Slashdot Mirror


Telcos Stand Against RIAA

john82 writes "In an interesting and insightful article, NetworkWorld Fusion discusses how lawyers for SBC and Verizon are fighting the RIAA's attempts to monitor their customers. As we've heard before, RIAA wants the telcos to report when users download any copyrighted material. Lawyers for SBC and Verizon are fighting back. They also claim that the RIAA is trying to grant themselves powers that are outside of even the Patriot Act. Now where have heard that before? NWFusion also points out that RIAAs handwaving, threats, tantrums have less to do with protecting the rights of musicians, than with protecting the revenue stream created by an out-of-date distribution system." In other RIAA news, taped2thedesk writes "According to the Washington Post and Ars Technica, the RIAA will now contact P2P users before suing them." The RIAA's not so bad, they'll settle out of court over the phone, if you don't mind paying up instead of getting a lawyer.

308 comments

  1. So does this mean ... by Nix0n · · Score: 3, Funny

    So does this mean that we *don't* hate telcos this week ?

    Is this also the week that eggs are bad for us ?

    1. Re:So does this mean ... by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, yeah. I know.

      But taking your comment seriously for a moment I might point out that offering positive feedback to one's enemy when they behave in a manner you find desirable isn't hypocrisy.

      KFG

    2. Re:So does this mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      He who controls the worm, controls the spice.

    3. Re:So does this mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres levels of dislike you see.

      The Government might be fairly high up, Banks and Telcos a bit higher, and towering above them all, the RIAA.

    4. Re:So does this mean ... by sharkey · · Score: 1
      So does this mean that we *don't* hate telcos this week ?

      No. We we hate the telcos, but we like their lawyers.

      Wait...

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  2. Telco's help out here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the telco's could develop something that filters it out every time the RIAA lies and calls downloading "theft" when on the phone....

  3. Report copyrighted material? by the_bahua · · Score: 4, Funny

    Um, I'd like to see the shell script that runs on networking equipment that determines which packets are copyrighted, which are legitimate, and which are porn.

    1. Re:Report copyrighted material? by yerricde · · Score: 2, Informative

      All works are copyrighted from the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium, that is in this case, written to the server's hard disk.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    2. Re:Report copyrighted material? by nmos · · Score: 5, Funny

      Um, I'd like to see the shell script that runs on networking equipment that determines which packets are copyrighted, which are legitimate, and which are porn.....

      and forwards the porn to the network admin for closer inspection :)

    3. Re:Report copyrighted material? by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously the porn is the stuff with the dirty bits.

      KFG

    4. Re:Report copyrighted material? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      For the porn - that's easy. Zip up the MPEG/avi and the closer the file approaches a compression rate of 50%, the more likely that it is porn.

      I mean...seriously...porn consists of mainly 2 motion frames, albeit displayed repeatedly.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    5. Re:Report copyrighted material? by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And who holds the copyright on Voltaire when it is written to my hard disk?

      I'm afraid it's beliefs such as you have just expressed that are part of the problem.

      There is much that is not "owned," believe it or not, and I may do as I wish with that material and it's "nobody's nevermind," not even to the extent that they have the right to "peer over my shoulder" to make sure.

      KFG

    6. Re:Report copyrighted material? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Your copyrights don't matter, only their copyrights do. Don't you understand?

    7. Re:Report copyrighted material? by gfody · · Score: 1

      or instead of zipping up the MPEG/avi you could just watch it. if it is infact porn, you'll notice a bed in the background set and probably a guy with a mullet

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    8. Re:Report copyrighted material? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and if its gay porn, does it get sent to c:\dev\null ?

    9. Re:Report copyrighted material? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Simple, just have copyrighted material use the Evil Bit.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    10. Re:Report copyrighted material? by jweatherley · · Score: 0, Troll

      and if its gay porn, does it get sent to c:\dev\null ?

      No, it gets posted to slashdot of course!

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
    11. Re:Report copyrighted material? by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

      /me now waiting for the "Copyright Bit" to be introduced in an RFC next April 1.

      Then again, almost all IP packets would have that bit set to 1, since webpages are copyrighted, USENET posts, etc.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    12. Re:Report copyrighted material? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      " Um, I'd like to see the shell script that runs on networking equipment that determines which packets are copyrighted....."

      According to the Berne convention, everything is copyrighted, so such a filter should be relatively easy.

      Pity the person receiving the alerts by email though... "Downloading 1.43E+7 emails; average size 800KiB"

    13. Re:Report copyrighted material? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Unless the copyright has expired or it is not something that classifies as a work and get copyright, like small chat for example. So you still need to figure that out as well as other problems.

    14. Re:Report copyrighted material? by yerricde · · Score: 1

      Unless the copyright has expired

      Thanks to repeated copyright term extensions, the set of works whose U.S. copyright has expired is now a constant set and can be special-cased. Now on to those "other problems"...

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    15. Re:Report copyrighted material? by snyps · · Score: 1

      The RIAA does not actually monitor packets, instead what they do is use a hacked version of the p2p server to search for files. They can then steel your ip, crawl back into the sewer, and sue you in there good old time.

      (Yes i am anti RIAA and feel very strong about it!!!)

    16. Re:Report copyrighted material? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      There's an evil bit joke somewhere in there, I just can't bring myself to make it...

    17. Re:Report copyrighted material? by bKT* · · Score: 1

      Well; apparently the courts don't care about that. They find that the big RIAA has some means of finding out the users names, ISPs, etc; and they don't ask how they did it.

      --
      - john@flipsidesoftware.com
    18. Re:Report copyrighted material? by andyrut · · Score: 1

      Obviously the porn is the stuff with the dirty bits

      ...and the copyrighted material's packets apparently have the evil bit.

    19. Re:Report copyrighted material? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Also, don't forget that just because its copyrighted doesn't mean it can't be copied.

      Feel free to copy this message however you want.

    20. Re:Report copyrighted material? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no...sticky bits!

    21. Re:Report copyrighted material? by gangien · · Score: 1

      I suppose illegal stuff would be under the evil bit then?

    22. Re:Report copyrighted material? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Well, I am glad we managed to contain the majority of the dirty/sticky/evil bits to this containment area of the thread.

  4. How considerate.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They ring you up.. "We demand you pay us $ or we'll take you to court"

    What choice do most people have? None.

    1. Re:How considerate.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they can expect much more court costs than expected when ppl like me block uploads at a software firewall lvl and only have mp3's I ripped from my own cd's that kazaa "found on it's own, but I never shared". I'm waiting for my chance to sue for 1 million.

    2. Re:How considerate.. by mishehu · · Score: 1

      This sounds a lot like the old mafia-style protection money scheme... And speaking of such, I wonder what Mr. Oppenheim would say if he woke up next to a stallion's front section with a homemade cd with a message for him on it... he'd say he got it straight from the horse's mouth that he needs to call off his legal goon squad. ;-)

    3. Re:How considerate.. by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Hrm... they call me up and demand money? Sounds like a violation of the Federal "Do Not Call" list... wonder if they'd mind paying the big whopping fine....

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    4. Re:How considerate.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they call me, I'll send them a "settlement". They just better be VERY careful about opening it.

    5. Re:How considerate.. by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I imagine there's no way someone can 'force' a case either.

      For instance, let's say the RIAA makes a big mistake and sues the kid of a hot shot lawyer with plenty of resources, who decides to bite and take the whole thing to a long-winded public jury trial.

      Presumably, the RIAA would just drop the case, where what you really need them to do is get a judge/jury who think that suing 12 year old kids for copying music from millionaires deserves either to be thrown out or re-educated with listening to the complete back catalogue of The Fall.

  5. Its about time... by darkfus · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Maybe big business can accomplish what a million screaming geeks can't...

    sig?

    --
    [sig]darkfus[/sig]
    1. Re:Its about time... by yo303 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But they didn't go far enough.

      The Pacific Bell lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asks that the subpoenas be declared invalid, Meyer said.

      They should have asked that the DMCA be declared invalid.

      yo.

    2. Re:Its about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just courious, but who is the RIAA's telco?

      It would be quite funny if the RIAA found all of their phone lines suddenly disconnected due to "unexpected technical difficulty". Or even better - completely disconnect their lines because of harassing phone calls.

  6. Time to pick up a feature by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to the Washington Post and Ars Technica, the RIAA will now contact P2P users before suing them.

    "Hello, SBC Customer Service? Yes, I'd like to order Call Screening for my -- why, yes, that is the number I'd like to block. How did you know? Hmm, three days? Fine. Thank you very much." *click*

    1. Re:Time to pick up a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hopefully if the RIAA directly contacts people it'll come to light all the quicker how random their contacts have been. So far they've claimed to be taking legal action against 300+ people for file trading. Their record at the moment stands at suing four children under 12, almost 10 people who don't have machines to run the software they claim they used, or even accounts with the ISPs they claim they used to download software from, and six people who don't own a PC or have internet access to begin with. By my reasoning 4+9+6 makes for 19 out of that 300 who obviously aren't file trading how the RIAA says, AT LEAST

      There are certainly people who will have the software able to trade, the machines to run it, on ISPs the RIAA claims, but who DON'T trade. Whats their error rate hitting then? somewhere up around 10% of people they're taking legal action against

      It's shotgun tactics.

    2. Re:Time to pick up a feature by PatJensen · · Score: 1
      Anonymous Call Rejection works great too! I never get spammer calls, period. Who needs an FCC block list?

      -Pat

    3. Re:Time to pick up a feature by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Funny

      What do you expect when the addresses they are trying to look up are 10.0.0.1, 192.168.0.2, and 127.0.0.1

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    4. Re:Time to pick up a feature by Fembot · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, that guy with 127.0.0.1 seems to have LOADS of stuff shared.... why cant our tekkies track him down?"

    5. Re:Time to pick up a feature by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      I'm interested in what your saying especially with regard to people who don't have the right machine or account with the ISP. Would you have any links on these by chance? I have seen their much publicized gaff with the retired school teacher sued for (and later dropped) for hosting gangster rap on her... mac.

    6. Re:Time to pick up a feature by sharkey · · Score: 1
      SBC Customer Service

      ROFLMAO!! Thanks, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week!

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    7. Re:Time to pick up a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the new bill in Congress passes, they would have to file a lawsuit before they subpoena the ISP, so then how would they know who to call?

    8. Re:Time to pick up a feature by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

      Their record at the moment stands at suing four children under 12, almost 10 people who don't have machines to run the software they claim they used, or even accounts with the ISPs they claim they used to download software from, and six people who don't own a PC or have internet access to begin with.

      And how many of those six settled anyway?

      If even *one* did, it doesn't matter what the RIAA does or how it does it. People will cave at the slightest whimper out of fear and/or peace of mind.

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    9. Re:Time to pick up a feature by JayBlalock · · Score: 1

      Not questioning you, but do you have a source for those numbers? I'd love to start quoting it.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    10. Re:Time to pick up a feature by JayBlalock · · Score: 1
      Not to mention that if the person doesn't have a computer or have Internet access, unless they're Amish, there's a very high chance they don't have the time\money to fight it at all.

      Is it possible the RIAA's rampage will become the incident that illustrates how broken some parts of our justice system have gotten?

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    11. Re:Time to pick up a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to look around to see the way that DirecTv was shaking down customers of smart card vendors for big settlements - they just recently lost a decision where DirecTv went after some bought a smart card programmer for uses other than hacking video systems, and (as I recall) DirecTv was sued in return... smells like extorsion to me....

  7. Glad I signed up... by The+Beezer · · Score: 1
  8. Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Telcos are refusing to monitor due to the added cost, nothing more.

    At the risk of my karma, I'd just like to say that this whole thing is getting to the point where I just wish the RIAA would fuck off and die, and take SCO with them. How do companies survive so long after so many people actively loath them?

    1. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Funny

      Microsoft is the most successful company in the world. You think the record companies and SCO are really worried about being hated?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by Cat_Byte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I, for one, have not bought a single CD since I lost my slow preview of music called Kazaa via dialup. Now that I have no clue what songs are good and what songs suck I refuse to give them my $$ at Wal Mart for the CDs. Yeah you can assume all you want about previewing over radio but I can't pick up a single station where I live. They've lost over 6 months of purchases when I averaged over 50 cd's a year before. If only there were more like me.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    3. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by netbornmusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do companies survive so long after so many people actively loath them?
      Because much more people don't know or don't care. Tens of millions people buy what RIAA sells. I think that all this antifilesharing campaign's real purpose is just to frighten the majority of people. They aren't very familiar with the details, what is really legal, what is not, etc. They just hear over and over that downloading of mp3s is illegal and may end up in jail. So they just keep buying...

      --
      We could have saved sixpence. We have saved fivepence. ... But at what cost? (Samuel Beckett)
    4. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by Kris_J · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft is only doing stupid things with its products. The RIAA is doing stupid things with its customers, and SCO are doing stupid things with other people's customers.

    5. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The RIAA provides music that people want, that's the only reason why they are still around. And as for SCO, I have no idea. Maybe McBride is some sort of genetically modified cockroach.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by Logicdisorder · · Score: 0, Troll

      You should look at using Soul Seek(http://www.slsknet.org/). That is what I use to find music. Granted I do not listen to fuck main stream music these days which Soul Seek is not good for but I would still say you should give it a go you. Plus the RIAA has little to no interest in soul seek at the mo cause it is quite small compaired to Kazaa. From my point of view I think Kazaa is shit, it might have alot of users on but I have found it really crap fpr looking up music and moives. EMule is what I have found to be good for TV shows and movies. DEATH TO THE RIAA

      --
      "The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
    7. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by fermion · · Score: 1
      Might I also add that users who like p2p networks might migrate to the ISPs that do not monitor traffic. Even those who don't do anything significant with P2P might prefer to support an ISP who does not monitor.

      That in itself might be enough incentive to fight such requests.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do companies survive so long after so many people actively loath them?

      Sadly, even the collective will of a million slashdotters couldn't unroot a [really really mean] entity such as the RIAA.

      Maybe we can have some fun with them though. How about a "million page-load rally". Essentially we organize a time to synchronously browse riaa.org, striking them with the most formidable of passive aggressive techniques, the slashdot effect.

    9. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by troutsoup · · Score: 1

      How do companies survive so long after so many people actively loath them?

      well because people keep buying their stuff. people are still buying RIAA-cartel cds and people are still buying some SCO stuff.

      i used to work for a company that sold unix boxes. they sold SCO and AIX ones. i gather they were leaning to the AIX ones because of the service contracts IBM had on the servers. i wonder when the last SCO one they sold was? they still had some clients on SCO and bought updates i guess. i hope those clients switched to SCO, i know they were also looking into linux as an alternative to both.

      --
      -- troutsoup.com
    10. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      I guess he's been modded 'Troll' by a RIAA employee...

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    11. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just post the url in a slashdot story... ;) Seems to work on every other slashdotted address.

    12. Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. by Logicdisorder · · Score: 1

      That and my spelling/grammar could have been alot better. And if the person is an RIAA employee then I feel sorry for that person. It must be hard a parties from them when ask who they work for and then been spat on.

      --
      "The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
  9. Re:Rush Limbaugh confirms: *BSD is dying by ciroknight · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well I hope the B(lue)S(creen)(of)D(eath) is dying.. that stupid BSoD is really friggin annoying.. especially on this Windows ME box.....

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  10. Telcos not perfect either by a+no+n+y+man+123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time a story like this is posted, I see a number of posts saying "God bless SBC!" or "I love Verizon!"

    Before you assume they're suing the RIAA just to protect your privacy, think again. The main reason is to avoid the costs of looking up someone's info every time the RIAA issues a subpoena.

    1. Re:Telcos not perfect either by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what? Do you require your benefactors to be saints before you accept or even appreciate their help? It's enlightened self-interest. I could care less about their motives, that they're fighting the RIAA is enough for me.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    2. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you assume they're suing the RIAA just to protect your privacy, think again.

      Yeah, so?
      sometimes it's nice to see good things happen even if the doer is full of shit

      And this is a good thing (by my standards), regardless of the real reason.

    3. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think it would cost them more to run a quick search than it does to hire a pack of lawyers?

    4. Re:Telcos not perfect either by a+no+n+y+man+123 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you know well enough to restrict this feeling of appreciation to when they are fighting the RIAA, but many people on slashdot assume that the telcos, on the whole, are good. By all means, accept their help in this case. But don't be blind to the fact that they're not doing it for you.

    5. Re:Telcos not perfect either by a+no+n+y+man+123 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they would have to run just one search? Over 60 million Americans alone have installed Kazaa (not counting other p2p apps).

    6. Re:Telcos not perfect either by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but many ISPs rely on file sharing as a method of peddling their wares. I've seen many an SBC Yahoo! DSL commercial where they tout "downloading music" as a feature of their service.

    7. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at work. The work to promote their own self-interests, rightfully so, and the rest of us benefit from it. I say God bless 'em, since the telcos are one of the few forces strong enough to have a chance to beat the RIAA.

    8. Re:Telcos not perfect either by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Um, RIAA is giving them the Date and the IP address. It really can't be hard to do a search for the IP address and who had it at that time. I hate Telco's, but I'll pick the lesser evil here.

    9. Re:Telcos not perfect either by kcbrown · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I could care less about their motives, that they're fighting the RIAA is enough for me.

      I see. So if their motives are purely to maximize their income and, as such, they suddenly work out a deal with the RIAA that the RIAA pays them whenever they have to comply with any of the RIAA subpoenas, and keep this a secret all the while continuing to appear to fight the RIAA, you'll have no problem with that? They'll continue to appear to fight the RIAA so it's not like you'll notice any difference.

      Motive matters a great deal. It's one way you can tell the difference between who you can trust and who you can't. Someone who does the right thing for the wrong reason is much more likely to do the wrong thing later on.

      I don't expect corporations to be saints. I expect them to be ethical, just as I expect an individual to be ethical. Give me one good reason a corporation, which wields orders of magnitude more power than an individual, should be less ethical than an individual.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    10. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but in the case of SBC, I would perfer that they not eat childern for breakfast.

    11. Re:Telcos not perfect either by TexVex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why do everyone hate the telcos?

      I've never had bad phone service. It's always worked. Even when the power goes out, I can pick up a hard-wired phone and get dialtone. I've never had a problem with clarity of my phone connections -- they are always crystal clear. I've never had a call fail because of bandwidth unavailability. The service has a reasonable cost, and their bean counters will usually let you get a month in arrears before they cut you off. I've used two different cable companies and two different telephone companies for broadband, and DSL beat out cable modem both times. The DSL connections are more reliable, both in continuous connection times and in steady bandwidth availability. The telephone companies will market to those who want to run services through their pipe and even make blocks of static IP addresses available, while the cable companies dole out static IPs stingily and charge three times as much.

      So, in a nutshell, telcos produce a superior quality service that does what it's supposed to do virtually all the time and for a good price. What is to hate?

      It's easy to hate Microsoft because of their ridiculous EULAs, overpriced software, and hard-on for Digital Restrictions Management. It's easy to hate the RIAA for wanting to bankrupt people already near the poverty line and for refusing to admit that just maybe they are putting out lower quality product at higher prices in a sluggish economy and that just maybe their failure to adapt to new technology might be a straw woven into the handbasket that is taking their business to Hell.

      So what have the telocs done to earn such ire?

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    12. Re:Telcos not perfect either by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      I see. So if their motives are purely to maximize their income and, as such, they suddenly work out a deal with the RIAA that the RIAA pays them whenever they have to comply with any of the RIAA subpoenas, and keep this a secret all the while continuing to appear to fight the RIAA, you'll have no problem with that? They'll continue to appear to fight the RIAA so it's not like you'll notice any difference.
      Well, if they work out a deal with the RIAA that ends up screwing me, then the situation has changed, hasn't it? Then I will no longer consider them a benefactor and change my feelings toward them appropriately. But until such an event comes to pass, I'll be duly appreciative of their efforts.
      You shouldn't spend so much effort constantly second-guessing the motives of others; you won't be better off for it in the end and at some point you'll end up ascribing motives to others that exist only in your head and you'll end up a paranoid.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    13. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Not just them... I can't count the number of times I've seen Roadrunner commercials or AOL commercials touting the ability to download music as one of the big features of broadband.... frankly, a lot of clueless users may assume that it's not illegal because the commercials intimate that it's part of the service you pay for when you get broadband.

      Which makes me wonder when Roadrunner or AOL will be sued for deceptive advertising....

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    14. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      It's always worked. Even when the power goes out, I can pick up a hard-wired phone and get dialtone.

      That's a federal regulation that they maintain power. It's not the goodwill of the phone company to do so.

      So, in a nutshell, telcos produce a superior quality service that does what it's supposed to do virtually all the time and for a good price. What is to hate?

      You must be lucky. I get slammed by long distance companies once every two years or so... even when I make NO long distance calls. Hell, I don't make ANY calls on my land line; the only reason I keep it is for DSL. But I'm still required to pay $30 a month for local service, and $15 a month for long distance. That's making and receiving NO calls mind you. Which is why I eventually gave DSL and got rid of the land line.

      Have you ever tried to cancel a land line? The only way to get one cancelled is to tell them you're moving. They won't cancel a land line just because you want them to.

      Telcos just plain suck.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    15. Re:Telcos not perfect either by seanadams.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do everyone hate the telcos?

      I'll tell you why I hate the telcos:

      1) The service is absurdly overpriced for what you get. I can go to fry's a pick up a commodity 100mbps switch for less than $10 per port, but can I get decent data service to my house for less than $60/mo? No.

      2) Yes my basic phone service is quite reliable and I can always dial 911. That's because the California PUC requires it, and there are very stiff penalties for failing to deliver this minimal level of service. But what if I want to block telemarketers? What if I want reliable data service? What if I want a phone bill I can understand? What if I want to be able to call a support rep who can help? There are no fines for failing to provide these things, and as a government-imposed monopoly providing an essential service, they have no reason to improve service in these areas.

      Communications technology has improved enormously in the last 20 years. But is SBC spending my $80/mo rolling trucks to pull fiber and install high-speed switches in neighborhoods? No, they're out repairing ancient 100-pair copper cables using outdated tools and labor imported from Canada because all their experienced techs have quit due to getting fucked on pay and retirement benefits even during the telecom boom.

      What about data services for my business? Why should a meager 1.5Mbps in each direction, used occasionally, cost more almost ten times what the average home user pays to fill the pipe with pr0n and mp3s?

      And a final bit of context: I used to own an ISP during the late 90's. Sold it for a pretty penny, but it was a money-losing business and a pain in the ass to run. The biggest impediment to my success was the fucking phone companies. I'm paying $1K per month for each of a dozen T1 lines, but can I get a knowledgeable person on the phone to help me troubleshoot a line problem? No. Can I get a tech out on 1 hrs notice when my service goes down, no. That wasn't the worst of it either. When DSL became available, I had to pay Covad to pay PacBell to get service to my customer, while PacBell was allowed to offer the service in direct competition at a lower price than my own cost just to get a line out the customer. Fuck the phone companies. I am so glad that my livelihood does not depend on their services any more.

    16. Re:Telcos not perfect either by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      Well, if they work out a deal with the RIAA that ends up screwing me, then the situation has changed, hasn't it?

      Sure. But until you consider their motives, you cannot know how likely it is that they'll take an action such as that. And if their motives are something you would tend to disagree with, then it's probably only a matter of time before they result in actions you'd be vehemently opposed to.

      Actions certainly matter, and it's nice that the telcos appear to be fighting the RIAA right now. But allies like that are just as likely to fight against you as for you.

      One other thing: another big reason motives are important is that they may give you an indication of the price you're likely to pay if you accept someone's help. The telcos are fighting the RIAA right now but because they're probably doing so only for financial reasons, there may be a hidden price tag attached to the help. For instance, we don't know what kind of deals they may be trying to make with the legislators, but I think it's reasonable to assume they're trying. In the end, we may all end up regretting their help, even though right now it looks okay.

      I'd feel a lot more comfortable about the whole thing if I knew that the telcos were motivated by a desire to maximize freedom and liberty for all, but we all know that's not one of their motives. And I think it's important to know that.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    17. Re:Telcos not perfect either by ionpro · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know about _your_ telco, but maybe you weren't asking the right questions.

      I had a second phone line in my house for Internet only. It took me all of 2 minutes to set up with Sprint. "I want the following services, only: local service, tone dialing. I want no local toll carrier, and no long distance carrier. Yes, I want to lock these choices in. No, I don't give you premission to contact me with special long distance offers. No, I'll do the installation myself, thanks. Yes, good-bye. Click"

      24 hours later, I'm online. No questions asked. Now, the fact that Tennessee charged me a 'luxury tax' on my 2nd phone line wasn't their fault...

      Two years later, I leave the house, and cancel the phone line (not moving, btw, just canceling it). This took me THREE minutes, because I had to wait on hold.

      Maybe you need to look for CLECs in your area?

    18. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it was a 2nd line. I was talking about the primary line, which was completely unused for phone calls but required for DSL. The DSL was billed from separately, so the telco was charging me for the priviledge of having a line connected to the house. With all applicable taxes. And the long distance; you can't have a local line with no long distance service; maybe a second line, but the primary line requires it according to them. I tried to sneak it through after getting slammed and cancelling the long distance, but it eventually got rerouted back to the telco.

      Getting disconnected, I've had to call back, get another tech and tell them I'm moving and need it disconnected. It's like changing your name. You tell people you changed your name because you got married and it's no problem. You tell them you changed your name because you just felt like it, and you're under suspicion for being on the lam. I'm certainly not the only one who's experienced this kind of crap, which is why I started my rant saying those who haven't are lucky.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    19. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're sued, I expect it to be thrown out or settled in the ISPs' favor since there are numerable legal ways to download music, much of it free. MP3.com, dmusic.com, emusic.com are just three examples. Google will get you many more.

    20. Re:Telcos not perfect either by riflemann · · Score: 1

      Why do everyone hate the telcos?

      I've never had bad phone service.It's always worked.


      Oh! Someone from outside the US!

    21. Re:Telcos not perfect either by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      I believe his point is that Verizon could really care less if they gave out your name, social and blood type to the RIAA, so long as it didn't cost them money. They, much like most other companies in the US, are watching out for the almighty buck.

      That doesn't mean that they *won't* stand up for our rights, since with our rights infringed it's less likely we'd be their customer and therefore they'd lose money, but let's not forget what their prime motivator is.

      --trb

    22. Re:Telcos not perfect either by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let me introduce you to this little letter I got from Verizon. See, Verizon is the only local service game around because they have a monopoly on the service in the area. Others have tried, Verizon has cheated, bought, and legislated them right out of the area.

      So, I use Verizon for my Internet access. Apparently, I wasn't paying them enough on my local-only $21.00 a month plan for unlimited calling. So, they sent me a letter informing me of a "great new benefit!" The great new "benefit" was an extra $3 charge on my phone bill each month for 30 minutes of regional long distance. I get extorted out of this money whether or not I use my 30 minutes each month - which I don't.

      And, guess what? I'm STILL using Verizon because I'm totally fucked. They've also pissed around on broadband - they're the only game in town, so they see no rush to roll it out to those of us who happen to be a mere 1/4 of a mile outside of their range.

      So, I pay an extra $3 a month for long distance service that I specifically didn't want when I signed up, and there's not a goddamn thing I can do about it. Can I just not pay it and get away with it? Yea - I don't HAVE to pay the $3 bill and they can't disconnect my local service - but it won't look good on my part if anyone looks up my bill-paying habits and sees that I have $150 in delinquent, unpaid billing from Verizon (buying a house, anyone).

      People hate telcos because they suck and they're not now and never have been interested in providing quality service at a good price in a manner consistent with your needs. Like most other big corps, they're interested in maximizing their profits in any way possible, which is usually accomplished in the easiest way by stomping on (willing or unwilling, as the case may be) customers' faces and stealing their wallets.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    23. Re:Telcos not perfect either by BDew · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious if you could find me companies outside the U.S. who are not watching out for the "almighty buck." Or is "in the US" just good old-fashioned stereotyping?

      --
      "Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
    24. Re:Telcos not perfect either by SirGeek · · Score: 1
      You must be lucky. I get slammed by long distance companies once every two years or so... even when I make NO long distance calls. Hell, I don't make ANY calls on my land line; the only reason I keep it is for DSL. But I'm still required to pay $30 a month for local service, and $15 a month for long distance. That's making and receiving NO calls mind you. Which is why I eventually gave DSL and got rid of the land line.

      Then you are getting screwed. I pay NOTHING for long distance on one of my lines and on the other I only pay if I use Long distance. If you are paying 15/month then you must have signed up for one of their package deals.

    25. Re:Telcos not perfect either by cens0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason the SBC and Verizon are fighting this is the almighty buck, but not for the reasons you think. They are making tons of money off people switching to broadband. Why do people switch? To get high download speeds. What are they downloading? Mainly music. If the ability to download music is taken away, alot of people might decide that their broadband connection is simply not worth it, and go back to $9.95/month dialup.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    26. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is your long distance service, not your local telco service. You don't have to have long distance service on your line at all! Sounds like your long distance service used to be free and now they changed it to cost 3 dollars.

      If you don't have a long distance service assigned to your number, then there is no one to raise the prices. Granted, I pay Bell South 50 cents each month for the benefit of having no long distance fees and locking my service down so I cannot get slammed by an unscrupulous LD provider without my writen authorization.

      6 bucks a year is a small price to pay, if you need to make long distance calls all you have to do is dial 10-10-987 and when John Stamos answers, tell him how bad you want to bone his wife.

    27. Re:Telcos not perfect either by Abm0raz · · Score: 1

      While I'm sitting in the woods a bear rushes at me. A drunken, red-neck, child-molesting, thieving, republican, windows praising, DRM supporting catholic priest shoots the bear and saves my life ... I'm going to be appreciative ... whether or not he shot the bear to save me, or to take home as a trophy.

      You take your blessings where you can get them. Tomorrow, the TelCos may do something different to make me hate them. Today I like them. That's the bitch about life ... things change and so must people if they want to keep up.

      -Ab

      --
      Nothing fails quite like prayer.
    28. Re:Telcos not perfect either by randomencounter · · Score: 1

      Try again.
      What they are trying to protect is their Common Carrier status. If they take any responsibility for third party content passing over their circuits they are royally screwed.

      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
    29. Re:Telcos not perfect either by loucura! · · Score: 1

      Untrue, I have a single primary line, DSL, no local toll charges, and no long-distance carrier. The only services I do have are caller-id, and uh... something else that I didn't put on but my girlfriend did.

      The point being, that you're just not doing things correctly if you're required to have the extra services... get someone who starts crying when someone tries to pressure them to buy something, and I guarantee you'll stop getting people trying to pressure you to get things.

      And god-help-them if they have to talk to me. No, I don't want long-distance, yes I'm sure; No, you may not call me to try to sell me long-distance.

      Be firm, they can't -force- you to get long-distance, schmuck.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    30. Re:Telcos not perfect either by ssstraub · · Score: 1


      How can you not hate an oligopoly that has charged for touch tone service since it's been invented? It's now 2003 and we're all still paying an individual fee for touch tone service. We'll be paying for it until the day the last landline is disconnected.

      Yet they will put up a fuss if you try to cancel it.

  11. Goodbye RIAA, hello independent labels! by kevin_conaway · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bleh,

    Though I havent bought a cd in a while (ive just been listenening to classic rock on the radio), ive decided recently that its time for some new music. I bought a few cds off cdbaby.com and have been very pleased. The music rocks and the service rocks! I hope their prices and all else stays the same.

    The crap that the RIAA is pushing these days isnt even worth my time.

  12. Re:Article #1 text by iconian · · Score: 2, Funny

    I usually don't say nice things about telcos.

    I, for one, will start welcoming our telco overlords.

  13. now that you mention the RIAA.... by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Speaking of the RIAA, as far as one crime that is known to have been comitted, where the hell are our settlement checks from their price fixing? These things were supposedly to come out this summer, but it's fall already and I sure have not received mine, even though I bought the last albums I'll ever buy in the proper time period and filed the claim in time.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:now that you mention the RIAA.... by Fo0eY · · Score: 1

      a bunch of folks are appealing the decision trying to get more money out of the riaa

      so we all get to wait till that finishes up

  14. The RIAA is simply transitioning... by Atario · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...to a new revenue stream so they can stop relying on the outmoded one. How does it work? Observe:
    1. Call people, telling them the RIAA is going to sue them back to the bronze age unless they fork over an arbitrary amount of cash.
    2. Make it an automated message, calling out with caller ID info blocked, so people can't respond except to the address provided in the message.
    3. Checks roll in.
    4. Angry rants also roll in; these may be safely discarded.
    5. Profit!
    Voila: no reliance on the old revenue stream. Just keeping up with the times by switching to an IPL[1] business model. It's the new wave -- catch it!(tm)




    [1] Intellectual Property Litigation.
    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:The RIAA is simply transitioning... by Ceadda · · Score: 1

      Except, they can't make an automated message. Anyone who does recieve an, automated, computer or otherwise recorded, auto-dialed message from a company of which you are not a customer, that tries to sell you anything or discuss legal matters, can go collect up to $10000 in court. At least in the US they are required to actually call you :)

      --
      *There's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape em off Jim!*
    2. Re:The RIAA is simply transitioning... by sharkey · · Score: 1
      Make it an automated message, calling out with caller ID info blocked, so people can't respond except to the address provided in the message.

      So send $250,000 to Litigious Dude. You have the power!

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:The RIAA is simply transitioning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: For every song you download/share throw some nickels and dimes in a bowl so when you get sued you can send the RIAA a barrel full of change.

    4. Re:The RIAA is simply transitioning... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      That may be the law but I get lots of calls that consist of a recorded message trying to sell me satellite TV, "free" trips to DisneyWorld and other tripe. The problem with filing a lawsuit is how do you identify the company that is violating the law. They don't show up on caller ID and they never mention the name of the company.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:The RIAA is simply transitioning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so just have the calling subcontracted to a firm in India!

  15. That doesn't make sense. by zabieru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is, after all, the same Verizon that spent who knows how much in legal fees fighting the RIAA's right to subpoena information on their customers at all. So if it's a cost issue, it's enlightened self-interest: They believe that customers choose them for the value-added of privacy. I don't think their decisions make economic sense on only that basis. Love 'em or hate 'em, I think they're operating out of pride: We're the phone companies, and any hacker, phreaker, or record label trade group who crosses us is going down. But once again I could be wrong.

  16. Call me a cynic. by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm glad to see the telcos taking this position, and I applaud them for it. But I also think it's worth considering that a love of freedom may not be the only thing that inspires telcos and other ISP's to take a position against the RIAA.

    Avoiding any and all responsibility for policing the content that travels over their connections is strongly in the best interest of any ISP. Having the longest history of operating a complex communications network, the telcos probably have the strongest understanding of that concept. In asking the telcos to report file sharing behavior, the RIAA is asking them to take a certain amount of responsibility for content that the telcos cannot control.

    If the telcos acquiesced to the RIAA's request, one can only assume that they'd also have to police their corners of the internet for terrorism-related activity, porn, blasphemy, and all manner of content that sufficiently powerful organizations object to.

    1. Re:Call me a cynic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think that it is worth noting that every few years someone with very little idea on how this stuff actually works suggests some sort of monitoring/censorship. Needless to say, every one of these suggestions to date has failed.

    2. Re:Call me a cynic. by awol · · Score: 1

      Avoiding any and all responsibility for policing the content that travels over their connections is strongly in the best interest of any ISP

      It may well be in their interests, but it _certainly_ is in mine. I love the idea that the telco is _not_ responsible for the content. The more that we have this kind of distinction the better our society becomes. It means that we can take their example an use it as a model for the next time someone declares that the content is the medium. Which is just absurd, and bad too (IMHO)

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    3. Re:Call me a cynic. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      They can't monitor their systems, because the common carrier status that not monitoring them gives them...

      Google for Common carrier status or statute...

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  17. offshoring effect on manufacturing by jmulvey · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I agreed with her until she made the following statement: In other words, record company executives are in approximately the same position that manufacturing workers were in during the '80s and '90s: Their jobs have been made redundant by technology.

    Uhh... no... the manufacturing crisis in the 80s, 90s and today are caused by offshore relocation not by file sharing. (the same malaise that is now affecting white collar jobs)

    As an aside, does anyone know what will it take for the media to understand the *REAL* jobs issue in the United States?

    1. Re:offshoring effect on manufacturing by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      what, you mean the ROBOTS? nah, its ok, we already know that robots have already taken more manufacturing jobs away from people than offshore relocation, no need to harp on it.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    2. Re:offshoring effect on manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... concidering that most economists don't seem to really understand the jobs issue, the answer is : Nothing short of a miracle.

    3. Re:offshoring effect on manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an aside, does anyone know what will it take for the media to understand the *REAL* jobs issue in the United States?

      It's called globalization, and you started it.

    4. Re:offshoring effect on manufacturing by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      The off-shore thing started because people in third world countries are cheaper operate than robots.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:offshoring effect on manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does anyone know what will it take for the media to understand the *REAL* jobs issue in the United States?

      Yes... first we'll have to win the race to the bottom. Or at least get close enough to see the finish line. Translation: start looking for articles in the next few years about "lower standard of living" and "downward mobility." It might not even be so painful at first - middle-class families who can't afford college, can't afford a second car anymore, restaurants closing because people can't afford to eat out... Watch for the conservatives to applaud this as a "return to family values..."

  18. Why only the telcos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So why is it that the telcos keep getting nailed and we dont hear anything about Comcast...

    I guess people with Cable modems dont share files.

    1. Re:Why only the telcos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HELLO!

      3 MBPS cable modems VS. 650 KBPS ADSL and the RIAA keeps filing subpoenas against the telcos who together provide the minority share of broadband access.

      The cable companies all have strong financial relations with the record labels. (different parts of the same companies).

      The RBOC's ought to be filing suite for harassment against the RIAA.

    2. Re:Why only the telcos? by NSash · · Score: 1

      [i]So why is it that the telcos keep getting nailed and we dont hear anything about Comcast...[/i] 'Cause Comcast folded like a paper napkin.

    3. Re:Why only the telcos? by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      I never thought about it before but I figure it's like this.

      Time warner is a part of the RIAA (At least I'm pretty sure they are.) Time warner provides cable connections. Soooo they avoid suing cable users which would give cable a bad name. They can include "Download your favorite music online" in all their ads without worring about people saying "Hey didn't they sue like 100 people for using cable to download music, let's not get cable."

      Anyway, that's just my little conspiracy theory, I could be wrong (and I probably am)

    4. Re:Why only the telcos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why is it that the telcos keep getting nailed and we dont hear anything about Comcast...
      I guess people with Cable modems dont share files.


      People with One.tel connections don't share files....

      (beep) all our lines are busy, please ring again later

  19. Re:Bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply, it's not tripe. Duh

  20. Call first? Same tactics by MunchMunch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I really don't even understand how they can respond to criticism by saying they're calling the accused filesharers up first and offering to settle. I mean, hasn't it been pretty clearly established that the RIAA absolutely wants every sued person to settle anyways?

    Filing the lawsuit itself changes very little--They are still using the threat of a big and costly lawsuit to extract a comparably insignificant but still sizable amount of money from people. That the RIAA did this (the call-first policy) in response to the Senate hearings is a riot. "No, Mr. Coleman, we aren't using our harsher-than-Patriot Act powers to intimidate people with bankrupcy-inducing lawsuits into settling for $3-4,000! We're calling them and threatening with the prospect of filing the lawsuit!" I don't really see how the RIAA calling and saying "We're gonna sue you unless you hand over $3,000" is any different from "We're gonna proceed with our suit unless you so hand over $3,000"

    I mean, if every one of those sued file sharers challenged the RIAA, then it would quickly run out of resources. But since the lawsuits are cheaper to settle and unaffordable any other way, we have the prisoner's dilemma--everyone pleads guilty to the 3 year sentence in order to avoid the 20 year sentence, because nobody knows what their peers are going to do. I can't imagine the RIAA reasoned it any other way either.

  21. Motivations by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The real reason the RIAA is attempting to force telcos to drag their customers into court is to protect the jobs of record executives, not the rights of artists, who benefit from less expensive and more effective distribution mechanisms.

    And the real reason SBC/Verizon are fighting the record companies is to protect the jobs of telco executives, not the rights of consumers.

    Don't think that the telcos are acting on altruism. They'd screw you just as badly as the RIAA would, if they really felt it'd benefit them.

    It's in their best interests to protect your privacy - just be glad that they are smart enough to realize that, and enjoy the little victory.

    The RIAA is like an animal trapped in the corner - and just like one, it'll bite anything nearby out of fear. In this case, its busy biting the very hands that feed it.

    Stand back, wait for it to calm down, and enjoy the ride.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The RIAA is like an animal trapped in the corner "

      Yeah but- she's a real tiger maens!

    2. Re:Motivations by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      News flash: human beings are driven primarily by self-interest. And that's not a bad thing. It's a very good thing, in fact the very thing which drives all forms of human advancement, including evolution.

      It's irrelvent that the telcos are acting out of self-interest. So are you, after all. So is everyone who opposes the RIAA. What does that change? Absolutely nothing. The important thing is that the telcos are on our side, at least with regard to this particular situation -- they don't want to take the RIAA's crap any more than we do, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that they're supporting, not weakening, our side of the story.

  22. RIAA Phone Payment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The RIAA's not so bad, they'll settle out of court over the phone, if you don't mind paying up instead of getting a lawyer.

    ... Just call this 1-900 number and your settlement fee will appear on your next phone bill. Paying the RIAA can be that easy!

    1. Re:RIAA Phone Payment by soliaus · · Score: 1
      ... Just call this 1-900 number and your settlement fee will appear on your next phone bill. Paying the RIAA can be that easy!

      I dont know what your smoking, but the RIAA has offered this since the beginning.

      1-900-MISS-CLEO

      --
      Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
    2. Re:RIAA Phone Payment by BenZoate · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Call 1-900-RIAA-SEX
      Step 2: Push 1 for Male, 2 for female voice.
      Step 3: Be greeted by hot and bothered Female voice (I chose 1).
      Step 4: I call back weekly because I do not know any females.
      Step 5: Charges show up on phone bill for RIAA. No one will suspect that it is a "Dirty Number"
      Step 6: ????
      Step 7: Profit!

  23. Yeah right by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1
    The RIAA's not so bad, they'll settle out of court over the phone, if you don't mind paying up instead of getting a lawyer.

    Just like they did when they sued people who called them & voluntarily gave contact information during the amnesty period?

    --
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    1. Re:Yeah right by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Just like they did when they sued people who called them & voluntarily gave contact information during the amnesty period?

      Patience. The "RIAA" certainly won't sue but that does not guarentee that there will not be lawsuits yet filed as a direct result. It would be stupid but it might happen precisely because the RIAA is not fully in control.

      I'm not claiming this is a certainty, I'd personally give it 60-40 against (which is a pretty weak opinion), but if it is going to happen it wouldn't have happened yet. If it hasn't happened in a year then you can probably safely make your claim.

    2. Re:Yeah right by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      My $100 against would have won your 60-40 against. They already have several times. They were sued over the amnesty agreement due to it being "hollow" and not agreeing not to pass the information along to other parts of the organization. They have already sued & settled many people who voluntarily become part of the amnesty. Do a search on it. It happened. They only agreed that "they" would not sue. They had no guarantees about the information volunteered being private and confidential. RIAA still screwed over many of the supposed "amnesty protected" citizens who tried to come clean.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    3. Re:Yeah right by Jerf · · Score: 1

      My apologies. I thought you were sarcastically claiming that the RIAA had not yet sued anyone. I see that you were actually claiming the RIAA had already not lived up to their bargin. (Going back and re-reading it, I still find it ambiguous, so I don't feel too guilty ;-) )

      Do you have any sort of link you can give me about that? I don't remember seeing it (you'd think it would make it to Slashdot), and I'm searching but I'm getting swamped with stories about the amnesty itself, not someone who claimed it and was subsequently sued.

    4. Re:Yeah right by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      Actually it was something I saw linked in another discussion on here right when the lawsuits started. I also heard it on the radio. However I don't have the link still, sorry. If I find it I'll definitely post it.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
  24. Re:Bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "put your money where your mouth is otherwise shut the fuck up" How blatantly contrary to the concept of free speech. Dismissing it petulantly doesn't make it untrue. I submit for your steaming hot cup of STFU, iTunes Music Store and this:

    http://artists.iuma.com/

    But in your post, only money talks.

  25. Cost? Think this through for a moment... by The+Ancients · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For all those above that surmised the only reason the ISPs are fighting this is due to compliance costs, consider the following...

    If the RIAA starts cracking down on file sharers, the demand for lucrative broadband connections is going to be negatively affected. This is what will truly affect their revenue streams. Whether for good or for bad, at present legally tenuous trading is probably the biggest driver for fast internet connections.

    I'd also like to think that it's due to the ISPs overwhelming desire to do the right thing and protect customer's privacy, but I'm having trouble reconciling this view completely with the generally held views of corporate entities and their desire to run profitably.

    Just my 2 cents worth.

  26. Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Just need to start by drafting an RFC doc (using MS Office 2003 DRM XML, of course) additing a "l33ched w@r3z" bit, just like the "Evil Bit".

  27. Verizon Couln't Comply If They Wanted To... by cableshaft · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Man, I work for Verizon, and they really don't have the ability to do this from my vantage point. Most of the systems we use are still Telnet based. I still fix accounts on a daily basis that haven't been touched since they were first transferred over to the system in 1990 (that's usually the only time there's a major problem with the records, when the data switches databases). They'd probably have to build a whole new system from scratch in order to comply with RIAA's wishes. Of course, I only deal with the business office lines, but most other departments use the same system I use.

    --
    Creator of the popular web game Proximity
    1. Re:Verizon Couln't Comply If They Wanted To... by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      You work in voice presumably (layer 1 of the 7 layer OSI model) . Verizon are also an IP transit company. It seems like RIAA and friends want them to monitor layer 6 data, session content. The part of Verizon responsible for IP transit would have slightly better systems in place to do things like this.

    2. Re:Verizon Couln't Comply If They Wanted To... by miu · · Score: 1
      The part of Verizon responsible for IP transit would have slightly better systems in place to do things like this.

      I don't work for Verizon, but another carrier - and I can tell you that those systems you speak of are for troubleshooting or to satisfy CALEA and Title 3. They are labor intensive and not made for use on a large scale monitoring system.

      Making those systems available to use at RIAAs whim would cost more money than you can believe - and make Verizon responsible for holding RIAAs dick from now till the end of time.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    3. Re:Verizon Couln't Comply If They Wanted To... by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      Oh totally, I'm just saying that there are parts of Verizon et. al which have more sophisticated hardware than multimeters and handsets.

      I agree 100% that ISPs should NOT do content inspection without warrants or for diagnosis of network problems.

  28. No settlement checks for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't deserve a settlement check. I stopped buying CD's as a moral decision when the RIAA censored Napster out of existence.

  29. Of course they do! by mc6809e · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The providers of DSL know that they are getting an indirect subsidy from "free" music. There are people out there that are paying $40/month so they can download music. If customers had to pay for the music too, companies like Verizon would have fewer customers.

    The telcos are just profiting from other peoples creative works. Of course they don't want this to stop.

    1. Re:Of course they do! by nolife · · Score: 1

      Double edged sword there... These are the same DSL companies that want to tier service and/or cut off the so called top 5% that use more bandwidth then the others. So enough file sharing ability to get you interested in DSL but not too much that you might cost us more in bandwidth fee's. What a business plan.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    2. Re:Of course they do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think high-speed internet connections are wanted for more than just file-sharing... I mean, it doesn't tie up your phone line, you get your information and email faster, it's always on... it's convenient. File-sharing isn't the reason I got DSL, and the same goes for lots of people I know. there are just too many downfalls to dialup.

    3. Re:Of course they do! by cens0r · · Score: 1

      You are posting on slashdot. Therefore you are not most people. I got DSL so I can download CD ISO's faster, host my own website, leave my connections on 24x7, ssh into my box from work, and share one connection with a network of computers. Again, I post on slashdot, I am not most people. Most people got broadband for one reason: to download faster. Surfing the web and downloading email doesn't really require much faster than a dialup line. But downloading music does. Filesharing really is the first killer app that makes joe sixpack want broadband.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  30. I think it's a liability thing. by ron_ivi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think the main reason is that they don't want to become responsible for the content being sent over their lines.

    What next... they have to help turn-over people involved in other questionable activity done on the phone? ... people who called escort services just because some group wants those names? ...identify people martha stewart connected with just because they might have talked about imclone?

    Yeah, they can do that, but the process involves a warant. Just just a request from an industry group.

    If they have to start monitoring for questionable activity from any group that requests it, the next step might be for them to be responsible for illegal activity.

    1. Re:I think it's a liability thing. by 0xA · · Score: 1
      Phone companies are protected from the examples you give due to their legal status as "Common Carriers".

      I don't know the ins and outs of how that works but I do recall that some ISPs were fighting to get common carrier status and lost.

  31. Re:Bullshit... by nathanh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "...than with protecting the revenue stream created by an out-of-date distribution system."

    Mod me down (I have plenty of karma to burn) but I am so sick and fucking tired of hearing this line of tripe. If you have something better than put your money where your mouth is otherwise shut the fuck up. Saying something over and over ad nauseum does not make it true.

    How isn't the distribution system horribly out-of-date? The very concept of taking data, sticking it onto physical discs, putting those discs inside plastic wrappers, moving those discs via trucks, holding them inside stores, requiring the consumer to transport themselves several kilometres to buy the disc, then transport it home, simply so the customer can play music? That system makes sense for physical goods; not for pure data.

    Internet distribution of music is modern, efficient and convenient. You can argue (though you didn't) that the current systems are broken because the artist isn't compensated, but I don't see how you could possibly argue that the physical distribution system is anything other than antiquated. It's a 100-year old distribution model that hasn't significantly changed despite several generations of telecommunication improvements.

  32. Distribution lies by stilleon · · Score: 1

    "...protecting the revenue stream created by an out-of-date distribution system." How is giving it away for free an better. No matter what you say such as "if only we had a viable digital sales system we would use it," and "if only the artists would get more money," you defenders of freedom will still steal it anyway.

    1. Re:Distribution lies by Trent_Alkaline · · Score: 1

      I don't see of it as stealing. To bring up the dead horse argument, artists don't make much from music sales. Yeah maybe I'd be more inclined to buy a CD new, and not used if the artist made more money from it. But that still doesn't change that it's overpriced and should be cheaper in the first place. To quote Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins, and now, Zwan: "You can put out the big fire [Napster], but there are 100 other little fires ready to spring up, and you'll never put them all out. Ultimately, music is going to be free." Billy Corgan on the Napster controversy from an MTV interview. "I'm glad that people are trying to get our music early off of the internet. I'd be kind of scared if they didn't" - billy corgan

    2. Re:Distribution lies by stilleon · · Score: 1

      I bet Billy looks forward to the day he makes music for free and slings fries at McDonalds on the side to pay the bills. Let me ask you a question: how much should an artist make? The label pays for the recording/mixing/mastering of the CD, pays for the videos, TV commercials, a roomful of promoters get them TV and print interviews, the label pays for the website, CD pressing, artwork. They may spend up to a million dollars on a project. If it fails they absorb the loss, not the artist (if he can't repay the advance it is written off). But if it makes it big the artist makes big bucks.

      As an indie they might make more money per CD sale, but that is a larger percentage of a smaller pie. With a major you make a smaller percentage of a much larger pie.

      How many indie artists can afford to own mansions and multiple fast cars, and vacation in foreign countries?

    3. Re:Distribution lies by gr0ngb0t · · Score: 1

      How many indie artists sell out big venues?

      How many major label artists sell out said venues?

      The money isn't in cd sales, its in the live shows with the $70+ entry fees...

      Do you think Burt Bacharach (just for a random big artist) makes more money from touring or from CD sales?

    4. Re:Distribution lies by rusty_razor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the whole point - you wouldn't be 'giving it away for free'. Stop and think for a moment. Does the method of distribution have any effect whatsoever on piracy? I would venture that the price of the good drives illegal copying.

      As CDs are ridiculously overpriced, it is easy to see why they are pirated - as are certain overpriced operating systems with shoddy security. These items face large-scale piracy issues. The reason? The disparity between the price and the perceived value is so great that a normal person decides to break the law.

      Once prices and the actual worth of the product come into closer agreement, the vast majority will opt to follow a legal path - probably out of a natural Machiavellian fear of authority. Refusing to come to grips with the actual value of a product, the industry is reinforcing a community belief that crime is appropriate here, when you're stealing from criminals. It's time to make a better fucking product, and earn money sans rabid lawyer hoard. (Are you listening, Darl?)

    5. Re:Distribution lies by shark72 · · Score: 1

      That's a straw man argument. If you had a day job from which you got 90% of your income and another job that generated 10%, if you found somebody pilfering from your paycheck from the 2nd job, you'd still want to kick their ass right proper. "That's okay, the real money is in my day job" is not something you'd be likely to utter. Why assume that anybody else would be feel differently?

      If you're helping yourself to somebody's copyrighted work in lieu of paying for it, the money's gone from their pocket whether their take from selling their work is 1%, 5%, 10% or 100% of their total income.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    6. Re:Distribution lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As CDs are ridiculously overpriced, it is easy to see why they are pirated - as are certain overpriced operating systems with shoddy security. These items face large-scale piracy issues. The reason? The disparity between the price and the perceived value is so great that a normal person decides to break the law.

      The reason is simpler than that. The reason is that the pirate believes that the risk of getting caught is low. If the risk of getting caught was greater, they wouldn't do it. Now as to "value", if this were the case, why not "pirate" Linux ? Expensive software is attractive to pirates.

      The reason for this recent surge of piracy has nothing to do with increases in CD prices (which haven't gone up), it has to do with the fact that it's easier to do it.

    7. Re:Distribution lies by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Not necessairly true. What if pilfering from your 10% made your other 90% increase in value? say half your revenue from the 10% goes away, but the revenue from the 90% increases by 20X. That's what filesharing has the ability to do for someone like Dave Mathews who makes all his money from touring.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    8. Re:Distribution lies by ex-songwriter · · Score: 1

      Burt Bacharach? He makes far more money off of CD sales than touring. First of all, he hardly tours. Secondly, as co-writer of almost all of Dionne Warwicks hits, his primary source of income is probably from mechanical royalties (8 cents per song paid to the songwriter--which the labels always pay) on CDs sold.

    9. Re:Distribution lies by amplt1337 · · Score: 1
      The label pays for the recording/mixing/mastering of the CD, pays for the videos, TV commercials, a roomful of promoters get them TV and print interviews, the label pays for the website, CD pressing, artwork. They may spend up to a million dollars on a project. If it fails they absorb the loss, not the artist (if he can't repay the advance it is written off). But if it makes it big the artist makes big bucks.
      I was under the impression that all of these things are recoupable expenses -- the label may front the money, but it comes back out of the artist's record sales. And the number of artists who actually make it big to make those big bucks is usually pretty darn low anyways...

      But in any event, let me ask you a question -- how much should a record company make for taking a (relatively small) risk on recoupable expenses for a band that it can sell through marketing and control over the availability of alternatives? How much should a record company make for denying access to thousands of equally good would-be artists who can't get a record deal because they're not as easy to dangle in front of teeny-boppers?

      And whatever happened to the basic premise of market capitalism: something is worth what others are willing to pay for it? You just have to accept that. A house is not worth what an appraiser says it is, nor what a buyer or seller says it is, nor what a bank says it is, it is worth the amount of money that is contracted to change hands. The same is true of every other good in a true free market. But there is no negotiation with a giant organization that fixes its price and says "take it or leave it." This is doubly ironic when they can make as many copies of their "goods for sale" as they wish with a microscopic marginal cost.

      The answer to both our questions is "An artist, and a record company, should make exactly as much as the public is willing to pay them."

      Right now the record company is setting a price. The public is answering with how much it is willing to pay -- "Less than the record companies charge." People would probably buy if they could negotiate cd prices, but for now their only alternative to get something more like their desired price is to make a free copy. And most probably think, correctly, that hey, the RIAA is just a bunch of extortionists anyway; if the artists get screwed, that's collateral damage.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    10. Re:Distribution lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would disagree that there is a small amount of risk for the record labels. Only 1 in 20 records makes a profit. I don't see huge profits coming out of the entertainment conglomerates at the moment.

    11. Re:Distribution lies by stilleon · · Score: 1
      I was under the impression that all of these things are recoupable expenses -- the label may front the money, but it comes back out of the artist's record sales.

      Just as I as an investor in your business should recoup my expenses when you make it. My company just got fronted for a new ProTools|HD system- state of the art. It was an upfront loan of $30,000. We have to pay that back. It ain't no freebee.


      How much should a record company make for denying access to thousands of equally good would-be artists who can't get a record deal because they're not as easy to dangle in front of teeny-boppers?

      If an artist is viable they can get there chances. But working in this industry there are a lot of head cases/egos who, even though talented, will not be tolerated. Plus, if an artist IS NOT a song writer he is near worthless. Real money is made through publishing: synch rights to film, TV and commercials. Big money there. If you do not write you have no clout. Face it: that is the real talent. I know a guy who is not an artist pocket $50,000 from one synch deal. The guy who sang it got nothing- they got a sound alike to re-record it for the commercial.


      In my work with indie artist who want to break big I always give them the yellow brick road: hone your talent, learn to write or buy the publishing rights to songs you have written for you, don't make a demo, make a finished album, make great promo materials including a promotional video (not a music vid, but a four minute documentary). The more you have in line when signed the more you retain. Majors do not like to develop talent. they like to buy finished product that is on its way.


      Unfortunatly it is always the same. They think they don't need to improve musically (even the best use vocal coaches), they think they can cover someones songs and a label will pick them up because they are golden.


      It is not that I don't have sympathy for the artist, I just don't have it for the dumbass artist. I've known more than one afraid to get a lawyer to deal with contract in case it scares off the major. WHAT??? You need a lawyer!


      For every whining "I don't get what I should" artist out there is a person who did it right and barganed for what they deserve. Don't think "I make an album, they sign me." Market your album indie wise. Spend bucks, sell 2000. The industry will come then, and you are in a barganning position.

  33. Re:Bullshit... by stilleon · · Score: 1

    Yeah, all my friends are talking about IUMA artists. I hear them from car stereos everywhere. I mentioned Britney Spears to some friends yesterday and they were all like: Britney Who??? Then they turned away to listen to the new IUMA artist Solid State Reciever.

    Wow. Maybe Coldplay should join IUMA, because they haven't gotten many fans from the classic distribution method. Plus, I hear they are begging in the street because they get no money from EMI.

    Grow up: without the majors spending millions on promotion, most bug acts would be giving up to get real jobs.

  34. Kazaa Lite: What's My Risk? by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Say I download a song or five, once or twice a week, using Kazaa Lite.

    Say I don't post files to share -- I just grab a few files now and then.

    What's the risk? Will RIAA really find out?

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Kazaa Lite: What's My Risk? by Rectum2003 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. You have more chance to be struck by lightning... And if by any chances you are not American, your chances drop to almost zero.

    2. Re:Kazaa Lite: What's My Risk? by sirsex · · Score: 1

      Do all the above through a offshore proxy (abit a little slow) and you'ld be more likely to f*$k Carmen Electra on the moon.

    3. Re:Kazaa Lite: What's My Risk? by radja · · Score: 1

      in much of the world downloading is legal. RIAA and their cronies can do fuck all against you.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  35. Re:Call first? Same tactics by Christoff84 · · Score: 0

    "We're gonna sue you unless you hand over $3,000" is any different from "We're gonna proceed with our suit unless you so hand over $3,000" This sounds an awful lot like extortion to me, I wonder when they'll try to pull this on someone with the resources to take it to them.

  36. Re:Bullshit... by Jerf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you have something better than put your money where your mouth is otherwise shut the fuck up.

    Ironic.

    If you'd snail-mailed me this post it might have made sense. But using the very type of distribution system you claim doesn't exist to propogate your claim it doesn't exist ranks right up there with "This sentence is not in English." (The difference between this post and a music file is merely one of scale, and not much of it.)

    As for people actually doing it, it's not my responsibility or anybody else's to show them to you. All I know is I intend to sign up with EMusic soon. And that's just one example.

  37. I like Ars Technica and all... by Neolithic · · Score: 1

    "According to the Washington Post and Ars Technica, [...]"

    I find it rather silly to give Ars Technica credit when they, themselves, are referencing the same Washington Post article.

  38. Heh. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used to do work for a telco (cable), and about the only thing they're CAPABLE of monitoring is usage. We had problems auditing for signal piracy, more less software piracy.

    No doubt the phone companies are more on the ball, but even then I'd be surprised if they could tell what exactly was coming down the pipe without copying it and reassembling it themselves. Probably the most they could do (economically) is flag high use addresses for the RIAA to check.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Heh. by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      So, every time we post a new story, not only will the poor SOB get slashdotted, the RIAA will bust down his door with a team of lawyers and rabid dogs 24 hours later?

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
  39. Re:Article #1 text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first post that is not a troll is Redundant? What article was it redundant to? Wake up mods, please..

    Fucktards

  40. Re:Bullshit... by stubear · · Score: 1

    "As for people actually doing it, it's not my responsibility or anybody else's to show them to you."

    It is their responsibility because they are making a claim with no facts to back it up.

  41. Re:Bullshit... by nolife · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wow, I've heard your type of reply to posts so may fucking times its... oh wait.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  42. Not to mention... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...that they *know* they can't stop it. Encrypted services will pop up, people will use them and stuff will flow. And then the ISPs gets blamed for the mess "You were supposed to stop them, but you didn't". No, I think part of it is that RIAA made the bed, and now they get to sleep in it, the ISPs sure don't want to take their place.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  43. Patiot act can sure be expanded by targo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RIAA is trying to grant themselves powers that are outside of even the Patriot Act

    Don't worry, that can surely be fixed. However, not necessarily the way most people here would like it to be.

  44. huh? by silicongodcom · · Score: 1

    there are powers OUTSIDE the patriot act? i thought that pretty much covered everything ;)

  45. Cost Cutting by Catharz · · Score: 1

    What's going on is that the Internet has dramatically cut the costs and enhanced the efficiency of distribution and promotion mechanisms, in the process is making obsolete many of the core business processes of record companies.

    Yup, it costs me nothin' except for the time and bandwidth to download a CD of MP3's. The efficiency of file sharing still has a looong way to go. The number of bogus files, or files that you will never see complete after you initially start downloading them make it so hard to download a CD of music that I've resorted to buying CD's again. Some times it takes so long to download a CD, that the bandwidth costs of the uploading (I'm not a leech) is competitive with the cost of a second hand CD.

    So for the CD's I absolutely must have, I buy them second hand just to make sure the RIAA still get screwed. Then I can still rip them to MP3's, listen to them in the car, on my mp3 player, computer, etc.

    --
    To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
    1. Re:Cost Cutting by stilleon · · Score: 1

      It also cuts the money artists get dramatically. A song can be downloaded a million times and the artist still makes ZERO!

    2. Re:Cost Cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to creative accounting that makes Enron and Worldcom look straightforward and legitimate, a song/album can be purchased a million times (literally) and the artist still makes zero.

      Don't forget who the real pirates are.

    3. Re:Cost Cutting by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. You know that's not true. After all, the artists dont pay the manadatory 15% breakage "insurance" for nothing..... After all, those LP's break all the time in transit.

      Yep, that's one of the costs they nail'em with if they ACTUALLLY make money on cd selling.

      --
    4. Re:Cost Cutting by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      And there was me thinking that a lot of artists make their real big money out of touring and t-shirts (some bands made more money out of t-shirts than records).

    5. Re:Cost Cutting by stilleon · · Score: 1

      Tat is another falsehood perpetrated by the "free music" community. Yes, the live concerts and t-shirts are usually the bands income (except with EMI records, who is buying Warner). However, any band/artist that writes his own material will retain half publishing rights. These get sold to TV, movies, commercials, etc. That is where the money is! Get a song into a movie an the songwriter can pocket $20,000+ in one shot. Its cmpletely negotiable. One song in a film netted the writer $100,000. Luckily the publishing company (may or may not be the label) spends a load of time trying to sell this information to other markets. Also, notice that I am not really talking artist here: the songwriter makes this money. If you are a recording artist who doesn't write you don't make much money.

  46. Hello Dipshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you say, Blind?

  47. Re:Bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only steel music because I don't want to pay for it.

    But at least I know that I AM STEELING

  48. Gettign sued by someone else. by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

    Or could it be all the consumers suing them that bought into the "download free music" every ISP uses when the consumer can't anymore. Just a idea not saing it's true. When you think about it they also have cellphones, POTS and intenet access all which require a degree of good PR, customer loyalty and happness as well a a good reputation to maintain as a going concern. Getting sued by your own customers isn't good for your PR giving and them up to the much hated RIAA really bites as far at that goes. It's all about their own bottom line. It's still self interest any which way.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    1. Re:Gettign sued by someone else. by zabieru · · Score: 1

      Those suits would almost certainly be tossed out, as all the ISP is doing is failing to contest something they are legally required to do. Verizon could have simply passed on the info required in the subpoena rather than challenging it, and aside from a minor PR hit, most people wouldn't notice. Tell me, which ISPs didn't fight those subpoenas? Can you name five? You're right, though, that fighting the subpoenas is great PR for Verizon. I'm not sure it's worth the legal fees, but it's something.

    2. Re:Gettign sued by someone else. by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

      Why would those suits be tossed out? Last time I looked you can get sued most places for false advertising and in most places win. I don't buy the suits getting tossed out at least not in Califorina where both Verizon and SBC are very big. I still think the PR hit would be pretty bad. I sure would avoid chosing a celular provider that was know for giving up it's customers. It would be the kiss of death for their internet businesses period.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    3. Re:Gettign sued by someone else. by Free_Meson · · Score: 1

      More importantly, though, the bad PR comes as a result of the press release issued by the plaintiff's attorney on filing, not when the judge allows the case or when the jury returns a decision... Cases at trial are pretty boring to the general public, after all, and are pretty hard to cover compared to the ready-to-print press releases that any competent attorney would hand out on filing a suit like this. Even if the suit gets thrown out the next day, the damage is done, and if it does get thrown out and that makes it to the news, the vast majority of americans who know nothing about the law would assume it was thrown out because of Verizon/SBC's big money/big lawyers/big bribes and hurt their public image regardless...

    4. Re:Gettign sued by someone else. by zabieru · · Score: 1

      They'd be tossed out because I'll bet you good money Verizon et al have never actually said 'Faster Free Copyrighted Music Downloads!' but rather 'Faster Downloads,' which really falls under the same category as advertising a fast car: It's not false advertising, because it will go that fast, but you may not be able to go that fast in all cases because of other laws. And you're right, it's bad PR, but I just don't think the story would be a big one. Go ahead and ask around your family, see how many of them can explain to you the circumstances of either this or the previous suit by the telcos against the RIAA. I'll bet you're in the minority in being able to. I know in my family I am.

  49. Extortion... by LamerX · · Score: 1, Insightful

    RIAA: Pay up or else!

    Sounds like extortion to me. Kinda like organized crime. Maybe it's time for some Piracy Insurance. In case you decide to pirate music, so you don't get your legs broken.

  50. Re:Bullshit... by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You don't understand. It isn't outmoded for the record companies. It's outmoded for me as a musician.

    Professional recording equipment and expertise is cheaper now than every before in history. I can record an album in a studio for what I can save up on a minimum wage job. If I have some expertise myself I can do it myself at home for "free," at higher quality than even the pros could do it 20 years ago.

    I can produce CD-Rs on my own or have CDs pressed for pennies apiece, including jewel case and inserts.

    I have no need of a record company's money to finance my album.

    As such I don't have to buy my own CDs back from them at full wholesale in order to distribute them as demos or for sales either. In fact, I don't have to distribute CDs as demos at all. Instead of spending $20k to mail out a few thousand demo CDs I can now upload many times that many for free direct to whomever I wish to hear them without the need of a go between.

    I can make sure my website address is attached to those demos. At my website I have worldwide promotional capabilities, including making cuts available for free download as a promotional giveaway, and, of course, album sales.

    Of course my website will be heavily promoting my live appearances as well, where I will be selling CDs for ten bucks and pocketing nine of that in profits.

    On sales of no more than a few thousand CDs I make more profit than I would with half a million in sales with a Sony contract.

    I grew up in a radio household (my dad was sales and marketing development manager for GE Broadcasting Corp.) and been a working musician for for three decades. Half of my friends have recorded, some of them for labels. Most of those that have recorded for a label now do so as private publishers.

    This isn't "Pie in the Sky." It's the way many are already doing business, and it's already proven to work.

    I can't imagine signing with a label. They have nothing to offer me that I can't provide for myself, at my own profit.

    KFG

  51. Brilliant! by Maskirovka · · Score: 1

    This opens up a whole new range of email and phone scams for those who are willing to do a little research and social engineering. Imagine getting a drama major to pose as a corrupt process server for example. Or just simply getting a pre-law roomate to call up the building warez kiddie and scare the shit out of them. I can't wait to get started!

  52. Re:Bullshit... by Tarq666 · · Score: 1

    I think the problem here is that whenever someone does come up with a better system, they get their arse sued off. So, their money never reaches their mouths...it get intercepted along the way.

  53. We care. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    We care. We have to. We're the phone company.

  54. If I were Telsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would create a firey ball of 2 Gigajoules of electricity and have the RIAA taste my fury!

  55. Re:Bullshit... by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

    How do you "steel" data? This is curious, you could make yourself rich possibly.

  56. Cop out by GoatJuggler · · Score: 1

    I just thought of something. The other day, the construction company working on my deck managed to plug enough equipment in to trip the breaker that happened to be on the same circuit as my computers. If I 'accidentally' had a 'faulty' breaker, thus frying my hard drive beyond repair, would that rule all the RIAA's log files as circumstantial evidence? If so, I could just run this hard drive through an industrial strength electromagnet, followed by several jolts of 1.21 gigawatts until the platters were melted and be as free as a bird.

    1. Re:Cop out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mri chamber at the hospital is good for this too... if you have access to one.

  57. Hello, this is the Automated..... by hhknighter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Arr Ie Aye Aye Suing Department, please do not hang up as our collect call to your phone is very important to our revenue. This call may be monitored for further financially benefiting lawsuits.

    To check your penalties amount, press 1.
    To pay your penalties by credit card, press 2.
    To pay your penalties by check, press 3.
    To pay your penalties by organs, press 4.
    To answer in court, translate "YOUAREDEAD" on your touch tone phone.
    To speak with a suing lawyer, press 666.
    To repeat the options again, say "I confess, I am guilty".
    Otherwise, stay on the line and wait for an even bigger lawsuit

    1. Re:Hello, this is the Automated..... by 198348726583297634 · · Score: 1

      Who's the REII?

    2. Re:Hello, this is the Automated..... by hhknighter · · Score: 1

      press "666"

  58. non-court-ordered subpoenaes bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that a court should have to validate
    any subpoena, period. I do not believe that any
    organization should be able to demand private
    information from another organization without
    having demonstrated a legitimate right to that
    information to a bona-fide judge.

    Let's say that I am an individual who wants to
    resolve the function that maps IP -> full name.

    Is it true that all I have to do is complete a
    "bullsh**" DCMA-based subpoena claiming a
    fictitious copyright violation by the user at
    such an IP address at such a particular time,
    even if I don't legitimately hold a single
    copyright?

    Isn't this what courts and judges exist for?

    What's next, "write-your-own" arrest warrants?

    Lincoln DeCoursey
    Utica, NY

    1. Re:non-court-ordered subpoenaes bogus by soliaus · · Score: 1
      ...I do not believe that any organization should be able to demand private information from another organization without having demonstrated a legitimate right to that information to a bona-fide judge...

      I have been toying with this idea for a little while. I want to get someone to download a copyrighted file of mine, without my permission, and then try to get a DMCA subpeona against you. It would be an experiment to see how easy it would really be. Im building the website now, and looking for volunteers er, "defendants".

      --
      Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
  59. Re:Bullshit... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    Don't put money in your mouth, don't you know that money is one of the filthiest things in the world.... almost as fithy as SCO and the RIAA

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  60. sounds like microsoft's tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    microsoft like to boast about who they have sued or settled with, they even send out news letters in the mail to reseller to keep us up to date who they have sued and how much, RIAA is using a similer tactic of going after anyone/everyone. is this just another "respect threw fear" tactic. if i could i would stand against them and hamper there effets every chance i get, no one pushes me around. but i do everything by the book, playing dirty would be sinking to there level.
    [sVen]

    1. Re:sounds like microsoft's tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so true

  61. Now where have heard that before? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

    Not to sound like a grammar Nazi, but where is the subject?

    1. Re:Now where have heard that before? by troc · · Score: 1

      yes, where is the subject. :)

      Troc

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
  62. Obligatory Lewis Black Quote by Excen · · Score: 1

    No, this week the yellow parts are bad, and next week the whites are bad.

    --
    "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    1. Re:Obligatory Lewis Black Quote by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

      If you're going to quote something, and say you're quoting something, you should at least come closer than that.

      This isn't the exact quote either, but it's closer:

      "They said eggs were good, then they said eggs were bad, then they said 'no, the whites are good but the yellows are...' MAKE UP YOUR F*CKING MIND ALREADY, I GOTTA EAT!"

      That should do him more justice.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
  63. Re:Call first? Same tactics by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    "We're gonna sue you unless you hand over $3,000"

    Doesn't that violate a SCO patent?

  64. Actually.. by Kwil · · Score: 1

    They have nothing to offer me that I can't provide for myself, at my own profit.

    They have two things.

    Radio airplay access, and brick-and-mortar franchise access.

    Of course, given how much they charge you for these two things, you've probably got the better deal going.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Actually.. by kfg · · Score: 1

      I never said that they couldn't provide me with things.

      It's just that those things have, at best, no value to me, and at worst cost me a good deal of money.

      I can get airplay. Not on Clearchannel, but I can get airplay. Airplay that turns into bookings and sales that puts money in my pocket. People who listen to Clearchannel stations aren't going to buy my stuff anyway.

      Brick and mortar access is far more open than in the "old" days. The stores, even some major chains such as B&N, have already realized where the wind is blowing and are opening up access to independant labels. Otherwise all those sales are likely to transfer to the internet and cut them out of the loop. In any case what's the point of selling CDs through the major outlets if it's some polyester clad slimeball with bad hair that's getting all the money? That's like working the register at Wal-Mart and paying them for the priviledge. It's daft.

      Oh yeah, they can offer remolding you into a Brittney Spears or N'Sync.

      Blech.

      I suppose if what you want is "fame" and will pay any price for it the record labels still have something to offer.

      But then an obscure Turkish accordian player named Mahir became world famous without a record label, through the internet.

      Go figure.

      KFG

  65. WARNING - PARENT CONTAINS GOATSE LINK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  66. In Japan by achurch · · Score: 1

    this is already commonplace. Every few days I get a spam on my cell phone saying "you owe us X yen for site usage fees, pay up within 24 hours or we will take legal action". There used to be a lot of people taken in by them, but these days almost nobody believes them anymore.

  67. Comcast sucks thats why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly would you expect any less from the nations worst high speed network, featuring technical support that know less about their network than you do. They block port 80 on your address, and the connection is spotty because of supremely messed up ARP tables in their gateways. Comcast has one seriously overpriced crappy ass network it cost me $57.95 as opposed to when I had optonline at $39.99 which was uncapped, far more reliable and way faster.

    Comcast treats their customers like crap that is your answer they know your going no where so they can screw you. The phone companies have the same thing going but they also want to remain in total control, they do not like the precedent rolling over for the RIAA creates.

    As for comcast look at what was recently printed in the NY times where they gave the RIAA a customer who they claimed was pirating and it turned out to be a grandmother with a mac incapable of running the Kazaa software they claimed she was using. Also ther claim was she was sharing a large library of snoop dogg. How funny is that. But at least I know what the com in comcast stands for it stands for inCOMpetence.

  68. Scam Alert by deathmolor · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is already scam artists calling numbers out of the phone books. Using names within sounding official and asking for credit card numbers to settle file copyright infringment.

    Do not settle with anyone over the phone be very careful you will want to see documents.

  69. At least someone is... by DruidBob · · Score: 1

    I'm Glad to hear this. As a student at Purdue University, a few days ago it was rummored that some students in the dorms were more or less raided by police, and their computers scanned - if present with KaZaA the computers were confinscated, I belive this happened to somewhere inbetween 5 and 10 students. However living off campus, I haven't been able to validate this entirely, but as soon as I can the rest of you will know.

    1. Re:At least someone is... by moncyb · · Score: 1

      Interesting story. So where they only checking for Kazaa or were they actually bothering to check for copyright infringement? If it's the former, then it just shows how fascist the system has become. What's next? Police searching for the "pirating" program called Apache? It is insane to make a method of communication illegal.

  70. Reading too much /. by mphase · · Score: 1

    "In an interesting and insightful article"
    Too bad their's not Interesting and Insightful moderations for main posts, he's already done all the work.

  71. Mine goes like this... by wiresquire · · Score: 1

    RIAA: "This is the RIAA.... "
    Me: "May I please have the full details of your name, company and address."
    RIAA: "Wha.."
    Me: "I need to inform you that you have violated the Do Not Call Registry. I am not interested in your services".
    RIAA: Click.

    --

    So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

  72. No. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    In that manner, you destroy the P2P networks at much faster rate than any RIAA/MPAA or other officials. Fucking leech.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  73. New phone scam? by ryen · · Score: 1

    The RIAA's not so bad, they'll settle out of court over the phone, if you don't mind paying up instead of getting a lawyer.

    Hi this is [insert your name] on behalf of the RIAA. Please pay us [insert your desired amount] immediatley or we will take you to court. Send your cash payment to [insert your P.O box here].

  74. Re:Hello, this is the Automated RIAA line by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

    To admit guilt, please either hang up now, or press pound, star, or any number. To state that you are innocent, in wich case we will never bother you again, please press "q" or "z" on your touch tone phone. If you dont have a touch tone phone, or are calling on a cellular phone please hang up now, and we will automaticly assume your guilty.

    --
    All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
  75. However... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...totailitarian regimes such as that, can surely also be fixed. However, not necessarily the way RIAA would like it to be.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  76. I would love to hear from the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well for me after my dot com went out of business and not being able to find work and being flat broke they can call me all they want. They can't get anything from me. I will keep sharing all my files. RIAA you guys are suckers!!!!!!!!!

  77. RIAA pressed CDs in 1903? by Sephiro444 · · Score: 1

    How isn't the distribution system horribly out-of-date? The very concept of taking data, sticking it onto physical discs, putting those discs inside plastic wrappers, moving those discs via trucks, holding them inside stores, requiring the consumer to transport themselves several kilometres to buy the disc, then transport it home, simply so the customer can play music? That system makes sense for physical goods; not for pure data.

    Indeed, how right you are! Hardly anyone uses those antiquated means of data delivery anymore!

    There's nothing wrong with their delivery methods -- it's cost : benefit ratio for the consumer is losing balance.

    1. Re:RIAA pressed CDs in 1903? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In those days, they were called "Phonorecords"

    2. Re:RIAA pressed CDs in 1903? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      There's nothing wrong with their delivery methods -- it's cost : benefit ratio for the consumer is losing balance.

      Kinda like the flipside of when they made huge profits from overpricing CDs and reselling people material they already owned on vinyl at ridiculous prices.

      I'm shedding no tears for the record companies.

  78. What a W.A.S.T.E. by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Interesting
    RIAA wants the telcos to report when users download any copyrighted material.

    As if the ISPs could even manage real-time content scanning on a reasonable sized pipe.

    But seriously folks, the moment ISPs might actually start trying such an exercise -- after being dragged kicking and screaming into it -- does anyone doubt that every P2P would start employing public key strong encryption (e.g. AES) on file transfers?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:What a W.A.S.T.E. by squarooticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See, I don't know why they don't do this already. Encryption is incredibly cheap compared to the bandwidth of a typical user (100Mbps for Rijndael on a typical computer vs about 8Mbps for a fast college dorm connection to the general internet), with a relatively very small startup cost in terms of negotiation/modular exponentiation since the files are so large.

      I think it's a waste that any communication short of non-persistent HTTP connections for public, non-incriminating data (e.g., images) is done without encryption. Encryption doesn't solve all problems---e.g., it can't solve the problem of the RIAA becoming one of your "peers" and downloading the latest Britney track---but it does solve the problem of snooping on others' connections.

      --
      [ home ]
  79. A Real RIAA Weak Point by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    One place I feel the RIAA has been incredibly remiss is that they don't provide any list of what they claim as copyrighted material!

    Think about it. How do you know if your song is copyrighted, and by whom? Is there a database where you can query to determine if you are violating the copyright of any RIAA affiliated company? If so, I sure haven't heard about it. Have you?

    Kind of like Comcast that says we'll cut you off if you use too much of our "unlimited" internet service, but we won't ever tell you what that limit is so that you can avoid it.

    The RIAA is not telling you ahead of time just what songs you shouldn't be trading. Don't tell me they don't know themselves. And don't tell me they don't have a web-site where they could provide this information.

    Are they taking lessons from SCO? Enquiring legal minds want to know.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:A Real RIAA Weak Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a weak point in your argument. It's YOU who have the responsibility to check up on the copyright of what YOU aquire/download. Pushing the blame over to RIAA is pretty pathetic.

      Go in any record store and see what's there. It's all copyrighted, you can read who owns it on the cover.

    2. Re:A Real RIAA Weak Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get lost,obviously your just an RIAA TROLL!

    3. Re:A Real RIAA Weak Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Get lost,obviously your just an RIAA TROLL!

      He also happens to be right, but that's beside the point isn't it, Mr ad-hominem spewing slashmonkey ?

    4. Re:A Real RIAA Weak Point by ilajustatore · · Score: 1

      really unbelievable. imagine you go to a book store/library/other place and BEFORE you buy/use a book you have to check a catalogue to see if the book is copyrighted or not! really funny! really pathetic is what you say and the rest of RIIA keep-all-the-stolen-from-us-money arguments

    5. Re:A Real RIAA Weak Point by moncyb · · Score: 1

      Your argument is crap. If you had been paying any attention to the stories for the entire past year, you'd know the RIAA will file a complaint about any file which has a filename containing any words in a artist's name or a song name. I could have the right to download, upload, and burn the file on a disk then crap on it. I could even own the copyright to that file. Yet the RIAA would still file a complaint. They don't care. They want to stop the flow of information on the internet no matter if they own the rights to that information or not.

      So you are saying no one has the right to distribute files which have words such as "Christina", "Madonna" (Whoa! I didn't know the RIAA owned an inn!) or "love"? There are many other words which would be banned too. In fact, probably every word in your post, so if you don't want to "infringe" on "copyrights", you will have to stop posting on Slashdot and everywhere else on the internet.

  80. It's all so CLEAR now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend, that part I got down pretty good. Now, my enemy is my friend too, if he behaves. Ok, I got that too.

    Maybe Jesus was right, maybe we should just love our enemies? :-)

    1. Re:It's all so CLEAR now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate the sin, love the sinner.

  81. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RIAA and SCO announced that they are to be merged, "We think the move will greatly strengthen our need to protect our IP", SCO CEO Darl McBribe, when confronted directly an RIAA spokesperson stated "The merger will enable us to use SCO's advanced Mathematical models to hunt down IP infringers, and will send out a clear message to all Linux users and file sharers!"

  82. Typical bullying and baiting tactics ... by torpor · · Score: 1

    ... one would expect of the MAFIA, for crying out loud!

    Set up huge precedence with a FUD-campaign, some 'heads on a pike' (typical PR bullshit term) with press coverage of 'criminal downloaders' being interspersed on nightly Reality Television, and then ... when the free and the brave wise up and start counter-attacking, reduce the effort down to a 'street-level' series of 'personal, one-on-one' conversations with 'potential illegal downloaders', before the fact.

    Next we'll be seeing an effort by the RIAA to have you sign over 'recording/consumer rights' to your 'kid sister, your mom, and cousin' for use in the back alleys ...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  83. Risk vs. Morals by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    Nope. You have more chance to be struck by lightning... And if by any chances you are not American, your chances drop to almost zero.


    But the karma has been worse lately. By going after the filesharers, the RIAA is generating bad karma between themselves and the filesharers.

    Getting something for nothing that others have spent something to produce, may also generate bad karma. You can feel it by feeling a bad conscience. At first, the novelty made up for all that, but now when the copyright holders are taking more and more action, it's starting to lose its charm. In karmic understanding, this is because you are doing something against someone else's will, so that a conflict arises.

    Don't mistake anger at RIAA for not having bad conscience, and "sticking it to the Man". The anger is just covering the distress, bad conscience and fear of being caught, which rises everytime RIAA takes public action. Anger is always produced out of fear and separation. Of course, you can be angry that CDs are expensive, but nobody is forcing you to need those CDs. At some level you're following the massmarket willingly. At the highest level you always pay the right consequences for your actions and choices.

    Myself, I have stopped filesharing. I cut down on TV, movies and music. You can get so much more from a hike in the mountains with a best friend or lover. I sing with a group, do yoga and meditation. We don't need to be spoon-fed entertainment and dumbed down to the lowest denominator, at least I know I don't.

    One more thing: By getting something for nothing, you will value it less and less. The very enjoyment will be gone before you realize it, and may be replaced with an addiction which never fullfills. At some point, you may realize that the juice has gone out of the orange, and you're left with a dry unedible skin.

    Of course, this is all part of the process. Nothing is ultimately good or bad, it just is as it is. Never make this into dogma that restricts your life in any way.

    1. Re:Risk vs. Morals by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      But the karma has been worse lately. By going after the filesharers, the RIAA is generating bad karma between themselves and the filesharers.

      They're doing a fine job of turning filesharers into the oppressed. Suing 12 year old girls and pensioners is generally not good for PR. Going after professional copyright infringers scores much better, but if they're not careful, they'll lose public trust totally, and the professionals will start getting acquitted by jurors.

  84. Creative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The telcos are just profiting from other peoples creative works"

    Oh really? I didn't realize that the RIAA employed any creative people. TO the uninformed, it looks like a bunch of lawyers and lobbyist.

    Now that I now they're creative, well, they can just fuck themselves to music!

  85. what the f*ck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're not trolling, then you've got mental problems. This rant is about the most incomprehensible thing I've read since Jack Velenti's last public utterance.

  86. Long distance not required on primary line by Jayfar · · Score: 1

    "you can't have a local line with no long distance service; maybe a second line, but the primary line requires it according to them."

    Not true w/ Verizon anyway. When ATT briefly dabbled with charging a monthly min of $5 whether you made any calls or not, I ditched long distance. More correctly, I lost phone service for non-payment to Vz for several months when I was out of work a few years ago. When I paid the Vz charges and restarted my service, I did so with no long distance provider. ATT continued to dun me for a while for the ~$30 they claim I owe them (not for calls, but for the monthly minimum); I refuse to ack their supposed right to have unilaterally instituted the monthly min without my agreeing to such charges. Note that without long distance svc I am still able to reach toll-free #s.

  87. THE SOLUTION TO P2P SHARING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok Here it is:

    The P2P system not only includes illegal files. Right? So. We make a P2P system that distributes a random file for every 5 files, to the user's PC. Whether they want it or not. So eventually, everybody will have illegal stuff on thier PC, without asking for it.

    Think about it. That'll piss off RIAA.

    1. Re:THE SOLUTION TO P2P SHARING by FienstLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      Genius, safety in numbers

  88. Re:Call first? Same tactics by PolR · · Score: 1

    If they have to file the lawsuit before they get Telco information, how are they going to know who they need to sue? this sounds like a big constraint to me.

  89. Walk the plank by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    The RIAA have turned into pirates (shiver
    'me'timbers) sailing around scaring people and plundering their property (computers) and money.

    And what i ask you do we do with pirates? yes, we line them up against the wall and put a bullet in them. Use your right to bear arms America!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Walk the plank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a little premature... wat till world government starts being touted and the consituiton is declared outdated....

  90. Re:Call first? Same tactics by TM22721 · · Score: 1

    You call their bluff and NOT pay them until the minute before you walk into the court room.

  91. Not So Bad by Goo.cc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "The RIAA's not so bad, they'll settle out of court over the phone, if you don't mind paying up instead of getting a lawyer"

    Well, settling is not a bad deal if you're a scumbag swapping copyrighted material. I do feel bad about people who are falsely accused or were too stupid to monitor what others were doing on their computer.

    1. Re:Not So Bad by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem isn't "scumbag's" swapping copyrighted material. Well.. wait, yes it is. Quick! Without looking it up, tell me if Drowning Pool's "Tearing Away" can or cannot be legally traded. Never mind - go ahead and try looking it up, I'm sure you still can't tell me with any certainty. I honestly don't know either: I found a full-quality copy of it offered up as a mp3 sample from the album on a highly visible review on a commercial music site that's been around for awhile. Yet, the album says that copies cannot be made and distributed. No terms were attached anywhere that I could find on the site, and I couldn't find any agreement or information that says that the site is legally distributing the files. Can I, or can I not legally own that without buying the CD?

      If it were clear to the masses what is and is not "protected" under copyright law, the "scumbag file swapper" argument wouldn't be so laughable - if it's clearly illegal, even if it's not necessarily wrong - DON'T DO IT (just whine about it on Slashdot...). But, if the waters are muddy, who's responsibility is it to clear them? Should the individual be responsible for trying to beat the information out of somebody who knows it, or should the people who know it be making some attempt to deter this sort of behavior by making it clear what is and isn't an acceptable use of their material?

      Beyond that, I might point out that, unless you've got a lot of money to burn, you can't afford to fight the RIAA by yourself even if you're innocent (which I realize you mentioned). The RIAA will lose money fighting you, but get a big payoff if they win, whereas you can only lose large amounts of cash by fighting no matter your innocence or guilt. Even if they lose, they can afford it. If their scatter-brained approach is going to hit any innocent people, they shouldn't be doing it - especially given their massive abuses of the legal system (courtesy of our idiot lawmakers) and the fact that they let the whole thing run rampant for so long. Then, there's the fact that they have no evidence that it's even hurting them, much less that it's hurting them as much as they claim. It's kind of hard to go to court in civil litigation and not look like a total jackass when you stand up and say "Well, your honor, we say that this person caused us $750,000 in damages even though file swapping has been loosely correlated to increased sales in recent history, our industry's downturn matches up to what should be expected as a result of the economy, and we have nothing to refute even this weak, merely circumstantial evidence".

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  92. Ok, uhh, one thing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the hell does the premise of #1 have to do with the conclusion? A consumer 100mbps eithernet switch has NOTHING to do with providing high speed data over long distances. I work for network operations for a unviersity, of I have some idea what I'm talking about. It is COMPLETELY different to grab a little switch and have a workgroup than it is to have a large carrier class facility.

    For one there is just the switches and routers themselves. Not small, not cheap. We aren't talking $60, $600, or $6000 but tens of thousands of dollars for a single blade (of which one chasse holds many) in some cases. Then there is the fact that copper ethernet won't run over long distances; 100 metres is the spec limit, so we are talking some other kind of technology, never mind your house doesn't have the wiring to it for that. There is then of course the cost of maintaining all this infastucters. Stuff breaks, it needs to be replaced, and in the case of wires to houses, it's not cheap often.

    Then there are the two biggest costs: The support staff for customers and the bandwidth. Data doesn't magically get on the Internet, bigass lines to other carries are required and that's not cheap in any fashion.

    As for laying fibre to your house, you have NO concept of how expensive that sort of thing is. It wasn't cheap to build our copper network. It took many years and a lot of dough. To upgrade the whole thing to fiber will cost even more and probably take longer. You don't just wave a wand, you have to dig shit up, lay cable and so on. Also fibre requires additonal percaustion since it really can't be spliced if it is going over any sort of distance.

    Look, there are a LOT of problem with the phone companies. I'm sure I've dealt with more than you have. However, just because you can buy an 8-port consumer grade, made by Linksys, switch for $60 does NOT mean that the telcos can get a carrier class switch for the same price, much less everything else needed. It's not like they buy a bunch of cheap Linksys gear and hook it together and everything works magically.

    1. Re:Ok, uhh, one thing by seanadams.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, just because you can buy an 8-port consumer grade, made by Linksys, switch for $60 does NOT mean that the telcos can get a carrier class switch for the same price

      It was an analogy - I'm not suggesting that SBC can run the phone system on linksys equipment, jackass.

      But the rest of the world has moved to packet switching while the telcos are holding on to their channellized services and custom features like frame relay and inter-LATA crap because it LETS THEM KEEP THEIR PRICES HIGH. DSL/T1/T3 are so insanley inefficient and that's exactly how SBC likes it.

      Why not run a big data pipe out to every B box and a switched port to each customer from there? No, that would work too well and be too cheap to service. How would they continue to justify all the revenue that the PUC guarantees them? How would they employ 60000 phone monkies if the service were so simple and reliable that it didn't need supporting? How would they stifle competition for phone service when people can just buy a simple high-speed data circuit and get their voice service from someone else?

      It's clear to me that the telcos have no incentive to offer cheap data services (100Mbps+) even though it is possible and with today's technology it would be CHEAPER than delivering a single voice line.

    2. Re:Ok, uhh, one thing by cens0r · · Score: 1

      But the rest of the world has moved to packet switching while the telcos are holding on to their channellized services and custom features like frame relay and inter-LATA crap because it LETS THEM KEEP THEIR PRICES HIGH. DSL/T1/T3 are so insanley inefficient and that's exactly how SBC likes it.

      Bullshit. The reason that they haven't upgraded is because it would be expensive to do so and 95% of customers wouldn't notice a difference at all. Not to mention that the equipment they have is for the most part paid off, and is just a cash cow only requiring maintenance contracts. You won't see Telco's upgrading their systems until the start to fail, or the companies stop supporting them. I used to work for a company that had sold a cellular switch. The thing was archaeic, and we no longer made them, but until we stopped supporting it people were going to continue to use them.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    3. Re:Ok, uhh, one thing by SETY · · Score: 1
      just to nit pick:

      Also fibre requires additonal percaustion since it really can't be spliced if it is going over any sort of distance.


      This is false, unless you are talking about plastic fiber or something. Fiber that is deployed across the country is usually splicd every 2 km or so. It depends on the thikness of the cable. You can only get so much cable to fit on the width of a truck. Splice loss is like .01 dB on a good splice. Sometimes you can't even see the splices on an OTDR.Compared to the attenuation from the glass, the splices are alot less.

    4. Re:Ok, uhh, one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey jackass, it's no wonder you got out of the ISP business. You are a glass-is-1/2-empty kind of person. I would have hated to have been a customer of yours. You are so busy trying to pass the buck and point fingers at the Telco.
      I hate to say it, but the PUC (gov't appointed bureaucrats) often won't allow the Telco to offer cool new products. They limit your abilities. If you can't offer these products to everyone, then you can't put them into service.
      DSL/Cable modem penetration is still very small. Yet, everyone complains because broadband is expensive. Cable companies have it easy. They've been deregulated for years, but still maintain their local monopolies. Cable companies are allowed to hire contractors for $25 per install. The Telco has unions, and the unions won't stand for that. The Telcos also have 90% of their business coming from analog phone lines. As much as everyone bitches about analog dialtone, not many people are willing to get rid of it. It'd be great to offer digital phone service over a DSL line. Try to offer DSL on a loop that's 18K feet. It's very expensive. The PUC says you can't change the analog loop sound quality either.

      You want new products? Shut up, pull out your pocket book, and start a company. Build everything that you want, find a vendor and some hardware, hire technicians and buy trucks, set it up the the way you want it, start a billing procedure, and then try and find employees and trucks to support your product for the 2% of the population that MIGHT buy it for the price that you sell it at (without losing money).
      Then, listen to EVERYONE like you bitch and complain about the price and the service.
      When you've got all of California completely built-out in 2 or 3 years, watch the cable company come in, charge less because there aren't 1/2 of the taxes and take 1/2 of your customers.
      Let the rest of us know when you're done so we can bitch about you, and tell you what we think.
      Jackass.

    5. Re:Ok, uhh, one thing by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      Yes it costs a lot of money to replace the system. It also costs a lot of money to maintain ancient copper bundles and have guys sitting out at a box all afternoon fiddling with punchdown blocks and rewiring huge cable junctions just to install/repair one line.

      We are a point where replacing the outdated infrastructure will pay off quickly in reduced maintenance cost an increased margins on better services (on demand video delivery etc). Unfortunately the telcos blew all their money during the boom trying to prop up the ancient infrastructure with kludgy hacks like DSL.

    6. Re:Ok, uhh, one thing by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Most of the cost of maintenince is built in to their service contracts. Verizon didn't pay any money to maintain the switch they bought from us, we provided all the support and maintenince for a set price. I also know that at least at the CO, there are not huge bundles of wires that you have to sort through to intstall one line, unless you are litterally pulling in newly installed copper. To turn on or off a line is all done in software even on the ancient switches.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    7. Re:Ok, uhh, one thing by Eraser_ · · Score: 1

      Comcast (ATT) rolled out fibre in all of Claremont, California last year ontop of their existing Coax. That has the same reach and scope as the telcos, only different pullboxes. I just got a letter in the mail saying "Yo! We gonna be offer all this swank new service, or you can keep your old crap, just call us". Oh, and the last time I called 611 (Local Carrier Support) I got a tech in ~30 seconds, comcast was instant pickup, this was during peek hours. I don't know what else I could ask for.

  93. morons take stand against corepirate nazis, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    & their capitollist hill cronIEs.

    that's right. we'll not buy ANYthing from ANY of them until they get over this 'we're in charge of you' attitude. we've scene enough to be able to get by without them/their whoreabull payper liesense scams.

    the customer is ALWAYS right? lookout bullow.

    consult with/trust in yOUR creator. get ready to see the light.

    1. Re:morons take stand against corepirate nazis, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a fake. It doesn't contain the secret code "robbIE".

  94. Re:Rush Limbaugh confirms: *BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes and the miss america pagent was rigged also...
    but who`s gonna believe it?

  95. Re:Bullshit... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    It's like ringtones. You can download them, the record companies make a little bit of money and the phone companies do too.

    It's legal, and people use it. I know there are methods of copying ringtones, but people don't. WHY? Because it's easier to download them, and they are cheap enough that people can't be bothered.

    My point is (and partly yours), is that people are prepared to pay. Think about it - I know how to wire up networks, but I would rather pay someone and do something else.

    Buying CDs is more work than downloading. You have to either order online and wait for it to arrive, or get in a car and drive into town.

    What the record companies also have to do is reduce the price of tracks. Plenty of people know that an 11 CD has a lot of costs that a download doesn't like pressing, distribution, shop profit etc. Make it the equivalent of 4-5 per CD and I'll be interested.

