RIAA Extends Legal Action

shystershep writes "An article at InfoWorld tells how the RIAA 'is filing 41 new lawsuits and sending 90 lawsuit-notification letters this week, adding to the 341 lawsuits filed and 308 notification letters sent since September. The RIAA has settled with 220 file-sharers as a result of lawsuits, lawsuit-notification letters and subpoenas. In addition, 1,054 users have submitted affidavits as part of the RIAA's amnesty program.' The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy."

Comments

clear

[Anonymous Custard]

The message is now clear: Online piracy has failed!

Re:clear

[Killean]

Actually, I think the message is now "just share with people you can trust, not the whole world".

Between my coworkers and I, we have enough music to last us the rest of the decade.

Re:clear

[paulgrant]

Fox News ;)

Re:clear

[IthnkImParanoid]

Nonsense, it just succeeded too well. With the crap the RIAA has been putting out the last couple years, I think people's downloading has caught up to the amount of good music put out by the RIAA...there's nothing left to pirate.

Aw, shucks. What am I gonna do with my weekends now?

Re:clear

[Kallahar]

The preceding message was brought to you by ClearChannel Communications, "What we say makes everything clear."

Re:clear

[turnstyle]

"Actually, I think the message is now "just share with people you can trust, not the whole world".

Between my coworkers and I, we have enough music to last us the rest of the decade."

You may want to reclassify them as "friends" rather than "coworkers" -- you might find that your employer is not inclined to remain your friend if ever confronted with this issue...

Re:clear

[Simonetta]

Actually, I think the message is now "just share with people you can trust, not the whole world".


This is so true. I now have an extra 80 gig hard drive nearly filled with MP3 music that I freely share with my co-workers.

I'll often go to the library and just grab 30 CDs off the shelf, bring them home, and rip them into MP3 (while getting the song titles from CDDB). All lot of titles I haven't heard even once and about 2/3rds I just erase {the '1000 Accordians Play The Beatles' wasn't as good as I thought it would be). But, there's lots of incredible World Music that I would have never known existed without using this method.

In a few years the RIAA will get its wish and people will stop trading MP3 files over the net. They will instead trade 100 gigabyte hard drives each filled with 2000 albums in 192kbps MP3 format with full titles and scanned cover art. With blank 4.7gig DVD disks hovering around $1 each and DVD burners nearing $100 (and sure to be increasing in quality), people will just trade whole genre collections on hard disk and copy the albums they like onto cheap DVDs.

But that's not the real issue. Eventually people will get bored with non-interactive 20th century music frozen into song units and start exploring ways to customize pre-recorded music.

The music industry will be the last to realize that people will actually pay money (some money at least) for music that they can remix at home and change the instrumentation, vocals, levels, and so other parameters. Something like you can do now with General MIDI files and classical music instrument synthesizers.

Re:clear

[AntiOrganic]

But that's not the real issue. Eventually people will get bored with non-interactive 20th century music frozen into song units and start exploring ways to customize pre-recorded music.

I don't think anyone actually cares that they can change the keyboard sounds on Outkast's "Hey Ya." In addition, musicians most likely wouldn't approve of this because it makes it much too easy to "sample" (read: rip off) their work.

Re:clear

[Captain Splendid]

In a few years the RIAA will get its wish and people will stop trading MP3 files over the net.

Fat chance.

They will instead trade 100 gigabyte hard drives each filled with 2000 albums in 192kbps MP3 format with full titles and scanned cover art. With blank 4.7gig DVD disks hovering around $1 each and DVD burners nearing $100 (and sure to be increasing in quality), people will just trade whole genre collections on hard disk and copy the albums they like onto cheap DVDs.

You're right about that one, it's already happening. I know several people who swap HDs or DVDs full of mp3s by snail mail.

Re:clear

[Jardine]

So when should the RIAA start targetting libraries? They're obviously aiding dirty, dirty piraty scoundrels such as yourself.

Thanks for the idea though. Section VIII of the Canadian copyright act makes it perfectly legal for me to go to the library, borrow a bunch of CDs, copy them for my personal use, and then return them. Distributing those copies would be copyright infringment because then it wouldn't be for personal use.

Re:clear

[The Phantom Buffalo]

the '1000 Accordians Play The Beatles' wasn't as good as I thought it would be

I just have to know, how good did you think it would be?

Re:clear

[kien]

In addition, musicians most likely wouldn't approve of this because it makes it much too easy to "sample" (read: rip off) their work.

Time will tell, of course, but I believe your statement encompasses two fundamental fallacies about how we view music:

• You assume that musicians will retain enough control to approve/disapprove the use of their work.
• You presume to know how free music will be used by the public.

You might be right, but I hope not. I envision a future where a lot more bands gain recognition via P2P and earn money by touring. I'd like to think that the future will remain an environment where I own what I buy.

There are many ways to envision the future. Some attempt to shape the future according to profits and dividends and others look at the bigger picture of the greater good to society. When it comes to the Internet, I can sympathize with the former, but generally tend to believe in the latter.

--K.

Re:clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think the message is now "just share with people you can trust, not the whole world".

This is so true. I now have an extra 80 gig hard drive nearly filled with MP3 music that I freely share with my co-workers."

With the possible exception of a military unit, you cannot trust the people you work with. Hopefully you won't learn this the hard way.

Re:clear

[Courageous]

Especially considering that the employer is liable for damages. This kind of behavior is a terminatable offense -- the bad kind of "terminate," as in "fired," as in when they check your references they say "yes, we fired him." Bad news, doooood.

C//

Re:clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminatable offense"--depends on the employer. Maybe yours hold that view---mine doesn't

Re:clear

[MikeDawg]

Good to hear that the employer is so law-friendly when it comes to file-sharing, but not to privacy issues. A company can basically only say "Yes, he worked here." or something along the lines "Yes, he was employed from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX." They are limited to what they can say, they can't give a reference to another employer saying the grounds of your dismissal (sp?).

But none the less, yes, that is probably considered a violation of company policy, and however your company decides to handle it, is up to them and their policy. It may very well likely be a terminatable offense.

Re:clear

[future assassin]

Heh, I can see it now SOCAN goes after libraires because they're they provide a conduit so that music can be pirated

Re:clear

[Courageous]

They are limited to what they can say, they can't give a reference to...

Many employers will avoid comment on the grounds that it prevents future entanglements. Is there a federal statute you are thinking of, or a state one?

C//

Re:clear

[Courageous]

Maybe yours hold that view---mine doesn't.

Be sure. Water cooler chatter doesn't count. "Misappropriation of company resources to fulfill an illegal purpose" doesn't require that it be a matter of official company policy for the behavior to be grounds for termination.

C//

Re:clear

[MikeDawg]

You know, I'm not exactly sure, I'm doing some web searches to see if I can find something about this. This site has some interesting information. It is legal for an ex-employer to say "He/She is not eligible for re-hire with our company," which basically gets the point across regarding the reference. I am sure it is a federal law.

There are a couple interesting cases you can reference, and look at the outcome of (be aware, some make references to UK law too, so not all are applicable in the US, these are provided for reference only). Actually, most of the following cases are UK cases, I'm sure there are US cases, I just can't seem to find many:

• Spring v Guardian Assurance plc and others, 1994, IRLR 460 HL
• Kidd v Axa Equity & Law Life Assurance Society plc and another, 2000, IRLR 301 HCQBD
• Cox v Sun Alliance Life Ltd, 2001, IRLR 448 CA
• Jones v 3M Healthcare and others March 2002 IDS Brief 704
• The Data Protection Act 1998, section

Re:clear

[Courageous]

Well, to be clear, in some states of the US, saying something bad about someone's employment history is libellous "per se". What this means is that if the claim is made, it is considered to be both libelous and damaging, by default. The burden of proving the truth goes upon the person making the claim. Hence, one makes no such claims without having quite a deal of evidence at hand; further, one might want to avoid the entanglements.

If other law applies, I don't know about it. But it may.

California (where I am) has some of the most worker-protective laws in the country.

C//

Re:clear

[Reziac]

IOW, we'll see a return to the era of bootleg tape trading among trusted associates, but this time the solid object won't be tapes, it'll be removable media.

At least until "Trusted Computing" breaks that too.

Re:clear

[Jugalator]

Actually, I think the message is now "just share with people you can trust, not the whole world".

The problem with P2P networks is that it's hard to do. Maybe that's an idea for a feature... Geographical restrictions for searches and uploads?

I'd immediately block USA.

Re:clear

[RaynerApe]

Enjoy the primal human lust of violence and it's rather striking after effects - www.ogrish.com

Re:clear

[MrBlint]

I was once told by a recruiter where I work that references are judged more by what they leave out than by what they say.

Re:clear

[EinarH]

Distributing those copies would be copyright infringment because then it wouldn't be for personal use.

The above poster (Simonetta) did not say where he came from, but in some countries you can legaly share your music with your friends.

If he consider a limited amount of co-workers to be friends sharing music with them is legal.

Re:clear

[Anonymous Coward]

you might try the " top 20 polka hits: while stoned...

Re:clear

[MrBlint]

But, there's lots of incredible World Music that I would have never known existed without using this method.

If everyone used that method then the music would not exist!

Eventually people will get bored with non-interactive 20th century music

If you want music to be interactive then you could do worse than to learn to play an instrument and make your own music. Also by the time people get fed up with 20th centuary music there will be a whole lot of 21st centuary music to listen to.

But I wouldn't rule out interactive musical forms emerging now that the technology is around to make it possible. In fact the idea has already emerged in the form of instalation pieces

Re:clear

[suman28]

Yes, there is. Check this article out! http://search.cnn.com/cnn/redir?source=cnn&errorFl ag=0&requestId=23136&clickedItemRank=1&userQuery=h uman+eating&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fcnn.com%2F 2003%2FWORLD%2Feurope%2F12%2F03%2Fgermany.cannibal .trial%2Findex.html You could try the same thing, if you are so into violence

Re:clear

[Anonymous Coward]

No. But you should listen to what Negativland was able to do with a MIDI version of U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". In the fairly near future it is very likely that we will have voice synthesizers that can sing. From there it's a short hop to "skins" for music players that will play tunes in certain styles-- an infinite range of cover tunes, in any style desired by the listener. But the music will need to come in a format designed for it, much like certain types of graphics are more suitably stored in vector form, rather than raster.

Re:clear

[celimage]

You are clearly a geek and your prognostication is way off base. You assume that everybody wants to be an electronic musician remixing, rearranging and composing. This is just not the case people have families, jobs and other interests. While there has been an increase in electronic music and its accessibility to the general public, most people generally prefer listening to music. Most people go to the library take out music or films watch and return them. If there is one of special interest they will copy them. The idea of ripping a entire library of music and sharing it on the net is beyond the ambition of most people. The record and film companies do not go after libraries because they are huge media consumers. They especially buy films and music that are not always in the mainstream. So to put the bite on libraries would be really counterproductive

Re:clear

[asciismiley]

The RIAA can jump on board with the publishing houses, who have been trying (and often succeeding) to cut library subsidies for decades. Honestly, I'm surprised RIAA hasn't gone after 'braries yet, given the PR acumen demonstrated by its lawsuit strategy. RCA should start suing all spotted puppies for copyright infringement!

Re:clear

[Simonetta]

Removable media, especially types that can hold large amounts of music like hard disks, has many advantages over swapable disks or tapes.

I've been making mix tapes since 1967 when I found out on a trip to Hong Kong that all of the record shops there would record any album in their store onto a reel-to-reel tape for the cost of the tape and a nominal fee for the recording time. Until recently the 1-to-1 time factor for making a copy has been the biggest limiting factor to building a collection in this way. In other words, it would take 45 minutes to make a copy of a 45 minute album.

Now digital coping allows an album to transfered from hard disk to CD-R in about a minute and collections of whole genres, say most of the great jazz albums recorded between 1955 and 1960 maybe 50 gigabytes, can be transfered from one hard disk to a new one in about an hour or two.

In the old framework of music sales, people would research what they wanted and made a carefully focused selection for purchase of a disk (a 33 1/3 LP, or CD). People always knew what they had in their carefully crafted collection of expensive disks.

But now or soon, people trade or buy entire librarys of 500 albums at a time on a single hard disk. The whole approach is different. They might be reading an article on the web of a type of music or certain band, then go to this collection a listen to a recommended track from the article. In the new paradigm, only the most fanatic actually know all or most of the music that is in their collection. People get a hard disk of 500 new albums and browse it or just wade, sampling a randomly selected track or select a focus category like "Popular top 40, 1963-1967, 'British Invasion'" and the MP3 server program would play a semi-random selection of the Beatles, the Searchers, Dave Clark Five, ect...

A hard disk with 2000 albums and good MP3 server program would replace radio. Or rather perform the function that radio used to do, introduce people to new musical styles and bands. The music industry has failed greatly in this area although they used to be rather good at it in the 1950's through 1980's. They should consider selling whole genres of music (500 albums of a type) on a hard disk at a reasonable price ($50). Maybe each album could only be played twice before being erased, it would still be worth it just for the ability to get exposure to new music.

Besides, we are going to do it anyway. So they might as well join us if they still want to be thought of as the music business in ten years.

Re:clear

[Anonymous Coward]

yes it has... now p2p users simple go around the law instead of breaking it:
http://www.thebighack.org

Re:clear

[Reziac]

As you say, tape is slow, bulky, and has its own problems with deterioration in storage.

Hmm, there's a thought.. So how about this: a service that rents or sells you a player, perhaps like an inexpensive external or removeable drive bay, at or below cost just to get you started. (Perhaps using something akin to magneto-optical media, which would be a lot more shockproof in shipping than a regular hard drive. I don't know if this could be done with common DVDs.) Then for a small fee, either by the each or monthly, you can rent media with unlock software and umpteen albums on it. There could be a couple ways of doing this to generate income. Either require return of the media after a suitable period (maybe a month), or have it let you listen n-many times to each song. Then if you decide you want to buy an album, you can email the company, get an unlock code, and copy it to your own hard disk. Watermarking, and keeping the cost lower than the PITA of P2P, would generally prevent migratory files. (Tho I'm assuming that "Trusted Computing" will eventually be a factor too, in which case only your system would have access to the rented tunes anyway, hardware-locked.)

Anyway, the concept is sortof like Netflix for tunes. And as you say, they might as well get their asses down this road, cuz everyone else is already on it. And this would be a great market for back catalogs, particularly for specialty genres.

Re:clear

[JamieF]

Some popular musicians are already doing this. I can't remember who for sure but I know that there were some early CD-ROM multimedia projects that were basically remixable versions of successful pop songs. They flopped, but maybe they were before their time. Quicktime Player allows you to enable/disable tracks; Flash could be used for something similar. I can't think of a 100% free way to do this right now, though. (Media + interactivity + hackability?)

Of course...

[GearheadX]

... this is what their records and statistics may claim. And as we all know the RIAA is a bastion of honesty, forthrightness and righteousness.

Re:Of course...

[Maestro4k]

• ... this is what their records and statistics may claim. And as we all know the RIAA is a bastion of honesty, forthrightness and righteousness.

Surely the rise in sales couldn't have been due to the economy (at least supposedly) recovering now could it? Just like all those drops in sales the last few years couldn't have been due to the economy being in the dumps! Gotta be those dirty pirates, and reforming pirates doing it all. Why the US economy is only there for shits and giggles. (At least if you believe the RIAA.)

I can't wait to see them..

[grub]

If their previous lawsuits are any indication we'll see them suing:

A 4 year old Eskimo girl.

A parapalegic with Tourettes.

97 year old twin sisters who still listen to their tube powered RCA radio.

A man who has been in a coma since 1972.

The Vatican.

That crazy guy outside my office who plays a harmonica.

The estate of J. Edgar Hoover.

Some T-Rex fossils in the NY Museum of Natural History.

Antarctica.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[B3ryllium]

As a sidenote, I'd like to point out that only a minority of tourettes sufferers display the "extreme coprolalia", or random swearing symptom that is commonly associated with the disease.

That said, I just can't resist impersonating Doc from boondock saints ... "FUCK! ASS!"

(A penny saved is worth two in the bush ;-)

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Skyshadow]

- That crazy guy outside my office who plays a harmonica.

Actually, that's not the RIAA's area. That's the ASCAP (I swear I'm not making that up -- it stands for American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers). They sue bars who have cover bands who don't pay for protectio... er, a performance license. If your crazy guy is playing anything remotely copyrighted, he'd better watch out or that wild paranoia may become justified.

Article in today's Chronicle about them (I linked to it elsewhere in this thread, too -- it's my "Jesus, I'm not really surprised, but Jesus..." item).

ASCAP. Ass cap. Huh huh.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Anonymous Coward]

That crazy guy outside my office who plays a harmonica.

Well, your other examples are clearly facetious, but come on, this guy is clearly violating copyright law, he deserves to go to jail.

Imagine if everybody came to listen to this guy, instead of buying Missy Elliott CDs. How would she stay "flossed out" with "bling" in that situation?

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy moly, that is an interesting read. Thanks for the tip!
grub

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Anonymous Coward]

ASCAP lawyer Richard Reimer

Richard Reimer, huh? Yeah, these POS attorneys representing their POS clients are reamers all right. Perfect name for an attorney.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Anonymous Coward]

If their previous lawsuits are any indication we'll see them suing:

# A 4 year old Eskimo girl.
# That crazy guy outside my office who plays a harmonica.

Don't forget a 13 year old girl named Lain and a cabbit named Ryo-oh-ki.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Bernal Heights and it was great to walk down the street to catch great blues at Skip's on the weekends. We've got another bar in the neighborhood that's tangled in the permitting process to get live entertainment, but can't get past a neighborhood coalition to ban it. I guess we get no music on the Hill for awhile...

I never even knew bands had to license covers (so I can blame ignorance if anyone sues me for belting out Zeppelin in my high-school band days!). Don't bands want their music getting played as much as possible? Doesn't that help promote their cause? Are the RIAA and ASCAP completely missing the point?

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Triumph The Insult C]

... the 82 year old deaf-mute in the backwoods of georgia ...

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[ibmman85]

i hope they try suing lain.. i'd like to see how they'd go about that.. it would be hard for her to not come across the sharing of copyrighted music since she's always in the wired...

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[DrEldarion]

A parapalegic with Tourettes.

I want to see that trial on pay-per-view.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Feztaa]

I want to see that trial on pay-per-view.

I'd just download it.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[The Munger]

Well here is the story of retiree Ernest Brenot, 79, of Ridgefield, Washington. He doesn't own a computer, nor does he know how to use one. The RIAA claims he likes Vanilla Ice, U2, Creed, Linkin Park and Guns N' Roses.

Where the hell do they get these lists from? They can't have got something like that from ISP records.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[surprise_audit]

I wonder if Ernest Brenot would go on national TV to ricidule the RIAA and to demand a public apology for libel and defamation of character? Probably wouldn't stop the RIAA at all, but it might help to raise public awareness of the stupidity of what they're doing.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Jugalator]

Brenot's wife, Dorothy, said she and her husband were stunned by the claims, offended at the suggestion they listened to such music

Hehe... I like those, telling RIAA that "we don't listen to your kind of music and are offended by the thought of it". :-)

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Reziac]

ASCAP. Ass cap. Huh huh.

Oh, great, and here I thought it was a tinfoil hat.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Geez... how else would you protect yourself from their probes???

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[16K Ram Pack]

Where do they get any list where anyone likes Vanilla Ice?

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Anonymous Coward]

This really surprises me. I've worked for countless cover bands that have played in bars and clubs across 5 states, and I have never heard of a band or club being sued by ASCAP. This is really unfortunate since most musicians get there start playing in cover bands. It's no wonder the places to hear them are drying up.

I thought the only time ASCAP had to be paid is if the performance was recorded and the artist wanted to put out a CD of the recording. Case in point, almost every big name band will do a cover song or two in there set, but when it comes time to put out a live album, these generally get cut to avoid the legal hassles. In the liner notes to Brian May's "Live at Brixton Academy" he mentions that he lost some songs off the performance to failed copyright negotiations.

Radio stations and DJ's have to pay ASCAP because they are playing the artists actual music off the CD. That's why CD's bought for public performance (like movies bought by Blockbuster for rental purposes) cost a lot more than a consumer can buy them for.

Here all this time, I was blaming P-Diddy and Britney Spears for the death of live music. Go figure.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[EinarH]

Sounds like a another good reason on why copyright should not last longer than 30 years.

Any music released before 1973 should no longer be copyrighted.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[meznak]

you forgot the deaf guy...

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Reziac]

Oh, lordy.. ya know, you're right!

Hmm. Next time.. a whole suit of tinfoil armour!

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the RIAA and ASCAP completely missing the point?

Yup.

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres a newstory all over the news here in chicago this morning about them suing a 79 year old man and his wife for downloading music in the likes of Creed and other rock bands.

The quote from this couple "We don't even own a computer let alone even know how to use one."

as funny as your comments might be, it rings more truth than you and I would like to believe

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[iminplaya]

Uhhh...Did you read the whole story??

"Brenot and her husband said their son-in-law briefly added Internet service to their own cable television account while living with the couple..."

sorry 'bout that, chief

Re:I can't wait to see them..

[Feztaa]

That's the ASCAP (I swear I'm not making that up -- it stands for American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers).

Don't forget their sister organization, BUTPLUG.

Quick hide the first born

[FiveNines]

The RIAA are coming for the children!

Re:Quick hide the first born

[kfg]

I hear a little pig's blood works wonders.

And did I miss the frogs or something? The Reg didn't mention anything about them.

KFG

Re:Quick hide the first born

[MooCows]

And did I miss the frogs or something?

They're too busy suing the music pirates.

Re:Quick hide the first born

[Neurotoxic666]

Yes. It looks like young boys are not trendy anymore in church. So the RIAA is now taking care of them...

Re:Quick hide the first born

[red floyd]

That's lamb's blood, you insensitive clod!

Re:Quick hide the first born

[kfg]

Hey, your family has your tradition and my family has its own. We really didn't see the point in wasting good lamb's blood sausage and didn't figure his Lordship was really going to perform a DNA test on the fly infested gore smears anyway. We were right. We were never much into eating bitter herb either.

KFG

Re:Quick hide the first born

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Especially capitalist pig's blood. Muahaha..

Re:Quick hide the first born

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA is a singular noun the RIAA is coming

Re:Quick hide the first born

[le_banni]

Yep, shipping them directly to Neverland ...

One person doesn't even use a computer!

[jtnishi]

The article on yahoo mentions one of the persons getting sued doesn't even know how to use a computer.

These are getting seriously out of hand...

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[wasabii]

ANd you should read a wee bit furthur, where it talks about the old couple's son in law, who got internet installed, did his music downloading, and then canceled it when he left house. Theft occured under their account name.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[laird]

"one of the persons getting sued doesn't even know how to use a computer."

It's pretty simple. To quote from the article:

Brenot and her husband said their son-in-law briefly added Internet service to their own cable television account while living with the couple because Comcast Cable Communications Inc. said it would add a surcharge to send separate bills to the same mailing address.

"There's a mistake in this case," Dorothy Brenot said. "We're innocent in all of this, but I don't know how we're going to prove it."

It's a pretty simple situation. The son-in-law set up broadband access, billed to the Brenots. He then downloaded and shared tons of music (774 titles, according to the article), and the RIAA found him and logged his IP address. Then the ISP said that the IP address was assigned to the Brenots, so they are the ones whose name is on the lawsuit. IANAL, but this sounds just like the cases where someone gets a parking ticket based on the license plate of the car, even though someone else parked the car illegally. At least where I live, if you prove that the other person was the one that parked illegally, they pay the ticket.

This is like pretty much all of the other "I didn't do it" cases. Someone was paying for a broadband account that someone else was using, so they got sued for what the other person did. This isn't terribly interesting except to journalists looking for a catchy, if misleading, story, since it's a pretty obvious situation -- I can't think of a way that the RIAA could _avoid_ these sorts of errors, since there's no way for them to know who's actually using the computer, just who's paying for the broadband connection, until they file the lawsuit.

What _would_ be interesting is if the RIAA sued in a case where _nobody_ was doing any illegal file sharing. But so far, out of 382 lawsuits, I haven't heard of any case where that's being claimed. Of course, anything can happen...

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Ernst Preuss]

Guilty till proven innocent. My how times have changed.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not theft. Copyright violation. Get it right.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Galvatron]

Wasn't there one case where an 80+ year old mac user was being sued?

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Kallahar]

Apparently the law isn't clear on this. In the case of cars, they have decided that parking violations are the responsibility of the vehicle itself (thus, the owner), but moving violations are the responsibility of the driver.

What they need to do is decide whether a person is responsible for what is done with a computer, or whether the computer itself is held responsible (hence, the registered owner).

If the owner is held responsible, then it is really easy to frame someone. If the user is held responsible, then it is easier to get out of lawsuits.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[GreyPoopon]

What they need to do is decide whether a person is responsible for what is done with a computer, or whether the computer itself is held responsible (hence, the registered owner).

Even that isn't accurate. In the case of the son-in-law, I'm sure he took the computer with him. So, they need to determine whether a person is responsible for what was done on THEIR broadband connection.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[jc42]

Nah; nothing has changed at all in this regard.

"Innocent until proven guilty" has never been much more than a slogan.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[laird]

Personally, I think that the people who broke the law are the ones serving and downloading copyrighted files. For a really evil case, imagine someone with an insecure wireless LAN setup (i.e. almost all wireless LAN's) whose cable modem is used by a third party without their knowledge, to do illegal things. There was just a case like this in the news, where someone sitting in a car on the street was downloading kiddie porn (I think it was) using a random house's wireless LAN. They caught him because he wasn't wearing any pants...

I suspect that for the sake of reasonable enforcement (i.e. the same reason that the owner of the car is responsible for the parking ticket), they might end up deciding that the owner of the broadband connection is responsible for everything done on it, because it's impossible to prove who was sitting in front of a computer, but it's easy to prove who is paying the ISP bill. That'd suck for free public wireless networks, though.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[laird]

I am pretty sure that having a lawsuit filed makes you "accused," not "guilty". Though I am sure that anyone filing a lawsuit would argue that the person that they're suing is guilt... "Guilty until proven innocent" is the presumption that the judge and jury must make, not the accuser.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[laird]

I did a little digging, and found an article here (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2003/09/2 4/recording_industry_withdraws_suit/) which speculated that either the RIAA made a mistake on the IP address or Comcast made a mistake in matching up the IP address with the user account. In either case, the lawsuit was withdrawn as it was pretty obvious that (as a Mac user) she wasn't running KaZaA.

(OK, unless she was running a PC emulator. But that's kinda unlikely for a 66 year old "computer neophite" accused of downloading hard-core rap.)

Sadly, "I use a Mac" isn't a defense any more, since Poisoned added support for sharing files into FastTrack. :-(

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[crucini]

"Innocent until proven guilty" has never been much more than a slogan.

