer" which we are today).
Perhaps it is time to take matters into our own hands and really strike them where it hurts the most. If they don't make any money, they can't afford lawsuits and lobbying to take away our rights as individuals and as customers. They cannot spread lies about P2P and other useful technologies.
If as many people as possible spread music for free as much as possible, fewer would buy music. That's right, we are fighting this fight by breaking the law. We are trying to force the RIAA out of business.
A normal argument from RIAA apologists is that it is "morally wrong" to "steal music". I would say that the only morally right thing to do is to fight for one's rights! And this fight must be taken on a number of levels. From nice petitions that most likely will not make a difference, to breaking the law. Standing by and accepting that one's rights are taken away is a true sign of a "morally challenged" individual!
With several angles of attack, maybe the RIAA will eventually disappear.
RIAA should realize that tor many people, this is war. And wars are dirty. But it would benefit everyone except the RIAA members if it died, including the artists!
Would it be a good thing to form an organization with a single purpose - distribute as much as possible for free to prevent money from ending up in RIAA members' hands? The RIAA is already spreading lies and deception, so we don't really have much to lose do we?
Clever signature text goes here.
Here's a bit from a song "Pretty Boy Floyd" which says it all about abuse of the "legal process":
"Now as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen."
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
There were estimates a few years ago that the capacity was over two million. Part of me doesn't want to know what their capacity is currently.
The camps were set up as a part of operation Rex84 (search) in the 80s, established on the reasoning that if a mass exodus of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.
Now that the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II move to establish anyone that breaks any law as a potential terrorist, it makes you wonder what they've got planned...
There's a lot of info on the net about these and other operations. A lot of the websites play the 'paranoid' card a little too strongly (*cough* alex jones*cough*), but I highly recommended you check out available info!
Some links:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htmm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/concentration.ht
http://www.c0balt.com/egg/insane.shtml
I'm not trolling, this is some serious shit, America!
Just to be technical.
Stealing is taking by stealth. Robbery is taking by force. Extortion is taking by threat (Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage).
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
The RIAA exists for the music industry, against the customer. It sees us as a means to increase profits, and rather than adapting to a new world, it tries to lobby for laws that take away our rights.
That they are right in protecting what they can according to the law, they are not right when they fight to take away our rights and use FUD and scare tactics to keep an outdated industry alive.
The RIAA was convicted of illegal price fixing wasn't it?
Those with a sense of common decency have a problem with what the RIAA is doing. The RIAA is trying to become the judge, jury and executioner. It is trying to take away our rights.
As I wrote elsewhere, it is time to go to war. The RIAA fights dirty. Well, so can we.
Clever signature text goes here.
Yes, but you've got to realize that the theft alluded to by the Slashdot story, as explained in the article, was that of a record executive getting a copy of an analyst's report without paying the $895 to Forrester to have that copy. If a song valued at ~$1 (observed price for an electronic copy of a song from iTMS) is worth $150,000, then Forrester should sue the record executive for $134.25 million dollars! Let's see how the RIAA like a taste of their own medicine!
They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights.
Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.
That is only part of the story. The musicians have little choice about it, seeing as the big labels have a practical monopoly on distributing music - hell, they own most of the small labels too...
They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best.
Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it.
Yes and no, again. The consumers have no choice to go and buy xyz CD from another label who doesn't charge exhorbitant prices. If they did, maybe they wouldn't be downloading so many songs off the internet... fyi I don't buy CDs (haven't bought one for about 4-5 years). Saying that music is not a necessity is irrelevant. Who gave the record companies the right to decide who can listen to what? WE did. And we can take it back. And we are taking it back. And they can sue all they want, that's the way it is and they'd better get on with it.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
If they are happy to download the music to see if it belongs to them, consider the mistake if it did not.
If someone has a name similar to that of their artist (or not), records some copyright material to mp3 and then puts it on the network. The condition is it is free for anyone to download, except the major record labels, their employees, agents, contractors or affiliates. By virtue of their copyright laws, they are not allowed to download it (aka steal it) and are subject to $1500 or $150,000 fine if they do.
All we need to do then is monitor the downloads of this mp3, and then sue the RIAA when they download it. If there is more than 216 of us doing this, then we can easily outweigh their laws and settle this similar to how the large companies settle patent lawsuits, you lower your weapons and we lower ours.
From the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Everyone was rich and nobody wass poor. At least, no one very important
How does this idiot woman think she would ever hear of the poor (ie, failed) rock stars? In this month's "No Longer Rolling Stone"?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The copying of the Forrester report is much more harmful to Forrester than thousands of downloads of the latest Top Ten single could ever be to the record company in question. Forrester sells a small number of copies of the reports from their various analysts like Josh (who get a bonus for every time they get quoted in a mainstream magazine). The average reader of a Forrester report is a vice-president of a Fortune 500 company - an obviously limited market. The executive at the record company could and should have bought his own copy of the report.
This is triple-layer, double-fudge death-by-chocolate irony!
Disclaimer: I used to work for Forrester. Unofficial Company Motto: We only have to be right more than half the time!
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb