Slashdot Mirror
Head Of ATF To Direct RIAA Anti-Piracy
plasmastate writes "Via Fox News: Bradley A. Buckles, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is moving over to the RIAA to hunt down music pirates. And visions of David Koresh danced in their heads..."
And our scene unfolds with Bradley A. Buckles, with a stormtrooper hitsquad of RIAA goons...
... and the war on freedom rages on.
Buckles (over blowhorn): "YOU MUSIC WHORING PIRATES, SEND THE MP3s AND OGGs OUT FIRST OR WE'LL BURN YOUR COMMUNIST MUSIC SHARING COMPOUNDS TO THE GROUND, WOMEN AND CHILDREN BE DAMNED!!!!"
Think about this... you have to nab the head of a religious cult who is known to leave his compound on occasion. Remember that this megalomaniac (like many others) has preached that the government will try to bring your beloved, heavily armed, community to an apocolyptic end. So you make the decision to attack on the Sabbath, at the heavily armed compound when you know there are children there sending several of your agents to their death because you thought it was going to be a cakewalk.
Exactly the kind of incompetance that you can now expect from the RIAA. Not that they were competant before.
Seems somewhat appropriate.
.. look at the bright side, while his jackboots are busy stomping out piracy, the world will again be safe for boozers, smokers and gun collectors.
Trolling is a art,
Buckles' retirement is effective Jan. 3. No replacement was immediately named.
I heard they have Himmler on ice. I think he'd feel right at home.
Oh man, this is quite a bad turn of events! ... for gun owners.
Now gun owners get the bad publicity and rep of the RIAA via remote association.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
...is this something to worry about? Or should I be sadly shaking my head at the RIAA's ever-more-pathetic attempts to crack down on a technology they don't understand?
That is exactly the reaction that they want.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Will we laugh at ourselves 50 years from now as we Americans do when we had the communist witch trials? Is it possible we shouldn't say that it is downloaders that is killing CD sales as it might be people have finished replacing their collections, artists are getting in general worse and more shrink-wrapped, and finally true piracy done by organized crime(ie Mafia style business)?
Now instead of getting a threatening letter in the mail, 14 years downloading music gets to be roasted alive as ATF agents try to put the computer into sleep mode but it bursts in to flames instead.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Instead of notice letters given to the wrong people, you now could get a SWAT team knocking down the door of the wrong house. That will go down well with the public!
What's wrong with reporting illegal software use? I noticed several employees running suspicious software on their PC's, which did NOT look like "Approved Microsoft Windows(tm) Technology" that I use. The Start button was replaced with a barefoot, for example! I called up the BSA and now several of my coworkers are no longer working here.
There is a representative from Microsoft coming next Tuesday to make sure all of those boxes have the illicit software reinstalled with appropriate Microsoft American-Made technology.
I'd just as soon report YOU, too, as look at you. Fucking thieves.
Put down the mouse and put your hands on the monitor. Do it now!
These guys are going to make Bill Gates look good. At least he tries to play the good cop and convince you he is selling a service. The RIAA is just a bully.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
It's funny that you compare the RIAA with Government departments. I think the RIAA has been a fully qualified Governmental insititution for a long time now. Think about it: they can lobby laws into existance, they have political and juridical influence, and above all they have had growing enforcement powers.
But of course, being an association of sane, properly-american capitalist corporations, it ain't restricted the same way as official Government depts. *Cough* What do you call a government-endorsed monopoly already ?
Maybe we deserve this world ?
ATF - Wonderful - weren't the first shots fired at the Koresh compound fired by an ATF agent shooting himself in the thigh?
Judging by the reports that I have read, we can expect the following healines soon.
ATF RAIDS HOME
(ATF press release) In an effort to stamp out musical piracy, which leads to terrorism - the ATF today raided the home of Amanda Johnson (age 12) and her brother brad (age 9). Both pirates were taken down. One of the pirates was shot in the raid when he attacked the ATF agents with a fluid projectile weapon. The ATF agent is expected to make a full recovery, while the pirate is listed in stable but critical condition.
"We're just trying to protect our American way of life", said Butch Howitzer. "These pirates are destroying the ability of the RIAA to run a good monopoly, besides, if this piracy thing gets out of hand we might actually have to pay artists. Ticketmaster and the record label executives can't afford this. Lets be honest, the money these pirates steal prevents a record executive from getting the thereapy they need every day."
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
It turns out that Bradley A. Buckles wasn't their first choice, but Hannibal Lectur wasn't available.
Kind thoughts do not change the world
sweetheart, why is there a fucking M1 Abrams on the front lawn?
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Buckles, according to the article, was appointed as head of the ATF in 1999, long after the Waco incident, under President Clinton.
The sort of problems that people are joking about us facing because of Buckles should be attributed to his predecessors, not him.
Course, he did receive from Ashcroft, he can't be too clean.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
ATF lead: This must be the place. They've got all kinds of crazy stuff going on in there.
ATF agent: [talks into a communicator] Code 7. We believe we have found the compound. Request immediate backup. [the ATF lead looks at the house again]
Barbrady: [immediate indeed, appears in the lead's sights] Okay, so just what is going on here, people?
ATF lead: Get down! [pulls him into position along with the others]
Barbrady: What?
ATF lead: It's just like we told you, officer! There's a religious cult in there that plans to commit mass suicide when the meteor shower starts. [resumes viewing, but is interrupted]
Barbrady: Are you sure?
ATF lead: Of course we're sure! [points out the initials on his cap] We're the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms! It's our job to know what these fanatics do!
Barbrady: So what does the ATF do when religious fanatics are gonna commit mass suicide?
ATF lead: Oh, don't worry! We won't let that happen! Even if it means we have to kill each and every one of them.
~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.
I always thought it was strange to have a federal agency dedicated to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Other than being a part of any good camping trip, what do these three items have in common?
Why should it scare the piss out of you?
The man isn't quite ready to retire, but he's probably tired of being at the ATF. So these people hire him.
I'm pretty sure he's not going to be able to form squads of gun-toting "enforcers" to go around and search for pirated music.
While I don't necessarily agree with their tactics (%99 of their lawsuits have been pretty bunk), they do make a valid point: copying this stuff willy-nilly without regard to the copyright is illegal. Just because you bought one CD doesn't mean that you can give copies away to everyone you know, nor does it automagically grant you the right to copy all the CDs of your friends.
Now, if you're only downloading music by indie bands or that has been specifically put up for legal download (itunes comes to mind), what do you have to worry about?
If you're going to turn around and tell me that it's your right to download all the music you want and that the copyrights placed on the music is null and void, then I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.
I'm really not trying to troll here. I'm just failing to see why this should be a cause for alarm.
I told you THIS was coming a long time ago!
As unpalatable the actions of the RIAA seem to be (suing low-income families etc), is this not what technologically-savvy people (read: slashdot posters) have asked for? The RIAA seems to be going after file sharers...and at this point, I don't think that the whole "I did not know it was illegal" argument flies anymore thanks to the large publicity.
While the RIAA is making pirates into veritable Robin Hoods who look pitiful when the lawsuit comes in the mail, one is hard pressed to critisize them for protecting their copyrights.
Now, driving while chewing tabacco, sipping on a pint jack, listening to pirated Billy Ray Cyprus and shooting at the occasional road sign will all be covered under the same agency.
So, are they planning to maintain their "shoot on sight" rules a la Ruby Ridge?
Nothing to see here; Move along.
You may know what copyright infringement is (not hard, it's a law), but you only THINK you know economics.
Try studying the Austrian school of economics. Google for some of the Austrian economists who think intellectual property is an oxymoron (like Thomas Jefferson did).
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Where exactly did it say they were going to take our rights away? And which rights? The right to trade copyrighted material?
Come on. So a new suit is going to run the axis of evil that is the RIAA, remind me how that makes PHB's turn away from open source products?
Since you're one of the few folks who responds intelligently to this issue (and used your nick... what a coincidence), I'll respond...
The artist was deprived of the money Bob would have otherwise spent. It does matter how you look at it.
Now, if you think the whole concept of licensing is wrong, well... I can see your point (I disagree with it, but such is the world). If you are just taking it because it is free, all other arguments are kinda weak.
My problem has always been this: In the heyday of file sharing (2000 or so), I worked in a lab and saw the students downloading thousands of mp3s a day, and the whole "well, if I like it I'll buy it" argument was never voiced. A friend is a DJ (mp3J?) that uses all stolen songs on his laptop instead of CDs. He certainly didn't buy any.
When I see that pattern repeated enough times, I have no sympathy for what I (as a 'non-tangible' content creator) see as thieves.
I can handle that folks have differing ways of looking at things. It just gets REALLY old when people (not you) get all self righteous when they are violating strong social mores.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Perhaps off topic, but of interest none the less.
I suspect we should be more concerned with who the fellows replacement will be. Although the RIAA might like to conduct personal raids they don't yet have the legal right to do so.
The ATF on the other hand not only does but has a nice long history of being a bit heavy handed.
Regardless of which side of the various debates you weigh in on most reasonable people will admit that those we entrust with enforcing the laws SHOULD be held to a higher standard of conduct and a higher level of public oversight.
O.K. Calling the attendants to turn up my thorazine drip now...
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
Frankly, I think the United States suffers from considerable corruption in all of its upper-levels of "law enforcement related" divisions.
The FBI, for example, has been bungling up cases left and right - but we largely seem to ignore it or excuse it as "honest mistakes anyone could have made". I mean, look at the recent case with the random shootings in the Northeastern states. Their top criminal profilers all described the culprit completely wrong! They've wasted large amounts of time and money chasing after such minor things as "illegal warez distribution" on computer bulletin board systems and the Internet. They seem to have a bloodlust for anyone remotely possibly doing anything somewhat related to child porn, too - and there's a really *good* chance lots of innocent people are sitting in prisons around the country right now over their overzealousness in this area.
The ATF, of course, has done a number of inexcusable things - including raids at night on the *wrong house address*, and stomping on people's pets and killing them as part of their searches for people and drugs. The Waco thing was simply the most televised fiasco of theirs, but far from the exception to the rule of how they manage to overstep their bounds and screw things up.
There is, of course, plenty of reason to suspect the CIA of doing very questionable things too -- but by their nature, it's harder to pinpoint them most of the time.
The old saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." certainly holds true.
Apparently you don't, since you keep confusing it with theft. It's not.
First, copying is not stealing, it's copyright violation. Second, technology is changing the way business models need to work - a pay-per-copy scheme simply isn't viable any more. When conditions change, you can't depend on the government to prop up outdated business models - that's basic economics.
And BTW, I also work for a living creating software. I also create music, poetry, and stories, though I've yet to be paid a significant amount - and like most musicians and authors, probably never will - for those things.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
NEWS: MAE-West, one of the nation's key switching facilities for Internet connectivity, was completely destroyed by 500 pounds of Energel explosive after confirmation of a rumor that one of the routers in there was being used to send MP3 files to the dreaded user@KaZaA
"I believe that we have stopped to illegal tranfer of copyrighted materials in the most effective and timely manner possible", stated Bradley A. Buckles, head of the Anti-Piracy Unit of the Recording Industry Association of America and former director of the ATF.
"It is truly unfortunate that half of the US now has to go on without internet access just because of the actions of a few unscrupulous file traders" Buckles continues, "File swapping really does hurt everyone."
MAE-West was one of two major network traffic exchange points in the United States. The other, MAE-East, is in Vienna, Virginia.
When asked about MAE-East, Buckles said, "We'll blow that up too, if it turns out that kazaaliteuser@KaZaA is using that for illegal file sharing."
The RIAA now is pleased to announce in partnership with AT&T and PG&E the formal unveiling of "MediaNet". MediaNet is a network that connects your electrical system with the sewer system to form a massive computer network that can be billed per election transferred. Additionally, packet headers are decoded to determine to origin of traffic and impose any and all necessary foreign and domestic tarrifs and taxes.
We will be installing new meters alongside the ones you already have and you will be billed automatically for the webpages you access. MP3 ID3 tags are automatically read and you will be charged "fair market value" for any files transferred. When copyrighted images or sound clips load, users will also be charged "fair market value" for a single use right to view and hear them.
We believe that MediaNet will be a great success and will provide millions of homes and businesses with a valuable metered internet lifeline.
MediaNet service is a mandatory addition to your current utilities. Basic use fees will start at $50/month*
* Basic use fees do not include state data tax, universal MediaNet tax, interstate data transfer surcharge, or billing meter rental fees.
Can you explain why you should be paid over and over again - for up to 50 years after your death - for once piece of work ?
Can you also explain how someone can "steal" something from you, yet you still have it ?
I don't think money is bad. I do, however, think the entire copyright system is fundamentally flawed.
But seemingly, a lot of people here have an entitlement complex, where they think they can take whatever the fuck they want for no other reason than that they want it.
The same could be said for both sides . . .
RIAA: Believes it's entitled to racking in all the money it wants solely because it can.
Swappers: Believe they're entitled to racking in all the music they want solely because they can.
Blaming only the side that's obviously breaking the law is not incorrect, but is not likely to lead to a working solution (defined as a solution that both sides agree is reasonable) either.
If you want to bring economics into the game, whose fault is it if the masses steal? If the opportunity cost (an economic idea) is so high that people don't want to pay, then it affects the supply and demand. Since RIAA sets the price high, then there is a deficit -- what people are willing to pay and the supply do not meet equilibrium, and therefore there are a lot of CD's on the shelf. The RIAA assumes that this is the result of piracy. What has happened is that there is crappy music and so people's oppertunity cost has dropped, i.e. they don't want to pay for crappy CD's for one song, and the market has not adjusted, i.e prices should have dropped, and people look to get their music cheaper. The piracy begins when people's value of the music is so low and the price so high that people implicitly associate a lower value on the CD's (go to Best Buy and watch, invetiably some person will pick up a CD and say, "I don't want to pay $22.95 for one song.") They like the one song, but have no venue to purchase it at a reasonable cost, and there is no market structure to figure out what that cost should be -- RIAA won't cooperate, it is an all or none package, you buy the entire CD or not at all. So the person goes home and downloads the CD, because free is even cheaper than the oppertunity cost.
Well, there's my two cents.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
So?
If you show it to someone, how does it follow that it would be intrinsically morally wrong if they made a copy of it? It's funny, after the centuries of philosophical debate over right and wrong through history, that this particular concept of having rights over distributing copies didn't pop up until the 17th century. It just must not have been as obvious to the great thinkers of history as it seems to be to you.
It is wrong only because it's wrong to break the law. The law in question was put in place for economic, not moral, reasons. It is not wrong to copy it just because you created it. You seem to have a false sense of entitlement. If you want to keep total control of it, don't show it to anyone.
I am not asking about elements of law, I am asking for a reason why my work should be any more stealable (?) than someone else's.
But elements of law are the only thing you've got. IP protection is not a "natural" right that transcends the law. If it were, it wouldn't have an expiration date.
I would argue that waaaaay too many people are eager to give away other people's rights.
And I'm questioning whether it was wise to expand your rights to the extent they've been expanded over the last few years. They didn't come from nowhere, your expanded rights came at the expense of the rights of others.
Kind of says it all doesn't it?
"The artist was deprived of the money Bob would have otherwise spent. It does matter how you look at it."
This assumes that the artist was entitled to Bob's money in the first place. Using this logic, it could well be said that if Bob was going to purchase a CD, but saw a really nice chess set and used the CD money to purchase that instead of the CD, the chess set manufacturer has 'robbed' the artist of a sale. The artist was going to get Bob's money, but someone else's actions (the creation and marketing of the chess set) cancelled an otherwise-guaranteed sale.
If you really want to see how the artist is deprived of money, you should check into how much the record industry takes (as a matter of general practice) out of the artist's cut of album sales to cover the cost of broken records using a model which was created when vinyl records were sold. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of CDs broken during shipping is a mere fraction of the number of vinyl records that were broken; they're taking the same cut. Or perhaps you could look at how the industry manipulates artists' contracts using high-powered lawyers to ensure that artists are locked into a single company for eternity without even the option of going out on their own. When an artist is contracted to produce 5 albums, the recording company will often ignore albums that don't sell well, keeping the artist locked into a perpetual contract that actually hinders their ability to create new content. The record company makes a bunch of money from the first album, but gives the artist next to nothing from it, citing "recording, studio, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, promotional costs, etc", then shelves the next 5 or 6 albums when it becomes clear they're not selling as well as the first, but then tells the artist that they've only created one album. And don't go thinking that this only happens rarely, or to small artists. The Dixie Chicks just recently had to sue their label to get more than $4million that was owed to them. If memory serves, they recorded an album that went platinum, for which their label refused to pay them. Talk about real theft.
"My problem has always been this: In the heyday of file sharing (2000 or so), I worked in a lab and saw the students downloading thousands of mp3s a day, and the whole "well, if I like it I'll buy it" argument was never voiced. A friend is a DJ (mp3J?) that uses all stolen songs on his laptop instead of CDs. He certainly didn't buy any."
The "I'm just demoing it" argument has always been a bit weak, though not entirely inaccurate. While there are some folks who really do buy more music when they download, I'm certain that, at least a majority, do not. That being said, I think the real problem is that when people look at a CD, they're thinking less about an artist making it, and more about a multi-national conglomerate mega-corp that produced it and is trying to sell it to them at extremely inflated prices. My personal argument in this whole thing is that I will not put my money into the hands of corrupt organizations that should have been broken up decades ago, with their top brass jailed on RICO violations. They've now grown so bold as to demand to be exempt from all anti-trust lawsuits. This is like the mafia demanding to be exempt from murder prosecutions. I suppose the logic is, "we've been breaking these laws for so long, why don't you just stop bugging us about it?". I do buy CDs, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc from non-RIAA affiliated bands that I like. That is how I show my support. If Metallica wants another dollar from me (I've bought their stuff in the past), they'd best get away from their RIAA whore of a label and stop treating their fans like garbage. I absolutely support the rights of artists and others to make a profit from their intellectual property. What I do not support in any way are corrupt organizations (as defined under US Federal RICO statutes). I will not pay them money, and I will not support t
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
128K MP3s as uploaded to P2P networks are substantially identical to the 128K MP3s which provide the content you hear on analog FM radio. In fact, using a tuner card, you can even record them back to 128K MP3s and store them on your hard drive, just as you can record them to analog cassette tape and trade them to your friends.
The difference between listening via download or FM radio?
There is no proof that 128K MP3s are more effective or less effective in promoting the sale of CDs whether broadcast over the radio or downloaded from the Internet. The same set of ears decides based on them whether or not to buy the CD or not. The latest Eminem album was "pre-released" unofficially over P2P a month before official release at record stores. Because of this, customers who wanted to hear it at better than 128K MP3 quality were ready to buy as soon as the CDs hit retail and it immediately hit #1.
What did Eminem lose from the "theft" of his music? Nobody associated with the RIAA or any record label has explained this to us, and I've heard no complaints from Eminem about this.
In fairness, Madonna's latest got pre-released and it tanked. However, Madonna has yet to explain why she thinks it wouldn't have gone into the dumper in the absence of pre-release via the Net.
One difference? FM radio stations are paid by RIAA labels to carry music promotional content, while via P2P, listeners host the music on servers at their own expense and transfer the music at their own bandwidth expense.