  96. Re:Call first? Same tactics by MunchMunch · · Score: 1
    " If they have to file the lawsuit before they get Telco information, how are they going to know who they need to sue?

    Actually, the whole issue here is that they don't have to file a lawsuit to get the information. Scary, huh?

  97. How can they know what's in a file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could fill a text file with the string "riaa sucks" repeated until it is the same size as a rip of the latest Britney Spears song and rename it with the same title. How could they possibly know from logs what you actually downloaded?

  98. But Wait! Everything is Copyrighted! by mikewren420 · · Score: 1

    ...including this /. post. It is copyright 2003, Mike Wren, All Rights Reserved.

    Once a work (including music, video, text) is in a fixed tangible form, it is covered by copyright law.

    The issue is that if you read between the lines, it appears that the RIAA is asking the ISPs/telcos to decide what copyrighted works users can download (the latest Dave Matthews or David Gray concert) and what users can't download (the latest 50cent studio CD from KaZaA). Not only is the RIAA putting them in the impossible position of monitoring and reporting, but also differentiating what is legal and what isn't.

    Take-home message is this: It appears that the RIAA is expecting the Telcos/ISPs to do their job for them... all the RIAA would have to do then is file the court paperwork and/or bully the end-users directly for a nice quick and easy out-of-court settlement.

  99. Re:Cost? Think this through for a moment... by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

    "I'd also like to think that it's due to the ISPs overwhelming desire to do the right thing and protect customer's privacy, but I'm having trouble reconciling this view completely with the generally held views of corporate entities and their desire to run profitably."

    Big corporations don't have morals of any sort -- good or bad. If you want a corporation to behave as if it wanted to do the right thing then design the system such that it is in the corporation's interest to do the right thing.

    The Telcos just happen to be in a position such that in this case the "right thing" is in their self interest. This is good for us.

    --
    Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
  100. Thanks by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Thank you for the measured, intelligent, philosophical reply. Genuinely insightful and moving. (Unlike another responder who simply called me a "fucking leech".)

    --
    -kgj
  101. What's really going to bake your noodle by glenrm · · Score: 1

    is that it is all the week that we don't hate the Republicans...
    Today, Senator Coleman announced he will push legislation this year to reduce the penalties for copyright infringement and also press for changes in federal law to require judicial review for subpoenas. Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) has already introduced legislation aimed at curbing subpoena power, but his version only received "lukewarm support" at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing last month. Coleman did not provide numbers for the revised penalties, but he believes the $750-$150,000 per infringement is excessive. from .

  102. Re:Bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How isn't the distribution system horribly out-of-date?
    Because nearly half of the households in the U.S. don't have computers. And many of these do not have internet access. Even fewer have broadband... But most households have at least one CD player.

    Even if this were not the case, the "out-of-date distribution system" argument would still be irrelevant. It is up to the people who own the copyright to determine how, when, where, and even whether to distribute the content. The fact that they do not distribute it the way you want them to does not give you the right to distribute it without their permission.

  103. enemy of my enemy is my friend. by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    in california verizon lost a law suit for over billing its customers, i was one of them. i'm going to get my money back.

    it was verizon that did not take the 'antics' of the r.i.a.a. seriously, and they, (verizon), who then unwittingly assisted the r.i.a.a. in their, (r.i.a.a.'s), witch hunt. no one likes to be the pavement for someone else's agenda. i mocked verizon for this.

    now the r.i.a.a. and telco's are like titans in an arena; we lesser mortals should still be fearful. but i cannot help but cheer for verizon on this level. i firmly believe that verizon is a souless group of oppurtunistic preditors who are currently hunting a vermin that i believe collectively represents another form of hate mongers.

  104. University of Maryland... by GotSpider · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, I attend the University of Maryland, and here they use what they call a Packet Shaper, which somehow manages (aparrantly by port) to grant priority to certain kinds of traffic in such a way (from highest to lowest):

    1. All university offices and research facilities
    2. FTP traffic
    3. Game traffic (woot!)
    4. Web surfing (Your pron dls go here unless you get it from an FTP server)
    5. Kazaa/P2P crap

    Now, realizing that there's a random port checker on the latest version of kazaa, it seems strange that they're able to regulate it's access, but they completely shut it down this past summer as a test, then started allowing it larger and slightly larger amounts of our bandwidth.

    It's not impossible to stop Kazaa altogether, but I think if the RIAA wants to take the stance of some legitimacy to P2P, they need to understand that you either need to allow it all, or don't allow any of it, because you can either kill Kazaa via an ISP (and you'll get shit), or you let it go, but limit the bandwidth it takes up (which is now detectable, case in point UMCP).

    --

    Sig for GotSpider threatens to invade. France Surrenders.
  105. Telcos, RIAA, oh my.... by tekiegreg · · Score: 0

    Well today's enemy may be tomorrow's friend, cherish the thought but in a couple years the RIAA might just be the hero too, saving us from the treacherous Anti download music policies (including the legit stuff) that the telcos might be implementing to save bandwidth, I know it sounds far-fetched but you wait...

    --
    ...in bed
  106. Re:Bullshit... by Jerf · · Score: 1

    Actually, no, you made the claim "Saying [the music distribution system is outdated] over and over ad nauseum does not make it true." I know this to be false. Since you want us to "shut the fuck up", and by implication you want us to change our opinions, the onus is on you to provide me a reason to believe you. I already know you're wrong.

    With "put your money where your mouth is" you imply that nobody has created a music distribution system. Again, I know you're wrong. Unless you can provide me evidence that nobody is doing anything with new distribution models, which is to say, unless you can provide evidence that iTunes and EMusic don't exist (good "fucking" luck!), I'm not going to change my mind.

    The responsibility for evidence lies not with the person making a positive or negative claim in this sort of situation, but with the person trying to change minds. Since the evidence is overwhelmingly against the strong statement you made, you're toasted. (Now, you could argue that it's not good yet, but the difference between "I think iTunes is doing OK" and "I don't think iTunes is doing OK" is hardly worthy of the rancor you seem to have.)

  107. I don't see by phorm · · Score: 1

    I don't really see how the RIAA calling and saying "We're gonna sue you unless you hand over $3,000" is any different from "We're gonna proceed with our suit unless you so hand over $3,000"

    I don't see how this is much different from them saying "Vinny here gonna be very sad if you don'ta paya us da money. And when Vinny gets sad, he likea to break things".

    I mean, threatening somebody with a completely illogical sum of money in the form of a lawsuit unless they pay out isn't much more than extortion, albeit legalese extortion.

  108. next Lawsuit please..... by 4string · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long until the telcos realize they can also receive "settlements" when they sue users for using their networks to traffic copyrighted materials........ I hope there are no telco execs reading this.... What's a sig?

  109. If you download music... by Delron+Da+Thugg · · Score: 0

    Remember, according to the RIAA and MPAA, if you download music, movies, and/or files, regardless of their copyright status, you're a terrorist. And even if you don't do these heinous criminal activities yourself, rather support filesharing and file downloading, then you're supporting terrorists and the terrorists have already won. Be a real American - just say no to filesharing and remember to report to your local fascist RIAA office anyone you know that does commit such crimes. Even if their your son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Thank you.

  110. Re: Not Just Leeching by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1
    Why should he as an American put his neck out when all of the foreign (to us) Users can supply the "backbone" of the P2P network without any risk???

    Leech indeed...

    --
    Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
  111. If RIAA can do it then so can I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time I rip a fart and someone smells it without my permission, I'm gonna sue 'em.

  112. Re:Bullshit... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
    You don't understand. It isn't outmoded for the record companies. It's outmoded for me as a musician.

    Good post. I'm reminded of a quote I heard recently. I liked it enough I made a copy, shown below.

    "Dissent and rebellion is what rock 'n' roll was founded on. The record companies back then encouraged it, wanted it, publicized it. But now they don't want no trouble." -- John Mellencamp

  113. I mean by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Like if it gets cut to just patch it at the cut and go. You have to go back to those preexiting joints and lay between them generally. If copper gets cut, I can hook it together right there in almost all cases.

  114. Does Verizon charge the RIAA for each name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does Verizon charge the RIAA for each name? Doesn't the DMCA state that the ISP can charge a reasonable fee for it? Why doesn't Verizon just charge large fees to the RIAA?

  115. You just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NWFusion also points out that RIAAs handwaving, threats, tantrums have less to do with protecting the rights of musicians, than with protecting the revenue stream created by an out-of-date distribution system."

    You morons will never get it. Rhetoric like this proves it. You will never understand freedom if you make moronic statements like this. Then again, Stallman thinks GPL = Free speech, so I'm not surprised.

  116. Re:Bullshit... by nathanh · · Score: 1
    Because nearly half of the households in the U.S. don't have computers. And many of these do not have internet access. Even fewer have broadband... But most households have at least one CD player.

    How is that an argument? Half of the households in Izbahkistan don't have electricity and use cow dung for heat. Would you now claim that the local dung seller isn't selling an out-of-date system of heating?

    Even if this were not the case, the "out-of-date distribution system" argument would still be irrelevant. It is up to the people who own the copyright to determine how, when, where, and even whether to distribute the content. The fact that they do not distribute it the way you want them to does not give you the right to distribute it without their permission.

    I never said anything about copying songs without permission. I'm not disputing that the RIAA can pick and choose the distribution system. I'm just challenging the idiotic claim that physical delivery of music is not out-of-date. Of course it bloody well is. The existence of companies who only distribute music via the Internet is proof that there is a new method of distribution, therefore proving that the old method is OUT OF DATE.

  117. Anger by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Anger is always produced out of fear and separation.

    Agreed, fear and separation often lead to anger; and these are bad motives for anger.

    There is a righteous motive for anger: in response to violation of your space.

    If someone gets in your face, anger is justified: I figured this out the first time I got mugged.

    By extension, it's natural to get angry if someone breaks into your house: English common law is largely based on the principle that "a man's home is his castle".

    Abstracted further: if someone invades my bank account, you wouldn't be surprised if I get angry.

    But the further we abstract, the less righteous the anger. Anger is righteous indeed as a life-saving measure: might save you from a mugger, or worse.

    But in bank account invasion, anger doesn't save me from a life-threatening emergency. Oh, abstracted anger is motivational, I'll place calls, register complaints ... but abstracted situations call for reason, not emotion.

    Take away the emergency, and the only practical application for anger is vendetta: keeping alive hate out of desire for revenge. Granted that's an old familiar story ... but man, we should grow up before we hurt ourselves.

    Because we've abstracted ourselves outside our bodies, outside our homes, outside our tribes, villages, cities, states, nations ... we all belong to the world now; anyway that's my view. At that scale of abstraction, anger is utterly irrational.

    If I hate another man ... do I not hate all life? And, damn! -- who wants to live in a world like that?

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Anger by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm too late to this discussion (just had a holiday), but I must reply to your excellent argument.

      Anger will come when it comes, like you say, you cannot help it. It can even save you, that's a very good point. I'm not arguing against anger itself. What is there to argue against? When a strong emotion comes, the storm will sweep you away..

      However, anger, revenge, hatred, fear, misunderstandings, all this is eating away at people. People have so much separating themselves from others, much more than they realize, not just the zealots.

      What I don't want to become, is an angry drunkard father beating up my children. This is just a random example, there are lots of others. But what is the difference between life-saving anger and that other one?

      Justified anger, righteous anger (like Jesus in the temple), is anger WITH consciousness. You're conscious you're angry, and you're not so easily swept away on emotions making you uncontrollable. You can use the power of the anger in a good way, to help others as well as yourself. Anger can be a good tool to get people to listen to you and get things done! It's a fine tip to balance on, and you might fall sometimes, but it's seriously effective. It should not be abused or misused however, you have to be clear on your motives and goals.

      Unfortunately, many zealots abuses "righteous anger" so much, the very term is loaded beyond usage and most people don't really know that it's really about love.

      What you call abstraction, I used to call generalization. Ie, making everything more generalized. It's really the same thing I believe, but I found more to it in spirituality and has abandoned my "generalization philosophy". Especially on this account: If everythiing becomes abstract/general, then where has diversity gone? The world is filled with so much detail and diversity (God must love diversity alot!), and when you really recognize this, that's one of the qualities that gives this world its charm..

      Knowledge will set you free.

  118. I know the analogy has been used to death... by Jawn98685 · · Score: 0

    but the RIAA is steadfastly seeing themselves in the business of selling "buggy whips". They are so tied to their buggy whip business model that they are suing their customers to get them to continue to buy buggy whips.
    In a short time, certainly inside of ten years, no one will need the RIAA's buggy whip product, the 12-song CD. Not the consumers. Not the artists. The music industry is going to change dramatically. A generation of net-savvy artists and promoters will "motor" right buy the CD business. There will be many more artists making money from commercially distributed music. The prices will be lower, much lower, but vastly more of the revenue will go into the artists' pockets. Consumers will buy the songs that they like. Art will succeed, or fail, on its own merits, not through the efforts of some Mega Media PR machine. Boy-bands will be a thing of the past. It will be a good day...

  119. Re:Bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I can't imagine signing with a label. They have nothing to offer me that I can't provide for myself

    They have exactly one thing to offer: the possibility of international fame, with corresponding offers of groupie sex, movie roles, etc.

  120. Anger Simulation by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Justified anger, righteous anger (like Jesus in the temple), is anger WITH consciousness. You're conscious you're angry, and you're not so easily swept away on emotions making you uncontrollable.

    Thanks for the followup, you've confirmed my earlier notion (based on your first post) about the similarity of our worldviews.

    Re: conscious anger -- simulated anger as a tool:

    A scene comes to mind, from Michael Crichton's "Rising Sun", where the Wise Old Cop (normally a calm Zen guy) is talking with a low-level sarmiman from some Japanse corporation, explaining some news that the Japanese bosses will not like ... the Wise Old Cop abruptly explodes with anger, red-faced, shouts at the Japanese guy, makes a big scene in public, only verbal no hitting but really losing it verbally. Afterward, Wise Old Cop returns to his usual calm. The Young Cop is totally baffled -- what the hell happened here, why'd you do that, I thought that losing your temper means losing face, to the Japanese? And the Wise Old Cop explains, Yes, losing temper does mean losing face ... which allows the Japanese guy to go back to his bosses with news they do not wish to hear -- by losing my face, I help him save his, which furthers everyone's interests.

    -KGJ

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Anger Simulation by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      I guess a true master is not dependent on "face". Nice story. :-)