These are civil lawsuits. They don't need to prove guilt. They only need a preponderance of evidence.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Kris_J]

What _would_ be interesting is if the RIAA sued in a case where _nobody_ was doing any illegal file sharing. But so far, out of 382 lawsuits, I haven't heard of any case where that's being claimed.

Wasn't there a Mac user who claimed exactly that?

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's a mistake in this case," Dorothy Brenot said. "We're innocent in all of this, but I don't know how we're going to prove it." I always thought it was "innocent until proven guilty"...

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[GreyPoopon]

I suspect that for the sake of reasonable enforcement (i.e. the same reason that the owner of the car is responsible for the parking ticket), they might end up deciding that the owner of the broadband connection is responsible for everything done on it, because it's impossible to prove who was sitting in front of a computer, but it's easy to prove who is paying the ISP bill.

Or possibly they will use this to shove DRM down our throats and mandate that all computers connecting to the internet have some built-in hardware that broadcast something uniquely identifying it and its owner (like the Intel serial number thing that had people up in arms some years ago). Not that a good hacker couldn't get around that kind of thing, though.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you run an unpatched MS desktop through an unsecured 802.11b router? How do they prove it wasn't some warchalker or evil hax0r?

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[funkhauser]

SHHH! Don't tell anyone about Poisoned!!

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Pofy]

>Theft occured under their account name.

From a point of law, it is irrelevant whos account is used. Accounts can't comit copyright infringement, only real people (or companies) can.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Pofy]

>(hence, the registered owner).

I don't know about your country, but in most countries you don't have to register computers you own. Hence it is quite impossible to know which person owns a specific computer.

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[Anonymous Coward]

774 items is tons. Sheesh! I've got over 774 CD's full of MP3's - a small polynesian islands worth!

By their estimates if 774 items = "tons"
therefore 774 = at least 2 tons = 907kg x 2 = 1814kg
therefore one mp3 weighs on average 1.172kg
applying E=MC^2 to that equation the average mp3 contains enough energy to power... blah blah blah...

Re:One person doesn't even use a computer!

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Standard disclaimer applies, but I believe that even if they didn't download anything, they could be found guilty of "contributory copyright infringement" - they were providing the facilities through which the infringement took place, so they are responsible. It's something along those lines anyway.

Counterstrike anyone?

[PIPBoy3000]

Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex. Is there a place on the web that panders to my lust for violence?

I think you can turn to the Internet for that too.

Congrats, RIAA

[Karamchand]

You're succeeding in making your own customers hate you! Well done, good work!

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[ChickenAintDone]

Well the RIAA doesn't consider the fileswappers customers, whether they actually are is an entirely different topic. Look at it from their point of view, if someone steals from your store, do you consider them a customer or a theif? And when you tell them to never come back, are you distressed that you lost their business, or relieved that they won't be stealing anymore?

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[danknight]

The problem is that the customers REFUSE to vote with thier wallets this also applys to 'copy protected' (read corrupted) CD's. If thier target market which is something like 10-30 year olds would just refuse to buy any RIAA products for just a month or two it would send quite a message

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

People who steal music generally don't pay for it.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Carnildo]

Considering that these "thieves" are a sizable fraction of their potential customer base, I'd be worried about lost business.

To extend your example:

If fifteen percent of the people entering your store shoplift something, do you just spend your time throwing them out, or do you consider that there might be something wrong with the way your business operates?

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[OutRigged]

If fifteen percent of the people entering your store shoplift something, do you just spend your time throwing them out, or do you consider that there might be something wrong with the way your business operates?

Nope. I'd invest some money on a security guard.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[wankledot]

The difference is that the thieves in this case (music listeners) don't have a choice. They have to shop with the RIAA, where else are they going to get their music? You really think that these people equate buying the new britney CD w/ supporting the company that's suing them? Not likely. This isn't going to stop them from buying music.

And don't bother telling me about all the non-RIAA songs available, and how that's an option, because it's not.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[danknight]

Well, youre either in a REAL bad neigborhood or, yes, there is SOMETHING wrong with your business model or practice

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[the_mad_poster]

Fixing the underlying business problems would seem to be the most logical route. However, if they are "thieves", then the RIAA can sue the crap out of them if they want even if it seems like a dumb idea to us. Heck, why not? So far, it seems, they've gotten some snide comments from lawmakers and they've riled up the userbase of a couple of geek sites. Even the "riled" people don't seem to have a significant population boycotting their garbage, so - from their perspective - this must be going pretty well.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[IthnkImParanoid]

Nope. I'd invest some money on a security guard.

Man, that would have to be some security guard to stop 60 million (american) people, one out of every four customers assuming 240 million buy/would buy/care about RIAA music. Gary Coleman better start showing up to work in an ATST.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

What customers? Sony, Universal, Columbia? If you think that the RIAA considers people like you to be its customers you don't understand what the RIAA is.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Razor Blades are Not]

Or maybe close up shop and go into business doing something else.
The thieves will either be forced to steal from someone else, or they'll be really missing that gear you had.

Problems with this analogy :

The Store is the only one in the country. So there's no ability for its customers (shoplifters) to go anywhere else.

The Stores stuff never really gets stolen - it's still there in the Store, but the "shoplifters" just take photographs of it to look at later, at their own convenience.

Unfortunately for the Store, looking at these holiday snaps is about as good as having the real thing, and since the Store doesn't add any other value to the real thing, most people don't see the need to pay for it.

Besides which - they've got the whole damn government in their pocket, and if that's not enough of a security guard, you have to ask if your analogy isn't fundamentally flawed.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

jesus thats one of the funniest ones ive seen in a while

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[NanoGator]

"Look at it from their point of view, if someone steals from your store, do you consider them a customer or a theif?"

I'd call them a customer. Why? Because if your situation were to be made real then the customer wouldn't actually have left the store with it. Taking this a step further, I'd have their attention, something I didn't have before. If I were to shoo them away simply for opening the disc, I'd be begging for my customers to go to another store.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

So you mean I can go to a non-RIAA record label to buy the music from the Artist that I like. Even when he is singed to an RIAA label, and the music the artist has made is on an album released by the RIAA label?

Get a fucking brain........

RSC

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[pantherace]

Which would change the way the business operates.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Smiling_Jack]

Well, come on. 7-11 has had these same shop lifting rates for years, and their business model couldn't be more secure.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[danknight]

Good Point, mod this up

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[cheekyboy]

Again theft of bits is not same as theft of apples.

Jesus wouldnt even agree with you there.

All bit theft is technically borrowing , since everyone will eventually delete it.

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

If the studies that some groups have done that have showed that record sales are up because of file sharing are right.. Then when file sharing stops the music industry could take a Huge nose dive.

But I think the message that the press should be pushing its only New Music that is being cracked down on.. Not any of the Old Music thats actually any good anyways

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[Geek_in_Marketing]

Just a thought on this point from a marketeers perspective.

On a recent Marketing course, we had a presentation from representatives of a very large clothing house (whose initials were T.H.).

They estimate approximately ten percent of the people who enter their shops are young male shoplifters, who then wear the clothes they steal.

The company's view of this?

It's good marketing. It increases brand awareness. The kids with money see those without wearing the (stolen) latest sweater/jeans/trainers, want them for themselves, so get Daddy to buy them. It's a good business model for the large clothing company (T.H.) - profits from sales outweigh the losses from shoplifting, and more people are wearing their products as a result of the thefts.

Personally, I share a lot of mp3 with friends, and decide which albums to buy and recommend based on mp3 samples.

If I recommend an artist to my friends, and they buy that album, that IMO would constitute increased sales for the record company. Therefore increased brand awareness!

If the RIAA (and for me, the UK record industry) were to recognise this, embrace a tide of change they can't hope to stop, and actually use the information they can access as a brand-awareness and data-mining tool, they would potentially see more sales - and, you never know, we may see better quality music.

Here endeth today's 0.02!!

Re:Congrats, RIAA

[16K Ram Pack]

Whilst true, there are a lot of file swappers who also buy a lot of music too.

When you start attacking them, it might just sour their view of you.

Think in these terms... if you booked a hotel room and then checked out 30 minutes late, and no-one was following you, would that be theft? And if someone started threatening you with criminal action at a ludicrous rate, how would you feel about ever staying in that hotel?

Lawsuits

[IANAL(BIAILS)]

So, has anyone that they have sued actually decided not to settle and are mounting a vigorous defence? Has anything actually made it to court yet, or is it still exclusively a scare tactic?

Re:Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA has already said: if you file a single piece of paperwork with the court (e.g., motion of discovery [to see what their evidence is], motion to dismiss, etc.), the settlement immediately jumps by $50,000.

Now, since they are settling everything for $3-5K, and since a good, federal-bar qualified lawyer is going to run $$$, and your downside hits $50K, well, who's the sucker going to be?

Re:Lawsuits

[LordK3nn3th]

Don't be silly. This is America. If you don't have money you don't have justice, 'tis fact.

If you are wronged by a big corporation you're going to need big bucks to right that wrong, big bucks (and time!) most Americans simply don't have.

The RIAA knows it, and every other company in the country knows it. Money is power.

Re:Lawsuits

[rokzy]

that can't be true, if it is it's absolutely sickening

Re:Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns are power too, expect to see them in a decade...

Re:Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

And where do they officially say this?

Provide credible proof, or this is just more FUD.

Funny how people here hate FUD about Linux, Apple, from the RIAA, etc, but love to use when it involves "evil" companies and organizations like the RIAA. Before you tell me I am wrong, take a look at the posts and articles here where you are yelling "OMG teh RIAA is suing children!!!111!!!! Think of t3h children!!!11112" when in reality they are suing the parents for not monitoring their kids actions.

Re:Lawsuits

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

damn. I really wish I patented using stupid acronyms for a name... ;)

get used to mods like this - I get em all the time and I have never deliberately trolled in slashdot - i think it's the name. Or my enemies (dons tinfoil hat)

unless you count my quest for seventh post, which was not so much a troll as virtual performance art... yeah, that's it...

Welcome to slashdot :P

Re:Lawsuits

[El]

who's the sucker going to be?Obviously: a lawyer... somebody who can do their own legal work for free. I wonder if the RIAA checks first before serving papers?

Re:Lawsuits

[JimBobJoe]

I wonder if the RIAA checks first before serving papers?

Of course, when a law firm is going to engage in legal action with someone, they'll run their name in a database to make sure there is no conflict of interest (like they are representing the same person on a different matter.) Any member of the bar is going to pop right up, no matter what.

Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I pay for music? Musicians don't deserve money. They should get a regular job like everyone else. Why should I support their habit? If they want to make music for me to listen then they should. If they want to spend $10,000 on equipment for a home studio, that's their problem. MP3 downloading is the best thing that ever happened to the internet. I don't spend a single penny on music. I sit and copy music all day. I dance, It makes me feel good, it makes me sad, happy and most important.... it's free. No compensation for the person that made it. Who gives a shit if the guy learned to play piano for 10 years or his parents sacrificed to get him a guitar. It's not my problem! I work at a Mall and I get paid for racking clothes. I get a paycheck every week! I would have to be stupid to work for no money! Who give a shit if his dream was to be a composer..... mp3 downloading is his problem, not mine. Besides, for the first time in my life, I feel like I have the power to screw someone over!!!!! One thing that I do feel will eventually happen is that no one is going to look at music as a carrer. people are realizing that you will never be able to make any money from music. I accept the fact that independent and small record companies are going broke and shutting down. I download all the shit I want and no one gets a damn penny from my pocket!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. I'm a musican and I lost my hard work to illegal mp3 downloads. I sold only 400 CDs and my music was downloaded thousands of times and is all over mp3 sites. I give up....I'm $10,000 in debt and everyone is enjoying my creations.......this was my thanks. It's not the Major labels that are being killed, it's people like me. Cockroaches are the last to die.

Ask yourself this question.

What is you went to work for several months and when it was payday, your boss said "Thanks for your contribution! I don't think you deserve any money! Bye!" How would you feel and what would you do? Would you support his position or would you support your right to be paid for your work?

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not trolling: what is (was?) the name of your band? If I like what I hear when I download I support the musicians.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

what was the name of your band? I want to download it, if I haven't already.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[popo]

Your analogy is absurd.

You didn't have a "job". You were a musician.

Don't think that these two words have anything to do with each other.

A "job" implies a contract between you and your employer. Your services rendered (ie: your job) contractually obligates your employer to pay you.

A musician is a capitalist and a free agent. A musician, like all other free agents -- be they artists, consultants or any other person who represents themselves -- UNDERSTANDS THE ELEMENT OF RISK.

If you do not or cannot understand the element of risk in your vocation -- and that risk applies to artistic risk, marketplace risk, and the risks that pertain to your industry as a whole -- then you SHOULD NOT BE A MUSICIAN.

Clothing manufacturers get their asses handed to them by Chinese laborers. Drug manufacturers get their asses handed to them by changes in legislation. Musicians get their asses handed to them by changes in technology. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Understand risk.

Undersatnd reward.

Oh and by the way it sucks about your business model no longer being viable.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be that your music STUNK. That's been my experience with most bands of today. I used to buy CDs and listen to the whole thing and think wow the whole album's awesome they must have had a hard time picking the singles. Now the single is the ONLY good song, sometimes the singles even suck. Just listen to Metallica's Saint Anger and you'll see what I mean. Metallica's albums in the past were basically filled with good songs now they've whored themselves into releasing poor crap. Funny that they started the anti-napster movement at the same time that their new album bombed. Anyway my point is people download music because we're fed up with paying for shitty manufactured music. Bring back well crafted music and I'll start buying again.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Overly Critical Guy]

A "job" implies a contract between you and your employer.

And just what the hell do you think a record contract is?

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Neurotoxic666]

We should pay on a voluntary basis for the musicians we feel like encouraging.

Besides, there is more than just CDs. If I like a band/musician, I may download their music for free (or perhaps I've come to know them thanks to some MP3s), but I will pay to see them live, I will pay for their t-shirts and I will talk about them. And I could even buy the CD if I happen to like the cover or the additional content that is included.

This is what people should ask themselves when buying a "regular" 30$ CD: "What am I paying for?"...

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[dameron]

P.S. I'm a musican and I lost my hard work to illegal mp3 downloads. I sold only 400 CDs and my music was downloaded thousands of times and is all over mp3 sites. I give up....I'm $10,000 in debt and everyone is enjoying my creations.......this was my thanks. It's not the Major labels that are being killed, it's people like me. Cockroaches are the last to die.

Well, Michael, you should probably stop touching children and concentrate on your music. That's very, very, very Devilish...

-dameron

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[RatBastard]

It's not the technology that is the problem. File formats are nothing but file formats. What they contain is meaningless.

No, the problem is the complete lack of respect for his intellectual property rights on the part of the people downloading his music. That's the problem.

Maybe you don't give a damn about IP. Maybe you've never toiled to create something. Maybe you've never tried to make your dream pay your rent.

Your cavalier attitude is bullshit.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[AstrumPreliator]

I agree to a very minute extent. Musicians contribute very little usefulness to society. I think musicians/actors/athletes are extremely over paid. And for musicians a lot of the profit goes to their damn record labels! So musicians get overpaid, but the record label makes even more than they do! Entertainement should be very cheap. There are people out there that actually contribute to society that deserve this money more.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Kirk Troll]

Why are people even responding to this assclown? He's just a troll, generalizing everyone who partakes in MP3 downloads as some hedonistic peice of shit.

In all sincerity, I DOUBT he even had a band. He's probably just an RIAA drone sent to make a few slashdotters sad. Well, it won't work on me, not until hear some friggin' facts first.

Couldn't I say that because you all buy clothes online, my little mom and pop shop is dying? I could, but that's just the way the world works. If you're some unheardof musician, nobody is going to be downloading your stuff so much it ruins you.

Maybe you only sold 400 cds because you SUCK at it, just like 99% of all music today? It's just generated by the RIAA to brainwash all the loyal MTV fans and get them to pay the cash. (Avril, Linkin Park, you know the trite "musak")

Why am I even treating you like you're legit? You should embrace MP3 downloads, go help iTunes or BuyMusic.com, and quit whining about something YOU made a choice to do, and forgot to understand that you're not going to be 100% safe in every job you take, especially something as risky as "musician."

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your rant is entirely a tautology and you clearly have little or no experience as musician or producer of media.

Go and read janis ian
for a musicians perspective.

I can tell you, as someone who made a living as a professional music producer (yes you have heard my work) for 10 years that the industry is rotten. Thats why I got out and turned back to pure programming.

This is about far more than your childishly simplified poor starving artists yarn.
The RIAA, or more accurately the lables, distributers and other people they represent are screwing over everyone in the eqaution and destroying a cultural phenomenon - music!

We need to reclaim that culture, as a point of principle and outside of any economic or political context.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a suggestion.
Tour. What u mean to say is that
it isn't as easy as it used to be.
Well, go back to the old ways of
making money.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[mochan_s]

1. How do you know it was downloaded thousands of time?

2. How do you know that any of the people who downloaded your music were going to buy it.

3. The point is, if it's really true that everyone is enjoying your creations, then I'm sure a portion would be interested in your future work or would be interested in coming to your shows.

4. Spending $10,000 for a home studio is equivalent to starting a small buisness of your own, and not working for someone else. If you'd sold a million copies of your CD, who would get the money? If your clothing store sells a million piece of whatever they sell, is your paycheck going to vary?

5. That's exactly the point. There's no boss and you are your own boss when making music independently. If you wanted a boss, then why don't you work as a studio musician and play other people's songs for other people to use.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Uncle Gropey]

There will always be music because real musicians will still make it for it's own sake. And illegal mp3 downloads or no, there will always be plenty of money for the most popular musicians.

If thousands have downloaded your tracks and hundreds have actually laid their money down for your cd, why not go on the road and tour? That is a fan experience that cannot be downloaded for free, and it may be the only way that a little guy like yourself (or myself) is going to make any money in music right now.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you're trying to make me feel guilty about folks like you? (Actually I'm sure you're makign all this shit up but let's assume you aren't).

Well I find it *really* hard to put up with this kind of whining because:

1) I know several indy musicians whose releases sell around 500-1000 CDs per release and that's a good take. Sure they live a little less large than some folks, and most have "day jobs", but if they can survive doing it, so can you.

2) Musicians don't have ANY "right" to make money. None of us do. You have the right to keep what you make, basically. Making it is your problem. I know that intrudes on a lot of "starving artist fantasies" but that's tough, that's what the rest of us call capitalism.

I'm a computer consultant, if nobody wants to pay for my work, I find something else to do. Nobody makes me choose this line of work. Maybe my dream is to get paid $100,000 a year for taking really big shits. But it ain't gonna happen, if nobody wants to pay for it. Luckily, people want to pay for my work. I'm thankful for that.

Your boss analogy doesn't quite fly, because the music business is different: you work for free up front, basically, and then hope that your time is compensated by album sales. If you don't make enough sales, that's your problem!

That is of course if you actually depend soley on album sales. If you do game music, TV commercials, music for CD-ROMs, live concerts, etc., you have a more diverse level of income. I know of several small-time musicians who have gotten TV commercial deals and built themselves nice sutdios.

Funny thing is too, I used to be in a band and thought about making a living off of it (this was the pre-MP3 days). When I see what BS the music industry is (basically, you're poor, or you're a megastar), I decided music would just be a hobby. If I had started TODAY, I probably would've stuck with it, *because* of MP3s and the "middle class" of indy musicians who do TV ads, etc.

But whatever. I really don't feel sorry for artists/writers who claim they have some "right" to get paid. Maybe there are too many musicians and artists out there, ever think of that?

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[grub]

And just what the hell do you think a record contract is?

It's a business contract, there is no implied employee-employer relationship.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[grub]

1. How do you know it was downloaded thousands of time?

He was walking down the street, listening to his iPod, just minding his own business. Then some girl iPod jacked him where he heard his own music which only sold 2 copies.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

musicians should be paid to perform...no one wants to hear it, but i think it's true. the model of having a performance replicated and paid for on a per-person basis, in my opinion, is unnatural and deserves to die.

i suspect this will happen...turn your comment around, why should you be able to work in a studio for a couple months and become richer than a king, making a bunch of corporate music producing scum richer than kings, selling stamped discs of plastic at unrealistic markups? because you could!

if working consistently at something earns a reward, then go touring and do some live work. you got screwed by a transcended, artifical distribution model...not people sharing music.

it's whining people like you that are causing these insane unconstitutional IP laws to get pumped out of washington, all to protect these outmoded corporate business models.

you're the problem, bud, not the people d/ling your tunes.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boohoo, cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it.

You should have signed with the evil Empire, the RIAA. But your music is probably crap anyway.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

t- t- t- t- t- TROLL

Thank you.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

EEEEEEEEEEEEE HEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Michael! Uhm, you're more like 150 million in debt. Stop blowing bubbles with Macaulley Caulkin and figure out a way to moonwalk your ass out of Neverland, or you're going to be on the receiving end, from a 3 hundred pound monkey named Bubbah. Then you'll know just how wondeful it is to share your bed with someone.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Band records album. Makes money for record company. Band gets percentage of revenue.

Where are you getting lost?

It seems that Slashdotters are outright arguing to fuck over bands here. Should we do the same for software companies through warez? Nobody ever answers my question.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dumbass. According to the law, copyright is still protected. Technology doesn't matter. Since people still want music, becoming a musician is still a valid way of making money, in a free society.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Matt - Duke '05]

Musicians don't have ANY "right" to make money. None of us do. You have the right to keep what you make, basically. Making it is your problem. I know that intrudes on a lot of "starving artist fantasies" but that's tough, that's what the rest of us call capitalism.

File swappers don't have ANY "right" to pirate MP3s. None of us do. You have the right to download what you already own, basically. Owning it is your problem. I know that intrudes on a lot of "information wants to be free fantasies" but that's tough, that's what the rest of us call capitalism.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Qrlx]

How do you know your music was downloaded "thousands of times?" Did you share it yourself?

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the rest of us call protectionism.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

What was your name again? I wanna look you up on Limewire

-tgpo
http://www.tgpo.org

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

if its good music it would sell

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Naffer]

Hrm. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who downloaded his music aren't listening to it on a regular basis.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

"P.S. I'm a musican and I lost my hard work to illegal mp3 downloads. I sold only 400 CDs and my music was downloaded thousands of times and is all over mp3 sites. I give up....I'm $10,000 in debt and everyone is enjoying my creations.......this was my thanks. It's not the Major labels that are being killed, it's people like me. Cockroaches are the last to die."
------
The RIAA doesn't pay it's cockroaches. Their cockroaches pay them. Advertizing, marketing, administration, etc. You may be broke, but if you were under the RIAA protective umbrella you'd be bankrupt.

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is you went to work for several months and when it was payday, your boss said "Thanks for your contribution! I don't think you deserve any money! Bye!" How would you feel and what would you do? Would you support his position or would you support your right to be paid for your work?

Usually your boss says 'we had record profits this year, you're all laid off. See ya!'

Re:Why should I pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of that musician that was brought up on the somethingawful forums. Her albums were $200 and as someone over there put it she sounds like tori amos after a stroke.

How many again?

[Bagels]

Considering the number of filesharing users out there, 1,054 takers on the amnesty program is fairly pitiful, actually. What would be more interesting would be the number of people who have quietly dropped off of the networks due to the RIAA's threats... but new arrivals will probably mask any people leaving this way in terms of the overall filesharing "population."

Re:How many again?

[laird]

Actually, according to Slyck, the population of FastTrack users is down about 1m users (it's current around 3.5M from peaks of around 4.5M a while back). Of course, slyck doesn't say how they arrive at that number, but since they're an active promoter of p2p, you wouldn't expect them to make the number artificially low. I'd call a drop of 1/3rd pretty substantial. :-)

Re:How many again?

[EvilSporkMan]

I'd like to point out that new arrivals could just be sharing legal files, like me...I've arrived on Soulseek (same user name, EvilSporkMan) with about half of OCRemix.

Re:How many again?

[Dr Damage I]

The problem with RIAA claiming that their heavy handed tactics are working based on reduced P2P traffic is that their purge of the P2P corps coincides with the introduction of legal music downloads for pay.

So, do the statistics say what RIAA say they do, or is it simply because people don't have to steal to get music online anymore?

Re:How many again?

[Funksaw]

The RIAA scared me off in the first round. I wasn't a "hardcore" pirate. I had maybe 1000 mp3s, but maybe 20 were shared weren't shared, I didn't keep Kazaa running - hell, I didn't even listen to the MP3s on the the same computer I downloaded them on. Now, keep in mind, that's 1000 MP3s over 5 years - about 200 a year... less than 4 a week. But when I first heard all this, I deleted all the files, reformatted computers, the whole 9 yards.

I'll admit it, they scared me. But then I got smart and I read up on the situation.

See, they scared me. But I don't like being scared. So I stopped buying their product. I wasn't a big spender when it came to CDs, but I did buy more than a few in my day.

Any RIAA title I get now is a used CD - and I haven't even bought one of those. I bought 5 albums in the past year - all through CDBaby. I keep emailing Apple to make it easy to find the indie stuff in with the RIAA stuff by seperating it somehow, but they're not listening, so I don't buy from them.

Yeah, they got me to stop file-sharing. But they also lost a customer - permanently. And I tell everyone I know not to buy RIAA music.

As for my collection? Since I've deleted it, it's grown to 3000 MP3s over the past 9 months. It would be accurate to say that alot of them were from CD-Baby rips and other albums I own. (I'm not admitting anything, but let's just say that P2P isn't the only way to wage "civil disobedience" against the RIAA.)

What has the RIAA accomplished as far as me, little microcosm? Well, it's got me reading Slashdot more frequently, I listen to more music - buy nothing from the RIAA, and send money that I would have spent on CDs to indie musicians, the EFF, and the ACLU.

People don't like to be scared. It gets them pissed.

-- Funksaw

Re:How many again?

[Anonymous Coward]

In short you feel RIAA is unethical, and boycott them as you can. I do the same thing, but I got ticked off years abo by the price of an album. $27 for an 4 years old album.

take the police away and drugs will flow in the streets. better get to the root of their "problem," in the meantime i hope everyone boycott.

Re:How many again?

[danila]

You must understand that this statistic doesn't mean 1 million people were scared and stopped using P2P. It probably only means that the average number of connected users dropped by 1 mln (on average or different users per week, etc.). This can be the reason of people spending less time connected to the network, for example not leaving their P2P clients connected to the network over night, etc. While this is a negative thing for FastTrack, it is not a tragedy. And this number is unlikely to drop much lower. There are many technological solutions to the RIAA problem and with enough pressure they will be implemented. There is simply no way for RIAA to win the war against the people without DRMing everything 100% and this is not going to happen (I hope).