Another difference? Getting digital content via FM radio is legal. Getting the identical content via the Internet isn't.
Why?
The *AA companies bought off a shitload of politicians openly through campaign contributions to make the law that way.
Why would the *AA companies want to cut one promo distribution channel that the listeners pay for instead of them?
Effectively, only the RIAA companies have access to FM as a music promotional channel. The indie musicians and labels are priced out of the market. The indie musicians and labels can afford to distribute promotional tracks via P2P. That's why the RIAA has done its best to destroy P2P and Internet Radio in the hands of individuals and small organizations.
I don't mind protecting the legitimate rights of artists to profit from their work in the least. However, I have no interest in interfering with the ability of indie artists to promote their work via the Internet, and less than no interest in wasting taxpayer money to prop up the obsolete and dying business model of the RIAA and soon, the MPAA member companies.
What about PIRACY!!!?
128K MP3s are promotional giveaways of no intrinsic value. The product is the physical CD, and that's what people pay for.. Counterfeit CDs of anything you can find in a record stores are available in Asia, pressed at Asian CD manufacturing facilities and sold openly all over Asia and in some cases, even in the USA. If the *AA really wanted to stop PIRACY!!!, they'd be pressuring US politicians to stop the manufacture of counterfeit CDs in Asia. There are many kinds of pressure the US government could be putting on Asian governments to stop this. Why isn't this happening? Ask Hilary Rosen yourself.
If you want to call P2P and Internet Radio theft, be my guest, but please smash your FM radio over your head first.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Well... steal is such a harsh word, I prefer something different. But I'll get to that later on.
Why P2P music and more?
When I was in my upper teen and college years I had a great interest in music. I had a very wide range of music interests that covered several types of classical music, rock, jazz, country (a little), and a whole variety of music forms that didn't even have a name yet. I think now they're lumped into the New-Age acid jazz something or other...
But I would learn about this music by cruising halls in the dorms listening to what other people where playing and checking out music collections of friends of mine.
And stuff I liked I could buy at the local store for anywhere from $2 to $10 in circa 1985.
Fast forward 18 years.
I don't live in a dorm anymore so it's hard to hear other peoples stereos. But I do listen to the radio. Have you? Do you know what's on the radio? Considering it's all owned by one company, ClearChannel the selection is limited to approximately four groups: Classic Rock, Rock - which is really just Pop, Country - which is a bastardization of Rock, and Rap. Flame on if you want, but make sure you've been listening to music for >30 years first.
Now for every station that is in one of these catagories, there are a list of songs (heard of Top 40?) that are played on a regular basis. This frequency is such that by the time I get home on Tuesday I know the lyrics of all the songs that came out on Monday.
Kind of limited on my selections of music that are available through public means of acquisitiion. Meaning, in order to seek music legally, I am limited to very narrow vectors of music.
So, I go to the music stores to seek my wide range of music. Guess what I find there? The same shit that I heard on the way over and now it's running better than $20 a pop. I actually tried to just buy a CD based on a precious small sample I heard once. It lasted about 3 hours before I threw it out. CD music is too expensive to purchase on the basis of, "Maybe this will be good to listen to". Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a better way of doing it.
So, where does that leave us?
Conclusion: If you want to explore the world of music, publicly available radio stations and music stores will not provide you with anything better than cattle food. If you want to find more variety, the only place you might find it is in P2P music community. To date, there is no better medium through which to experience a variety of music and find what you really like.
For my tastes, P2P is a great place to borrow music to learn what I like. Then I can make a more targeted attempt to get the music via the internet rather than getting it through the likes of Best Buy (which won't ever happen because they have no selection).
Unfortunately, all this RIAA activity is simply causing me to try new things like:
This is the basis of your argument; just like a philosopher starts with "I think, therefore I am". The whole point of my post was to question the validity of that assumption in the first place. You still don't understand what I'm trying to say.
Undoubtedly, the next response in this thread will start with "How can you question my axiom? I worked on it! I should control it!"