Re:How many again?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of those moved to different networks? I have moved to DC++, for instance. I wouldn't call that a victory for the RIAA even though it's one Kazaa user less.

Re:How many again?

[laird]

According to Slyck (caveat: I don't know how they generate these numbers, so I can't defend them) the level of participation on the networks that people think aren't being monitored by the RIAA is up, but overall there's still a significant decline.

This will never work

[lalonso]

I suggest different tactics: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/floppy.php or http://static.hugi.is/video/fyndin/dctf-1.wmv

Re:This will never work

[Bif Powell]

Well there's a perfect example of a group that has no idea who their target audience is :)

Season of Giving

[Sonny Yatsen]

The RIAA has decided that the holiday season is a season of giving...subpeonas.

Re:Season of Giving

[linus_vp]

Exactly. It's not what you get, it's what you give to others (like access to your music) that really counts.

They are working

[Cyberllama]

The number of people on the big file-sharing networks is half of what it was before the law suits. But as kazaa declines, edonkey and bittorrent grow. If they're stated goal is to destroy kazaa, then mission accomplished. But if they want to stop file sharing, they'll have to destroy the internet.

Re:They are working

[Liselle]

But if they want to stop file sharing, they'll have to destroy the internet.

Jesus Christ, don't give them any ideas!

Re:They are working

[KingReuben]

But if they want to stop file sharing, they'll have to destroy the internet.

They are not opposed to this idea. The RIAA thanks you for your suggestions and always welcomes such positive feedback.

Re:They are working

[dollar70]

There are plenty of other special interest groups working on that too. Software/method patents, copyrights, DRM/Paladium/Longhorn, and the looming H.R.3261 will all work together to ensure that the internet becomes nothing more than the consumer equivelent of an interactive-television commercial.

First, they let the geeks do all the hard work in making it technically possible, then they attract attention to all the bells, whistles and general hype, they solidify the sale with the educational angle, then legislate it into a tasteless substance that no one in their right mind would ever swallow.

But the public will have bought the infrastructure, hook, line, and sinker. It's like watching Jethro Clampet get excited over them fancy city folk fads.

I could do more with a 56K dialup connection on a P120 with 16megs of RAM than I'll be able to do with a Pentium 7, 24Ghz with 16Tb of RAM and a connection speed at twice the speed of light.

Most of the people will be content just to "oooooo" and "aaaaah" the blinky lights.

Re:They are working

[d3faultus3r]

I think they may well want to do that. The internet(in it's current form) is a threat to their monopoly. small bands can gain a large following due to various free music services and webcasts and filesharing provide listeners with free music, a price the RIAA cannot undercut.
Plus, the internet is not easily controllable and has no central authority, so the music industry cannot simply strike a deal with some big company and get their old way of doing business back.

Re:They are working

[Sarcasmooo!]

3,400,000 people are on Kazaa as I write this. For all I know, that might be half what it was (I doubt it though), but that doesn't seem like much of a victory for the RIAA. I use eMule personally....I find more obscure/interesting files there for some reason.

I will say that it seems to have worked on people too computer illiterate to share files in the first place. My mother, sister, and niece all suddenly decided they didn't want me making CD's for them afterall, once they heard about the lawsuits. And that's 3 out of the 4 people in my family who've asked about getting CD's made. None of them know how to get mp3's on their own, but the 4th (my brother) couldn't care less about copyright laws. He's an unorganized farm boy who's either lost, scratched, or had stolen, almost every CD he's ever owned. And I would guess he's just tired of spending $15-$20 a pop on them.

Re:They are working

[jc42]

But if they want to stop file sharing, they'll have to destroy the internet.

Yup. That's the goal. Or rather, to turn it into a clone of television, a purely marketing medium controlled by an oligopoly

So we have to destroy the recording industry first.

Especially important is to get across to younng musicians that they don't have to sign any recording contracts with anyone. People who know how to make good recordings should be getting across to musicians the idea that they can make much better recordings by themselves. In the US, it's now difficult to be more than 50 miles from a top-quality local recording studio that will do everything but play the music and then leave you in total control of the master. And doing the publicity yourself on the Internet will give you lower sales, maybe, but you'll get all the income from it. This is a lot better than ending up in debt to a recording company.

And in the long run, it's just as likely that stars will arise through blogs and special-purpose web sites than through the commercial music PR people.

Anyone who signs a recording contract these days is an utter fool.

Re:They are working

[daveyt61]

Long live sneakernet!!

Re:They are working

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give them any more ideas!!!!

Re:They are working

[KingReuben]

Growing up in Austin, Texas, I know many local rather famous (in their own right) artists who for these very reasons decline to ever sign with a major label and stay indepedent.

Of course we know all these stories here on /. about the indy artists who actually see real cash benefit from releasing their works for free on P2P networks.

Re:They are working

[Maestro4k]

• There are plenty of other special interest groups working on that too. Software/method patents, copyrights, DRM/Paladium/Longhorn, and the looming H.R.3261 will all work together to ensure that the internet becomes nothing more than the consumer equivelent of an interactive-television commercial.

I don't think this will happen, because it's been tried before (to some extent) and failed miserably. Remember "push technology"? Remember how it was the next big thing (tm) that everyone was going on about?

For those that don't remember, push technology was meant to turn your web browser into something non-interactive. (Ok, that wasn't the official idea, but it was the outcome.) You'd subscribe to a site, or a channel (now you know where those channels in IE come from), and you'd get great new content pushed to your desktop! Why Microsoft thought this was so great, that they changed Windows to allow you to have an "active desktop". You could have a webpage for your desktop, and it'd push nifty new stuff to you all day long!

Only one problem, no one wanted it. Very few people used it, most spent their time fighting Win98 to get rid of the damn active desktop crap and decrying any attempt to push anything down their throats. I did a survey for PC World (or PC Magazine) online where I even got quoted in their article about the results, they used me as the sum up, where I said "If I wanted junk shoved down my throat, I'd just watch TV." And that's exactly what push technology was aiming for. It bombed out bigtime.

People don't get on the Internet to have crap shoved down their throats, they get that from TV all the time, they want something different. And if the media companies want to try and change the Internet to be that way, they'll find that suddenly no one wants their offerings on it. Eventually they'll have to realize that the basic problem is their content is crap, but I doubt it'll be anytime soon.

And as far as destroying the Internet? I'm afraid that spammers are doing more to destroy it than any bills/etc. can. When E-mail works, even your average joe computer user will raise holy cain if the government tries to change things to where they can't use it how they like anymore. If spammers run off all the average joes, then there goes our last chance of getting our elected representatives attention away from the special interests.

Re:They are working

[dollar70]

Only one problem, no one wanted it. Very few people used it, most spent their time fighting Win98 to get rid of the damn active desktop crap and decrying any attempt to push anything down their throats.

You're right. At that time the net was more heavily saturated with people who used computers as computers. Today, the home computer is being pushed onto the "garden variety" consumer as an entertainment device.

Back in the Win95/98 days (and even further back to the days of TRS-80, Commodore, and Apple ][), most of us computer users were trying to get our computers to do things that were useful. We were more concerned with getting more space out of a 512MB hard drive, and we even had special programs in the works to emulate more RAM through compression! Oh the glory days...

But back to the situation in the present, we see computers being sold everywhere, and everyone thinks they need to have one. We all know someone who's grandma bought a computer for her grandkids because she heard that kids today need a computer for school. We all know people who couldn't format a floppy disk but still climb on AOL. We can all find examples around us of people who don't need computers, but have them anyway. And this is why "push" technology is going to work this time.

Back when only the geeks, nerds, and other technologically gifted individuals were the super-majority, you couldn't dictate to them what they were allowed/not allowed to do with their computer. They bought the computer to be a computer. But the typical computer owner has drastically changed. They are not computer litterate. They are useless eaters! They want to be spoon fed. In fact, they are practically demanding it.

As for the "spam" threat... nah... way off base. People hear the hype about spam and go ape for no reason. If you're getting too much spam, it's because you are either stubborn, stupid, or both. If you are just emotionally stuck on using your "spamme@iwontchange.com" address, you're stubborn, and if you give it to a website to get free stuff, you're stupid. It takes very little effort to change to a different e-mail account. It takes just a modicum of self-control not to give out your personal e-mail to those who may use it to spam you.

People (or in this case "sheeple") hear about spam and start to over-react. They feel like they gotta complain about something, so they whine about "spam". After all, they heard some "talk-radio" guy complaining about it, so it sounds chic to them. Spam is mostly a family size can of Red Herring that any respectable computer geek can avoid.

And you're right- Back in the day, most computer users hated the push technology idea, but now the new computer user is the same guy who thinks owning a plasma TV is a smart investment.

These are the people who draw new attentions to the computer, and they aren't doing any of us any favors. I bought a computer... no... I built my computer to do what I want it to do. But thanks to Dell, HP, Gateway, Best Buy, Circuit City, etcetera, etcetera, ad nausium, people are buying them with expectations of a deus ex machina.

And who is going to provide them with all of this extraordinary content for their magical interactive TV? Why, the same fine folks who already provide you with the magical content you're used to getting. They just want legal control over it, and remote control over the magical box that's making it all possible.

They'll get their way, and destroy the only intelligent reason to own a computer in the first place-

Computer: A device used to store and manipulate data.

Anyone know...

[MikeXpop]

If they're still facing mostly Kazaa/like/grokster users, or if they're branching out to DC, Bittorrent, gnutella, etc?

Re:Anyone know...

[homer_ca]

They're only suing Kazaa/Morpheus users for now, but you can be sure they're monitoring all the P2P networks. "They" being Mediadefender, Mediaforce, Ranger Inc, OverPeer, BayTSP, and others.

hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

would they happen to be averaging these settlements into any sort of projected fiscal period earnings?

I got a letter

[The_Rippa]

However, the DRM server was down and I was unable to read it!

Go ahead RIAA

[homer_ca]

You might scare people into stopping downloading, but that doesn't mean we'll go back to buying your overpriced CDs. $11.99 is a start. Better yet, try $7.99 just like the old LPs.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[1000101]

$7.99? What year was that, 1984? $11.99 isn't a bad price if the music is actually good. Unfortunatley MTV and the like have made music so disposable that the airwaves are mostly filled with one-hit-wonders.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[homer_ca]

As little as 5 years ago, you could find a sizable section for cassettes in most record stores which were always priced the same as LPs which died out in the late 80s. So 1984 isn't THAT far off. Cassette prices in the 90s were about $11.99 full price and under $10 in discount stores and on sale. So in my guesstimation, if regular price were $9.99, sale prices should be $7.99.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[Fryed]

Better yet, sell things the customers want! They're getting closer to that, at least. iTunes, Napster 2.0, BuyMusic.com (or whatever that other one is), let people buy music on a per-track basis, which is exactly what I want. Sometimes I want a whole album, if it's buy a group I know well enough to be assured I'll like the CD. But I refuse to buy a cd from an artist I don't know that well, because too often I've forked over cash for a cd I thought would be good, but actually only the track that got radio play was any good. As things stand now, I don't buy cds from artists I've only heard one song from before, but with iTunes and friends, I wouldn't mind risking a dollar on a song I hadn't heard before.

As soon as a service appears that will let me, for a good price (99 cents is good, but less is always better), download an mp3 with no restrictions on the number of times I can burn it to cd, copy it to my mp3 player, or copy it to other computers, then I will immediately start buying a lot of music.

Would that be so hard?

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I personaly care less about the cost of a CD, and more about our fair use rights.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[Jeffery McGrew]

Even Better yet: $7.99 used CD's at your local indy music store. Or $10 CD's that you buy off a indy band's website directly. Or $1 vynil at the thrift store (tons of great old country/lounge/jazz/weird stuff)

But the Best: Start makin' your own damn music. Serously. It's tons of fun. You can get a guitar for $100 bucks, learn some Beatles tunes, and have way more fun in the long run than that $100 Beatles box set. Then make up your own stupid songs, pretend you're a rock star, and have a total blast in your Den.

little hard to play guitar while driving, tho. Maybe look at a Ukulele instead if you commute.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[EvanED]

"But the Best: Start makin' your own damn music. Serously. It's tons of fun. You can get a guitar for $100 bucks, learn some Beatles tunes, and have way more fun in the long run than that $100 Beatles box set. Then make up your own stupid songs, pretend you're a rock star, and have a total blast in your Den."

Of course, this only works for some types of music. It's a little less effective when it comes to, say, Beethoven.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[Jeffery McGrew]

No it's not. Buy a Casio with full sized keys. Learning to play any instrament is a long but very fun and rewarding thing to do.

And Beethoven?!? How many little kids you see sit down and plunk out 'Fur Elise' over and over? Beethoven ain't so hard. Now maybe if you're talking Bartok, I could understand...

My point is that rather than just being a consumer of culture, start participating in it, and find out that it's as much fun to make the music as it is to listen to the music, even if both have a certain time and place where best applied. Actually, in the end, you'll wind up with a much larger apprecation for music in general, which will lead you to not being suckered into buying $20 cd's by the latest generic Radio band. :)

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

" You might scare people into stopping downloading, but that doesn't mean we'll go back to buying your overpriced CDs. $11.99 is a start. Better yet, try $7.99 just like the old LPs."

Who's "we". Who made you the spokeperson for msuic lovers asshole?

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[BSDKaffee]

I think paying $0.99 per track is a big rip-off. Don't expect me to pay for some lossy mp3 (or worse). There is a pretty large sacrifice in quality when you're taking a CD down to mp3 level. Some people don't care, but I would like to see these companies put out in FLAC format - that would be worth 99 cents. Once you have the FLAC you can convert it into an mp3 if you want or make a cd that is cd-quality.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[Fancia]

Indeed... I bought a pair of 1970s LPs recently and was shocked to see the incredible quality of the packaging. Sturdy, full-colour cardboard case, large full-colour booklet with glossy pages... it's much nicer and, presumeably, much more expensive than the packaging of CDs, yet the price is much less than that of modern CDs.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[Fryed]

That's a very good point. For most music, I personally can hardly tell the difference between a 128 kbps mp3 and a CD. I'm not sure I've ever been able to hear any audio defects coming from a 192 kbps or above mp3. However, when I'm listening to music, it's either on relatively cheap pc speakers, relatively cheap headphones, or my car's factory speakers.

Here's another idea that an "ideal" (ie, one that listens to the customer, rather than to the RIAA) music service could use. Sell FLAC (or some similar completely lossless codec) encoded songs for 99 cents. Sell 128 kbps mp3s for 50 cents, and maybe 56kbps mp3s for a quarter or so. That way, people like me who don't mind listening to a 128kbps encoding can get the "discount" version, and someone who has better audio hardware (or simply better ears) can pay for the "full" version.

This even provides the company with the ability to "resell" recordings to people who previously only wanted a lower quality encoding, but have decided to get a higher quality encoding later on.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[NeoPotato]

Or you could take the alternative route:

Spike your hair, grab a hoodie or denim jacket and add spikes on the shoulders, grab a marker and try to draw the name of your favorite band on the back and a little logo, or just buy patches and put them all over the jacket, then go to Hot Topic and buy punk compilations from teeny tiny record labels for dirt cheap.

Or better yet, skip the punking out and just go find the compilations elsewhere. Like online.

Seriously, I've bought maybe three or four full length albums from bands probably in the RIAA since I got to college, but I can't pass up a $3 or $4 compilationi album. I swear, all my money now is going to angry little bands scattered across the nation.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[EvanED]

"No it's not. Buy a Casio with full sized keys."

Actually, I have a pretty nice Yamaha keyboard. (And I'd still argue that playing music on a electronic keyboard, unless it's a very very nice one, doesn't rival a real piano.) I was thinking more along the lines of orchestral music though. It's kinda hard to fit a symphony orchestra in your living room.

"My point is that rather than just being a consumer of culture, start participating in it, and find out that it's as much fun to make the music as it is to listen to the music, even if both have a certain time and place where best applied. Actually, in the end, you'll wind up with a much larger apprecation for music in general, which will lead you to not being suckered into buying $20 cd's by the latest generic Radio band. :)"

For the most part I agree. Making your own music is very fun, rewarding, etc. I'm just trying to say that there are some things that no matter how talented you are, you just can't do. The closest I can come to listening to say the 1812 Overture without buying a recording is through a MIDI file. Sorry, but you don't just get the same feeling. There's really no way around getting CDs.

Re:Go ahead RIAA

[nuba]

doesn't have the best selection in the world, and maybe not fit your idea of legal, but there is http://www.allofmp3.com/

Oh, um, gee

[Anonymous Coward]

Another.. 90 or so people? Are going to be called on for what they did?

And exactly how many thousands of people are on Kazaa right this instant? Could someone check?

Perhaps at this rate they will have made a sizeable dent in piracy by 3241.

Re:Oh, um, gee

[MachDelta]

Hmm... as of this post, there are about 3.5 million people on Kazaa. Way to go RIAA! At this rate, you'll be able to sue everyone just in time for the sun to explode!

Congrats to the RIAA

[Skyshadow]

Their tactics are working all right.. I haven't downloaded one bit of music put out by a major label in the last several months.

Of course, it wasn't really the lawsuits that dissuaded me so much as the utter crap the labels have been putting out. But still, effective tactics are effective tactics. Why, I'll bet they could stop music piracy completely in 2004 if the tunes continue to be as gut-wrenchingly terrible as, say, Britney's last album (or any of those that preceded it, come to think of it. She sure is hot, though).

On a related note, there's an interesting article in the SF Chronicle about how small local bars are getting hit with lawsuits because the bands they hire play covers of copyrighted songs. Wonder how far we are from surgical lobotomies for people who get copyrighted tunes stuck in their heads...

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[angle_slam]

I hate these types of comments. Does anyone here realize that there are tens of thousands of albums available for purchase? You don't like Britney's dance music. Fine. There are thousands of other genres of music out there, including a vast catalog of rock albums released since the mid-50s. Or do people really think that they have to listen to music that was released within the last year?

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you listen to even one minute of the new Britney Spears album?? Hmm? Or are you just assuming?

(p.s. Don't bother listening to it if you haven't, it sucks.)

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Their tactics are working all right.. I haven't downloaded one bit of music put out by a major label in the last several months.

The only ones I've downloaded in the last few months have been the tracks to anime music videos.

I've been downloading and sharing non-RIAA music, and using iRate. A lot of it sucks, but some of it doesn't. Plus it helps when friends give me recommendations. There is some cool shit out there that the RIAA has never touched.

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Kirk Troll]

Britney is not hot. Where do people get this crap? She's just a slutty sellout. I mean, come on... the big boobs, the eyes, the blond hair, the curves......

Fuck. Fine, she's hot. -_-u

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

On a related note, there's an interesting article in the SF Chronicle about how small local bars are getting hit with lawsuits because the bands they hire play covers of copyrighted songs. Wonder how far we are from surgical lobotomies for people who get copyrighted tunes stuck in their heads...

Boo hoo. It would cost them $700 a year to buy a license (which pretty much every club in the US has. It's the damn bars fault for not paying the money. It has nothing to do having tunes stuck in the head. It has everything to do violating they copyright (the right to pubilcly perform copyrighted music).

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Neurotoxic666]

Wonder how far we are from surgical lobotomies

Lobotomy is fine. Lobotomy works. Do not download music. We love the RIAA. Lobotomy is good. Trust lobotomy. Forget music. Do not think of music. Lobotomy helps. Thank you lobotomy.

Do not put sig here. Lobotomy forbids.

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind Britney let's talk about bands that used to release good music. Metallica is the perfect example. Here's a band that USED to be awesome then they cut their hair and suddenly start releasing the same song over and over again with a new name. This is happening all over. Then take a look at all these stupid reality shows that manufacture NEW BOY AND GIRL BANDS. Like we need any more of those. Not to mention the fact that they're basically saying look we manufacture music and bands just like the shit wipes you use, now pay us $20 for it please.

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons that there aren't many clubs for non-commercial bands to play...

I'm a musician, and the number of clubs available for local bands to play is going down for this reason - even for little acoustic acts playing original music.

The fear of liability in case a band is accused of playing ASCAP tunes is so great, club owners will often just not risk it at all. Many clubs are not that profitable, and 700 dollars is a lot of money for them - fighting the deep pockets of ASCAP is out of the question.

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't donwloaded any RIAA music either. I also haven't bought any music.

RIAA affiliated companies have lost me as a customer. The next bit of music I buy will be from an unsigned band.

I'm sure the RIAA couldn't give a damn about me not being a customer. Perhaps they will give a damn about the fact that I am working on convincing the people around me to buy indepenent music only?

Hopefully 10% of my friends will convince 20 of their own friends not to buy RIAA affiliated music. Then 10% of their friends friends pass the word around. Around 30 cycles later, all companies affiliated with the RIAA will be broke.

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

People who download - no social interaction - very unhealthy. Much better in the playground and the workplace where kids say 'wanna swap'.

The local 2nd Hand CD shop is booming, and now 'sneaker net' is better than ever. At 10 cents a pop/blank, people are giving others more burnt blanks than you can poke a stick at.

The school recently put a up a noticeboard to 'recycle' used CD's for school homework, even though 'meltallica' is not on the sylabus.

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[jc42]

Boo hoo. It would cost them $700 a year to buy a license ...

A related story has popped up in a few folk-dance lists lately: The recording industry has discovered that there are folk-dance groups that are dancing to recorded (i.e., copyrighted) music, or to live bands that play traditional music. Some of those groups are being hit up for licenses.

In this case, we're talking about what are mostly small (a few dozen people) non-profit clubs. Their events mostly happen in school and church halls, because those places are cheap. Nobody much gets paid anything, because it's basically a hobby thing.

This sort of club will be shut down by such licensing. Recent reports from the UK have said that this has shut down a great many such events throughout the country in recent years.

But I suppose the commercial venues will view this as desirable. Those stupid folk-dance clubs are just free competition, y'know, taking customers away from what could be profitable businesses. What right do people have to get together to dance without paying someone?

Re:Congrats to the RIAA

[Kris_J]

Wonder how far we are from surgical lobotomies for people who get copyrighted tunes stuck in their heads...

Earworm tablets.

What will follow the lawsuits?

[turnstyle]

Of course the RIAA keeps suing, and they'll keep doing so. What next? In response, a lot of IP academics are calling for alternative systems that would "get the artists paid" but when it comes to them, the devil is in the details...

How many people will have to have their Internet use watched in order to generate a meaningful sample?

If the sampling is truly anonymous, how can it prevent cheating?

Will 'offensive' works be excluded? If they are, what is the impact on Free-Speech?

Will such bureaucratic governmental (or quasi-governmental) control over the arts really be an improvement?

I've written some about "compulsory licensing" here.

Kazza?

[evilmuffins]

Are they still only going after people on the Kazza network? It would make sense for them to do this, because most people use Kazza, because there too lazy to learn to use anything else. Imagine if everyone who used Kazza started leeching 24/7 from news groups. Then the RIAA would have something to worry about...

What a sham

[AstrumPreliator]

I wish I had the a time machine so I could prevent the RIAA from ever comming into existence.

The interesting bit...

[madgeorge]

... comes in another year when piracy is down but so are profits. Funny thing happens when you develop an antagonistic relationship with your customers instead of following the age-old law of supply and demand.

-madgeorge

Re:The interesting bit...

[geekee]

"Funny thing happens when you develop an antagonistic relationship with your customers instead of following the age-old law of supply and demand."

Since you understand supply and demand so well, you should realize that allowing uploading of music for free decreases the demand for legitimate outlets of the music. This causes the value of the music to decrease. Anyone who thinks piracy is a victimless crime doesn't understand economics.

Re:The interesting bit...

[mikestro]

I think you're missing the point. The point is you've pissed off all of your customers and made a large portion of your base feel like criminals - so much so that now they are no longer customers. That's the point. i.e. When's the last time I bought a CD? I've bought a total of 1 I think this year. $$$$ is also a big deal. $15-$20 for a new CD is really just too damn expensive.

Re:The interesting bit...

[mOdQuArK!]

Anyone who thinks piracy is a victimless crime doesn't understand economics.

I think most people understand simple economics pretty well. Most people figure that people should get paid for providing goods or services. If the vendors charge too much, people won't buy the product/service. When the buyer receives goods, they own the goods - they can do whatever they want with them. Nice and simple - unlike laws trying to turn the distribution of information into "property".

People should get paid for providing goods or services. I don't see any reason why someone/a company should be paid over and over indefinitely for a single act of creation by anyone who touches the created work. If society (or an organization) wants to encourage creative thought, then it can subsidize such activity by the amount that it thinks such activity is worth.

Re:The interesting bit...

[madgeorge]

I think you missed the point of my post. I don't condone the general principle of piracy, but in my view it IS a symptom that the market isn't meeting customer demand. Demand for what? Good music for a fair price, minus the assloads of profit being intercepted by a middle man without a creative bone in his body. The demand can be met, to which I hope services like iTunes attest.

-madgeorge

Re:The interesting bit...

[Snaller]

Hear hear!

It's not nice, but it appears effective

[laird]

Based on the numbers that you can see on Slyck.com, after years of consistent growth, p2p usage is down substantially for the last few months, especially on the networks believed to be actively monitored by the RIAA, with the decline starting at the same time as the filing of the first lawsuits. And based on the announcements by Apple, Napster, MusicMatch, etc., digital music sales appear to be up substantially over the past few months as well. So while coorelation can't prove causality, it sure looks like the lawsuits are effective at making some people stop using the p2p file sharing networks, and might even be helping with digital download music sales.

Re:It's not nice, but it appears effective

[quistas]

Rather than your point, which is that the RIAA's legal actions may be driving people to buying digitial music, couldn't you also argue that the decrease in p2p activity is due to people finally having access to a number of viable, legitimate, cheap online music outlets?

I'm sure the number of people who stopped pirating music because they could sample it and buy it for cheap on iTunes is pretty significant.

Re:It's not nice, but it appears effective

[kfg]

On the other hand if sales overall continue to decrease, including CDs, then they just might have to aknowledge that they're just plain promoting crap most people don't want.

I don't download music, but I haven't bought anything for a few years either, and when last I did it was true alternative stuff from the catalog (Tom Waits, It's a Beautiful Day, Silly Wizard). In future I'll be buying independant productions direct.

Oops, I didn't buy Britney again.

Claiming a reduction of "piracy" could prove to be a double edged sword to the PR machine.

KFG

Re:It's not nice, but it appears effective

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know slyck was monitoring my Waste mesh. Those guys must be good.

Re:It's not nice, but it appears effective

[laird]

Here's what Slyck's reporting right now:

P2P Networks
December 1, 2003 - 18:00 EST
Network Users
FastTrack 3,406,831
eDonkey 1,408,838
iMesh 1,127,835
Overnet 516,096
MP2P 290,705
Gnutella 190,500
DirectConnect 165,071
Ares 68,226
Filetopia 3,495

So they're not reporting private networks, IRC, usenet, etc., for pretty obvious technical reasons.

Re:It's not nice, but it appears effective

[laird]

Yeah, I'm getting old too, but all those millions of people, exchanging billions of files, clearly like music, and the music that they like is the stuff we're not buying.

Here are the top ten from Big Champagne:

Top10 (all) November 24, 2003 to December 1, 2003
LW TW Artist Track
#01 #01 OutKast Hey Ya
#06 #02 Kelis Milkshake
#07 #03 Ludacris Stand Up
#13 #04 Chingy Holidae In
#02 #05 OutKast The Way You Move
#10 #06 3 Doors Down Here Without You
#08 #07 Linkin Park Numb
#04 #08 Beyonce Knowles Baby Boy
#03 #09 50 Cent P.I.M.P.
#11 #10 G-Unit Stunt 101

Yep, no Beatles, no Led Zeppelin, ... people on p2p networks download the same stuff we don't like that they buy in CD stores. Those wacky kids!

Re:It's not nice, but it appears effective

[Anonymous Coward]

p2p usage is down substantially for the last few months

In other news computer stores ran out of hard disks three month ago.
New supplies should be made available in about a week.

Re:It's not nice, but it appears effective

[value_added]

"On the other hand if sales overall continue to decrease, including CDs, then they just might have to aknowledge that they're just plain promoting crap most people don't want."

Sounds logical enough, but consider the War on Drugs. Or the War on Terror. Both of these can (and no doubt will) go on indefinitely in a self-perpetuating "More [effort] [money] [education] [bumperstickers] [legislation] [punishment] is needed." loop.

I don't think Tom Waits has released anything for a while, and if he did, I doubt the RIAA would concern itself. The money at issue is coming from the 12-year olds (ok, maybe 16) who are downloading Britney Spears releases instead of buying her CDs. Note that it's this same flush-with-discretionary-spending-money group that has been fueling many of Hollywood's releases -- "crap" that no one but 12-year olds (who often pay to see it more than once) want to see.

I doubt the RIAA in their press releases will admit to anything more than "limited success." If they did, their control of the situation would errode. And we can't have that, can we?

Re:It's not nice, but it appears effective

[kfg]

I don't think Tom Waits has released anything for a while. . .

I'm afraid you're wrong.

. . . and if he did, I doubt the RIAA would concern itself.

Exactly. See above. The labels only promote certain artists and titles.

The money at issue is coming from the 12-year olds. . .

Who are actually a pretty good bet for thinking that Tom Waits is pretty cool, if I can go by my experience of introducing him to young people.

"He's got a girlfriend. She's Puerto Rican. And I hear she has a wooden leg."

They seem to love that stuff.

And, for the most part, no way of even knowing it exists.

Not much of a way to run an entire entertainment industry.

KFG

Working? Or are the online alternatives working?

[weston]

Perhaps the rise of legitimate online alternatives to piracy -- stores that actually give people what they want -- are a bigger contributor.

It is working

[Zelxyb]

I don't use KaZaA for music anymore. In fact, I don't use anything for music anymore. I bought the new Viva Voce CD and get samplers with Paste Magazine every few months. That's about all I've done recently.

Ah, for the days of Audio Galaxy (before they banned searches). I could actually find rare music then...

Re:It is working

[LordK3nn3th]

Yes, AudioGalaxy was the best MP3 program around.

I didn't use it for anything covered by the RIAA, as well. I don't listen to crap.

Re:It is working

[momerath2003]

Yeah, it's a shame that it's near-impossible to find rare classical pieces nowadays.

Re:It is working

[Worldly Iconoclast]

Yes, you do. You listen to Jpop anime music.

It is our mission..

[msimm]

to protect copyrighted material.

Fuck the RIAA!

[jpmkm]

Sharing is caring.

Re:Fuck the RIAA!

[wideBlueSkies]

>>Sharing is caring

That's what my Brother-In-Law's girlfriend said when she admitted that she probably gave him Herpes.

wbs.

Re:Fuck the RIAA!

[Phil1]

The words rhyme, so it must be true...

Re:Fuck the RIAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well he might as well keep her now. But if he decides to dump her I'd put tiger balm on her dildo or something. Just a thought.
Thanks.
Bill Clinton

Re:Fuck the RIAA!

[wideBlueSkies]

>>Well he might as well keep her now

That's what we say. Let them keep their viri to themselves.

I like the tiger balm idea. Though I was thinking that he should get in on with her sister as payback. :)

wbs.

It's kinda like....

[Jaysyn]

.... a reverse lottery, with worse odds.

Jaysyn

Re:It's kinda like....

[cfuse]

.... a reverse lottery, with worse odds.

Congratulations! You've just won a RIAA sponsored arse-raping.

What's their goal?

[LehiNephi]

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy.

But if their sales/revenue continues to decline, what's the point of "increasing awareness and reducing online piracy"? They are no better off (except for the settlement money), and possibly even worse!

Re:What's their goal?

[burninator56]

Even with the settlement money, if you consider what they have to spend on traking the ip addresses, lawyers to file the subpeonas, etc. they aren't making any money off it. All they want to do is scare the shit out of everybody by threatening to bankrupt you!

It's working

[NoDoZ]

I don't think the point of the lawsuits are to really punish the people being sued, but more to get the word out, and get some publicity. Average Joe computer users who used Kazaa and thought that it was legal are now hearing about these lawsuits and uninstalling Kazaa.

I think the RIAA is accomplishing what it meant to, Publicity.

Re:It's working

[Anonymous Coward]

They're also creating the worst possiable relationship as mentioned earlier, but the plus of doing it this way is the RIAA gets money for publicity instead of spending money to buy the publicity. Its a good idea until you've distanced your customer base to the point they boycott all things RIAA.

Re:It's working

[NoDoZ]

I doubt they are actually getting as much in settlements than they spend finding people to sue & suing 'em.

Re:It's working

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Bullshit. They're simply moving towards SCO's business model.

Well, obviously.

[retro128]

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy.

Of course the RIAA tactics are working. How else could you explain the millions of files that were unshar^H^H^H^H^H deleted last month?

Great!

[MacDork]

So does this mean they aren't going to be charging me an extra quarter per blank cd now?

Re:Great!

[nfg05]

Nope, they sure won't if you don't buy blank cd's marked as "audio". The only difference between these and normal data cd's is that they include the royalty to the RIAA in their price.

This is not going to stop....

[Anonymous Coward]

....until some sort of organized and very large-scale boycott of CD purchases (of RIAA-affiliated music, anyhow) occurs. On a large enough scale, the artists and everyone else will feel it in their pocketbooks, and perhaps THEN they'll realize that what the RIAA is doing IS actually hurting them in the long run. A few of us deciding not to buy CDs for a while isn't going to even make a dent. In otherwords, go big, or go home. A handfull of complainers (including me!) isn't going to raise much attention unless it's bigger, and more organized.

bastage

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily they haven't even come close to the network i use. Probably because its mainly quality underground music not controlled by commies. But now that SOCAN in canada wants to tax all internet users no matter what they use it for, I beleive is far more invading/insulting than a RIAA case where the user in some form may have been deserving of a lawsuit. If this SOCAN ruling passes it may just be the death of the internet in Canada (not really but will make it shitty.) Please corporations.. give me more reasons not to buy whiney rock music.

Re:bastage

[Anonymous Coward]

If SOCAN starts taxing us that way, you could also look at it as 'the fee I payed to be permitted to pirate music'.

Re:bastage

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea you could look at it that way. I never understood how an organization can collect taxes on copyrights and such they do not own. I know they have a major control of the canadian content on canadian radio and etc and collect their taxes that way. But who is to say i am downloading canadian content anyways? Anyhow.. next thing you know RIAA will sue SOCAN for collecting their taxes.

yes, but one of their relatives does...

[Anonymous Coward]

Brenot and her husband said their son-in-law briefly added Internet service to their own cable television account while living with the couple

What's your point?

[Jason1729]

Why should any of those people (or things) be immune from legal action simply for the reasons listed.

Are you saying it's okay to pirate music if you register your account in the name of a man who's been in a coma since 1972?

I agree that the lawsuit's are stupid on the part of the RIAA, but why is suing a 12 year old file swapper any worse than suing a 32 year old geek who lives in his parents basement?

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:What's your point?

[grub]

Why should any of those people (or things) be immune from legal action simply for the reasons listed.

Let's see:
# A 4 year old Eskimo girl. (she's disconnected in an igloo)
# A parapalegic with Tourettes. (may or may not be connected, you have me there)
# 97 year old twin sisters who still listen to their tube powered RCA radio. (the radio is their only source of music)
# A man who has been in a coma since 1972. (he can't download obviously)
# The Vatican. (not a person)
# That crazy guy outside my office who plays a harmonica. (he's a homeless nutbar who can't afford a bath let alone broadband)
# The estate of J. Edgar Hoover. (been dead for ages, long befroe P2P)
# Some T-Rex fossils in the NY Museum of Natural History. (this should be obvious)
# Antarctica. (ditto)

Ok, so you may have me on the parapalegic..

Re:What's your point?

[the_mad_poster]

You shouldn't expect 12 year olds to have the same understanding of things as 32 year olds. If you're going to start doing that, you might as well just abolish the whole idea of children needing any guidance. Abolish driving ages, drinking ages, enlistment ages. No more juvenile courts or corrections centers. Don't hold parents responsible for anything or expect them to provide for the children at all once they're physically capable of working for themselves, etc.

NOT a good idea.

Re:What's your point?

[the_mad_poster]

That's not true. You could file a lawsuit against a month old baby if you wanted to. In fact, you can file a lawsuit against ANYONE for ANYTHING you want. You could, technically, sue Dubya for being President of the United States. Granted, it would get thrown out and there could be repurcussions, but you COULD do it.

It's not that minors CAN'T be sued, it's that few corps are stupid enough to do it because children generally don't possess any assets. Still, the RIAA is doing an amazing job of pushing settlements on little kids. Yay for bullies!

IANAL, but... I have been sued.

Re:What's your point?

[NanoGator]

"# Some T-Rex fossils in the NY Museum of Natural History. (this should be obvious)"

T-Rexes can't work the mouse?

Re:What's your point?

[the_mad_poster]

I guess it was too much to expect an obvious Troll account to stay realistic and on topic for more than a single post, wasn't it?

Re:What's your point?

[Slack3r78]

What? With those nubby little arms? You're kidding me, right? :-P

Re:What's your point?

[Unregistered]

abolish...drinking ages

Sounds good to me.

Re:What's your point?

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, you would not expect a 12 year old to be required to defend his actions in a civil court unless there is a compelling state interest in ameliorating the damages. This usually means the crime must be on the level of a violent crime, theft, or narcotics.

This is actually part of the social trade that allows juveniles to be minors. If you take this protection away, you actually do get into the territory of an argument to emancipate minors, give them the right to vote, etc.

Society really can't have its cake and eat it too, although tyranny is easily wrought against children.

Re:What's your point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any lawyer who can't get a lawsuit dismissed against a 12 year old should be mighty ashamed.

If this were a criminal case with a child as a defendant, it would be different.

No, there isn't a statute that would automatically have the case dismissed on the grounds that the child has no standing, but, carrying such a suit to a hearing can only be bad for the plaintiff.

On the other hand, you'd better check the state law regarding judgements against a minor -- she might lose the case, and then get a deferred judgement that she has to start paying at the age of 18.

Re:What's your point?

[westlake]

There is nothing unusual about a child being the plaintiff or defendant of record in a civil action. But it does add to the pressure on both sides to settle and quickly.

Re:What's your point?

[Anonymous Coward]

farese.com for the parapalegic( no, not tourrettes) and No I won't post a link, don't want to slashdot him.

Re:What's your point?

[alex_ant]

I see, anyone who calls you on your bullshit is an offtopic troll. Enjoy that cognitive dissonance......

Best quote...

[someguy42]

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy..."

...but not to increase sales...

What has happened to those who haven't settled?

[Raindance]

It's interesting to see the statistics on how many people have settled, but I'd be more interested in what has happened to those who haven't settled.

Hardball tactics only work if people think you'll be able to follow through; if they don't follow through on the holdouts, then this tactic collapses.

Anyone have information?

RD

Re:What has happened to those who haven't settled?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hardball tactics only work if people think you'll be able to follow through; if they don't follow through on the holdouts, then this tactic collapses."

You're assuming the RIAA isn't going to follow through. Given these people are guilty, I see no reason why the RIAA won't prsecute them.

Re:What has happened to those who haven't settled?

[NewStarRising]

I presume you are not working with the usual "innocent until proven guilty" concept. The RIAA has issued supeanas, therefore the person is gyilty. remind me not to vote for you at the next election.

Working my foot

[enjo13]

In the last 3 weeks alone I've heard of 4 different private file sharing networks. Just because they're being somewhat effective at ending widespread public sharing, there is a definite growth in the private file sharing arena. Fraternities, dorms, office workers, and almost any other similiar group are forming smaller networks of users, which is going to be VERY hard for the RIAA to fight.

It seems like one or two users are gathering content from (primarily) overseas file sharers and then making it available to their individual group. The current RIAA tactics don't work, because they simply don't have access to them.

Re:Working my foot

[Anonymous Coward]

Your files will have to go through someone eventually. The bandwidth usuage will be known or you will be infiltrated at some point (see the history of warez). You can start paying now or continuing doing so until you finally get caught...

Well, Duh...

[ryanw]

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy

People don't care enough to help out people that they don't even know get games, music, movies, etc to spend 6 months in court fighting to stay out of jail.

Openly letting the world know what pirated software and music is on your harddrive never was a smart idea. Just sitting there waiting for them to come down on them.

The message?

[192939495969798999]

The message is, don't get caught, not don't do it! If the message were really don't do it, they wouldn't need to hand out punishments, because they'd have set a good example by not overcharging for CD's all those years. I think that any RIAA lawsuit that they win should be deducted immediately from the overcharge on CD's. Once that billion or so $ is reset to 0, then they can start suing people for money. I'd bet that they'd drop all the suits right now if that were the case. How sad! I'll have to go back to simply taping over that little tab in order to rip off music from tapes or some such thing (joke).

You missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that the lawsuit's are stupid on the part of the RIAA, but why is suing a 12 year old file swapper any worse than suing a 32 year old geek who lives in his parents basement?

Because the purpose of the lawsuits are a public relations war, and every time they fuck up (sue a 12 year old, sue a Mac-owning granny) they shoot themselves in the foot.

Also because they are trying to change the term "piracy" to mean "sharing copyrighted material without paying the piper" away from its original meaning of publishing copyrighted material without a license. Funny, folks don't seem to cotton to equating a 12-year old downloading tracks with a criminal bootleg operation.

Re:You missed the point

[penguin king]

I don't know if it's just me(although, I'd be willing to bet it isn't) but when I hear or read the acronym RIAA I automatically think of suing 12 year old girls. Hell, reading that article, evertime I saw an 'f' I had to check it wasn't 'female' connected with 'suing' and '12'. In my mind that link has been created, and that can't be good publicity. In fact it probably does nothing for the reputations of such organisations, which in turn reflects on the atists.

In my opinion the RIAA need to watch out, they're already a laughing stock.

Re:You missed the point

[jjhlk]

What exactly is the difference between publishing and "sharing"? Sharing, in my view, is just one new way of publishing something in today's world. And even if you don't think so, what is so wrong with companies being given legal rights to prevent those who "share" their materials online?

Re:You missed the point

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually the original meaning was to publish material without legal authority; the term piracy as applied to a publisher predates copyright by several decades.

Re:You missed the point

[yourmom16]

Also because they are trying to change the term "piracy" to mean "sharing copyrighted material without paying the piper" away from its original meaning of publishing copyrighted material without a license.

I thought the original meaning had to do with stealing ships, wearing eyepatches and wooden legs, and burying treasure for no apparent reason.

Re:You missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously as I already moderated. Do you have any cites for the early development of piracy as applied to copyright? The earliest reference I have found on the Internet is Miller v. Taylor - a 1700s case which mentioned piracy a fair amount, so the term must have been in use for awhile.

Re:You missed the point

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, the authoritative source is usually the OED. It has a reference from a work called "Brook's String of Pearls" that someone by the name of J. Hancock wrote in 1668: Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.

Copyright didn't appear on the scene until the Statute of Anne in 1710. There was of course the Stationer's Copyright that was established by Queen Mary, but that was basically a vehicle for official censorship and isn't really relevant to any discussions of copyright.

Of course, if the term didn't exist, and the RIAA, MPAA, et al were casting about for some modern word to use to villify infringers and the like, I think they would probably call them terrorists.

Re:You missed the point

[Jason1729]

Because the purpose of the lawsuits are a public relations war, and every time they fuck up (sue a 12 year old, sue a Mac-owning granny) they shoot themselves in the foot.

Their public relations goal is to terrify the public to the point where they're afraid to do anything with their music except pay for it. Showing they're willing to sue anyone falls into this category.

Public relations typically implies they want the public to like them, but in this case they want the public to be afraid of them.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:You missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should drop the term "piracy" altogether. They might have more success if they called them "music terrorists"!

Lets give the RIAA what they want...

[dasunt]

Lets give the RIAA what they want.

Don't download commercial music that you are not allowed to possess.

Instead, try iRATE and get free, legal mp3s.

You don't have to pirate music, and you can still kick the RIAA where it hurts (mindshare).

Re:Lets give the RIAA what they want...

[j3110]

Wow!
Cool music
Legal
Java Web-Start (So you can install it by clicking a link... just get a good version of Java from java.com)
Free

That's the order in which I rank it's coolness.
The bad of iRATE is the GUI. I wished I was good at making cool GUI's, but unfortunately, I probably couldn't do a whole lot better... They really, really need to get a decent winamp-ish look to it, then it would be the coolest thing ever!

BTW, I've listened to two songs while writting this, and I've liked both about as much as I hate normal radio... I expected a high probability of getting trash for the first few songs, but I didn't.

Re:Lets give the RIAA what they want...

[Lord Kholdan]

Lets give the RIAA what they want.

Don't download commercial music that you are not allowed to possess.

Instead, try iRATE and get free, legal mp3s.

You don't have to pirate music, and you can still kick the RIAA where it hurts (mindshare).

While iRATE is a great program to discover new music it is an abysmal program as an mp3 player. To get the advantage out of it I need to use it as my mp3 player (otherwise I can't rate and download as easily can I?) and let's see what it lacks... Volume control, Playlist randomizing, easy removal of songs I dont like, lenght of song, position at the current song and control of it, search function for songs...

It's a really nifty idea, I admit that. But it's not usable. since it isn't a good mp3 player and it makes difficult to use a good mp3 player alongside with it. (Now if it'd arrange songs into folders according to score so I could copy all the good songs to my default winamp playlist it might be different deal...)

Re:Lets give the RIAA what they want...

[Oscar_Wilde]

I agree, I like iRate but the GUI really does suck (but they are only up to version 0.2). This will probably be a project to keep an eye on though.

Re:Lets give the RIAA what they want...

[Anonymous Coward]

What they need is add a bit of BT (with download from webserver if no seeds) and something for the clients to ask the server what needs seeds. (to save on file handles for people with 1000's of songs)

When will one of these suits get to court?

[lurker412]

RIAA is filing 41 new lawsuits and sending 90 lawsuit-notification letters this week

I would guess that somebody is willing to go into court and challenge the RIAA's evidence, yet I have not seen any report of a court date being set. Anybody know when we might see how the RIAA's evidence holds up to scrutiny in court?

If the RIAA...

[PrimeWaveZ]

Gets into my bedroom network to see what I may or may not be doing, I'll be more than happy to take them to court for violations of computer trespassing laws. I'm not using any illegal services, but I've heard more and more that they might be looking into closed or semi-closed networks for indications of sharing. I'll make them grab their ankles faster than they can send a C&D letter.

My question...

[jeffkjo1]

My question is, is the RIAA specifically avoiding sueing slashdotters? I find it amazing that we have yet to hear of a case actually going to court, and by the tone of everyone on /. (myself included), it would seem that droves of these cases would be going to actual court, and would in turn attract lots of media attention.

Something is fishy here...

Re:My question...

[tang]

"by the tone of everyone on /. (myself included), it would seem that droves of these cases would be going to actual court"
Yeah, because I bet all the people on Slashdot who post they'd fight to the bitter end would actually do it! Come on, they are offering a cheap deal, you pay your 5000$ (or whatever relatvely low) fine, they settle with you. A lawyer is going to tie up a lot more money than that, for a long time. Unless you've got a free lawyer, and a lot of time on your hands, noone is fighting this.

Re:My question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something is fishy here...

Try wearing a tinfoil hat that wasn't previously used for something else.

Re:My question...

[El]

30 million people on p2p networks... they've sued 341. Do the math: chances of any given individual getting sued are about 100,000:1. Still, I wonder if the RIAA is selecting only those individuals LEAST able to defend themselves -- college students, single moms living in housing projects, and the elderly are the only type of people mentioned in the news reports... hmmm...

One benefit of the ongoing RIAA actions ...

[dustpuppy]

is that they probably help encourage further P2P developments from people trying to avoid the RIAA tactics - eg improved decentralisation, better anonymity, better filtering.

Sort of like how wars help encourage technical developments.

Re:One benefit of the ongoing RIAA actions ...

[edrugtrader]

from tactical to practical? PFFFFT.

from supeona me to p2p!

Nice Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I salute you.

Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

Stealing music is theft, regardless of whether it's from a major label or not. (See my sig.) Even so, it seems heavy-handed for the RIAA to sue people; they should educate people about the effects of their theft instead.

If you don't support the RIAA, don't steal more music - that's just playing into their hands. ("See, $GOVERNMENT, people are stealing more and more!") Instead, support musicians who are against the major labels - like Alexi Murdoch - and buy from places where you know the musician gets the money, like CD Baby. Support good music by voting with your dollars and the RIAA (or CRIA, or insert-local-RIA) will get the message.

Re:Support musicians!

[marklyon]

Actually, while you do make several good points about rationalizations on your web page, file-sharing is not theft.

Re:Support musicians!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its copyright infrigement, you dolt.

Re:Support musicians!

[LordK3nn3th]

File sharing is not theft. Theft is when property is stolen (i.e., someone takes your desk or music CD).

File sharing differs because you are not stealing something unique, you are copying. If I made a desk design and "copyrighted" it, and someone copied my design, it would not be theft, either, it would be copyright infringment.

The two are different.

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

My argument is that there is no intrinsic difference between the theft of (say) a chocolate bar and a song downloaded illegally from one of the P2P applications.

Even if you wish to play the semantics game and not call it "theft," stealing music should not be seen as different from theft of an item by those doing it, no matter what you call it. If you're going to steal, fine; just be honest to yourself about it.

Re:Support musicians!

[Anonymous Coward]

No intrinsic difference ?

That is like saying there is no intrinsic difference between a real car, and a car inside a computer game, isn't it ?

You've neglected the effect of reality :)

Re:Support musicians!

[aaron_ds]

Stealing a car is stealing. Music piracy is simply copyright infringment. Or an I completely mistaken?

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

There may be a semantic difference between what I call theft and what you call theft, but there is no intrinsic difference between the two: people are deprived of their livelihood by your wrongful acquisition of something.

Re:Support musicians!

[LordK3nn3th]

Um, no.

In the case of the chocolate bar, you are STEALING an individual, unique chocolate bar-- taking something composed of matter from someone else. If you wish to compare this to music file sharing, it would be like taking a chocolate bar and allowing other people to magically copy the chocolate for themselves while you still keep the original bar.

Again, it's copyright infringement, which is not the same as theft (both by definition and by the law).

Re:Support musicians!

[marklyon]

Actually, there's a legal difference. That's the important part.

And in reality, there is strong evidence to show that file-sharing increases revenue, not decreases it. Unfortunately, since the RIAA member labels have continually released fewer and fewer new albums both by new and established artists over the past few years, the demonstrable boost is hidden in a sales slump created by fewer new titles.

Re:Support musicians!

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they deprived of their livelyhood if I never planned on buying their music in the first place?

Are you saying its theft for me to simply not buy music at all, that I am committing a crime by chooing to remain musicless?

Re:Support musicians!

[LordK3nn3th]

In one case, something is lost, in another, something is copied. The difference is the original from the copy is still intact. It's still different, whether you want to say it or not.

And I'm not saying it's necessarily different morally or not. I'm not taking a position.

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

Try telling the musician whose song you've just stolen "I'm not stealing, I'm just infringing your copyright" as he struggles to pay his bills.

Again, my intent is not to change the definition of theft but to change what people believe about their theft of music. Using the word "theft" is the most effective way of doing that.

The semantics of the word are not important: the effect of the action are. When you download music you haven't paid for, you're stealing from an artist, plain and simple.

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

And in reality, there is strong evidence to show that file-sharing increases revenue, not decreases it.

Prove it.

Re:Support musicians!

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick trip to dictionary.com will show:

1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (C) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

That being said, copyright infringement is illegal and entails many of the same moral delimmas as theft. You're getting something for nothing. It's not a viable way to run a business, society, et al. But here's my corresponding beef:

-I want a song. I download it from, say, iTunes. I like it and want the album. The album has 20 tracks, some of which are short (e.g. 30 second interludes). So, I either pay $19 to get the rest of the album from iTunes or go out and buy a CD-- and pay again for the same song I already bought. There is still no (IMO) good alternative to 'stealing' music.

Re:Support musicians!

[Galvatron]

If the semantics are not important, why do you insist upon using an inaccurate term? It flat out IS NOT THEFT. When something is stolen, the other person doesn't have it anymore. Copyright infringement is only half of a theft. In a real theft, the person who used to have an item loses it, while the thief gains it. In copyright infringement, the infringer gains the item, but the original person still has it as well.

That point invalidates many of the moral arguments on your site. In your rent-a-car example, the rental company is depriving the proper owner of the use of his car. Copyright infringement doesn't deprive anyone of anything. To take a random name off the top of my head, consider Michael Jackson. Suppose that I would never buy a Michael Jackson CD (whether because I don't like his music enough, or I'm just morally outraged by his supposed behavior around children). It doesn't matter to Michael Jackson if I listen to his music or not. The only time it would matter is if I SAY I would never buy a MJ cd, but in actual point of fact, I would have bought it if it hadn't been available free online.

Re:Support musicians!

[Anonymous Coward]

File sharing differs because you are not stealing something unique

Come on.. Since it is not something unique, please post your credit card number on slashdot ! It is not something physical either (the plastic things is, but just as a cd is..)

Re:Support musicians!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're (unfortunately, apparently) in the minority here. With every RIAA article comes the argument of theft vs. copyright infringement, and inevitably, the same arguments come up (legal definitions, physical vs. bits, "I wasn't going to buy it anyways", etc.). Maybe it's a vocal minority, but the prevailing voice here on Slashdot seems to be, "RIAA sucks, so stealing/copyright infringement is OK." No amount of reason can fight it. No analogies can be made in an attempt to get people to understand, because those analogies will be twisted around and rendered useless. People won't get your point until they are directly affected themselves. That's Slashdot (or at least the prevailing wind on Slashdot articles).

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

Consider someone who isn't rich, the standard "struggling artist" who is much more the rule than the exception. They DO care if you buy their CD, because it affects them in a very real rent-and-groceries sort of way. If you weren't going to buy their album, why should you get to have the song for free?

Stealing a song is morally equivalent to stealing a chocolate bar. That's why I say stealing a song is theft.

Re:Support musicians!

[Artifakt]

The problem with that is, the US congress put copyright law in a completely different title than theft. Congress and President Bush 1 ratified the original Berne treaty, which claims that all copyright law regulated under its auspicies is civil. Ex-presidents Reagan and Clinton both signed treaties (including NAFTA codicils for Bill C.), that also include clauses that help keep copyright violation seperate from theft.
The supreme court ruled that copyright violation could not be prosecuted as an interstate commerce violation, in part because if copyright violation were theft, individual states could prosecute intrastate violations, instead of all cases being federal. All copyright law IS federal only. You can have any opinion you want here, but when the congress, the supreme court, and the executive branch all disagree with your opinion, on a matter of law, you are just plain wrong.
Don't like that? Put your action behind your words. Don't just accuse private citizens on slashdot of playing semantic games. Get up a recall petition for all those congressmen who ratified Berne, or supported the DMCA. Start another one demanding the immediate recall of at least five of the current supremes. Maybe you could even seek to have charges brought against all living ex-presidents except possibly Ford, because they have all signed treaties or federal laws with some of these provisions.

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

Don't like that? Put your action behind your words. Don't just accuse private citizens on slashdot of playing semantic games. Get up a recall petition for all those congressmen who ratified Berne, or supported the DMCA.

I'd love to, but I'm a Canadian.

Re:Support musicians!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. Usually your credit card number IS something unique. We'd be in trouble if a bunch of people all had the same credit card number.

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

I can't believe the moderators on this post. Went from 3, Informative to -1, Flamebait in 30 minutes. Slashdot mods really love their stolen music.

Re:Support musicians!

[Galvatron]

They DO care if you buy their CD, because it affects them in a very real rent-and-groceries sort of way.

I know, I wasn't arguing against that. I was saying, on the assumption that you would never buy a cd from them, downloading their music is not theft.

If you weren't going to buy their album, why should you get to have the song for free?

Yes, NOW you're actually adressing what I said. Except you don't actually provide an argument, you just leave an open ended question. Why shouldn't you get to have the song for free? One could say "because it's not fair to derive benefits from someone else's work if you don't pay to support him." Well what if the artist is dead? Does that matter?

Let me put the argument differently. Suppose I steal a chocolate bar from the grocery store. The owner of that store is now worse off. Suppose I download a song by Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson is no worse off. The grocery store owner would be better off if I had never been born. Michael Jackson would be no better or worse off if I had never been born. See the distinction?

Now, it's fine if you want to say that copyright infringement is morally no better than theft, that's your perogative. But in the real world, there's a substantial difference. If the two were equivalent, and every song downloaded actually cost the artist something, they all would have been forced into bankruptcy 2 years ago.

Re:Support musicians!

[RedK]

Let me put the argument differently. Suppose I steal a chocolate bar from the grocery store. The owner of that store is now worse off. Suppose I download a song by Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson is no worse off.

I bet you're the kind of guy who doesn't give Voluntary Contributions when you go to museams ? After all, they're no worse off, since you wouldn't have seen the exhibit if you had to pay for it.

For the Simpsons illiterate, this is in this episode.

Re:Support musicians!

[freeweed]

I bet you're the kind of guy who doesn't give Voluntary Contributions when you go to museams ? After all, they're no worse off, since you wouldn't have seen the exhibit if you had to pay for it.

Dear sweet christ, I just had a horrible mental image: the RIAA taking over the running of our museums and libraries.

YOU READ A BOOK WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT? THIEF! THIEF! THIEF!

Re:Support musicians!

[Arcturax]

I'll support the musicians when they STOP supporting the RIAA.

Musicians, get your act straight and leave the RIAA enmasse and sell your music yourself. Even if they claim they still own it, tell them to go to hell. If most musicians stand firm against this, the RIAA will finally die. Leave your labels and sell the music yourself online or give it away and make money off your live performances. The sooner you stop feeding the RIAA machine, the more money you make and the happier your fans will be with you and the more sympathetic they will be to your plight.

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

There are two problems with what you propose:
1. The musicians have signed contracts with the record labels. Those are legally binding.
2. Lots of musicians already have 'got their act together.' You can buy their music at CD Baby, among other places.

Re:Support musicians!

[Galvatron]

How do you get that from what I said? Isn't that why museums call them "voluntary contributions," so that people who are unable to pay can still visit the museum? You're right, I don't believe it's stealing to not pay a museum's voluntary contribution, though if you have the ability to pay I believe it is immoral.

Re:Support musicians!

[HoserHead]

I believe your objection deserved a better treatment than I could give it on Slashdot, so I did so on my own site. Read it here.

RIAA speaking for labels it doesn't represent

[fatwreckfan]

I find it disturbing that the RIAA is claiming it is acting on behalf of record labels that it doesn't even represent.

NPR radio has a story about several record labels (notably Fat Wreck Chords, one of my personal favs) that had to fight for years to get their names removed from the list of labels the RIAA claims to represent, since they do not want to be represented by them.

RIAA can suck my cock!

[Anonymous Coward]

Freenet is the answer!

Of course their doing well...

[greymond]

If the average out of court settlement is $1,000 (yes some people have paid a couple hundred and others several thousand, i'm just low-balling my estimate) and you have 341 settlements and several more on the way your pulling in a good chunk of $341,000 oh and since we already know they are not following the correct procedures on how they obtain their subpoenas i'm sure there legal fees are pretty cheap.

Easy Money for the RIAA - don't make music, just file lawsuits :)

Re:Of course their doing well...

[Carnildo]

You underestimate how much a lawyer costs. That $341,000 you estimate they've gotten from this might cover the cost of one lawyer for six months to a year.

Re:Of course their doing well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, you KNOW they have interns filing all the paperwork.

you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

There's wonderful stuff in the back catalogs--often stuff they have no interest in rereleasing. I salute Columbia House and Rhino for making the classic stuff available.

A lot of the CD releases of classic LPs (and DVD releases of classic films) have been pretty shitty, though. Why spend $20, $30 a pop when they haven't done their job of high quality transfer and digital mastering?

Re:you're right

[jc42]

There's wonderful stuff in the back catalogs--often stuff they have no interest in rereleasing.

You're right. And it's time to once again mention the old idea of an addendum to the copyright laws: Anything that has been out of print (or otherwise not available) for more than a year becomes public domain.

This would end the practice of using the copyright laws to destroy our history and culture.

How we would prevent them from destroying the masters is an open question ...

Bravo

[Overly Critical Guy]

For some reason, mp3 downloading is justified around here, yet software piracy is frowned upon.

Really, it's just that people are used to the convenience of mp3s and have justified it in their minds as a culture movement against evil record companies, when really it's just people freeloading music that artists recorded to be sold for money.

But most people here aren't musicians, so they don't get it. They're programmers and admins and script kiddies. But once you start talking about warez, they'll pull the morality crown on you.

Re:Bravo

[Carnildo]

But once you start talking about warez, they'll pull the morality crown on you.

What about warezed copies of Windows? Or are those just called "pointless"?

Re:Bravo

[markov_chain]

Even if it's true that a majority of people is freeloading music, so what? All it means is that the artists' business model is no longer viable. Does that mean that the commercial art industry is going to diminish? Sign me up!

Re:Bravo

[Urox]

Please define what you mean by musician. I could very well be a musician having played instruments for both fun and profit since I was 3 (no, not for profit at that young of age). It is not what I use for my main source of income (that being Software Engineer).

I have listened to freely provided mp3s (ah, the days of the webcaster and online jukebox) and received mix tapes (which they'd like to get rid of as well but settled with media fees). When I liked the artist, I went right out and BOUGHT THEIR MUSIC, not only CDs, but the sheet music. They are making twice the profit off of me for good work. I wouldn't have heard them if I hadn't gotten exposure through the mp3s or tapes to begin with. Good music is worth getting a good quality of (instead of a low quality mp3. A good stereo system will let you hear the difference). Bad music isn't even worth my storage.

Should we shut down used CD stores because the artists don't make a dime? I now purposely avoid new labels that the RIAA represents and buy used because of the crap they've thrown around.

There are other musicians who agree that mp3s are free publicity. The RIAA (as do many bad business models) just wants to force the crap they spew down everyone's throat and put the blame on someone else for why they aren't making money.

The same concept goes for the Baen Free library. I've read free books by authors I didn't know. The ones I like, I often buy more of. Why do restaurant fronts often have free samples of the food they are selling? Free music is more than a boon for consumers.

Re:Bravo

[Anonymous Coward]

To those of you moderators who keep falling for OCG's bait, keep in mind that modding OCG up makes baby Jesus cry.

Re:Bravo

[wtrmute]

Some thoughts on that by a man wiser than I To sum it up, maybe we should treat software like we do music. Or was it the other way around? :-)

Re:Bravo

[Zonekeeper]

Wow! You must *reallllly* be new here....

Re:Bravo

[echucker]

It's not the downloading that is necessarily justified... it's the outrage of a civil matter being brought through the criminal process without any court involvement.

Re:What's also getting out of hand...

[Canadian_Daemon]

whats also getting out of hand is trollers bitching about security breaches. Hey, if you dont want it to happen, get a firewall, if it didnt happen to you, get a patch, and stop bitching about it. What the fuck is bitching about it going to do? Is there any reason that you posted that comment? Does it contribute to this discussion? Does it do anything to stop Linux security breaches? Does it do anyone any good? NO Fuck off, and get a life

SOLUTION:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.freenetproject.org

ObBuyFromSomeoneElsePost

[beej]

Go to someplace like mp3.com. You have to spend time finding good stuff, but you can buy an album for 1/3 the cost of an RIAA CD, and the artist pockets ten times the amount of cash.

If you must listen to RIAA music, buy it used! Then they don't get a dime and you're still legal. Sorry to the artists, but you're going to have to use a non-RIAA label if you want any of my cash. (Or set up a tip jar so I can pay you directly.)

Re:ObBuyFromSomeoneElsePost

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to someplace like mp3.com. You have to spend time finding good stuff, but you can buy an album for 1/3 the cost of an RIAA CD, and the artist pockets ten times the amount of cash.

Apparently someone hasn't been following the news very closely as of late. MP3.com is gone.

Re:ObBuyFromSomeoneElsePost

[Anonymous Coward]

MP3.com is gone.

Re:ObBuyFromSomeoneElsePost

[beej]

Apparently someone hasn't been following the news very closely as of late. MP3.com is gone.

Oh no! I guess I should have said "go to someplace like mp3.com" instead of "go to mp3.com". Oh wait, I did. Sheesh!

1,054 users?

[emarkp]

Actually it was just one user sharing 1,054 files. For a total of 1,054 user equivalents.

People in the amnesty......

[vwjeff]

include:

Semore Butts
Amanda Huggankiss
Dixon Coxs

You get the picture. I think at least half the names are bogus.

Their real goal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy."

But if their real goal is to prevent what they see as decreasing CD sales due to online music sharing, does this really mean anything? Where are the CD purchase statistics that show that this onslaught of legal attacks and PR have gotten people to buy CD's? Just because less music is being downloaded doesn't mean that those people are going to go out and buy those songs.

Methinks not

[jkabbe]

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy

For some reason I tend to believe that it has simply reduced online piracy....in the places the RIAA can look for it

There are still plenty of other piracy options and I am sure most people have just migrated to those.

Re:Methinks not

[klang]

"the SneakerNet" or "just People I Know" comes to mind ..

Monetary Success

[Veramocor]

So 220 settlements, at an average of 5,000(just a guestimate) a settlement. Thats a cool 1,100,000.

What did the lawyers cost them?

Are they making money on this endeavor?

Re:Monetary Success

[hollowmadman]

i still don't think it's about profits here. i think it's about controlling the how's, when's, and who's of the consumer buying product. if you can make the masses think that you are the only legitimate source of product, you effectively eliminate competition. the concept of market control is worth far more in the long run than a cool $1,100,000 from settlements or the untold millions in lawyer fees. just my 2 cents.

Re:Monetary Success

[forkboy]

Most big companies and organizations have a legal team already on salary. I doubt they paid any more than they already paid in salaries. It's not like they actually went to court, they just drafted some documents...any legal aide can do that.

Re:Working? Or are the online alternatives working

[laird]

"Perhaps the rise of legitimate online alternatives to piracy -- stores that actually give people what they want -- are a bigger contributor."

As I said, coorelation doesn't prove causality. So it's entirely plausaibel that the availability of legitimate alternatives has caused some people to leave the p2p networks as well. But the number of people that left the p2p networks (perhaps 1M) is much larger than the number of people buying music digitally (perhaps 100K), so it's probably not the only cause. Of course, without hard numbers, it's hard to do more than guess.

What a total waste

[RLiegh]

I wish I had a time machine so that I could make a fortune accumilating stocks during the 1920's and t hen being the first one to sell out before the big crash.

I mean, why the fuck would anyone with half of a brain waste a time machine on the RIAA?

Re:What a total waste

[AstrumPreliator]

Because that's the subject we're on. Last time I checked this wasn't about accumulating wealth in the stock market. Call me crazy.

Re:Stealing

[danknight]

well, ok consider this. I have gone through about four complete record collections in my life starting from about 10 to the present (35) records tapes and CD's have been lost,stolen and damaged over the years. I have purchased Dark side of the moon four or five times for on different formats for example. if I am paying for a license don't I have the right to get the music on a new medium for just the cost of manufacturing ? When a CD gets damaged should I not be entitled to a cost replacement or a copy? There is a band called Marillion that the CD I bought (after I got a tape copy from a friend) developed a defect. I couldn't fing it online and it was out of print. I checked music stores for years when I went on vacation. Finally, It was re-released in europe. a Record store in Miami said they could get it. I actually Pre-paid for it and TWO years later the finally got it. I actually picked it up two VACATIONS later... The point is once I've paid for the album once dosen't that entitle me to the product on any format for the cost of the format alone ?

Bah to corporate Music anyway

[beavmetal]

Is the music industry really any different than the movie industry. Who leaked the Korn album onto the internet? Wasn't me, nor any of the other millions of fans who were eagerly waiting to buy it. It was a insider who got a promo disk. How many people have gone to the used CD store and bought a full length disk of promo material with the "not for sale" label on the jacket.

The Korn album leak didnt stop me from spending my $9.99. You got an entire CD and a decent length DVD. Thats a good buy. Of course you may think Korn is corporate rock too.

Check the local papers and go out and support your local bands. I used to create web pages for soem of the talent local to me. There are some very creative people out there. Free from pressure and Industry Managers and the RIAA.

History tells us that musicians were never really wealthy until this last century. Music doesn't have to be produced, edited, and even more likely a regurgitated hit from 30 years ago. Music can be made by you and your friends. Make the music you want to hear and I am sure other people will enjoy your music too. If people bought the American Idol music, then I am sure someone will like your music.

and Like that troll said earlier on this board Phuck the RIAA.

We are the people and we don't want crap music.

As for filesharing, is the RIAA looking at file types other than MP3,wma, and the like. I read they scan the files for certain digital watermarks, but if they are scanning for certain properties why not just change to a filetype they aren't scanning. Or better yet, encrypt the music file and only share your key with trusted individuals. IF the RIAA reverse engineers your cipher key, then you can sue them with the DMCA.

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be helping reduce online piracy (at least, that's what they think), but it's also significantly reduced their chances of having me buy another CD ever again. Sorry, I don't support terrorist regimes like the RIAA.

A perfect analogy

[felonious]

What the RIAA is the equivalent of plugging holes in a dike

or in /. terms..

Plugging up the craters in Morpheus's face as viewed on an IMAX screen with a pixel as viewed on a 15" crt at 1600x1200 res.

I think that pretty much says it all...or...that would be fucking impossible!!

We are not their customers

[TheLoneDanger]

You're succeeding in making your own customers hate you!

The thing is that the members of the RIAA no longer see us as customers or even consumers. We are a revenue source, period.

They no longer even think about why we would or wouldn't buy music. They just look at the revenue figures and if they are lower or not growing fast enough, then it's our fault, and we must be brought in line. They don't even get that they are not fucking entitled to our money.

Of course, that doesn't mean we are entitled to their music, but it's not really their music since they don't MAKE any. They just record it and distribute it, which pretty much anyone can do now.

It Figures...

[Jerrry]

Is this the RIAA's way of saying Merry Christmas?

Re:It Figures...

[Reziac]

I thought it sounded more like "Bah Humbug!"

rtfa

[IthnkImParanoid]

Nice troll.

If you read the article closely, you would know the owner and the person booking the bands wrote back to ASCAP saying the songs they listed were not actually played at the bar that night. The band they had hired played original jazz, not covers. Also, in the interest of maintaining his cover (of course), the undercover ASCAP agent was drinking. So, there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not "It's the damn bar[']s fault."

Would you pay $700 a year for something you didn't use?

Re:rtfa

[MisterMook]

I think that would suit the RIAA, ASCAP, and Microsoft just fine.

Change the law

[MichaelCrawford]

While the United States Constitution allows Congress to enact copyright laws, it doesn't actually require it to do so. Sharing music files over p2p could be legalized tomorrow if you could just get enough votes in Congress to repeal copyright. You'd either need to also convince the president to sign the bill, or get a 2/3rds majority in Congress to override a veto.

Stranger things have happened. The United States Supreme Court recently overturned the last of the sodomy laws in the United States, a decision that at one time would have been inconcievable to the majority of Americans, but the gay community worked together patiently to make homosexuality completely legal.

Now, I want you to consider that there are over sixty million Americans practicing peer-to-peer file sharing. That's more people than voted for George Bush, and also more than the number of homosexuals in America. So it's not unreasonable that copyright could be repealed, or at least reformed.

I discuss the background of copyright law in the US and what you can do to make file sharing legal in Change the Law, a section of my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads. The steps I suggest you take to make file sharing legal are to speak out, vote, write your elected representatives, donate money to political campaigns, support campaign finance reform, join the electronic frontier foundation, and to practice civil disobedience.

It is my objective that all sixty million American p2p users will read my article by the time of the 2004 election. I've got a long ways to go to reach that goal.

The article has a Creative Commons license. I encourage you to copy and distribute it. I'm also seeking help in translating it to other languages; a Romanian translation will be posted soon.

Thank you for your attention.

Re:Change the law

[saddino]

Sharing music files over p2p could be legalized tomorrow if you could just get enough votes in Congress to repeal copyright.

Isn't that overkill? Nothing is wrong with copyright per se; it does exactly what it is supposed to do: protect the artist from having his/her work stolen.

Without copyright, there is no incentive to capitalize on creative works. As we are a capitalist society, I wouldn't bet on the overturning of any laws that support such a huge industry.

Re:Change the law

[RedK]

While the United States Constitution allows Congress to enact copyright laws, it doesn't actually require it to do so. Sharing music files over p2p could be legalized tomorrow if you could just get enough votes in Congress to repeal copyright.

Yes, we should all join in this effort to help Big Corporations to acquire GPL licensed code without having to release their modifications back to the community!!

This is great, i'm joining right now, as I have need of a TCP stack for my closed-source OS that's going to lock you all in my proprietary technologies.

Now this one is going to be hard to mod. Is it flamebait since it's pro-copyright ? Is it insightful since it's pro-open source/GPL ?

Re:Change the law

[Ziviyr]

Using your analogy though, in this case we're feeding a huge business that doesn't like sodomy. They invest millions and millions to make people think sodomy is bad, make newer overly broad antisodomy laws that keep us from legally using q-tips, etc.

How are we going legalize the new sodomy with homophobes actively campaigining with money given to them by the sodomists themselves? Even dragging economists into the anti-sodomy fight this time.

Re:Change the law

[mOdQuArK!]

Nothing is wrong with copyright per se; it does exactly what it is supposed to do: protect the artist from having his/her work stolen.

You are incorrect. Copyright (and other "intellectual property" laws) are supposed to encourage the production of creative works to be made available to the public. The main purpose of the copyright clause of the Constitution is _not_ so that a small portion of society can make money off a government-enforced monopoly on the distribution of information.

Without copyright, there is no incentive to capitalize on creative works.

I disagree. Without copyright, the "value" of the act of creation will simply be what somebody is willing to pay for the goods resulting from that creation, or for the product of a service requiring the act of creation. It might be more difficult for there to be megastars who earn millions of dollars after a little bit of work, but people will always pay money to see art, performances & listen to music.

As we are a capitalist society, I wouldn't bet on the overturning of any laws that support such a huge industry.

I agree with you that the US government won't let such a huge industry die - although I would point out in a _true_ capitalist society, even a huge industry would be left to the wolves if it turned out to be a dinosaur which provided nothing of interest to consumers. The only reason that such an industry still survives is because the government provides artificial support for it through legislation.

Re:Change the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, once we have a way to download homosexuals and George W. Bushs, we'll be set! heh

Re:Change the law

[DragonMagic]

Problem:

Copyright gives incentive to create. Just because huge corporations abuse their control over copyrighted control does not make copyright itself a bad thing. The GPL/BSD licenses are based on copyright controls, after all.

If you repeal copyright, what's to give anyone any incentive to do anything creative that you would want? Why invest time into recording and engineering a music track, the musical instruments, etc., when there's nothing to stop people from just giving your stuff away, or even putting their own name on it?

They can tour? But without copyright, ANYONE can tour using your music. Maybe someone else is just better than you, or goes to a more crowded location. Suddenly they get more popular off your work and they get more money to play that location again, while you get considered a copycat for stealing their music. No copyright, no reason to attribute the creator of the work, after all.

There's just a stack of reasons why copyright is *necessary*, both for the economy and the livelihood of creative people. Yes, some companies abuse it. Yes, Congress is enacting laws to further the protections against most citizens. But in the long run, it's still a good reason why we're reading Slashdot.

Re:Change the law

[PsychoKick]

Using your analogy though, in this case we're feeding a huge business that doesn't like sodomy. They invest millions and millions to make people think sodomy is bad, make newer overly broad antisodomy laws that keep us from legally using q-tips, etc.

Sounds like the church, which is a much, MUCH more influential and powerful organization than the RIAA. And yet look how that turned out.

Re:Change the law

[chgros]

This is great, i'm joining right now, as I have need of a TCP stack for my closed-source OS that's going to lock you all in my proprietary technologies.
If there's no copyright, there's no "proprietary" (only "binary-only" or somesuch)

Re:Change the law

[vegetablespork]

The GPL/BSD licenses are based on copyright controls, after all.

The GPL being based on copyright is a necessary evil only in the presence of copyright. The GPL hoists corporations that would use and close up GPL software with their own petard, as those who claim to worship at the altar of copyright have no license in absence of assent to the GPL. If there were no copyright, this somewhat convulted legal contortion would be unnecessary. Thus, abolishing copyright would abolish the GPL, but the need for the GPL would also as a result have ceased to exist.

Re:Change the law

[Zirtix]

Yes. But trademark, trade secret, contract and patent law would all still apply. Big businesses could easily use these to keep their binary-only software 'safe'.

DRM like Palladium would be used whether copyright exists or not. It will stop copying of proprietary software. You would expect to see a proliferation of dongles, activation, and other copy-prevention hacks as well. The result: lock-in.

Open Source and Free software would be D-E-A-D dead. In short, not a brilliant kind of world to live in.

My view is that copyright law is fine, but the Berne convention should be rescinded. A new copyright model is needed with a new balance of interests (i.e. shorter terms).

Re:Change the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you just fucking kill yourself? Please?

Re:Change the law

[Kanasta]

there are over sixty million Americans practicing peer-to-peer file sharing

Now you just have to get them to go an vote.
And make sure the votes are counted properly.

Yeh. Maybe.

Re:Change the law

[LordKronos]

Using your analogy though, in this case we're feeding a huge business that doesn't like sodomy
And since we are talking about the RIAA, then clearly this was a bad analogy.

Re:Stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a band called Marillion that the CD I bought (after I got a tape copy from a friend) developed a defect. I couldn't fing it online and it was out of print. I checked music stores for years when I went on vacation. Finally, It was re-released in europe. a Record store in Miami said they could get it. I actually Pre-paid for it and TWO years later the finally got it. I actually picked it up two VACATIONS later... The point is once I've paid for the album once dosen't that entitle me to the product on any format for the cost of the format alone ?

You should have just downloaded it...

Legal Samples?

[LordK3nn3th]

How long a "sample size" could a person share legally? That is, only a portion of the music-- like a quote out of a book, for example.

Just imagine, people share fragments of songs and then cut them together for private use-- although annoying, would that work?

Re:Legal Samples?

[saddino]

Each sample would likely be fair use, but reconstructing the original work would still be copyright infringment. I suppose it would be just like cutting pages from a book and then reconstructing the book to distrubute for free -- nothing legal about that.

Re:Legal Samples?

[LordK3nn3th]

Yes, I know putting them together would be copyright infringment. However, if someone does not share the complete work and only shares a portion of the file they would be safe from the RIAA's gaping mouth of doom.

Just imagine -

Britney Spheres Sample X/12, where X is the sample number, or whatever is necessary.

Re:Legal Samples?

[lurker412]

As I understand it, one of the criteria for fair use is that it not have an effect on the market for the copyrighted material. That suggests that your scheme would only be legal if it were such a pain in the ass that few people would bother. Back to the old drawing board...

Re:Legal Samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, it's a brilliant idea! I believe there is some kind of legal exemption for short clips ("samples") of songs. Piecing together legal sample clips to make full audio files is ingenious! Maybe someone who knows more about this could correct/support this.

Re:Legal Samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, see Snog (ie. David Thrussel.) or Negativland, Emergency Broadcast System, etc.

from the linked article

[Wah]

Legally, if a copyright is not enforced within a reasonable amount of time, the copyright holder loses the right to enforce it. For that reason, ASCAP, which has 4,000 licensees in California, routinely goes after small, unlicensed clubs for copyright infringements, said Robert Andris, a copyright attorney in Redwood City. "Generally, the bar or restaurant signs up," Andris said.

I've never heard this before. I've heard this said about trademark, but never copyright (or patents).

Clarification? Bad reporting? Lying lawyers?

Re:from the linked article

[EvanED]

"Bad reporting? Lying lawyers?"

One of the two. Copyrights don't expire.

Re:from the linked article

[glrotate]

Half right. ASCAP does go after bars for the above issue. However the point about "enforce it" or "lose it" is wrong. You are correct about it applying to trademarks.

Re:from the linked article

[EvanED]

What that should have said was "copyrights don't expire based on nonenforcement." Though the original statement still holds if our congress keeps up at the rate it's going....

Re:from the linked article

[Macadamizer]

Copyrights don't expire through nonenforcement, but there is still a concept called laches, which basically says if you know someone is infringing and you don't do anything about it, after a while it is no longer fair to go after them. Essentially, there is a statute of limitations on when you can bring a copyright infringement suit, and I think it is 3 years from the date that the copyright owner should reasonably have been aware of the infringing activity.

So, in a sense, you do lose the right to enforce your copyright, but there will be a seperate "clock" keeping track of each infringing activity. Just because you fail to follow up on one doesn't mean you can't go after another one later.

Re:from the linked article

[Courageous]

Copyrights don't expire through nonenforcement, but there is still a concept called laches, ...
----
My understanding of this was that the impact was that you could still C&D them, but only to stop future violation.

C//

nobody?

[interactive_civilian]

What about the old woman who was using a Macintosh? I find it hard to believe that she was using Kazaa...

Of course, they dropped the suit, but said they would still be keeping an eye on her...

Re:nobody?

[wideBlueSkies]

Yeah, and she didn't have a grandkid who came over with a Windoze laptop and connect to her ISP right?

Or something like that. You know what I mean.

wbs.

How to avoid filing eroneous lawsuits:

[Atragon]

Simple, maybe do a little bit of INVESTIGATION before filing?

Re:How to avoid filing eroneous lawsuits:

[laird]

They did investigate -- they found an IP address that had hundreds or thousands of files being illegally shared on public p2p networks, then got the address of the person associated with the IP address from the ISP.

IANAL, but a I recall, some lawyer explained it here a while ago -- the paperwork they're filing is apparently only the first step in the process, where they're saying that they think that something illegal happened and that they think you did it, after which you can make the argument that it wasn't you, or nothing illegal happened, or settle, before they actually file the real lawsuit.

Mod Parent Down

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only did the poster not read the article, but neither are the mods.

Addendum

[kfg]

Besides, we're not talking about being passed over by one of his Lordship's plagues here. We're talking about the RIAA.

I said pig. I meant pig. Pig is appropriate.

KFG

Insightful???????

[Anonymous Coward]

Ruining a joke is insightful?

You guys are tarded.

Re:Insightful???????

[grub]

You guys are tarded.

Actually, we were tarded once. Liked is to much we're now re-tarded. Welcome to slashdot!

Re:Insightful???????

[Anonymous Coward]

God, please just die.

Re:Insightful???????

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a FUCKING idiot. Why don't you go whine that you cannot mod? Oh no, HE CANNOT MOD!

You, sir, are a fucking loser. Also, you are NOT, repeat, NOT, funny. You, in fact, are as funny as David Brent from "the Office". FUCK OFF ALREADY.

Re:Insightful???????

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, another loser that lets my /. postings get to him. Thanks for letting me consume some of your life in a negative way . Remember to make me a foe and ignore my posts. Cheers.

Re:Insightful???????

[Anonymous Coward]

I might be a loser, but at least I don't go to anti-slash to whine about my lack of mod-points. Fucking no-life wanker.

Re:Insightful???????

[Anonymous Coward]

No life? Hardly, I have a great life, slashdot isn't real life.

Re:Insightful???????

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as I don't know you in real life, I don't know whether your life is great or a steaming piece of shit. However, since the only way of "knowing" you is through your posts that are either really unfunny, goatse links or simply idiotic (like the one I'm responding to, actually) I tend to believe that you are a true and complete idiot who THINKS he's trolling but actually is stupid enough to even annoy proper trolls and even crapflooders. You are a whining bitch - you whine in your posts, you whine in your journal and you fucking whine in that fucking losers paradise that is anti-slash. Bugger off.

Also, if "slashdot isn't real life" how come you have more than A FUCKING THOUSAND POSTS? What a sad, sad man you must be....

By the way, you ALREADY are in my "foes" list, and have been for YEARS.

time machine

[Sean Clifford]

If I had a time machine, I'd take a submarine back to 1492 and torpedo the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria.

That would solve the whole RIAA thing, but only as a side effect.

Medieval guilds

[xixax]

The *AA's are nothing more than medieval guilds, set up with privleges to foster industry, which later served to enforce a monopoly. Their authority to enforce and collect money is a prvilege and not a right.

As time went on, the guild system became increasingly rigid, and the trend toward hereditary membership grew very marked. Thus the development of new trade and industry fell to the capitalists, who adapted themselves to new demands in an age of exploration and expansion. By the 17th cent. the power of the guilds had withered in England, and their privileges were officially abolished in 1835.

Sound familiar?

Xix.

Re:Medieval guilds

[gcaseye6677]

Wow. What a great example of history repeating itself.

No! You fail it!

[wirelessbuzzers]

I hear a little pig's blood works wonders.

That was MY joke! And it's a lamb, not a pig!

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so awesome I am going to go out and buy 100 CDs right now. The RIAA has proven to me that their business model is both sound and just.

Its called "Hanging a dog now and then"

[jamiefaye]

The idea is to do occassional enforcement of some law for the purpose of intimidating the populance into general compliance.

Its why the IRS likes to go after high-profile taxpayers, and why the police like to sieze the cars of crack-buyers the week before Halloween. Its memetic warfare.

The effect is to make it riskier to be somebody who shares, as opposed to just mooching. If you share and can be traced, you want to be legally unreachable or judgement-proof.

It causes the tragety of the commons to happen sooner by taking away acreage.

Tell em so

[Lord Prox]

/. has great power, so lets use it. Think of what we can do to web servers and apply that to a call center. Lets get their attention where they will notice... in the pocketbook. Pick up the phone and tell them what you think think at 1 (888) BAD-BEAT thats 1 (888) 223-2328.

Figure 1.00 buck per minuite and do the math

Operators are standing by... call now!

shh...don't give them ideas...

[rbird76]

I think that the point of Palladium ("trusted computing") and upload restrictions via ISPs is to do precisely that - to destroy the ability of individuals to publish on the Internet and replace it with a broadcasting medium in which only the privileged few can afford to publish, thus creating a world where content providers (if you can call it content, but I guess since people want it it must be) can feel safe from any potential copyright infringement. Of course, their safety is bought at our expense (by negating much of the Internet's utility) but that's a small price to pay to hear more RIAA-assisted Britney Spears clones.

I said it before and I'll say it again...

[wrinkledshirt]

The industry fucked up by not taking Napster and using it as a conduit for regular sales.

I know too many people who love good music to risk buying crap at the store that they haven't gotten a proper chance to preview, but let's leave behind the idea that many people treated the MP3s they downloaded as the equivalent of ads when it came to determining what CDs they wanted to buy.

Think on this instead. You're already on Napster, downloading music. You've just found out that you can also buy concert tickets there. Or, there's a neat service that, for 5 bucks, will dump a huge selection of thematically-related songs onto your computer in a conveniently located spot for burning to a CD. Or, there's a spot for getting T-shirts, posters, sweaters, stickers of your favourite band. Or, there's a spot for buying 50c's autobiography or that Rolling Stones concert on DVD. Or, there's a spot that lets you buy the CDs themselves, since sometimes people want the jackets and lyrics and higher-quality music.

Never mind the ad revenue that could be generated by having such a flourishing community that you're at the center of and controlling.

Feel free to add to this list. On top of it all, you put yourself in a situation where you're working with technology, not against it, and you've got GOODWILL going with your customers.

Imagine that.

Re:I said it before and I'll say it again...

[Matt - Duke '05]

You don't explicitly state this, but implicit in your post is the idea that music piracy on the Internet persists because of the "out-dated" business model of the RIAA. Although this may (or may not) be the case, I still don't understand how this justifies the illegal downloading of MP3s. If I declare that the business model of commercial software development is out-dated does that grant me the right to pirate said software and violate the publishers' copyrights? If the business model of open source development is out-dated does that grant me open license [no put intended ;-)] to violate the GPL? But I digress.... Let's assume the the business model of the RIAA is indeed outdated.

However, a few people came along, changed the model up a bit, and started offering affordable, a la carte music via services such as iTunes and Rhapsody. They have changed the business model to incorporate online distribution of music and give the people what they have claimed would entice them to stop illegally downloading MP3s. Yet, the pirating doesn't stop, and the echo of the "out-dated" model reverberates again.

The problem is that most people, I tend to think, just use this "out-dated" argument as another excuse to illegally download MP3s. They don't state what is out-dated about services such as iTunes, nor do they offer alternatives. This is just a cop-out to them. I commend you, however, for actually taking a proactive stance and offering up an alternative.

However, words and action are a far cry from one another. This is especially true in a community like Slashdot, where the open source mantra "if it doesn't do what you want, then go do it yourself and provide it to the community" prevails. If the model is so broken, then why don't all of these people (who appear to be broke since they can't allegedly afford 99 cent downloads) fill the void and DEVELOP exactly what you've described and fix the situation, while making a pretty penny at the same time? If people stopped bitching and moaning and actually did something about it, everyone would win. The evil, monolithic RIAA would become a vestige of the past, shunned by the invisible hand of the market, the artists would actually receive the fair share they deserve, and you would all be able to afford music and have a real incentive to purchase it.

The thing is.. I don't see this happening. Until I do, I will continue to believe that this argument is hogwash..

Re:I said it before and I'll say it again...

[wrinkledshirt]

Although this may (or may not) be the case, I still don't understand how this justifies the illegal downloading of MP3s.

I'm not saying anything justifies anything. What I'm saying is that the industry should have seen the internet as the new radio and adjusted accordingly. Either that, or it should have moved the product off such an easily duplicatable format.

If I declare that the business model of commercial software development is out-dated does that grant me the right to pirate said software and violate the publishers' copyrights?

You missed my point. The piracy is going to continue to happen because at the moment it's most pleasurable to music listeners to get the music that way. The only thing preventing that is the threat of a litigation. At the moment internet music sharing is illegal by definition, not by some higher moral code. Trying to argue otherwise is to engage in Prohibitionist-type thinking... and we all know how that went.

However, a few people came along, changed the model up a bit, and started offering affordable, a la carte music via services such as iTunes and Rhapsody.

Because they're not thinking right. Do you pay to listen to the radio? No, you buy the radio, and there you go, you get your music. These pay-for-each-track ideas are nice in theory, but the public has already had a taste of better in the original Napster, and in the current Kazaa.

The problem is that most people, I tend to think, just use this "out-dated" argument as another excuse to illegally download MP3s.

Your head's in the sand, man. The business model that was ideal for their consumers was shown to the industry, and was open to exploitation by the industry for further profit. The industry rejected it because it didn't understand how to use it.

This is just a cop-out to them. I commend you, however, for actually taking a proactive stance and offering up an alternative.

I appreciate the accolades, but it's the consumers' job to consume, nothing more. Creating a palpable model for it is the entrepreneur's job.

If the model is so broken, then why don't all of these people (who appear to be broke since they can't allegedly afford 99 cent downloads)...

Wrong assumption. They've chosen the easiest way to get music instead of bending over backwards to accomodate an industry that marks up production costs on their products by %1500 for the sake of overpaying executives who exist by milking existing profit-taking methods. ...fill the void and DEVELOP exactly what you've described and fix the situation, while making a pretty penny at the same time?

Because I think it's a safe bet that any such program that got developed would get sued into the ground by the RIAA. It's seemingly enough that nobody would be willing to take the venture for fear of repercussion.

If people stopped bitching and moaning and actually did something about it, everyone would win.

Once more, it is the consumers' job to consume. Right now, they can do that easily enough without resorting to other methods, even industry-friendly ones like iTunes or what have you. The industry had a chance to ride the wave, not change the way the consumers were consuming, and still get something out of it. They missed the boat. And now they have to sue 12-year-old girls because they don't have the imagination to think beyond bully tactics.

The thing is.. I don't see this happening. Until I do, I will continue to believe that this argument is hogwash..

It's just an opinion. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that. But I think my proposal is unfortunately one of those things that can only exist in hindsight, since the industry's committed to the current tactics and can't back down from them without the appearance of relinquishing ALL credibility.

Re:I said it before and I'll say it again...

[ejeetify]

Do you pay to listen to the radio? No, you buy the radio, and there you go, you get your music.

Do you get to choose what's on the radio? No. This analogy doesn't hold up under any level of scrutiny.

Re:I said it before and I'll say it again...

[wrinkledshirt]

Do you get to choose what's on the radio? No.

What? What are those request hours all about then?

This analogy doesn't hold up under any level of scrutiny.

Nah, man. You're just splitting hairs.

Out of hand trollng? bitching?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at your post.

I gather by your philosophy that whenever anything goes wrong, we should just bend over and take it. If my box gets owned somehow, and I get sued as a result, you better damn well believe I'm gonna bitch about it.

P.S.- you gotta use something other than frontpage for creating your web site. Christ, that thing is ugly. In the time it took you to write your troll, you could have MSPainted some graphics for your site. Yellow on purple? Newman may or may not kick ass, but he's color blind as shit. You must be real "technical"

Re:Out of hand trollng? bitching?

[Canadian_Daemon]

It's called bluefish, not frontpage, but good work for incorrectly identifying it. i have school to do, not sit there making webpages. kicks-ass.net is a free domain name from dyndns.org. And my philosophy is patch your box, and dont complain when someone elses box gets fucked. and yes I am colour blind, you have a problem with that? Why dont, instead of bitching about someone elses box getting owned, maintain your system, and put up a simple firewall.
Jackass

Can they get you for torrents? A Debunking or B.S.

[felonious]

What about sharing via torrent files?
You gather various, pieces from many user which are then uniformly, recontructed after you have reached 100%.

Try watching an incomplete torrent divx or any other file for proof of the file(s) being "pieced" together. until the torrent is complete the files sit in an unorganized file inside whatever future extension they turn out to be.

To me this begs the question...
How can anyone sue you for sharing on bittorrent if it's only a piece of a file, random at that, and not a full file?

The only way they could approach this is to catch the user with the complete file on their hd after downloading it.

How would they do this?
Can you say invasion of privacy?
Who knows?

A good thing to do no matter what you use is to have peer guardian running at all time. You can even incorporate the blocklists in sygate's firewall software if you choose not to use peer guardian.

Above all monitor and block all traffic when using P2P apps or you might have to pay the piper...guilty or not...it really doesn't seem to matter anymore.

P.S. Fuck U RIAA
P.P.S. Thank you internet

Yes they work their fingers to the bone.

[Charcharodon]

I'll give artists that tour credit, they work their asses off, and should be paid well for what they do. Seeing what ticket prices are these days, they are bringing home a nice pay check. But to expect to be paid millions upon millions of dollars (the company and the artist) for what amounts to about 30-60 days worth of effort (ie an album) is completely unreal. Let's not forget being able to milk it for the next 70+ years.

Copyright has gotten out of hand. I say 50 years from date of creation is more than enough for the original recordings, but for the lyrics and the music 5-10 tops. As it goes now companies push for extensions for rights to the original recordings everytime they come close to expiring. 75 year copyright protection does nothing to put more money in the pockets of artists since too many of them sell their souls in their short carears to the recording industry.

The solution is really very simple...

[bechthros]

...and has been practiced for years by record stores, that is, stores that actually still sell vinyl records (primarily DJ shops). You open the package. You take the record (or cd's in a used cd store) out of the package and place it in a turntable or cd player behind the counter. You hand the customer headphones. Customer listens. If customer likes it he buys it, if not he hands you a different CD to listen to.

File-sharing isn't as popular as it is because people want to *own* the music. It's popular because people just want to hear what it sounds like before they buy it. If I wanted to actually *own* those songs it sure would't be in mp3 format (80% data loss), and without any liner notes, catalogs, or stickers.

I mean, when you buy an $8 t-shirt at wal-mart, you get to try it on first, right? When you want to buy a $10 book, you get to browse it at the bookstore before you buy it. Why should an $18.99 CD be any different?

Try-before-you-buy has always been my reason for using filesharing for music, if I hear a CD I like I buy it, that is if I can even find it at the store (thanks again RIAA).

But the RIAA will never pursue this method of both reducing piracy and meeting the consumers' needs, because they have zero interest in one of those two things. Guess which one. I maintain my opinion that the RIAA is terrified of file-sharing not because of any loss of profits to them (they're doing just fine, thanks) or to their artists (who they've been ripping off since the '20's), but because it means the average music consumer will no longer be satisfied with the STINKING, VOMITOUS, VILE, REPUGNANT, DISGUSTING, MALODOROUS, REPULSIVE SHIT being passed off as "popular" music by the RIAA. People have no option if they want to hear good music but to turn to the black market, for in this case the black market happens to be the only free, or even fair, market around.

All that could change if the music stores let you listen before you bought. For some reason, though, I'm not holding my breath.

Re:The solution is really very simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

File-sharing isn't as popular as it is because people want to *own* the music. It's popular because people just want to hear what it sounds like before they buy it. If I wanted to actually *own* those songs it sure would't be in mp3 format (80% data loss), and without any liner notes, catalogs, or stickers.

Agreed. Although, for me, it's not necessarily due to sound quality as much as it is trying to support the artists that you like. I say this because most of the music that I own is ripped to MP3s with the CDs safely tucked away. I rarely ever pull the CDs out.

I mean, when you buy an $8 t-shirt at wal-mart, you get to try it on first, right? When you want to buy a $10 book, you get to browse it at the bookstore before you buy it. Why should an $18.99 CD be any different?

Try-before-you-buy has always been my reason for using filesharing for music, if I hear a CD I like I buy it, that is if I can even find it at the store (thanks again RIAA)

And this, I believe, is the crux of the issue. Ever since I was a kid, it was something that bothered me. The fact that you could buy a CD and not be able to return it. As you say, you can return (or try) most anything else and CDs are no different, in my opinion.

That paired along with the fact that the RIAA has treated artists and consumers unfairly doesn't really help matters. They have shot themselves in the foot with no-one else to blame.

Ironically, most of the music that I've listened to throughout my life isn't 'part' of the RIAA. Alas, that's the unfortunate part about all of this; the Government and RIAA all assume that music must only be coming from the major labels.

Personally, I believe that more and more people are discovering the indies and liking what they hear. And, as well, learning more about how little the artists (most, not those on Cribs) are paid.

The sad part is, it doesn't seem to matter. If you look at what has happened with online radio (streaming, etc.) or with the levees placed on CDRs (Canada), they will still get the control they so desperately desire.

Meanwhile, here we sit, reading Slashdot and doing nothing. What good is knowing about all of this and be powerless to do anything about it? ;-)

Anonymous Musician

Re:The solution is really very simple...

[saynte]

I mean, when you buy an $8 t-shirt at wal-mart, you get to try it on first, right? When you want to buy a $10 book, you get to browse it at the bookstore before you buy it. Why should an $18.99 CD be any different?

I don't think CDs are any different? Most music retailers have CDs in those demo players. Although obviously they can't put every CD in them, that's one way. Also as far as I am aware, most CDs have short clips on the websites of large retailers (ie, HMV, etc). Lastly for major releases there are singles that are played on the radio on and on TV. Maybe I'm just misinformed, but I've always thought these were viable "preview" methods.

Re:The solution is really very simple...

[AndreyF]

Meanwhile, here we sit, reading Slashdot and doing nothing. What good is knowing about all of this and be powerless to do anything about it? ;-)

I can't say I agree. It is rather well known that writing letters to the right people (governors, senators, whomever) is an influence on what happens. Statistics show that every letter that a political figure gets is supposed to represent the opinions of about 10,000 more people that haven't voiced it.... so voice your opinions!

Re:The solution is really very simple...

[adolf]

Your argument is flawed, probably to the point of being completely void.

Wal-Mart, the only specific retailer you've mentioned, has a very nice system for sampling CDs in every one of the stores that I've seen; far better than anything else I've ever used.

It's really quite simple. You just wander up to one-of-many listening stations with a random CD and put on the provided headphones. A conveniently-located barcode reader scans the UPC of the CD in question. After a very brief pause, music flows forth. You can listen to selected tracks in their entirety, or (I suppose) complete discs. It sounds quite nice, in my experience, free of any discernable MP3-esque faults.

Imagine that - the world's largest retailer, allowing customers to listen to music before they purchase it. And they've been doing it for -years-, long before Napster made "MP3" a dinnertable word.

Your argument thus invalidated, I'll move along to my own anecdotes while we see if Taco is willing to create a new mod category of -1, Treason:

I was sampling music from such places as cdnow (now gone), online, with Realaudio, before MPEG II Layer 3 audio existed.

Back then, I'd find potentially-interesting obscure music, listen cdnow's samples, write down the catalog number, and head down to the local music store to order it. It was the cheapest way I could get music, as I'd save paying for shipping from cdnow. I'd (usually) get my hands on the music faster than waiting for the USPS, too, and the jewel cases were never smashed.

Now, I find potentially-interesting music, and begin digging for high-bitrate oggs with winmx or giFT. It costs nothing to procure[1], and I get my hands on it immediately. If I'm feeling really energetic, I'll burn it to an audio CD for a dime. And if I feel like playing legit, I'll use a "music" CD-R with royalties pre-paid for an extra couple of pennies. It doesn't get much cheaper than this.

So much for try-before-you-buy, eh?

[1]: I still buy music on CD, on occasion. But generally, only from smaller, less common groups and labels that I want to hear more of in the future. Whether it affects their pocketbook or just their meager sales statistics. It's all I can do to encourage them (and their RIAA underwriters) to produce more music that I like.

Re:The solution is really very simple...

[bechthros]

"Your argument is flawed, probably to the point of being completely void." Yeah... containers are void, analogies are specious. Except when they're not, but here, have some more rope... "Wal-Mart, the only specific retailer you've mentioned, has a very nice system for sampling CDs in every one of the stores that I've seen; far better than anything else I've ever used." Hmm. All things being equal, their preview method might be quite functional. However we all know WalMart doesn't carry anything worth listening to anyway. If I can go to WalMart and preview, with this wonderful method you descsribe, the latest UNCENSORED release from Shellac or Atari Teenage Riot, I will cheerfully eat my hat, as my analogy will have indeed been rendered specious (not void). And the concept of American free speech, incidentally, will have been validated. But then WalMart, the late great K-Mart (KMart is dead, long live KMart), Target... all these major "big-box" retail outlets are well-known to eschew any and all CD's containing any controversial material. In fact, I might be crazy, but if you don't carry Snoop Dogg or Jay-Z (the REAL CD's, not the wussy-ass watered down republican version) you ain't serious about music retailing. Next. "It's really quite simple. You just wander up to one-of-many listening stations with a random CD and put on the provided headphones." And you have your choice of Anne Murrays' greatest hits or, if the manager of that particular WalMart likes "alternative" music, maybe even the greatest hits of Gordon Lightfoot. Next. "conveniently-located barcode reader scans the UPC of the CD in question. After a very brief pause, music flows forth. You can listen to selected tracks in their entirety, or (I suppose) complete discs." 1) Are you, like, *trying* to sound like an RIAA shill? 2) This is a GREAT idea. Now if only they'd actually carry any CD's worth listening to, let alone previewing... This is getting boring, you appear to have precisely one arguement (and a specious one at that). Next. "It sounds quite nice, in my experience, free of any discernable MP3-esque faults." That's because MP3 is a lossy codec. Something the RIAA conveniently doesn't ever mention. Ever. Kinda like they didn't mention in the late 70's and early 80's that those insidious cassettes they were trying so hard, and so righteously, to outlaw (look it up) didn't sound as good as either vinyl (medium of choice at said time period) or *certainly* CD's. Funny coincidence, huh? Next. "Imagine that - the world's largest retailer, allowing customers to listen to music before they purchase it." No. The world's largest retailer allowing customers to listen to music that they, in their infinite corporate wisdom, deem fit. Next. "And they've been doing it for -years-, long before Napster made 'MP3' a dinnertable word." Yeah. The assumption that Napster is what made MP3 a dinnertable word, as opposed the greed and neglect of consumers by the RIAA, is yours and yours alone. I was actually cool enough to hear about the codec long before I ever heard of Napster. I know it's not relevant, but I figure if you can brag about using CDnow then I can brag about using MP3. Next. "Your argument thus invalidated, I'll move along to my own anecdotes while we see if Taco is willing to create a new mod category of -1, Treason:" Hah! Treason? That's a very strong word to use about something like MP3's. If you consider participation in the MP3 scene to be tantamount to treason well then, 1) color me treasonous and 2) color everybody that ever made a cassette mixtape the same shade. Study your history before you come to me with words like "treason" regarding the RIAA, for they are not to be taken lightly. This is not the first time the RIAA has attempted to circumvent the realities of free-market competition as it specifically applies to the SHIT they deem "popular music", and it won't be the last. Especially with willing syncophants to parrot their bullshit. You do realize that the RIAA and affilliated companies have been con

Re: relating the law to vehicles and drivers

[Steve Cowan]

You have a good point, but I think the law is even more tricky here:

Parking (and in some areas photo-radar) are considered the most petty of offences, such that no permanent record needs to be kept. So in this case just bill the vehicle owner and let him sort it out with whoever was driving his car. Simple.

Moving violations are another matter, though, because generally this will go down on a permanent record, and you will lose your licence after enough of them. So in these cases it is the driver of the vehicle, not the owner, who commits an offence.

More complex? Consider narcotics. Let's say you and I are driving around one day in my car and you inadvertently forget and leave your stash in my glovebox. The next day I lend my car to my sister, who gets pulled over (or tries to cross the border) and the car gets searched. The authorities find the drugs. Who is guilty of possession? Is it (a) the vehicle owner, (b) the owner of the substances, or (c) your sister?

For those just joining this thread, is the guilty party in the case of these lawsuits: (a) the PC owner, (b) the person who bought and ripped the music in the first place, or (c) the person downloading via Kaazaa? Yes (b) and (c) are often the same people, but they don't have to be! What has to be proven to the court?

In other news....

[dspisak]

I "extend" my middle finger towards the RIAA, again.

It's working!

[Thedalek]

Hooray! Their tactics are working in decreasing piracy. Now when an album doesn't sell, it's because it stinks, not because everyone's downloading it.

Honestly, even though they claim their tactics are working now, in a month, they'll be saying how lost profits due to piracy are sky high and increasing.

This is what happens when Don Quixote starts tilting at windmills, but actually has the firepower to take them out. No more windmills, no more monsters. Solution: Make new monsters.

So, this time next year, look for the RIAA blaming people humming songs for lost revenue.

Re:It's working!

[cherad]

This is what happens when Don Quixote starts tilting at windmills, but actually has the firepower to take them out. No more windmills, no more monsters. Solution: Make new monsters.

...Did that actually make sense to anyone?

In other news,

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA has announced that they are going to sue everyone on the planet. A spokesperson (name withheld) was quoted as saying, "They're all criminals - hoodlums - pond scum, but don't worry, we'll make sure that they don't get away until they've paid their fair share for our year-end bonuses." Metallica couldn't be reached for comment.

Film at 11.

damn straight

[Anonymous Coward]

If the store in question had been artificially keeping prices inflated for the past 20 years, yeah, I'd probably feel pretty emboldened to go ahead and liberate the occasional item.

Bitch-slap them

[t_allardyce]

Why not increase even more awareness:

continue to download music online, but, send all the artists you download from a donation of the ammount they would have received if you had bought their CD. Make sure you do this for every artist you download and then wait for the RIAA to come after you. Now make absolute hell for them, the artists will be on your side, the people will be on your side, there will be no-one taking the RIAA's side not even "stealing CDs on the net is wrong" people will be able to argue with that. If you want to go even further - donate the amount the sound engineers would receive as well, comon its nothing! If this could be done easily and on a mass basis (centralised website, paypal?) it would slap the RIAA in the face, your downloading the music, free of DRM from where you want and your giving the artists the money, what can the RIAA do?

Personally i cant be bothered to give them any money and since im not in the US: nah nah nah nah yoooou cant catch me hahahaha in your face RIAA suckers ooooh look i just downloaded another britney album you want my ass? huh? huh?

An interesting question...

[dspisak]

At one point in my life I had a rather large collection of CDs in a nice CaseLogic case.

Then one day the car I was in gets hit and has to go into the body shop. Silly me at the time left the CaseLogic case in the trunk of the car because I already had full MP3 rips of everything in the case and I only played the CDs in the car.

Get car back from bodyshop....CaseLogic case is missing. Call to bodyshop to notify them of theft of my property and I get a line of "You singed away those rights when you accepted the quote". WTF!!!!! Go back and read the very very fine print. "By agreeing to this quote you agree to give up your right to claim lost property damages should items inside your car become misplaced". Uh, so let me get this straight, I've now just made it legal for then to steal anything out of my car and not be able to do a damn thing about it?

Thats pretty fucked in my opinion.

Anyways I digress.

So now I have MP3s for the 300CDs I owned before it was "liberated" by the body shop. If the RIAA sues me "by accident" then how would THAT situation play out? It was all music I ripped from my own CD collection (minus live recordings not available on CD which I do have to get online) but now those CDs are gone.

I find this a disconcerning thought problem.

Re:An interesting question...

[hengist]

Ummm, you can't contract your way out of the law.

Just because you signed a contract with them, doesn't mean that they can commit a crime (theft) with impunity.

I would've told the police about what happend.

Re:An interesting question...

[fishbowl]

Regardless of the contract, my insurance company would have provided reasonable replacement cost for anything that was stolen from my car. Since it happened at the body shop, the insurance company would have actually been in a position to withhold payment until the question of responsibility was resolved. Maybe the law wasn't on your side in your state, and maybe your insurance policy isn't as good as mine. But I have had a very similar situation, and it is actually one of the things that sold me on the idea of insurance. (I didn't know at the time that items inside the car were covered against theft.)

Re: relating the law to vehicles and drivers

[unclethursday]

More complex? Consider narcotics. Let's say you and I are driving around one day in my car and you inadvertently forget and leave your stash in my glovebox. The next day I lend my car to my sister, who gets pulled over (or tries to cross the border) and the car gets searched. The authorities find the drugs. Who is guilty of possession? Is it (a) the vehicle owner, (b) the owner of the substances, or (c) your sister?

Whoever is driving the car at the time is responsible, according to the law.

A friend of mine was thrown in jail while visiting Floriday because he had given a ride to a friend, and she had weed in her purse. They were pulled over, out of state car (NJ) so searched, found the drugs in her purse...and my friend who was driving went to jail. Even though the girl admitted the stuff was hers, my friend went to jail because he was operating the vehicle at the time and is responsible for any and everything within it.

Fun thing, eh?

Re: relating the law to vehicles and drivers

[Steve Cowan]

Yes! It is a fun thing, because you chose (c)... the driver. Not the owner, and not the offender - merely the operator.

So is file sharing different here? How does one prove who was using the computer at the time files were being illegally shared?

Re: relating the law to vehicles and drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

un"?

More like Unreasonable.

Re:As a record store owner,

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent funny!

CD's aren't worth the price asked

[WORLOK]

CD's aren't worth more than US$6 each. I will rarely pay more than that. that's why I don't buy.

Oh, and because of the RIAA's tactics I have blacklisted pretty much the entire music industry. They're definately not getting any of my money and alot of people I know feel the same way. these are people who I know for a fact used to share music but always bought as well. So you dont have the entire demographic correct. Not all music sharers are non buyers.

Furthermore, assuming that your story wasn't a BS troll, which is what it sounded like (and if it is congrats you got me), alot of people lost jobs. No one owes you a living. Sell something else besides music.

Hey, if the store fails you can always get a JOB. Your wife too. 2 incomes go a long way.

You sound like one of those happy go lucky fake smiles Born Again Idiots, BTW. "Dumb dumb dumb" not "smart smart smart" - I guess you don't watch South Park.

No offense.

Re:CD's aren't worth the price asked

[sevensharpnine]

I doubt the post was a troll. It was a good critique of the current mindset vs. the internet. The fuckwit mods, of course, missed it. It was missing 'M$', "RIAA is tech SUckz', or an out-of-context quote from someone famous. I'm not too bitter though. I rather enjoy browing at -1 these days.

Re:CD's aren't worth the price asked

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt the post was a troll.

Let me translate: I can't recognize a troll if I see one.

Re:CD's aren't worth the price asked

[Cipster]

I've seen that post about 5 or 6 times before, it's a cut and paste troll. I guess I have been browsing at -1 longer than you have :)

Re:CD's aren't worth the price asked

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's ok, because the mods can't either.

nice quote

[Seraphim_72]

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and...

....use of nonstandard ways to file share ala bittorrents, irc, newsgroups, etc., etc., etc.

Sera

Re:

[symbolic]

Let's say they stop (for argument's sake) 75% of the online piracy. By RIAA math, that should mean a 75% increase in sales (or at least some significant percentage). It's entirely possible (and, in my opinion, entirely likely), that sales will continue to slip. The moment I start laughing is when they're standing around scratching their heads (among other things), wondering why sales are still falling.

AT this point, one of two things will happen: they'll either realize that they DO produce crappy music, that they are greedy bastards, and that above all, consumers DO have standards (though on average, not very high), or they'll continue their witch hunt, making believe that there's still some massive vortex of illegal copying and downloading, sucking money right out of their pockets.

This isn't an endorsement of the so-called "harmlessness" associated with illegally copying/downloading music. Crappy or not, it's still the property of the RIAA, and they are still entitled to do with it what they please.

ISPs under pressure to reveal user data

[mattmcal]

From TheStandard.com: "The RIAA's campaign has also drawn criticism, particularly its attempts to force Internet service providers (ISPs) to disclose personal information about subscribers suspected of being illegal downloaders."

Windows Media Player Spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of these are due to the spyware called Windows Media player? Since when did companies get the rights to build an information sharing Echelon on par with the government's? For terrorism we are willing to give up our freedoms, but for the rich to buy another yacht? What would be really cool is if the judge does gives 100% of any settlements to the ACTUAL ARTISTS who made the music!!!!! Sorrt of like the reverse of the SEC who rather than give the money to the duped investors puts it in their own pockets.

Re:As a record store owner,

[babaganoosh]

First, I would love to know where you're getting your statistics from.

Second, if your proposed "blacklist system" went into effect, it would put you out of business much more quickly than file sharing. What would you do to enforce it? Demand photo ID from each and every customer who tries to give you their money? All that would accomplish is the alienation of many of your customers, who would then begin shopping at the music store just up the street (where they don't card you for buying the type of music you claim to sell).

Re:As a record store owner,

[smallfeet]

Knock!, Knock!

"Excuse me sir but I just moved into town and I am required by law to let all my neighbors know that I am a convicted music pirate"

I would if they had a good client.

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I tried the iRate client, and it's slow and sucks up resources that are better used for nearly anything else. Yes, I know their page screams bloody murder about not being interoperable with anything, and no, I am not a coder so I can't go out and fix it.

So I shall just not use iRate.

Re:As a record store owner,

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you could blame some of your problem on the RIAA. Rather than innovate they are still selling buggywhips. Even all the small bookstores in my city went out of business too. You should have been able to sell music media electronically several years ago - that the RIAA failed to keep up with modernization is a big problem. Who wants a CD with 21 songs when she can burn one with 300 songs?

Easy Solution

[salesgeek]

Do what most of us do at age 32 - turn off the noise in your life and stop buying music. Most of the stuff that passes for music is actually a refined form of auditory manure. Unfortunately, all the nutrition has been removed - so if you are looking for ideas and answers, the latest Brittney Spears release really doesn't contain the answer. Hell, it's not even good braincandy and their are much more attractive porn stars to look at if that's your thing.

Re:Easy Solution

[smcavoy]

So all the music in the world is owned/released by members of the RIAA?
There are probably 100s if not 1000s of persons/bands/etc. in your home town, go out and see them, buy their albums.

This is almost the same as saying "McDonalds produces nothing but crappy food, so we should all stop eating."

Re:Easy Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If he lives in Podunk Arkansas (or some hick town) the chances that there are hundreds or thousands of persons/bands/etc is probably very slim, and Wal-Mart is likely his only choice, and does Wal-Mart sell indy labels?

Why not ban radio then?

[therufus]

This may or may not have been said already but if people can listen to and record off the radio, wouldn't that be piracy?

Radio is free. You only get the singles but if thats all you want, and you have a good setup for recording radio (even most TV tuner cards can record it digitally) you can get all the music you want. The faggoty RIAA can't police that!

Re:Why not ban radio then?

[Sexual Ass Gerbil]

Because the RIAA owns the radio stations?

Re:As a record store owner,

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mean to post as Anonymous Coward, but I'm kind of in a hurry and don't have time to log in.

I just want to make a comment to that record store owner.. That's very 'Christian' of you to grab a kid by the shirt and call him a punk, then call his friend a bitch. Also, I don't think your idea would work. People would simply stay out of stores to avoid the blacklisting, which WOULD bring your business straight into the ground. Don't get me wrong, I wish you and your business the best, I just think you should have thought it out more before you sent the letter to the RIAA.

Collaborative Filtering is the future...

[Saeger]

I've been using iRATE for quite a while now (despite its horrible user interface), mostly because the collaborative filtering is much, much more convenient than buying CDs offline/online, or downloading random tunes off p2p networks, or DLing from iTunes, or even listening to free broadcast radio/netradio.

iRATE automatically adapts to *YOUR* tastes in music, with very little initial effort required (you rate tunes UP/DOWN). This is the most valuable service that I could ever ask for, and that no middleman could hope to charge for.

Besides an improved GUI, I'd like to see payment options added so that the artists I end up listening to the most get a proportional chunk of my change so that they can continue making *NEW* music, instead of sitting on decades OLD copyrights.

--

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not property.

Re:As a record store owner,

[TCM]

This evening, my daughters asked me. "Why do the other kids laugh at us?"

I wanted to tell them the truth - it's because they wear old clothes and have cheap haircuts. I can't afford anything better for them right now.

"It's because they are idiots, kids", I told them. "Don't listen to them."

When the kids went to bed, my wife asked me, "Will we be able to keep the house, David?"

I just shook my head, and tried to hold back the tears. "I don't know, Jenny. I don't know."

Would you like cheese with that whine? Couldn't have made your troll more cinematic, huh?

Sharing with friends/coworkers

[crucini]

Which raises a question. If you were nailed by the RIAA, and forced to choose between a multi-million dollar settlement and betraying your friends/coworkers, which would you choose? Before getting too heroic, remember that life after bankruptcy might not be fun. Do you know how your friends/coworkers would answer the question?

Even if you're a tight-knit secretive ring that knew each other from childhood, all it takes is one ring member participating in p2p.

Re:Sharing with friends/coworkers

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like a good setup context for the prisoner's dillemma.

Re:Sharing with friends/coworkers

[jdogs60]

You should become a cop.

Re:Sharing with friends/coworkers

[LittleGuy]

If you were nailed by the RIAA, and forced to choose between a multi-million dollar settlement and betraying your friends/coworkers, which would you choose? Before getting too heroic, remember that life after bankruptcy might not be fun. Do you know how your friends/coworkers would answer the question?

Oh cool. McCarthyism for the 21st Century.

Choose wisely. When the pendulum swings back, you may be labelled "Rat".

Slashdot hypocrisy!

[freeweed]

For some reason, mp3 downloading is justified around here, yet software piracy is frowned upon.

Yeah, a website practically dedicated to OSS and Free Software.. nope, I see no one here wanting to get their software for free, and tear down the old style of software distibution by a select rich few.

The hypocrisy runs thick on Slashdot, it sure does!

Re:Stealing

[danknight]

I tried, I couldn't find the album....

Re:As a record store owner,

[aweraw]

I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap

Maybe you ought to get off your moral high horse, and start selling things that people want to buy, not just the stuff that you'd want to buy... why limit your potential market?

So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates

And so you would leave them with no other way of listening to their favoured music but to pirate... if you really believe this would make a difference, you're living in a dream land... Your parallels between the black list for drug dealers and black lists for pirates is just wrong... A blick list for dealers can achieve some level of effect, because the goods they are proitecting are tangible, real objects, and therefore cannot be duplicated ad infinitum. Pirates on the other hand only require a single copy of their chosen contraband to propagate iot all other the world. This is why a black list for pirates will not work... it only takes one weak link in the chain and the desired effect is lost. Infact, I would go so far to say that a law trying to create a black list of pirates would increase piracy more than anything, because there would be ALOT of people who would have no other way to get music except through piracy...

I know I'm probably going to be accused of being a pirate... and i guess to a certain extent thats true, but I always buy CD's of bands who I think are truly worthy, and I don't distribute tracks... I make my decision on whether a band/group is truly worthy based on MP3's i find on the internet, or radio/tv... I don't know why, but people seem to think that music sharing is a new thing, it's not... has every body already forgotten about cassette tapes and how easy they were to copy? Add cassette tapes easy copying and a radio, and you have yourself a new unlimited source of recordable music (though 90% is crap)... Internet music sharing is not far different from this.

RIAA gives itself too much credit

[1310nm]

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy.

I think rather what has happened is iTunes, the new Napster, BuyMusic.com, and others are taking care of what the RIAA should have started working on right when the original Napster became available.

Re:Can they get you for torrents? A Debunking or B

[Sloppy]

How can anyone sue you for sharing on bittorrent if it's only a piece of a file, random at that, and not a full file?

They sue you for copyright infringement. While, technically, you're not sharing the whole file, you are sharing a derivative work of their copyrighted work.

You would have to argue that the derivative work fragments that you're distributing to many other strangers, are somehow fair-use samples. Given that the overall process of bittorrent eventually produces full copies, I think any reasonable judge would call bullshit on you.

Re:As a record store owner,

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahah this is truly a beautiful post.

I have to admit, at first you had me. I really though this guy was serious up until the "Why do the other kids laugh at us?"

The sad thing is... people really do think like this. Bravo!

Re:Change the law x1488

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The sodomy laws are impotent anyways. They weren't upheld in Texas, and they wouldn't be anywhere else, so repealing them is an inevitable, pointless gesture.

I call their bluff.

[DroopyStonx]

They're doing nothing more than making examples of people.

Personally, I'm not in the least bit concerened. Hell, I'll admit it: I share over 10 gigs of farily popular music on most of the P2P networks. I'd love to see them try me in a court of law.. unfortunately for them, I'm "tech savvy" and they'll have a hell of a time proving I share music.

These stories do nothing but piss me off and make me share/download more music (and movies now, too). I know a few people still in High School and I actually encourage them to share/download music. They'll tell me about how they're gonna buy so-and-so's CD, I say, "No, don't. I'll download it for you."

Yeah, this will probably get modded troll, or even flamebait, but it's really not. I'm just a person who's fed up with general apathy from people who let corporations get away with this shit. We're talking about downloading and sharing music, not murder, rape, or any other "crime". We know CD sales are unaffected because of artists who continue to break platinum status.

It's okay for them to spend years overcharging people for CDs and for mass marketing canned acts like Britney Spears/Justin Timberlake, but it's not okay for them to take some heat?! Sorry, that's not how it works.

If you can't take it, then by all means, don't fucking dish it out.

Re:I call their bluff.

[dentar]

Other than the fact that you just admitted to it?

All they have to do is subpoena Slashdot for their logs and they can track down from what IP you are accessing from. Sayonara!

Re:I call their bluff.

[Zictar]

Although, due to the fact that he did "say" it, even in a form of electronic communication - it would be an "incriminating" statement made by himself and could be easily thrown out of court and unuseable as evidence, leaveing them back at square one.

Re:I call their bluff.

[fair_n_hite_451]

Because certainly no one has EVER said anything on /. that w't true just to make a point or to get a rise out of the community.

So how heavy is a song?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if by "tons" they mean a minimum of 3 tons (considering they didn't say "a ton" or "a couple of tons") then it appears that a song weighs a minimum of 7.75 pounds.

If the iPod indeed can hold 10,000 songs, then that magical little box should weigh 38.75 tons when full. Seeing that the average pocket is not rated anything above your modest pocket protector (I'll be waaaay generous), say 5 pounds (.0025 tons), it appears that either Apple has found a way to manipulate gravity or maybe RIAA is exaggerating (just a smidge).

I'll go with the exaggerating and will have to assume that file sharing is probably not as detrimental to the music industry as so claimed.

Re:As a record store owner,

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you post this exact same reply the last time this troll was posted?

Can i make klite use a proxy?

[Unregistered]

Can i just in case? It's running on win2k.

Re:As a record store owner,

[Eccles]

Nice copy from Kuro5hin.

They have fought the War on Drugs with skill

Now I know you're a troll.

trespass

[tepples]

Slashdot mods really love their stolen music.

No. Slashdot mods know that copyright infringement is more like trespass than like stealing.

A correlation

[tepples]

There's not yet enough data to demonstrate causation, but major label record sales did rise with the rise of the old Napster and fell when Napster was shut down.

Re:A correlation

[HoserHead]

I was aware of that, but it's pretty old data. I was actually interested in seeing whether the rise of Kazaa and its kin was correlated in any way with record sales.

I doubt that you'd be able to prove causation in this case, due to the sheer logistics of the problem, but I'd be impressed if someone had even had any decent numbers.

Who to blame for falling sales now guys???

[zekt]

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy

I can see the record company execs when they find out their sales figures out down yet again.

"Err fellas, we have a problem. We blamed piracy last year for the decrease in sales and now piracy is down and our sales are down... anyone got any ideas who who we can blame next".

"Brittany Spears - she's turn legions of people away from music forever!"

Clear Channel is a problem

[tepples]

Musicians, get your act straight and leave the RIAA enmasse and sell your music yourself.

In general, only those major and semi-independent labels affiliated with the RIAA have the finances to promote recordings through Clear Channel. Without Clear Channel, there's no way to promote to potential customers in moving vehicles (commercial FM radio) or in retail locations (piped-in music).

Open Wireless Networks a Liability?

[ClarkEvans]

Hello. I don't trade music. However, I have a question. I do use a wireless network in my house and beacuse the drivers don't work well with FreeBSD I don't use WEP (besides when my friends visit I'd rather not do configuration work). Now... I think the next door neighbor may be using my wireless connection... so if he/she is downloading music, it'll have my IP. Further, what is to stop someone from parking their car outside my house to "surf" with my IP address? Yes, I could shut down my wireless... but I'm curious -- what is my liability here?

A recommendation

[Compact Dick]

I'll often go to the library and just grab 30 CDs off the shelf, bring them home, and rip them into MP3

If you have to rip to MP3, please read my guide to ripping CDs to high-quality MP3. The results are guaranteed to be as close to transparency as can be achieved with the MP3 format.

Re:A recommendation

[jargoone]

What exactly is revolutionary about the information posted there? I didn't find anything that isn't pretty obvious. Plus, while CDEx is a great program, and I do have both Windows and Linux systems, I've found it much easier to use grip. I leave it running all the time, hidden. Put CD in, it does its thing, CD comes out. Doesn't get easier than that.

Re:A recommendation

[Compact Dick]

What exactly is revolutionary about the information posted there? I didn't find anything that isn't pretty obvious.

The guide is based on best practices while still aiming to be newbie-friendly. While I don't consider it revolutionary, it is accurate [in terms of encoder and ripper settings] and aims to give the best possible results while still remaining accessible to the newbie [hence the reason it's not based on Exact Audio Copy.] Judging by the mail I receive, it's on the right track so far.

The target readership?

• Windows users who are totally new to ripping CDs, and
• Musicmatch/Audiograbber users who feel [or have been ill-advised] that 128kbps CBR is the way to go.
  
  Not everyone's aware of LAME, the --alt-presets or cdparanoia. At least they won't end up with MP3s they later regret [once their ears become attuned to MP3 artifacts.] The OP had mentioned 192kbps CBR, which was the reason I posted the link in response.
  
  I will soon add an Ogg Vorbis section, plus more detailed sections to accomodate portable/advanced users.
  

Re:A recommendation

[Simonetta]

In your guide to ripping CDs to MP3, you emphasize that one should not install the ASPI from Nero if another is loaded.

Might I humbly suggest that you put a new sentence in the guide explaining how to check if the other ASPI is not loaded? This would be most helpful to people who have yet to reach a high level of competence in this matter. These are the people for whom the guide has been written.

Thank you,

Re:A recommendation

[jargoone]

Fair enough. I honestly wasn't criticizing the information, I really was curious if there was something I was missing. I'm probably below the mean slashdotter as far as technical knowledge, so I guess given that it's targeted at a newbie, I guess I was more questioning you mentioning it here than the information itself.

"IP" is an unwise generalization

[tepples]

File formats are nothing but file formats.

File formats are often patented. I remember a few people who used to troll Slashdot, making semi-founded claims that MP3s were illegal, using sites like this as evidence.

No, the problem is the complete lack of respect for his intellectual property rights

I do not lack respect for the basic ideas of copyrights. Neither do I lack respect for the basic ideas of patents. (The details of their implementation in the United States, on the other hand...) However, I do lack respect for the use of the misguided generalization of "intellectual property," which lumps copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and publicity rights together as if they were anything like one another. The thinking behind "intellectual property" rhetoric can cause only confusion. So if you want to say "copyright," say "copyright."

Tell that to Big Tobacco

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Big Tobacco.

RIAA takes down daycare center...

[thumbtack]

Federal Marshals armed with tear gas and flash bang grenades and accompanied by the paramilitary unit of the RIAA, the ultra secret "CopyRight Army Paramilitary" (CRAP) took down one of the largest day care centers in the country today.

Three of the CRAP operatives suffered injuries ranging from bites on ankles to facial bruises caused by thrown objects. According to a RIAA spokesperson, the children held them off for several hours by throwing wooden blocks and other plastic items. Several others suffered embarassing episodes where some of the captives threw up or urinated on the CRAP operatives. "We were taking casualties but we just waited them out, and eventually they all laid down to take a nap, and then we swept in and took control of the day care center, along with the teachers." Confiscated in the raid were 5 containers of babywipes, 4 boxes of diapers, 3 "Barney" tapes of "questionable origin", 7 boxes of cookies, 43 cartons of apple juice and in excess of 3 gallons of milk.

"These centers are best described as 'piracy training grounds where students are taught to share and share alike" said Cary Sherman, President, RIAA. "This despicable behavior will not be tolerated, these children grow up to share music." In addition we have asked federal authorities to charge the teachers under the US Patriot act as these are obviously "Copyright terrorists". They hurt artists, musicians, songwriters, those who invest in their work and the thousands of others who work to bring music to the public."

When asked about the decision to take down the daycare center, Cary Sherman stated "We chose our target very carefully, knowing they didn't have the funds to fight us, and that we could intimidate them into submission." He went on, "However, we are re-evaluating targeting daycare centers after the casualties we took. We're taking a close look at retirement centers, were the senior citizens are less likely to fight back, but instead grab their chest and sit down. Doesn't matter that they don't have a computer or even know how to use one, half of them can't remember if they downloaded anything or not, they are an easy target."

I'm still waiting...

[El]

Sue enough people, and eventually they'll sue a lawyer who is capable of defending himself... THEN things will get interesting! I've said it before, I'll say it again: buy a 802.11 router, set it up unencrypted, then when you get your summons, point out that anybody in the neighborhood could have connected through your IP address... and invite the RIAA to prove it was you in court!

Maybe So...

[Proneax]

But not necessarially. Just because there is a lot of music out there doesn't mean people will like it. I don't listen to much classical music or the beatles, and that's the only stuff from before 1985 or so that I am interested in. For stuff made after that, I'm only interested in a few select genres. Exclude country, soft rock, acid-rock/heavy metal, pop music, MTV rock bands (think linkin park, blink), rap.

Of the music I like, I have all of it. I'm sure there are some rock bands out there that would appeal to me, but I don't know of them, and they would be the more modern rock groups. I get my music by word of mouth, online discussions, or in the case of techno - from shoutcast streams. Occasionaly I hear a good band on a local independently-funded radio station.

So I wait for releases from bands I know and like. It's been pretty slow. I'm waiting for the new Weezer Blue comp and their 5th album, and the DVD.
That's about it.

Sneakernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. At a previous employer, it was decided that we could save several million dollars a year by dropping our leased lines between the U.S. and Belgium, and simply cutting a stack of CD's once a week and airshipping them. I am NOT joking. Fedex has more bandwith than AT&T, but much higher latency.

In Soviet Canada...?

[tepples]

So does Canadian law define larceny, GTA, and copyright infringement in the same chapter?

It's working . . .

[LiquidSnatch]

I go to the University of Kansas, and I'll I have to add to the mix is this: what the RIAA is doing is working. Very well, as a matter of fact.

I hang out with a group of people that I would call, somewhat technologically savvy. And by that, I mean they understand computers enough to use P2P clients like Kazaa, Morpheus, etc. A very large percentage of those people have either deleted all of the music off of their computer (the less savvy) or removed the P2P software from their computer. And this is ALL because of the way the RIAA has gone after every single one of the individuals on its hitlist, 12-year olds or otherwise.

I hate to say it, but the RIAA's tactics are working better than I ever expected.

-Snatch

Re:It's working . . .

[AndreyF]

I definately agree. I am also a student (from NJ), and I don't know of anyone (except me) who shares (compared to dozens of people who did before the lawsuits). Quite sad, but people are afraid of being sued, although, statistically the chances of that happening are pretty low (you're more likely to get hit by a car and die, etc. etc.) Scare tactics, but what can you do...

Quit using KAZAA ....Use anonymous filesharing.

[zymano]

anonymous filesharing

Article mentions Blubster,Filetopia and ES5.

RIAA is going after your IP number.Kazaa is not protecting you. Be aware.

Good luck.

How to share files and avoid the RIAA, MPAA, etc.

[pherris]

Long story short: Get off the Internet and on your own wireless network (kinda like the old days of BBSs). It's a decent solution considering the low cost of 802.11b cards (both PCMCIA and PCI) and routers. The great difficulty for the "powers that be" to track you down makes this a much better choice than over the 'net. Unless the RIAA/MPAA starts sending out trucks with RF detectors you should be safe. Here's the quick step-by-step:

1. Build yourself a XPC or something that size.
2. Toss in the needed parts including a 200G HD and a PCI 802.11b card.
3. Post notices around the dorm/building/whatever with the SSID and quick instuctions.
4. Enjoy.

While the selection of files in the beginning will be low I'm sure it would take little time for it to become quite varied.

The other solution is to buy a cheap 802.11b router, hook up to the LAN and bury it behind some sheetrock. The campus IT dept could spend years looking for it (if done correctly).

Of course this information is for educational purposes only yada yada yada ...

Re:So how heavy is a song?

[Emperor_CA]

an IPod can hold 10,000 songs... 15 songs per CD, that's 666 CD's... who actualy own enough CD's to take advantage of an IPod LEGALY!? Is Apple encouraging you to steal music?

Make up your minds....

[Desdinova_NJ]

First im not a big fan RIAA, but mostly based on how they and thier member companies treat the artists. That said.. I dont get the slashdot mindset, back when RIAA first appeared on teh radar by going after napster, everyone here jumped and pointed out that its wrong to go after a technology just because people are using to do illegal stuf... That was when RIAA became the bad guy here. THere were also a bunch of posts pointing out that the right way to do this go after the people who are breaking the law. Which is what they are doing now. And everyone is stil crying foul. I simply dont get it. Is it that hard to admit that you are too stingy to pay for the stuff you want. The fact is downloading music over the net without paying for is illegal. These are the same people who scream if someone steals GPL code, because then copyrights are suddenly a good thing and defending them is worderful. Drop the double standard

but theres always the fool

[Anonymous Coward]

who buys crap. And none to educate him. TV as an information utility is mostly cheesy and stereotypical (wow pante-ole pro-vitamin in darniese star labs! new formula! sell more!, Bundy, learn new ways to insult your friends, in a funny way!)

24 hours and xfiles is some with quality content, other then that, pretty dumb stuff, no good culture either.

slightly OT question

[thatguywhoiam]

This is so true. I now have an extra 80 gig hard drive nearly filled with MP3 music that I freely share with my co-workers.

Do you really have nearly 80 gigs of music? Not that I doubt it, but... I do find it hard to believe, in context of my own collection...

Sorry to bug you with this. I'm just constantly amazed by the slashdotters claiming to have 40-80 gigs of MP3s. I have a very modest collection by comparison - and I consider myself a real audio freak. But my collection is not quite 10 gigs, and I always thought that was a lot of music.

Mind you, I have very few 'complete' albums.. I am a real quality nazi and delete everything that isn't spectacular by my standards (that is the point of an iPod, after all)...

Anyways... just wanted to express my ongoing surprise at the data size quoted for people's music libraries. Tell me, do you rip whole albums regularly? Or do you have music that is just a lark, for laughs? I have a hard time believing anyone has 80 gigs of sorted music that they truly love every bit of. I mean, thats something like 50 days of continuous music.

Re:slightly OT question

[guiscard]

I'm up to 140 gigs. Everything is good and sorted. Almost all are full albums ripped in VBR.(50 gigs are classical) The jazz/soul section is great to shuffle through, almost never hit something I don't want. Its like having your own radio with a few different stations and no commercials. Just put another old computer in the studio with a copy of the collection, now I just have to get a mini-ITX system in my car...

Re:slightly OT question

[lord_nightrose]

I have access to well over 700GB of MP3s. I have 20 CD cases full of ... whatever. About a fifth of them are MP3 CDs, each case holds ~208 CDs, and some of the slots are holding two discs. A low estimate (4 cases, 200 discs each, 700MB/disc) puts me in the range of 546.875 GB of music. Not to mention the 120GB drive my roommate has that is full of music, plus my 30GB firewire music drive, plus my 30GB of music on internal drives. The total: 726.875 GB. The most I ever had on my machine at once was 240GB, and my playlist was over a year and a half long, easy.

It's not impossible.

Re:slightly OT question

[lord_nightrose]

(I hate replying to myself just because I forgot to say something)
To my dear friends at the RIAA:
April Fools'!

... Oh, wait. It's December?
... merry Christmas?

Re:slightly OT question

[irokie]

my father has 6000 LPs... that's somewhere in the region of a lot of music... and he's listened to it all. i can't catch him out.

ask a simple question like "what's that you're listening to there?" and you get an answer that takes 2 hours, and an extended tour of the music collection. he has almost as many CDs again and they're all different and he knows all of them too...

so to say it's preposterous that anyone has 80gigs or MP3s and that they'll never listen to them is kind of closed minded. most slashdotters live at their computers, so they have plenty of time to trawl thru vast quantities of music.

Re:slightly OT question

[Bigbutt]

I've ripped over 7000 songs from my collection of 1500 CDs. There are a lot of entire albums that have been ripped but most of them are just a song or a couple of songs from the CD. That's 27 gigs of music.

My brother and I swapped our collections (he's more 80's and I'm more 70's) so I'm approaching 60 gigs of .mp3 and .wma files.

I'll rip entire artists (Robert Cray, Aerosmith, Stevie Ray Vaughn and Mingus for example) even if I haven't heard every CD yet since I really like their music.

Re:slightly OT question

[elton247]

Just to add to this. I have about 55gb of MP3's at this moment. Some of it is crap that I keep in a seperate folder but I don't want to delete. But most of it is music I love. My room mate has about 70gb. Some of it is duplicates of mine, but all together I would say I have access to about 100 gigs of music from my home PC.

Re:slightly OT question

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really have nearly 80 gigs of music? Not that I doubt it, but... I do find it hard to believe, in context of my own collection...
Sorry to bug you with this. I'm just constantly amazed by the slashdotters claiming to have 40-80 gigs of MP3s. I have a very modest collection by comparison - and I consider myself a real audio freak. But my collection is not quite 10 gigs, and I always thought that was a lot of music.

I have over 1,500 full albums of mp3s, roughly about 100 Gigs, it's not that difficult. It spans over 140 CDR-s and a hard drive. 10 Gigs is a very modest mp3 collection. Leech scripts like Syrup (for X-Chat) make downloading hassle free.

Re:slightly OT question

[Simonetta]

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my message.

I rip complete albums and listen to each song briefly. If I don't dislike it, I burn it to CDR along with another 8-10 albums. The CD-Rs get cataloged and placed in order on a spindle.

I get almost all of the CDs from the shelves of the public library. I'm trying to build a collection that I can still enjoy years in the future should the RIAA force the libraries to take pre-recorded music out of circulation. Tastes change over time and some things that I might not like now I might five or ten years from now.

I've been doing 20 or so albums a week for the past couple of years and do have about 80gig of MP3 music on two 100 CD-R spindles (good stuff gets stored twice on different CD-Rs). It's more of a long-term library than a collection.

80 gig seems very large by the old standards of limited access to pre-recorded music, back in the days when people paid three hours of minimum wage salary for a recording of about 50 minutes of music. But now with a 100 CD-R spindle holding 70 gig of MP3 and selling for $20, it's not unreasonable. Plus I'm archiving a lot of classical, opera, and jazz that's on the library shelf that I don't listen to now, but may in ten years.

thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks RIAA, ive just decided to open, and LEAVE open gtk-gnutella

Re:

[tchdab1]

They are not stupid.

No matter what they say, I'm sure they have a much better idea of exactly what is responsible for their sales decline, and a very clear idea of the "impact of piracy".

Financially anyway, I'm sure their perspective on piracy is clearer than anyone outside the industry. For example, did you ever think that cigarette companies really believed their product was not dangerous, or that MS did not understand the position of their anti-competitive licensing policies, all despite what they proclaimed to the public? It's clear now that they were very clear-headed about their actions. My point is not to ding these other industries but to point out that they all either have or rent smart folks who are telling them exactly what is going on. They of course use this info to rationally pick the action that leads to their desired goal.

And in the midst of this particular situation, probably with a goal of maximizing financial return from assets, this postiion and these actions is the best they think they can do.

Canadians are right

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply tax the recordable media and deal with it.

Re: relating the law to vehicles and drivers

[bsane]

They were pulled over, out of state car (NJ) so searched, found the drugs in her purse...

Why in gods name did she let them search her purse???

Missing the point!

[El]

Why is the burden of proof on the Brenots to prove they didn't do it? Yeah, I know this is a civil case, but still the "guilty until proven innocent" presumption is a little frightening. My neighbor has his broadband connection plugged into an encryptionless wireless access point -- I could share all the files I wanted to through his IP address. Why should he then be forced to prove it wasn't him? At the point you put up an open relay, aren't you subject to the same common-carrier exemptions as the ISPs? And when is some enterprising individual going to start as ISP that doesn't track what IP addresses their users are using, and therefore can't provide the RIAA or anybody else with the info?

So everything is back to normal then?

[KalvinB]

The RIAA (aside from that whole illegal search and seizure thing preventing them from being able to do anything if they wanted to) had no bones to pick with people who share between friends. Because then it actually is sharing.

Calling rampant piracy "sharing" is just dense. Yes they're very heavy handed about it but that doesn't make piracy any less illegal.

It's like flicking lit matches around your house and then standing outside crying and whining and wondering why it burnt down.

Keep your "illegal" activities to yourself.

"I got your file! And you can't get me! Oh look, there's another!"

Some people are so freakin dense.

When you're pirating on a very public and very popular P2P app you're just asking to get some silver braclets.

While you're at it, why don't you go rob a bank in broad daylight with a nice neon colored hat and smile at the camera.

Brilliant job posting on a PUBLIC FORUM WITH YOUR TRACKABLE INFORMATION that you're a very dedicated and loaded pirate.

If your boss doesn't fire you, you should just quit before he gets a phone call.

"Anonymous Coward"

Learn it, love it, embrace it.

Ben

Nice of him

[KalvinB]

to post that admission of guilt with a link to his company's web-site. In case the RIAA ever wanted to pursue the matter.

Maybe we'll find out if he's a hero sooner than later.

Ben

Colleges

[Trillian_1138]

As a college student, I can back this claim. In fact, Gnucleus (www.gnucleus.com) has a specific version built for running over a LAN. Download it, start the software, join the college LAN, and you're hooked up to whoever else is on Gnucleus at the time. And, because my college (which shall remain nameless in case one of our tech guys is reading this) bottlenecks Kazaa but does NOT bottleneck inter-network traffic, I'm pulling almost 1 MB a second download speeds.

To make it even better, because everyone is aware that none of the information is leaving the campus network, everyone is sharing their files. So at any one time there are between 15 and 30 other people online, sharing. I know that's small-time compared to the hundreds of thousands or millions on Kazaa and whatnot, but these are college students with gigs of music and movies. I can't find as much as I could on Kazaa, that's true. But I can download it faster and safer than I ever could on Kazaa, and not feel like a leacher while I do it.

-Trillian

Piracy has been reduced

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA tactics are obviously successful. There are way fewer online pirates now than before, seems to me. I have heard people say that now they are afraid to use XNAP and share files because they know that RIAA will get them and the number of XNAP users looks like it has dropped 5 or 10 percent. It's still early in the fight but it looks like the RIAA war against P2P will be at least as successful as previous wars against other bad things like vietnam communists, illegal drugs, casino gambling, organized crime, weapons of mass destruction, prostitution, and poor church attendance. There will probably always be file sharers but they will have to at least work a little harder to get those .mp3 files that are nowhere near as good as the .wmf files anyway. I hope the RIAA is successful so that everyone will have to pay RIAA $5 each for their songs that will only run on Windows Media Player. Then we'll all have a standard format for songs owned that is owned by Microsoft and that everyone will use. Yayyyy! RIAA and Microsoft...you rock!

Re:Piracy has been reduced

[fscking_coward_2001]

So piracy is reduced. Big deal. It doesn't matter. The argument has been that RIAA companies are suffering financially because of piracy. I don't see any evidence that music sales are up now that the RIAA has scared people away from download services.

Ask Radio Shack

[KalvinB]

They invest in more security, more friendly service (to keep the would be theives busy and make them know they're being watched), and throw people out (or just make them so uncomfortable from all the attention they leave).

There's nothing wrong with Radio Shack's business. It's simply that it's so easy to steal from them with all those little parts they sell.

A stealing customer is not a customer. Better to throw those 15% out WHILE looking for ways to lower the theft rate. I don't think Radio Shack is going to put individual IC type parts is huge boxes any time soon.

"I havn't figured out how to make you stop stealing yet so go ahead."

Brilliant plan. You have to attack the problem from all angles.

Not just blame the victim as you suggest.

Ben

Think about it this way..

[rofthorax]

You pirate music:

1. RIAA is after you
2. Ruin American Economy, of course everyone outside the US is already pirating so how can it hurt..
3. Positive point, how many of you neglect your CD collections for mp3's, also how many are unproductive as a result of greedy intake via Kazaa and others?

I've remedied 3, I destroyed all my pirated music videos, music, etc.. Now I deal with less distracting crap and get more stuff done..

I think I could blaim a majority of the lack of success in America to the existence of programs like Kazaa.. But nobody here would care..

PS- IF you want to hear good music selections, just fire up the "80s Alt." or "NewWave" channel on Radio@Netscape.. Its the only radio I listen to these days..

Re:As a record store owner,

[CelticWhisper]

This exact story has been posted a few RIAA articles ago. In fact, it's right here.

Interestingly enough, comment was posted anonymously this time, modded as troll. Previously posted non-anonymously, modded funny. Draw what conclusions you will from that, admittedly even I'm not sure what to make of it.

MP3s

[Perseid]

99.2GB of MP3s as of tonight. Yes, I have a lot of full albums(I prefer them). Yes, I have some music that is SO bad I scare my friends with it. And yes it is sorted(Immaculately. It has to be, but I don't even know what some of it actually is, much less love.

Re:How to share files and avoid the RIAA, MPAA, et

[Reziac]

Simpler solution: keep that old dialup BBS running. Wildcat has a great file manager, and is very secure.

Of course, that won't stop 'em if they want to send the FBI to your door, but at least it isn't visible to the RIAA's internet enforcement bureau.

Re:So how heavy is a song?

[Dr. GeneMachine]

an IPod can hold 10,000 songs... 15 songs per CD, that's 666 CD's...

Now you have officially proven that iPods are eeevil... iPod users, sit down, stay calm, and wait for the Holy Inquisition to knock down your doors!

The parent post...

[Powercntrl]

Clearly demonstrates what happens when you take an analogy too far and your point becomes lost.

Sodomy laws were based on the religious belief that people who practice sodomy were sinning against God. While the laws were largely enforced against homosexuals, they also applied to heterosexual sodomy. The main problem with the religion this law was based on was the clause in which non-believers are damned an eternal afterlife of pain, torture and suffering.

Copyright law is an entirely different beast. It is based on the belief that a copyright holder is entitled certain protections under the law for intellectual property he created. In a capatilistic society, copyright laws are obviously needed since intelectual property has a vaule even though the product is intangable. The subject for how much control is the major issue of debate, and lately it seems to be governed by the golden rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules.

When the parent of your post used sodomy laws getting ruled unconstitutional by public outcry as an example, that made sense because if the public feels a law is unjust, it should rendered null and void by the government. Extending the analogy just doesn't work because copyright law and (now nonexistant) sodomy laws were created for very different reasons. Protecting a valuable intangable commodity is absolutely essencial in our government. Protecting people from a damnation in the afterlife is not the business of a government that exists to serve the living.

Sorry, kids...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Santa got sued for illegal distribution of RIAA assets. No presents this year.

Merry Christmas.

What I don't understand...

[Rutje]

What I don't understand is why the so-called file sharers simply deny the accusations of RIAA? Let them prove it was you (or your IP-address) who was sharing those files.
Simply waving a paper with an IP-number can't be enough...

Re:As a record store owner,

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I don't see this too much of a whine like you, but this situation is kind of common nowadays, not only as a record store owner/employee!

So I'd like to detach this tragedy from the evil music pirates but bring it closer to a economically bad situation.

RIAA v Porn Industry

[Ripplet]

There's an interesting interview with Blu Cantrell(might need reg.), in which she compares the RIAA to the porn industry. Basically, she has more respect for the porn side: "At least with the sex business they're gonna give you your money in your hand after you're done. The music business, you get screwed and you don't even get your money!"

Look Out Parents!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is RIAA out to get 12-year-olds again?

So recording isn't work, or costly...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you, an RIAA stooge, or a troll?

"Seeing what ticket prices are these days, they are bringing home a nice pay check."

Yes, the few (those with major label backing and massive publicity machines to herd the sheep) who can charge high ticket prices are doing quite well. This guy doesn't sound like he's filling stadiums if he only sells 400 CDs, though. For every $100 show, there are a hundred $5 shows; how are those musicians supposed to afford $10,000 to make an album unless they "sell their souls" to the RIAA, or ask a viable price for recordings? They certainly aren't earning it through performing, even if they do play their asses off...

"I say 50 years from date of creation is more than enough for the original recordings, but for the lyrics and the music 5-10 tops.[]75 year copyright protection does nothing to put more money in the pockets of artists..."

Repeat after me: "Composition rights put money in the pockets of artists, because composition royalties are paid to the songwriter. Recording rights put money in the pocket of the RIAA, because the recording royalties are paid to the owner of the recording. The recording owner must pay composition royalties to the compser to use the composition in a recording, so the RIAA must pay the songwriter". This is the way it works, no matter what you may have read on crank anti-RIAA web sites. But don't take my word for it, look it up on ASCAP's site (this is their business, so they know what they're talking about).

What you propose would mean that a recording company could have the exclusive use of a recording for 50 years, but only have to pay royalties to the composer for the use of that song for, say, 5 years. This would just encourage record companies to sign, record, then shelve the recordings until the composition royalty expires. Whoopee! RIAA members get exclusive use of a free product! Throw in a clause that requiring bands to do unpaid promotional appearances "upon the release of a product" (standard in current contracts), and there's no reason the RIAA would ever have to give money to a musician again, while still forcing bands into financially untenable positions*(see below).

The majority of songwriters don't make "millions upon millions of dollars"; do you believe the guy who gets a $50 royalty for something obscure he wrote 20 years ago (that never made money at the time) should be penalized because you don't like the fact that Sting owns a mansion?

Incidentally, an MP3 is a copy of a copyright recording, so under your plan the RIAA would still be suing file sharers, and would be entitled to do so for 50 years, but they wouldn't have to give a cent to the songwriter, like they do now (in theory). I can't see exactly how this is improvement on the existing system for anyone but the RIAA; neither musicians or consumers would benefit.

* A financially untenable position sounds a bit mercenary, but it is a consideration; money is a fact of life. I've seen bands signed to labels told that they have a six week promotional tour with no tour support and shows pre-booked for guarantees of as low as $300, "by the way, guys, you agreed to do this when you signed". So the band members lose six weeks of pay (or holiday, depending) from their day jobs, lose money on the tour expenses, and usually end up frazzled and bitter. I don't think this leads to better music.

URGENT ASSISTANCE NEEDED

[danila]

Dear Friend!

I have a lucrative investment proposal for you. Some countries have better copyright laws than the others. The copyright expires there after a reasonable time, after which the works are transferred into public domain. In some of these countries (unlike the US, where constant lobbying kept most modern works from losing copyright protection) this fact is acknowledged by everyone, including in some places the Ministry of Culture. That means that works made before movies like Godfather or Snowwhite and the Seven Dwarves, Bambi, etc. are in public domain. Which means that it is entirely legal to take the DVDs, rip the movies and place them on a website for everyone to download. Given the current traffic costs, this can definitely be done for less than 1$/movie. Probably much less.

The proposal is to establish such a service to provide people all over the world free access to works of art that should already belong to the public. This has a nice side effect of pissing off Disney, MPAA and their ilk (hopefully, in such countries lack of transparency, developed organised crime and well established commercial pirates may help to defend from worse criminals, such as IP laywers). The upfront costs will constitute several thousands euros/dollars.

Want to fight RIAA/MPAA - contribute!
Serious inquiries only, please!

UseNet and P2P

[tilleyrw]

A method to pirate music already exists. The method is also not on the radar screens of the **AA.

Word to the wise: NewsBin. Downloads music, undetectable, etc.

P2P-weenies need to "Go back to the Source".

Wow! This is working!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if you sue enough people with unconstitutional fascist powers, you can scare people shitless!

Just remember boys and girls, don't buy any music or movies this holiday! Just nice hardware that will play anything.

Already happened...

[gillbates]

IIRC, a few months ago they sued a Mac user. She couldn't have been sharing files because KaZaa doesn't run on Macs. (I know there are other p2p programs, but apparently the RIAA claimed she was using KaZaa.)

I'm starting to pay for music...

[gillbates]

But I'm not paying the RIAA. I don't buy commercial CD's anymore.

I buy CD's from local bands. I go to clubs to listen to live music. I'm sick of my enterainment dollars being used to support a monopoly which sues its customers, exploits the artists, and ruins the musical experience for everyone. The last thing I want to think about when listening to music is "Is the RIAA going to bust me for all these MP3's?"

I would rather pay a few dollars to hear a live musician play than put money in the coffers of the greedy.

Sir! PLEASE remove the yoda doll FROM YOUR ASS

[Anonymous Coward]

kthnx bi

Re:How about these guys too...

[Zeriel]

Hrm. Every time a Linux site gets a major breach, it's reported by the site itself. Even when there's no defacement and no one could have found out.

Do you think Microsoft would publically announce that the Windows Update (for example) server had been compromised unless forced or it was obvious? I can guarantee you they would not.

I work at a software company. We've been breached twice due to inadequate firewalling in the past year (and the previous network admin had to seek new employment), but we don't let our customers know that. It might help them to know, but not likely, and regardless it would only hurt our reputation so unless our website gets defaced for a significant period of time, we will NEVER admit to having been cracked.

I suspect it's much the same at any other company--you'll notice all those sites that announced breaches are NOT companies, but rather organizations that feel their constituents have a right to know.

Incidentally, pretty shitty troll. You're supposed to go for getting emotional responses, not post stupid shit that's basically refutable by anyone with a pulse.

Poor troll. YHL. FOAD.

Fair use?

[r0me0v0id]

Now, IANAL, but what if there was a P2P media sharing app that only shared 30 second clips from your library? With the number of users Kazaa has, and each user sharing a different portion of the song which is then pieced back together... No one would be sharing an entire song file. I believe it may be a legal way to share your files. Any thoughts?

Re: perspective is clearer?

[tre4lien]

You've never worked in Enterprise management, have you?

Just a new business strategy

[doktorstop]

I believe that the RIAA is just trying to switch to another business model. They can't sell any more $19 CDs... so... - they sue users at random - everyone gets an offer for a $5000 settlement - no one appeals to lawyers, as this immediately increases the settelment figure by ten - the RIAA gets lots of money for... nothing It's like an extorsion scheme, only legally viable. Too bad for them

Re:

[elton247]

They are not stupid.

Sueing your customers is not stupid?

Statistics

[elton247]

Just out of curiosity, whats more likely. Getting sued by the RIAA or winning the lottery?

CDs as PR tools, not your product

[DaveJay]

A friend of mine is in a local band that gigs regularly. His band recently recorded an EP. It cost them approximately $400 at a professional CD pressing shop to generate the limited run, plus a couple of hundred dollars in production costs -- they're talented guys, so they ran into a studio, recorded for a few hours (a couple of live takes for each song) and the album was complete. Approximately $600 in real expenses, plus several hours of their time.

Now, they've given the vast majority of these CDs away to record company flacks, because they still think that being signed is a good option to have. The rest of the CDs, they sold at a couple of their shows. Total revenue from the CD sales covered the production and pressing costs for the entire run of EPs.

Are they happy? You bet, because they viewed the EP as a promotional tool rather than a revenue stream, and were happy to sell enough CDs to break even on the costs, and still have enough CDs to distribute to the critics and record companies on their list. They know that getting people to their shows in the first place is the primary way they'll make nice, no-strings-attached money.

It's interesting that they have such an attitude, but the lead singer (a reasonably famous person I shall not name) was once the lead singer of a well-known and reasonably "successful" band distributed by a major label -- and he still owes money to the label, years later, and doesn't own the copyrights on his songs.

Interesting, eh? They make more money at a single concert than the lead singer made in his entire stint as frontman from a successful major-label band due to the contract BS that goes on in such places, which would be true even if they played for free.

At which point...

[Snaller]

... they would say "Ooh, can you get [insertname]'s latest CD?"

Which is funny really, you'd hardly expect this exchange:

Guy1: "Excuse me sir but I just moved into town and I am required by law to let all my neighbors know that I am a convicted rapist"

Guy2: "Just a moment, I'll get the wife"

Re:

[symbolic]

BS. If I write a song, is it not my song? If it's not my song, then whose song is it, and by what means is this ownership conveyed?

Diminishing Suits

[Nom du Keyboard]

Anyone notice how the number of suits filed in each round is dimishing? How long before the next round files 1, or zero, suits?

This exact story has been posted before

[CrystalFalcon]

so just why haven't you gone out of business yet and found a more profitable line of work? From the sound of the story, either option is imminent, and should have happened shortly after it was first posted.

Alternately, why haven't you taken the effort to update the story to reflect that at least SOMETHING has happened in the six months since I saw it first?

Re:Can they get you for torrents? A Debunking or B

[reve]

Remember: While a motion picture is copyrighted as a whole, that copyright includes EVERY FRAME. Taking a still from a 35mm print, blowing it up, putting it on a poster and giving it to your friend for Christmas is pretty clearly infringment. Likewise, sharing a snippet over BT is as well.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

...
<real world>You there?</real world>

Most of the RIAA contracts basically fall into one format: "bend over and take it, because you aren't getting it any other way." Artists voluntarily sign away rights just so that they can get into the ?IAA cartel...

Good point

[Compact Dick]

You raise a good point - I shall add the necessary info. Thanks for the suggestion :-)

Fair enough.

[Compact Dick]

I assumed the OP considered 192 kbps CBR MP3s as the best tradeoff between quality and filesize, while the --alt-preset standard setting will give far superior results for around the same bitrate.

The Real Question

[fbnewtz]

Is did their sales go up or down now that they have curtailed the Music Swappers?????